Higher Education Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education

Abstract

Inclusive education is a key aspect of quality assurance in higher education, closely linked to equity and diversity issues. The attitudes of higher education teachers play a crucial role at the decision-making and policy levels, as well as in their practical teaching approaches. This study aims to explore teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education both theoretically and practically. A review of the scientific literature revealed five main attitudinal trends: 1) predominantly positive towards the inclusion of students with special educational needs; 2) predominantly negative; 3) uncertain or undefined; 4) reported as positive but with undefinable behaviour; and 5) positively proactive. Our research was carried out using the methods of focus groups and qualitative content analysis, gathering data from 64 participants across five focus groups held between May and July 2024. The findings highlighted a gap between what academic staff teach and their practical actions, with many expressing support for inclusion in theory but showing reluctance or insufficient skills to implement inclusive practices effectively.

Full text

©2025 Published by In Manifest Network in partnership with LUMEN Publishing. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Revista Românească pentru Educaţie Multidimensională
ISSN: 2066-7329 | e-ISSN: 2067-9270
Abstracting & Indexing | Clarivate Analytics - Web of Science (WoS); EBSCO; Google Scholar; ICI Journals Master
List - Index Copernicus; Ideas RePeC; Econpapers; Socionet; CEEOL; Philpapers; KVK; WorldCat; CrossRef; J-GATE
2025, Volume 17, Issue 1, pages: 33-53 | https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/17.1/940
Submitted: November 19, 2024| Accepted for publication: February 14, 2025
Higher Education
Teachers’ Attitudes
towards Inclusive
Education
Venera-Mihaela COJOCARIU 1
Brânduşa_Mariana AMĂLĂNCEI 2, *
Gabriel MAREŞ 3, *
Cristina CÎRTIŢĂ-BUZOIANU 4
Liliana MÂŢĂ 5
1 Professor, PhD, The Pre- and In- service
Teacher Training Department, "Vasile
Alecsandri" University of Bacău, Romania,
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3129-7102,
venera_1962@yahoo.com
2 Associate Professor PhD, Faculty Dean of
Faculty of Letters; Department of Romanian
Language and Literature and Communication
Sciences, "Vasile Alecsandri" University of
Bacău, Romania; https://orcid.org/0000-
0002-6871-8196; amalancei.brindusa@ub.ro
3 Associate Professor PhD, Vice-dean of The
Faculty of Movement, Sports and Health,
Sciences, Department of Physical and
Occupational Therapy, “Vasile Alecsandri”
University of Bacău, Romania;
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9477-328X;
mares.gabriel@ub.ro
4 Associate Professor PhD, Vice-rector in
charge with university ethics and image -
Faculty of Letters, Department of Romanian
Language and Literature and Communication
Sciences, “Vasile Alecsandri” University of
Bacău, Romania; https://orcid.org/0000-
0002-0286-4537; buzoianu.cristina@ub.ro
5 Associate Professor PhD habil., The Faculty
of Sciences, The Pre- and In-Service Teacher
Training Department, “Vasile Alecsandri”
University of Bacău, Romania;
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9293-3286;
liliana.mata@ub.ro
* corresponding author:
amalancei.brindusa@ub.ro;
mares.gabriel@ub.ro
Abstract: Inclusive education is a key aspect of quality assurance in
higher education, closely linked to equity and diversity issues. The
attitudes of higher education teachers play a crucial role at the decision-
making and policy levels, as well as in their practical teaching
approaches. This study aims to explore teachers’ attitudes towards
inclusive education both theoretically and practically. A review of the
scientific literature revealed five main attitudinal trends: 1)
predominantly positive towards the inclusion of students with special
educational needs; 2) predominantly negative; 3) uncertain or
undefined; 4) reported as positive but with undefinable behaviour; and
5) positively proactive. Our research was carried out using the methods
of focus groups and qualitative content analysis, gathering data from 64
participants across five focus groups held between May and July 2024.
The findings highlighted a gap between what academic staff teach and
their practical actions, with many expressing support for inclusion in
theory but showing reluctance or insufficient skills to implement
inclusive practices effectively.
Keywords: inclusive education, higher education, students with
special educational needs, teachers’ attitude.
How to cite: Cojocariu, V.-M., Amălăncei, B.-M., Mareş,
G., Cîrtiţă-Buzoianu, C., & Mâţă, L. (2025). Higher
education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education.
Revista Românească pentru Educaţie Multidimensională, 17(1), 33-
53. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/17.1/940

Higher Education Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education
Venera-Mihaela COJOCARIU et al.
34
Introductory overview
Inclusive education has emerged as a significant focus in the past 20
years, both internationally (Yada & Savolainen, 2017) and in national
educational practices and policies. This emphasis spans the entire
educational system, including in Romania (Ministry of Education, Pre-
University Education Law No. 198/2023; Romanian Academic Society,
2016), from pre-school to university and postgraduate levels. This shift also
coincides with the increasing number of students with Special Educational
Needs (SEN) in higher education systems across Europe and worldwide (Al-
Korbi et al., 2024; Gülsün et al., 2023; Fisseler, 2021; Fu et al., 2021; Lister
et al., 2020; Martins et al., 2017; Kirillova & Faizrakhmanova, 2016).
A recent study by the European University Association (EUA)
(Gaebel et al., 2024) offers an institutional perspective on the evolution of
higher education. It examines how policies and actions are shaped in
response to major strategic, societal, and economic priorities and challenges,
specifically those “which foster equity, diversity and inclusion and respond
to the needs of wider communities” (p. 44). Therefore, it highlights the
importance of establishing a foundation for an inclusive higher education
environment. All these approaches are rooted in the philosophy of equity in
education (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002) according to which each participant
has the right to receive education tailored to their abilities or disabilities
(Gaad & Almotairi, 2013).
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted
by the United Nations (UN) in 2006, aims “to promote, protect and ensure
the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by
all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity”
(Article 1). Regarding education, the document asserts that “people with
disabilities have a right to education without discrimination”. It emphasises
the need to ensure inclusive education at all levels, including access to “tertiary
education, vocational training, adult education and lifelong learning without
discrimination and on an equal basis with others” (Article 24).
According to Angenscheidt Bidegain & Navarrete Antola (2017),
inclusive education is about accepting diversity and identifying the answer to
the question “how to learn to live with differences, and how to learn from
differences” (p. 234). Additionally, inclusive education must manifest itself
as an ongoing vector of the educational system and process (Bethere et al.,
2023). Therefore, having the necessary legislation or material infrastructure
alone is insufficient to support inclusive education at any given level. The
major factor for turning this goal into reality is the human resource directly

