JOURNAL OF NEW APPROACHES IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Vol. 8. No. 1. January 2019. pp. 18–24 2254-7339 DOI: 10.7821/naer.2019.1.321

ORIGINAL

Barriers to Student Learning and Participation in an Inclusive

School as Perceived by Future Education Professionals
Pilar Arnaiz Sánchez1* , Remedios de Haro Rodríguez2 , Rosa María Maldonado
Martínez3
1
Didactic and School Organization, University of Murcia, Spain {[email protected]}
2
Didactic and School Organization, University of Murcia, Spain {[email protected]}
3
Department of Education, Youth and Sports of the Region of Murcia, Spain {[email protected]}
Received on 21 May 2018; revised on 23 May 2018; accepted on 25 June 2018; published on 15 January 2019

DOI: 10.7821/naer.2019.1.321

ABSTRACT tinue to strive to make the right to, inclusive equitable and
Inclusive education represents the way forward to achieving high quality education of all and for all a reality. As expressed by
quality education systems, which are fair and equitable. This Torres (2017), our moral, intellectual and social obligation is to
paper analyzes the barriers to learning and the current participa- achieve a democratic education system in which equity, justice
tion of schools in the promotion of inclusion from the perspective and equal rights prevail. Only in this way will it be possible to
of future teaching professionals, specifically, 86 students from dismantle the architecture of existing inequality and exclusion
three Masters Courses in the Faculty of Education of the Univer- and replace it with a just inclusive curriculum. In this sense,
sity of Murcia. A questionnaire was utilized in order to ascertain an education without exclusions is projected as an ecological
their perceptions of the limitations and obstacles present within model where the community, the family, the educational cen-
the school context, the attitudes, the availability of resources and tres, the teachers and the students celebrate diversity and work
the adequacy of the educational response offered by the educa- in inclusive processes that aim for the maximum development
tional centres in which they had carried out their teacher training of the person and their presence and participation in different
placements, with the aim of improving the future training of other areas of society (Mitchell, 2018).
students. A non-experimental narrative method was used. The For these reasons, policies on inclusive education, in their
results show many barriers and obstacles in the educational cen- statements, actions and measures, should ensure that there is
tres such as a lack of teacher training, which is needed to respond little difference between the declaration of intentions and educa-
to the needs of all the students, the consideration that the diversity tional practices (Arroyo & Berzosa, 2018; Martín-Lagos, 2018).
of the students is a problem, physical barriers, underuse of exist- Ainscow & Booth (2002) with regard to this, point out that edu-
ing resources, as well as an educational response lacking in orga- cational cultures, policies and practices can favour or hinder the
nizational and didactic strategies which does not take responsibil- path towards inclusion, establishing barriers to learning and to
ity for a just and inclusive curriculum for all students. the participation of students and the educational community and
thereby generate exclusion and a lack of equity in education sys-
KEYWORDS: INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, MASTER-DEGREE tems. These barriers must be identified and overcome so that a
STUDENTS, TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS, RESOURCES IN quality education of all and for all is possible. In this regard, Slee
SCHOOLS, INTEGRATED SCHOOLS. (2018) insists on the need to analyse the educational and social
cultures and policies that favour inclusion in order to establish
1 INTRODUCTION proposals for reform or change directed at supporting the needs
of all students. Inclusive education requires immersion in a con-
On the 70th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human
tinuous research-action processes in centres of education which
Rights, promulgated by the UN in 1948, it made evident and
allow for the identification of their strengths, barriers and obsta-
reaffirmed once again that education is an inalienable right of
cles in order to establish improvement actions that favour fair
everyone, which should underpin 21st century education sys-
and quality education for all (Chiner, Cardona & Gómez, 2015;
tems and societies deemed democratic. In this sense, and as
Escarbajal, Arnaiz, & Giménez, 2017). For example, we point
prestigious and recognized authors and diverse institutions
out how for students with specific educational needs support
on the subject have indicated (Ainscow, Beresford, Harris,
often suffers from the presence of these obstacles and barriers
Hopkins, Southworth, & West, 2016; Arnaiz, 2011; Escudero,
because they do not find themselves in democratically inclusive
2006; UNESCO, 2017; Varcoe & Boyle, 2014), we must con-
and fair schools.
The barriers to learning and participation have different
natures and can occur at different levels such as the attitudi-
*
To whom correspondence should be addressed: nal, the organizational and the contextual. For this reason, it is
Universidad de Murcia. Facultad de Educación. Departamento de Di- essential that professionals in the field of education are aware
dáctica y Organización Escolar. Campus de Espinardo, 30.100. Murcia of their existence, know how to identify them and are capable
(España).

