Attitudes of University Teachers Towards the Educational Inclusion of Students with Special Educational Needs

Abstract

Based on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which emphasizes inclusion and equality of education for all, the number of university students with special educational needs (SEN) is increasing worldwide. Universities are increasingly faced with the demand for inclusive education. This study aimed to investigate the attitudes of university teachers towards educational inclusion and the implementation of accommodations for students with SEN according to their gender, academic discipline and professional training. Through standardized questionnaires, we surveyed 117 university teachers at five faculties. We ascertained that university teachers have positive attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN and the implementation of accommodations in their study programs. The statistically significant more sympathetic attitudes towards educational inclusion and provision of academic accommodations were found among female teachers. University teachers in natural sciences study programs had significantly more negative attitudes towards the ability of students with SEN succeeding academically than teachers in social sciences programs. Those who did not receive professional training were statistically significantly more likely to agree with the contention that students with SEN hinder educational work in the classroom and could not succeed academically. The study revealed the importance of sustainable professional training for university teachers in teaching students with SEN.

1. Introduction

Education is recognized as a universal human right. It makes an essential contribution to building inclusive and democratic societies, where differences in opinion can be freely expressed and where a wide range of voices can be heard, in pursuit of social cohesion and in celebration of diversity [1]. In this regard, strengthening training and 21st-century skills for work and life, as well as improving learning outcomes at all levels of education, including university, are strongly promoted [2].

The foundations of quality education are ambitiously set out in the framework of sustainable development in Sustainable Development Goal 4, with an emphasis on access to equitable, inclusive, quality and lifelong education for all—children, youth and adults—by 2030 and with the goal of leaving no one behind [3]. One of the EU’s priorities is to increase participation in higher education, particularly among people with disabilities/special educational needs (SEN), who remain under-represented in the education system [4]. Students with SEN constitute one of the largest minority groups in terms of diversity and may be significantly vulnerable to inequality and discriminatory treatment. Many countries are following the trend towards inclusive education and have implemented legislation and policies to reduce the exclusion and marginalization of students with diverse needs. Inclusive education is an international goal that aims to create an educational system more responsive to the individual needs of all students, regardless of differences in personal competence or socio-economic/family background, in order to provide equal opportunities for success [5]. Research findings demonstrate the positive impacts of inclusion in education, including improved academic achievement, greater opportunities for social integration and higher levels of life skills attained in adulthood [6].

Following the EU’s priorities to increase participation in higher education, and given the growing number of students with SEN at universities and their vulnerable position in the educational process, in this study we were interested in exploring the attitudes university teachers have towards the educational inclusion of students with SEN, how they perceive the possibilities of academic success for students with SEN and what academic accommodations university teachers provide to students with different impairments. In addition, we were interested in investigating the differences between university teachers’ attitudes in relation to their gender, academic discipline and professional training in teaching students with SEN.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Educational Inclusion at University

Higher education plays an important role in shaping positive perceptions of disabilities or, more precisely, in breaking down prejudices against people with disabilities. Raising the educational level of people with disabilities is the responsibility of every society [7]. Riddell and Weedon [8] point out that by increasing the educational attainment of persons with disabilities in higher education and expanding access to a variety of study programs, opportunities are created for greater independence, employment and quality of life for these students, while barriers to participation for all students in the learning environment are reduced.

In recent years, there has been a shift towards creating more inclusive environments at universities, including in Slovenia. Data shows that the number of students with SEN is increasing year by year. According to policies and regulations, universities have a duty to ensure the principles of equality, participation and a sense of community belonging, without discrimination or stigmatization on the basis of disability [9,10]. Universities must implement a social model of disability—a human rights model—that focuses on the needs of the student and adapts the educational process, rather than emphasizing limitations as highlighted in the medical or deficit model [11]. In establishing the social model, students with SEN and other vulnerable groups are regarded as equal, active and participating members of the academic community, with the ability to make choices and maintain control over their own lives [12]. Given such a context, universities must strive to develop comprehensive and flexible teaching strategies that encourage students with SEN to participate fully and stay connected with their peers. Universities share the responsibility of making necessary accommodations for each individual student with SEN to eliminate barriers. This requires that different accommodations also be applied during assessment and examination to ensure fair assessment of their knowledge. The study accommodations enable students with SEN to access the same educational opportunities as their peers [13].

However, experiences show that in many academic environments, faculty staff are not prepared to provide appropriate accommodations or may even ignore the required adjustments [14]. In some cases, faculty also believe that providing accommodations for students with SEN compromises academic integrity in their courses [15]. A Slovenian study on the regulation of special groups of students in higher education [16], which examined the implementation of accommodations for students with different types of SEN, highlights that university teachers are either unfamiliar with the accommodations students require or do not agree with the assigned adjustments and therefore fail to implement them. It can be assumed that these accommodations are often viewed through the lens of academic standards. Additionally, Brewer et al. [17] found that accommodations had a limited impact, as they did not fully address the challenges experienced by students with SEN.

On the other hand, evidence also shows a more optimistic picture: faculty members are respectful, approachable and available, concerned about students’ needs, providing an educational response to those needs, and making reasonable accommodations [18,19,20]. Additionally, some university teachers establish close relationships with students, engage in effective communication, and demonstrate empathy and interest in building supportive relationships with them [21,22,23].

University teachers are recognized as important stakeholders for students with SEN, not only in the classroom, but also throughout their university life [24]. Additionally, university teachers who teach specific study courses or subjects related to SEN are typically the best positioned to support students with SEN in academic environments. Their active response to the diverse needs of students, along with their willingness to accommodate teaching and learning, is vitally important for achieving both academic success and social integration [25]. Thus, university teachers should be flexible in the implementation of inclusive education [26] and must find various ways and strategies to ensure that students with SEN are able to achieve their potential.

Highly recommended approaches in inclusive practice are student-centred [27,28]. Many studies [29,30] suggest developing practices based on Universal Design for Learning (UDL), as this framework encompasses all students, including those with SEN. Under the UDL framework, teachers can use multiple means to represent course materials, engage students and support them in expressing what they have learned. In parallel with flexible teaching, a key element in promoting inclusion and access to learning for students with SEN is the use of assistive technologies (AT) [31,32]. It is necessary to strengthen the use of AT, as it facilitates access to course content and learning materials in digital formats, which is essential for these students [33]. In particular, it is important to ensure the accessibility of specific resources, such as digitized computer-readable text, magnifiers, Braille or audio recordings, for certain groups of SEN students, for example, those with sensory impairments. In this regard, some authors warn that access to course materials and resources remains difficult for students with visual impairments [31,34,35] and hearing impairments [36]. Finally, faculty should not overlook the fact that the physical environment has a significant impact on the implementation of educational inclusion. Therefore, university spaces should support students with SEN, which requires that the physical environment, including classrooms, laboratories and other learning areas, be designed according to universal design principles to ensure full accessibility and safety, free from physical barriers [10].

