Inclusive Education in Higher Education: A Comparative Analysis of Faculty Attitudes, Knowledge, and Practices in Colombian Universities

Abstract

Background: This study analyses the pattern of development of the dimensions of inclusive education in different academic and disciplinary profiles in teachers from selected higher education institutions in Colombia, identifying strengths and areas of improvement for inclusive education. Methods: A quantitative approach, non-experimental design and descriptive–comparative scope were used. The research is a cross-sectional field study, with data collection using a self-administered CEI questionnaire adapted to Colombia and to higher education institutions. The sample included 222 professors from the participating Colombian universities. Descriptive analyses and hypothesis testing were conducted with the support of R software. Results: The findings indicate notable differences in teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, practices, and educational contexts. Conclusions: The variability in knowledge about inclusive strategies suggests the need for more targeted training interventions to reduce the knowledge gap and build teachers’ confidence in implementing inclusive practices.

1. Introduction

Since the Salamanca Statement [1], inclusive education has been consolidated as a fundamental principle in global education policies, recognising universal access to education as a basic right. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) [2] defines this approach as a process that responds to the diverse needs of all learners, encouraging their participation and reducing exclusion. Inclusive education is therefore conceived as a transformative process in educational culture, policies and practices, aimed at providing equitable provision that is responsive to the diverse needs and characteristics of learners [3].

The importance of mainstream educational institutions with an inclusive orientation should be emphasised, as they are considered the most effective means of combating discriminatory attitudes, creating welcoming communities, and achieving education for all [4].

Inclusive education has been conceptualised in different ways across countries, with varying approaches, strategies and understandings of diversity. These conceptualisations have significant implications for its development, as they influence how teachers and institutions respond to learners’ needs. Depending on educational policies and practices, inclusion may either be promoted or constrained [5].

For instance, in Austria, diversity is mainly associated with disability and linguistic difference. In Portugal, a broader perspective encompasses interculturality and citizenship. In England, diversity is framed through an extensive list of categories, including age, gender and ethnicity. In Denmark, it is linked to differentiated teaching, while in Spain it is often regarded primarily as a problem to be addressed [6].

In Latin America, countries such as Colombia, Bolivia and Chile have faced limitations in the effectiveness and implementation of inclusive policies [7]. The lack of robust research and policy frameworks has contributed to lower access rates and greater barriers to retention and graduation for students with disabilities [8]. Bolivia maintains a tradition of free access to higher education [9], while in Chile, certain universities have adopted direct access policies and support services. However, these initiatives are not always evaluated in terms of pedagogical practices and learning outcomes for the prioritised student population [10].

One of the main challenges in implementing inclusive education lies in pedagogical practices. Variations in such practices are particularly marked across institutions and disciplinary fields, highlighting the crucial role of academic training and qualification schemes for teaching staff [11]. In higher education, professional development in inclusive methodologies is especially important, given that professors often come from diverse disciplinary backgrounds where inclusive approaches are not systematically addressed [12]. In both Europe and Latin America, university professors—many of whom are not trained educators—face challenges and professional pressures in developing their teaching roles [13].

Inclusive methodologies are vital for improving the academic performance and participation of students with disabilities in higher education. These include Universal Design for Learning (UDL), supportive learning, assistive technologies and personalised formative assessment—all reflecting a commitment to equity and inclusion [14]. Moreover, it is essential that both professors and institutional leaders embrace a diversity-oriented approach, recognising that inclusion is not restricted to students with disabilities but extends to all learners vulnerable to exclusion [15]. Achieving this requires school leaders to work collaboratively with colleagues to foster an inclusive culture, harness student diversity and promote inclusive practices in universities [16].

In Colombia, Law 1618 of 2013 stresses the importance of ongoing teacher training to ensure educational inclusion [17]. Nationally, inclusive education is framed as a continuous process that seeks to respond to student diversity, supporting their development and participation in a shared educational environment without exclusion [18]. Decree 1421 of 2017 further regulates educational provision for learners with disabilities, assigning responsibilities to various entities to guarantee quality education [19].