© NAER Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research 2019 | http://naerjournal.ua.es 18

 Barriers to Student Learning and Participation in an Inclusive School as Perceived by Future Education Professionals

of proposing changes and improvements that eliminate them attitudes, availability of resources and educational response.
in order to offer inclusive responses to students. The impor-
tance given to this issue has been made by different authors 2.3 Participants
(Colmenero & Pegalajar, 2015; Luque, Gutiérrez, & Carrión, The participants in this study were students from three Mas-
2018; Reoyo, Carbonero, Freitas, & Valdivieso, 2012; Sánchez ters Courses of the University of Murcia in the academic year
Palomino, 2009; Seville, Martín, & Jenaro, 2017) inquire into 2016-2017: Master of Social and Educational Inclusion, Master
the viewpoint and thoughts of future teaching professionals in of Research and Innovation in Nursery and Primary Educa-
education, in order to discover what the barriers to learning tion, and Master of Research, Evaluation and Quality. It is a
and participation that they encounter are in compulsory and non-probability sample, selected for convenience. The sample
post-compulsory education. size with a confidence level of 95% (Z = 1.96), and a sampling
In the same way, it appears important to us that future pro- error of 5.3% rests with 86 participants. Table 1 shows the in-
fessionals in the field of educational are aware of the existence vited sample, the participant sample and the real sample of this
of these barriers and do not perpetuate or develop them when study. In it, we can see the number of subjects of the population
they are in practice. Varcoe and Boyle (2014) complain about the invited to participate (N = 115), the subjects that agreed to be
work of universities in this regard. In the same way, López-Tor- part of the study (N = 88), and finally the sample that produces
rijo and Mengual-Andrés (2015), identify as a crucial aspect for data (N = 86).
the development of inclusion the formation of teachers and the
development of competencies in students to be able to identify Table 1. Number and percentages of the participants in the sample
the strengths and weaknesses or barriers present in an education-
al institution in the interest of promoting inclusive educational Type of sample N %
practices.
In view of the above, the purpose of this work is to discover Invited sample 115 100,00%
the viewpoint and thoughts of future professionals in the field of Participant sample 88 76,50%
education, students on different masters courses in the Faculty of
Education of the University of Murcia, concerning the barriers Real sample 86 74,70%
present in centres of education that hinder an inclusive educa-
tion. In their undergraduate studies these students have carried If we take into account the percentage of participants according
out teacher training placements which have allowed them to visit to the sociodemographic or predictor variables used in this research
educational centres in the region of Murcia and gain a specific (gender, age, masters course studied and Master’s Degree entry
viewpoint of the school context, the prevailing attitudes and the requirements), we can characterize the sample in more detail.
educational responses of the teachers when faced with students Thus, 66 women and 20 men participated in this study. With
with specific educational needs support, as well as existing re- reference to age, the largest number of participants is in the age
sources. range between 21 and 30 years old with a total of 76 subjects,
Therefore, in the study presented, we proposed as a general in the age range of 31-40 years old we recorded 8 subjects, and
aim: only 2 Participants appear in the age bracket between 41 and
Analyse the barriers to learning and participation in develop- 50 years old.
ing inclusive education in educational centres from the of Master The Master’s Degree entry requirements most represented
students’ perception. with 51.2% of the sample or 44 subjects was the Degree in Pri-
The specific objectives that stem from this aim are: mary Education and with 25.6% or 22 individuals, the Degree
1. Identify the existing barriers in the school context and the in nursery Education. The rest come from degrees in Specialist
attitudes of the teachers. Foreign Languages Teaching: English and Teachers in Physical
2. Identify the existing barriers regarding the availability of Education as well as the Degrees of Pedagogy and Psychology.
resources. Finally, the number of participants distributed according to the
3. Detect the barriers present in the educational response. master’s degree course is the following. 43% of the subjects
4. Study the barriers according to the variables related to gen- belong to the course Master’s degree in Social and Educational
der, age, Master’s Degree entry requirements and master’s Inclusion-Exclusion: Politics, Programs and Practices; 40.7%
degree course on the course Master’s Degree in Research and Innovation
in Nursery and Primary Education, and the remaining 16.3%
2 METHOD belong to the Master’s Degree in Research, Evaluation and
Quality in Education.
2.1 Design
2.4 Instrument
It is a quantitative, non-experimental, narrative study. This will
The instrument selected for the collection of information was
establish the main barriers to learning and participation, from
an ad hoc questionnaire. Its purpose was to understand the bar-
the Masters students’ perspective, and establish any possible sig-
riers to learning and participation, which exist in schools from
nificant differences encountered.
the viewpoint of students on the master’s degree courses, as
2.2 Variables well as a critical assessment of the commitment to the mea-
sures taken to promote inclusion.
The predictor variables were: gender, age, master’s degree entry Given its nature, the appropriate checks have been under-
requirements and master’s degree course. taken to provide a valid and reliable instrument (Cubo, Martín,
The criterion variables are represented by the 40 items present & Ramos, 2011). Therefore, once it was prepared, its valida-
in the questionnaire, which in turn are grouped into three dimen- tion was sought from several experts in the field, as well as
sions or variables which are: school context and predominant