In achieving quality inclusion, university teachers should be empowered through adequate support from their colleagues—other university teachers, faculty tutors, university services and additional support services [37,38]—so they can respond appropriately and in a timely manner to the holistic needs of students, thereby ensuring a truly high-quality, sustainable and inclusive environment. Additionally, in implementing sustainable educational inclusion, the positive impact of peer support on the academic performance, communication and information exchange of students with SEN should not be overlooked [30,39,40], as students with SEN often face academic challenges and perceive more obstacles related to their impairments and the lack of support during their studies [39,41]. Thus, many colleges and universities offer extensive peer tutoring programs.

However, to establish a more equitable inclusive education system, teachers need to bring together many elements to effectively teach students with SEN as well as other students [28]. They must be adequately prepared and supported to teach in inclusive education [1]. In this sense, the European Agency for Special Educational Needs (EADSNE) [42] identified key areas of competence—attitudes or beliefs, knowledge or understanding, and skills or abilities—that provide teachers with the foundations necessary to work with students with a diverse range of needs within inclusive educational practice.

2.2. Attitudes of University Teachers Towards Inclusive Education

University teachers are seen as critically important for creating sustainable inclusive education, especially in the case of students with SEN. It has been demonstrated that teachers are key players when it comes to either helping or hindering students throughout the teaching and learning process [21]. Many researchers emphasize teachers’ attitudes as a decisive component in ensuring the successful inclusion of students with SEN [43,44].

Important requirements for teachers to hold positive attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN have been highlighted by the EADSNE [42] and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) [45]. International studies have explained the most influential variables affecting teacher attitudes towards inclusive education, such as the teacher’s professional category, the type of disability, professional cooperation, support and self-efficacy [46,47,48,49]. In general, faculty members have positive attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN in higher education [50,51,52]. However, in a literature review, Li et al. [53] found that some faculty members held misconceptions about accommodation and inclusive teaching practices.

Evaluations of teachers training [54,55,56] show that knowledge, adequate teacher preparation and professional development for the successful implementation of inclusive education foster more positive attitudes. The need for faculty training in inclusive strategies is a key element and has been widely demonstrated in the international scientific literature [57,58]. In this regard, it has also been found that sufficient materials, aids, resources and support services have a positive impact on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education [49,59,60].

Additionally, studies have highlighted that female teachers exhibit more inclusive attitudes towards inclusion at universities and high schools than their male counterparts [50,61,62], while other research suggests that male teachers feel more positively towards inclusion than female teachers [63].

A comprehensive systematic review by Chasen et al. [64] found that teachers in higher education from science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, especially in engineering, were less willing or less equipped to support students with SEN through inclusive accommodations in courses. Engineering faculty in particular tended to rely on assessment-centered accommodations, while non-STEM faculty were more likely to implement formative support, including note-taking assistance, proofreading help and flexible learning outcomes. Additionally, in a study by Alrusaiyes [50], it was observed that the type of academic department mattered: faculty from education disciplines were the most supportive. In parallel, Barnard et al. [65] found a moderately negative correlation between male faculty in “hard” disciplines (e.g., STEM) and less favorable attitudes towards students with SEN, compared to female faculty in “soft” disciplines (e.g., humanities and social sciences).

Investigations into attitudes towards students with different types of disabilities [50,52] reveal that university students with physical disabilities are perceived more positively than those with hearing impairments, visual impairments, autism spectrum disorders or learning disabilities. In a study by Becker and Palladino [66], it was found that faculty members are more likely to accommodate students with visual and hearing impairments or other physical disabilities than they are to accommodate students with learning and emotional/behavioral disabilities. On the other hand, a study by Horsley and Friesen [67] found that teachers felt less confident teaching students with low-prevalence disabilities (i.e., deaf/hard of hearing and blind/low vision) and more confident working with students who have high-prevalence disabilities (i.e., learning and behavioral disabilities).

A study carried out by Saloviita [68] shows that extra work and increased workload play a significant role in shaping more negative teacher attitudes. Similarly, Avramidis and Norwich [69] and Forlin et al. [70] state that teachers commonly agree that inclusion creates additional work for them and causes problems in the classroom.

2.3. The Slovenian University Context and Students with SEN

The current university regulation in Slovenia [71,72] refers to the following groups of students with SEN: students with visual impairments, hearing impairments, speech and language disorders, deficits in individual areas of learning, physical disabilities, health impairments, autism spectrum disorders, and psychosocial difficulties. In Slovenia, the term SEN is well established and positively received for students with different disabilities. Students with SEN are entitled to accommodations in the implementation of study programs and to additional professional support. The type and method of accommodations for each individual student are determined by the faculty’s student office, based on diagnostic documentation. At the beginning of the academic year, teachers are provided with a list of accommodations for each student with officially recognized SEN status.

From the academic year 2017/2018 to 2023/2024, the University of Maribor—the second largest university in Slovenia—recorded an increase in the number of students with SEN. The number rose from 47 students in 2017/2018 to 157 in 2023/2024, while their share of the total student population increased from 0.35% to 1.08%. The data for the University of Maribor were obtained through personal communication with the Slovenian Association of Disabled Students [73]. A comprehensive report with statistical analysis of students with official SEN status at the university is not available. At the University of Ljubljana, which is the largest university in Slovenia, this trend is even more pronounced. In the academic year 2010/2011, 289 students with SEN were enrolled; by 2023/2024, this number had increased to 801. The proportion of such students rose from 0.56% to 2.14% [74,75].

The University of Maribor has established two forms of support for students with SEN: the Pedagogical Network for university teachers and the Student Center. The Pedagogical Network consists of university teachers and provides didactic materials and pedagogical approaches through professional training. All activities are coordinated by faculty coordinators in collaboration with the Association of Students with Disabilities and the university’s support services. As part of the professional training on the inclusion of students with SEN, teachers and other academic staff are offered various lectures and examples of good practice, for example, on assessment accommodations, learning materials accommodations, the use of AT, support for students with autism spectrum disorders, teaching SEN students with remote learning tools and the university teacher with disability. The training in inclusive education is voluntary and free of charge. In cooperation with the Slovenian Association of Disabled Students, the university’s support service has prepared common guidelines and brochures for teaching students with SEN, as well as guidelines for creating an inclusive educational environment for staff. All materials are accessible on the university’s website (didakt.um.si) [76]. At the national level, the Slovenian Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education has also played an important role by issuing guidelines to improve accessibility in university education and by recommending accommodations [77]. Additionally, a tutoring system has been established, meaning that each faculty has a teacher-tutor assigned to support students with SEN [78]. The Faculty of Education at the University of Maribor has additionally established an advisory office specifically for students with SEN.