Despite legislative advances, many people with disabilities continue to encounter barriers to accessing education [20]. Among the most critical obstacles are attitudinal barriers and issues related to educational leadership. Research has highlighted strengths, such as inclusive leadership, but also weaknesses, including limited community engagement [21]. Furthermore, studies show that future teachers often display a limited willingness to engage with diversity, despite perceiving themselves as competent [22]. At the university level, traditional approaches to disability still persist, underscoring the urgent need to update the training of academic staff [23].

The effectiveness of inclusive education remains a matter of debate. While some authors highlight its academic and social benefits, others argue that inclusive education is not always good practice [24], or emphasise difficulties related to insufficient resources, inadequate infrastructure and limited specialised teacher training [25].

This study aims to analyse the development of inclusive education dimensions across academic and disciplinary profiles of professors from two selected Colombian higher education institutions. The aim is to identify strengths and areas for improvement, to gain a deeper understanding of the national situation of inclusive education, and to recognise international good practices that may serve as a foundation for future higher education policies.

The literature review (see

Table 1. Review of studies on attitudes, knowledge and practices towards inclusive higher education.

Title	Authors	Year	Methodology	Population and Sample	Results
Inclusive policies and practices in higher education: A systematic literature review	[29]	2024	Systematic literature review	43 articles from six electronic databases	The review suggests an increasing number of studies on inclusive policies and practices, focusing on curriculum, teaching, learning, and accessibility.
Inclusive education services for the blind: Values, roles, and challenges of university EFL teachers	[30]	2020	Qualitative study	University EFL teachers in Indonesia	Key findings include the importance of university policy, UDL and DI frameworks, and challenges like inadequate resources and teacher training.
The road to inclusion in higher education: voices of the professoriate	[31]	2023	Descriptive qualitative	University faculty in Mexico	Highlights actions facilitating inclusion and identifies barriers such as lack of training and unfavourable attitudes.
What are their thoughts about inclusion? Beliefs of faculty members about inclusive education	[27]	2022	Descriptive qualitative Semi-structured interviews	119 faculty members from 10 Spanish universities	Many faculty members are unfamiliar with inclusive education, and beliefs vary widely, affecting implementation
Methodological Strategies of Faculty Members: Moving toward Inclusive Pedagogy in Higher Education	[15]	2021	Descriptive qualitative Semi-structured interviews	119 faculty members from 10 Spanish universities	Faculty members use various strategies to promote inclusion, but face difficulties in implementation
Systematic Review on New Challenges of University Education Today: Innovation in the Educational Response and Teaching Perspective on Students with Disabilities	[32]	2023	Systematic review	14 articles	Positive attitudes towards students with disabilities, but obstacles remain in fully meeting their needs
Knowledge of university teachers on the use of digital resources to assist people with disabilities. The case of Spain	[33]	2022	Cross-sectional descriptive and predictive study	2072 university teachers in Spain	Low level of digital competence among teachers regarding the use of ICT for students with disabilities
Universal Design for Learning and Instruction: Effective Strategies for Inclusive Higher Education.	[34]	2023	Qualitative study	University faculty	Effective strategies for inclusive higher education include UDL and DI frameworks
Inclusive University teachers: What characterizes them and how do they think about disability	[28]	2021	Qualitative study	University faculty in Spain	Characteristics and beliefs of inclusive university teachers, focusing on their approach to disability
Competences for promoting inclusive education in the university classroom: an analysis of teaching skills and knowledge.	[35]	2024	Descriptive study	University faculty	Analysis of teaching skills and knowledge necessary for promoting inclusive education

Note. UDL = Universal Design for Learning, an educational framework that provides all students with equal opportunities to learn by offering multiple means of engagement, representation, action and expression. DI = Differentiated Instruction, a pedagogical approach that adapts teaching methods, content, and assessment to address students’ diverse learning needs, readiness levels, and interests. ICT = Information and Communication Technologies, referring to digital tools and resources used to facilitate learning, teaching, and accessibility, particularly for students with disabilities.