Revista Românească pentru
Educaţie Multidimensională
January-March 2025
Volume 17, Issue 1
35
involved in the process—teachers and managers. Their beliefs, values, and
attitudes play an essential role in terms of action. Teachers’ attitudes are a “a
very important variable in the success of including students with exceptional
learning needs in regular classrooms” (Gaad & Almotairi, 2013, 290), and
“the successful implementation of any inclusive policy for students with
disabilities depends largely on educators’ attitudes” (Edna, 2016, 640;
Bethere et al., 2023; Gülsün et al., 2023; Bandyopadhyay & Dhara, 2021; Fu
et al., 2021; Jury et al., 2021; Yang & Yu, 2021; Angenscheidt Bidegain &
Navarrete Antola, 2017; Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).
In other words, teachers’ attitudes play a substantial part at both the
decision-making and policy levels as well as the didactic and practical levels.
These attitudes, shaped by their axiological orientation, are responsible for
generating either a culture of acceptance or exclusion (Gülsün et al., 2023;
Edna, 2016). Consequently, the study of teachers’ attitudes towards SEN
students has become an increasingly common endeavour over the last 25
years (Savolainen et al., 2020; Mâţă & Clipa, 2020; Saloviita, 2018; Avramidis
& Norwich, 2002), considerably impacting how academic teaching
approaches are restructured and how specific counseling services are
provided for this broad category of students.
The literature review highlights a significant number of scientific
papers which specifically address the role of teachers and their attitudes
towards students with Special Educational Needs (SEN). These studies
discuss their specialised training to work with this student category, the
barriers encountered, solutions to overcome these challenges, and the
similarities and differences in the implementation of inclusive education
across various educational systems from different geographic regions.
Below, we can list some of the most relevant research published in the past
decade, arranged in descending chronological order: Al-Korbi et al., 2024;
Alrusaiyes, 2024; Dağlı Gökbulut et al, 2024; Mareş et al, 2024; Svendby,
2024; Ediyanto & Kawai, 2023; Ignacio & Allit, 2023; Barnová et al., 2022;
Charitaki et al., 2022; Gràcia et al., 2022; Belková & Zólyomiová, 2021;
González-Castellano et al., 2021; San Martin et al., 2021; Zabeli et al., 2021;
Mâţă & Clipa, 2020; Savolainen et al., 2020; Supriyanto, 2019; Ayub et al.,
2019; Jenson, 2018; Saloviita, 2018; Galaterou & Antoniou, 2017; Martins et
al., 2017; Moriña, 2016; Edna, 2016; Bruder & Mogro-Wilson, 2014;
Gonçalves et al., 2014; Gaad & Almotairi, 2013).
The referenced studies collectively indicate that there is a general
acceptance of including students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) in
higher education (Gaad & Almotairi, 2013, 292). However, the level of
acceptance and the manner in which inclusion is manifested are influenced

Higher Education Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education
Venera-Mihaela COJOCARIU et al.
36
by factors such as the type and severity of the disability, cultural, religious,
and economic issues within the academic culture (Bethere et al., 2023;
Jenson, 2018), and the matter of their positive discrimination compared to
other student groups.
Literature review on the topic
Building on one of the conclusions drawn by Ignacio & Allit (2023,
3), which notes that “the results of the studies on teachers’ attitudes towards
inclusive education show inconsistencies”, we propose a minimal
systematisation of the literature on this topic. This has led us to highlight
some perspectives related to the university teachers’ attitudes towards
inclusive education:
Although many higher education institutions implement policies
supporting the SEN students, with over 90% of the institutions in the
Trends 2024 study identifying diversity, equity, and inclusion as their core
priorities and values, academic staff often exhibit a predominantly negative
attitude towards the inclusion of SEN students (González-Castellano et al.,
2021; Supriyanto, 2019; Edna, 2016; Gaad & Almotairi, 2013; Shadreck,
2012). Such attitude is particularly common among male professors (Jenson,
2018; Gaad & Almotairi, 2013). Negative attitudes in the academic
environment, as in any other social contexts, represent some of the most
significant barriers to inclusive education (Al-Korbi et al., 2024; Alrusaiyes,
2024; Bethere et al., 2023; Ediyanto & Kawai, 2023; Ignacio & Allit, 2023;
Zabeli et al., 2021; Moriña, 2016; Edna, 2016; Bruder & Mogro-Wilson,
2014);
Academic staff generally tend to have a predominantly positive
attitude towards the inclusion of SEN students (Al-Korbi et al., 2024;
Alrusaiyes, 2024; Svendby, 2024; Ignacio & Allit, 2023; Gràcia et al., 2022;
Guillemot et al., 2022; Bandyopadhyay & Dhara, 2021; Fu & al, 2021;
González-Castellano & al, 2021; Ayub et al., 2019; Supriyanto, 2019;
Saloviita, 2018; Martins et al., 2017; Bruder & Mogro-Wilson, 2014; Abu-
Hamour, 2013; Baker et al., 2012). This positive attitude is particularly
notable among female professors (Alrusaiyes, 2024; Bandyopadhyay &
Dhara, 2021; González-Castellano et al., 2021; Galaterou & Antoniou, 2017;
Jenson, 2018; Abu-Hamour, 2013; Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Studies
highlight the importance of such positive attitude within the academic
community, especially among professors, for the effective implementation of
inclusive practices in universities (Jenson, 2018). A supportive outlook
facilitates SEN students’ adaptation to the demands of higher education,
helps them overcome various obstacles, and significantly contributes to their