19
Arnaiz, P.; de Haro, R.; Maldonado, R. M. / Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research 8(1) 2019. 18-24

the completion of a validation guide in order to ascertain their of the dimensions as well as globally. In order to ascertain the
opinions and evaluations in relation to the issues raised. Some possible significant differences present as a function of the
of the modifications and observations made by the experts and predictor or socio-demographic variables of the sample, non-
integrated into the final questionnaire, reference to the elimi- parametric statistics were used, due to the non-randomness
nation of items, their grouping into dimensions and the letter of of the sample since the data are measured on a ordinal scale,
introduction were sent to the participants. using the Kruskal-Wallis test for the comparison of means of
After the process of completing and entering the data and more than two groups and the Mann Whitney U for two groups,
carrying out the necessary statistical analyses, Cronbach’s adopting the level of significance of p <0.05
alpha was α = .926, which indicated a high reliability for the
whole questionnaire. In the same way, this reliability is high, 3 RESULTS
taking into account the three dimensions of the questionnaire, The results have been presented taking into account the spe-
in School context and predominant attitudes (α = .850); in cific objectives formulated in the study.
Availability and coordination of resources (α = .830); and in
the Educational Response dimension (α = .859). In the instru- 3.1 Barriers Present in the school context and in
ment appear 40 items valued by a Likert type response scale attitudes
which goes from 1, strongly disagree, to 5 very much agree.
The results presented in Table 2 show important obstacles
The three dimensions present in the instrument, as we have
within the school context of the centres in the promotion
expressed previously, are: a) School context and predominant
of an inclusive education from the viewpoint of the future
attitudes (items 1-16), whose purpose is to ascertain the attitudes
teaching professionals. It is sufficient to take note of the low
and expectations of teachers towards students with specific ed-
scores of items 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 11 and 15, which show the ex-
ucational needs support and their level of training received to
istence of important limitations in the school context and
respond to the needs presented by this type of student. Like-
in the attitudes of many teachers from the perception of
wise, also reflected is the feeling of belonging to the centre; the
the participants in this study (master’s degree students).
support and respect relationships within peers; the involvement
In this way the barriers present in the school context refer to:
and participation of the entire educational community; and the
• The lack of positive attitudes among teachers regarding
realization of awareness-raising activities of the educational
the incorporation of students with specific educational
community and ongoing teacher training aimed at inclusion.
needs support (M = 2.93, SD = .089).
b) Availability of resources (items 17-24) where information
• The lack of positive expectations on the part of teachers re-
related to the physical accessibility of the educational cen-
garding the abilities of all the students, teachers displayed
tres is collected, and the existence or not of resources and
weaknesses in their attitudes towards the diversity of the
materials necessary to give an adequate response to the de-
students and in particular of students with specific educa-
mands of students with specific educational needs support.
tional needs support (M = 2.91, SD = .990).
c) Educational response (items 25-40) consisting of items that
• Lack of teacher training to respond to the educational
clearly reflect the type of educational response offered to stu-
needs of all students, demonstrating the absence of com-
dents; whether the activities and methodology are adapted to
petencies in teachers when facing the challenge of offering
the educational needs of the students; and the types of grouping
inclusive practices (M = 2.38, SD = .935).
of the students. Based on the data obtained in this dimension,
• The absence of an adequate organizational structure to
it can be observed what the limitations in the educational
respond to the educational needs of all students, especially
response provided to the students are in order to offer an in-
with reference to those most vulnerable (M = 2.85, SD =
clusive education.
.0952).
2.5 Procedure • On the same theme, items 10 and 11 group barriers in re-
lation to the non-development of activities for the ongoing
After reviewing various instruments and the literature relat-
training of teachers in matters of attention to diversity (M
ed to the identification of the barriers to the development of
= 2.43, SD = .094), as well as the lack of leadership from
inclusive education in the field of education (Ainscow, 2001;
the management team in not energizing and promoting
Ainscow & Booth, 2002; Ainscow et al., 2016; Arnaiz &
the implementation of training activities in this area (M =
Guirao, 2014, 2015; the Reine Guide prepared by the UDS
2.72, SD = .095).
State of Education, 2009), the instrument described above was
• Finally, we want to point out a series of items that, despi-
constructed following the necessary steps in order to obtain
te not obtaining very good marks, are closer to a level of
its validity. Subsequently, we contacted the coordinators of the
agreement with the following statements, such as: in item
selected master’s courses to inform them of the study to be car-
8 “The students understand and help their classmates who
ried out. With their approval, the different groups of students
have specific educational needs support”, we can see that
were approached through their representatives or group dele-
the mean is close to 4 (M = 3.60, SD = .858). The same
gates, establishing the dates to inform the students about the
happens in item 3, “Teachers present respectful attitudes
purpose of the study and requesting their participation, collab-
towards all students, including those with specific educa-
oration and informed consent. The sessions lasted 40 minutes
tional needs support”, we can say that the central trend is
in each of the groups.
closer to 4 (M = 3.91, SD = .792).
2.6 Data analysis The following table shows the issues described as well as
the results obtained in each of the items referred to in this di-
For the analysis of data the statistical program SPSS version mension.
19.0 was used. With this software we proceeded to carry out
a descriptive analysis (mean and standard deviations) for each

