research paper about inclusive education

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS article

Research about inclusive education: are the scope, reach and limits empirical and methodological and/or conceptual and evaluative.

• Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, Exeter, England

This paper argues for a broader conception about research into inclusive education, one that extends beyond a focus on empirical factors associated with inclusive education and the effects of inclusive education. It starts with a recent summary of international research into the effects of inclusive education on students with SEN/disabilities and those without. On the basis of this review, it examines a model showing the complexity of factors involved in asking questions about the effects of inclusive education. This complexity reflects the ambiguity and complexity of inclusive education, which is discussed in terms of varied contemporary positions about inclusive education. The analysis illustrates how there has been more focus on thin concepts of inclusion (as setting placement or in general terms) rather than its normative and value basis, which reflects a thick concept of inclusion. The paper concludes by illustrating with the use of a version of the capability approach how there are value tensions implicit in inclusion about difference and about personal vs. public choice. This requires value clarification and some settlement about the balance of values, which is where deliberative democratic principles and processes have a crucial role. The proposed answer to the paper’s question about the scope, reach and limits of research in inclusive education is that such research involves both empirical, methodological, and evaluative matters. Educational research about inclusive education is not just empirical, it also involves value and norm clarification, a process which has been too often ignored.

Introduction

In asking about the scope, reach and limits of research in inclusive education in this paper, the aim is to examine some contemporary findings in one area of research in inclusive education and how value positions are implicated. Policy makers are interested in the effects of inclusive education and researchers are keen to provide evidence that bears on policy making. The paper will start off with a research review which was conducted as a specific response to a policy maker’s request. However, this kind of research, which can be described as treating inclusion as a technical matter, has been widely criticized. For example, Slee and Weiner (2001) identify two groups of researchers; (i) those who work within, what they call the “positivist paradigm,” accept the way things are, attempt to make marginal reforms and who criticize “full inclusion” as ideological and (ii) those who see inclusive education as cultural politics and call for educational reconstruction. Though these authors align with the second group, it is interesting that the first author subsequently uses research which treats inclusive education as a technical matter to support a position about inclusive education. Subsequently, Slee (2018) has referred to a review by Hehir et al. (2016) that depends on a systematic review of technical style studies to support his claims about how: “adjustments made to classrooms, to curriculum and to pedagogy to render classrooms more inclusive and enabling also benefit students without disabilities” (p. 69).

In discussing what this review of Inclusive Education Effects (IE) can tell us and what it cannot, the paper will examine a model showing the complexity of factors involved in asking questions about the effects of inclusive education. It then moves on to consider what other kinds of questions might be asked in research about inclusive education that cannot be addressed through effects-focussed methodologies. At this point in the paper, the issue arises about how the results from empirical studies relate to what is called inclusion or inclusive education. So, varied perspectives on inclusive education are summarized, including those of some parents, based on a recent study of parents’ experiences of deciding to opt for special schooling. These perspectives reflect the ambiguity and complexity of inclusive education, illustrating how the concept is often used in a thin way in empirical studies by focusing more on its empirical identification and causal relationships than its more expanded normative and value basis, a thick concept of inclusion. The paper concludes by using a version of the capability approach to examine issues about “full inclusion” and what can be called a more balanced or reasoned inclusion. This reveals two key dilemmas about difference and about personal vs. public choice that are relevant to providing inclusion with a well-founded value basis. The paper concludes with the claim that research into inclusive education involves technical, methodological, and evaluative matters. It proposes a role for public deliberation in clarifying and settling these value and norm clarification, process which have been largely ignored.

Review of inclusive education effects

The aims of this review were to (i) identify and summarize contemporary international research on IE effects and (ii) draw implications for policy, practice and future research in IE field. The context of this review was that it was undertaken in 2019 by three members of the Lead Group of the SEN Policy Research Forum (SENPRF) 1 following informal communications with the Government Department for Education (DfE) about national SEN and inclusion policy. The Forum was asked to summarize relevant research which was then presented as well to the national SEN Review ( Gray et al., 2020 ).

Ten sources were identified coming from a 2 stage process. Firstly, the authors identified relevant papers already known to them (4 papers). This was then supplemented, secondly, by a data base search using ERIC and ERC databases for the period 2009–2019. Search terms involved all variations of inclusion/inclusive education/mainstreaming × achievement/social emotional X effects. For the ERIC database 630 articles were retrieved with only 5 identified as relevant; for the ERC database 544 articles were retrieved with only one identified as relevant. In this way 10 papers were identified (see Gray et al., 2020 for more details). Five of the papers were reviews of international studies ( Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ; Dyssegaard and Larsen, 2013 ; Oh-Young and Filler, 2015 ; Hehir et al., 2016 ; Szumski et al., 2017 ). Some of these reviews included studies conducted before the 2009 cut-off date used for this review. Three involved a quasi-experimental designs, two with collected data and one using national administrative data. Four involved multi-variate statistical analyses of longitudinal data; with 2 using cohort studies. The papers were either from the United States or European countries, with none from the United Kingdom. Inclusion was mostly defined in the studies covered in terms of a mainstream class setting compared to a special class/school setting. Few gave details about the setting. Where they did, the proportion of time in the mainstream class was reported (e.g., greater or less than 80% of time). In one example, an inclusive setting was defined as being in general classrooms with several hours support per week and receiving therapy support too. Special school was described as small classes (5–8 children) taught by a specialist teacher with an assistant and therapy support ( Sermier Dessemontet et al., 2012 ).

The review was organized into four broad areas: (i) academic effects on students with SEN/disabilities and (ii) social-emotional effects on students with SEN/disabilities, (iii) academic effects on students without SEN/disabilities, and (iv) social-emotional effects on students without SEN/disabilities. For the first area, five sources were used with the balance of findings showing more academic gains of students with a range of SEN in ordinary rather than separate settings. These students were broadly characterized as having mild to moderate SEN/disabilities with the gains being in mostly literacy, but some in maths. One of the review papers reminded readers that this evidence did not show that “full” or “complete” inclusion had higher gains to special education settings for students with mild disabilities.

For the review area, academic effects for non-disabled students, the reviews of older studies, done before 2010 presented a mixed overall picture. However, on balance most studies showed more neutral or positive than negative effects for non-disabled students. However, some more recent individual studies rather than reviews indicated specific weak to moderate negative academic effects on non-disabled students, e.g., having classmates with emotional/behavior difficulties ( Fletcher, 2010 ) or special school returners ( Gottfried and Harven, 2015 ). Other studies indicated some small positive effects, associated with positive teacher attitudes, their training, strategies geared to diverse needs and problem-solving oriented schools ( Hehir et al., 2016 ). In addition, reviews were mixed about the negative academic effects of students with emotional and behavior difficulties on students without SEN/disabilities.

For the review area about social-emotional effects on SEN/disabled students, there were fewer studies than for academic effects. Here the sources showed mixed results. While one review referred to mostly positive outcomes ( Hehir et al., 2016 ), the other significant review reported that no conclusions can be drawn ( Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ). One specific recent study found no adaptive behavior differences across settings ( Sermier Dessemontet et al., 2012 ). For the fourth review area about social emotional effects for non-disabled students, there were also relatively few studies. These were recorded in review papers and showed some positive effects, e.g., less discriminating attitudes, increased acceptance, and understanding.

Research limitations and some relevant conclusion

As in other educational research focussed on effects, there are various design limitations to these inclusion effect studies. These studies use a range of approaches from quasi-experimental designs (QED) to multi-variate statistical analyses of longitudinal data and administrative data sets. With QED, as there is no randomized group allocation, there can be some “participant bias,” e.g., students in inclusive settings might have higher starting levels of functioning. Many of these papers refer to a series of limitations. Studies often use differing definitions of the compared settings. Comparisons are also often defined in terms of placements, e.g., special school v. ordinary school or special class/unit vs. ordinary class, not in terms of school-level (e.g., school ethos), or class level factors (e.g., quality of teaching). Findings relate to specific student age groups and areas of SEN/disability and not others. There is also the risk that other areas of SEN/impairment may not be controlled for in comparisons. Sometimes SEN/disability is also used generically to cover a range of areas and so the comparison becomes between SEN v non-SEN or disabled vs. non-disabled. How these terms are used can also vary internationally. In terms of statistical analyses, sample sizes may be under-powered to draw confident conclusions. Some effect measures, especially for the social-emotional effects could have improved measurement characteristics (e.g., reliability and validity).

For the purposes of this paper three main concluding points can be drawn from this review of inclusive education effects. The first point is that the basic typology of effects (academic and socio-emotional inclusion effects for SEN/disabled students and non-SEN/disabled children) needs to take account of other factors. These include the kinds of SEN/disability, phases of schooling, quality of support for learning and structural class and school factors. Some of these factors might moderate the effects. These are illustrated in Table 1 .

Table 1. Framework of focus and interacting factors relevant to the effects of inclusive education.

What this framework indicates is the multi-dimensionality of inclusive education and the complexity of factors that relate to their varied effects. This implies that there is a need for more nuanced policy and practice questions about inclusive education and consequently more nuanced kinds of studies about inclusive education. This would counter the commonly found preferences that look for simple generalized empirical relationships to confirm pre-existing positions; avoiding what has been called the pervasive confirmation bias ( Wason, 1960 ).

The second main point to make from this review is that the balance of evidence finds neutral or small positive effects as opposed to negative effects. This means that adopting an “on balance” position is the wise way to summarize the review outcome. Both positive and negative effects need to be understood in terms of the complex interaction of individual, class and school factors, on one hand, and what counts as inclusive education and the specific types of effects, on the other. The value of a framework like in Table 1 is that it reflects points from research findings about factors in those interactions that are more or less alterable, with this having policy implications. The third main point of conclusion from this review is that it is useful to develop this kind of mapping of the kinds of interacting factors related to questions about inclusion effects. This is relevant both to the design of further studies and to drawing conclusions for policy.

Unaddressed questions about inclusive education

The kinds of effectiveness research discussed above still leave some crucial questions about inclusive education unaddressed. Although there is scope for more sophisticated research designs to evaluate the effects of inclusive education, the use of multivariate statistical techniques involves large samples which are often not available, especially in some areas of SEN/disability, e.g., severe and profound and multiple learning difficulties SLD/PMLD). So, there are questions still to be asked about the inclusion of students with SLD/PMLD and those with significant emotional and behavior difficulties. These are difficult to address partly because of the relatively low incidence of these areas of difficulties but also the scarcity of practices involving these students in what would be called inclusive settings ( Agran et al., 2020 ). In a rare US quasi-experimental study, for example, 15 pairs of early years and primary aged children with “extensive support needs,” were matched across 12 characteristics based on their first complete Individual Education Program (IEP). One child in each pair was included in general education for 80% or more of their day, while the other was in a separate special education class ( Gee et al., 2020 ). Extensive analyses were shown to indicate more engagement and higher outcomes in general classrooms. But, in terms of what this study implies for inclusive education, there are no details of the students’ level of intellectual disability in these pairs and so we do not know if they had severe/profound intellectual disabilities or in United Kingdom terms SLD or PMLD. Nor does the report indicate details about the type of support and adaptations that were made for those in the general class or whether they spent 20% of their time in a separate class setting.

In the United Kingdom by comparison, reports about inclusive practices are in the form of cases or demonstration models of inclusive practice. For example, an illustration of inclusive practice with students with PMLD involved a common interactive music program for learners with PMLD and those from a mainstream primary school that enabled learning for all involved ( Education Wales, 2020 ). Though this inclusive program took place in a special school setting, it could have also been in an ordinary school setting. Both the primary school and special school children benefitted in their own ways from the joint activities, which seemed to enable its inclusiveness through it focus on the expressive arts.

The implication is that effectiveness research about inclusive education does not bear directly on the basic questions about the future of special classes and schools, settings which have been interpreted as being inconsistent with “full inclusion” ( UNICEF, 2017 ). The uses of terms like “full inclusion” or an “inclusive system at all levels” are unclear about whether they can involve some part-time separate settings (e.g., 20% of class time) or not. They are also unclear about whether fixed term (e.g., 1 year) placements in separate settings are compatible with an inclusive system and whether an “inclusive system at all levels” implies the closure of all special schools in the foreseeable future.

Critiques of “full inclusion” over many years have been about the position representing a “moral absolute” that requires the elimination of any alternative placements or settings to ordinary class placements ( Kauffman et al., 2021 , p. 20). For Kauffman and colleagues, the “full inclusion” focus on place rather than instruction or teaching is deeply problematic. They question those interpretations of Article 24 of the CRPD ( UN, 2006 ) that the Convention implies “full inclusion” without attention to the quality of teaching and alternative placements. However, what both advocates of “full inclusion” and these above critics have in common is that they both use false oppositions or dichotomies; with one pole being favored and the other pole rejected. They mirror each other in this kind of thinking.

There have, however, also been more nuanced arguments about inclusion over the years. Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) , for example, identified strengths and limitations in arguments of both “full inclusionists” and “inclusionists.” They see the former group (full inclusionists) as focussed more on children with more severe disabilities (low incidence needs), prioritizing social attitude and interaction learning, while the latter (inclusionists) are focussed more on children with high incidence needs, prioritizing academic learning and accepting a continuum of provision. Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) raise the question of whether “full inclusionists” are willing to “sacrifice children’s academic or vocational skills” for their social priorities ( Fuchs and Fuchs, 1998 , p. 312). This identifies the differences over inclusive education as one of value priorities, a point to be returned to later in this paper.

One way to take a broader perspective is to consider the practice and theory of a “full inclusive education” commitment. From the practice perspective, we can examine the Canadian New Brunswick system, which is cited as an example of “full inclusion” ( National Council for Special Education [NCSE], 2019 ). In a statement by the Porter et al. (2012) , a core inclusive principle is that:

“… public education is universal—the provincial curriculum is provided equitably to all students and this is done in an inclusive, common learning environment shared among age-appropriate, neighborhood peers” (p. 184).

However, in this publication evidence is given of the use of part-time and full-time “streaming” in primary and secondary schools and some alternative settings (0.4–1.5% across Francophone districts: p. 91). The reference in the above core principle to “common learning environments” is central to the definition of inclusive education. This phrase was introduced as an expansive definition:

“to dispel the misperception that inclusion is having every learner in a regular classroom all the time, no matter what the circumstances” ( AuCoin et al., 2020 , p. 321).

By using this term “common learning environment” in this way and not referring to ordinary/mainstream class environments, the New Brunswick conception of inclusive education is open to use of some alternative settings which is inconsistent with “full inclusion” and compatible with the concept of a flexible continuum of provision.

Inclusive education: concept, theory, and ambiguity

Given these ambiguities, on one hand, and the passions associated with inclusion and inclusive education, on the other hand, the analysis needs to consider the value of inclusion as this might inform some of the applied questions about inclusive education. In this regard, Felder (2018) has identified that inclusion tends to be a thin concept in empirical studies, like those discussed above. This is illustrated in the way the terms inclusion/inclusive are used in these studies. It is also why “what counts as inclusion” is an important part of the framework in Table 1 about the focus and interacting factors relevant to the effects of inclusive education. What these empirical studies do is focus more on matters related to how to realize inclusive education than consider and justify its expanded normative and value basis, what Felder (2018) called a thick concept of inclusion.

For Felder, an important distinction here is between communal inclusion (gemeinschaft) and societal inclusion (gesellschaft), to use the German terms from the social theorist Tonnies. Societal inclusion is about social relationships formed through instrumental rationality, while communal inclusion is about social relationships found in friendships, love relationships and interpersonal ties. In this analysis, the structures of societal inclusion can influence what make communal inclusion possible. However, communal inclusion sets some limits to the extent to which this form of communal inclusion can be secured through human rights. Felder’s analysis implies that human rights are not able to fully secure the social freedom and recognition, esteem or solidarity that are often neglected aspects of inclusion. In Felder’s analysis inclusive education which ultimately depends on social inclusion depends on social intentionality or agents acting collectively. People need to be integrated in a cooperative societal context to use their freedoms and basic rights. This underlines the importance of people having a degree of freedom to decide where they want to be included and be associated with. And, if disabled people are to have similar freedoms as other people in positive terms, they require more goods than others, because of the problem of converting these resources into practical opportunities. This is the basic assumption deriving from the capability approach ( Sen, 1979 ), which will discussed further below.

This thick concept on inclusion can also be contrasted with some current concepts of what inclusion means in inclusive education. Two leading concepts will be discussed and contrasted with a third which relates directly to students with more severe/profound disabilities. The first perspective, proposed by Warnock (2005) emphasizes that inclusion means the entitlement of everyone to learning in a personally relevant way, wherever this takes place. This concept of inclusion can imply and be used to justify separate settings for learning, e.g., special schools and classes in general schools, while overlooking the social effects and significance of separation, especially if it is imposed. Another leading concept of inclusion in inclusive education, associated with the Inclusion Index ( Booth and Ainscow, 2011 ) focuses on increasing student participation and reducing exclusion from “the cultures, curricula and communities of local schools” (p. 6). This concept implies that “all are under same roof,” a phrase used by Warnock (2005) , with the onus on local ordinary schools to accommodate diversity. This concept says little about how much diversity can be accommodated nor whether restructuring local schools could include some internal school separation.