Revista Românească pentru
Educaţie Multidimensională
January-March 2025
Volume 17, Issue 1
37
academic success (Alrusaiyes, 2024; Charitaki et al., 2022; Supriyanto, 2019;
Saloviita, 2018);
Academic staff have an uncertain, relatively undefined, neutral attitude
towards the inclusion of SEN students, often characterised as “uncertainty,
fear, and unawareness” (Mareş et al., 2024; Ayub et al., 2019; Supriyanto,
2019);
While academic staff usually claim to hold positive attitudes, their
practical behaviour towards SEN students is indeterminate and uncertain behaviour
(Greenberger & Leyser, 2010).
Our study was conducted with these systematised findings in mind.
Research objectives and hypotheses
The overall aim of this research is to identify teachers’ opinions
regarding their attitudes and approaches towards students with Special
Educational Needs (SEN).
Research Hypotheses
This exploratory study was inspired by the authors’ observations
based on their professional experience on how colleagues engage with SEN
students in university settings, but also highlighting the challenges and
facilitators encountered by teachers when working with SEN students. The
formulated research hypotheses aimed to uncover valuable insights for
future inclusive practices at the university level:
General Hypothesis 1 - We hypothesise that teachers generally hold
positive attitudes towards the inclusion of SEN students.
General Hypothesis 2 – Teachers’ opionions on the inclusion of
SEN students can offer meaningful insights into potential areas for
intervention, both at the organisational and individual levels.
Research methodology
Type of research
The type of our study was exploratory and observational, applying
the focus group method. As a qualitative approach, this method enabled the
collection of valuable insights into teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion
of students with Special Educational Needs (SEN). Additionally, its
experimental aspects facilitated the identification of major areas for
improvement, including the need for teacher training, the adaptation of the
physical environment, and the development of innovative teaching and
intervention methodologies at the university level.

Higher Education Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education
Venera-Mihaela COJOCARIU et al.
38
Research methods and tools
The focus group method is highly effective for qualitative research,
particularly when the goal is to explore elements related to social changes
and societal needs (Kristiansen & Grønkjær, 2018; Krueger & Casey, 2005).
It equally serves as a dynamic platform for the exchange and negotiation of
ideas, allowing participants to inspire one another, deepen mutual
understanding, and identify new perspectives (Belzile & Öberg, 2012;
Johnson & Johnson, 1997). In designing the research framework, three key
dimensions were addressed: attitudinal perspectives, approaches to
challenges, and prospective strategies, each dimension being further on
broken down into sub-categories. The questions developed were aligned
with these dimensions to ensure comprehensive data collection across the
areas of investigation (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009; Carey, 1994; Carey &
Smith, 1994).
Research procedure
A focus group interview guide (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009; Carey,
1994; Carey & Smith, 1994) was designed based on insights from the
literature review. The guide aimed to capture two key perspectives: 1.
declarative: teachers’ knowledge and information regarding the inclusion of
students with Special Educational Needs (SEN) and 2. actional: specific
actions undertaken by teachers to support the inclusion of students who are
excluded or at risk of exclusion, reflecting their attitudes toward these
students. The focus groups were facilitated by a main moderator and an
assistant moderator, who documented participants’ responses both in
writing and through audio recordings for transcription and coding.
Research group
The study included 64 teachers, selected as a convenience sample
(Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009), and organised into five focus groups, one for
each faculty level, conducted between May and July 2024. Participation in
the focus groups required being a member of the university’s teaching staff.
Their involvement in the study was voluntary, with invitations extended to
teachers from all faculties. All participants were faculty members at at
“Vasile Alecsandri” University of Bacău, Romania, representing five
different faculties: Engineering, Letters, Sciences, Economics, and
Movement, Sport, and Health Sciences. The participants came from diverse
academic disciplines, with their experience in higher education distributed as
follows: 2 teachers with 1–5 years of experience, 11 teachers with 5–10

Revista Românească pentru
Educaţie Multidimensională
January-March 2025
Volume 17, Issue 1
39
years of experience, 18 teachers with 10–15 years of experience, 21 teachers
with 15–20 years of experience, 12 teachers with over 20 years of experience.
Data analysis
Content analysis, a widely utilised qualitative method for examining
the focus groups’ responses, was employed to analyse the data. Recognised
for its objectivity, systematic nature, and integration of both qualitative and
quantitative elements (Agabrian, 2006), this method involves several steps.
These include: formulating research questions, compiling a database from
the focus groups’ responses, developing thematic categories and
subcategories, and analysing the data based on frequency and its association
with these categories. Each participant and focus group was assigned a
unique identification code before the analysis commenced, allowing for a
comprehensive overview of the data (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009;
Krippendorff, 2019; Lindgren et al., 2020).
Using elements of classical content analysis, categories and
subcategories were constructed based on recurring themes in participants’
responses. This approach facilitated the organisation of data into predefined
categories (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005; Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009; Kristiansen &
Grønkjær, 2018; Krippendorff, 2019).
Our analysis strategy focused on systematically comparing responses
across participants, emphasising the meaningful and consistent nature of the
content across all groups (Neuendorf, 2017; Glasser & Strauss, 1967;
Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009).
Ethical issues
Ethical approval for this study was obtained in accordance with the
principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki, as the research involved
human participants. All participants voluntarily provided informed consent,
and were made aware of their right to withdraw from the study or to omit
responses to specific questions at any time. The study was approved by the
Ethics Committee of “Vasile Alecsandri” University of Bacău, Romania.
Results
The study offers valuable insights into teachers’ attitudes towards
students with special educational needs, as well as identifies preferred
strategies and methods for working with this student group. Regarding the
first dimension of our study—the attitudinal one—the data collected and
analysed are summarised in Table 1:

Higher Education Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education
Venera-Mihaela COJOCARIU et al.
40
Table 1. Categorical descriptors of attitudinal dimensions related to the inclusion of
students with special educational needs
Attitudinal
categories
Categorical descriptors
Participants
(P)/focus
group(fg)
proactively
positive
- Affirming that every student has the right to education, and
that teachers must adapt to the individual needs of their
students, which they are already doing.
- Highlighting the importance of teachers being prepared for
the challenges posed by today’s generation, including the
ability to work with students with special educational needs
(SEN), and acknowledging that many have already engaged
with resources such as readings or videos on effective
approaches.
- Emphasising that, in addition to specialised training,
empathy is essential, and that teachers must provide the
support they are capable of to ensure the inclusion of SEN
individuals within the education system, including at the
university level.
P3, 11/fg1; P3,
7 /fg2; P2,
10/fg3; P6, 9,
11, 13/fg4; P2,
12/fg5
predominantly
positive
- Eager to learn about the unique characteristics of students
with special educational needs (SEN).
- Actively seeking practical training resources to effectively
address the challenges of working with SEN students.
- Demonstrating an interest in exploring new, flexible, and
youth-oriented teaching methods.
P1, 6, 9/fg1; P
2, 5, 8/fg2; P1,
5, 7, 8/fg3; P3,
8/fg4; P3, 8,
11/fg5
uncertain-
undefined
- Acknowledging that specific interventions are necessary for
students with special educational needs (SEN), but
considering such interventions are difficult or even unfeasible
to implement.
- Agreeing that action should be taken for this group of students,
but feeling that now is not the right time for it.
- Using statements such as: “I wish I could do something, but...”
P2, 7, 10/fg1; P
1, 9/fg2; P3, 4,
9 11/fg3; P1, 2,
10/fg4; P1, 6,
10/fg5
reported as
positive but
uncertain
behaviour
- Considering that universities lack sufficient resources to
effectively work with and include students with special
educational needs (SEN) in their programs.
- Feeling powerless to make a difference and believing that
additional specialists are required.
- Expressing a willingness to support the inclusion of SEN
students, but citing a lack of time as a barrier.
- Indicating a desire to work with SEN students, but lacking
the necessary specialised training.
P5, 8/fg1; P10,
13/fg2;
P14/fg3;
P4,12/fg4; P1,
7, 13/fg5
predominantly
negative
- Arguing that students with severe health or adjustment
issues should not be included in mainstream education, as
higher education is not compulsory.
- Considering that students with special educational needs
(SEN) should be placed in specialised university programmes
tailored specifically for this group.
- Stating that working with SEN students is highly stressful
for teachers.
- Suggesting that the inclusive approach is a utopian ideal that
is unlikely to succeed.
P4/fg1;
P11/fg2;
P6/fg3; P5/fg4;
P4, 9/fg5

Revista Românească pentru
Educaţie Multidimensională
January-March 2025
Volume 17, Issue 1
41
The responses from the majority of focus groups’ participants indicate
a positive and open attitude toward the challenges faced by people with
special educational needs (SEN). For example, one participant shared, “I have a
blind student in my class... When I show diagrams, pictures, and photos, I describe them to
her” (P2/fg3). Another noted, “At first, it was difficult, and I wondered how I would
manage, but gradually I realised that I could rely on the other senses she has, and now
everything seems to be OK” (P3/fg5). However, further analysis of the responses
revealed some inconsistencies, suggesting that this positive attitude may be
more theoretical than practical. For instance, one participant stated, “I would do
something, I would work one-on-one with them, but I need a specialised person with me when
I teach” (P13/fg2), while another said, “I always wanted to learn more about working
with special needs students, I even wanted to give some lessons, but unfortunately, I don’t
have enough time” (P7/fg5). Additionally, some responses highlighted reluctance
to work with this group of students, or even an outright belief that inclusive
teaching is undesirable or unfeasible. One participant expressed, “It is very
difficult to work with such students. Most of them don’t understand when we explain
something, and they think they should somehow be in a special group” (P5/fg4).
The analysis of the challenges universities face in promoting social
inclusion for students with special needs revealed the following issues:
Table 2. Academic challenges to achieving social inclusion of SEN students
Challenge
Categories
Categorical descriptors
Participants (P)/
focus group(fg)
Teacher-related
challenges
- Reluctance and resistance to the inclusive approach
due to the need for additional training.
- The necessity of dedicating extra time to prepare
teaching activities, learn new methods, and tailor the
content to individual students.
- Acknowledging their own limitations and seeking
specialised support when their knowledge and skills are
inadequate to work with SEN students.
P1, 3, 9/fg1; P1, 6,
8, 13/fg2; P1, 3, 4,
7/fg3; P5, 9,
11/fg4; P2, 3, 4,
10/fg5
University-related
challenges
- A very limited number of teachers with training or
expertise in special psychopedagogy or in working with
students with special educational needs (SEN).
- A shortage of materials, assistive devices, and
technologies at the university level that could enhance
student access and inclusion.
- The need to adapt educational spaces to improve
access and create better learning opportunities for SEN
students.
- The establishment of dedicated structures within the
university to offer counselling, learning support,
guidance on entitlements, and legal assistance as
required.
- Managing diversity presents a challenge, particularly for
institutions with traditional or conservative cultural
models.
P2, 3, 7, 9/fg1; P1,
2, 8, 9, 11, 12/fg2;
P2, 3, 5, 7, 8,
12/fg3; P1, 3, 6, 9,
10/fg4; P2, 3, 5, 8,
9, 11/fg5