20
 Barriers to Student Learning and Participation in an Inclusive School as Perceived by Future Education Professionals

Table 2. Descriptive analysis for specific objective 1 • In this same vein, the future teaching professionals consider
that the centres do not have the resources and support to
Standard respond to students with specific educational needs support
N Mean
Deviation
(M = 2.67, SD = .951).
1. Teachers show positive attitudes • In the same way, they assert that information is not presen-
towards the incorporation of students
86 2.93 .892 ted in different methods by which a student with a level of
with specific educational needs
support. functional diversity can access it under conditions of equa-
lity (M = 2.55, SD = .893). Likewise, they perceive that
2. Teachers have high expectations of
86 2.91 .990 information and communication technologies are not used
every student’s abilities.
as they should. (M = 2.80, SD = 1.027), In these results it is
3. The teaching staff display a explicit that these technologies are not used to facilitate or
respectful attitude towards all
86 3.91 .792 attend to the current needs of the students.
students, including those who have
specific educational needs support. • Together with this, the measures taken to respond to the
requirements of students with specific educational needs, su-
4. Teachers are trained to respond to
the educational needs of all students.
86 2.38 .935 pport within the ordinary centres, are considered insufficient
(M = 2.21, SD = .947).
5. Students with specific educational
• Finally, there is a lack of inclusive support measures within
needs support feel they belong to the
school as a member of a welcoming
86 3.20 .992 the ordinary classroom (M = 2.64, SD = .969), which shows
community. evidence of a scarcity of resources and measures to offer at-
tention to diversity both in quality and inclusiveness.
6. The teaching staff tries to remove
the barriers that impede student 86 3.16 .906
learning and participation. Table 3. Descriptive analysis for specific objective 2
7. Educational tasks in the centres
Standard
are organized so that all students, 86 2.85 .952 N Mean
Deviation
including the most vulnerable, learn.
8. The student body understands 17. The facilities and services of the
and helps peers who have specific 86 3.60 .858 educational centres are physically
educational needs support. accessible for students with 86 2.86 1.118
functional diversity (blind, deaf or
9. In the educational centre, the presenting with some difficulty).
diversity of the students is seen as a 86 3.26 1.008
value that enriches everyone. 18. Schools have the resources and
support to respond to students with 86 2.67 .951
10. Activities are developed for the specific educational needs support.
on-going training of teachers with 86 2.43 .940
regards to attention to diversity. 19. The centre uses the resources
of the community for educational 86 3.33 .900
11. The Management Team stimulates purposes.
and promotes the fulfilment of 86 2.72 .954
activities for teacher training. 20. ICT is used to respond to the
educational needs of students with 86 2.80 1.027
12. Participation in the decision- specific educational needs support.
making of the entire educational 86 3.03 .939
community is encouraged. 21. The information presented is
differentiated so that students with
13. Programs and activities are 86 2.55 .893
86 3.16 .866 any kind of functional diversity can
developed to improve coexistence. access it.
14. Mutual support relationships are 22. Adapted materials are designed
86 3.29 .879 86 3.14 .960
fostered among the students. or used for the students who need it.
15. The centres promote campaigns of 23. The measures to respond to
awareness and sensitivity regarding 86 2.95 1.039 the needs of students with specific
diversity. 86 2.21 .947
educational needs support within
16. The involvement and participation mainstream centres are sufficient.
of families in their children’s 86 3.10 1.006 24. Inclusive support measures
education is encouraged. are promoted (within the standard 86 2.64 .969
SCHOOL_CONTEXT (global classroom).
86 30.560 .51895
variable for this dimension) RESOURCES (global variable for
86 27.774 .66148
this dimension)
3.2 Existing barriers to the availability of resources.
The mean of the responses to this dimension is below 3, show- 3.3 Barriers which exist in the educational response.
ing their degree of disagreement with good resource planning to The future teaching professionals have identified barriers in the
develop a quality and equitable education for all (M = 2.77, SD educational response offered in the educational centres linked to
= .661). In Table 3, the barriers present in this dimension can be aspects such as: the methodologies used, low motivation of stu-
observed (items 17, 18, 20, 21 and 23), such as: dents, the lack of an educational response adjusted to the needs of
• For students with functional diversity the facilities and ser- each student, the lack of differentiation in the proposed activities
vices of the educational centres are not easily accessible (M or lack of organizational and curricular strategies for attention to
= 2.86, SD = 1.118).