The Student Center supports students in making decisions about their studies, in coping with learning challenges and in facing other difficulties when entering the labor market. It also organizes workshops. The Student Center encourages students to monitor their academic progress, take timely action, cooperate with peers, engage in international collaboration, participate in career counseling and develop transferable skills. Additionally, it informs and raises awareness among other students about SEN, with the aim of promoting understanding and tolerance in peer relationships [79]. Over recent years, the Slovenian public universities have made progress towards greater educational inclusion.

2.4. Study Aims and Hypotheses

The number of students at universities who were identified as having SEN during their elementary and secondary schooling is increasing. Although more and more students with SEN are enrolling in universities, experiences and studies [52,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88] show that they face numerous challenges in their studies and their academic progress. It is important to investigate the attitudes of university teachers towards educational inclusion in practice, because attitudes have the potential to impact educational outcomes and implement academic accommodations for students with SEN in the educational process. Following these findings, the hypothesis of our study are:

H1: 

The attitudes of university teachers towards the educational inclusion of students with SEN and implementation of academic accommodations for them are generally positive.

H2: 

The attitudes of university teachers towards educational inclusion and providing academic accommodations for students with SEN are significantly different between female and male teachers, social sciences/humanities and natural sciences university teachers, and university teachers with and without professional training in teaching students with SEN.

H3: 

The attitudes of university teachers towards the academic success of students with SEN are significantly related to the type of impairments of students with SEN (visual, hearing and physical), the teacher’s gender and the academic discipline.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants

This study is based on a non-random purposive sample of university teachers. The online survey was conducted at five faculties (out of a total of 17) of the University of Maribor. The invitation to participate in the study was sent to university teachers working at the Faculty of Arts, the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, the Faculty of Education, the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, and the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. The questionnaire was distributed to 519 university teachers. Of these, 333 respondents clicked on and opened the questionnaire, while 117 completed all questions in the survey, representing a response rate of 22.5%.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample of survey respondents.

Characteristics	F (n = 117)	n%
Gender
Male	68	58.1
Female	49	49.9
Academic discipline of teaching
Natural sciences	60	51.3
Social sciences/humanities	57	48.7
Work experience
Up to 10 years	33	28.2
11–20 years	29	24.8
21–30 years	31	26.5
More than 30 years	24	20.5
Professional training in educational inclusion and providing academic accommodations
Yes	52	44.4
No	65	55.6

shows that 58.1% of participants were male and 41.9% were female. A total of 51.3% of respondents were experts in academic disciplines within the natural sciences, while 48.7% were experts in the social sciences or humanities disciplines. Among the participating university teachers, 20.5% had more than 30 years of experience in teaching, while 28.2% had ten or fewer years of experience. Less than half (44.4%) of respondents indicated that they had acquired additional knowledge about the educational inclusion of SEN students and how to provide them with academic accommodations (Table 1). Of the university teachers who had received professional training in teaching students with SEN, half (51.4%) reported being self-educated and one-third (35.1%) had attended a basic training course or workshop organized for university teachers at their institution. Only 6.8% of university teachers reported having received education on teaching SEN students as part of their formal undergraduate or graduate studies.

In the study, we found statistically significant correlations between the gender and academic discipline of university teachers (p < 0.001). University teachers from the natural sciences disciplines were predominantly male (72.9%), whereas teachers in the social sciences and humanities were more gender-balanced, with 58.9% female and 41.1% male. However, within the total sample, the majority of female teachers (67.3%) were found in the group of social sciences and humanities, while the majority of male teachers (65.2%) belonged to the group of natural sciences disciplines.

There were no statistically significant differences between female and male university teachers in terms of being professionally trained in educational inclusion and academic accommodations for SEN students. In both groups, most university teachers did not received such professional training (

Table 2. Chi-square of correlations between gender and academic discipline of teaching among survey respondents.

	Female n (n%)	Male n (n%)	Χ2 (p)
Natural sciences	16	43	11.888 (<0.001)
% within academic discipline	27.1%	72.9%
% within gender	32.7%	65.2%
Social sciences/humanities	33	23
% within academic discipline	58.9%	41.1%
% within gender	67.3%	34.8%
With professional training	22	29	0.300 (0.863)
% within training	43.1%	56.9%
% within gender	44.9%	43.3%
Without professional training	27	38
% within training	41.5%	58.5%
% within gender	55.1%	56.7%
Total	49 (100.0)	68 (100.0)

).

3.2. Data Collection and Considerations of Ethical Principles

The survey was designed on the 1KA platform, an open-source online survey tool. The questionnaire was sent to a selected sample of university teachers at the University of Maribor via email, accompanied by an invitation and a link to the survey website. In line with the study’s aim of comparing university teachers’ attitudes between the natural sciences and the social sciences/humanities, the survey was sent to academics from the Faculty of Arts, the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, the Faculty of Education, the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, and the Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. The online survey was available for data collection on the 1KA open-source application (University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia) between 25 May 2021 and 31 August 2021.

Objectivity in the study implementation was ensured by using clear and detailed questions and instructions for completing the questionnaire. This provided equal conditions for data collection among all respondents. By employing a close-ended numerical Likert scale, we ensured objectivity in the assessment of respondents’ attitudes.

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles for the protection of human subjects involved in behavioral research, as set out in the Belmont Report [89] and the Declaration of Helsinki [90]. The study data were collected and protected in line with national legislation [91]. Following these ethical guidelines, participants were provided with research information, an informed consent form and the opportunity to ask questions about the study prior to taking part. All university teachers involved in the study participated voluntarily and anonymously, with the right to withdraw at any time. As there were no sensitive ethical issues, the study did not require ethical approval from a specific institutional or national ethics committee. However, the ethical aspects of the study were reviewed and approved during the evaluation of the study proposal at the Faculty of Arts, University of Maribor, Slovenia. All results have been presented while maintaining the confidentiality and anonymity of participants.

3.3. Measures and Their Methodological Characteristics

The study questionnaire was developed based on the standardized questionnaires “Faculty Attitudes and Knowledge Regarding SWD” [52] and “Faculty Attitudes and Student Perceptions Towards Providing Accommodations to Students with Disability” [80], which we selected based on their related content and measurement quality and adapted for the purposes of this study. The newly designed questionnaire used for data collection in the study consisted of two thematic parts. The first thematic part of the questionnaire comprised four demographic questions (gender, academic discipline of teaching, work experience and professional training in educational inclusion) and one additional question for respondents who had already acquired knowledge in teaching students with SEN and in providing them with accommodations within the educational process. The second thematic part of the questionnaire consisted of 22 statements regarding university teachers’ attitudes towards the educational inclusion of students with SEN and the provision of accommodations within the educational process. Respondents indicated their level of agreement on a five-point Likert scale: I strongly agree (5); I agree (4); I cannot decide (3); I disagree (2); I strongly disagree (1). This section also included three open-ended questions in which respondents with experience of teaching students with SEN were asked to list the academic accommodations they use when working with blind and visually impaired students, deaf and hearing-impaired students, and students with mobility impairments.