It is also useful to contrast these two leading concepts with a 40 year old concept of partial inclusion that relates specifically to students with more severe/profound disabilities ( Baumgart et al., 1982 ). The basic premise of the principle of partial participation is that all severely disabled students have “a right to educational services that allow them to be the most that they can be” (p. 4). This implies engaging in as many different activities in as many different environments as instructionally possible. Baumgart et al. (1982) clarify that such partial participation requires individualized adjustments or modifications of typical environmental conditions. They also note that observing severely disabled and non-disabled students will show that they do not participate in activities to the same degree and in the same ways. This concept is characterized by its strong focus on what is pedagogically possible, going beyond the generalities of the two more prominent recent concepts.

Different policy positions

The leading international policy position on inclusive education is in Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD; UNICEF, 2017 ). The CRPD stresses that inclusive education is a fundamental human right for every child with a disability. It defines an inclusive education system as one that “accommodates all students whatever their abilities or requirements, and at all levels.” This position is justified in various terms: the educational case is that all children learn more effectively in an inclusive system; the social case is that this contributes to more inclusive societies and the economic case that it is more cost-effective.

However, not all countries accept Article 24 as shown by the United Kingdom Government having ratified the UNCRPD but stating specific reservations about preserving parents right to choose a special school education. This position has been United Kingdom (England) policy for over a decade. For example, the results of the consultation about the Green Paper that preceded 2014 revised SEN and disability legislation, were interpreted as showing widespread support. The public consultation was interpreted as showing support for parents to have the right to express a preference for any state funded mainstream or special school ( Department for Education [DFE], 2011 ).

It is revealing to compare these policy perspectives on inclusive education with those of parents who have selected special schools for their children with SEN/disabilities. A recent United Kingdom study examined the views of parents of pupils in special schools in the South West of England: their reasons for choosing special school, the extent to which they felt they had an independent choice, their views on alternative provision and their concepts of inclusive education ( Satherley and Norwich, 2021 ). Analysis showed that the top three reported factors as influencing decisions were school atmosphere, caring approach to pupils and class size, a finding that connected with their concepts of inclusive education. Not only does this small-scale study show distinctive parental perspectives on schooling and the dilemmas they experienced in choosing provision for their children, but concepts of inclusive education that depart from some of those discussed above. Over half considered that high quality inclusive education provision meant a sense of belonging to a class and school and social acceptance by peers, on one hand, and a more individualized curriculum, on the other. In addition, for many parents the belonging, social acceptance and Individualized curriculum was found only in special schools. By contrast, quality inclusive education rarely meant a resource base or specialist unit attached to mainstream school (28%), joint placement (21%), co-located schools (19%) or mainstream provision only (8.8%). What characterizes these parents’ perspectives was that they did not refer to placement, where provision is made. The UNCRP assumes that inclusion means placing students with disabilities within mainstream classes with appropriate adaptations ( UNCRPD, 2016 , p. 3). So, these parents mostly held different views from the dominant UNCRPD concept of inclusive education, discussed above.

The capability approach

A thick concept of inclusion in inclusive education, as discussed above, implies the importance of people having a degree of freedom to decide where they want to be included and with whom they associate. It was also suggested above that if disabled people are to have similar freedoms as other people, they require more resources than others, because of the problem of converting these resources into practical opportunities. This is where the capability approach developed by Sen (1979) can act as rich conceptual and value resource for thinking about inclusive education. Its discussion in this paper is not as a complete approach to the field, 2 but as the kind of framework that assists in thinking about what is involved in a just education system.

For Sen (1979) , the capability approach is about evaluating someone’s advantages in terms of his or her actual ability to achieve various valuable functionings as a part of living. Terzi (2014) expresses what a capability represents in terms of the “genuine, effective opportunities that people have to achieve valued functionings” (p. 124). What is distinctive about the capability approach is how it answers the political-ethical question about equality of what? Unlike perspectives which either focus on equality of resources or opportunities, the capability approach focuses on genuine opportunities. For Terzi, capabilities as genuine opportunities are important because they ensure that individuals can choose the kind of life they have reason to value. This also implies a fundamental role for agency in realizing the valued plans in one’s life. This has implications for the balance of choice, especially where it concerns children and young people. It has also been argued that a capability-oriented approach needs to acknowledge children’s agency in determining their own valued functionings and not just be determined by adults ( Dalkilic and Vadeboncoeur, 2016 ). This introduces some nuance into how a capability approach might work in relation to education, but this is not the paper to discuss these matters further. There are also issues about determining the capability set to be equalized. In considering whether there are basic universal capabilities there are also questions about opting for adequacy rather than equality in capabilities and whether some capabilities require equality. These matters will also not be addressed here.

Where the capabilities approach is incomplete is in considering the design questions of how to equalize capabilities; how to organize education to achieve this goal? Two key questions will be considered in relation to this question:

i how are “valuable functionings” identified? This is about the balance between personal preferences (agency) vs. public choice (democracy);

ii how to address the dilemmas of difference? This is about recognition of difference as either enabling vs. stigmatizing ( Norwich, 2013 ).

The second question about differences and differentiation will be dealt with first. In the capability approach thinking about equalizing capabilities is in terms of dignity. In these terms two ways of equalizing dignity can be considered from an educational perspective. One way of equalizing dignity is to respond to the individual functioning of all; this can be seen as about enabling learning for all. Another way is to avoid marking out students as different; this can be seen as avoiding the risk of stigma/humiliation. For example, some parents of children and young people are reluctant to seek out a diagnosis for their children, e.g., autism of ADHD, while others seek them out. These two ways of equalizing dignity can lead to a tension: differentiation as enabling but also risking stigma and devaluation, which can present a dilemma about difference/differentiation.

One way to connect how to address the dilemma of difference to conceptions of inclusion is in terms of the distinction which Cigman (2007) has made between “universal” and “moderate” inclusion. For Cigman, in “universal” inclusion, any marking out through separation of some children is to be avoided—through identification, different curricula, teaching and settings along a continuum of provision. This separation is regarded as a mark of devaluation and stigma; its avoidance is presented as a way of promoting respect. She contrasted this with “moderate” inclusion, that recognizes that promoting respect is also about identifying pupils’ personal strengths, difficulties and circumstances in a way that is enabling and not just stigmatizing. Based on this thinking there can be two broad responses to dilemmas of difference:

• it is possible to respond to the individual functional requirements (enabling route) and to avoid separation (avoid stigmatizing route); there are no dilemmas of difference representing a “universal” inclusion perspective.

• It is possible to some extent to respond to the individual functional requirements (enabling route) and to avoid separation (avoid stigmatizing route), but not fully: there are some dilemmas of difference which can be resolved to some extent. This represents a “moderate” inclusion perspective, what might better be represented as a reasoned and balanced inclusion.

This line of thinking shows how political-ethical questions about equalizing capabilities implicate dilemmas of difference in concepts of inclusion in inclusive education.

Deliberative democracy and citizens’ assemblies: personal vs. public choice

The second question arising from issues linked to the capability approach is how are “valuable functionings” identified? This has been framed as about the balance between personal preferences (agency) and public or social choice (democracy). In the United Kingdom (English) SEN/disability policy context, there has been over several decades a strong adoption of a “parental choice—provision diversity” approach—or what has also been called a neo-liberal approach ( Runswick-Cole, 2011 ). Here the choice is placed firmly with the individual. However, there has also been a persistent concern about United Kingdom (England) policy failure, which has been interpreted as reflecting an over-emphasis on personal preference rather than public choice ( Lehane, 2017 ). This has even been recognized more recently by policy makers, including the contemporary Department for Education Review of SEN/disability policy and practice ( Department for Education [DFE], 2022 ). This is a case of a Government having to confront the results of decades of policy which have not supported inclusive practices in a strategic way:

“…the need to restore families” trust and confidence in an inclusive education system with excellent mainstream provision that puts children and young people first; and the need to create a system that is financially sustainable and built for long-term success ( Department for Education [DFE], 2022 , p. 5).

However, this is not just about persistent policy failure over SEN/disability, it can be seen to also illustrate the democratic deficits in general educational and general social policy-making processes. SEN/disability inclusion cannot be detached from these other systems within the wider education system, such as school accountability, curriculum focus, and design, behavior management etc., because of their strong inter-connections. This is where Crouch’s (2011) Post-Democracy analysis is relevant in identifying how policy-making could better reflect stakeholder’s perspectives. This also connects to Felder’s (2018) examination of the meaning of inclusion, as encompassing communal and societal aspects and as being inherently social in its links to social intentions and actions. Felder goes onto to argue that the inclusion in inclusive education involves all stakeholders at all levels, from individuals to structural levels.

The implication of this analysis is that there needs to be more public deliberation and choice about inclusive education and a better balance between personal preferences and public choice. Following this argument Norwich (2019) has argued for an Educational Framework Commission, as a non-governmental policy initiative that uses representative citizen assemblies and other approaches to seek informed common ground between different stakeholders in policy making. This is one way to consider what is involved in a thick concept of inclusion in its links to democracy and as setting the context for research into inclusive education.

Several conclusions can be drawn from the above analysis about the scope, reach and limits of research on inclusive education. First, inclusive education is multi-dimensional, ambiguous and normative. This is related to the discussion about using inclusion as a thick or thin concept. The thick—thin distinction has been associated with the philosopher Williams (1985) in relation to ethical evaluations. Both thin and thick concepts involve evaluations, but thick concepts also have more complexity and descriptive content, while with thin concepts there is little sense of what is evaluated positively or negatively. In the case of inclusive education, the characteristic qualified by the term inclusive is positive without knowing much about the characteristic. For example, describing some education practice as “inclusive” reflects a thin use of the term, while qualifying the term “inclusive” as in “societal inclusion” or “curriculum inclusion in a separate setting” reflects more content and veers toward a thicker use of the concept. Kirchin (2013) has suggested that this thin-thick distinction is better represented as a continuum from thin to thick, which fits the use of the term “inclusive,” in these three examples, “inclusive practice,” “societal inclusion” to “curriculum inclusion in a separate setting.”

What makes inclusion in inclusive education a thick term is its multi-dimensionality which can also engender value tensions that need to be resolved. As argued above, this requires value clarification and some settlement about the balance of values, which is where deliberative democratic principles and processes have a crucial role. However, these processes can be Informed by empirical research, such as those summarized above. So, the answer in this paper to the question about the scope, reach and limits of research in inclusive education is that such research involves both empirical, methodological and evaluative matters. Educational research about inclusive education is not just empirical, it also involves value and norm clarification, a process which has been too often ignored. However, some empirical research in the field, such as the effects type summarized above, requires thin concepts of inclusion, as this is the only way that systematic empirical metrics can be set up for the kinds of large scale linking of variables. So, there is a place for both thin and thick concepts of inclusion in which they can interact. Thick concepts of inclusion can inform the foci for empirical research, while thin concepts used in empirical conclusions can inform how thick concepts develop through deliberative processes.

Author contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• ^ SEN Policy Research Forum, an independent network based in the United Kingdom, that aims to contribute intelligent analysis and the use of knowledge and experience to promote the development of policy and practice for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities.
• ^ Sen indicated himself that the capability approach is an incomplete approach as it requires local democratic social choice in defining capabilities ( Sen, 2017 ).

Agran, M., Jackson, L., Kurth, J. A., Ryndak, D., Burnette, K., Jameson, M., et al. (2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms: examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Res. Pract. Pers. Sev. Disabil. 45, 4–13. doi: 10.1177/1540796919878134

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

AuCoin, A., Porter, G. L., and BakerKorotkov, K. (2020). New Brunswick’s journey to inclusive education. Prospects 49, 313–328. doi: 10.1007/s11125-020-09508-8

Baumgart, D., Brown, L., Pumpian, I., Nisbet, J., Ford, A., Sweet, M., et al. (1982). Principle of Partial Participation and Individualized Adaptations in Educational Programs for Severely Handicapped Students. Psychol. Res. Pract. Pers. Sev. Disabil. 7, 17–26.

Google Scholar

Booth, T., and Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. 3 rd ed. Bristol: CSIE.

Cigman, R. (2007). A Question of Universality: inclusive Education and the Principle of Respect. J. Philos. Educ. 41, 775–793.

Crouch, C. (2011). The Strange Non-death of Neo-liberalism. London: John Wiley & Sons.

Dalkilic, M., and Vadeboncoeur, J. A. (2016). Re-framing inclusive education through the capability approach: an elaboration of the model of relational inclusion. Glob. Educ. Rev. 3, 122–137.

Department for Education [DFE] (2011). Support and Aspiration: A new Approach to Special Educational needs and Disability. Available online at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/support-and-aspiration-a-new-approach-to-special-educational-needs-and-disability-consultation (accessed July 6, 2022).

Department for Education [DFE] (2022). SEND Review: Right Support, Right Place, Right Time Government Consultation on the SEND and Alternative Provision System in England. London: DFE.

Dyssegaard, C. B., and Larsen, M. S. (2013). Evidence on Inclusion. Aarhus: Aarhus University.

Education Wales (2020). Routes for Learning: Guidance document. Available online at: https://hwb.gov.wales/api/storage/f4133444-0b1d-4f66-aa46-8f76edd09199/curriculum-2022-routes-for-learning-guidance-final-web-ready-e-130720.pdf (accessed July 6, 2022).

Felder, F. (2018). The value of Inclusion. J. Philos. Educ. 52, 54–70. doi: 10.1111/1467-9752.12280

Fletcher, J. (2010). Spillover Effects of Inclusion of Classmates with Emotional Problems on Test Scores in Early Elementary School. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 29, 69–83. doi: 10.1002/pam.20479

Fuchs, D., and Fuchs, L. S. (1998). Competing Visions for Educating Students with Disabilities Inclusion versus Full Inclusion. Child. Educ. 74, 309–316. doi: 10.1080/00094056.1998.10521956

Gee, K., Gonzalez, M., and Cooper, C. (2020). Outcomes of Inclusive Versus Separate Placements: A Matched Pairs Comparison Study. Res. Pract. Pers. Sev. Disabil. 45, 223–240. doi: 10.1177/1540796920943469

Gottfried, M. A., and Harven, A. (2015). The Effect of Having Classmates with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders and the Protective Nature of Peer Gender. J. Educ. Res. 108, 45–61. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2013.836468

Gray, P., Norwich, B., and Webster, R. (2020). Review of Research about the Effects of Inclusive Education: (longer version). Available online at: https://senpolicyresearchforum.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Inclusion-Review-final-longer-Feb-21.pdf (accessed July 6, 2022).

Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., and Burke, S. (2016). A Summary of The Evidence on Inclusive Education. Cambridge: Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Kauffman, J. M., Ahrbeck, B., Anastasiou, D., Badar, J., Felder, M., and Hallenbeck, B. A. (2021). Special Education Policy Prospects: Lessons From Social Policies Past. Exceptionality 29, 16–28. doi: 10.1080/09362835.2020.1727326

Kirchin, S. (2013). Thick Concepts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 9780199672349.001.0001 doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199672349.001.0001

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Lehane, T. (2017). “SEN’s completely different now”: critical discourse analysis of three “Codes of Practice for Special Educational Needs” (1994, 2001, 2015). Educ. Rev. 69, 51–67. doi: 10.1080/00131911.2016.1237478

National Council for Special Education [NCSE] (2019). Policy Advice on Special Schools and Classes An Inclusive Education for an Inclusive Society?. Trim: NCSE.

Norwich, B. (2013). Addressing Tensions and Dilemmas in Inclusive Education: living with Uncertainty. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203118436

Norwich, B. (2019). From the Warnock Report (1978) to an Education Framework Commission: A Novel Contemporary Approach to Educational Policy Making for Pupils With Special Educational Needs/Disabilities. Front. Educ . 4:72. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2019.00072

Oh-Young, C., and Filler, J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Res. Dev. Disabil. 47, 80–92. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014

Porter, G. L., and AuCoin, A., New Brunswick Department of Education Early Childhood Development (2012). Strengthening Inclusion, Strengthening Schools Report of the Review of Inclusive Education Programs and Practices in New Brunswick Schools. Fredericton, N.B: New Brunswick Dept of Education and Early Childhood Development.

Ruijs, N. M., and Peetsma, T. T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educ. Res. Rev. 4, 67–79. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002

Runswick-Cole, K. (2011). Time to end the bias towards inclusive education? Br. J. Spec. Educ. 38, 113–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8578.2011.00514.x

Satherley, D., and Norwich, B. (2021). Parents’ experiences of choosing a special school for their children. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 1–15. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2021.1967298

Sen, A. (1979). “Equality of What?,” in Tanner Lectures on Human Values , ed. S. McMurrin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Sen, A. (2017). Collective Choice and Social Welfare: An Expanded Edition. London: Penguin. doi: 10.4159/9780674974616

Sermier Dessemontet, R., Bless, G., and Morin, D. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. J. Intellect. Disabil. 56, 579–587. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01497.x

Slee, R. (2018). Inclusive Education isn’t Dead, it Just Smells Funny. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780429486869

Slee, R., and Weiner, G. (2001). Education Reform and Reconstruction as a Challenge to Research Genres: Reconsidering School Effectiveness Research and Inclusive Schooling. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 12, 83–98. doi: 10.1076/sesi.12.1.83.3463

Szumski, G., Smogorzewska, J., and Karwowski, M. (2017). Academic Achievement of Students Without Special Educational needs in Inclusive Classrooms: A Meta-Analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 21, 33–54. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004

Terzi, L. (2014). Reframing Inclusive Education: Educational Equality as Capability Equality. Camb. J. Educ. 44, 479–493. doi: 10.1080/0305764X.2014.960911

UN (2006). Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities , 24. Available online at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CRPD/Pages/ConventionRightsPersonsWithDisabilities.aspx#24 (accessed November 25, 2021).