21
Arnaiz, P.; de Haro, R.; Maldonado, R. M. / Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research 8(1) 2019. 18-24

Table 4. Descriptive analysis for specific objective 3 • Lack of motivation for students to achieve their active invol-
vement and participation in the learning process (M = 2.92,
Standard SD = .961).
N Mean
Deviation • No offers of an individualized response to the students (M =
25. Teachers promote the 2.99, SD = .976).
participation and learning of
86 3.08 .910
• The absence of the necessary adaptations in the learning ac-
students with specific educational tivities for students with specific educational needs support
needs support. (M = 2.87, SD = .865).
26. Support for students with • The absence of multilevel teaching which is necessary to ad-
specific educational needs dress diversity in inclusive contexts (M = 2.66, SD = 1.013).
86 3.79 1.042
support is left to be carried out by • An understanding of the diversity of the students is not promo-
specialists.
ted within the programmed activities, (M = 2.85, SD = .964).
27. The methodologies used are • Similarly the future teaching professionals affirm that they
86 2.78 .773
diverse.
did not encounter didactic and organizational strategies that
28. Students with specific promote inclusion such as: learning contracts (M = 2.33, SD
educational needs support are = .832), peer tutoring (M = 2.71, SD = 1.105 ) project-based
86 2.92 .961
motivated to be involved in their
learning and research projects (M = 2.34, SD = 1.08) and
own learning.
working in student corners (M = 2.95, SD = 1.26).
29. Students with specific educa- • In the same way, they identify with a value close to agreement
tional needs support receive an
86 2.99 .976 that the responsibility for students with specific educational
individualized response to their
needs. needs support is left in the hands of specialists as shown in
item 26 (M = 3.79, SD = 1.04).
30. The designed activities have
Therefore, after presenting the results obtained, it is possible to
the necessary adaptations for
86 2.87 .865 affirm the presence of barriers and important limitations in the ed-
students with specific educational
needs support. ucational response offered to students from the beliefs/viewpoint
and perceptions of future teaching professionals, as shown in the
31. The activities are planned
with different levels of difficulty 86 2.66 1.013 following table.
(multilevel teaching).
3.4 Barriers depending on the variables related to:
32. An understanding of the gender, age, Master’s Degree entry requirements
diversity of the students is
promoted within the programmed
86 2.85 .964 and master’s degree course.
activities. The intention of objective four is to discover if there are differ-
33. Tasks alternate between indi-
86 3.43 1.143
ences in the identification of barriers according to gender, age,
vidual work and group work. master’s course or entry requirements. And, where there are dif-
34. Learning contracts are esta- ferences, disclose the groups affected. It should be noted that
86 2.33 .832
blished with students. reference will only be made to the groups in which significant
35. Cooperative learning strategi- differences were found.
86 3.07 1.060
es are used. Once the necessary tests had been carried out, it was possible
36. Peer tutoring is developed. 86 2.71 1.105 to verify that there are no statistically significant differences ac-
cording to gender, age and degree. However, differences were
37. Groupings of students assist
observed in the barriers identified by the students on the differ-
the participation of students
86 3.31 1.055 ent master course groups participating in this work, in two of the
with specific educational needs
support. three dimensions that make up the questionnaire, the variable
school context and predominant attitudes (p = 0.02), in the ed-
38. Flexible groupings are used. 86 3.01 1.079
ucational response variable (p = .004) and globally (p = .002).
39. Methodologies are developed Once the existence of differences is shown, it is necessary to look
based on the completion of Task 86 2.34 1.080
at which groups of masters produced this effect. Once all the pos-
or Investigation Projects.
sible combinations have been made, it can be confirmed that there
40. The student corners are significant differences in two cases. On the one hand, between
methodology is present in the 86 2.95 1.264
the Master’s Degree in Social and Educational Inclusion-Exclu-
classroom.
sion: Policies, Programs and Practices and the Master’s Degree
EDUCATIONAL_RESPONSE in Research and Innovation in Nursery and Primary Education in
(global variable for this 86 29.433 .57511
dimension)
the school context dimensions and predominant/prevailing atti-
tudes (p = .002), educational response (p = .001) and globally (p
= .001). These differences are always favourable among students
diversity (learning contracts, peer tutoring, project-based learn- of the Master’s Degree in Social and Educational Inclusion-Ex-
ing, multilevel teaching), among other issues. All this is shown clusion: Policies, Programs and Practices since they identify more
in Table 4, where we find values ​​of the mean less than 3 for this barriers in the centres.
dimension (M = 2.94, SD = .575), as well as for many of its items On the other hand, between the Master’s Degree in Social and
(27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 39 and 40) as: Educational Inclusion-Exclusion: Policies, Programs and Practic-
• The lack of methodological diversity in teaching practices es and the Master’s Degree in Research, Evaluation and Quality
(M = 2.78, SD = .773). in Education, differences are observed in the barriers identified by
the students in one of the dimensions, school context (p = .008)