Initially, a pilot study was conducted to assess and ensure the measurement quality of the new designed questionnaire and its Slovenian translation and cultural adaption. The translation of the questions from the original questionnaires and their adaption to the Slovenian language and university context was done by a professional English translator and pedagogue, the second author of this paper. The content validity of the questionnaire was verified through multiple reviews by two experts. One researcher, the first author of this paper, is an expert in the field of special pedagogy and inclusive pedagogy, while the other, the lead author of this paper, is an expert in the field of pedagogical methodology. They suggested valuable content and methodological improvements, which were taken into consideration during the development of the questionnaire.

The quality of the designed questionnaire, particularly its validity and reliability, was also tested through a pilot study on a non-random purposive sample of 13 university teachers. The construct validity was assessed by Spearman’s rank correlations. The results showed statistically significant correlations between all measured items and particularly revealed the following constructs:

• Strong positive correlation between providing accommodations in the classroom and in assessment and testing of knowledge to students who have an officially confirmed SEN status (rho = 0.865);
• Strong positive correlations between different self-assessments of knowledge to provide appropriate accommodations for students with visual, hearing and physical impairments (rho > 0.740);
• Strong positive correlations between attitudes towards academic success of students with different types of impairments (visual, hearing and physical) (rho > 0.650);
• Middle positive correlations between different negative attitudes towards educational inclusion (e.g., students with SEN hinder educational work in the classroom; due to accommodations in the educational process, students with SEN are at an advantage compared to other students; providing accommodations in the educational process for students with SEN threatens my academic integrity) (rho > 0.350);
• Middle positive correlations between providing accommodations to students who have an officially confirmed SEN status, attitudes towards academic success of students with different impairments and motivation to receive professional training in providing accommodations for students with SEN (rho > 0.300);
• Middle negative correlations between negative attitudes towards educational inclusion and attitudes towards academic success of students with different impairments (rho > 0.300).

Following the results on construct validity, we divided the questionnaire and statistical analysis into three parts: (1) Attitudes of university teachers towards the educational inclusion of students with SEN, (2) Attitudes of university teachers towards academic success of SEN students with different impairments, and (3) Providing academic accommodations in the educational process to students with SEN status. This structure was also used in the data analysis and interpretation of results.

The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (

Table 3. Cronbach alpha coefficient of the study questionnaire.

Thematical Part	α
All parts of the questionnaire	0.741
Educational inclusion of students with SEN	0.860
Providing academic accommodations in the educational process	0.717

). The results showed a value of α = 0.741 for the total questionnaire, indicating acceptable reliability of the questionnaire after pilot testing. The set of statements on “Educational inclusion of students with SEN” demonstrated the highest reliability of data (α = 0.860) compared to both the entire questionnaire and the set of statements on “Providing accommodations in the educational process”. Based on the findings of the pilot study, the final version of the questionnaire was revised with minor improvements in grammar and phrasing adjustments. There was no need to exclude any of the items for further data collection on the selected entire sample of the university teachers in this study. However, in the final version, we added three open-ended questions asking the university teachers about experiences of academic accommodation that they use when teaching students with SEN. In formulating the open-ended questions, we followed the regulations and recommendations on educational inclusion at the University of Maribor [71,72,76].

3.4. Data Analysis

For data analysis, we used following methods:

• Frequency distributions of independent variables;
• Descriptive statistics of dependent variables: median (Me), mode (Mo) and mean rank (MR);
• Reliability and validity assessments of the questionnaire: Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, Spearman’s rank correlations coefficient;
• Inferential statistics: Mann–Whitney U test.

In the measurement and statistical analysis, attributive nominal and ordinal variables based on rankings were used. Therefore, in all inferential analyses, a non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test for testing statistically significant differences between the compared groups, focusing on university teachers’ gender, academic discipline of teaching, and training in educational inclusion and the provision of academic accommodations for SEN students, was used. The data were analysed using IBM SPSS version 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

Open-ended survey questions were analysed by thematic analysis using a deductive approach. Teachers’ responses on the types of academic accommodations they provide to students with sensory and physical impairments were categorized into six groups, as suggested at the University of Maribor [76], prior to coding.

4. Results

4.1. Attitudes of University Teachers Towards the Educational Inclusion of Students with SEN and Providing Them Academic Accommodations

The surveyed university teachers expressed positive attitudes towards the educational inclusion of students with SEN and the provision of accommodations in teaching for most of the statements (

Table 4. Attitudes of female and male university teachers towards educational inclusion of students with SEN and providing them accommodations in the educational process.

	Total (n = 117)		Female (n = 49)		Male (n = 68)		Mann–Whitney U Test Z (p)
	Me	Mo	Me	MR	Me	MR
Students with SEN hinder educational work in the classroom.	2.00	1	1.00	53.21	2.00	63.17	−1.731 (0.083)
Due to accommodations in the educational process, students with SEN are at an advantage compared to other students.	2.00	2	2.00	47.78	2.00	59.30	−2.012 (0.044)
I provide accommodations in the classroom to students who have an officially confirmed SEN status.	5.00	5	5.00	63.82	5.00	53.83	−1.941 (0.049)
I provide accommodations in assessment and testing to students who have an officially confirmed SEN status.	5.00	5	5.00	62.54	5.00	53.83	−1.782 (0.075)
Due to my lack of knowledge, I cannot provide appropriate accommodations for students with visual impairments.	3.00	2	3.00	54.53	3.00	54.48	−0.010 (0.992)
Due to my lack of knowledge, I cannot provide appropriate accommodations for students with hearing impairments.	3.00	2	2.00	53.18	3.00	55.44	−0.384 (0.701)
Due to my lack of knowledge, I cannot provide appropriate accommodations for students with physical impairments.	2.00	2	2.00	53.94	2.00	54.90	−0.164 (0.870)
I would like to receive professional training in providing accommodations for students with SEN.	4.00	4	4.00	64.58	3.00	47.30	−2.973 (0.003)
Providing accommodations in the educational process for students with SEN threatens my academic integrity.	1.00	1	1.00	54.14	1.00	60.77	−1.313 (0.189)

). On average, they agreed most strongly with the statements that students with officially confirmed SEN status are provided with accommodations during the educational process (Me = 5.00) and in assessment and testing of knowledge (Me = 5.00). Respondents also agreed with the statement that they would like to receive professional training in implementing accommodations for students with SEN (Me = 4.00).