Higher Education Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education
Venera-Mihaela COJOCARIU et al.
42
Ethical challenges
- Ethical dilemmas arising from inconsistent standards
(marked by subjectivity and compassion) in the
assessment of SEN students compared to their typically
developing peers.
- Inclusive approaches and compensatory measures may
lead to frustration, as the criteria for prioritising are
shifted for students on the one hande and for teachers,
on the other hand. The aspect of positive discrimination
creates cognitive dissonance and raises implicit moral
dilemmas.
- Subjectivity in grading, due to compassion, pity, and an
exaggerated fear of discrimination.
P2, 4, 6, 11/fg1;
P3, 7, 11, 13/fg2;
P1, 4, 5, 8, 10,
12/fg3; P1, 2, 8,
11/fg4; P1, 2, 4,
10/fg5
The focus groups’ participants identify several categories of
challenges related to issues specific to SEN, including teacher-related,
university-related, and ethical challenges. The analysis of their responses
suggests that they recognise the complexity of the inclusive education
process and are capable of reflecting on their own approaches to these
challenges. The most difficult challenges, however, are those related to the
individuals involved, particularly the teachers, making them the hardest to
address. As one participant put it, “I can do it. I have enough experience, but time
does not allow me to focus specifically on this category of students” (P5/FG4). While it
may be possible to quickly purchase materials, assistive devices, and
technologies, or to set up appropriate spaces (assuming the necessary
financial resources are available), the same cannot be said for addressing the
inappropriate attitudes some teachers have toward inclusive education. As
one participant remarked, “Through recent projects, a lot of equipment has been
acquired for this category of students, but neither we nor they know how to use it, and yet I
think more specialised equipment would still be needed” (P7/FG3). Similarly,
overcoming ethical dilemmas in inclusive education is more challenging.
One participant raised a concern: “What should I do now? For the same type of
answer, I have to give one student a lower grade while giving a higher grade to another,
simply because there’s no problem with giving a lower mark. Is that right?” (P4/FG1).
Additionally, dilemmas stemming from the subjectivity of grading out of
compassion were also highlighted: “I just felt sorry for him because I saw how much
effort he put into coming to school and passing the exam. But I don’t feel good when I
think about the others” (P8/FG3).
The collected data has been organised in Table 3 in order to
investigate how the academia might proactively address the following
question: What steps can academics and universities take to become more inclusive in the
future?

Revista Românească pentru
Educaţie Multidimensională
January-March 2025
Volume 17, Issue 1
43
Table 3. Prospective Dimension of academic environment
Aspect categories
Categorical descriptors
Participants
(P)/focus
group(fg)
Personal aspects
- Providing the option for hybrid or online delivery of
curriculum content, where feasible;
- Offering personalised support services, ideally within
a framework led by qualified professionals specialising
in SEN assistance.
P1, 4, 5, 7, 9/fg1;
P2, 8, 9, 11, 12/fg2;
P1, 2, 5, 6, 8,
12/fg3; P2, 3, 6, 11,
12/fg4; P1, 3, 9/fg5
Organisational
aspects
- At the institutional level, specialised training courses
could be offered to help teachers become more
informed and equipped to recognise and work with
people with SEN;
- Providing mentoring, counselling, and support
programs for teachers to help them successfully
manage relationships with SEN students and assist
them in making necessary curricular adaptations;
- Promoting team teaching and ensuring that there is a
teacher or support person available for situations
where a student’s functional limitations are significant;
- Promoting a philosophy of diversity at the
university level so that teachers are both sensitised to
and open to working with individuals who are
functionally impaired or have other special needs and
characteristics.
P1, 2, 3, 6, 9,
12/fg1; P1, 3, 7, 9,
12, 13/fg2; P1, 2, 3,
4, 7, 9, 12, 13/fg3;
P2, 5, 6, 9, 10,
11/fg4; P2, 3, 6, 7,
9, 12/fg5
Social aspects
- A series of national or international projects should
be implemented, with the central topic focused on the
inclusion of people with SEN, and international
projects promoting good practice exchanges or job
shadowing should be encouraged;
- Providing incentives and financial support,
particularly for students from disadvantaged social
backgrounds;
- Conducting descriptive studies and research,
preferably interdisciplinary, to identify the needs and
expectations of both SEN students and teachers
regarding specific aspects of social inclusion.
P3, 4, 7, 11/fg1; P2,
6, 9, 10, 13/fg2; P2,
3, 7, 10/fg3; P1, 2,
5, 6 11/fg4; P 2, 3,
4, 7 11/fg5
We can observe that the participants’ responses within the focus
groups enabled us to identify three important areas for action from the
perspective of the prospective dimension of the academic environment in
relation to the specific challenges faced by the people with SEN: personal,
organisational, and social. The analysis of their responses revealed that they
are capable of proposing strategies to enhance the inclusive approach within
the academia. Their suggestions, which are both insightful and diverse,
integrate psycho-pedagogical and managerial perspectives, as well as
attitudinal and financial considerations.

Higher Education Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education
Venera-Mihaela COJOCARIU et al.
44
The teachers’ opinions on how to make both the university and its
activities more inclusive highlight the importance of addressing both the
physical environment and its adaptation, as well as raising an open-minded
attitude. Teachers should aim to minimise prejudice and demonstrate a
willingness to support SEN students by helping to identify the root causes
of their challenges and finding solutions to alleviate or resolve these issues.
One participant provided the following example: “I think we need to create
conditions where they truly feel valued for their potential, rather than making concessions
due to their health or economic challenges. Teachers need to understand the circumstances
that have led students to this point, but they also need to recognise that they can play a role
in helping these students overcome their difficulties” (P12/FG2).
In addition to addressing environmental factors and ensuring that all
teachers are better trained to teach and manage relationships with SEN
students, some focus groups’ participants emphasised the importance of
involving teachers with psycho-pedagogical training at the institutional level.
These teachers could contribute to the development of highly specialised
structures focused on counselling both SEN students and teachers working
with them. As one participant noted, “The creation of a permanent counselling and
support office for both students and teachers is essential, because sometimes we feel helpless
and unsure of how to proceed” (P7/FG2). Furthermore, it was considered crucial
to involve teachers in the planning and organisation of environmental
adjustments. For instance, given the presence of students with mobility
challenges, participants suggested solutions such as: “Organising most lectures
and seminars on the ground floor of the faculty” (P3/FG4), and “Working in teams of
two or three teachers in classes with SEN students so that we can assist them in keeping
up with their peers and participating in practical activities alongside them” (P7/FG3).
Discussion
All the data collected and presented are consistent with the findings
of the specialised studies consulted on the topic. However, in each of the
three categories of systematisation (Categorical descriptors of attitudinal
dimensions related to the inclusion of students with special educational
needs, Table 1; Academic challenges to achieve social inclusion of SEN
students, Table 2; Prospective dimension of the academic environment,
Table 3) there are specific features, nuances, elements specific to the
institution. These may align, confirm, expand upon those highlighted at the
international level. The results obtained and analysed offer several benefits:
for the teachers, who are encouraged to reflect on the aspects studied and
gain greater self-awareness; for the SEN students, who will receive
enhanced, more personalised academic support; for the institution, which