22
 Barriers to Student Learning and Participation in an Inclusive School as Perceived by Future Education Professionals

and global level (p = .028), much more critical and identifying the in ICT to empower their students. Likewise, Tejada and Pozos
largest number of barriers were students on the Master’s Degree (2018) recognize ICT as a key factor for the transformation of ed-
in Social and Educational Inclusion-Exclusion: Policies, Pro- ucational practices, demanding initial and ongoing training of the
grams and Practices. teaching staff. Together with the above, one of the most striking
pieces of data observed in this dimension is the lack of attention to
4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS diversity measures within the framework of ordinary education,
as always, based on the viewpoint of the master students partic-
The results shown above demonstrate the existence of barriers to ipating in this study. In this sense, we find on many occasions a
learning and participation in educational centres in the promo- whole series of measures described in the regulations but with-
tion of inclusive educational practices if we take into account the out practical application. Like Arroyo and Berzosa (2018) and
opinions made by the master’s degree students and future teach- Martín-Lagos (2018), we have identified the distance between
ing professionals participating in the study. It is worth recalling, ideals and practices, as well as between research and its transfer
following Ainscow (2001, 2007), that one of the main tasks in or application to educational centres. Starting from legislation,
developing an inclusive education is to identify the barriers that diversity is conceived as a challenge, many of the actions and
hinder the learning and participation of all students in order to measures designed by the educational administration continue to
eradicate inequality and establish educational equity. In this focus on difference from the deficit theory, perpetuating inequal-
sense, Torres (2017) points out the need to carry out a school re- ity and exclusion (Escarbajal, Arnaiz & Giménez, 2017). These
structuring by the entire community from critical, transformative same ideas are expressed by Sevilla, Martín and Jenaro, (2017)
and participatory perspectives. This is evidenced by the results in their study related to the perceptions of inclusive education of
derived from this study. From their experiences the students of those students who are trained to be teachers in the state of Yu-
the three Master’s courses in the Faculty of Education of the Uni- catán, pointing out the long way to go, not only in terms of the
versity of Murcia, as future professionals in the field of teaching, generation of knowledge but also in actions that allow teachers to
have identified weaknesses and limitations in the three dimen- change their perception.
sions of the developed questionnaire. Finally, with regard to the educational response, the analysed
With regard to the first one, the context and predominant atti- data shows important limitations, in relation to the methodolo-
tudes, two major barriers can be detected, both related to teacher gies used, to the limited adaptations of the activities designed
training. The perception the master students have is that on the to respond to the needs of the students and, above all, from the
one hand the teaching staff of the centres are not prepared to re- Masters students opinion, the assumption of the deficit model ex-
spond to the needs presented by all the students and, on the other plained above, with the responsibility for students with specific
hand, the lack of projects developed at the core of the centre to educational needs support falling back on specialist. The latter is
promote change and improvement. In this sense, López Torrijo one of the most alarming data of all the results obtained since, as
& Mengual-Andrés (2015) point out the importance of teacher Bisquerra (2011), Colmenero and Pegalajar, (2015), responding
training for the success of inclusion. In the same way, Reoyo, Car- to the needs of diversity should not be considered the exclusive
bonero, Freitas & Valdivieso (2012), in a study similar to ours, task of specialist teachers, but has to be addressed by all teachers
describe how the students perceive the importance of Secondary and from a framework of collaboration. The fact that attention to
Education teacher training in the aspects curricular, emotional diversity rests solely with specialist teachers causes attitudes op-
and relational. Also, different authors (Bisquerra, 2011, Escudero posed to inclusion to be developed in schools. These attitudes are
2006, Krischesk & Murillo, 2008), demand teacher collaboration framed within a deficit model, in which the educational response
and the need to share challenges and responsibilities in the centres focuses more on the difficulties than on the capacities of the stu-
for the democratic improvement of education. Combined with dents (Lledó & Arnaiz, 2010).
this, and as has been shown in other works (Arnaiz, De Haro, & Therefore, as confirmed by Arnaiz and Guirao (2014), schools
Guirao, 2015), it is possible to welcome and celebrate the multiple are currently undergoing a process of transformation, which
differences which exist in students, put in place positive expec- they must face in order to evolve according to the needs of so-
tations towards them, as well as have a distributed leadership ciety. Flexibility, creativity, tolerance and diversity are some of
promote campaigns of sensitization and awareness towards other- the characteristics that schools must have in order to adequately
ness, as Harris (2008) and González (2008) point out. Following address all their students and develop an education for all. For
Varcoe and Boyle, it is important to remember the importance of this reason, they must opt for a model committed to inclusive ed-
the teacher’s attitude in the promotion of inclusion, recognizing ucation whose implementation is still a great challenge despite
and encouraging at the same time the role of universities in the the numerous efforts that have been made in terms of inclusion,
development of such attitudes in teachers in-training. because there are still attitudes, practices and policies observed in
With regards to the availability of resources, the second dimen- the centres which hinder the development of an education for all.
sion analysed, the results obtained show the existence of important The identification of the barriers present in the educational insti-
shortcomings in this area. From the perspective of future teaching tutions by the students of the masters courses has shown significant
professionals, the overall balance of this dimension reveals many differences in the comparison of the means with reference to the
barriers and limitations in the field of resources, preventing the type of master’s course. Concretely the students of the Master’s
students’ enjoyment and benefit of equal opportunities. The lack Degree of Social and Educational Inclusion-Exclusion: Policies,
of resources and their poor organization represent the materializa- Programs and Practices have been the most critical in identifying
tion of important obstacles to learning and the participation of all a greater number of barriers. As a matter of fact, it should be noted
students. It is necessary to highlight the importance of providing that the University of Murcia created this master’s degree with the
resources and support to offer a quality response to the demands purpose of analysing social and educational inequalities, taking
presented by the students. In this sense, one of the barriers identi- into account the values ​​and principles characteristic of democratic,
fied appears in relation to the use of ICT. As a matter of fact, the fair and equitable approaches on which quality and inclusive edu-
UNESCO Report (2008) indicates that teachers must be trained cation should be based. It must prepare students by providing them