UNCRPD (2016). Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: n Article 24: Right to inclusive education General comment No. 4 (2016) . Available online at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CRPD/GC/RighttoEducation/CRPD-C-GC-4.doc (accessed November 29, 2021).

UNICEF (2017). Inclusive Education: Understanding Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Available online at: https://www.unicef.org/eca/sites/unicef.org.eca/files/IE_summary_accessible_220917_0.pdf (accessed July 6, 2022).

Warnock, M. (2005). Special Educational Needs: A New Look. London: Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain.

Wason, P. C. (1960). On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task. Q. J. Exp. Physiol. 12, 129–140. doi: 10.1080/17470216008416717

Williams, B. (1985). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London: Fontana.

Keywords : inclusive education, inclusion, research, effects, evaluations, thin and thick concepts

Citation: Norwich B (2022) Research about inclusive education: Are the scope, reach and limits empirical and methodological and/or conceptual and evaluative? Front. Educ. 7:937929. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2022.937929

Received: 06 May 2022; Accepted: 29 June 2022; Published: 15 July 2022.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2022 Norwich. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Brahm Norwich, [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

How Inclusive Interactive Learning Environments Benefit Students Without Special Needs

Silvia molina roldán.

1 Department of Pedagogy, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain

Jesús Marauri

2 Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Deusto, Bilbao, Spain

Adriana Aubert

3 Department of Sociology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Ramon Flecha

Associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Growing evidence in recent years has led to an agreement on the importance and benefits that inclusive education has for students with special educational needs (SEN). However, the extension and universalization of an inclusive approach will also be enhanced with more evidence on the benefits that inclusion has for all students, including those without SEN. Based on the existing knowledge that learning interactions among diverse students are a key component of educational inclusion, the aim of this study is to identify the impact on students without SEN of being educated with students with SEN in shared, inclusive, interactive learning environments. Data were collected in three schools using a qualitative approach with a communicative orientation. Semistructured interviews were held with teachers as well as community volunteers participating in the schools. Further, focus groups were conducted with students and teachers. The results show that students without SEN benefit from participating in interactive learning activities with peers with SEN in different ways: (1) they learn to respect others, accept differences, and acknowledge different abilities, thereby creating opportunities for new friendships to develop; (2) they learn about abilities related to helping others participate and learn, to be patient and to gain the satisfaction in helping others learn and behave better; and (3) they benefit from the cognitive effort required to explain themselves and from the contributions of peers with SEN from which they can learn.

Introduction

The extension and universalization of an inclusive approach is a goal and a challenge for educational systems around the globe, as reflected in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Inclusive education means that all children learn together in schools that recognize and respond to the diverse needs of students, ensure quality education for all through appropriate curricula, organization, teaching strategies and resource use ( UNESCO, 1994 ), and overcome the barriers to the presence, participation, and achievement of all students in general education classes ( UNESCO, 2017 ). However, the original idea of inclusive education focuses on the education of a particular group of students—those with special educational needs (SEN)—to overcome practices of special education that have traditionally segregated students based on a medical model of disability ( Kurth et al., 2018 ). In this regard, inclusive education is generally acknowledged as the venue to enhance both the learning and social development of students with disabilities and other SEN, and therefore the way to fulfill their right to shared quality education in mainstream settings ( United Nations, 2007 ). Consequently, discourse, arguments and research about inclusive education have often centered on the collective of students with SEN, and growing evidence has led to an agreement on the benefits that inclusive education has for these students, as found in reviews of recent research. For instance, the meta-analysis conducted by Oh-Young and Filler (2015) compared the outcomes of students with disabilities between placement settings and found that students in more integrated settings outperformed those in more segregated settings, both in the academic and social domains. The recent review of research by Kefallinou et al. (2020) concluded that there is plenty of research that justifies inclusion both from the educational and the social angles, due to the proven positive effects of educational inclusion on the academic outcomes of students with disabilities, and its positive impact on the subsequent social inclusion of people with disabilities in terms of further academic opportunities and qualifications, access to employment and developing personal relationships within the community.

Because inclusive education is about quality education for all, it is important to look at the potential benefits of inclusion for all students. In this regard, the fact that most of the research on inclusive education concerns categories of learners, particularly those with disabilities and other SENs, may cause us to overlook the impacts on other collectives of learners and may not be consistent with a definition of inclusive education geared toward all learners ( Messiou, 2017 ). The objective of extending and universalizing an inclusive approach would benefit from evidence showing that it is positive—or at least not negative—for all students, including those without SEN.

For this reason, some studies have considered the impact of inclusion on students without special needs. Some of these studies have examined the development of students’ attitudes, empathy and understanding of others. For instance, Smith and Williams (2001) showed that children without disabilities can be sensitive to the consequences of different types of impairments and generally have a positive perception of the capabilities of children with different kinds of impairments, which has positive implications for inclusion. Tafa and Manolitsis (2003) found that typically developing children educated in inclusive programs with children with SEN have increased respect, awareness, and acceptance of their peers’ needs, develop less prejudices, and learn to be more helpful and supportive toward people with disabilities, according to parents’ perspectives. This is consistent with other studies that concluded that inclusive education can play a role in challenging disabling attitudes by transforming non-disabled children’s attitudes toward people with disabilities, therefore contributing to building a more inclusive society ( Beckett, 2009 ). Grütter et al. (2017) analyzed the role of friendship between students with and without SEN and found that opportunities to forge close friendships between students with and without SEN enhance the positive attitudes of students without SEN toward students with SEN; this suggests that inclusive education may benefit from educational practices that actively promote friendship among students with and without SEN. Research has also studied the impact of inclusion on the development of cognitive abilities such as theory of mind (ToM), finding that children without SEN educated in inclusive classes with children with SEN develop a better ToM than their peers educated in traditional classes ( Smogorzewska et al., 2020 ). According to Smogorzewska et al. (2020) , a greater understanding of diversity, tolerance, acceptance of others and the use of prosocial behaviors in inclusive classrooms seem to promote ToM development.

Other studies have explored the impact on academic learning. Although some studies find that the presence of SEN students in regular classes is related to slightly lower performance of their peers without SEN (e.g., Hienonen et al., 2018 ), the conclusions of different reviews of research suggest the contrary. Ruijs and Peetsma (2009) revealed that inclusive education has neutral to positive effects for both students with and without SEN compared to non-inclusive education, especially regarding academic achievement. Focusing on the impacts of students without SEN, Kalambouka et al. (2007) showed no evidence of adverse effects of the inclusion of children with SEN, indicating that most findings involved positive or neutral effects on children without SEN. Similarly, Szumski, Smogorzewska and Karwowski’s meta-analysis (2017) underscored a significant and positive—although weak—effect of the presence of students with SEN on the academic achievement of students without SEN. In none of the examined conditions were significant negative impacts found; in contrast, they were at worst neutral and positive in many cases. More recently, Kefallinou et al. (2020) signaled in their review that the inclusion of students with disabilities did not negatively affect the learning outcomes or the social development of their peers without disabilities, and there was a small—but positive—impact on the academic achievement of students without SEN. In addition, the benefits of inclusive education were connected to effective classroom practices characterized by learning interactions, such as cooperative and dialogic learning, peer tutoring, or collaborative problem-solving, which are beneficial for all learners in the classroom ( Kefallinou et al., 2020 ). As argued in these studies, the results support the idea that inclusive education is not against the right of the majority of students to receive quality education, as not only students with SEN, but also those without SEN, may benefit from being educated together.

One of the key characteristics of inclusive educational environments is the opportunity to have rich and diverse learning interactions among heterogeneous students. The role of social interactions in children’s learning and development has long been investigated by psychologists of education since the onset of the sociocultural theory of learning ( Vygotsky, 1978 ; Bruner, 1996 ). Bruner’s concept of communities of mutual learners helps us to understand the benefits of learning interactions between peers in contexts of diversity. According to Bruner (1996) , group work in schools in the form of communities of mutual learners allows for an equilibrium between individuality and group effectiveness, ensuring that everyone progresses according to their ability and giving all children the opportunity “to enter the culture with awareness of what it is about and what one does to cope with it as a participant” (p. 82). Interactive learning spaces, especially when they are mediated by dialogue, permit collective thinking and learning, enhance academic achievement, social skills, and social cohesion, and are especially beneficial for vulnerable groups of students ( Fernández-Villardón et al., 2020 ; García-Carrión et al., 2020 ). Hence, the objectives of inclusive education would be better attained when such interactive and dialogic learning environments are promoted.

Interactive groups (IGs) and dialogic literary gatherings (DLGs) are specific interactive learning environments that take into account the value of diversity, interaction, and dialogue for learning. Both IGs and DLGs have been identified as successful educational actions (SEAs) that foster successful educational outcomes in diverse student populations ( Flecha, 2015 ). In IGs, classrooms are arranged into small groups of heterogeneous students (e.g., 4–5 students each) who work on instrumental learning activities (especially literacy and math) proposed by the teacher using interaction and dialogue to help each other solve the activity, while a volunteer from the community (e.g., a family member, a former student, or a neighbor) supports each group, dynamizing students’ interactions and mutual help. IGs boost students’ academic learning and—due to the solidary bases of the IG, where students are prompted to help each other—improve the school climate; new friendships are also encouraged, as well as multicultural coexistence ( García-Carrión and Díez-Palomar, 2015 ; Valero et al., 2018 ; Zubiri-Esnaola et al., 2020 ).

Dialogic literary gatherings consist of debating books from classical literature that students have previously read. After agreeing to the chapters that will be discussed at the next gathering, students read the text individually or with help from their family members, a teacher, or a peer, and select a piece of text they found relevant to share at the gatherings. There, they discuss and reflect on the text based on the principles of dialogic learning ( Flecha, 2000 ). DLGs contribute not only to a better understanding of the text, but also enhance students’ reading, reasoning, and argumentative abilities, and deepen understanding of others’ perspectives and emotional well-being ( García-Carrión, 2015 ; Garcia et al., 2018 ; Foncillas et al., 2020 ).

Both DLGs and IGs have been implemented with students with SEN included in mainstream classrooms, and shared with students without SEN. The interactive learning environments created through IGs and DLGs improve the learning and relationships of students with SEN; therefore IGs and DLGs encompass inclusive learning environments ( Duque et al., 2020 ). Less is known about the impact of IGs and DLGs on students without SEN when they are shared with students with SEN. The aim of this study is to identify impacts for students without SEN of being educated with students with SEN in shared, inclusive, interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs.

Materials and Methods

This research is a qualitative study of schools that implement interactive learning environments—specifically interactive groups (IGs) and dialogic literary gatherings (DLGs)—with students with and without special needs. The study was conducted within the framework of a broader competitive research project titled “Interactive learning environments for the inclusion of students with and without disabilities: Improving learning, development and relationships” (INTER-ACT). More specifically, this study is part of the project’s second objective: “To analyze in depth successful cases of schools implementing IGs and DLGs with students with disabilities to identify the best conditions to increase the impact on the improvement of learning, development, and relationships.”

The specific objectives of this study were: (1) to determine whether participating in IGs and DLGs with students with SEN has an impact in terms of learning and/or development for children without SEN; (2) to identify types of impacts on students without SEN as a result of participating in IGs and DLGs with students with SEN; and (3) to understand how these impacts are related to being educated with students with SEN in shared, inclusive, interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs.

Data from the three mainstream educational centers that participated in the second objective of the INTER-ACT project were considered. These centers were one primary school, one primary and secondary school, and one secondary school that educate students with and without special needs in shared learning environments, and which have already implemented interactive learning environments (IGs and DLGs) in the framework of an inclusive project. The schools were selected for their participation in the INTER-ACT project according to the following criteria: (a) schools that had been organizing classrooms in IGs and/or DLGs for at least two academic years; (b) these schools serve a higher percentage of students with disabilities than the average in the region; (c) these schools implement IGs and DLGs inclusively, involving students with SEN with their peers who do not have SEN; and (d) these schools had observed improvements in their students, recorded through quantitative or qualitative evidence, since they have implemented IGs and/or DLGs.

Data Collection

Qualitative data were collected in each school with the aim of understanding, from the participants’ experiences, how the interactive learning environments that were being facilitated with students with and without SEN contributed to students’ cognitive and social development. The data collection techniques used were semistructured interviews with teachers and community volunteers participating in the schools, and focus groups with students and teachers (see Table 1 ). For the purpose of data collection, students with SEN were considered those with an official report that entailed learning difficulties in the school context. Conversely, students without SEN were those without an official report and who did not present particular learning difficulties in the school context. Purposeful sampling was employed to select participants who could be especially knowledgeable about the object of study. In all cases, the participants selection was agreed with the school principals to select those participants that could be more representative. All data collection techniques were carried out on the school premises for the participant convenience. Interviews with teachers lasted between 60 and 75 min. The duration of the focus groups was approximately 40 min for teachers and between 30 and 45 min for students. In the case of volunteers, interviews lasted approximately 20 min.

Data collection techniques implemented in each school.

Participant teachers in the interviews and in the focus groups were selected based on their experience of implementing IGs and/or DLGs with students with and without SEN. All of them had been implementing IGs and/or DLGs and all of them had—at the moment of the data collection or in the past—students with SEN participating in IGs and/or DLGs together with students without SEN.

Two interviews with teachers were conducted, one in school 1 and one in school 3. They were female teachers in both cases. The teacher interviewed at school 1 was the school principal and a language teacher who implemented DLGs with the two sixth-grade classes, which contained five students with SEN. She had more than 10 years of experience facilitating IGs and DLGs. The teacher interviewed in school 3 taught the third grade of compulsory secondary education. In that class, eight students had SEN.

Two focus groups were held with teachers, one in school 1 and one in school 2. In school 1, four female teachers participated. One of them was a teacher in the first and second grades of primary education, another was a teacher in the third and fourth grades, and two more were teachers in the fifth and sixth grades. They had between 4 and 12 years of experience in the school implementing IGs and/or DLGs. In school 2, three female teachers participated. One of them was a teacher of first and second grade, another was a special education teacher, and the third was a teacher of second grade of compulsory secondary education and educational advisor. They had between 1 and 10 years of experience in the school implementing IGs and/or DLGs.

Three focus groups were held with students, two in school 1 and one in school 3. In school 1, one focus group was conducted with each of the two sixth-grade classes. They have been implementing IGs since second grade and DLGs since third grade. In these classes, cases of special needs included hearing impairment and intellectual disability (one boy), intellectual disability (one boy), dyslexia (two boys and one girl) and ADHD (one boy). Five students participated in the first focus group (three boys and two girls), and seven participated in the second focus group (five girls and two boys). In the first group, there was one girl and one boy with SEN, and in the second group, there was one boy with SEN. In school 3, one focus group was conducted with two girls: one in second grade of compulsory secondary education, and one in third grade of compulsory secondary education. Both participated in IGs and DLGs. One of them had special needs (a syndrome entailing visual and hearing impairment, as well as an intellectual disability) and participated in IGs and DLGs with her classmates without special needs, while the other student did not have SEN and had a classmate with autism who participated in IGs and DLGs along with the rest of the class.

Finally, two interviews were conducted in school 2 with two male volunteers who participated in IGs in classes containing students with and without SEN. One of them had taken part in IGs in preprimary and primary education classes for 2 years, while the other had participated in IGs for 3 years in fifth and sixth grades of primary education and in third grade of compulsory secondary education.

Both the interviews and the focus groups included questions regarding, on the one hand, the characteristics of the implementation of the interactive learning environments and, on the other, the impacts on the participating students. The data collection was conducted using a communicative orientation that involves creating the conditions for egalitarian dialogue between researchers and the end-users of research to reach a shared interpretation of the reality being studied ( Gómez et al., 2019 ). Sample questions for teachers and volunteers included: “How would you describe the interactions between students with SEN and their peers without SEN when they participate in IGs and/or DLGs?” “Have these interactions between students changed over time?” “Have you observed an impact on students that could be related to such interactions?” Sample questions for students were: “How do you work in IGs and DLGs with your classmates?,” “When you or some of your classmates have some difficulties when participating in IGs or DLGs, what do you do?,” “Have you improved on something since you have taken part in IGs and DLGs?,” “And your classmates?,” “Can you give an example?”

Before data collection, school boards and individual participants were informed about the aims of the research. All participants were informed that their participation was voluntary and that the data would be recorded anonymously. Informed consent was obtained from the participant teachers and community volunteers and from the parents or guardians of the minors. To ensure ethical integrity of the study, the research responded to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by UNESCO, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2000/C 364/01) regarding scientific and ethical procedures, the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity ( ALLEA, 2017 ), the Ethics Review Procedure established by the European Commission (2013) for EU research, and the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. The study was fully approved by the Ethics Board of the Community of Researchers on Excellence for All (CREA).

Data Analysis

Interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcriptions were subsequently revised to identify the excerpts that referred to interactions between students with and without SEN that could indicate an impact on students without SEN. A second reading was conducted to identify recurrent themes that emerged from the excerpts, and three main themes were identified that led to the inductive creation of the three categories of analysis: (1) impact on students’ attitudes, (2) impact on students’ social skills, and (3) impact on students’ academic learning and cognitive development (see Table 2 ). One researcher coded the excerpts according to the categories created; some excerpts were assigned to more than one category. Subsequently, a second researcher revised the coded excerpts, taking into account the definition of the categories. The second researcher agreed on the coding and proposed the assignment of some of the citations to additional categories. The final coding was agreed upon by both researchers.