Revista Românească pentru
Educaţie Multidimensională
January-March 2025
Volume 17, Issue 1
45
can make better-informed decisions with a clearer understanding of its
internal environment; and for the broader community, which will benefit
from an institution more responsive to the needs of SEN students and from
graduates who are more capable and independent.
The results presented above suggest that teachers typically adopt a
positive and proactive attitude towards the inclusion of SEN students, a
view corroborated by much of the literature referenced in the theoretical
synthesis of the study’s first part. This positive attitude—highlighted in the
reviewed literature—is evident in how the research group engaged in focus
groups and responded to the questions, as well as in their actual answers.
However, within the group of participating teachers, some responses
fell into other attitudinal categories, including uncertain or undefined,
reported as positive but uncertain, and predominantly negative. These
findings are consistent with the idea noted in the international literature that
“the results of studies on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education
show inconsistencies” (Ignacio & Allit, 2023, 3). When discussing the
academic challenges to achieving the social inclusion of SEN students, the
responses were grouped into three areas: teacher-related, university-related,
and ethical. Notably, the teachers in the focus groups did not highlight the
challenges presented by the SEN students themselves, such as their specific
educational needs, characteristics, and difficulties. Instead, the teachers only
mentioned their inadequate preparation in addressing these needs, without
identifying them as challenges in themselves. Regarding the prospective
dimension of the academic environment, personal, organisational, and social
factors were discussed. While these categories generally align with those
identified in other studies, it would be valuable to explore which of them are
most significant or whether it is possible to assess their impact on teachers’
attitudes and behaviours towards SEN students.
Our study is indeed a small-scale, qualitative micro-analysis.
Nevertheless, it provides both validation of previously established theoretical
positions and a concrete, specific approach at the level of a small regional
university, which is focused on the issues faced by SEN students and open
to suggestions for addressing them. Naturally, some of the responses from
the teachers or the frameworks we have proposed could be valuable for
similar institutions—whether in size, concerns, geographical region, or
beyond—or could serve as questions or starting points for further research.

Higher Education Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education
Venera-Mihaela COJOCARIU et al.
46
Conclusions
Our research indicates that teachers generally adopt a positive
attitude towards the broader philosophy of inclusive education. The analysis
of the focus groups’ responses reveals that, although many of the ideas
encountered in the literature regarding teachers’ attitudes toward SEN
students are validated, each higher education institution has its own unique
characteristics. Teachers are a complex category of educational partners:
trained at different times, with diverse experiences, ages, and specific
stereotypes. Therefore, it is essential for a qualitative micro-study on this
topic to be followed and complemented by a quantitative one, which takes
into account the multitude of variables that influence teachers’ attitudes
toward SEN students.
The main limitations of our study include the partial investigation of
an exceptionally complex issue and the relatively small number of faculty
members involved in the research. Additionally, the limited duration of the
research, the geographical location of the institution represented by the
interviewed teachers, and the cultural specificity of some of their training are
other factors which constrain the scope and relevance of the findings.
Most of the approaches highlighted in the focus groups suggest a
favourable disposition towards students with special needs (SEN). These
findings confirm our initial hypothesis.
The key factor influencing how teachers engage with inclusive
education is their initial and ongoing professional training. Teachers
involved in the focus groups expressed concerns that they are inadequately
prepared to effectively teach and interact with students with special
educational needs (SEN). As a result, they frequently require specialised
training which includes learning about differentiated teaching methods and
assessment strategies, with a focus on personalising the curriculum
(including the online classes). A comprehensive approach to this training
should consider not only the number of SEN students, but also the specific
types of needs they have, such as learning disabilities, attention deficit, and
hyperactivity. Preparing teachers to effectively implement the principles of
inclusive education will remain a persistent challenge in the academic world,
particularly in terms of training teachers and staff who will work with
students with special educational needs (SEN) at all levels of the education
system.
This highlights the importance of having a resource and counselling
centre for SEN students at the university level, or at the very least, a
designated specialist who can provide guidance to both students and staff

Revista Românească pentru
Educaţie Multidimensională
January-March 2025
Volume 17, Issue 1
47
whenever faced with specific challenges or uncertainties about how to
support these students effectively.
Based on the feedback from the focus groups, it is obvious that the
academic management should prioritise improving infrastructure and
resources to ensure that spaces and learning environments are accessible to
students with a range of disabilities, not just physical or visual impairments.
Universities are increasingly adopting a broader perspective on
inclusive education, one that moves beyond simply ensuring access and
mobility for SEN students (although these are essential components) to
addressing the more dimensions of inclusion. This includes providing
assistive technologies and offering tutoring support (whether from faculty,
senior students, or peers within student organisations) to ensure that SEN
students can fully engage with academic activities. These considerations align
with and support our second research hypothesis.
Our future research will build upon the findings from this study and
may focus on several strategic areas, including: expanding the focus groups
to include students, administrators, and decision-makers; broadening the
analysis to explore the factors that influence the attitudes of teachers,
students, administrators, and decision-makers toward SEN students;
identifying institutional solutions to improve the training provided to
teachers and administrators working with SEN students; and developing a
set of new, additional, or updated measures to enhance the inclusion of SEN
students.
The path to inclusion is challenging and requires extensive
collaboration and engagement with all relevant stakeholders. Among these
factors, teachers, along with their values, attitudes, and practices, remain the
most influential element in shaping successful inclusion.
Acknowledgment | This paper’s publication was financially supported by
the project entitled “Support Initiatives for the Inclusion of Students with
Disabilities in the UBc Academic Community” (SUPORT-UBc), CNFIS-
FDI-2024-F-0179, financed by the National Council for Higher Education,
Romania.