However, university teachers strongly disagreed with the statements that providing accommodations for students with SEN compromises their academic integrity (Me = 1.00). They also disagreed that students with SEN hinder educational work in the classroom (Me = 2.00) and that they are at an advantage compared to other students in the group (Me = 2.00). Regarding the self-assessment on providing appropriate accommodations for students with different impairments, the teachers mostly disagreed that they had a lack of knowledge to provide accommodations for students with physical impairments (Me = 2.00).

For most attitudes, the median values confirm the mode values, showing even stronger disagreement with the statement that students with SEN hinder educational work in the classroom (Mo = 1) and with self-assessment of having lack of knowledge to provide appropriate accommodations for students with visual and hearing impairments (Mo = 2).

There were statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between male and female university teachers in their opinions on students with officially confirmed SEN status being provided with accommodations during the educational process. On average, female university teachers were more inclined to provide such accommodations (MR = 63.82) than their male colleagues (MR = 53.83). There were no statistically significant differences between male and female university teachers regarding opinions that students with officially confirmed SEN status be provided with accommodations in assessment and testing, nor in their self-assessed knowledge required to provide appropriate accommodations for students with different impairments. Although the differences were not statistically significant, there was a tendency for male teachers (MR = 63.17) to agree slightly more than their female colleagues (MR = 53.21) that students with SEN hinder educational work.

Based on these findings, it is expected that female university teachers would express higher motivation for professional training in providing accommodations for students with SEN (p = 0.003) and lower agreement with the statement that students with SEN are at an advantage in the educational process due to accommodations (p = 0.044) compared to their male colleagues in academia.

Table 5. Attitudes of university teachers towards educational inclusion and ensuring academic accommodations for students with SEN regarding their training in teaching students with SEN.

	With Training (n = 52)		Without Training (n = 65)		Mann–Whitney U Test Z (p)
	Me	MR	Me	MR
Students with SEN hinder educational work in the classroom.	1.00	52.42	2.00	63.27	−2.001 (0.045)
Due to accommodations in the educational process, students with SEN are at an advantage compared to other students.	2.00	51.35	2.00	56.24	−0.867 (0.386)
I provide accommodations in the classroom to students who have an officially confirmed SEN status.	5.00	59.19	5.00	56.13	−0.664 (0.507)
I provide accommodations in assessment and testing to students who have an officially confirmed SEN status.	5.00	57.11	5.00	56.91	−0.102 (0.918)
Due to my lack of knowledge, I cannot provide appropriate accommodations for students with visual impairments.	2.00	39.45	3.00	66.29	−4.622 (<0.001)
Due to my lack of knowledge, I cannot provide appropriate accommodations for students with hearing impairments.	2.00	39.83	3.00	65.97	−4.506 (<0.001)
Due to my lack of knowledge, I cannot provide appropriate accommodations for students with physical impairments.	2.00	44.52	3.00	62.01	−3.064 (0.002)
I would like to receive professional training in providing accommodations for students with SEN.	4.00	53.96	4.00	54.03	−0.013 (0.989)
Providing accommodations in the educational process for students with SEN threatens my academic integrity.	1.00	54.03	1.00	60.31	−1.255 (0.210)

shows that among the surveyed university teachers who have received professional training and acquired knowledge about educational inclusion and teaching students with SEN, there are statistically significant differences of p = 0.045 in their opinion that students with SEN hinder educational work in the classroom. University teachers who have acquired additional knowledge in teaching students with SEN are more favorable towards these students and, on average, agreed less (MR = 52.42) that students with SEN hinder educational work in the classroom than university teachers who have not yet acquired such knowledge (MR = 63.27).

Additionally, professional training in teaching students with SEN significantly contributed statistically to differences in the university teachers’ self-assessment of knowledge regarding the provision of accommodations to students with different impairments. University teachers who had received professional training in this area, even at a basic level, expressed statistically significantly lower agreement with the statement that, due to insufficient knowledge, they could not provide appropriate accommodations for students with visual impairments, hearing impairments or physical impairments (Me = 2.00) in comparison with their counterparts who had not received professional training in educational inclusion (Me = 3.00) (p < 0.010).

There were no statistically significant differences among university teachers from different academic disciplines in their opinions on whether students with SEN are provided with accommodations during the educational process and during assessment and testing of knowledge. There were also no statistically significant differences in their views on whether students with SEN hinder educational work in the classroom or are at an advantage compared to other students. Similarly, no differences were found regarding the statement that accommodations for students with SEN threaten their academic integrity, nor in their motivation to undertake professional training in providing accommodations for students with SEN (

Table 6. Attitudes of university teachers towards educational inclusion and providing accommodations in the educational process for SEN students regarding their academic discipline of teaching.

	Social Sciences/Humanities (n = 57)		Natural Sciences (n = 60)		Mann–Whitney U Test Z (p)
	Me	MR	Me	MR
Students with SEN hinder educational work in the classroom.	2.00	57.29	2.00	58.68	−0.247 (0.805)
Due to accommodations in the educational process, students with SEN are at an advantage compared to other students.	2.00	50.75	2.00	56.15	−0.965 (0.334)
I provide accommodations in the classroom to students who have an officially confirmed SEN status.	5.00	61.05	5.00	53.16	−1.573 (0.116)
I provide accommodations in assessment and testing to students who have an officially confirmed SEN status.	5.00	58.61	5.00	54.53	−0.856 (0.392)
Due to my lack of knowledge, I cannot provide appropriate accommodations for students with visual impairments.	2.00	47.15	3.00	59.27	−2.038 (0.042)
Due to my lack of knowledge, I cannot provide appropriate accommodations for students with hearing impairments.	2.00	49.04	3.00	57.80	−1.519 (0.129)
Due to my lack of knowledge, I cannot provide appropriate accommodations for students with physical impairments	2.00	50.87	2.00	56.04	−0.912 (0.362)
I would like to receive professional training in providing accommodations for students with SEN.	4.00	53.64	4.00	53.36	−0.050 (0.960)
Providing accommodations in the educational process for students with SEN threatens my academic integrity.	1.00	53.14	1.00	60.66	−1.544 (0.123)

).

However, statistically significant differences were identified in the self-assessment of knowledge for providing appropriate accommodations to SEN students according to the academic discipline taught by university teachers. Teachers in the natural sciences were more likely than those in the social sciences and humanities to agree that, due to insufficient knowledge, they could not provide appropriate accommodations to students with all three types of studied impairments. However, a statistically significant difference was found only in relation to teaching students with visual impairments (p = 0.042).