) on the dimensions of inclusive education, including teacher attitudes, reveals that although there is a positive trend towards inclusion, substantial barriers persist. Many university professors express favourable attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities but face challenges such as insufficient training and limited resources [26]. Furthermore, professors’ beliefs and perceptions about inclusion vary considerably, affecting the effective implementation of inclusive practices [27]. Teachers’ attitudes are critical to the success of inclusion, as their disposition and empathy can positively influence classroom climate and the development of inclusive pedagogical practices [28].

In terms of knowledge and practice, literature highlights the importance of continuous training and professional development for teachers in the field of inclusive education. Studies suggest that teachers need to improve their digital and pedagogical competences to effectively support students with disabilities [35]. Successful inclusive practices include the use of assistive technologies, implementation of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) frameworks and instructional differentiation [34]. However, the lack of resources and institutional support remains a major obstacle to the implementation of these practices [36]. Collaboration between institutions, families and agencies is also mentioned as a key strategy to promote inclusion in higher education [20].

Inclusive education in Colombia faces significant challenges, especially in terms of teacher training and the implementation of effective pedagogical practices. Although teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are generally positive [37], there is a notable discrepancy between these attitudes and actual classroom practices [38]. The lack of specific training in inclusive education contributes to this disparity, as key terms such as Individual Reasonable Adjustments Plan (PIAR) and Universal Design for Learning (DUA) are unknown to 40% of teacher [39]. Moreover, the training offered is often legislative and encyclopaedic, which limits teachers’ ability to apply trans-formative strategies in their daily practices [30]. To overcome these barriers, it is essential to promote flexible curricula and comprehensive training programmes that address both the theory and practice of inclusive education [40]. This is the only way to ensure quality and equitable education for all students, regardless of their conditions and needs [37].

Finally, affirmative actions are key strategies for the reduction in inequalities in the university and social context [41]. These actions include the implementation of public policies that promote equal access to higher education, the elimination of architectural, communicational and pedagogical barriers, and the development of specific support programmes for students recognised from the diversity approach or prioritized [42]. This leads to the favourability of Educational Inclusion, which in the university context refers to the degree to which educational institutions promote and facilitate the inclusion of all students, regardless of their conditions and needs.

2. Materials and Methods

The study is framed within the positivist paradigm, non-experimental, cross-sectional and descriptive–comparative design, which allowed us to observe the variables without manipulation, collect data at a single time point and compare dimensions of inclusive education according to the academic and disciplinary profiles of the teachers [43]. This methodology favours obtaining objective, replicable and generalisable results, suitable for describing and contrasting educational phenomena in their natural context [44].

The study sample consisted of 212 teachers from two higher education institutions in Colombia, members of the Network of Universities for Disability (RedCiesd). The participants came from six cities in the country and were linked to the Faculties of Social and Legal Sciences, as well as Health Sciences. A non-probabilistic convenience sample was used, which made it possible to form a preliminary exploratory sample, made up of university professors who participated voluntarily after being called by the Pedagogy departments of the two participating universities and their respective educational centres [45]. The inclusion criteria established were: (a) having an active contractual relationship during the year 2024 and (b) expressing willingness to participate in the study.

Data collection was carried out through the questionnaire of educational inclusion (CIE) for university contexts [46], applied through the web-based SurveyMonkey platform (SurveyMonkey Inc., San Mateo, CA, USA). The use of digital platforms such as SurveyMonkey provides logistical and methodological advantages, including geographical coverage and efficiency in data collection [47].

