Organization and planning of university faculty training in virtual classrooms for the inclusion of people with disabilities

The study addresses persistent gaps in inclusive higher education whereby many students with disabilities do not complete university studies. Despite international frameworks (UNESCO 1960; UN 1966, 2006; UN 2015 SDG 4) and growing scholarship on inclusion, faculty often lack training in disability inclusion, motivation, and classroom strategies. Prior initiatives (e.g., Teachability project, UDL resources, short courses) show promise but faculty time constraints and limited availability hinder uptake. With the rise of online higher education—beneficial for many students with disabilities—there is a need to organize and plan effective faculty development tailored to virtual classrooms. The research question is: How can training facilitate online university teachers to acquire knowledge to improve their skills and motivation in the inclusion of students with disabilities?

Prior work indicates insufficient faculty preparation for disability inclusion in universities (e.g., Moriña-Diez et al., 2013; Gezer & Aksoy, 2019; Jiménez et al., 2019; Cabero-Almenara et al., 2022). Existing programs include faculty curricula on disability inclusion (Debrand & Salzberg, 2005), the Scottish Teachability project (Simpson, 2002), inclusive teaching guides (Thomas & May, 2010; Disabled Student Sector Leadership Group, 2017), and online OER-based support (Hockings et al., 2012). Short courses (e.g., 5-hour) have been positively evaluated by teachers and students (Davies et al., 2013), yet participation is constrained by time pressures (Bunbury, 2018). Recommended content includes theoretical and practical disability knowledge, curricular adaptations, and innovative methodologies (Martínez, 2011; Sánchez-Palomino, 2011; Moriña-Diez et al., 2013; Ponce et al., 2021). In online contexts, faculty development has emphasized accessibility, techno-pedagogical competencies, and Universal Design for Learning in course design (Fichten et al., 2009; Perera et al., 2021). Evidence from pandemic-era online learning suggests advantages for students with disabilities (Mohammed, 2021), highlighting the potential of well-organized online faculty training.

Design: Qualitative study following COREQ and RATS guidelines to understand how an online training proposal affects faculty knowledge, skills, and motivation regarding inclusion of students with disabilities. Training intervention: A concise, 20 min 46 s video designed to accommodate limited faculty time. Content included: (1) notions of inclusive education within the UN 2030 Agenda; (2) conceptual clarification of disability, impairment, and disorder; (3) overview of visual, hearing, intellectual, and motor disabilities (definitions, typical difficulties, and classroom adaptations); (4) common learning difficulties (e.g., dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, dysphemia) and interventions; (5) methods for inclusive teacher–student coordination; (6) curricular adaptations for online university classrooms; (7) recommended teacher attitudes within inclusive models; (8) actions to address specific student difficulties; (9) guidance to improve online classroom communication; (10) digital resources facilitating inclusion; (11) factors and resources to create a motivational online environment. Instrument: Open-ended questionnaire (Table 1) covering profiles, conceptual skills (incl. UDL), curricular adaptation (instruction and assessment), social-relational attitudes, communication, digital skills, motivations, and suggestions for improvement. "Special educational needs" was framed as students facing increased access difficulties requiring specialized support, focusing on disabilities with special educational needs. Participants and recruitment: Convenience sample of 20 volunteer faculty experts in virtual classrooms from Madrid Open University (MOU), Spain, meeting criteria: (1) watched the training video; (2) expertise in online university teaching; (3) ≥5–10 years educational experience. A balanced pool by prior expertise level (high, medium/medium-high, low) was sought. Data collection occurred Feb–May 2022. Procedure: Participants were informed of objectives, anonymization, and publication plans; responses were submitted via email without further prompting to preserve neutrality. Data analysis and coding: Three researchers coded responses across characteristics (b–h), coordinated by one coder; a fourth researcher reviewed data and interpretations. No software was used. Coding categories: positive effect (acquired knowledge increases inclusion capacity), neutral effect (insufficient change), negative effect (acquired knowledge reduces inclusion capacity). Results were analyzed by teacher expertise level and characteristic to identify patterns.