Categories of analysis.

The results of our analysis allowed us to identify a series of impacts for students without SEN of sharing interactive learning environments with students with SEN. According to the categories of analysis, our findings show that participating together in learning activities, mediated by interaction and dialogue, allows students without SEN to: (1) build understanding and respectful attitudes toward diversity; (2) learn about social abilities related to facilitating others’ learning; and (3) enhance opportunities for academic learning and cognitive development as a result of engaging in learning together, exchanging questions and knowledge. As seen in Table 2 , the category with a higher number of quotes is (1) impact on students’ attitudes, with more than half of the quotes referring to such an impact, followed by (2) impact on students’ social skills, and finally by (3) impact on students’ academic learning and cognitive development.

Building Positive Attitudes Toward Diversity in Interactive Learning Environments Shared With Peers With Special Needs

Category 1 included evidence regarding the attitudes of students without SEN toward students with SEN when they learned together in IGs and/or DLGs. Participants in the three schools, including teachers, students and volunteers, provided evidence in this regard.

When students without SEN share interactive learning environments with students with SEN, they have unique opportunities to learn firsthand about diversity. They share their learning time and space with peers of the same age, who often need special attention because of their individual characteristics, which differ to a greater or lesser extent and in different ways from those of most students. This is a necessary first step to develop positive attitudes on diversity and educational and social inclusion, which cannot be completely achieved when education on respect for diversity, valuing its potential, and educational and social inclusion is not based on the daily experiences of sharing these learning opportunities with individuals with SEN, who have a face and a name. However, interactive learning environments allow students to share not only learning space and time, but also interactions and dialogue around shared learning activities (such as solving a math problem or sharing a personal reflection on an excerpt from a book), which create opportunities to learn about diversity and its value based on the personal experiences of those individuals with whom the activity is shared. In this way, students can learn about diversity with those children who have not only a name and a face but also a personality, preferences, and struggles.

Ana, a secondary education student without SEN who has a classmate with autism spectrum disorder, Jose, explained that getting to know him in the school allowed her to learn about diversity in a way that she could not have done before:

• Until I first entered this school last year, I had no idea what the communication and language classroom was, I had no idea that there were people with ASD who could be in schools like this, I was not aware at all of this. However, when I arrived in this school, they put me in the class with Jose, and when I saw him, I said “wow” and I don’t know, from that moment on, he transmitted something to me that made me feel that he was special and that I was going to help him in some way. In addition, as time went by, Jose turned my life around. (Student, school 3)

The interactive learning environment fostered in the classroom, where students learn in dialogue with others, is, according to teachers, what generates the opportunity to acknowledge diversity, while students learn that it is part of human diversity and normalize it:

• I believe that it favors inclusion, for sure, because they talk constantly, leaving the classic model of children sitting alone, individually. So yes, they are all integrated. As she said, they always look the same to each other; they do know that one has more difficulties in one thing or another, but they all treat each other equally. (Teachers’ focus group, school 1)

Teachers in the different schools reported a change in attitudes in their students without SEN, who in the interactive learning environments learned about difference, learned to accept it, and to be more respectful about it. Teachers referred, on the one hand, to children’s acknowledgement of individual differences in their peers’ learning process, which became evident as learning activities were shared among the class, either in small interactive groups or in dialogic literary gatherings with the entire class. Students understood that children could learn at different paces and that they can need different kinds of support or adapted materials, but this does not mean that they cannot share the experience of learning; as one teacher explained: “a dynamic of respect and understanding that not everyone does the same has been created” (Teacher, school 1). Importantly, being aware of these differences does not turn into a stigmatization of students with SEN; in contrast, knowing them allows their peers to learn more about their weaknesses, and to better understand their performance in class. The example of shared reading activities illustrates this impact on students’ attitudes:

• And the other students, for me this is important, they respect their reading rhythm, they respect it, they know that, depending on which children, they go slowly because they have difficulties, but nobody says so, because we all know that they have difficulties and that they go at their own pace and, if they read it slowly, they understand it well. (Teacher, school 1)

Special needs can be related to areas of curricular learning, but can also be expressed in other ways. Teachers’ experience shows that in interactive learning environments, children learn to be more understanding about other types of difficulties, such as behavioral problems that their classmates may exhibit. Although it may sometimes be annoying, they develop the understanding that these children do not have, at that moment, the ability to behave better and learn to accept it, while teachers work to improve children’s ability to control their behavior. This is the case of what this teacher explained:

• There are days when these children—I’m thinking of another one who hasn’t taken the medication—then, he comes in very nervous, he doesn’t stop making noises, he doesn’t shut up. Obviously, holding the gatherings in these conditions is very hard, but they are there, and the group already understand that this child acts this way because he has no other way to do it. Therefore, I think that they have all learned to accept the difference. (Teacher, school 1)

Overall, these episodes show the opportunities created for children without SEN to better understand children with SEN, to be more sensitive to others’ needs, and to be more empathetic. From the perspective of teachers, interactive learning environments such as DLGs entail the learning of values that facilitate the transformation of attitudes. These values emerge from the reading of classic works of literature, which is characteristic of a DLG, where topics such as love, friendship, truth, loyalty, and courage become part of the debate:

• In the gatherings many values arise, students work a lot on values and then have a more complete experience, and they share, and they make. They feel empathy for each other. (.) in the classroom it is very difficult for them to put themselves in the other’s place (.) but in the gatherings it isn’t, empathy does come out. (Teacher, school 1)

This learning of values and empathy is also related to the fact that in DLGs, children often link the episodes of reading to episodes about their own lives or other realities they know of. This is how children expressed this idea in their own way:

• Because when we give our opinion in the gatherings, sometimes he explains something of his life, and so when he says it, we know slightly more about him, and he says more and more things about his life, and so we get to know each other better and become [better] friends, because in this way we get to know each other much more easily. (Student, school 1)

In this process of knowing their classmates with SEN better as a result of sharing interactive learning environments, children also learn that each individual has different abilities, that all of them may need help at some point, and can help others as well, and that the best learning outcomes are obtained when they share these abilities and help each other. IGs facilitate this process, as in IGs all group members are expected to ensure that all other members understand the activity and complete it; therefore, everyone shares the knowledge and abilities they have and that can contribute to the group work. Teachers in one of the schools reflected on this idea, which also contributed to the change of perceptions and attitudes mentioned, as typically developing students realize that students with SEN have challenges but also have abilities: “In those moments they have truly helped each other. Then, they have realized that it is not always the same people who have to help, but they, who have a challenge, are good at it.” (Teachers’ focus group, school 1)

This acknowledgement of diversity (including difficulties, but also possibilities and diverse abilities), which is due to sharing interactive learning environments, facilitates overcoming prejudices. Students with SEN start to be seen not only as those with poor learning, that always struggle and usually need help, but also as students who are capable of learning and making progress, as one teacher noted:

• Academically brilliant boys and girls, who perhaps in third grade looked at these classmates and even knowing them since they were in preschool [3 or 4 years old] thought, “Well, this is clear, they don’t know anything,” have made a positive change because they see these children as classmates with the possibility of learning. (Teacher, school 1)

As shown in this quote from a teacher’s interview, it was not the fact of being educated in the same classroom with SEN students that shaped a realistic perception of their difficulties and capabilities (since both SEN and typically developing students had been educated together for years). Rather the opportunity to learn in interactions with SEN students allowed students without SEN to transform their perceptions and attitudes. Along the same lines, in view of Ana, sharing learning opportunities with her classmate Jose entailed learning that everyone has both difficulties and abilities, and that these can be overcome:

• Jose has taught me that many times people have barriers, because we all have barriers, whether it is at the time of learning, at the time of adults finding a job. Whatever, anything, but there is always a way to overcome them, always, and Jose has taught me many things. In fact, I think he has taught me more than I have taught him. (Student, school 3)

This involved shifting the focus from difficulties to possibilities and transforming learning expectations toward them. Importantly, the peer group learned that students with SEN were not only able to learn, but also contributed to the learning of others, which reinforces this change in expectations and the overcoming of prejudices. This might help typically developing students learn to value people not only based on their more evident characteristics—as may be the case with SEN in the school context—but also to pay attention to other traits (which are sometimes hidden) that can give a broader picture of a person and allow for identifying other enriching features. According to teachers, interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs permit this to happen:

• And from that moment on, I think, that’s when we all realized that children like Javi can participate by making very good contributions, and that girls like Laura don’t know everything. I think that this was a very important moment. (Teacher, school 1)

Further, this greater knowledge of peers with SEN and the development of respect for diversity has led in some cases to the blossoming of new friendships. Ana talked about her special relationship with Jose as something that makes going to school more meaningful for her: “And one of the reasons why I love coming to school is to have Jose’s smile there every morning (.) and it’s something I wouldn’t change for anything in the world” (Student, school 3). Blanca, a girl with SEN in the same secondary school, explained something similar in terms of when she thinks of her classmate and friend Jaume:

• Like Ana said, she is very happy with Jose. I am exactly the same with Jaume (.) I am very happy with him and I am happy to have him as a friend, and he is special and very important to me. (Student, school 3)

The building of these friendships not only has had an impact within the school, but has also transferred and expanded the benefits of interactions between students with and without disabilities to new contexts outside school premises and across time, as a teacher in that school explained:

• [His] friendship within the school [was] prolonged on weekends (.) He has come to meet [his] friends of the classroom to go out to dinner 1 day, to see a movie and that is very interesting (.) I think the fact of having worked in groups has facilitated doing things, not only in his group of six, because these groups have been changing more or less. (Teacher, school 3)

Learning Social Skills Related to Helping Others Participate and Learn

Category 2 included evidence regarding an impact on the social abilities of students without SEN as a result of learning together with students with SEN in IGs and/or DLGs. Participants in the three schools, including teachers, students and volunteers, offered evidence in this regard.

In addition to the transformation of thoughts, attitudes and the acknowledgment of others’ abilities and difficulties, engaging in learning interactions with peers with SEN helps to develop a series of social skills. Children acquire these skills because they are necessary to interact with their classmates in IGs and DLGs, specially with those with SEN. These interactive learning environments pose this demand, and these skills become part of the repertoire of abilities that children can use in multiple contexts and with diverse people. First, in interactive learning environments such as IGs and DLGs, children are expected to help each other; thus, children progressively get used to and develop this ability to support their peers, as well as receiving help when necessary. Both teachers and volunteers reflected on the way children learned about this ability through time: “Last year I did notice a change, yes (.) in the end they learn to collaborate, above all, to help each other, and that it goes well, and the work comes out, which is what we are looking for.” (Volunteer, school 2)

With the practice of helping each other in interactive and diverse learning environments, children come to see that collaboration among all helps everyone’s learning, as it allows for one to take advantage of the diverse abilities in the group; therefore, they become progressively more motivated and more proficient in this activity:

• Everyone has some skills; some have some skills for one thing and others have some skills and some abilities for another. After all, if there is a collaboration between all, it is where you have to reach an end, and they help each other to reach this end. (Teacher, school 2)

Once they acquire this ability, they use it to help anyone who needs it, including children with more learning difficulties; they normalize helping others and realize they can make a difference in the learning opportunities of the students with the most difficulties. Therefore, and as a volunteer explained, all students in her class were willing to help those who were more in need: “Yes, let’s say, the whole group was dedicated to helping them” (Volunteer, school 2). Consequently, when they share learning activities with students who especially struggle with learning, they find the opportunity to strengthen this ability to help. Blanca explained something similar when not just one, but three classmates went to help her with the activity:

• For example, in History, we also do [interactive] groups. We were doing a mapping exercise and (.) I got lost a little bit, then I asked my classmate sitting next to me to help me and so on, then she came to help me, then two more came to help me, and I was happy because I did not make myself clear, I got nervous, I did not know how to do it, then (.) they came to help me (.), and that is the best thing about being in a group. (Student, school 3)

Second, in this attempt to help their peers with SEN and facilitate their participation in interactive learning environments, they learn to adjust their interactions to the particular needs of each child. For instance, they learn to be patient and to give the necessary time when their peers have a slower learning pace, which is an evidence of the empathy developed:

• In the gatherings they have also learned to give time. For example, a girl I have in class has a hard time explaining herself, but in the end, she gets it out. Therefore, they have learned to be patient with her and not to stand up and let her talk. Then, in the end, they realize that she does, that she gets out, that she explains well. (Teacher, school 1)

In this regard, they learn to provide adjusted support, building on the abilities they acknowledge in these peers, and try to find alternative ways so that these children can participate in the activity. This entails a metacognitive effort when they try to understand what these children know and how they can help them participate in the activity and progress in their learning.

• The atmosphere in the classroom, when there is a group with a child with SEN, the others, as they live it in their daily life, apart from understanding the difficulty he has and stay on their level, they also look for ways in which he can participate and get involved in some way in the activity. (Teacher, school 1)

This effort to facilitate the learning and participation of children with SEN becomes part of the class routine. so as the teachers explained, it unites the group around this shared purpose and the group members become more sensitive to the needs of their peers. This is also achieved thanks to the guidance that teachers and volunteers provide in order to help typically developing students adjust the support they offer to their SEN peers, and also to encourage typically developing students to help their SEN peers while avoiding overprotection:

• In other words, their classmates, or at least what I experience from my class, they are very supportive and, as Maria said, they are very sensitive on this subject. In this case, I have two students [with SEN], and they take care of them, not too much, because they must be reminded to let them think, too. However, they do take them very much into account in regard to working in [interactive] groups. They try to make sure they can participate like everyone else. Of course, within their possibilities. (Teacher, school 1)

As a result, the situations created not only turn into a higher ability to help others, but also in the satisfaction of seeing others learn better due to their help, which reinforces this behavior. Teachers noted this impact on children: “They help each other and it is going very well; and they love it, it is something they like very much” (Teacher, school 2), as well as students themselves: “And, when you help him and you see that he understood it, you feel satisfied” (Student, school 2). “When I help Joan or even when Joan helps me more, I feel more fulfilled with myself, happier” (Student, school 3). Such rewarding experiences motivates them to continue participating in these activities and to help others, which benefits everyone’s learning.

Enhancing the Opportunities for Academic Learning and Cognitive Development

Category 3 included evidence regarding opportunities for the academic learning and cognitive development of students without SEN when they learned together with students with SEN in IGs and/or DLGs. Participants in school 1 and school 2, including teachers, students and volunteers, mentioned this type of impact.

Sharing learning activities with students with SEN in interactive learning environments triggers an additional cognitive effort for typically developing children when they try to explain themselves to their peers with SEN. It entails, on the one hand, putting oneself in the other’s shoes, trying to understand his/her difficulties and thinking of how to help him/her overcome these difficulties, thus gaining from the cognitive effort made and reinforcing their learning. On the other hand, it also entails discovering one’s own difficulties when trying to make oneself be understood and to do one’s best to achieve it. In this regard, such situations allow students who do not usually have learning challenges to experience them, and underscore the need to make an effort to achieve their objective, which contributes to being more empathetic and understanding of their peers with SEN and, sometimes, humbler regarding their own abilities, as one volunteer explained:

• They do this effort of trying to make them be understood by the other, and this is very interesting, as the know-it-all can see his/her own limitations with respect to the others. Therefore, it demands a much greater effort from oneself than usual. (Volunteer, school 2)

In addition, in interactive learning environments, students without SEN can learn from the explanations and contributions of children with SEN. IGs and DLGs are characterized by promoting a framework of open and egalitarian dialogue where all contributions are valued based on validity claims (i.e., the value of the contribution’s content, regardless of who made the contribution, and in this case, regardless of whether it is a student with or without SEN). Learning from students with SEN can occur both in IGs and in DLGs when these students have a good understanding of the concepts they are working on. As noted by one teacher, these episodes are opportunities for the entire group to learn:

• Children with many special difficulties, have been the ones who have given the clarification, the definition, the explanation for the rest of the group to understand, and this has created a situation, which is not seen, but it is noticed, of improvement for all. (Teacher, school 1)

In DLGs, it also occurs when children with SEN share the paragraph or idea they selected to bring to the gathering, or when they raise doubts about the meaning of particular words that other students had not paid attention to—although they might not understand it either—and this opens up a debate on the meaning of that word or on the ideas of that paragraph that may have not existed without the participation of these children. In the following quote from a teacher, we find first a reference to those situations when a child with SEN does not understand something and their peers explain it to him/her, provoking the additional cognitive effort of trying to make something be understood. Next, we find the reference to these other situations when children with SEN contribute to the group bringing their questions, doubts, and interventions to the gathering, opening a learning opportunity for all:

• If they do not understand it, their classmates explain the meaning to them. Then, when we do this rereading of the chapter or the pages, other vocabulary words often appear that, perhaps nobody had chosen or they do not know the meaning of, and then another debate starts about knowing what it means. Or someone raises their hand and says, “I had not chosen this because when I read it perhaps it did not catch my attention, but now when I reread the chapter, I want to comment on it,” and right after it is commented on. This is done both by children with SEN and by the rest of the class, regardless of their level of ability and everything else. A climate is created that is similar to magic. (Teacher, school 1)

According to the participants’ experiences, interactive learning environments shared between students with and without SEN create the opportunity for all to acknowledge that everyone has abilities and difficulties. Children with SEN can surprise others with their questions, responses, and contributions, generating new opportunities for learning, and everyone can learn that children without SEN do not always know everything. As one teacher explained based on her experience over the years, the fact that children with SEN share interactive learning environments with their peers without SEN has not only benefitted these SEN children, but also the dynamics of the classroom, as it is enriched with diversity, and therefore becomes a benefit for all:

• The fact that these children are in the group—and I can talk about it already for the past 4 years—has improved the dynamics of the gatherings. I think it has been beneficial for everyone, and I am sure it has, because they make interventions that even they themselves are often surprised to have made, and their peers have seen this. (Teacher, school 1)

Interactive groups and DLGs are interactive learning environments that have already been demonstrated to be inclusive and lead to positive academic and social impacts for students with SEN ( Duque et al., 2020 ). The study presented here is the first to analyze the potential impacts of IGs and DLGs on students without SEN when they share these interactive learning environments with students with SEN. The results of our study show that students without SEN can benefit from participating in interactive learning environments (such as IGs and DLGs) with peers with SEN in at least three different ways: (1) building positive attitudes as they learn to respect others, accept differences, and acknowledge different abilities, creating opportunities for new friendships; (2) enhancing their social skills, as they learn about abilities related to helping others participate and learn, to be patient, and gain satisfaction from helping others learn; and (3) producing opportunities to enhance academic learning and foster cognitive development, as they gain from the cognitive effort needed to explain themselves and from the contributions of peers with SEN from which they can learn. Importantly, we did not find negative impacts for students without SEN or for those with SEN as a result of sharing these interactive learning environments. In contrast, all impacts identified—either at the attitudinal, social, or cognitive level—were positive for both groups of students.