The questionnaire was structured in two sections: a first one with socio-demographic data (institution, academic level, field of knowledge, among others) and a second one with the five dimensions of inclusive education contemplated in the operationalization of the CEI, which allow estimating the degree of agreement or frequency of teaching performance in inclusive university contexts (see

Table 2. Dimensions of the Educational Inclusion Questionnaire (CIE) for university contexts.

Dimension	Type	Measurement	Indicator
Attitudes	Quantitative	Interval	1–18 and 77
Knowledge	Quantitative	Interval	19–36 and 76
Practices	Quantitative	Interval	37–50 and 78
School Context	Quantitative	Interval	51–65
Social Context	Quantitative	Interval	65–75 and 79

).

2.1. Procedure and Ethical Considerations

The procedure began with the submission of the project to an internal call for research, which enabled formal approval and authorisation for its execution to be obtained, in accordance with the guidelines established by the ethics committees of the participating institutions (Project code: 013008086-2022-311). Subsequently, a digital survey was designed based on the previously validated instrument, followed by a process of awareness-raising and coordination with the pedagogy departments of the universities involved. The questionnaire was distributed by sending institutional e-mails to teachers, within the framework of an open call.

Data collection was carried out between February and March 2024. At the end of this stage, the data were downloaded, cleaned and coded according to the dimensions established in the instrument. The anonymity and confidentiality of participants was guaranteed throughout the process, in compliance with the ethical principles of scientific research [48] and international guidelines for good practice in research involving human subjects [49]. Participants signed an informed consent form, in which they authorised the use of their data for scientific and educational purposes only.

2.2. Research Hypotheses

The hypotheses put forward in the study were formulated from the quantitative approach, which allows us to establish relationships between variables and contrast empirical assumptions by means of statistical analysis.

H1:

The level of academic training of teachers significantly influences the development of inclusive education dimensions.

H2:

The field of knowledge in which teachers work has a differential impact on the dimensions assessed.

H3:

The dimensions assessed in the questionnaire have an asymmetric distribution in the Colombian university context.

2.3. Data Analysis

Data analysis was carried out using R statistical software, version 4.4, widely recognised for its flexibility and power in data processing in social and educational research [50]. The analysis was structured in four phases:

Univariate descriptive statistics, using frequencies, percentages, means and standard deviations, which made it possible to characterise the socio-demographic variables and the dimensions of the instrument.

Bivariate statistics, with the application of Student’s t-tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Spearman correlations, selected according to the nature of the data and compliance with assumptions of normality [51].

Multivariate statistics, where associations between variables were explored through multiple correlation analysis, to identify relational patterns between academic dimensions and profiles.

Confirmatory factor analysis, with Varimax rotation, aimed at validating the internal structure of the instrument used.

2.4. Data Availability

The data are openly available in the Mendeley Data repository: Carrillo-Sierra, S.M., Manrique-Julio, J., Cerón-Bedoya, J., Vásquez-Henao, L.C., Fornaris, Z., & Rivera-Porras, D. (2025). Inclusion in higher education: A comparative analysis of attitudes, knowledge and teaching practices in universities (V1). Universidad Simón Bolívar. https://doi.org/10.17632/gwtc9848dj.1 [52].

3. Results

3.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics

The sample consisted of 212 university teachers, distributed between two higher education institutions (21.70% and 78.30%, respectively). In terms of academic level, there was a higher concentration of master’s degrees (82.55%, n = 175), followed by doctorates (7.08%, n = 15), while the undergraduate and specialisation levels accounted for an equal proportion (5.19%, n = 11 each). In the distribution by field of knowledge, Social and Human Sciences accounted for the highest proportion of participants (42.92%, n = 91), followed by Health Sciences (20.75%, n = 44). The fields of Engineering and Technology (12.26%, n = 26), Educational Sciences (11.32%, n = 24) and Economics and Administrative Sciences (10.85%, n = 23) had similar proportions, while Arts and Design had the lowest representation (1.89%, n = 4). The detailed characteristics of the sample are presented in

Table 3. Socio-demographic characteristics.