4.2. Attitudes of University Teachers Towards Academic Success of Students with SEN

The surveyed university teachers strongly agreed that students with physical impairments (Me = 5.00, Mo = 5), students with visual impairments (Me = 4.00, Mo = 5) and students with hearing impairments (Me = 4.00, Mo = 5) can be academically successful (

Table 7. Attitudes of university teachers towards academic success of students with SEN.

	Total (n = 117)		Female (n = 49)		Male (n = 68)		Mann–Whitney U Test Z (p)	Social Sciences/Humanities (n = 57)		Natural Sciences (n = 60)		Mann–Whitney U Test Z (p)
	Me	Mo	Me	MR	Me	MR		Me	MR	Me	MR
Students with visual impairments can easily succeed in university study.	4.00	5	5.00	68.31	4.00	52.29	−2.752 (0.006)	5.00	66.54	4.00	49.89	−2.761 (0.006)
Students with hearing impairments can easily succeed in university study.	4.00	5	5.00	67.70	4.00	51.77	−2.735 (0.006)	5.00	62.52	4.00	52.66	−1.444 (0.149)
Students with physical impairments can easily succeed in university study.	5.00	5	5.00	63.40	5.00	54.92	−1.572 (0.116)	5.00	58.74	5.00	56.30	−0.463 (0.644)

).

There were statistically significant differences between male and female university teachers regarding the opinion that students with visual impairments and students with hearing impairments can be academically successful (p = 0.006). Female university teachers were more likely to agree with both statements (MR = 68.31, MR = 67.70) compared to their male counterparts (MR = 52.29, MR = 51.77). There were no statistically significant differences between male and female university teachers in their opinion that students with physical impairments can be academically successful in university study programs.

Among university teachers from the natural sciences and those from the social sciences or humanities, statistically significant differences were found at a p = 0.006 significance level regarding the opinion that students with visual impairments can be academically successful. University teachers in the social sciences and humanities were more likely to believe that students with visual impairments can succeed in higher education (MR = 66.54) compared to university teachers in the natural sciences (MR = 49.89). However, there were no statistically significant differences among university teachers from different academic disciplines in their opinions on the academic success of students with hearing impairments and physical impairments (Table 7).

4.3. Academic Accommodations by University Teachers When Teaching SEN Students with Different Impairments

Respondents were also given three open-ended questions in which they had the opportunity to indicate the types of accommodations they provide for students with impairments (blind and visually impaired, deaf and hard of hearing, and physically impaired) within the educational process. If they had not yet taught such students, the teachers were not required to answer these questions. The areas of academic accommodation for students with hearing, visual and physical impairments are presented in

Table 8. Academic accommodations according to the type of SEN students provided by university teachers.

Academic Accommodations for Students	Hearing Impairments	Visual Impairments	Physical Impairments
	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Physical environment	5 (6.8)	3 (3.1)	33 (39.3)
Teaching materials and equipment	18 (24.3)	50 (51.5)	10 (11.9)
Time organization	16 (21.6)	21 (21.6)	26 (31.0)
Assessment and testing of knowledge	10 (13.5)	13 (13.4)	7 (8.3)
Other	8 (10.8)	10 (10.3)	8 (9.5)
Total	74 (100.0)	97 (100.0)	84 (100.0)

. The specific accommodations mentioned within these areas are detailed in the interpretation.

Academic accommodations within the educational process, according to the type of students’ SEN, were reported across all three groups studied: students with visual impairments, hearing impairments and physical impairments (Table 8). The most frequently mentioned accommodations related to teaching materials and equipment. Among these, university teachers reported providing for blind and visually impaired students adapted font sizes and styles in written materials, presentations and written exams; study materials in audio format; study materials in Braille; and assistance in organising additional materials. For deaf and hard of hearing students, teachers provided additional learning materials in written form during classes and extra materials for homework in written or electronic format and made use of microphones and speakers. Similarly, for students with physical impairments, additional learning materials for homework and supplementary teaching materials were provided to support their studies.

Accommodations in the physical environment are most important for students with physical impairments. In such cases, teachers select appropriate classrooms that ensure unhindered access for students with SEN, provide priority seating and offer the option to attend lectures remotely. For students with visual and hearing impairments, priority seating is primarily provided. Time organization is also important for all three groups, particularly through the possibility of extended deadlines for submitting and presenting seminar papers. In assessing and testing of knowledge, additional examination dates and the selection of an appropriate form of examination are significant, regardless of the type of SEN. For students with visual impairments, teachers typically offer oral examinations; for students with hearing impairments, written examinations are preferred; while for students with physical impairments, they are generally given the choice between these options according to their needs.

Among other academic accommodations, university teachers mentioned offering additional office hours for all three groups of students with different SEN. For students with hearing impairments, accommodations also included the assistance of interpreters, ensuring appropriate speech (volume, tone and clarity), speaking in their direction and speaking without a mask. In cases of mobility impairment, teachers allowed students to be accompanied in the classroom by a support person.

5. Discussion

5.1. Main Findings on University Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Educational Inclusion and Providing Accommodations for Students with SEN

Having recognized the fact that university teachers are key players when it comes to either helping or hindering students throughout the teaching and learning process [21], it is important to understand how their attitudes impact their behavior when working with SEN students. In our study, university teachers generally demonstrated positive attitudes towards the educational inclusion of students with SEN and the implementation of academic accommodations for them, which is in line with international studies [50,51,92]. These findings confirm the first hypothesis of our study, in which we predicted that attitudes of university teachers at the University of Maribor towards the educational inclusion of students with SEN and implementation of academic accommodations for them would be generally positive. Their positive attitudes may be attributed to the enactment of legislation and regulations at the university that have granted students with SEN the right to access education, professional support and accommodations within the educational process.

In the second research hypothesis, we predicted that the attitudes of university teachers towards educational inclusion and providing academic accommodations for students with SEN would be significantly different based on the teachers’ characteristics, such as gender, academic discipline and participating in professional training in teaching students with SEN. An analysis of differences regarding gender confirmed this second hypothesis by showing that female teachers are more inclined than their male colleagues to provide accommodations for students with SEN and perceive that the educational process is not hindered by SEN students. The studies by Abu-Hamour [61] and Alrusaiyes [50] support our findings that female teachers exhibit more inclusive attitudes towards inclusion at university than their male counterparts. Female teachers in our study may demonstrate a greater willingness to engage in inclusive education and in implementing accommodations for SEN students, as they are more familiar with and informed about educational inclusion and its key principles, requirements and conditions. However, doubts remain regarding the extent to which their knowledge and skills translate into direct inclusive practice, particularly when working with a heterogeneous student population and implementing accommodations. Furthermore, they may feel the need to enhance and strengthen their competences for teaching in an inclusive learning environment, as well as their sense of obligation to be adequately prepared to work with students with SEN [28,38,57].