23
Arnaiz, P.; de Haro, R.; Maldonado, R. M. / Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research 8(1) 2019. 18-24

with the necessary tools and techniques to investigate and analyse Arroyo, M. J., & Berzosa, I. (2018). Atención educativa al alumnado inmigrante; en
busca del consenso. Revista de Educación, 379, 192-215.
relationships at the macro, meso and micro levels, as well as iden- Bisquerra, R. (2012). Diversidad y escuela inclusiva desde la educación emocio-nal.
tify situations in which there is a risk of exclusion and promoting En J. Navarro (Ed.), Diversidad, calidad y equidad educativas (pp. 1-9). Mur-
the development of inclusive practices. The differences found may cia: Consejería de Educación, Formación y Empleo. Recuperado de http://sid.
be due to this fact. Once again we are talking of the need for train- usal.es/idocs/F8/FDO26202/Diversidad_calidad_equidad.pdf
Chiner, E., Cardona, M. C., & Gómez, J. M. (2015). Teacher’s ´beliefs about di-
ing in order to identify good practices.
versity: an analysis from a personal and professional perspective. Journal
In this way, the conclusions of the study show that the students of New Approaches in Educational Research, 4(1), 18-23. doi:10.7821/
of the master’s courses have revealed, through their answers, the naer.2015.1.113
presence of barriers that limit the participation and learning of Colmenero, M. J., & Pegalajar, M. C. (2015). Cuestionario para futuros docentes de
the students. They have identified barriers in the three dimensions Educación Secundaria acerca de las percepciones sobre atención a la diversi-
dad: Construcción y validación del instrumento. Estudios sobre Educación,
that constitute the questionnaire, which in turn reveals the need to 29, 165-189. doi:10.15581/004.29.165-189
undertake changes and innovations at all levels of the current edu- Cubo, S., Martín, B., & Ramos, J. L. (2011). Métodos de investigación y análisis de
cation system. Therefore, in the spheres of the school context and datos en ciencias sociales y de la salud. Madrid: Pirámide.
attitudes, it is necessary to rethink teacher training and encourage Escarbajal, A., Arnaiz, P., & Giménez, A. (2017). Evaluación de las fortalezas y
debilidades del proceso educativo en centros de infantil, primaria y secundaria
the proliferation of activities to raise awareness among teachers
desde una perspectiva inclusiva. Revista Complutense de Educación, 28(2),
and the entire educational community. 427-433. doi:10.5209/rev_RCED.2017.v28.n2.49423
Regarding the availability and coordination of resources, it is Escudero, J. M. (2006). Compartir propósitos y responsabilidades para una mejora
essential to highlight that it is very important to have the nec- democrática de la educación. Revista de Educación, 339, 19-41.
essary resources to offer an adequate response, as well as the González, M. T. (2008). Diversidad e inclusión educativa: algunas reflexiones sobre
el liderazgo en el centro escolar. Revista Electrónica Iberoamericana sobre
knowledge of how to use them, since the lack of these implies Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 6(2), 82-99
some elements of disadvantage and / or discrimination, since the Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership in schools: Developing the leaders of to-
non-use or non-availability of the necessary resources can be a morrow. London: Routledge and Falmer Press.
great barrier, limiting the learning of the most vulnerable students. Krischesky, G. J., & Murillo, F. J. (2018). La colaboración docente como factor
de aprendizaje y promotor de mejora. Un estudio de casos. Educación XXI,
Likewise, the application of measures to address diversity within
21(1), 135-156.
the standard framework is insufficient, which is a great obstacle López-Torrijo, M., & Mengual-Andrés, S. (2015). An attack on inclusive educa-
for those students who demand certain resources and / or actions. tion in Secondary Education. Limitations in initial teacher training in Spain.
Finally, regarding the educational response, profound changes Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 4(1), 9-17. doi:10.7821/
have to be undertaken, such as the use of varied methodologies naer.2015.1.100
Luque, A., Gutiérrez. R., & Carrión, J. J. (2018). Análisis de las concepciones de los
adapted to the requirements of the students, the design of activi- futuros profesionales de la educación de la Universidad de Almería sobre la
ties with different levels of difficulty so that everyone can learn atención al alumnado en audición y lenguaje. Profesorado. Revista de Currí-
and participate and, above all, being conscious that inclusion is culum y Formación del Profesorado, 22(1), 133-157.