Variable	Category	Frequency	Percent
Institution	Institution 1	46	21.70
	Institution 2	166	78.30
	Total	212	100.00
Academic level	Bachelor’s degree	11	5.19
	Specialization	11	5.19
	Master’s degree	175	82.55
	Doctorate	15	7.08
	Total	212	100.00
Field of knowledge	Arts and Design	4	1.89
	Economic and Administrative Sciences	23	10.85
	Educational Sciences	24	11.32
	Engineering and Technology	26	12.26
	Health Sciences	44	20.75
	Social and Human Sciences	91	42.92
	Total	212	100.00

Participants’ years of academic experience showed a non-normal distribution (Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, p = 0.029). Considering this characteristic, the confidence interval was calculated using Bootstrap with 10,000 resamples, finding that the average experience of the teachers was between 9.18 and 11.03 years (95% CI). The mean was 10.08 years (SD = 6.99), with a coefficient of variation of 0.69, indicating considerable dispersion in teaching experience. Values ranged from 1 to 49 years of experience, with a positive skewness (1.50) and a kurtosis of 4.52, suggesting a leptokurtic distribution with an extended tail towards higher values. Detailed descriptive statistics are presented in Table 4.

.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the years of academic experience of the participating teachers.

Descriptive Statistics	Academic Experience (Years)
Valid	212
Mean	10.08
Std. Deviation	6.99
Coefficient of variation	0.69
Skewness	1.50
Std. Error of Skewness	0.17
Kurtosis	4.52
Std. Error of Kurtosis	0.33
Minimum	1.00
Maximum	49.00

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the years of academic experience of the participating teachers.

Descriptive Statistics	Academic Experience (Years)
Valid	212
Mean	10.08
Std. Deviation	6.99
Coefficient of variation	0.69
Skewness	1.50
Std. Error of Skewness	0.17
Kurtosis	4.52
Std. Error of Kurtosis	0.33
Minimum	1.00
Maximum	49.00

The distribution of teaching experience, illustrated in Figure 1 by a box-and-whisker diagram, shows a positive asymmetric structure with outliers. This pattern reflects a predominant concentration in the first decade of teaching, with a smaller subgroup of academics whose careers extend significantly, reaching up to almost five decades of professional experience.

The analysis of the four dimensions assessed revealed distinct distribution patterns (Figure 2). The attitude dimension showed a marked tendency towards higher levels, with a significant concentration in the categories “Very High” (61.32%) and “High” (34.43%), accumulating 95.75% of the responses. This distribution suggests a remarkably positive disposition of teachers towards inclusive education. The knowledge dimension presented a more heterogeneous distribution, being mainly concentrated in the “Moderate” (41.04%) and “High” (34.91%) levels. Although 45.29% of the participants reached higher levels (“High” and “Very High”), a considerable proportion was observed at the “Low” level (12.74%), indicating opportunities for improvement in teacher training.

3.2. Dimensions of Educational Inclusion

Educational practices showed a similar pattern to attitudes, with a predominant concentration in the higher levels: ‘Very High’ (58.02%) and ‘High’ (36.79%), accounting for 94.81% of the responses. This result suggests a consistent implementation of inclusive strategies in the classroom. The context dimension exhibited a characteristic bimodal distribution, with main concentrations at the ‘High’ (45.75%) and ‘Moderate’ (43.87%) levels, together accounting for 89.62% of the responses. In contrast to the other dimensions, the ‘Very High’ level showed a notably lower frequency (6.13%), which could indicate institutional and social aspects that require attention.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of the total scores in the dimensions of educational inclusion and overall score of the instrument.