The results also show that female teachers hold more positive attitudes compared to their male counterparts regarding the academic success of SEN students, particularly students with visual and hearing impairments. This finding confirmed the third research hypothesis of this study and could be linked with the study by Becker and Palladino [66], which reported that faculty members are more likely to accommodate students with visual and hearing impairments than students with learning and emotional/behavioural disabilities. This stands in contrast to the study by Alrusaiyes [50], which found less positive attitudes towards these two groups of students. It could be that female teachers in our study better recognize students’ needs, make information more accessible and provide adaptations that enable the achievement of learning outcomes [25,92,93]. In addition, they may be more flexible in seeking help from colleagues or support services [94]. However, the study has inherent limitations, as it relied solely on teachers’ self-reported information. The authors would have to employ multiple methods of data collection, such as classroom observations, to obtain a more realistic and comprehensive picture.

Based on all these findings, it could be explained that female teachers are more supportive, adaptable, concerned about students’ needs and attentive [19,20] and may generally be more favourably disposed towards persons with disabilities in society. It could also be the case that their perception of disability is not viewed exclusively as an individual impediment, but rather as an opportunity to reach potential and demonstrate capability. Moreover, these findings may reflect the educational culture, in which females generally believe that students with SEN are teachable through appropriate support and accommodations compared to males. These results should also be considered in light of the study’s limitations. Given that participation in the research was anonymous, participants may have provided socially desirable responses, and the authors had to rely solely on self-reported information. Therefore, it would be valuable to gain insight into direct practice through semi-structured interviews and other qualitative methods with university teachers, as well as with SEN students and other stakeholders.

The open-ended responses showed that academic accommodations provided by university teachers in this study cover all types of SEN students. Specifically, their accommodations most frequently highlighted teaching materials and equipment, adaptations of the organisation of classroom and schedule, and adjustments to the assessment and testing of knowledge. Some accommodations—such as priority seating, extended time for preparing assignments, additional examination dates, and adjustments to assessment and testing—are the same for all students, regardless of the type of SEN. Others, such as customized font size and style in written materials, providing materials in audio and written form, providing materials in Braille, and the use of microphones and speakers, are intended for students with sensory impairments. An overview of these accommodations shows that they are common and typically appear on the list of accommodations provided by the faculty student office, which is sent by email to university teachers at the beginning of the academic year or at the start of the examination period. It is important to emphasize that these accommodations are mostly based on diagnostic categories rather than on the individual needs necessary for meaningful and equitable participation [95]. It could be the case that participants in our study understood the implementation of accommodations at a declarative level, viewing it simply as part of their duty as faculty members. In fact, it is assumed that they may not know how to make such accommodations or may be entirely unfamiliar with the tailor-made accommodations that students require [16,68,96]. On the other hand, based on experience, it can be assumed that participants may not have received recommendations or guidance regarding accommodations from the student office, or that the assistance provided was insufficient or inappropriate, possibly because the staff do not know the content of individual subjects in the curriculum nor the functioning of individual students in the classroom context [92]. It also remains unclear whether teachers received assistance from tutor teachers. The authors of this study are aware that it is not possible to offer final reflections based solely on the responses received, as in-depth, face-to-face interviews with participants are missing—interviews that could provide a broader picture and deeper insight into the implementation of accommodations.

Teacher professional training, even at a basic level, particularly among female teachers, seem to have a statistically significant impact on teachers’ perception of the knowledge they have to provide accommodations for students with SEN. Teachers in our study who have attended such training hold statistically significantly more positive attitudes towards their own knowledge regarding the implementation of accommodations for students with visual impairments, hearing impairments and physical impairments. These results confirm the second research hypothesis in the part of predicting that professional training in teaching students with SEN would have a positive impact on attitudes related to teachers’ perceptions of providing accommodations for SEN students. This finding might be valuable for university and faculty structures and the broader pedagogical network within the university that oversees and manages the education of faculty members. It highlights the importance of offering professional training for faculty members in a wider range of knowledge related to the specific needs of students, academic accommodations and inclusive teaching practices [93,96,97], thereby making the university educational process more accessible and equal to students with SEN.

Another finding of the study related to testing of the second hypotheses, which predicted significant differences in university teachers’ attitudes towards educational inclusion and providing academic accommodations for students with SEN regarding their academic discipline, revealed that employees in natural sciences study programs experienced greater difficulties in implementing accommodations for students with visual impairments in comparison with teachers in the social sciences/humanities. This result could be understood, on the one hand, in relation to a lack of professional training, which leaves teachers in the natural sciences unprepared to meet students’ needs or to recognize the characteristics and certain limitations of students with visual impairments. On the other hand, it could be assumed that some subjects in the natural sciences are inherently challenging in terms of adapting teaching methods and providing appropriate accommodations, including the necessary course materials, digital information and specialized computer equipment [31,35,93]. For these teachers, conducting tutorials in laboratories, practical work carried out in the natural environment and other activities outside the faculty likely present major challenges in terms of adaptation and accessibility for students with visual impairments [10]. A national study by Košak Babuder et al. [16] confirmed that, in relation to the type of SEN, university teachers faced the greatest challenges in their pedagogical work with students with visual impairments, alongside students with behavioural disabilities.

It is also concerning that the attitudes of university teachers in the natural sciences towards the academic success of students with visual impairments are statistically significantly more negative than those of university teachers in the social sciences and humanities. Based on the study findings, it should be emphasized that university teachers in the natural sciences are less educated to work with SEN students. Therefore, they probably do not fully understand these students’ specific educational needs, have less confidence in them, and may not believe in their capabilities and potential [94]. It might also be the case that they prefer to assess academic achievements more rigorously against academic standards [16]. International studies by Chasen et al. [64] and Barnard et al. [65] support our results and show that university teachers from natural sciences academic fields are less inclined towards persons with disabilities compared to university teachers from social sciences and humanities fields. Similarly, a study by Alrusaiyes [50] also revealed that faculty members from educational disciplines were the most supportive towards students with SEN compared to their colleagues in other disciplines. The difference in attitudes could be attributed to the fact that university teachers from the social sciences and humanities receive more pedagogical and didactic knowledge in this area, both during their own studies, where they gain considerably more knowledge from the pedagogical and psychological fields, and later in their workplace at university. It is, therefore, essential to place greater emphasis on professional training at the university level in the future, particularly for both male and female teachers employed in natural sciences study programs.

Moreover, these results should also be viewed from another perspective: natural sciences study programs may face limitations related to the specific characteristics, requirements and competences of their curricula, which in turn create various challenges and potential constraints. It has been observed that study programs in the social sciences and humanities at the faculty level tend to develop significantly more subject-specific competencies in areas such as educational inclusion, working with children with SEN and innovative teaching approaches [98,99]. These findings confirmed the third research hypothesis, which predicted that attitudes of university teachers towards the academic success of students with SEN would be significantly related to the types of impairments of students with SEN and the teacher’s gender and academic discipline. However, in drawing conclusions on the differences in attitudes of university teachers, we should also be aware of the methodological biases of this study, particularly due to the non-randomly selected sample, the modest response rate, non-parametrical statistical analysis and variations within compared groups.