In the cases studied, children without SEN developed positive attitudes toward diversity in IGs and DLGs. This is in the line of previous research which found that inclusive educational environments are related to more positive attitudes toward diversity, and especially more positive attitudes among typically developing peers toward children with disabilities or other SEN ( Smith and Williams, 2001 ; Beckett, 2009 ). It is also consistent with research that found that solidarity can be learned in the school context and that it contributes to creating genuine attitudes of inclusion beyond the norms that benefit everyone ( Hernández Arteaga et al., 2020 ).

Additionally, we found that students without SEN had the opportunity to develop social skills when they learned together with students with SEN in IGs and DLGs. Identifying particular types of classroom arrangements and learning dynamics (such as IGs and DLGs) that help one to cultivate such attitudes and skills is important not only for students with SEN—who are more respected, accepted, and integrated in their group of peers—but also beneficial for students without SEN. Attitudes of understanding diverse identities; the values of justice, equality, dignity and respect; cognitive skills (including the ability to adopt a multiperspective approach); social skills (such as empathy and conflict resolution), communication skills and aptitudes for interacting with diverse people, and the capacity to act collaboratively and responsibly have been highlighted as key competences necessary in the 21st century ( UNESCO, 2014 ).

Moreover, we found a positive impact of the interactive learning environments created with IGs and DLGs on opportunities for the learning and cognitive development of children without SEN. This is in line with previous research comparing the learning outcomes of students without SEN, who are educated with students with SEN, and those who are not, which overall revealed no negative impacts on these students but, on the contrary, positive impacts or neutral in the worst cases ( Kalambouka et al., 2007 ; Ruijs and Peetsma, 2009 ; Szumski et al., 2017 ; Kefallinou et al., 2020 ).

These findings should be taken cautiously. On the one hand, because the study is based on a reduced sample, the conclusions cannot be generalized. On the other hand, because data were collected in schools that were already implementing IGs and DLGs, a pre-post intervention comparison cannot be made to ascertain the changes that occurred in students without SEN due to sharing IGs and DLGs with students with SEN. Finally, the qualitative nature of the data facilitates an understanding of the reality studied but does not allow for a precise assessment of the impacts on students without SEN. Subsequent research could expand the analysis to a broader sample and include an examination of quantitative data, especially of students’ academic progress, since the third category of analysis (impact on students’ academic learning and cognitive development) is the one for which we obtained the least evidence.

However, as the first study on this topic, this research enables an initial approximation based on the participants’ experiences, which is consistent with previous knowledge and can be the basis for further investigation. First, it is in line with the results of previous research on DLGs and IGs which shows their impact on improving students’ academic learning, a better understanding of others and positive coexistence ( García-Carrión, 2015 ; García-Carrión and Díez-Palomar, 2015 ; Garcia et al., 2018 ; Valero et al., 2018 ; Foncillas et al., 2020 ; Zubiri-Esnaola et al., 2020 ). Our study suggests that sharing IGs and DLGs with students with SEN creates new conditions in which these improvements can be promoted. Second, it is aligned with past research on inclusion, which has associated the benefits of inclusive education with classroom practices characterized by interaction, dialogue, and collaboration ( Kefallinou et al., 2020 ), all of which are characteristics of IGs and DLGs and could thus explain the benefits observed. Third, it is in line with theoretical contributions that refer to the relevant role of peer help and other forms of sharing learning interactions. When children try to explain learning content to their peers with SEN or try to help them solve a problem, they expand what Vygotsky called the zone of proximal development (1978) or what Bruner called scaffolding (1996). Both authors emphasized (stemming from the sociocultural theory of learning) the importance of interactions for children’s learning and argued that these interactions could emerge not only from adults but also from more capable peers. Interactions allow for the creation of shared learning ( Mercer and Littleton, 2007 ), and our data indicate that more capable peers can also benefit from these interactions and find opportunities to advance their learning and cognitive development. Indeed, research has suggested thinking of the zone of proximal development not in terms of knowledge transmission, but as an encounter of consciousness that mutually benefits the participants in the interaction ( Roth and Radford, 2010 ).

Although further research is necessary to have a more precise description of the impact of IGs and DLGs for students without SEN when they share these learning environments with students with SEN, the evidence presented can contribute to the understanding that inclusive education not only benefits the most vulnerable students (such as students with disabilities and other SENs), but can also benefit all students when interactions and dialogue are promoted in contexts of diversity. Therefore, it is the right of everyone—with or without SEN—to be educated in inclusive, interactive learning environments, as they produce unique conditions for the academic and human development of all students.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Ethics Board of the Community of Researchers on Excellence for All (CREA). Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants’ legal guardian/next of kin.

Author Contributions

RF conceptualized the research. SM conducted the literature review, a preliminary analysis of the data, and a first draft of the manuscript. JM revised the data analysis. RF, AA, and JM revised the manuscript and provided feedback and corrections. SM revised the final version of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding. This study was funded by INTER-ACT: Interactive learning environments for the inclusion of students with and without disabilities: improving learning, development and relationships, The Spanish National Program for Research Aimed at the Challenges of Society, Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness. Reference Number: EDU2017-88666-R.

• ALLEA (2017). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Available online at: https://www.allea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ALLEA-European-Code-of-Conduct-for-Research-Integrity-2017.pdf [accessed January 5, 2021] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckett A. E. (2009). Challenging disabling attitudes, building an inclusive society: considering the role of education in encouraging non-disabled children to develop positive attitudes towards disabled people. Br. J. Sociol. Educ. 30 317–329. 10.1080/01425690902812596 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bruner J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duque E., Gairal R., Molina S., Roca E. (2020). How psychology of education contributes to research with social impact on the education of students with special needs: the case of successful educational actions. Front. Psychol. 11 : 439 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• European Commission (2013). Ethics for Researchers. Facilitating Research Excellence in FP7. Available online at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89888/ethics-for-researchers_en.pdf [accessed January 5, 2021] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fernández-Villardón A., Álvarez P., Ugalde L., Tellado I. (2020). Fostering the social development of children with special educational needs or disabilities (send) through dialogue and interaction: a literature review. Soc. Sci. 9 : 97 . 10.3390/socsci9060097 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flecha R. (2000). Sharing Words: Theory and Practice of Dialogic Learning. Lanham, M.D: Rowman & Littlefield. [ Google Scholar ]
• Flecha R. (2015). Successful Educational Action for Inclusion and Social Cohesion in Europe. Berlin: Springer. [ Google Scholar ]
• Foncillas M., Santiago-Garabieta M., Tellado I. (2020). Análisis de las tertulias literarias dialógicas en educación primaria: un estudio de caso a través de las voces y dibujos argumentados del alumnado. Multidisciplinary J. Educ. Res. 10 205–225. 10.17583/remie.2020.5645 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcia C., Gairal R., Munté A., Plaja T. (2018). Dialogic literary gatherings and out-of-home child care: creation of new meanings through classic literature. Child Fam. Soc. Work 23 62–70. 10.1111/cfs.12384 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Carrión R. (2015). What the dialogic literary gatherings did for me. Qualitative Inquiry 21 913–919. 10.1177/1077800415614305 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Carrión R., Díez-Palomar J. (2015). Learning communities: pathways for educational success and social transformation through interactive groups in mathematics. Eur. Educ. Res. J. 14 151–166. 10.1177/1474904115571793 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• García-Carrión R., López, de Aguileta G., Padrós M., Ramis-Salas M. (2020). Implications for social impact of dialogic teaching and learning. Front. Psychol. 11 : 140 . [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gómez A., Padrós M., Ríos O., Mara L. C., Pukepuke T. (2019). Reaching social impact through communicative methodology. researching with rather than on vulnerable populations: the roma case. Front. Educ. 4 : 9 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Grütter J., Gasser L., Malti T. (2017). The role of cross-group friendship and emotions in adolescents’ attitudes towards inclusion. Res. Dev. Disabil. 62 137–147. 10.1016/j.ridd.2017.01.004 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hernández Arteaga I., Fernández López K. M., Estela Vasquez A. C., Mestizo Nuzcue E. J. (2020). Educación y solidaridad: un camino hacia la inclusión educativa. Soc. Educ. History 9 227–251. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hienonen N., Lintuvuori M., Jahnukainen M., Hotulainen R., Vainikainen M. P. (2018). The effect of class composition on cross-curricular competences – Students with special educational needs in regular classes in lower secondary education. Learn. Instruction 58 80–87. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.05.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalambouka A., Farrell P., Dyson A., Kaplan I. (2007). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educ. Res. 49 365–382. 10.1080/00131880701717222 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kefallinou A., Symeonidou S., Meijer C. J. W. (2020). Understanding the value of inclusive education and its implementation: a review of the literature. Prospects 49 135–152. 10.1007/s11125-020-09500-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kurth J. A., Miller A. L., Toews S. G., Thompson J. R., Cortés M., Dahal M. H., et al. (2018). Inclusive education: perspectives on implementation and practice from international experts. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 56 471–485. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mercer N., Littleton K. (2007). Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking, a Socio-Cultural Approach. Milton Park: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Messiou K. (2017). Research in the field of inclusive education: time for a rethink? Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 21 146–159. 10.1080/13603116.2016.1223184 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oh-Young C., Filler J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Res. Dev. Disabil. 47 80–92. 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Roth W. M., Radford L. (2010). Re/thinking the zone of proximal development (Symmetrically). Mind Cult. Act. 17 299–307. 10.1080/10749031003775038 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruijs N. M., Peetsma T. T. D. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educ. Res. Rev. 4 67–79. 10.1016/j.edurev.2009.02.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith L. A., Williams J. M. (2001). Children’s understanding of the physicals cognitive and social consequences of impairments. Child Care Health Dev. 27 603–617. 10.1046/j.1365-2214.2001.00236.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smogorzewska J., Szumski G., Grygiel P. (2020). Theory of mind goes to school: does educational environment influence the development of theory of mind in middle childhood? PLoS One 15 : e0237524 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0237524 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Szumski G., Smogorzewska J., Karwowski M. (2017). Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: a meta-analysis. Educ. Res. Rev. 21 33–54. 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tafa E., Manolitsis G. (2003). Attitudes of Greek parents of typically developing kindergarten children towards inclusive education. Eur. J. Special Needs Educ. 18 155–171. 10.1080/0885625032000078952 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for action on special needs education: Adopted by the World Conference on Special Needs Education, Access and Quality. Paris: UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2014). Global Citizenship Education. Preparing learners for the challenges of the 21st century. Paris: UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2017). A Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education. Paris: UNESCO. [ Google Scholar ]
• United Nations (2007). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Available online at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html [accessed January 5, 2021] [ Google Scholar ]
• Valero D., Redondo-Sama G., Elboj C. (2018). Interactive groups for immigrant students: a factor for success in the path of immigrant students. Int. J. Inclusive Educ. 22 787–802. 10.1080/13603116.2017.1408712 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Boston: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zubiri-Esnaola H., Vidu A., Rios-Gonzalez O., Morla-Folch T. (2020). Inclusivity, participation and collaboration: learning in interactive groups. Educ. Res. 62 162–180. 10.1080/00131881.2020.1755605 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Advertisement

Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges

• Open access
• Published: 17 September 2020
• Volume 49 , pages 123–134, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Mel Ainscow 1  

41k Accesses

50 Citations

42 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This article provides an introductory commentary to the papers in this Prospects special issue on inclusive education. In so doing, it stresses the need to be cautious as we read accounts of inclusive education from other parts of the world: whilst lessons can undoubtedly be learned from the accounts in this special issue, they must be adopted with care. There is no doubt that evidence of various kinds can help in identifying the barriers facing some learners and the resources that can be used to overcome these difficulties. However, efforts to promote inclusion and equity within education systems should be based on an analysis of particular contexts. To that end, this article outlines a research-based framework that can be used to carry out such contextual analyses. The article concludes by arguing that an emphasis on inclusion and equity can potentially improve the quality of education for all young people within a national education system.

Similar content being viewed by others

Montessori, Waldorf, and Reggio Emilia: A Comparative Analysis of Alternative Models of Early Childhood Education

Inclusive education: developments and challenges in south africa, the justification for inclusive education in australia.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

The articles in this special issue of Prospects provide fascinating insights into how the global concern to promote inclusion and equity is influencing education policies and practices around the world. In their accounts, the authors shed light on the challenges involved, as well as suggesting ways of addressing these difficulties.

In this introductory commentary, I reflect on these accounts in light of my own experience of developing research protocols to support inclusive developments in many parts of the world. This leads me to suggest several factors that need to be addressed in order to move policies and practices forward. I also underline the importance of contextual factors in shaping the results of education system reform. I argue that this concern with context should be kept in mind, particularly when reading this special issue.

Contexts and perspectives

Despite 25 years of international debate, consensus on inclusive education remains elusive (Ainscow 2020 ). Internationally, it is increasingly seen as a principle that supports and welcomes diversity amongst all learners (UNESCO 2017 ). This view presumes that the aim is to eliminate social exclusion resulting from discriminatory attitudes about race, social class, ethnicity, religion, gender, and ability. As such, it starts from the belief that education is a basic human right and the foundation for a more just society. An emphasis on equity was recently introduced by the Education 2030 Framework for Action (UNESCO 2015 ), which implies a concern with fairness. In the Guide for Ensuring Inclusion and Equity in Education that I helped develop with a team of international experts, we summed this up as follows: every learner matters and matters equally (UNESCO 2017 ).

Differences of perspective regarding what all of this involves are apparent in the accounts of developments included in this special issue of Prospects . We see, for example, that some of the authors focus mainly on finding ways to serve particular groups of children within general education settings—such as children with disabilities or from minority backgrounds—or on how gender affects inclusion. Similarly, most of the articles address learners from low-income families. On the other hand, some of the authors see inclusion more broadly, as a guiding principle. To varying degrees, their perspectives are informed by the intersectional lens explained by Edvina Bešić in this issue. This focuses attention on how the interconnected nature of social categorisations, such as race, class, and gender, leads to discriminatory processes.

These varied perspectives also remind us, in case we forget, that when it comes to understanding and developing education policies and practices, context matters . This means that it is dangerous to make assumptions about what is happening in another country based on experiences in one’s own country.

Learning from differences

The articles show that there are many sources of inequity in education, related to political, economic, social, cultural, and institutional factors and that these factors vary both within and across countries. This means that whilst lessons can undoubtedly be learned from all the accounts, they must be interpreted and replicated with care. To take a specific example, Fullan ( 2007 ) notes that Finland has no system of national testing but, he argues, this does not mean that the absence of testing is always a good thing.

System change strategies being contextually sensitive is one of the pervading themes in the suggestions I make in this article. To illustrate what this means, I return to a book published over 20 years ago, in which my colleague Tony Booth and I analysed the perspectives on inclusion (and exclusion) revealed by members of a team of researchers, in their accounts of schools in eight countries (Booth and Ainscow 1998 ). The study arose from our dissatisfaction with much of the existing comparative education research, much of which sought findings that would have global significance by oversimplifying educational processes and practices, and by ignoring problems of interpretation and translation. We were also concerned about studies that assumed the existence of a single national perspective, rather than reporting the conflicts of interest and points of view that arise in all countries. In these ways, we argued that important differences between and within countries are too often omitted from study and debate.

Given these concerns, we intended for our study of developments in the eight countries to enhance interest in the shaping effect of national and local policies, as well as cultural and linguistic histories, on educational practice. It would do this, we hoped, by extending existing comparative reviews of inclusion through making their viewpoints explicit and illustrating practice in all its messiness. We also set out to challenge the way notions of inclusive education are often interpreted through the narrow, deficit lens of traditional special education.

Booth and I argued that an awareness of viewpoint diversity would avoid two pitfalls of comparative research: the idea that, in any country, there is a single national perspective on inclusion; and the notion that practice can be generalised across countries without attention to local contexts and meanings. The tendency to present single national perspectives, we explained, is often matched by a failure to describe the way practice is to be understood in its local and national context. This is part of a positivist view of social science, in which research carried out in one country can be amalgamated with that of others in order to support generalisable conclusions.