Descriptive Statistics	Attitudes	Knowledge	Practices	Context	Total
Valid	212	212	212	212	212
Mean	73.02	70.40	53.53	49.16	246.11
Std. Deviation	7.91	15.25	8.27	7.43	31.35
Coefficient of variation	0.11	0.22	0.15	0.15	0.13
Skewness	−2.68	0.02	−0.91	−0.39	−0.92
Std. Error of Skewness	0.17	0.17	0.17	0.17	0.17
Kurtosis	13.89	0.35	1.04	0.32	3.32
Std. Error of Kurtosis	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33	0.33
Minimum	21.00	21.00	17.00	22.00	81.00
Maximum	85.00	105.00	65.00	62.00	309.00

presents the descriptive statistics of the total scores obtained in each dimension assessed and the overall score of the instrument. The highest scores were recorded in the attitude and knowledge dimensions, with averages of 73.02 (SD = 7.91) and 70.40 (SD = 15.25) points, respectively. According to the established classification ranges (

Table 6. Ranking ranges for the dimensions of educational inclusion assessed and total score.

Level	Attitudes	Knowledge	Practices	Context	Total Score
Very low	≤30	≤37	≤13	≤25	≤117
Low	31–44	38–54	14–26	26–37	118–170
Moderate	45–58	55–71	27–39	38–49	171–223
High	59–72	72–88	40–52	50–61	224–276
Very high	>72	>88	>52	>61	>276

), the mean score in attitudes was at the ‘Very High’ level (>72 points), while in knowledge it reached the ‘High’ level (72–88 points). However, while attitudes showed a more homogeneous response (CV = 0.11), knowledge showed substantially more variability (CV = 0.22), suggesting considerable differences in the domain of knowledge about educational inclusion among participants.

The practice and context dimensions reached mean scores of 53.53 (SD = 8.27) and 49.16 (SD = 7.43) points, respectively, with similar variability (CV = 0.15). Analysis of the distributions showed that the attitude dimension presented a marked negative skewness (−2.68) and a notable leptokurtosis (kurtosis = 13.89), indicating a strong concentration of scores in the higher values. In contrast, the knowledge dimension exhibited a symmetrical (skewness = 0.02) and me-squared (kurtosis = 0.35) distribution. The average overall score was 246.11 (SD = 31.35) points, with a range between 81 and 309 points, showing a negative skewness (−0.92).

Figure 3 shows the distribution of scores according to the academic level of the participants. Teachers with master’s and doctoral degrees obtained higher scores and showed less variability in their responses compared to the undergraduate and specialisation levels, with this trend being more evident in the dimensions of practice and context. The total score exhibited an ascending pattern from undergraduate to doctoral level, with less dispersion at higher academic levels, suggesting a trend towards more consistent responses as the level of education increases.

3.3. Associations Between Academic Level, Subject Area and Dimensions of Educational Inclusion

When examining the statistical associations between academic level and the dimensions assessed (

Table 7. Academic level.

	Academic Level
	Attitudes	Knowledge	Practices	Context	Overall
Likelihood ratio 1	<0.001	0.298	<0.001	0.056	0.019
Linear by Linear association	<0.001	0.194	<0.001	<0.001	0.001

¹ Used for non-compliance with Chi-square assumptions. Significance level: p < 0.05.

), using a significance level of 0.05, the Likelihood Ratio test showed significant relationships in the dimensions of attitudes, practices and the overall score. The complementary linear-by-linear association analysis confirmed these same findings, adding a significant linear trend in the context dimension (p < 0.001), which reinforces the observation of the progressive increase in these scores as the level of aca-demic training advances.

Similarly, the association between the area of knowledge and the dimensions of educational inclusion assessed was analysed. Figure 4 shows the distribution of scores according to the participants’ area of knowledge, grouped into five main categories: Arts and Design (A&D), Economics and Administrative Sciences (CEA), Exact, Natural Sciences, Engineering and Technology (CENIT), Health Sciences (CS) and Social Sciences, Humanities and Education (CSHE). The box plots reveal that teachers from the Social Sciences, Humanities and Education and Arts and Design had the highest scores in the attitude and practice dimensions, while the Economic and Administrative Sciences (EAC) had the highest scores in the context dimension.