5.2. Recommendations for Higher Education

As university teachers are facilitators of the educational process, it is essential that they have appropriate attitudes, knowledge and skills to work with students with SEN as well as other students within an inclusive learning environment [42]. Based on the research findings of this study, the following suggestions and recommendations are proposed:

• First of all, high-quality, comprehensive and targeted training at university level is recommended, organized according to the type of SEN, educational inclusion and teaching.
• Because the greatest difficulties were mostly encountered by university teachers from natural sciences disciplines, particularly male teachers, with regard to providing accommodations for students with visual impairments and supporting their academic success, professional training should be well planned, organized and structured. Above all, it must address their needs holistically and take into account their previous experiences with SEN students. It is important that such training covers the following topics: the concept of disability, with a focus on the social model of disability; the characteristics, needs and strengths of students with SEN, including those with visual impairments and additional disabilities; all aspects of educational inclusion; and the use of new, innovative and inclusive teaching strategies, which should be flexible and student-centred, in line with the UDL concept. Implementing necessary accommodations as part of professional training should be presented with an emphasis on the individual needs of each student with impairments and on accessibility, highlighting the understanding that two students with the same diagnosed disability may have different needs requiring different accommodations. It is essential to present this topic through practical examples of accommodations. University teachers should know how to create accommodations and adapt their subjects accordingly [94].
• Similarly, it is essential that specialists from practice, who are valuable contributors to training at the university, provide advice, proactive strategies and skills to teachers on how to handle specific situations, such as delivering lectures in the classroom, conducting tutorials in laboratories and teaching in spaces outside the faculty (e.g., for students with visual and hearing impairments). They should also cover specialized topics on the application of AT for students with sensory impairments [34].
• Within the framework of training, workshops and/or focus groups could be organized with the participation of students with SEN or sensory impairments, giving them the opportunity to share how they learn, how they use strategies when accommodations or support are inadequate, and how they are treated by their peers and the academic community [38].
• It would be advisable for university teachers to create support groups among themselves, possibly under the umbrella of the pedagogical network at the university, to enable them to reflect on educational practice, share experiences, and help to promote inclusive practice and inclusive culture within the university [38].
• As professional training is associated with more positive attitudes, it is important to continually monitor teachers’ attitudes [97,100]. Attention should also be given to the need for longitudinal or experimental research to confirm the effectiveness of such training.
• One of the measures that can support and contribute to ensuring quality educational inclusion and fostering more positive attitudes among university teachers is the design of the physical environment, including its accessibility and safety. It is therefore recommended that university spaces (e.g., classrooms and laboratories) be designed according to universal design principles and must eliminate physical barriers. This is of utmost importance for students with sensory and physical impairments, as well as for university teachers who are expected to understand and meet the specific educational needs of their students. The university must listen to the needs of both teachers and students and enable improvements to the conditions in which the educational process takes place. This requires the investment of additional material resources.
• To achieve quality and sustainable inclusive education for students with SEN, it is suggested that university teachers engage in ongoing and proactive collaboration with faculty tutors, faculty student offices, university services and other support services [37]. All stakeholders should communicate on a daily basis, share information, provide proactive support and work together to meet the needs of students with SEN. Although the university has already taken many steps towards educational inclusion and the development of support services, there is still room for improvement. It is advisable that staff in the faculty student office receive training in the field of educational inclusion and become familiar with the characteristics of students with SEN, enabling them to better and more consistently support university teachers who work with these students and implement accommodations [51,93]. However, additional personnel in this area would certainly be required.
• Finally, it is suggested that the university monitor and evaluate educational inclusion across faculties and invest in high-quality research on the inclusion of students with SEN [9].

5.3. Study Limitations and Prospects for Future Studies

This study has some limitations that should be taken into consideration when making its final conclusions. First, the study relied on university teachers’ self-assessment, which may include socially desirable responses. Second, the short professional trainings in educational inclusion and providing academic accommodations attended by the participants were not evaluated in detail for their content or scope. Despite this, differences in more positive attitudes were evident among those who participated in such training.

Third, the study did not examine differences in attitudes according to the different academic titles of university teachers (assistant professor, associate professor, full professor) and thus also the positions they hold. This factor is significant, as it influences involvement in teaching. It can be expected that female teachers are more engaged in teaching and less in research work, since they are under-represented in higher academic ranks, which typically involve less teaching responsibilities and a stronger focus on research and university leadership positions. As a result, female teachers have more direct contact with students with SEN.

Finally, this study included five faculties at a single university; the findings primarily reflect the surveyed sample of university teachers. For greater representativeness, it would be necessary to include all three public universities in Slovenia and, if possible, to compare with private universities as well, in order to obtain a more in-depth and representative insight into attitudes towards the inclusion of SEN students and the provision of accommodations in the educational process by university teachers, according to gender, academic discipline and previous training in the educational inclusion of SEN students.

Future studies should address different groups of university students with SEN based on their impairments. A qualitative approach, through individual interviews or focus groups, could provide more detailed insight into specific pedagogical practices in, barriers to and advantages of adapting the educational process for students with different types of SEN among university teachers.

6. Conclusions

This study showed that university teachers are generally supportive of the educational inclusion of students with SEN and the implementation of accommodations for these students. The qualitative responses show that the academic accommodations provided by university teachers are mostly at the declarative level, with a lack of adjustment to the specific needs of students. However, the results also revealed some significant differences by gender, academic discipline and professional training. Male and natural sciences faculty were found to provide less support than their female counterparts in the humanities and social sciences, particularly when it comes to teaching students with visual impairments. The results of this study indicate that professional training is associated with more positive attitudes among faculty and appears to be a promising strategy for sustainable educational inclusion at universities. Even basic professional training has a statistically significant impact on teachers’ self-assessment of whether they have sufficient knowledge to provide academic accommodation to students with different types of SEN.

Within the framework of this study’s findings, it can be assumed that other key factors—although not controlled for in our research—also influence teachers’ attitudes and should be continuously fostered at the university level. Among these, particular emphasis should be placed on the academic community, with its inclusive culture of shared values and beliefs, which contributes to creating a safe and stimulating environment that guides school policies and practices [101]. Future interventions in academia should focus primarily on developing longitudinal, sustainable and experimentally tested effective professional training for university teachers to support them in understanding and developing a student-centred approach to teaching that aims to meet the individual needs of each student regardless of their personal, developmental or behavioral characteristics and establishing sustainable inclusive educational practice in higher education.