Higher Education Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education
Venera-Mihaela COJOCARIU et al.
48
References
Abu-Hamour, B., (2013). Faculty attitudes toward students with disabilities in a
public university in Jordan. International Education Studies, 6(12), 74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n12p74
Agabrian, M., (2006). Analiza de conţinut [Content analysis]. Polirom
Al-Korbi, H., Al-Hamdani, M. A., Ghareeb, A., Al-Asmakh, M., Abdallah, A. M.
(2024). Facilitating inclusive education: Assessing faculty awareness and
attitudes towards students with special educational needs at Qatar
university. Heliyon, 10(10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31076
Alrusaiyes, R. F. (2024). Faculty attitudes toward students with disabilities in the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A mixed-methods study. Sage Open, 14(1).
https://journal.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.1177/21582440231225583
Angenscheidt Bidegain, L. & Navarrete Antola, I. (2017). Teachers`attitudes
towards inclusive education. Ciencias Psicológicas, 11(2), 233-243.
https://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v11i2.1500
Avramidis, E., Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration /
inclusion: a review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 17(2), 129-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056
Ayub, U., Shahzad, S., Shabbir Ali, M. (2019). University teachers attitude towards
inclusion, efficacy and intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms in higher
education. Global Social Sciences Review, IV(I), 365-372.
https://doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-I).47
Baker, K.Q., Boland, K., Nowik, C. M. (2012). A campus survey of faculty and
student perceptions of persons with disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 25(4), 309-329.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1002143.pdf
Bandyopadhyay, S., Dhara, ‘T. (2021). Teacher’s attitude towards inclusive
education: A literature review. International Journal of Advanced Academic
Studies, 3(1), 214-218, https://www.allstudyjournal.com/article/490/3-1-
37-912.pdf
Barnová, S., Kožuchová, M., Krásna, S., Osaďan, R. (2022). Teachers’ professional
attitudes towards inclusive education. Emerging Science Journal, 6, Special
Issue. https://doi.org./10.28991/ESJ-2022-SIED-02
Belková, V., Zólyomiová, P. (2021). The attitude of university students with special
educational needs to the inclusive environment at their university. Acta
Educationis Generalis, 11(1), 1-13. https://doi.org./10.2478/atd-2021-0001

Revista Românească pentru
Educaţie Multidimensională
January-March 2025
Volume 17, Issue 1
49
Belzile J., Öberg G. (2012). Where to begin? Grappling with how to use participant
interaction in focus group design. Qualitative Research, 12, 459–472.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111433
Bethere, D., Kasiliauskiene, R., Pavitola, L., Usca, S. (2023). Teachers’ attitude
towards inclusive education: Latvian and Lithuanian experiences. Social
Sciences, 12(7), Article 365. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12070365
Bruder, M.B., Mogro-Wilson, C. (2014). Student and faculty awareness and
attitudes about students with disabilities. The Review of Disability Studies, 6:2.
https://www.rdsjournal.org/index.php/journal/article/view/169/0
Carey, M.A. (1994). The group effect in focus groups: Planning, implementing and
interpreting focus group research. In J.M. Morse (ed.) Critical Issues in
Qualitative Research. Sage, (pp. 225-241).
Carey, M.A., Smith, M.W. (1994). Capturing the group effect in focus groups: A
special concern in analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 4(1), 123-127.
https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239400400108
Charitaki, G., Kourti, I., Gregory, J. L., Ozturk, M., Ismail, Z., Alevriadou, A.,
Spyridon-Georgios Soulis, S-G., Sakici, Ş. Demirel, C. (2022). Teachers’
attitudes towards inclusive education: a cross-national exploration. Trends in
Psychology, 32, 1120–1147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-022-00240-0
Dağlı Gökbulut, Ö., Gökbulut, B., Yeniasır, M. (2024). The perceptions and
attitudes of peers towards students with special needs as reflected by their
drawings and the social acceptance scale. Education Sciences, 14(4), 346.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14040346
Ediyanto, & Kawai, N. (2023). The measurement of teachers’ attitudes toward
inclusive education: An empirical study in East Java, Indonesia. Cogent
Education, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2229014
Edna, Z. (2016). Attitudes towards student with disabilities in higher education, is
there any change?. In V. Chis, & I. Albulescu (Eds.), Education, Reflection,
Development - ERD 2016, European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences
(vol 18, pp. 640-647). Future Academy.
https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2016.12.79
Fisseler, B. (2021). Training lecturers and staff in higher education institutions in
preparing accessible and inclusive learning experiences, EDULEARN 21
Proceedings (pp. 10227-10234). https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2021
Fu, W., Xie, Y., Li, R., He, X. (2021). General teachers' attitude toward inclusive
education in Yunnan province in China. International Journal of Psychology

Higher Education Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education
Venera-Mihaela COJOCARIU et al.
50
and Psychoanalysis, 7(1), Article 052. https://doi.org/10.23937/2572-
4037.1510052
Gaad, E., & Almotairi, M. (2013). Inclusion of student with special needs within
higher education in UAE: Issues and challenges. Journal of International
Education Research (JIER), 9(4), 287–292.
https://doi.org/10.19030/jier.v9i4.8080
Gaebel, M., Zhang, T. & Stoeber, H. (2024). TRENDS 2024, European higher
education institutions in times of transition. European University Association.
https://www.eua.eu/publications/reports/trends-2024.html
Galaterou, J., Antoniou, A-S. (2017). Teachers' attitudes towards inclusive
education: the role of job stressors and demographic parameters.
International Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 643-658. EJ1184123.pdf
(ed.gov)
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Aldine.
Gonçalves, T., Borges, M. L., & Martins, M. H. (2014, July). Students with special
educational needs in higher education reflections around inclusion. In
Proceedings of Braga 2014 Embracing Inclusive Approaches for Children and Youth
with Special Education Needs Conference (p. 156).
González-Castellano, N., Colmenero-Ruiz, M. J., Cordón-Pozo, E. (2021). Factors
that influence the university's inclusive educational processes: perceptions
of university professors. Heliyon, 7(4).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06853
Gràcia, M., Leite, L. P., Cañete-Massé, C. (2022). Attitudes towards disability in
higher education. Anuario de Psicología, The UB Journal of Psychology, 52(2),
137-145. http://hdl.handle.net/11449/237807
Greenberger, L., & Leyser, Y. (2010). Students with learning disabilities and other
disabilities in technological institute in higher education: Is faculty assisting
these students to succeed? Issues in Special Education & Inclusion, 25, 61–80.
Guillemot, F., Lacroix, F., Nocus, I. (2022). Teachers' attitude towards inclusive
education from 2000 to 2020: An extended meta-analysis. International
Journal of Educational Research Open, 3,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100175
Gülsün, İ., Malinen, O.-P., Yada, A., Savolainen, H. (2023). Exploring the role of
teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, their self-efficacy, and
collective efficacy in behaviour management in teacher behaviour. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 132, Article 104228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104228