Table 8. Tests of association between the area of knowledge and the dimensions of educational inclusion.

	Area of Knowledge
	Attitudes	Knowledge	Practices	Context	Overall
Likelihood ratio 1	<0.002	0.628	0.02	0.075	0.347
Linear by Linear association	<0.001	0.194	<0.001	<0.001	0.001

¹ Used for non-compliance with Chi-square assumptions. Significance level: p < 0.05.

presents the results of the association tests. Using a significance level of 0.05, the Likelihood Ratio confirmed statistically significant associations in the dimensions of attitudes and practices, whereas no significant associations were found for the dimensions of knowledge, context, or the overall score. These findings suggest that the area of disciplinary training primarily influences attitudes towards inclusion and the practices implemented, but not necessarily specific knowledge or perceptions of the institutional context.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Influence of Academic Training of University Teachers on Inclusive Higher Education

The findings of this study support the working hypothesis that the level of academic training among university teachers significantly influences the development of inclusive education dimensions. The high proportion of teachers with master’s degrees (82.55%) and the low representation of those with doctoral qualifications (7.08%) reflect a structural imbalance that undermines the depth and effectiveness of inclusive practices in higher education. These results are consistent with previous research showing that higher academic qualifications are associated with stronger pedagogical strategies and a greater capacity to implement frameworks such as Universal Design for Learning [34].

The low level of digital competence reported by [33] reinforces the need for targeted training in assistive technologies and inclusive digital pedagogy, particularly in a context where digital platforms are becoming increasingly central to higher education. Likewise, technological training for university faculty is essential to strengthening educational inclusion and enhancing the quality of life of students with disabilities [53].

From a broader perspective, these findings suggest that inclusive education in universities is shaped not only by individual qualifications but also by systemic factors such as disciplinary orientation, institutional policies, and access to resources [54]. The under-representation of teachers in fields such as arts and design, where inclusive practices may be less formalised, highlights the importance of interdisciplinary strategies and greater postgraduate provision in these disciplines [30].

4.2. Disciplinary Influence on Inclusive Education: Attitudes, Knowledge, and Practices Among University Faculty

The positive attitudes toward inclusion observed among teachers—particularly in health and social sciences—serve as key facilitators in building inclusive educational environments [32]. This is supported by the finding that 95.75% of teachers reported high or very high levels in this dimension, consistent with previous research linking favorable attitudes to the successful implementation of inclusive practices [55]. This pattern has been further confirmed in recent university-level studies, where a similar trend is evident [56]. Moreover, evidence suggests that such attitudes can be enhanced through targeted training interventions, highlighting the value of ongoing professional development [57].

However, beliefs and knowledge about inclusion are not uniformly distributed among teachers and appear to be influenced by their disciplinary background [27]. This variability is also mirrored in the pedagogical strategies employed, which differ across academic fields, reflecting disparities in teacher preparation and methodological approaches [15].

Scores for inclusive practices (M = 53.53, SD = 8.27) and context (M = 49.16, SD = 7.43) fell within an intermediate range. The negative skewness and high kurtosis observed in attitude scores suggest a concentration of responses at the higher end of the scale [58]. Teachers with more positive attitudes tended to perform better on these dimensions [59]. A comprehensive understanding of inclusive practices in higher education must extend beyond individual faculty actions to consider how institutional structures shape their implementation. Luhmann’s social systems theory offers a useful lens, framing the university as a system governed by its own communicative codes, wherein any change—including inclusion—must be internalized to become sustainable. Complementarily, institutional constructivism illuminates how organizational norms and values influence the adoption of inclusive pedagogical approaches [60].