the responsibility of all members of the educational communi- Lledó, A., & Arnaiz, P. (2010). Evaluación de prácticas educativas del profesorado
de los centros escolares. Indicadores de mejora desde la educación inclusiva.
ty and society. These barriers are often present in the centres, as
REICE, 8(5), 96-105.
other studies have shown (Arnaiz, De Haro & Guirao, 2015). In Martín-Lagos, M. D. (2018). Educación y desigualdad: una metasíntesis tras el 50
this sense, we must reduce the distance between research and aniversario del Informe Coleman. Revista de Educación, 380, 186-209.
educational policies, as indicated by Martín-Lagos (2018), by Mitchell, D. (2018). The ecology of inclusive education strategies to tackle the crisis in
applying the necessary knowledge transfer. Undoubtedly, higher educating diverse learners. London. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315110448
Reoyo, N., Carbonero, M. A., Freitas, A., & Valdivieso, J. A. (2012). La percep-
education centres have an important role to play in developing the ción de los futuros profesores sobre los docentes de Educación Secundaria.
necessary competencies in future teachers to promote an equitable International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psichology: INFAD.
and quality education for all, an inclusive education. One of these Revista de Psicología, 1(2), 389-396.
key competences will be to identify the barriers to learning and Sánchez, A. (2009). Integración educativa y social de los estudiantes con discapaci-
dad en la Universidad de Almería. Almería: Universidad de Almería.
participation present in different educational contexts in order to
Sevilla, D. R., Martín, M. J., & Jenaro, C. (2017). Percepciones sobre la educación
eradicate them and establish change and improvement. inclusiva: la visión de quienes se forman para docentes. CPU-e. Revista de
Investigación Educativa, 25, 83-113.
REFERENCES Slee, R. (2018). The inclusive education workbook. Teaching, learning and research
in the irregular school. London: Routledge.
Ainscow, M. (2001). Desarrollo de escuelas inclusivas. Ideas, propuestas y ex-
Tejada, J., & Pozos, V. K. (2018). Nuevos escenarios y competencias digitales do-
periencias para mejorar las instituciones escolares. Madrid: Narcea.
centes: hacia la profesionalización docente con TIC. Profesorado. Revista de
doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2007.00075.x
Currículum y Formación del Profesorado, 22(1), 25-51.
Ainscow, M. (2007). Taking an inclusive turn. Journal of Research in Special Edu-
Torres, J. (2017). Políticas educativas y construcción de personalidades neolibera-
cational Needs, 7(1), 3-7.
les y neocolonialistas. Madrid: Morata.
Ainscow, M., & Booth, T. (2002). Guía para la evaluación y mejora de la educación
UNESCO. (2008). Estándares de competencia en TIC para docentes. París: UNES-
inclusiva. Madrid: Consorcio Universitario para la Inclusión Educativa.
CO.
Ainscow, M., Beresford, J., Harris, A., Hopkins, D., Southworth, G., & West, M.
UNESCO. (2017). Guía para asegurar la inclusión y la equidad en la educación.
(2016). Creating the conditions for school improvement: A Handbook of staff
París: UNESCO.
development activities. London: Routledge.
Unidad de desarrollo Estatal de Educación (2009). Guía REINE. Reflexión Ética
Arnaiz, P. (2011). Luchando contra la exclusión: buenas prácticas y éxito escolar.
sobre la Inclusión en la Escuela. Madrid: FEAPS. Recuperado de http://sid.
Revista de Innovación educativa, 21, 23-35.
usal.es/idocs/F8/FDO19166/reine_inclusion.pdf
Arnaiz, P., De Haro, R., & Guirao, J. M. (2015). La evaluación en educación prima-
Varcoe, L., & Boyle, C. (2014). Pre-service primary teachers’ attitudes towards in
ria como punto de partida para el desarrollo de planes de mejora inclusivos en
inclusive education. Educational Psychology, 34(3), 323-337. doi:10.1080/0
la Región de Murcia. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del
1443410.2013.785061
Profesorado, 18(1), 103-122. doi:10.6018/reifop.18.1.214351
Arnaiz, P., & Guirao, J. M. (2014). Instrumentos para la autoevaluación y la mejora
de la atención a la diversidad en centros educativos. Siglo Cero, 45(4), 22-47. How to cite this article: Arnaiz Sánchez, P., de Haro Rodríguez, R.,
doi:10.6018/reifop.18.1.214341 Maldonado Martínez, R. M. (2019). Barriers to Student Learning and
Arnaiz, P., & Guirao, J. M. (2015). La autoevaluación de centros en España para Participation in an Inclusive School as Perceived by Future Education
la atención a la diversidad desde una perspectiva inclusiva: ACADI. Revista Professionals. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research,
Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 18(1), 45-101. 8(1),18-24. doi:10.7821/naer.2019.1.321

24