Revista Românească pentru
Educaţie Multidimensională
January-March 2025
Volume 17, Issue 1
51
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content
analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Ignacio, T., Allit, K. (2023). Attitudes of university faculty toward inclusion of
students with special education needs. Erudio Journal of Educational
Innovation, 10(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8105178
Jenson, K. (2018). A global perspective on teacher attitudes towards inclusion: Literature
review. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed585094
Johnson, D., & Johnson, F. (1997). Joining together: Group theory and group skills (6th
ed.) Allyn and Bacon.
Jury, M., Perrin, A.-L., Rohmer, O., Desombre, C (2021). Attitudes toward
inclusive education: an exploration of the interaction between teachers’
status and students’ type of disability within the French context. Frontiers in
Education, 6, Article 655356, https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.655356
Kirillova, E.A., Faizrakhmanova, A.T. (2016). Teaching staff training for work in
the context of inclusive education. International Electronic Journal of
Mathematics Education, 11 (4), 647-
656.https://www.iejme.com/download/teaching-staff-training-for-work-
in-the-context-of-inclusive-education.pdf
Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis. SAGE.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878781
Kristiansen, T. M., & Grønkjær, M. (2018). Focus groups as social arenas for the
negotiation of normativity. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917747393
Krueger, R. A., Casey, M. A. (2005). Metoda Focus Grup: ghid practic pentru cercetarea
aplicată. Polirom
Lindgren, B. M., Lundman, B., & Graneheim, U. H. (2020). Abstraction and
interpretation during the qualitative content analysis process. International
journal of nursing studies, 108, 103632.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103632
Lister, K., Pearson, V. K., Collins, T. D., Davies, G. (2020). Evaluating inclusion in
distance learning: a survey of university staff attitudes, practices and
training needs. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 34(3),
321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1828048
Mareş, G., Cîrtiţă-Buzoianu, C., Cojocariu, V.-M., Amalancei, B.-M., Mâţă, L.
(2024). Social inclusion attitude, an insight among teachers from
disadvantaged areas. Revista Românească pentru Educaţie Multidimensională,
16(1), 429-448. https://doi.org/10.18662/rrem/16.1/830

Higher Education Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive Education
Venera-Mihaela COJOCARIU et al.
52
Martins, M. H., Borges, M. L. & Gonçalves, T. (2017). Attitudes towards inclusion
in higher education in a Portuguese university. International Journal of Inclusive
Education. 22(5), 527-542.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1377299
Mâţă, L., & Clipa, O. (2020). Inclusive education and in-service teachers' attitudes.
Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 12(1), 135-149.
https://doi.org/10.28991/ESJ-2022-SIED-02
Ministry of Education (2023). Legea învăţământului preuniversitar nr. 198/2023,
actualizată 2024, Capitolul V - Educaţia incluzivă de calitate pentru toţi
beneficiarii primari ai educaţiei, Secţiunea a II-a, Educaţia special (Pre-
University Education Law No. 198/2023, updated 2024, Chapter V -
Inclusive quality education for all primary beneficiaries of education,
Section II, Special Education).
https://edu.ro/sites/default/files/fi%c8%99iere/minister/2023/legi_educ
atie_romania_educata/legi_monitor/legea_invatamantului_preuniversitar_
nr_198.pdf
Moriña, A. (2016). Inclusive education in higher education: challenges and
opportunities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(1), 3–17.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1254964
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The content analysis guidebook. Sage.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Dickinson, W. B., Leech, N. L., & Zoran, A. G. (2009). A
qualitative framework for collecting and analyzing data in focus group
research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800301
Saloviita, T. (2018). Attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education in Finland.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(2), 270–282.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1541819
San Martin, C.; Ramirez, C.; Calvo, R.; Muñoz - Martínez, Y.; Sharma, U. (2021).
Chilean teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, intention, and self-
efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Sustainability, 13, 2300.
https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13042300
Savolainen, H., Malinen, O.-P., Schwab, S. (2020). Teacher efficacy predicts
teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion – a longitudinal cross-lagged analysis.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(9), 958-972.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2020.1752826
Shadreck, M. (2012). Bachelor of education in service teacher trainees’ perceptions
and attitudes on inclusive education in Zimbabwe. Asian Social Science,
8(13). http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v8n13p227

Revista Românească pentru
Educaţie Multidimensională
January-March 2025
Volume 17, Issue 1
53
Societatea academică din România (2016). Cum abordăm problema discriminării în mediul
universitar? (Romanian Academic Society (2016). How should we tackle
discrimination in academia?) Policy-brief-73-cum-abordam-problema-
discriminarii-in-mediul-universitar_v.-website.pdf (romaniacurata.ro)
Supriyanto, D. (2019). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A literature
review. Indonesian Journal of Disability Studies, 6(1), 29–37.
https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.ijds.2019.006.01.4
Svendby, R.B. (2024). Inclusive teaching in higher education: challenges of diversity
in learning situations from the lecturer perspective. Social Sciences. 13(3),
140. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030140
United Nations (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities,
https://social.desa.un.org/issues/disability/crpd/convention-on-the-
rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-crpd
Yada, A., & Savolainen, H. (2017). Japanese in-service teachers’ attitudes toward
inclusive education and self-efficacy for inclusive practices. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 64, 222-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.005
Yang, M., Yu, C. (2021). A Review of teachers’ sentiments and attitudes in inclusive
education in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 760115.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.760115
Zabeli, N., Kaçaniku, F., Koliqi, D., & Li, J. (2021). Towards the inclusion of
students with special needs in higher education: Challenges and prospects
in Kosovo. Cogent Education, 8(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2020.1859438