4.3. Development Patterns of Inclusive Education Dimensions in Colombian Higher Education

In the Colombian university context, the hypothesis that the dimensions assessed in the questionnaire are asymmetrically distributed is supported by various research and official documents that show inequalities and variability in academic and social aspects. Recent studies show that higher education in Colombia is marked by an unequal distribution in multiple dimensions, from access to pedagogical practices and teacher training, which generates asymmetries in the experience and performance of educational actors [61]. Document significant inequalities in access to public higher education in Colombia [62] where even within faculties there is an asymmetrical distribution of gender and other social variables, reflecting a non-homogeneous structure in the student population and, therefore, in the conditions of the educational context.

In turn, the Colombian Ministry of National Education [63] highlights that the quality and effectiveness of higher education depend to a large extent on heterogeneous factors such as teacher training, infrastructure and available resources, aspects that are not evenly distributed across institutions and regions, contributing to the asymmetry in the dimensions assessed. In particular, the guidelines for the accreditation of academic programmes emphasise the need to evaluate these dimensions with criteria that recognise diversity and contextual differences. From a statistical perspective, the assessment of normality in educational data is fundamental to correctly interpret the distributions of variables.

Positive or negative skewness indicates a bias in the concentration of data towards one of the extremes, which is common in measurements of social and educational variables where there are groups with highly differentiated characteristics. Therefore, the presence of asymmetry in the dimensions assessed is not only to be expected, but reflects the heterogeneous realities of the Colombian university system

Finally, several international studies have pointed out that personal factors such as empathy and social dominance are key determinants in the adoption of positive attitudes towards inclusive education [50]. Furthermore, perceptions of teacher knowledge and preparation in university contexts vary significantly, affecting the implementation of effective inclusive practices [64]. These findings complement local evidence on the need to strengthen in-service training and address academic as well as emotional and social aspects to promote real and effective inclusion in higher education.

This study has certain limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. Firstly, the sample was characterized by a significant imbalance in its composition, with 78.30% of participants belonging to one university and only 21.70% to the other. This disparity may affect the comparative analysis and the generalizability of the results, as the perspectives from the larger institution disproportionately influence the aggregate data. Secondly, the non-probabilistic convenience sampling method, while practical for an exploratory study, limits the statistical representativeness of the faculty population in the selected universities. Furthermore, as the data rely on self-reported measures through a questionnaire, there is a potential for social desirability bias, where participants might have provided responses, they perceived as favorable rather than reflecting their actual practices or beliefs. Finally, the cross-sectional design captures the situation at a single point in time, preventing the establishment of causal relationships or the observation of the evolution of inclusive dimensions. Future research should aim for a more balanced recruitment strategy, incorporate longitudinal designs, and combine self-report data with observational methods to triangulate findings

5. Conclusions

The pattern of development of inclusive education dimensions in different academic and disciplinary profiles of teachers in higher education institutions in Colombia reveals significant variations in attitudes, knowledge, practices and context. In order to identify strengths and areas of improvement for inclusive education, the importance of strengthening teacher training in inclusive methodologies and promoting flexible curricula that address both the theory and practice of inclusive education is highlighted.

The comparative analysis shows that the development of inclusion in higher education is heterogeneous in terms of the attitudes, knowledge and practices of teachers and between universities, influenced by disciplinary, institutional and formative factors. While significant progress has been made in the positive disposition towards inclusion, challenges remain in the effective implementation of inclusive practices and in the appropriation of specific knowledge.

Teacher training in inclusion should be formulated with a comprehensive and contextualised approach and consider the multidisciplinary nature of the teaching staff, as well as promoting institutional policies that guarantee adequate conditions for a truly inclusive higher education.

Despite its limitations, including the sample imbalance between the two participating universities and the potential for social desirability bias inherent to self-reported data, this study provides valuable insights into the patterns of inclusive education dimensions among faculty in selected Colombian higher education institutions. The findings underscore the need for institutional policies that promote continuous and contextualized teacher training. Future research should build on these results by employing longitudinal and mixed-methods designs to better understand the causal factors influencing the development of inclusive practices and to assess their long-term impact.