Overall impact: Across all characteristics, neutral effects (n=104) exceeded positive effects (n=82), with one negative effect reported. By expertise level, high-level teachers showed more neutral than positive effects (39 vs 20), medium-level teachers similarly (41 vs 30), while low-level teachers showed more positive than neutral effects (32 vs 24; plus 1 negative), indicating the brief training was most impactful for faculty with lower prior expertise. By characteristic (totals from Table 3): - Conceptual skills (concept of students with special educational needs): 16 positive vs 9 neutral — strongest gains in theoretical understanding of SEN/disability distinctions and classroom implications, particularly among low- and medium-level teachers. - Motivations for inclusion: 14 positive vs 9 neutral — training increased motivation to implement inclusive practices across groups, with notable gains in medium- and low-level teachers. - Conceptual skills (UDL in university education): 12 positive vs 8 neutral — broadened knowledge and impetus to seek more information, especially among medium- and low-level teachers. - Digital skills: 12 positive vs 8 neutral — increased motivation to identify and adapt digital resources to learners’ needs. - Curricular adaptation skills: 9 positive vs 11 neutral — modest gains; medium-level teachers showed the highest proportion of positives. - Communication skills: 8 positive vs 13 neutral — some improvement (e.g., awareness of phases of communication, tools), but many reported no change. - Social-relational skills (attitude toward having students with SEN): 4 positive, 15 neutral, 1 negative — generally stable positive attitudes prior to training; one negative arose from perceived time/resource constraints. - Social-relational skills (enrichment for all students): 4 positive vs 16 neutral — many already held this view; training consolidated rather than changed perceptions. - Curricular adaptation skills in evaluation: 3 positive vs 15 neutral — limited change; medium-level teachers reported no positive effects; some low-level teachers felt more confident about adaptations. Additional patterns (from narrative and Table 2 highlights): High-level teachers frequently reported neutral effects across conceptual and practical domains; low-level teachers showed the largest shares of positive change in conceptual understanding (e.g., UDL) and motivation; in evaluation-related adaptations, low-level teachers reported most of the positives, while medium-level reported none. Suggestions (n=35): Predominantly from high-level teachers (n=19), calling for (a) deeper conceptual clarification (e.g., integration vs inclusion; UDL; multiple intelligences; standard terminology), (b) more case studies/examples (specific disabilities, ICT adaptations, assessment adaptations), and (c) detailed didactic actions by disability type. Medium-level teachers suggested mandatory training for all faculty and expansion of virtual classroom resources; low-level teachers recommended tailoring training to student needs and further UDL clarification.

The training effectively facilitated knowledge acquisition and motivated faculty toward inclusion of students with disabilities, especially among teachers with lower prior expertise. Gains were strongest in conceptual domains (clarifying SEN vs disability, UDL principles) and in motivation and digital competencies, aligning with the intervention’s focus and prior recommendations emphasizing UDL and techno-pedagogical skills. Neutral effects dominated where participants already had positive attitudes (social-relational domains) or institutional supports existed (evaluation adaptations via a Special Needs Unit), indicating ceiling effects and the need for more detailed, practice-oriented content. Limited changes in communication and curricular adaptation suggest that brief, introductory training is insufficient for complex, situational skills; participants specifically requested case-based learning and concrete didactic guidelines. The pattern across expertise levels suggests a tiered training approach could be beneficial: foundational modules for lower-experience faculty and advanced, specialized modules for experienced faculty to move beyond neutrality. Implementing longer-duration or modular programs with examples, assessment-specific adaptations, and disability-specific strategies may enhance effectiveness and translate conceptual gains into practice.

A concise, time-adjusted online training can improve university faculty competencies and motivation for including students with disabilities in virtual classrooms, with the most pronounced effects among faculty with lower prior expertise. Positive impacts were strongest in conceptual understanding (SEN definitions, UDL) and motivation, and noticeable in digital skills. However, many outcomes remained neutral for experienced faculty and in practice-heavy domains (communication, curricular and assessment adaptations), underscoring the need to enhance training with deeper conceptual clarification, rich case studies, and explicit didactic actions tailored to disability types and assessment contexts. Future work should extend and personalize the training (e.g., modular, tiered by expertise), consider mandatory participation to broaden reach, and employ quantitative designs to generalize and quantify effects on faculty knowledge, skills, and motivation.

Qualitative design limits generalizability. Convenience sampling within a single Spanish online university and a small sample (n=20) constrain external validity. The training was brief (≈21 minutes), which may have limited changes in practice-oriented competencies. Many participants reported pre-existing positive attitudes or relied on institutional support (Special Needs Unit), potentially contributing to neutral effects. Self-reported data via emailed open-ended questionnaires may be subject to response biases.