All of this is in marked contrast to the studies we read in this special issue of Prospects : to varying degrees and in different ways, these studies attempt to draw out nuances of the meaning of policy and practice in particular countries. In some cases, this means listening directly to the voices of those involved, not least those of children and young people. Rather than reducing the potential contribution of research conducted in unfamiliar contexts, careful analysis of these differences in perspective, context, and meaning enhances their value.

Learning from experience

As a consultant to UNESCO over the last 30 years or so, I have had the privilege of working with colleagues in many countries, using research to foster greater inclusion and equity within education systems. I call the approach I have developed in carrying out this work “collaborative inquiry” (Ainscow 1999 ). Put simply, it involves stakeholders in generating and engaging with evidence to inform their efforts.

Based on the adage that the best way to understand an organisation is by trying to change it, my experiences have shed light on the factors that can facilitate or limit the progress of inclusive education. These experiences led me to formulate a framework for thinking about how to promote inclusion and equity within education systems (see Figure  1 ). Amended from an earlier version (Ainscow 2005 ), the framework places schools at the centre of the analysis. This reinforces the point that moves towards inclusion must focus on increasing the capacity of local neighbourhood mainstream schools to support the participation and learning of an increasingly diverse range of learners. This is the paradigm shift that I have previously described as an “inclusive turn” (Ainscow 2007 ). There, I argued that moves towards inclusion are about the development of schools, rather than attempts to integrate vulnerable groups of students into existing arrangements.

A framework for contextual analysis in relation to inclusion and equity

At the same time, the framework draws attention to a range of contextual factors that bear on the way schools carry out their work: (1) the principles that guide policy priorities within an education system, (2) the criteria used to evaluate the performance of schools, and (3) the views and actions of others within the local context, including members of the wider community that the schools serve, and the staff of national and local education departments responsible for the coordination of the education system. As I will explain, these influences may provide support and encouragement to those in schools who wish to move in an inclusive direction. However, they can also act as obstacles to progress.

In what follows, each of these five factors is explained, leading to a series of key ideas to consider when analysing a particular context in order to develop future policies. These ideas are guided by a belief that inclusion and equity should not be seen as separate policies. Rather, they should be viewed as principles that inform all national education policies, particularly those that deal with the curriculum, assessment, supervision, school evaluation, teacher education, and budgets. They must also inform all stages of education, from early years through to higher education.

Inclusion and equity as principles

Terms such as “equity” and “inclusion” can be confusing since they may mean different things to different people. This is a particular problem when trying to move forward with others—particularly in schools, where everybody is so busy. Put simply, if there is not a shared understanding of the intended direction of travel, progress will be more difficult. There is, therefore, a need to agree on definitions of these concepts.

In establishing a definition for strategic purposes, our earlier research (Ainscow et al. 2006 ) led us to suggest that inclusion in education should be:

Seen as a process. Inclusion has to be seen as a never-ending search to find better ways of responding to diversity. It is about learning how to live with difference and learning how to learn from difference. In this way, differences come to be seen more positively as a stimulus for fostering learning, amongst both children and adults.

Concerned with the identification and removal of barriers. It involves collecting, collating, and evaluating information from a wide variety of sources within particular contexts, in order to plan for improvements in policy and practice. It is also about using evidence of various kinds to stimulate creativity and problem-solving.

Focused on improving the presence, participation, and achievement of all students. Here, presence is concerned with where children are educated, and with how reliably and punctually they attend; participation relates to the quality of their experiences whilst they are there and thus must incorporate the views of the learners themselves; and achievement is about the outcomes of learning across the curriculum, not merely test or examination results.

Involve a particular emphasis on those groups of learners who may be at risk of marginalisation, exclusion, or underachievement. This indicates the moral responsibility to ensure that those groups that are statistically most at risk are carefully monitored, and that, where necessary, steps are taken to ensure their presence, participation, and achievement within the education system. At the same time, there is a need to keep an eye out for learners who may be overlooked.

My experience is that a well-orchestrated debate about these elements can lead to a wider understanding of the principle of inclusion. Though such debate is by its nature slow and possibly eternal, it can help foster the conditions within which schools can feel encouraged to move in a more inclusive direction. Crucially, this process must seek to involve all stakeholders, including families, communities, political and religious leaders, and the media. It must also involve those within national and local education district offices.

The use of evidence

In order to address concerns about access and equity in education systems, it is important to know who is included, who is segregated, and who is excluded from schooling. Without such evidence, there can be no accountability. However, when data collection efforts are only focused on particular categories of learners, there is a risk of promoting deficit views of students who share certain characteristics or come from similar backgrounds. Put simply, the focus is on what is wrong with the child, rather than more fundamental questions, such as why are we failing some learners or what are the barriers experienced by some of our students .

Engaging with evidence regarding these challenging questions, including the views of children and their families, has the potential to stimulate efforts to find more effective ways of promoting the participation and progress of all learners (Ainscow and Messiou 2017 ). Data on contextual factors are also needed, including resources and facilities, and on attitudes, beliefs, and social relationships. With the growing technological capacity to handle large amounts of different types of data, it is increasingly possible to generate information about the many influences that affect the inclusion, segregation, and exclusion of students within education systems. Focusing on these factors can help create the conditions for promoting inclusion and equity.

With this in mind, I suggest a different way of responding to learner diversity, one that views it in relation to barriers that exist within a given context, and to opportunities to enhance and democratise learning opportunities, processes, and outcomes. This leads me to argue that the extent to which students’ experiences are inclusive and equitable is not only dependent on the educational practices of their schools. Instead, it depends on a whole range of interacting processes that reach into the school from outside. These include the demographics of the areas served by schools, the histories and cultures of the populations who send (or fail to send) their children to a school, and the economic and social realities faced by those populations.

It is therefore helpful to generate evidence that addresses three interlinked sets of factors that impact the participation and learning of students: within - school factors such as existing policies and practices, between - school factors that arise from the characteristics of local school systems, and beyond - school factors , including the demographics, economics, cultures, and histories of local areas—all with a focus on reducing inequalities. We have defined this simple framework as “an ecology of equity” (Ainscow et al. 2012 ).

School development

There is no single model of what an inclusive school looks like. What is common to highly inclusive schools, however, is that they are welcoming and supportive places for all of their students, not least those with disabilities and others who sometimes find learning difficult. This does not prevent these schools from being committed to improving the achievements of all of their students. Indeed, they tend to have a range of strategies for strengthening achievements that are typical of those employed by all effective schools, and an emphasis on supporting vulnerable students does not appear to inhibit these strategies (Dyson et al. 2004 ). A key factor is the emphasis placed on tracking and supporting the progress of all students.

The implication is that schools need to be reformed and practices need to be improved in ways that will lead them to respond positively to student diversity: seeing individual differences not as problems to be fixed but as opportunities for enriching learning. Within such a conceptualisation, considering students’ difficulties can provide an agenda for change and insights into how such changes might be brought about. Moreover, this kind of approach is more likely to be successful in contexts where there is a culture of collaboration that encourages and supports problem-solving (Ainscow 2016b ; Skrtic 1991 ). According to this view, the development of inclusive practices is seen as involving those within a particular context in working together to address barriers to education experienced by some learners.

This means that attempts to develop inclusive schools should pay attention to the building of consensus around inclusive values within school communities. It implies that school leaders should be selected in the light of their commitment to inclusive values and their capacity to lead in a participatory manner (Riehl 2000 ). Finally, the external policy environment should be compatible with inclusive developments, in order to support rather than to undermine schools’ efforts.

Involving the wider community

In order to foster inclusion and equity in education, governments need to mobilise human and financial resources, some of which may not be under their direct control. Forming partnerships amongst key stakeholders who can support the process of change is therefore essential. These stakeholders include: parents/caregivers; teachers and other education professionals; teacher trainers and researchers; national, local, and school-level administrators and managers; policy-makers and service providers in other sectors (e.g., health, child protection, and social services); civic groups in the community; and members of minority groups that are at risk of exclusion.

Family involvement is particularly crucial. In some countries, parents and education authorities already cooperate closely in developing community-based programmes for certain groups of learners, such as those who are excluded because of their gender, social status, or impairments (Miles 2002 ). A logical next step is for families to become involved in supporting change for developing inclusion in schools.

Where parents lack the confidence or skills to participate in such developments, it might be necessary to engage and build capacity and networks. This could include the creation of parent support groups, training parents to work with their children, or building the advocacy skills of parents to negotiate with schools and authorities. Here, it is worth adding that there is evidence that the views of families, including children themselves, can be helpful in energising the efforts of schools to develop more inclusive ways of working.

All of this means changing how families and communities work and enriching what they offer to children. In this respect, there are many encouraging examples of what can happen when what schools do is aligned in a coherent strategy with the efforts of other local players—employers, community groups, universities, and public services (Kerr et al. 2014 ). This does not necessarily mean schools doing more, but it does imply partnerships beyond the school, where partners multiply the impacts of each other’s efforts.

With this argument in mind, my Manchester colleagues Alan Dyson and Kirstin Kerr have explored the idea of area-based initiatives, modelled on the principles underpinning the highly acclaimed Harlem Children’s Zone in the USA (Dyson and Kerr 2013 ). This work involves attempts to improve outcomes for children and young people in areas of disadvantage, through an approach characterised as “doubly holistic”. That is to say, it seeks to develop coordinated efforts to tackle the factors that disadvantage children and enhance the factors which support them, across all aspects of their lives and across their life spans, from conception through to adulthood.

All of this has implications for the various key stakeholders within education systems. In particular teachers, especially those in senior positions, have to see themselves as having a wider responsibility for all children, not just those who attend their own schools. They also have to develop patterns of internal organisation that enable them to have the flexibility to cooperate with other schools and with stakeholders beyond the school gate. It means, too, that those who administer school systems have to adjust their priorities and ways of working, in response to improvement efforts led from within schools.

Education departments

Policy is made at all levels of an education system, not least at the school and classroom levels (Ainscow et al. 2020 ). Furthermore, the promotion of equity and inclusion is not simply a technical or organisational change—it is a movement in a clear philosophical direction. Moving to more inclusive ways of working therefore requires changes across an education system. These span from shifts in policy-makers’ values and ways of thinking, which enable them to provide a vision shaping a culture of inclusion, to significant changes within schools and the communities they serve.

A culture of inclusion within an education system requires a shared set of assumptions and beliefs amongst senior staff at the national, district, and school level that value differences, believe in collaboration, and are committed to offering educational opportunities to all students. However, changing the cultural norms that exist within an education system is difficult to achieve, particularly within a context that is faced with so many competing pressures and where practitioners tend to work alone in addressing the problems they face. Therefore, leaders at all levels, including those in civil society and other sectors, have to be prepared to analyse their own situations, identify local barriers and facilitators, plan an appropriate development process, and provide support for inclusive practices and effective strategies for monitoring equity in education.

National and district administrators have particularly important roles in promoting inclusive ways of managing schools and education processes. In particular, they need to establish the conditions for challenging non-inclusive, discriminatory educational practices. They also need to build consensus and commitment towards putting the principle of inclusion into practice.

There is also evidence that school-to-school collaboration can strengthen the capacity of individual organisations to respond to learner diversity (Ainscow 2016a ; Muijs et al. 2011 ). Specifically, collaboration between schools can help reduce the polarisation of schools, to the particular benefit of those students who are marginalised at the edges of the system. In addition, when schools seek to develop more collaborative ways of working, this can have an impact on how teachers perceive themselves and their work (Rosenholtz 1989 ). Specifically, comparisons of practices in different schools can lead teachers to view underachieving students in a new light. In this way, learners who cannot easily be educated within the school’s established routines are not seen as “having problems”, but as challenging teachers to re-examine their practices to make them more responsive and flexible.

Local coordination is therefore needed in order to encourage this form of area-based collaboration. Here, it is significant that a recent study found that four of the most successful national education systems—Estonia, Finland, Ontario (Canada), and Singapore—all have well-developed systems for coordinating local school districts, regardless of their differing extents of school autonomy or devolution of decision-making (Bubb et al. 2019 ). In particular, they all have district-level structures that seek to ensure equity as well as excellence.

All of this points to the importance of how financial resources are allocated within education systems. This can be crucial in creating the flexibility within schools to encourage the sorts of experimentation I have described. Alternatively, it can lead to further segregation, with resources used to provide separate attention for some students—within the school or in separate special schools or classes. In this sense, finance is another powerful lever for change (Meijer and Watkins 2019 ).

Drawing the lessons

In summary, then, I have learned five key lessons about promoting equity and inclusion:

Policies should be based on clear and widely understood definitions of what the terms equity and inclusion mean.

Strategies should be informed by evidence regarding the impact of current practices on the presence, participation, and achievement of all students.

There should be an emphasis on whole-school approaches, in which teachers are supported in developing inclusive practices.

Policies should draw on the experience and expertise of everybody who has an involvement in the lives of children, including families and the children themselves.

Education departments, locally and nationally, must provide leadership in the promotion of equity and inclusion as principles that guide the work of teachers in all schools.

It is encouraging that similar ideas are presented in the GEM 2020 Report, which is summarised in this issue of Prospects . They indicate that the promotion of inclusion and equity in education is less about the introduction of particular techniques or new organisational arrangements, and much more about the processes of social learning within particular contexts. As such, it requires a culture of inclusion to permeate the education system. It is, therefore, likely to involved a radical challenge to existing thinking within education systems.

Making this happen will require powerful change strategies. And, as I have stressed throughout this article, such strategies have to be developed in particular contexts by analysing evidence that clarifies the barriers experienced by learners. At the same time, this form of analysis is likely to identify resources—particularly human resources—that can be mobilised to address these difficulties.

All of this has major implications for leadership practice within schools and across educational systems, which must be ethics-based (Harris et al. 2017 ). In particular, it calls for coordinated and sustained efforts around the idea that outcomes for vulnerable groups of students are unlikely to change unless there are changes in the attitudes and behaviours of adults. Consequently, the starting point must be those adults: enlarging their capacity to imagine what might be achieved, then increasing their sense of accountability for bringing it about. This may also involve tackling taken-for-granted assumptions, most often relating to expectations about certain groups of students, their capabilities, and their behaviours.

Reaching out to all learners

Those involved in advancing this radical agenda for change may find it helpful to look at the resource pack Reaching Out to All Learners , which I developed with colleagues at UNESCO’s International Bureau of Education (available free at: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/resources/ibe-crp-inclusiveeducation-2016_eng.pdf ). Drawing on international research evidence of the sort I have mentioned in this article, these materials are intended to influence and support inclusive thinking and practices at all levels of an education system. Consequently, they are designed to be relevant to teachers, school leaders, district-level administrators, teacher educators, and national policy makers.

The resource pack is intended to be used flexibly, in response to contexts that are at different stages of development and where resources vary. With this in mind, it emphasises active learning processes, within which those who use the materials are encouraged to work collaboratively, helping one another to review and develop their thinking and practices. Extensive use is made of examples from different parts of the world, to encourage the development of new ways to reach out to all learners. In this way, inclusion and equity are seen as pathways to the overall improvement of education systems.

This issue of Prospects

As I have argued, policy is made at all levels of an education system. It is appropriate, therefore, that the articles in this special issue on inclusive education probe deeply into the developments and challenges that the authors encountered as they analysed particular contexts around the world.

Starting at a macro level, Maha Khochen-Bagshaw uses her lived experiences as an international consultant to write about progress across the Middle East and North Africa, Umesh Sharma examines developments in the Pacific region, and Ignacio Calderón-Almendros and his colleagues analyse challenges and opportunities in Latin America. Each of these articles throw light on patterns that are evident across countries that share cultural, religious, and linguistic similarities. At the same time, they warn that such similarities should not prevent us from looking more closely at what happens within countries. This reminds us that policies are influenced by national histories.

Some of the articles focus on the role of policy within contexts that are seen as being at the vanguard of progress in relation to inclusion and equity. For example, Dario Ianes and his colleagues explain how the Italian government passed a law in 1977 that closed all special schools, units, and other non-inclusive provisions. Whilst thinking and practice varies from place to place within Italy, the principle of inclusion is widely accepted. The province of New Brunswick in Canada is frequently quoted as an example of a system that has pioneered the concept of inclusive education through legislation, local authority policies, and professional guidelines. In their account, Angela AuCoin, Gordon Porter, and Kimberly Korotkov explain that change has been a difficult process, requiring long periods of sustained effort and collaboration amongst a variety of stakeholders and partners. Meanwhile, the article on Portugal by Ines Alves and her colleagues explains how recent legislation requires that the provision of supports for all students be determined, managed, and provided at the regular school level, developed with local multidisciplinary teams.

Other articles examine how political factors have influenced progress in relation to inclusion and equity. This is particularly evident in Petra Engelbrecht’s analysis of developments in South Africa, which, she explains, have to be understood in relation to broader political, social, and cultural developments since the end of Apartheid. In their account of developments in Australia, Christopher Boyle and Joanna Anderson argue that current reform agendas situate inclusive education against , rather than alongside, other prevailing policies. And in their analysis of current developments in another Canadian province, Nova Scotia, Jess Whitley and Trista Hollweck explain how the inclusion agenda has broadened to focus on all students, particularly those most often marginalised by and within school systems.

Some of the articles take us closer to the action in the field, using accounts of the experiences of individual learners. In discussing the limitations inherent in the policy framework in the USA, Doug Biklen draws on autobiographical accounts of students with disabilities. He concludes that, nationally, inclusion is uneven and is much less available for students of colour, immigrant youth, and students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. In their account of what they call “street-connected young people” in Kenya, Su Corcoran and her colleagues draw attention to a group of learners who are too often overlooked.

Finally, a strength of all of the articles is the way that authors relate their arguments to relevant international literature, whilst at the same time drawing attention to local sources. This provides a rich source of further information for readers. In addition, the article by Anthoula Kefallinou and her colleagues at the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education offers helpful advice on using research evidence to understand the why and how of inclusive education, whilst Edvina Bešić explains the relevance of the idea of intersectionality.

Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools . London: Falmer.

Google Scholar  

Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change , 6 (2), 109–124.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ainscow, M. (2007). Taking an inclusive turn. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7 (1), 3–7.

Ainscow, M. (2016a). Struggles for equity in education: The selected works of Mel Ainscow . London: Routledge World Library of Educationalists Series.

Ainscow, M. (2016b). Collaboration as a strategy for promoting equity in education: Possibilities and barriers. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 1 (2), 159–172.

Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. The Nordic Journal of Studies on Educational Policy, 6 (1), 7–16.

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Frankham, J., Gallannaugh, F., et al. (2006). Improving schools, developing inclusion . London: Routledge.

Book   Google Scholar  

Ainscow, M., Chapman, C., & Hadfield, M. (2020). Changing education systems: A research-based approach . London: Routledge.

Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. (2012). Developing equitable education systems . London: Routledge.

Ainscow, M., & Messiou, K. (2017). Engaging with the views of students to promote inclusion in education. Journal of Educational Change, 19 (1), 1–17.

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (Eds.). (1998). From them to us: An international study of inclusion in education . London: Routledge.

Bubb, S., Crossley-Holland, J., Cordiner, J., Cousin, S., & Earley, P. (2019). Understanding the middle tier: Comparative costs of academy and LA-maintained school systems . London: Sara Bubb Associates.

Dyson, A., Howes, A., & Roberts, B. (2004). What do we really know about inclusive schools? A systematic review of the research evidence. In D. Mitchell (Ed.), Special educational needs and inclusive education: Major themes in education (pp. 279–294). London: Routledge.

Dyson, A., & Kerr, K. (2013). Developing children’s zones for England. What’s the evidence? . London: Save the Children.

Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Harris, J., Carrington, S., Ainscow, M., Comber, B., Ehrich, L., Klenowski, V., et al. (2017). Promoting equity in schools: Collaboration, inquiry and ethical leadership . London: Routledge.

Kerr, K., Dyson, A., & Raffo, C. (2014). Education, disadvantage and place: Making the local matter . Bristol: Policy Press.

Meijer, C. J. W., & Watkins, A. (2019). Financing special needs and inclusive education: From Salamanca to the present. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23 (7/8), 705–721.

Miles, S. (2002). Family action for inclusion in education . Manchester: Enabling Education Network.

Muijs, D., Ainscow, M., Chapman, C., & West, M. (2011). Collaboration and networking in education . London: Springer.

Riehl, C. J. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70 (1), 55–81.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools . New York, NY: Longman.

Skrtic, T. (1991). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization . Denver, CO: Love.

UNESCO (2015). Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. Paris: UNESCO. http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/education-2030-incheon-framework-for-action-implementation-of-sdg4-2016-en_2.pdf .

UNESCO (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education . Paris: UNESCO.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Glasgow, 11 Eldon St, Glasgow, G3 6NH, UK

Mel Ainscow

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mel Ainscow .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team .

About this article

Ainscow, M. Inclusion and equity in education: Making sense of global challenges. Prospects 49 , 123–134 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09506-w

Download citation

Accepted : 14 August 2020

Published : 17 September 2020

Issue Date : November 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09506-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Contextual analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 02 June 2023

The concept of inclusive education from the point of view of academics specialising in special education at Saudi universities

• Abdullah Madhesh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7820-1820 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  278 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

10k Accesses

7 Citations

266 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Health humanities

Inclusive education is one modern trend that many countries seek to adopt as an innovative concept and pursue to practice as an application in conjunction with scientific progress, the education of people with disabilities, and in order to fulfil and abide by the relevant international conventions. As a result, this study aims to discover what inclusive education means among Saudi universities and academics specialising in special education. To achieve the goal of the study, qualitative research was used by employing semi-structured interviews as the single elementary tool for data collection by interviewing the study sample, which consisted of 12 faculty members specialising in special education. Through complete analysis, the study reached a set of general results, which is the presence of ambiguity in the concept of inclusive education among the participants, with confusion between the concept of inclusive education and some other concepts such as “integration,” “mainstreaming,” and “placement.” In addition, there is a belief that there is a correlation between the concept of inclusive education and special education. Finally, the study concluded with some recommendations on the topic of research.

Similar content being viewed by others

Impact of artificial intelligence on human loss in decision making, laziness and safety in education

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Participatory action research

Introduction.

Inclusive education is one of the recent trends that many international organisations interested in educating people with disabilities seek to promote in various educational systems around the world. Therefore, many relevant international organisations have urged the need to adopt this concept as a cornerstone in any educational system that seeks to be an integral part of the global education system and other related human rights, such as the right to citizenship and the right to belonging. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 stated that education is a human right for everyone (Munongi, 2022 ). Specifically, with regard to inclusive education, in 1994, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) organised its international conference in Salamanca, Spain, under the title “The International Conference on Education for People with Special Needs: Access and Quality,” which resulted in the 1994 Salamanca statement and framework. This statement was signed by 92 countries and 25 international organisations. The main objective of this statement was to promote and develop inclusive education systems globally (Ainscow et al. 2019 ).

Historically, there is no specific starting point for the concept of inclusive education agreed upon by scholars and specialists in this field, and several factors contributed to the emergence of this concept. Factors include questions about special education practices, medical and psychological practices towards people with disabilities, the emergence of some social theories, such as critical and social theory, and the rise of disability studies (Slee, 2011 ). However, many scholars agree that the Salamanca statement and framework of 1994 played a critical role in inclusive education and was a strong milestone for the concept of inclusive education globally. (Magnússon, 2019 ).

Subsequently, many successful efforts contributed to the promotion of inclusive education. One of which was the invitation of UNESCO in 2000 to the concept of education for all and the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by the United Nations (UNCRPD) (Rieser, 2012 ). Another was the adoption of procedural evidence for the enactment of laws and legislation for inclusive education in 2009 by UNESCO. Finally, the adoption of the World Education Forum included several goals: (a) the right to education, (b) equality in education, (c) inclusive education, (d) quality education, and (e) lifelong learning (Madhesh, 2019 ).

Inclusive education in Saudi Arabia

Despite Saudi Arabia’s signing of the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994 ), inclusive education still faces a great deal of uncertainty in the Saudi context at both a theoretical and practical level. Madhesh ( 2019 ) confirmed that the Regulations of Special Education Programs and Institutes (RSEPI) in Saudi Arabia did not adopt the concept of inclusive education, nor did it provide a clear stipulation, but it does promote special education and its concepts in all theoretical and practical aspects. Indeed, many practices of exclusion in Saudi education are labelled as inclusive, riding the wave of the global trend toward inclusive education (Madhesh, 2019 ). However, some efforts are currently seeking to promote the concept and practices of Inclusive education in the correct manner compatible with relevant global philosophies, including the current study.

Definition of inclusive education

Inclusive education does not have a single, universally agreed-upon definition, as explained by Roger Slee in his famous book The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling, and inclusive education (Slee, 2011 ). Bates et al. ( 2015 , p. 1929) argue that “there is, as yet, no consensus about what inclusive education is or how it should be implemented in schools.” The absence of a unified definition of inclusive education was attributed to several reasons. These reasons varied based on the diversity of each research school that touched on this aspect. For example, Loreman et al. ( 2014 ) attributed this absence to a fundamental reason, including the lack of a unified definition of inclusive education approved by relevant international organisations. On the other hand, Jahnukainen ( 2015 ) emphasised that the lack of a unified definition of inclusive education is due to the overlap and confusion in the use of various and multiple terms such as “integration,” “mainstreaming,” and “placement” as well as the variation in terms from one country to another and one educational system to another.

In addition, the lack of agreement on a unified definition of inclusive education may be attributed to the divergence of view. This perspective has caused several debates regarding the concept of inclusive education itself in terms of acknowledgment of its importance or opposition to its generalisation and adoption by specialists in the field. However, various factors and efforts have contributed to the emergence of many definitions of inclusive education that share some of their general concepts. They all aim to reach a concept that is applied and practiced rather than theorised.

One of the most important factors that contributed to the clear vision of the concept of inclusive education, the diversity, and the multiplicity of its definitions is the diversity of international institutions and research schools. Each sought to create a definition commensurate with its orientations towards this concept. In these limited subsequent lines, I will review some definitions to reach a concept that contains the basics that must be present for this practice to be called inclusive education. To begin, one important definition, which was introduced at the Salamanca Conference in 1994, concluded with the definition of inclusive education as a process of solving and responding to the different needs of all students. Society as a whole focuses more on teaching and learning processes while also accepting different cultures and societies so that people are perceived to be less excluded from the education system and society in general. The process includes changes and treatments of content, curriculum, structure, and strategy. This process holds a common vision that includes all children of the same age with the sole and complete belief that the regular education system is responsible for educating all children while meeting their diversity and educational needs (Ainscow et al. 2013 ).

In 2009, the International Conference on Education included an additional definition of inclusive education. It was introduced as a process in which regular schools and all early-year environments are transformed and adapted so that all children and students are supported to meet their expectations and academic and social needs. This includes the removal of all barriers in diverse environments, communication, and interaction, curricula, teaching, socialisation, and assessment at all levels (Forlin, 2013 ). One of the important definitions in this field, although it may be seen as more general than others, is what Loreman and Deppeler ( 2002 ) tended to, that inclusive education is a right of all students with disabilities and including these students in order to obtain the same educational services provided to non-disabled students in the same classrooms with celebration and acceptance of difference and diversity. Ainscow et al. ( 2006 ) define inclusive education as the reduction of barriers to learning, the full participation of all students, and an increase in the school’s ability to accommodate all students regardless of their differences. This is an effort to treat them in ways that reflect that they are of equal value and status.

Indeed, the definitions, as mentioned earlier, are many and varied, but I must conclude with points mentioned by Loreman ( 2009 ) as characteristics that distinguish inclusive education as a distinctive practice from others. These factors can be summarised in the following:

All children can enrol at the closest school to their home.

All schools have a “zero-rejection policy” when it comes to enrolling and educating children at the school closest to their homes. All students are welcome and appreciated.

All children learn in regular and heterogeneous classrooms with peers of the same age.

All children follow substantially similar study programmes, with curricula that can be adapted and modified if necessary and teaching methods varied to respond to all needs without discrimination.

All children participate fully in regular educational activities and events in schools and classrooms with a celebration and appreciation of diversity in these classrooms.

All children are supported to make friends and achieve social success with their peers.

Adequate resources and training shall be provided to all specialists and stakeholders within the school, classroom, and educational district to support the proper implementation of inclusive education.

This study implements the above definition as a valid concept of inclusive education that is used as a criterion for studying and analysing the responses of the participants in this study along with the theoretical framework of this study (as discussed below). A condition for achieving an accurate practice of inclusive education, in addition to this definition, is the availability of two methodologies, including the following: The flexible curriculum strategy, as the definition above clarifies. The need to implement the differentiation strategy, which entails planning and developing a variety of inclusionary teaching methods in an interactive manner by attending to the needs of every student, as well as assessing each student’s performance according to their study plan and abilities, but there are no universal assessment standards for all students.

Indeed, many people who specialise in or are interested in disability studies have an issue with the idea of inclusive education since it can be ambiguous or confused with other ideas. These misunderstandings may have a significant impact on this concept in several ways. This includes the existence of a clear and approved definition, advocacy of the importance of activating it, seeking to enhance its practices and monitoring, and evaluating these practices in accordance with the scientific research practices they are based on. As a result, this study aims to eliminate the confusion and overlap surrounding the idea of inclusive education while also attempting to provide clear images and practices that have been developed and clarified by numerous scholars and specialists in this field worldwide. This is because the foundation for the validity of any practice in educational systems is the presence of a clear and accurate definition of such practice. Slee and Tait ( 2022 ) asserted that inclusive education is a global movement that has no rigid definition and is “contingent-changing” with the demands of specific aspects such as the country, politics, economy, time, and culture, despite the fact that this study is only focused on a Saudi setting. However, despite the dedication of many nations to inclusive education and the countless academic studies that have been done in this field since the Salamanca statement (1994), inclusive education still encounters the same problems and obstacles in many nations throughout the world.

Consequently, this study was guided by the following research question: what does Inclusive Education mean among Saudi university academics specialising in special education?

The theoretical framework of this study

This study uses Roger Slee’s inclusive education theory (Slee, 2011 , 2018b ) as a conceptual and philosophical framework. This framework had an impact on this study in a number of ways, including how it defined the problem, developed the main question, analysed the data, and then interpreted and connected it to a related literature review. This theory highlights a number of ideas, including the idea that every person has the right to receive appropriate and adequate educational services in public classrooms at the closest school to their house, regardless of their needs or ability. This concept also resists all forms of segregation and discrimination in educational organisations. One of the ideas in this theory is the ambiguity in the definition of inclusive education and how it overlaps with other ideas like “integration,” “placement,” and “accommodation.” Through this process, some special education practices are coloured and made to feel more like inclusive education, leading to practices that are carried out under the name of inclusive education but do not actually fit into it. Another concept that was adopted by this study is that inclusive education and special education are opposites to each other, and their practices are inversely related and not, as some portray it, as part of a whole.

Methodology

The method used in this study is the qualitative approach. This approach was employed due to the researcher’s quest to reach a deeper understanding of the concepts of inclusive education among the participants. Denzin and Lincoln ( 2017 ) emphasised that qualitative research has the greatest potential to provide a deep understanding of the issues surrounding the topic of research. Moreover, qualitative research allows the researcher to hear directly from participants’ experiences and perceptions about their personal experiences without going through other data collection methods (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015 ). Finally, this study seeks to allow hearing from the participants directly and to give them the opportunity to express all of their opinions without directing or determining their responses or being influenced by the limited responses, as sometimes happens in questionnaires.

Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data in this study for several reasons. The researcher will summarise the discussion here on the most important reasons. First lies in the interview feature as a tool that provides a deep knowledge of the investigated phenomenon that goes beyond the researcher’s current assumptions about this phenomenon (Josselson, 2013 ). Second, because different people have different perspectives and backgrounds, conducting interviews is a highly effective method that can be used to collect a lot of information that is interesting, useful, and pertinent to the research phenomenon. As a result, the information gathered through the interviews contributes to the researcher’s knowledge and insight. Third, it supports understanding alternative perspectives on this phenomenon (Brennen, 2021 ).

To carry out the interviews, the researcher followed specific steps. First, the participants determined the time of the interview. All interviews were conducted remotely using the Google Meet application. The researcher recorded the interviews after notifying the participants of this intention and also took notes during the interview. Each interview took between 45 and 60 min. The main interview questions focused on the following:

How do you define inclusive education?

Can you give me some examples of inclusive education practices?

Is there a difference between inclusive education and special education?

Do you think there are inclusive education practices in the Saudi context? Can you mention some examples?

Study sample (participants)

This study used a purposive sampling strategy to select the participants. This strategy allows the selection of a participant who can provide the required data that adds the required quality, credibility, and rationality to the study (Padgett, 2016 ). As a result, there was a set of inclusion criteria for selecting participants, namely: (a) to have a doctorate, (b) to be a specialist in the education of people with disabilities, (c) to be a facility member in the special education department at any Saudi governmental university. The number of participants reached was 12 facility members from 7 universities. The variation in years of experience and discipline among the participants did not affect the responses. The collected data showed no variation that might be attributed to this diversity.

Table 1 shows some demographic information about the participants in this study so that the following coding (FM: Faculty Member) was used in the sense of a faculty member in order to preserve the privacy and confidentiality of the participants and in line with the ethics of the research:

Data analysis

The thematic analysis (ta) procedures and validation.

The researcher employed the deductive approach in dealing with the collected data using the Thematic Analysis (TA) six-phased method (Braun and Clarke, 2006 ). The researcher read all transcripts severally to familiarise himself with the data while simultaneously evoking the theory and definition that the researcher adopted in this study, Roger Slee’s inclusive education theory (Slee, 2011 , 2018b ). Loreman ( 2009 ) definition, in addition to the availability of the two strategies, is a flexible approach and differentiation in assessment. In this regard, Braun and Clarke ( 2012 , p. 58) argued that a deductive approach to data coding and analysis is a top-down approach, where the researcher brings to the data a series of concepts, ideas, or topics that they use to code and interpret the data.

During the reading circle phase, the researcher highlighted and coded all the meanings of inclusive education, whether explicitly or implicitly mentioned. After that, the researcher classified the highlighted codes, generated three experiential themes, and named them: identical definition, the ambiguity of definition, and relationship conception. Wiltshire and Ronkainen ( 2021 ) pointed out that experiential themes are created by describing participants’ viewpoints and beliefs about the phenomena being studied.

For validation, the three experiential themes were sent to three academics and seven participants for their opinions (Scharp and Sanders, 2019 ). After collecting their feedback, the first theme was changed by adding the word “close” to become ‘identical or close definition.’ They argued that some definitions do not fully coincide with the concept of inclusive education but are close to it.

After applying the procedures for analysing the collected data according to what was explained above, the study reached a set of results that will be presented according to the previously classified themes:

Identical or close definition

By analysing the manuscript of all interviews (12 interviews), the participants did not appear to have a concept of inclusive education completely identical to the definition adopted in this study, but there were only two responses that were reasonably close to this definition. FM8 emphasised that inclusive education “is the inclusion of the child with disabilities in the general classification with his normal peers of the same age, with the necessity of having an individual plan for his education while providing all the capabilities he needs, and that this classroom is close to the child’s home” (FM8, line 9–10). On the other hand, FM10 stated that inclusive education “means integrating the student in the regular classroom in the neighbourhood school with students of the same age and providing all the services needed to participate effectively” (FM10, line 6).

Through the analysis of the two definitions above, it is clear that the concept of inclusive education among the participants (FM8 and FM10) is somewhat close, with the absence of mentioning some specifications and requirements to fully conform to the inclusive education concept, such as the following: applying the flexible curriculum, promoting the full participation of all students, affirming that every student is valued, celebrating difference and diversity while using differentiation in student assessment.

Ambiguity of definition

It became clear through the analysis of the collected data that there is ambiguity and confusion in the definition of inclusive education among 10 out of 12 participants, i.e., 83%. This ambiguity appeared through the response of the participants, as it was represented in two basic forms. The first is the lack of clarity on the concept of inclusive education among some participants. For example, FM7 stated that inclusive education is “giving an opportunity to all students that they have the right to education and to overcome all difficulties for their academic success in the least restrictive environment that the student can fit in” (FM7, line 5–7). In addition, both (FM3) and (FM6) emphasised that inclusive education means the least restrictive environment. Through these responses, it became clear that there is ambiguity in the concept of inclusive education among some of the participants in this study.

On the other hand, it became clear that there is great confusion between inclusion and integration among the participants, as this was evident in the responses of 6 participants, they are (FM2, FM 4, FM5, FM9, FM11, FM12). Here are some examples of these responses: FM2 mentioned that inclusive education “is the integrating of students with disabilities into the regular classroom, taking into account the capabilities of the student before this integrating in terms of the degree of his/her disability, whether it allows him/her or not” (PM2, line 5–7). In addition, FM4 defined inclusive education as “integrating students with disabilities whose abilities allow them to be with ordinary students so that they are closer to the education of ordinary students” (FM4, line 3–4). Participant FM5 stated that the concept of inclusive education “is placing people with disabilities in the regular classroom, in short” (FM5, line 3). The previous examples are sufficient in this study to illustrate a situation that is widespread among some specialists in special education departments, which is the confusion between some concepts such as “inclusion,” “integration,” “mainstreaming,” and “placement.”

Relationship conception

Analysing all the participants’ responses about the nature of the relationship between inclusive and special education, it became clear that most participants (11 out of 12 participants) confirmed the existence of a relationship between these two concepts. For example, 7 participants emphasised that inclusive education is a part of special education, as this was evident in the responses of each of them (FM1, FM2, FM3, FM5, FM6, FM9, and FM12). On the other hand, FM4, FM7, FM10, and FM11 confirmed the exact opposite. They believe special education is part of inclusive education and falls under its umbrella. The necessity of the presence of a special education teacher in inclusive classrooms justified this. Indeed, only one participant (FM8) confirmed that these two concepts are contradictory in the philosophical and practical aspects.

As previously mentioned, this study aimed to answer the main research question: what does Inclusive Education mean among Saudi university academics specialising in special education? As a result, this study adopts Loreman’s ( 2009 ) definition of inclusive education in addition to Roger Slee’s (Slee, 2011 , 2018a ) inclusive education theory as a lens and philosophical framework through which the results are analysed and discussed. By analysing the above results, they will be discussed according to the main themes that the researcher classified the participants’ responses.

First, regarding the identical or close definition of inclusive education, the results indicated a complete congruence between the adapted definition and concept of inclusive education in this study. Throughout the participants’ responses, it became clear that no single response matches the definition and concept of inclusive education in all its required aspects and characteristics. This absence of congruence indicates and is attributed to the absence of a unified, approved, and comprehensive definition in the Saudi field for inclusive education. This is in complete agreement with what Florian ( 2014 ) stated; there is no agreement on a unified definition of inclusive education, and there is a need for studies seeking to find a solution to this. Although there is no formal and internationally approved definition of inclusive education (Loreman et al. 2014 ; Slee, 2011 ), the various definitions have common concepts and characteristics. All of them agree in rejecting any practices of exclusion for students with disabilities, whether from the general classroom, curriculum, teaching methods, or evaluation.

On the other hand, there was a closeness between what the two participants mentioned about the concept of inclusive education with the adopted definition in this study, which is Loreman’s definition (2009). Where some important characteristics emerged in these two responses that characterise inclusive education. These characteristics were represented in the child’s presence in the general class, in the closest school to their home, and with same-age peers while providing all the required services to enhance participation in full effectiveness. This reflects that there are individual attempts to seek a correct definition of inclusive education that produces a correct practice of this concept. However, these individual attempts do not dispense the need for organised work by all relevant authorities to adopt a unified and operational definition of inclusive education (Qvortrup and Qvortrup, 2018 ). Nor do they present all existing and future practices to this concept in order to judge each practice clearly and impartially. In short, Ainscow ( 2020 ) emphasised that unless there is a unified and shared understanding of inclusive education, progress in the correct practices of this concept will be difficult and challenging. So, there is a need to work towards unifying this definition.

Second, by analysing the above results, it became clear that there is an ambiguity in the definition of inclusive education among some faculty members in Saudi universities. For instance, two participants linked inclusive education to the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Indeed, inclusive education is a broader and more comprehensive concept than LRE and linking it to this theory reduces it to mere accommodation or placement only (Maciver et al. 2018 ). In this context, Skilton-Sylvester and Slesaransky-Poe ( 2009 ) emphasised that a Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) is based primarily on the principle of placement as a priority differs from inclusive education as a broader and more complex concept.

Furthermore, there is confusion between inclusive education and the concept of integration, which was evident in the responses of 50% of the participants. The confusion between these two terms is a worldwide phenomenon among those concerned, including specialists and others, in the field of inclusive education. Loreman et al. ( 2014 ) assert that there is confusion and overlap in the use of many terms such as “integration,” “mainstreaming,” and “inclusion” as synonymous with one practice meaning inclusive education. Such confusion was a consequence of some reasons, such as the use of the two terms “inclusion” and “integration,” as synonymous in many studies related to inclusive education (Hassanein, 2015 ). Indeed, there is a difference and disparity between these two concepts in many respects.

First, integration comes from outside the school, so the focus is on the student and their abilities to include him/her in the Least Restrictive Environment, whether in the general classrooms or self-contained classes (Dash, 2006 ). Meanwhile, inclusion comes from inside the school in terms of creating all needed environments from all sides to be suitable for welcoming and valuing all students with disabilities (Nunez and Rosales, 2021 ). Second, “integration” considers the school as a partner in the accommodation and placement process. At the same time, the full responsibility for the success of this practice lies on the student with the disability (Frederickson and Cline, 2015 ). While the concept of “inclusion” views the school as an essential and important part of the preparation and initialisation process to implement inclusive education practices. This means it bears the responsibility to adapt curricula, teaching methods, and services that must be prepared to include students with disabilities (Madhesh, 2019 ) successfully. Third, “integration” does not mean restructuring school environments to accommodate students with disabilities. On the contrary, “inclusion” means restructuring these environments to suit the needs of all students regardless of their diversity (Obrusnikova and Block, 2020 ).

Additionally, with regard to the analysis of the results that clarify the relationship conception between inclusive education and special education from the point of view of the faculty members in Saudi universities, it was evident that the majority affirms the existence of a correlation between these two concepts (11 out of 12 participants) so that 7 participants confirmed that inclusive education is part of special education. On the contrary, 4 participants confirmed that special education is part of inclusive education. Indeed, only one participant emphasised that this relationship is inverse and that inclusive education is the opposite of the concept and practice of special education. This is accurate, so many relevant studies agree that inclusive education is a philosophy and practice that is completely opposite to special education.

For example, special education stems from the ontological stance of the medical model of disability, which believes that disability is a pathological structure in the individual that must be treated and reformed to suit the surrounding environments (Dirth and Branscombe, 2017 ; Slee, 2011 ). At the same time, inclusive education stems from the ontological concept of the social model of disability, which affirms that disability is a product of the obstacles and barriers that exist in society and the surrounding environments, which causes the individual with a disability to be hindered from exercising his life appropriately and naturally (Barnes, 2019 ; Oliver, 2013 ).

Moreover, the concept of special education is based on the classification and labelling of each individual with a disability in order to distinguish them. In contrast, inclusive education seeks to resist any practices of classification or labelling that result in discrimination between individuals (Kauffman and Hornby, 2020 ). Additionally, one of the key distinctions between these two ideas is that special education frequently offers educational services to students with disabilities in their available educational settings, such as private institutions, separate classrooms affixed to public schools, or partially in general classrooms. These function with the reliance on the student’s ability as a criterion to choose the appropriate educational placement (Madhesh, 2019 ). On the contrary, the concept of inclusive education resists all forms of segregation and the practices of providing educational services in isolated and private environments and believes only in the option of the general classroom in the nearest school to the student’s home, which supports active and full participation (Dovigo, 2017 ).

Conclusion and recommendations

This study concluded several vital outcomes. First, there is no approved and unified definition of inclusive education in the Saudi context to be adopted or referred to by specialists in this field. Second, there is confusion and ambiguity about the concept of inclusive education among Saudi university faculty members specialising in special education, in addition to great confusion and overlapping between the concept of inclusive education and other concepts such as “integration”, “mainstreaming” and “placement”. Third, there is a deep-rooted understanding of an interrelated relationship between inclusive education and special education among these faculty members. This is contrary to reality as each concept carries an agenda and practices that are completely opposite to the other. From the foregoing, this study leads to some recommendations:

The necessity to seek, by the authorities related to the education of people with disabilities in the Saudi context, to adopt a comprehensive and unified definition of inclusive education. Then apply and evaluate all related practices in line with it to avoid ambiguity and discrepancy in practice.

Promoting correct concepts about inclusive education among academics and stakeholders through seminars, conferences, and various scientific and social events.

Supporting scientific studies that examine the reasons for this conceptual and applied shortcoming about inclusive education among Saudi university faculty members specialising in special education and the consequences thereof.

Enact laws and legislation that are based on the correct concept of inclusive education and strive to implement them.

Evaluate current practices according to the correct and previously approved definition of inclusive education.

Data availability

The collected data of this study is interview transcripts in Arabic language and is not possible to share publicly for participants’ confidentiality.

Ainscow M (2020) Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nord J Stud Educ Policy 6(1):7–16

Article   Google Scholar  

Ainscow M, Booth T, Dyson A (2006) Inclusion and the standards agenda: negotiating policy pressures in England. Int J Incl Educ 10(4–5):295–308

Ainscow M, Dyson A, Weiner S (2013) From exclusion to inclusion: ways of responding in schools to students with special educational needs. ERIC, UK

Google Scholar  

Ainscow M, Slee R, Best M (2019) The Salamanca Statement: 25 years on. Int J Incl Educ 23(7-8):671–676

Barnes C (2019) Understanding the social model of disability: past, present and future. Routledge, USA

Book   Google Scholar  

Bates H, McCafferty A, Quayle E, McKenzie K (2015) Typically-developing students’ views and experiences of inclusive education. Disabil Rehab 37(21):1929–1939

Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol 3(2):77–101

Braun V, Clarke V (2012) Thematic analysis. In: Cooper H, Camic PM, Long DL, Panter AT, Rindskopf D, Sher KJ (ed) APA handbook of research methods in psychology, 2nd edn. American Psychological Association, USA, p 57–71

Brennen BS (2021) Qualitative research methods for media studies. Routledge, London

Dash N (2006) Inclusive education for children with special needs. Atlantic Publishers & Dist, Bloomsbury

Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (2017) The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. SAGE, Washington DC

Dirth TP, Branscombe NR (2017) Disability models affect disability policy support through awareness of structural discrimination. J Soc Issues 73(2):413–442

Dovigo F (2017) Special educational needs and inclusive practices: an international perspective. Springer, New York

Florian L (2014) What counts as evidence of inclusive education? Euro J Spec Needs Educ 29(3):286–294

Forlin C (2013) Changing paradigms and future directions for implementing inclusive education in developing countries. Asian J Incl Educ 1(2):19–31

Frederickson N, Cline T (2015) Special educational needs, inclusion and diversity. McGraw-Hill Education, UK

Hassanein EEA (2015) Inclusion, disability and culture. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam

Jahnukainen M (2015) Inclusion, integration, or what? A comparative study of the school principals’ perceptions of inclusive and special education in Finland and in Alberta, Canada. Disabil Soc 30(1):59–72

Josselson R (2013) Interviewing for qualitative inquiry: a relational approach. Guilford Press, New York

Kauffman JM, Hornby G (2020) Inclusive vision versus special education reality. Educ Sci 10(9):1–13

Loreman T (2009) Straight talk about inclusive education. CASS Connect 6(4):43–47

Loreman T, Deppeler J (2002) Working towards full inclusion in education. Access: Natl Issues J People Disabil 3(6):5–8

Loreman T, Forlin C, Chambers D, Sharma U, Deppeler J (2014) Conceptualising and measuring inclusive education. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, UK

Maciver D, Hunter C, Adamson A, Grayson Z, Forsyth K, McLeod I (2018) Supporting successful inclusive practices for learners with disabilities in high schools: a multisite, mixed method collective case study. Disabil Rehabil 40(14):1708–1717

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Madhesh A (2019) Inclusion of Deaf Students in Saudi Primary Schools. Dissertation, Victoria University, Australia

Magnússon G (2019) An amalgam of ideals–images of inclusion in the Salamanca Statement. Int J Incl Educ 23(7-8):677–690

Merriam SB, Tisdell EJ (2015) Qualitative research: a guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey

Munongi L (2022) Townships’high school learners’ views on the implementation of the right to education: a social justice perspective. Athens J Educ 1(10):153–172

Nunez R, Rosales S (2021) Inclusive education: perceptions and attitudes among filipino high school teachers. Asian ESP 17(6.1):151–172

Obrusnikova I, Block ME (2020) Historical context and definition of inclusion. In: Haegele J, Hodge S, Shapiro D (ed) Routledge handbook of adapted physical education., 1st rd. Routledge, London, p 65–80

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Oliver M (2013) The social model of disability: thirty years on. Disabil Soc 28(7):1024–1026

Padgett DK (2016) Qualitative methods in social work research. Sage publications, Washington DC

Qvortrup A, Qvortrup L (2018) Inclusion: dimensions of inclusion in education. Int J Incl Educ 22(7):803–817

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Rieser R, Secretariat C (2012) Implementing Inclusive Education: A Commonwealth Guide to Implementing Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Commonwealth Secretariat, London. https://books.google.com.sa/books?id=14wxPDD-v5MC

Scharp KM, Sanders ML (2019) What is a theme? Teaching thematic analysis in qualitative communication research methods. Commun Teacher 33(2):117–121

Skilton-Sylvester E, Slesaransky-Poe G (2009) More than a least restrictive environment: living up to the civil covenant in building inclusive schools. Penn GSE perspectives on. Urban Education 6(1):32–37

Slee R (2011) The irregular school: exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. Routledge, London

Slee R (2018a) Defining the scope of inclusive education. Paper commissioned for the 2020 global education monitoring report, inclusion and education, UNESCO, Paris, France

Slee R (2018b) Inclusive education isn’t dead, it just smells funny. Routledge, London

Slee R, & Tait G (2022) Ethics and Inclusive Education: Disability Schooling and Justice (Vol. 6). Springer Nature, London, UK

UNESCO (1994) The salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paper presented at access and quality conference, Salamanca, Spain, 7–10 June 1994

Wiltshire G, Ronkainen N (2021) A realist approach to thematic analysis: making sense of qualitative data through experiential, inferential and dispositional themes. J Crit Realism 20(2):159–180

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Deanship of Scientific Research at Shaqra University for supporting this work.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Special Education Department, Shaqra University, Shaqra, Saudi Arabia

Abdullah Madhesh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdullah Madhesh .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no Competing interests.

Ethical approval

This study was conducted in accordance with the Shaqra University Research Ethics Committee. The ethical approval of this study (No: ERC_SU_20220099) was obtained from this committee before collecting the data from participants as a prerequisite for conducting this study and all committee requirements have been fulfilled.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in interviews.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Madhesh, A. The concept of inclusive education from the point of view of academics specialising in special education at Saudi universities. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 278 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01802-y

Download citation

Received : 08 January 2023

Accepted : 25 May 2023

Published : 02 June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01802-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• DOI: 10.52121/alacrity.v4i2.287
• Corpus ID: 270546878

The Role of Inclusive Education as a Container for Equal Education: Analysis of Effectiveness and Problems

• Mujhirul Iman , Zoe Zarka Syafiq , +2 authors Fina Safitri Nasution
• Published in ALACRITY : Journal of… 15 June 2024
• ALACRITY : Journal of Education

8 References

Analisis pendidikan inklusif: kendala dan solusi dalam implementasinya, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers