The Interface Between Inclusion and Creativity: A Qualitative Scoping Systematic Review of Practices Developed in High School

Abstract

Inclusive education is a legal right, and its origin is linked to human rights, which has established a resonance in global movements. In this study, we analyzed inclusive pedagogical practices that favor creativity in the high school context. We chose to carry out a qualitative scoping systematic review and defined the inclusion and exclusion criteria in advance to guide the team’s work. We selected articles from the Web of Science database on 14 April 2025 (registration: INPLASY202570121; (registered 30 July 2025)), and we performed a quality control check on the reporting using the PRISMA-ScR checklist. We established the timeframe between 2008 and 2025 and identified 368 articles, of which 25 were chosen for this study. The data were analyzed with the support of Rayyan and VOSviewer software (version 1.6.20). The findings demonstrate a wide range of practices developed across diverse high school contexts employing multiple strategies that advance an inclusive perspective. Moreover, among these strategies, several explicitly foster creativity through varied resources, collaborative work, and the use of assistive technologies. Overall, the articles show a significant convergence around multifaceted approaches that design and implement innovative strategies to address student diversity.

1. Introduction

Among the current demands on education, there is a pressing need to move away from knowledge reproduction paradigms toward perspectives that align pedagogical practice with the developmental needs of students, enabling them to act in an increasingly complex reality (Morin, 2015, 2018).

Although the notion that curricular content should reflect both local and global demands is not new, pedagogical practices that fail to advance this process still persist.

Given that developmental needs are diverse and contingent on each student’s specificities, inclusive education has been consolidating itself as a legal right over the last few years, driven especially by global movements originating in discussions about human rights. This is a paradigm committed to ensuring that all students, including those with disabilities, global developmental disorders, and high abilities/giftedness, have access to regular school and the possibility of remaining in it, favoring their learning and development (Pletsch, 2020).

An inclusive school is a space of welcome and inclusion for all these students, as well as for those with special conditions, temporary and permanent illnesses, and histories of abuse, war refugees, immigrants, and those in other vulnerable conditions. Although the school is one of the fundamental spaces for inclusion, there are many different scenarios and contexts that can favor the development of inclusive practices, such as hospitals and museums.

Specifically, in the school context, it is necessary to ensure that educators transpose public policies into inclusive practices for every student, contributing to the consolidation of inclusion as a legal right. In this sense, different studies indicate that inclusive practices, in addition to inclusion itself, are the basis for experiencing an inclusive culture (Valdés, 2023). These inclusive practices are essential elements for student development, especially when teachers use multiple methodological approaches that value differences (Mantoan, 2015).

Despite the recognition of different possibilities for inclusive practices, not all of them guarantee effective learning, resulting in frequent school failures and even the mischaracterization of inclusion (Sassaki, 2023). Therefore, in addition to their enrollment in a school committed to inclusive practices, students must be truly integrated into that context, experiencing and developing themselves by means of the different practices it offers (Mantoan & Lanuti, 2021). This requires practices that privilege students’ creative potential throughout the entire educational trajectory by adopting strategies that, when aligned with each learner’s needs, foster their inclusion.

In this way, the idea of bringing creativity and inclusion closer together aligns with the intention of approaching schools in the real world. This is one of the premises of holistic education (Freire, 2008), which aims not only to meet multiple educational needs but also to contribute to a democratic society that is capable of promoting social equality and overcoming historical challenges such as unemployment, hunger, and poverty, as well as other contemporary challenges—especially those linked to global climate factors. It is in this process that the relevance of creativity becomes evident in facing the adversities of a world that, in rapid transformation, has excluded much more than it has included.

The potential of creativity to address life’s challenges was recognized by Guilford (1950), who defined it as the capacity to solve problems, and it has also been understood as a process arising from the interaction between an individual’s thoughts and the sociocultural context (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996).

Beyond emphasizing the person–context relationship, creativity has been conceptualized as having the potential to both transform and be transformed in the face of adversity, grounded in awareness of the experienced situation and agentic actions that confer meaning, social relevance, and cultural significance (Torre, 2005).

In this sense, the idea of creativity is linked to the principles of interconnectedness, ethics, and social responsibility, which can contribute to the development of practices committed to inclusion when applied to educational contexts.

Therefore, the concept of creativity highlighted in this research converges with Torre (2001), who conceives it as a capacity and an attitude that leaves a personal, social, or institutional mark, which means valuing it in its external projection. For the author, having an internal quality is not enough; it is necessary to generate something positive with value in one’s environment.

This perspective, involving external projection, helps overcome concepts that position creativity as a condition solely intrinsic to individuals. Although it is argued that people are born with creative potential, its potentialization throughout life depends on factors each person has access to.

It is in this perspective that the relevance of schools that promote creative strategies and transform themselves into creative schools lies. For Torre (2009), a creative school is one that goes beyond its origins (transcends), that gives more than it has and exceeds what is expected of it (recreates), that recognizes the best in its students and faculty (values), and that grows internally and externally, seeking quality and continuous improvement in everything (transforms). These schools foster a training that helps students function in an increasingly complex reality. They also expand opportunities so that students not only feel motivated to enroll but also can pursue a formative path that fosters both their learning and development.

Torre’s (2006, 2023) concept of creativity aligns creative principles from a psychosocial perspective, considering individual, social, and cultural lives, configuring itself as a systemic process anchored in a web of sociocultural relationships. For the author, “we are not facing a simple psychological concept; it is a phenomenon loaded with personal connotations, institutional repercussions, and social consciences” (Torre, 2005, p. 15).

When multiple opportunities are offered to students throughout their lives, methods of creative expression expand and open paths for an education that can be both social and political, which is essential for understanding oneself, others, and the world. It is within this logic that the contributions of Morin (2018, p. 16) stand out, who warns about the lack of alternatives that collaborate to “face the fundamental and global problems of the individual, the citizen, the human being.” Furthermore, it is understood that there is “a crucial problem, often ignored, which is the need to promote knowledge that is capable of understanding global and fundamental problems in order to include partial and local knowledge” (Morin, 2015, p. 100).

In view of this perspective, creativity constitutes a fundamental right to inclusion that highlights the relevance of curricular reforms that enhance creativity through strategies committed to addressing the specific needs of each student. In line with Torre’s (2009) concept of creative school, this right means access to strategies that recognize the creative potential of each student and contribute to their inclusion in activities that project this potential externally.

Accordingly, this study prioritizes an articulation between creativity and inclusion by means of a qualitative scoping systematic review aimed at analyzing inclusive pedagogical practices that promote creativity in the context of upper secondary education. In this process, it also situates inclusion strategies, particularly those that amplify creativity, and seeks correlations among the studies analyzed.

The recurring challenges that secondary education has been facing in different countries justify the decision to develop research on this stage of basic education. In Brazil, for example, the high dropout, resistance, and retention rates (Silva et al., 2021) have created a chaotic scenario, so much so that many changes in recent years have been implemented with the intention of promoting effective advances. Other countries face similar dilemmas, as indicated in the study developed by Weathers and Loeb (2023).

2. Materials and Methods

The advanced search was conducted using the equation TS = ((“inclusion educational” OR “inclusive education”)) AND TS = ((pedagogy OR teaching OR “school, teaching” OR “teaching, school” OR “teaching schools” OR “school, learning” “hospital, teaching” OR “teaching, hospital” OR “teaching hospitals” OR “hospital, learning” OR “learning environment”)) AND TS = ((creativity OR creat*)).

We used the PRISMA-ScR checklist (Tricco et al., 2018) as a quality control check of this review. This protocol was registered on 30 July 2025, with the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY), DOI 10.37766/inplasy2025.7.0121.

The following software was used to perform this qualitative scoping systematic review: Rayyan (online platform for study screening, available at https://www.rayyan.ai. accessed on 14 April 2025), VOSviewer version 1.6.20 (Van Eck & Waltman, 2023), and bibliometric analysis software, available at https://www.vosviewer.com (Accessed on 14 April 2025). No proprietary computer code or code developed specifically for this study was used (Supplementary Materials).

2.1. Selection Criteria

To identify the most relevant articles on the topic of this review, a search was conducted in seven databases: Web of Science, Core Collection, Current Contents Connect, Scielo Citation Index, KCI—Korean Journal Database, Medline, Biosis Citation Index, and Biosis Previews, where 369 articles were initially found. These articles were imported into Rayyan, the software chosen by the team to screen the references. Our use of Rayyan software was justified based on the reflections of Ouzzani et al. (2016), who state that the use of software has been increasingly recurrent in systematic analyses because, given the vertiginous growth of scientific production, it constitutes a way of ensuring the replicability and standardization of research.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the texts were previously defined to guide the team’s work in the selection process. The inclusion criteria were as follows: empirical articles and case studies published between 2008 and 2025 written in English, Portuguese, or Spanish with links to the high school (15 to 18 years old), school, and/or hospital contexts and including the following themes/keywords: inclusive education or pedagogy; school or hospital teaching; teaching; creativity.

The exclusion criteria were as follows: reports, opinion polls, essays, commentaries, reviews, books, book chapters, and conference proceedings; studies with irretrievable data (full text or lacking an abstract); duplicate studies, theoretical articles, and systematic reviews; studies published in languages other than English, Portuguese, or Spanish; studies with different topics/keywords than those stated in the inclusion criteria; and studies in which the contexts were early childhood education—nursery school (0 to 3 years), elementary school (6 to 14 years), or higher education.

During the selection process, topics or contexts deemed non-relevant based on the abovementioned criteria emerged and were reviewed by the author team prior to exclusion. For example, searches combining “inclusive education or pedagogy or teaching” often retrieved studies that do not report inclusive practices; rather, they focus on the history of disabilities, health-related aspects, preservice teacher education, practicum placements, teacher professional development programs, research on teacher self-efficacy, or teachers’ perceptions of disability—topics that diverge from the aims of the present study.

Another factor limiting the number of included articles concerned the level of education (high school—students aged 15 to 18 years). Numerous studies were excluded for not meeting this criterion or for failing to report the students’ age ranges explicitly.

Certain contexts also did not align with the study objective, such as principals’ perceptions of cultural diversity, the role of parents in inclusive education, and out-of-school settings (e.g., museums and cinemas).

Before applying these criteria, an initial exploration of Rayyan indicated one duplicated article, which was excluded, leaving 368 articles. To ensure consensus (Arana et al., 2016; Arnau Gras et al., 1990) in the selection of the 368 articles, using the tools offered by Rayyan, an analysis was carried out on a 10% sample, which totaled 35 texts, on 14 April 2025, with the participation of all researchers on the team. The abstracts and keywords were read. As consensus was not reached, a second round was carried out on 18 April 2025, again with the 10% sample, and consensus was reached on the article selection.

Next, the titles, abstracts, and keywords were analyzed, resulting in the exclusion of 284 articles, motivated by the previously defined criteria, leaving 84 articles. In addition to these exclusions, 8 more articles were subsequently excluded because they were not open access, leaving 76 articles. After analyzing the full text, a further 51 articles were excluded, leaving 25 articles for analysis.

This entire analysis process, which involved different stages, is illustrated in the diagram based on the PRISMA method (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) in Figure 1, which presents the design of the article selection flow (Page et al., 2021).

2.2. Analysis

The analysis of the articles was performed using VOSviewer software. Through bibliometric analysis, it was possible to visualize the relationships between the terms and keywords of the selected articles (co-occurrence) to measure, monitor, and analyze the scientific literature (Roemer & Borchardt, 2015) related to the discussed themes.

3. Results

We present the main analytical categories that were the focus of analysis in the 25 selected articles in

Table 1. Main characteristics of literature review articles.

N.	Author/s	Country	Purposes	Practices	Strategies	Evidence of Inclusion–Creativity Interface
01	Ambili et al. (2024)	Zimbabwe	Investigates the challenges faced by students with multiple disabilities in a resource school originally designed for students with sensory (visual and auditory) disabilities.	Peer support; tutoring and mentoring.	Promoting the formation of fixed peer-tutoring pairs; providing individualized support sheets; using adapted resources (Braille machine); adapting materials.	The text analyzes the pedagogical practices used for students with multiple disabilities and the daily challenges to ensure inclusion. It does not relate to creativity.
02	Brennan et al. (2024)	Ireland	Analyzes Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), created and led within the school itself and supported by a partnership with the university.	Critical dialogue and shared practices; evidence of learning to boost traditional practice and plan inclusive lessons; diversified tasks on the same subject.	Exploring “Choice Boards”—boards with different activity options for students to choose how to approach a given content.	Creativity as a necessary construction to adapt, innovate, and develop teaching approaches that guarantee the inclusion of everyone.
03	Chen et al. (2023)	Australia	Investigates the attitudes of Australian secondary school teachers and how they relate to universal design for learning (UDL).	Using alternative ways to work on concepts (video, audio, and images); reviewing prior knowledge in each class; exploring different skills and their applications in different contexts; demonstrating learning in diverse ways (handwriting, keyboard, etc.); using support tools (grammar checker and calculator); individual definitions of learning goals.	Encouraging the use of videos, audio recordings, texts, and images; making maps, videos, and visual schedules.	Ability to build learning environments that respond to student diversity through flexible, innovative, and shared pedagogical proposals.
04	Elkan et al. (2021)	Romania	Analyzes how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the schooling of children and teenagers with special educational needs (SENs).	Flexible hybrid teaching; open digital resources; interdisciplinary team.	Promoting the recording of classes with subtitles; using platforms with digital accessibility; providing materials in multiple formats.	The focus of the text is on the adaptation of education for students with special educational needs (SENs) during the COVID-19 pandemic, without explicitly presenting any intention to promote creative processes.
05	Feito Alonso (2013)	Ecuador	Examines how the Institute de Educación Secundaria (IES) Miguel Catalán (Madrid) transformed school coexistence through democratic practices and, from there, began to adopt a set of pedagogical innovations.	Reorganization of teams (four–five students); one out-of-college volunteer: literary texts are read and commented on collectively in a “Platonic” style; intensive use of “cyberstudent”; extended library hours; cultural projects (theater, museums, and cinema); afternoon monitoring to compensate for low family cultural capital.	Developing posters, murals, visual panels, texts, videos, and music; exploring artistic materials.	Creative and inclusive practices improved the coexistence problem in the institution through interactive groups and dialogic readings.
06	Fuentes (2024)	Spain	Conducts a meta-ethnography of fourteen ethnographic studies to produce knowledge about how creative teaching practices mediated by digital media can promote inclusive education based on students’ voices, interests, and experiences.	Using digital games to introduce Aboriginal culture to mathematics (Australia); radio art workshops with young immigrants (USA); audiovisual narratives about everyday life in the neighborhood (Spain); a “Free” camera in the room to record important moments (Spain); a blended model (USA) giving autonomy to weekly goals; heterogeneous groups with cell phones for cooperative learning (Brazil); “Cluster Spaces” of digital games in early childhood education (Scotland); “Digital storytelling” workshops on stereotypes with students (Italy).	Applying digital games such as Guitar Hero; creating audiovisual projects; conducting radio and podcast workshops; producing digital stories.	Valuing the voices, experiences, and interests of students, especially those with vulnerable backgrounds.
07	Hendricks and Xeketwana (2024)	South Africa	Use of translanguage (isiXhosa ↔ English) to improve English learning, confidence, and student engagement.	Translanguage in exploratory and presentational speech; bilingual wall materials; guided translation of academic vocabulary.	Encouraging participation in bilingual reading; using activities with visual glossaries; implementing collaborative translation tasks; creating presentations in both one’s mother tongue and additional languages; reading and writing practices through oral discussions, songs, or collective reading.	The text addresses creativity from the moment at which diversity ceases to be understood as a limitation and begins to be understood as a driving force of the educational process.
08	Herrera-Seda and Pantić (2025)	Chile	Comprehends how Chilean teachers exercised their professional agency during the COVID-19 crisis.	Adaptation of classes for distance learning; universal support for learning and well-being; collective work among teachers.	Creating collaborative emergency lesson planning among teachers; establishing peer support groups; adapting activities focused on well-being; proposing small-group video calls; validating tasks with flexible deadlines.	The text discusses the teaching capacity to respond critically to problematic situations and seek solutions and the mobilization of varied resources during a pandemic.
09	Johnson and Mughal (2024)	United Kingdom	Comprehends how experiences in British secondary schools can guide a critical pedagogy focused on trans inclusion.	Safety environment and symbols: use of badges/pronouns, rainbow lanyards, permission for non-binary uniforms, gender-neutral restrooms; dialogical curriculum; reconceptualization of students as partners; transaffirmative teaching stance; development of transaffirmative school policies and continued training of faculty.	Selecting texts and authors who are trans or queer; using inclusive visual materials; paying attention to inclusive language (neutral language).	Creativity and inclusion complement each other, allowing for the recognition of personalized responses to multiple ways of being.
10	Kakos (2022)	United Kingdom	Understanding how multilingual teaching assistants use their marginal position, translation, and translanguaging to create third spaces.	Translanguaging: the practice of utilizing a speaker’s entire linguistic repertoire without strictly adhering to the boundaries of “named” languages.	Producing posters, images, illustrated cards, pictographic symbols, physical objects, visual charts, educational software, and interactive videos.	Third-space pedagogical spaces: places where marginalized students come together to creatively overcome their problems and increase their linguistic repertoires; creative pedagogy.
11	Lemeshchuk et al. (2022)	Ukraine	Analyzes the implementation of European inclusive education practices in Ukraine.	Individual portfolios; alternation of activities every 10–20 min; work in heterogeneous groups; teacher’s assistant; play-based learning and games; individualized task planning.	Encouraging the rotation of short, varied activities; using educational games, role play, and artistic activities; employing visual and auditory resources; adopting assistive technologies.	The application of creativity through tasks and methods to facilitate the learning and inclusion of every student, including those with special needs; creative tasks.
12	Lourens et al. (2024)	South Africa	Investigates how teachers in South African special schools improvised, with flexibility and creativity, to maintain the teaching of learners with special educational needs (LSENs) during the various phases of the COVID-19 lockdown.	1. Without Internet or devices: creation of personalized notebooks and cards; delivery and collection by the school driver; 2. classes with connectivity; promotion of healthy habits; intensive reteaching of lost content and strengthening of emotional bonds.	Exploring assistive technologies; using accessible digital platforms; providing materials that respect different learning modalities.	Creativity acts as a tool to translate the principles of inclusion into real practices, especially in emergency situations.
13	Mampaso Desbrow et al. (2022)	United Kingdom	Evaluates the creativity of young people with intellectual disabilities as an indicator of cognitive performance.	Outlines general foundations and guidelines for inclusive and creative practices but does not exemplify concrete methods or activities.	Integrating art materials; using accessible digital technologies; employing multimodal resources; implementing hybrid learning environments.	The incorporation of the development of creative thinking into pedagogical practices as an essential skill for young people with intellectual disabilities.
14	Messiou and Hope (2015)	England	Analyzes what tensions arise when trying to use student voices to improve inclusive practices.	Students choose and arrange nine cards about learning, stimulating debate and revealing priorities; focus groups are moderated by university researchers; teachers plan, observe, and review lessons based on student feedback.	Organizing student assemblies; using collaborative murals; conducting interviews, written records, and group discussions; employing bulletin boards, recordings, and reflective reports.	The transformation of students’ voices into inclusive and creative pedagogical practices.
15	Murray (2021)	Canada	Investigates how Black cultural arts educators perceive and practice culturally responsive teaching (PCR) in Ontario schools.	Community and dialogue: converting the classroom into a horizontal and decolonized space for coexistence. Dance, percussion, and oral and visual arts activities that require cooperation, critical reflection, and leadership from students.	Encouraging video and poetry presentations; using art materials; promoting reflective journals; employing accessible digital technologies.	The use of cultural arts as a pedagogical tool or approach to promote inclusive education.
16	Pittman et al. (2021)	United States of America	Investigates faculty perceptions and practices regarding multicultural and educational issues related to the fast increase in online environments during coronavirus (COVID-19) experiences.	Diagnosis and continued dialogue. Curriculum flexibility and formative assessment; inclusive teaching and universal design for learning (UDL); partnerships and co-teaching; infrastructure and digital equity.	Using multimodal materials; adopting adaptive technological resources; implementing diversified assessment tools; employing visual aids and manipulatives.	The study examines the interaction of several elements, such as multiple disabilities, poverty and family stress, and the consequences for students. There is no evidence of creative processes.
17	Rapanta et al. (2021)	International scope Portugal Coordination	Verifies whether inclusive dialogic practices can be successfully implemented in secondary education in Portuguese and Spanish public schools and examines teachers’ participation in a short development program.	Dialogical curriculum; discussion techniques: deepening ideas, active listening.	Selecting collaborative digital platforms; using digital authoring software; implementing Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs); developing digital portfolios.	Creativity appears indirectly in the text, breaking with traditional and exclusionary pedagogical practices, offering teachers and students diverse ways of teaching, learning, and interacting.
18	Rangkuti et al. (2025)	Indonesia	Investigates how community-produced audio narratives can transform English teaching for visually disabled students in rural Indonesia.	Community-produced audio narratives; culturally relevant curriculum; multisensory learning; dialogical and collaborative methodology; teacher training with action research; intergenerational engagement.	Using visual maps and charts; keeping written and graphical records; incorporating local and culturally situated resources.	The text demonstrates that educators can creatively transform limitations into opportunities, such as community-driven audio narratives.
19	Sedláčková & Kantor (2022)	Czech Republic	Comprehends how young people with cerebral palsy (CP) experience schooling in mainstream classes in the Czech Republic.	Individual support classes; curriculum adaptation (mathematics and physics); extension of test time; verbal assessment; copy of materials prepared by the teacher; presence of a teaching assistant.	Proposing the use of art materials; employing multimedia and digital resources; developing learning portfolios; creating adapted learning environments.	The study explores the experiences lived by students with cerebral palsy (CP) in inclusive education environments, not highlighting creative elements in pedagogical practices.
20	Souza and Dias (2024)	Brazil	Expands the possibilities of applying RE (Robotic Education) by integrating creative and active methodologies, presenting Alternative Educational Robotics (AER).	Pedagogical proposal of Alternative Educational Robotics (AER), aiming to democratize access to technology using recyclable materials and electronic scrap.	Providing electronic scraps; using recyclable materials; adopting open-source software; employing accessibility tools.	The way in which the lack of resources was overcome, with the use of recyclable materials, is a demonstration of creativity.
21	Subban et al. (2024)	Australia	Identifies elements that help schools adopt a “village mindset”—that is, a collective responsibility—for the inclusion of students with additional needs.	Welcoming community school culture of belonging and shared values; everyone works together; intentional dialogue between teachers, families, colleagues, and students; cooperative planning; ambitious goals and flexible methods that combine skills from multiple professionals.	Using varied teaching resources; adopting assistive technologies.	Creativity is crucial for inclusion and should be used as an intentional pedagogical resource.
22	Troncoso Recio et al. (2020)	Spain	Discusses the implementation of a cooperative musical creativity project.	Project-Based Learning (PBL) and cooperative work; integration of technology, arts, and ICT (Information and Communication Technologies); reflective rituals and dialogue; inclusive adjustments in process and assessment.	Exploring the creation of murals and posters; preparing field diaries.	Through music, students with different abilities actively participated in the project, strengthening the group’s integration.
23	Vázquez-Vásquez and Velásquez-Medina (2024)	Mexico	Analyzes the relevance of empathy in teaching practice as a tool for the inclusion of students with outstanding attitudes (high abilities) in Mexican basic education.	Awareness-raising programs/teacher training; empathy activities in the classroom; task enrichment, controlled acceleration, and talent grouping; focus on socio-affective factors.	Encouraging the production of informational texts and cultural narratives; using posters, murals, and visual resources; providing bilingual materials.	Creativity and empathy are central elements to the promotion of an inclusive education environment that is responsive to singularities.
24	Wang et al. (2024)	China	Investigates the effects of the transformational leadership of principals on the inclusive behavior of teachers.	Principal Transformational Leadership (PTL); inclusive teaching behaviors (TITBs): content, process, and product.	Applying robotics kit resources; using recyclable and reusable materials; employing educational software; using multimedia equipment; incorporating artistic materials.	Creativity is related to teachers who, through diverse teaching approaches and innovative strategies, can meet the needs of students in diverse classrooms.
25	Yilmaz (2024)	Uganda Türkiye	Investigates how Turkish schools are dealing with the challenges of integrating Syrian refugee students.	Games, music, videos, and cartoons to teach vocabulary and curriculum content; pairwise system; intercultural projects and activities; teacher training.	Promoting playful and multimodal teaching using games, music, videos, and cartoons; organizing mixed cultural activities, such as songs from the students’ own cultures and typical foods.	The adaptive and innovative solutions that educators have implemented to address the difficulties of refugee students are elements related to creativity in the educational context.

, which contains the names of the authors, their home countries, the purposes of the studies, the inclusive practices presented, the strategies, and the evidence of the inclusion–creativity interface, facilitating an understanding of the scope and contributions of the selected studies and allowing insights into their approaches, gaps, and trends.

All 25 articles analyzed present pedagogical practices carried out in different countries in the high school context or with students who met the criteria for this age group. None of the selected articles present pedagogical practices developed in hospitals. The practices described in these articles are directly related to inclusion and combinations of external actions: physical and pedagogical access, recognition and appreciation of cultural diversity, and access to digital infrastructure, among others. Inclusion, in this sense, is understood as a human right, whether through barrier-free school projects or through proposals that welcome diversity and provide support for all students.

Building on the premise that inclusion served as the backdrop to the texts under review, we analyzed their evidence of creativity. Only five selected articles explicitly present a definition of the term “creativity” (Herrera-Seda & Pantić, 2025; Fuentes, 2024; Kakos, 2022; Mampaso Desbrow et al., 2022; Vázquez-Vásquez & Velásquez-Medina, 2024), and, consequently, this category is used in a conceptually based way in their analyses and discussions.

In seventeen articles presented, understandings of creativity are mentioned in a pragmatic way (Ambili et al., 2024; Brennan et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2023; Feito Alonso, 2013; Hendricks & Xeketwana, 2024; Johnson & Mughal, 2024; Lemeshchuk et al., 2022; Lourens et al., 2024; Messiou & Hope, 2015; Murray, 2021; Rangkuti et al., 2025; Rapanta et al., 2021; Souza & Dias, 2024; Subban et al., 2024; Troncoso Recio et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2024; Yilmaz, 2024). In these texts, creativity appears indirectly and peripherally, resulting from inclusive pedagogical practices. The term also appears linked to the use of modern pedagogical methods and digital solutions.

Of the articles analyzed, three do not provide any definition of creativity (Elkan et al., 2021; Pittman et al., 2021; Sedláčková & Kantor, 2022). However, even though they have distinct characteristics and epistemological approaches, there is a tendency towards the progression of creativity and the development of pedagogical practices committed to inclusion. Although creativity is not discussed in all the articles, different strategies that foster it were identified.

Based on the selected articles, the following specific strategies for inclusive education were identified: recording classes with captions, digitally accessible platforms (Elkan et al., 2021); the use of adapted resources/Braille typewriters and the preparation of adapted materials (Ambili et al., 2024); posters, murals, and visual panels (Feito Alonso, 2013); the creation of audiovisual projects (Fuentes, 2024); bilingual readings, visual glossaries, collaborative translation activities, and presentations in the mother tongue and additional languages (Hendricks & Xeketwana, 2024); assignments with flexible deadlines (Herrera-Seda & Pantić, 2025); the inclusion of trans or queer texts and authors, the use of inclusive visual materials, attention to inclusive (gender-neutral) language, and content modification (Johnson & Mughal, 2024); visual graphics/organizers (Kakos, 2022); visual and auditory resources and assistive technologies (Lemeshchuk et al., 2022); accessible digital platforms and materials that respect different ways of learning (Lourens et al., 2024); accessible digital technologies (Mampaso Desbrow et al., 2022; Murray, 2021; Subban et al., 2024); adaptive technological resources, diversified assessment tools, and visual supports and manipulatives (Pittman et al., 2021); adapted environments (Sedláčková & Kantor, 2022); accessibility tools (Souza & Dias, 2024; Troncoso Recio et al., 2020); accessible art materials, visual and tactile resources, images from different cultures and artistic styles, and adapted physical environments (Yilmaz, 2024).

Another group of articles presents more general strategies referring to social relations and partnerships established within educational settings, including references to social relations and partnerships established within educational settings, such as collaborative emergency/contingency planning among teachers, the creation of peer support groups, adapted activities focused on well-being, and small-group video calls (Herrera-Seda & Pantić, 2025); the formation of fixed peer-tutoring pairs to support students with learning difficulties (Ambili et al., 2024); writing and reading practices through oral discussions, songs, or collective reading (Hendricks & Xeketwana, 2024); the rotation of short, varied activities, dramatizations, and arts-based activities (Lemeshchuk et al., 2022); the organization of student assemblies and group discussions (Messiou & Hope, 2015); collaborative digital platforms (Rapanta et al., 2021).

A third group of articles highlights strategies that use material resources to achieve pedagogical aims, such as individualized support sheets (Ambili et al., 2024); videos, audio, texts, images, mind maps, and visual schedules (Chen et al., 2023); the use of Choice Boards—charts with different activity options (Brennan et al., 2024); materials in multiple formats and short guided video lessons (Elkan et al., 2021); texts, videos, songs, and art materials (Feito Alonso, 2013); digital games such as Guitar Hero, radio workshops and podcasts, and the creation of digital stories (Fuentes, 2024); posters, images, illustrated cards, pictographic symbols, physical objects, educational software, and interactive videos (Kakos, 2022); art materials, multimodal resources, and hybrid learning environments (Mampaso Desbrow et al., 2022); the use of collaborative murals, interviews, written records, note boards, recordings, and reflective reports (Messiou & Hope, 2015); video and poetry presentations, art materials, and reflective journals (Murray, 2021); multimodal materials (Pittman et al., 2021); maps and visual charts, written and graphical records, and local and cultural resources (Rangkuti et al., 2025); art materials, multimedia and digital resources, and learning portfolios (Sedláčková & Kantor, 2022); electronic scraps, recyclable materials, and open-source software (Souza & Dias, 2024); varied teaching resources (Subban et al., 2024); murals and posters and field journals (Troncoso Recio et al., 2020); informational texts and cultural narratives, posters, murals, visual resources, and bilingual materials (Vázquez-Vásquez & Velásquez-Medina, 2024); robotics kits, recyclable and reusable materials, educational software, multimedia equipment, and art materials (Wang et al., 2024); digital authoring software, virtual learning environments (VLEs), and digital portfolios (Rapanta et al., 2021).

Bibliometric Mapping via Term Co-Occurrence (VOSviewer)

We chose to use VOSviewer software based on the results obtained, which enables the construction and visualization of bibliometric networks, mapping relationships among authors, citations, organizations, publications, and keywords. In this study, we prioritized term co-occurrence, understood as the frequency with which two or more terms appear together within a set of documents, thereby allowing for the identification of the semantic and thematic relationships among them (Van Eck & Waltman, 2023). The visualization of nodes makes it possible to identify groups of terms and the strengths of their associations to analyze how research in the field has addressed the topic.

The obtained results allowed for three analysis views: network visualization, the density of the researched themes, and the publication period of the 25 articles.

Regarding the network visualization on inclusive and creative practices related to high school, there is a distribution of 59 items, divided into six clusters, each rendered in a different color, with items that appear in closer proximity to one another grouped together, thereby revealing related themes, as shown in Figure 2.

Two fundamental terms of this research appear in the red cluster: “secondary school” and “creativity”. From these, a central term arises, “development”, which is interconnected to all the other clusters, denoting its importance in this discussion. With less intensity, terms such as “projects”, “process”, “change”, “student voice”, and “tension” appear, which are very close to “inclusive education” and “intellectual disability”. This cluster constitutes a hotspot, concentrating strong themes in the area.

The green cluster shows a greater spread among the themes. Throughout the list of 15 items, the most expressive words are “pandemic” and “role”. The relationship between “schooling”, “special educational needs”, “MTA” (multisensory teaching approach), and “attention”, “communication”, “interaction”, “thought”, “voice”, and “digital media” was established, presenting the relationship between the elements that make up the inclusive education scenario.

The dark-blue cluster highlights the themes “educator”, “system”, “school environment”, and “responsive pedagogy”, forming a network with 14 items. “Refugee students” and “equity” are also interconnected with these nodes, a relevant topic in the current research in the area.

In the yellow cluster, with seven items, the theme with the greatest strength is “learner”. This cluster is further away than all the other clusters but is connected to all of them through links. Close to “learner” are the terms “disability”, “special education”, “complex needs”, “multiple disabilities”, “resource schools”, “access”, and “lack”, placing students with disabilities and the educational services intended for them in a single block.

The purple cluster, with 10 items, has “inclusive practice” as its central word. Directly linked to it are “framework”, “context”, “PLCS” (Professional Learning Community), “UDL” (universal design for learning), “school–university partner”, and “effect”. This is a set of structures that support inclusive practices.

“Inclusive education” is at the center of the light-blue cluster, as it is directly linked to “society”, “rights”, “outstanding ability”, and “European practices”. The term “empathy”, although part of this set, is quite far away. This cluster maintains links with the others.

Regarding density, Figure 3, generated by VOSviewer, indicates that some topics are frequently researched, including “inclusive education”, “learner”, “process”, and “context”. The colors that appear in the density visualization image indicate that these terms are more likely to be investigated when researching inclusive and creative practices related to high school.

Regarding the publication period, Figure 4 indicates the distribution of studies on a timeline. The 25 articles selected are from the period 2021 to 2025 (except for two articles published in 2013 and two articles published in 2025). These data are an indication that the topic of inclusive and creative practices related to high school is a recent one, with public policies globally committed to inclusion among the possible factors (Figure 4).

Considering that this qualitative scoping systematic review focused on analyzing inclusive pedagogical practices that favor creativity in the high school context, three research questions were raised: (I) what inclusion strategies have been proposed for high school? (II) Do the mapped inclusion strategies enhance creativity? (III) What correlations do the analyzed productions present?

The cross-referencing of the bibliometric results with the data presented in Table 1 points to convergences between the central thematic nuclei shown in the term maps and the inclusive and creative strategies identified in the literature.

The terms “secondary school” and “creativity” are central in the red cluster and are directly related to “development”, underscoring the relationship between “inclusion” and “creative development”. Strategies of active participation involving games, music, the arts, projects, and other multimodal resources stimulate authorship and strengthen inclusion (Ambili et al., 2024; Brennan et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2023; Elkan et al., 2021; Feito Alonso, 2013; Fuentes, 2024; Kakos, 2022; Mampaso Desbrow et al., 2022; Messiou & Hope, 2015).

The words “process”, “change”, “student voice”, and “tension” point to the importance of considering youth the target population of upper secondary education, taking into account all the implications of this life stage, such as the doubts, conflicts, and transitory states. Listening to young people’s voices and what they have to say about school indicates pathways to making it more meaningful, promising, and inclusive (Fuentes, 2024; Johnson & Mughal, 2024; Feito Alonso, 2013; Kakos, 2022; Messiou & Hope, 2015).

The green cluster highlights the words “pandemic” and “role”, connecting articles that discuss the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on teaching, especially with students with disabilities. In this regard, the texts present strategies such as the use of multimodal materials, adaptive technological resources, diversified assessment tools, and visual and manipulative supports (Pittman et al., 2021); the exploration of assistive technologies, accessible digital platforms, and materials that respect different ways of learning (Lourens et al., 2024); the development of collaborative emergency planning among teachers, the creation of peer support groups, adapted activities focused on well-being, small-group video calls, and assignments with flexible deadlines (Herrera-Seda & Pantić, 2025). The practices presented, grounded in inclusive strategies, show that crises and adverse moments can be drivers of pedagogical innovation.

The dark-blue cluster reveals the words “educators”, “system”, and “responsive pedagogy” as salient. The texts identify teachers as mediators, assigning them the role of deepening their epistemological foundation in order to broaden their understanding of the constitutive principles of inclusion, thereby qualifying their pedagogical practices in a dialogic manner (Chen et al., 2023; Herrera-Seda & Pantić, 2025; Kakos, 2022; Murray, 2021; Pittman et al., 2021; Rapanta et al., 2021). From this perspective, responsive pedagogy—which considers the connection of content with students’ experiences, contexts, and cultures—is directly related to the conduct of the educational process, as the teacher is responsible for effecting this transposition (Murray, 2021).

The centrality of the “student” in the yellow cluster demonstrates their prominent role in the educational process, which converges with pedagogical strategies that value their agency. The articulation with the words “disability”, “access”, and “complex needs” shows a linkage with personalized and inclusive strategies that can respond to each learner’s singularities, expanding their capacity for learning (Ambili et al., 2024; Elkan et al., 2021; Feito Alonso, 2013; Fuentes, 2024; Hendricks & Xeketwana, 2024; Herrera-Seda & Pantić, 2025; Johnson & Mughal, 2024; Kakos, 2022; Lemeshchuk et al., 2022; Lourens et al., 2024).

The purple cluster has “inclusive practice” as its central term, and connected to it are “framework”, “context”, “PLCs (Professional Learning Communities)”, “UDL framework (universal design for learning)”, “school–university partnership”, and “effect”, which form a set of structures supporting pedagogical action. Such partnership and collaboration are necessary to strengthen the implementation of inclusive pedagogical strategies (Brennan et al., 2024; Rapanta et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2024).

Finally, the light-blue cluster presents links among the terms “inclusive education”, “society”, “rights”, and “European practices”. By establishing the relations among these elements, the discussion on inclusion is broadened, fostering the creation of equitable school environments (Fuentes, 2024; Lemeshchuk et al., 2022; Yilmaz, 2024).

4. Discussion

Initially, it should be noted that the concept of inclusion adopted in the analyzed articles is based on global inclusion policies. Thus, inclusive education, understood as a paradigm, has been consolidating itself as a legal right in a marked way over the last few years, driven by global movements that have their origins in discussions on human rights.

From there, it is clear that the discussion on inclusive education itself is being expanded, as it has been meeting the demands of humanity, such as the need to include refugee students in new and different countries, students living in conflict zones, and students with comorbidities, which may be temporary or permanent. In other words, discussions on inclusive education recognize students with disabilities, syndromes, illnesses, histories of abuse, and other conditions of vulnerability (Pletsch, 2020).

In particular, with regard to students with disabilities, there has been a shift from the medical model of disability to the social model (Elkan et al., 2021), overcoming the paradigm of segregating resource schools from whole schools (Ambili et al., 2024).

Given this perspective, it is understood that the school is a place of possibilities and a space for social and human transformation (Freire, 2005). Therefore, school is a means to an end and not an end in itself, where changes and adaptations are essential to ensure the inclusion of students with adverse conditions.

In this context, it is necessary to consider the demands and characteristics of the twenty-first century, in which young people are called to live with unpredictability, complexity, and constant change. Creativity thus becomes a highly desirable competence in school, corporate, and social settings, calling not only for outcomes, products, and ideas arising from divergent thinking but also for enhanced quality of life, reverberating in self-care, care for others, and care for the planet (Torre, 2006, 2023).

It is from this perspective that the ability to solve problems in challenging situations (Torre, 2005) constitutes an essential resource for advancing both the learning of students and their potential to intervene in reality, even in contexts of exclusion, inequality, and marginalization, especially when the content reflects local and global demands. To this end, the importance of adapting and transforming pedagogical practices, anchored in creative processes, is highlighted, requiring systematic curricular reformulations (Herrera-Seda & Pantić, 2025) to meet the needs of all students.

4.1. Inclusive Strategies in High School

The analysis of the 25 selected articles reveals a variety of pedagogical practices and their corresponding inclusive educational strategies aimed at upper secondary education. Although the contexts and methodologies vary according to the studies’ objectives and countries of origin, all demonstrate a commitment to promoting inclusion through accessible pedagogical practices that value each student’s individuality and identity.

Among the inclusion strategies linked to the pedagogical practices examined, we identified options centered on the use of varied resources, forming a repertoire of conditions that should be considered by schools engaged in an inclusive education agenda.

With respect to technology-related strategies, examples include the use of adapted resources such as the Braille typewriter (Ambili et al., 2024), the adoption of digitally accessible platforms (Elkan et al., 2021; Lourens et al., 2024), and the use of assistive technologies (Lemeshchuk et al., 2022; Lourens et al., 2024; Subban et al., 2024; Troncoso Recio et al., 2020; Mampaso Desbrow et al., 2022; Murray, 2021). Such strategies help create conditions that not only facilitate students’ entry into school but also enable them to continue their educational trajectories there, with opportunities for learning and development in line with their needs and potential, as argued by Pletsch (2020).

Strategies that involve adapting materials include recording classes with captions (Elkan et al., 2021), alongside the provision and use of diverse inclusive visual materials (Johnson & Mughal, 2024), such as posters, wall displays, and visual panels (Feito Alonso, 2013). These strategies underscore that, beyond merely supplying resources, they must be aligned with each student’s needs—a condition more effectively realized when an inclusive culture is in place, as argued by Valdés (2023).

Strategies to meet the specific needs of certain students were also identified, such as the use of trans or queer texts and authors and gender-inclusive language (Johnson & Mughal, 2024). These are strategies that configure multiple methodological approaches and, following Mantoan (2015), value differences.

Sedláčková and Kantor (2022) examine strategies adopted for students with disabilities in upper secondary education, highlighting the schooling of young people with cerebral palsy in mainstream classes in the Czech Republic. They underscore the use of an Individualized Education Plan (IEP), developed on the basis of each student’s characteristics and needs, which enables individualized planning and supports equitable participation in school activities. To this end, the authors indicate the need for one-to-one support, curricular adaptations, extended time on tests, and oral assessments, among other measures that respect students’ time, pace, and interests, and, consequently, open space for diverse modes of expression—such as digital media, drawing, music, and dance—thereby fostering multiple expressions of creativity.

The strategy of using the universal design for learning (UDL) (Ambili et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2023) addresses curriculum planning for everyone. The authors highlight the diversity and development of inclusive practices as essential to ensure that everyone can achieve learning objectives, as well as various resources, such as videos, audio texts, images, and animations, and multiple means of action and expression, such as music and theater.

4.1.1. Inclusion in Multiple Spaces

There has been a growing discussion about inclusive contexts for students on the margins of society who lack the social, economic, financial, and cultural conditions necessary to secure access to—and persistence within—schooling, including those in situations of financial vulnerability, students with disabilities, Indigenous and quilombola students, LGBTQIA+ students, and working students, among others. To ensure the inclusion of these groups, it is necessary to recognize the plurality present within school environments and to design public policies that secure young people’s engagement with the educational project so that education can become a pathway leading them to alternative life trajectories and futures (Mantoan, 2015).

Considering students who are on the margins of society in this context, Kakos (2022) highlights creativity in the constitution of third-space pedagogical environments, which affirm students’ social and cultural identities and are conceptualized as places where students from diverse realities, including marginalized ones, meet, interact, and redefine themselves, promoting transformation and inclusion. Nevertheless, accessibility must be understood as extending beyond merely architectural concerns and assuming a multifaceted character that encompasses attitudinal, pedagogical, methodological, technological, and communication dimensions (Mantoan, 2015; Sassaki, 2009).

Accessibility and creativity converge in the constitution of such environments, insofar as they enable interactions among students from diverse backgrounds and promote transformation and inclusion by integrating academic knowledge with everyday experiences, thereby fostering youth agency through projects and pedagogical activities.

To overcome the challenges of integrating Syrian refugee students, the authors point to a set of pedagogical practices focusing on playfulness, peer support, and cultural appreciation (Yilmaz, 2024). This teaching and learning process is based on the following strategies: reducing the language barrier (games, videos, cartoons, songs); increasing engagement and participation (granting small responsibilities to increase the sense of belonging); immediate scientific support (successful Turkish students help their Syrian colleagues); including students’ cultures in teaching; and changing the attitudes of educators.

The school cannot be the only space for inclusion, even though it is one of the first, and therefore different practices that are inclusive and take place in different spaces must also be recognized. It is from this perspective that Sassaki (2009) states that when it comes to inclusion, the whole society needs to be changed and must be able to meet the needs of this public. The author divides the concept of accessibility into six dimensions—architectural, communicational, methodological, instrumental, programmatic, and attitudinal—showing that all these dimensions are important and that if one of them is missing, another may be compromised. Furthermore, he proposes an extension of the school to multiple spaces to reinforce the idea that inclusion, in its different perspectives, is fundamental for the construction of life in society, guided by human diversity.

4.1.2. Reorganization of Curriculum Proposals

The process of curricular reorganization calls for rethinking the structure and functioning of teaching and learning processes so that students feel represented both in the content and in the ways they learn. In the context of inclusion, this process of reorganizing, restructuring, and adapting the curriculum is fundamental insofar as it seeks to remove barriers that may arise from factors such as race, ethnicity, language, social class, social origin, or health status (González-González et al., 2021; Murray, 2021; Lemeshchuk et al., 2022). The curriculum is thus an essential element in the promotion of inclusion.

This proposal to rethink the curriculum is in line with the idea that schools play a role beyond the transmission of knowledge; they are also focused on promoting critical and democratic education, contributing to individual and collective development. Therefore, the role of schools is committed to the development of social skills, collective learning, and relationships with the environment, which is in line with Morin (2015) when he defends the need to promote knowledge that, in addition to understanding global problems, helps to incorporate knowledge from each context into them.

In this vein, studies on European practices of inclusive education in Ukraine are noteworthy (Lemeshchuk et al., 2022). The authors problematize the need to adapt and make the curriculum more flexible to address the individual needs of students in situations of conflict. The study emphasizes playful learning through games, using enjoyable activities to facilitate the comprehension of content; variation in activities, changing tasks every 10–20 min to maintain the focus and interest of students; group work promoting collaboration and interaction among students; and creative tasks stimulating nonconventional thinking with limited teacher intervention, which results in better student performances even under adverse conditions.

The development of adapted pedagogical practices is carried out through the work of multilingual teaching assistants, who design creative, individualized, and culturally relevant pedagogical strategies to support international students for whom English is an additional language. This dynamic indicates that curricular reorganization fosters practice that is both creative and inclusive.

In such cases, the practice of translanguaging, which consists of using an individual’s full linguistic repertoire rather than restricting communication to a single language, is fundamental to communication between students and teachers (Kakos, 2022; Hendricks & Xeketwana, 2024).

According to Souza and Dias (2024), processes that enable action and reflection and that stimulate students’ active participation are conditions that enhance creativity. Strategies that promote inquiry, creation, problem solving, connection, the sharing of ideas and opinions, and the exploration of a path of discovery are particularly effective. This movement is only possible when the school is recognized as an agent that amplifies practices attentive to both global and local contexts.

Along this line, the authors conclude that the incorporation of AER (Alternative Educational Robotics) in schools “emerges as an inclusive, accessible, and sustainable proposal capable of awakening students’ interest and enriching the learning process” (Souza & Dias, 2024, p. 210).

Thus, it is essential to understand the curriculum as a dynamic and flexible movement that is open to reorganization and that can be restructured in alignment with the interests, experiences, and needs of all members of the school community (Pacheco, 2019). A school that adopts this curricular perspective expands its inclusive potential, creating meaningful, creative, and equitable learning opportunities, valuing differences, and ensuring that all students—regardless of their conditions or contexts—can fully participate in the educational process.

4.2. Creative Strategies in High School

In the inclusive context presented in the selected studies, creativity emerges as a prominent concept—clearly demonstrated in some studies and peripherally in others—but consistently as an organizing axis between inclusion and creativity. As students are placed at the center of the teaching–learning process, with due regard for their potentials and competencies and with agency over their academic journeys, creative processes tend to manifest naturally.

Dramatizations, arts-based activities, music, and video and poetry presentations are examples of creative strategies linked to the arts, drawing on resources such as art materials, posters, images and illustrated cards, pictographic symbols, physical objects, art materials, multimodal resources, recyclable materials, murals and posters, visual resources, and digital authoring software (Feito Alonso, 2013; Kakos, 2022; Lemeshchuk et al., 2022; Mampaso Desbrow et al., 2022; Murray, 2021; Pittman et al., 2021; Rapanta et al., 2021; Sedláčková & Kantor, 2022; Troncoso Recio et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2024). Krumm and Lemos (2012) further argue that artistic activity is among the foremost expressions of creativity across different domains of human development, as it is one of the variables most closely associated with the creative process.

By establishing the student at the center of the educational process, various strategies underscore the roles of personalized instruction, collaborative work, and exchanges of experience. Authors employ a number of strategies for this purpose, such as creating peer support groups, adapting activities focused on well-being, and small-group video calls (Herrera-Seda & Pantić, 2025); forming fixed peer-tutoring pairs to assist students with learning difficulties (Ambili et al., 2024); writing and reading practices through oral discussions, songs, and collective reading (Hendricks & Xeketwana, 2024); the rotation of short, varied activities and dramatizations (Lemeshchuk et al., 2022); the organization of student assemblies and group discussions (Messiou & Hope, 2015); and collaborative digital platforms (Rapanta et al., 2021).

By respecting individual characteristics, the strategies reveal care for the formative environment and the relationships established therein—conditions that, for Alencar (2007), are fundamental to stimulating creativity, as the extent to which creativity flourishes largely depends on the environment. Moreover, “even if a person has all the internal resources necessary to think creatively, without some support from the environment, the potential to create that the person carries within will hardly be expressed” (Alencar, 2007, p. 48).

In the field of language learning, the study by Rangkuti et al. (2025) highlights the contributions of practices carried out with audio narratives produced by the community itself, which contributes to the teaching of English to students with visual impairments in rural areas of Indonesia, promoting engagement, a sense of belonging, and culturally significant learning. The dialogic and collaborative methodology focuses on multisensory learning with a specific focus on hearing.

Using Csikszentmihalyi’s (1996) concept of creativity as a reference, we understand the relevance of dialogicity, collaboration, and an emphasis on belonging to its stimulation. For this author, the interaction between the individual’s thoughts and the sociocultural context is crucial for creativity.

In this way, creativity is seen as a tool used to face and overcome situations more easily (Mampaso Desbrow et al., 2022). From a humanist perspective, creativity can promote inclusive practice because it legitimizes everyone’s experiences and advocates transformative dialogue through the integration of artistic materials, accessible digital technologies, multimodal resources, and hybrid learning environments.

Along the same line, considering creativity as a tool for inclusion, Troncoso Recio et al. (2020) helped to socialize the implementation of a cooperative musical creativity project through an active and participatory methodology with the construction of musical instruments (xylophones, flutes, saxophones, ukuleles, and drums) and collective presentations. Students with different disabilities developed curricular skills and were encouraged to exercise creativity, which resulted in social inclusion.

In this sense, Feito Alonso (2013) draws attention to the transformation of school coexistence through democratic practices, which can be permeated by actions that require the creativity of the teacher when developing them, such as the participatory creation of norms, the elaboration of intervention protocols, the constitution of a coexistence observatory, and the adoption of preventive measures, thereby allowing changes in interactions between students. For the author, these actions that are focused on inclusive education insert students with disabilities at the center of discussions, encouraging them to be protagonists.

For Torre (2005, 2023), the relationships formed in school settings are essential for creative development, as is securing a positive relational climate that promotes interaction, collaboration, and dialogic engagement.

The recent period in which the world experienced a pandemic heightened the need to urgently implement a series of inclusive pedagogical practices to ensure the continuity of the educational process and digital equity (Pittman et al., 2021; Herrera-Seda & Pantić, 2025; Elkan et al., 2021; Lourens et al., 2024). Curricular flexibility was essential during the COVID-19 pandemic to meet the specific needs of each student and promote the continuity of the learning process.

This emergency need during the pandemic period in 2020 is in line with the thesis defended by Torre (2006): in adversity, creativity emerges as an essential element in the development of multiple skills, many of which were previously unknown.

The insertion of technology into the educational context is an example of this practice, as during the pandemic it was used as an essential resource, and after that, it was incorporated more intensively into pedagogical practices. In this context, to ensure the development of inclusive education, creative practices mediated by digital media become relevant strategies committed to inclusion. It should be emphasized that technologies cease to be mere tools when their use is intentional and aligned with educational objectives; such use requires planning that specifies procedures, pedagogical alignment, personalization, tool types, and strategies, among other elements.

Fuentes (2024) points out different experiences developed in different parts of the world that corroborate this premise, including the use of different resources, such as games; radio art workshops with young immigrants (USA); audiovisual narratives about everyday life in the neighborhood (Spain); a camera in the classroom to record significant moments (Spain); blogs, wikis, and Our Story for students to plan and review learning; heterogeneous groups with cell phones for cooperative learning (Brazil); and “digital storytelling” workshops on stereotypes with students (Italy). These are some examples of how the use of technology as an emergency measure during the pandemic was incorporated as a potential instrument for the development of creative and inclusive pedagogical practices.

Still, from the perspective of educational technologies, two Alternative Educational Robotics (AER) projects stand out, which challenged students to apply STEAM (five areas of knowledge: science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics) to build robot prototypes. Focusing on the inclusion of low-income students, the projects encouraged the use of alternative materials and the maker culture and gamification (Souza & Dias, 2024).

Therefore, in the analysis of the articles, various strategies were identified with the potential to enhance creativity, insofar as they link it to the capacity to confront challenges and solve problems, as argued by Guilford (1950), and to a process arising from the interaction between an individual’s thinking and the sociocultural context, as proposed by Csikszentmihalyi (1996). Among these strategies, we also observed alternatives that align with Torre’s (2005) conception of creativity, which underscores its relevance for enabling people to transform themselves while contributing to external transformations.

4.2.1. Creative Potential in Inclusive Contexts

In this qualitative scoping systematic review, we infer that inclusive education constitutes a fertile field for the development of creativity, although this is not always planned and intentional. Given the rich and complex spectrum of disabilities and syndromes, as well as the full range of students’ differences and interests, teachers must account for such diversities in their pedagogical practice in order to offer personalized instruction, which, in turn, requires adaptations, interventions, means, and materials to propose differentiated activities—mobilizing teachers’ creative potential to meet the proposed learning objectives.

Inclusion demands a plural outlook on methodologies and pedagogical practices, as a single lesson model cannot be indiscriminately replicated for all. Consequently, the teacher’s creative potential is continuously called upon and must be supported by ongoing professional development programs and school leadership because work from this perspective needs to resonate across all dimensions of the school context—from public policies and guiding documents to all those involved in classroom dynamics.

Students, for their part, have interests, abilities, and potentials that must be awakened and valued. It falls to everyone involved in this rich process of inclusive education—especially teachers—to exercise the sensitivity needed to spark interest, curiosity, and the desire to learn. From there, new and unexpected results may emerge, for creativity is not merely a genetic endowment but a competence that can be nurtured.

The studies analyzed show that teachers employ diverse strategies, materials, and spaces to promote personalized learning. This is only possible through interaction and the sharing of ideas, interests, and passions, as creativity cannot be measured by the delicacy of a poem, the lines of a drawing, or a piece of music alone; rather, it must be powerfully cultivated in school environments that believe in the creative potential of all students.

4.2.2. The Relevant Role of Teachers in the Development of Inclusive and Creative Practices

The teacher’s role is relevant in inclusive education (Wang et al., 2024; Herrera-Seda & Pantić, 2025; Yilmaz, 2024; Brennan et al., 2024; Chen et al., 2023; Fuentes, 2024; Rapanta et al., 2021; Messiou & Hope, 2015; Hendricks & Xeketwana, 2024; Subban et al., 2024; Lourens et al., 2024), giving rise to the need for continuing education that meets the complexity of education for everybody. The relevance of collaborative work and a dialogical curriculum is highlighted (Rapanta et al., 2021). Partnerships between universities and colleges with schools can transform continuing education for teachers focused on inclusive practice (Brennan et al., 2024). Research shows that teaching cannot be considered solely responsible for inclusion, as it is a pedagogical and political movement. The importance of an inclusive school that offers support to teachers is discussed, considering that the leadership of managers (Wang et al., 2024), adjusting routines, setting goals, and providing resources play strong roles in the inclusive behavior of teachers and define the inclusive direction of the school.

The collective responsibility of all school members to ensure the inclusion of students with additional needs is a reality in the research presented by Vázquez-Vásquez and Velásquez-Medina (2024) and Subban et al. (2024).

The teacher’s relevant role in the relationship between inclusion and creativity is highlighted in studies and finds resonance in the proposals defended by Torre (2023), because in times of adversity experienced in schools or other spaces, with few resources, lack of institutional support, and fragility of public policies, actions such as curriculum flexibility, the exercise of empathy, listening to students’ voices, and considering their rights are essential to guarantee equity in education.

It is in this sense that Sacristán (2008) highlights and privileges the multiple interactions that permeate pedagogical practices. For the author, there are intentional and reflective actions in the teacher’s performance that guarantee mediation in the construction of knowledge. Pedagogical practice is not just the execution of tasks but an action that involves intentionality, reflection, and transformation.

4.3. Correlations Between Studies

Inclusive education requires the constant renewal of schools and pedagogical practices through multifocal approaches, instructional personalization, and the diversification of methods (Mantoan, 2015; Mantoan & Lanuti, 2021). Creativity constitutes an important resource to support schools in offering pertinent pedagogical actions by devising innovative alternatives capable of attending to student diversity.

Overall, drawing on the pedagogical practices and corresponding strategies presented in the articles analyzed, a strong correlation was observed between inclusive education and creativity—particularly in moments when the latter emerges as a condition that amplifies the former. One example is the emphasis on collaborative work highlighted in studies such as those by Ambili et al. (2024), Herrera-Seda and Pantić (2025), Messiou and Hope (2015), and Rapanta et al. (2021), which fosters interaction, identified by Csikszentmihalyi (1996) and Torre (2005) as a determinant of creativity.

Another correlation was observed in the emphasis on different technological resources to broaden possibilities for inclusion. Examples include encouraging the use of adapted resources such as the Braille typewriter (Ambili et al., 2024); adopting digitally accessible platforms (Elkan et al., 2021; Lourens et al., 2024); and employing assistive technologies (Lemeshchuk et al., 2022; Lourens et al., 2024; Mampaso Desbrow et al., 2022; Murray, 2021; Subban et al., 2024; Troncoso Recio et al., 2020).

A further correlation appeared in the indication of multiple resources to personalize learning with a view to inclusion. Examples include individualized support sheets (Ambili et al., 2024), assignments with flexible deadlines (Herrera-Seda & Pantić, 2025), reflective journals (Murray, 2021), learning portfolios (Sedláčková & Kantor, 2022), and cultural narratives (Vázquez-Vásquez & Velásquez-Medina, 2024).

Various art forms—such as music and the visual and plastic arts—figure as important strategies in inclusive education and manifest considerable creative potential. Likewise, creative inclusion is evident in translanguaging and culturally responsive pedagogy, two approaches that mobilize art and culture to recognize and value the identities of marginalized students, heightening their sense of belonging by combining cultural competence with critical consciousness.

Third-space pedagogical environments constitute an expression of inclusion and creativity, in which marginalized students meet and recombine in creative ways to generate transformation and inclusion (Kakos, 2022).

Another point of convergence concerns the teacher’s role, highlighted across studies as the principal broker between inclusion and creativity. Continuous professional development is essential for educators to strengthen their creative authorship. Beyond these points, the clusters presented in Figure 2 denote distinct convergences among the studies. As central themes, the clusters emphasize student development, their conditions, and avenues for inclusion, such as interaction. They also highlight a correlation regarding the teacher’s centrality to inclusion and the multidimensionality of students’ characteristics. Similarly, the clusters point to correlations involving the school, its infrastructure, and its context.

Finally, another correlation is observed in the role played by society in inclusive practices. These considerations underscore human rights and the relevance of policies that have produced substantial changes in access to, and persistence within, upper secondary education, regardless of the conditions of students.

4.4. Limitations

This study has limitations marked by the specificities of the processes involved in qualitative scoping systematic reviews, precisely because they do not focus on evaluating the methodological quality of the reviewed productions. Likewise, the option for productions in Spanish, English, and Portuguese stands out, which may have resulted in a loss of information from other sources.

One of the limitations of the analyzed studies concerns the still incipient systematization of continuing professional development programs that encourage teachers to develop practices in which curricular content reflects global demands linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and their respective targets. Consequently, the paucity of such training hampers teachers’ ability to implement projects that both address students’ specific needs and help them broaden their understanding of planetary realities, enabling them to act locally to contribute to the planet’s preservation and regeneration and respond to other emergencies that are increasingly transnational in scope.

Another limitation lies in the limited emphasis placed on what students actually develop in their day-to-day schooling. Thus, initiatives that showcase their creative potential, such as presentations at events and at teacher professional development sessions themselves, and other activities that highlight the protagonism of students with disabilities in the creation and co-creation of solutions, would demonstrate the potential to transform and be transformed, a condition inherent to creativity, as argued by Torre (2005).

4.5. Recommendation for Future Research

Future research should expand on the theme discussed in this qualitative scoping systematic review to include practical perspectives from other stages of education, such as the ones developed in the final years of education that precede high school.

There is also a need to understand other aspects related to the inclusive practices developed, such as the theoretical perspectives teachers adopt in developing these practices, the main results that these practices produce for the development of these students, and whether creativity for the development of other practices is stimulated through ongoing reflective practice or whether it is an initiative of the teacher.

There is also a need to understand additional aspects related to the inclusive practices identified, including whether public policies have linked inclusion to the stimulation of creativity; how institutional documents have guided the inclusion process; whether the continuing professional development of teachers on inclusion has strengthened practices that articulate inclusion and creativity; which theoretical perspectives teachers adopt in developing these practices; what main outcomes these practices produce for the development of students; and whether creativity for the development of further practices is fostered through continuous reflective practice or remains a teacher-initiated endeavor.

Finally, none of the mapped studies describe interventions in hospital settings, which indicates a scarcely explored field and, therefore, an open avenue for future investigations.

4.6. Research Outlook and Practical Implications

The results of this qualitative scoping systematic review on the inclusive education creativity interface have important implications for both practices and policies to improve inclusive education. For practices, institutions should focus on providing ongoing professional development to teachers in general, regardless of whether they work in the context of inclusive education, since this is a global demand. This process should include the initial and continued development of teachers and the entire school team, encouraging collective work with the participation of a multidisciplinary team, focusing on a sensitive approach to students, and considering their interests and needs throughout the teaching and learning process.

The importance of sharing successful practices among professionals working in secondary education also needs to be encouraged. In addition to presentations at training meetings, government agencies can promote events for teachers to share their practices with the external community.

Furthermore, these practices can be monitored by research conducted by higher education institutions and improved based on the findings. This process would be essential to broaden the interaction between higher education and basic education and to align theoretical advances with real demands related to inclusion, promoting a process of co-creation that is relevant both for students who need inclusive schools and for teachers who need to enhance their creativity in practices committed to inclusion.

Regarding public policies, by recognizing different proposals for pedagogical practices committed to inclusion and creativity, they could be significantly rethought in terms of the investment in and recognition of these practices, which are often carried out alone by teachers, so that they can be transformed or at least encourage the creation of programs or projects that can be replicated in different contexts, especially those with greater economic and social needs.

The importance of underpinning policy development on real teacher demands is also highlighted. This requires creating listening sessions where teachers can share the challenges they face and the strategies they consider essential to address them. Considering these implications, governments could establish the purpose of education as a human right, recognizing school as a space for everyone.

5. Conclusions

This qualitative scoping systematic review summarizes the selected literature on the inclusive education creativity interface, offering an overview of its characteristics and the impacts that it has. The results reveal that this approach to inclusive education extended to all, especially to those who experience exclusion processes, such as refugees, marginalized people, and people with disabilities, has become an area of academic interest, especially in the last four years.

Although the analyzed articles have different origins, objectives, and methodologies, it is possible to observe points of intersection between the studies, highlighting the conceptual correlations between the authors. Inclusion emerges as the central theme, which is widely discussed by all the authors in different contexts. Moreover, although there is no explicit systematic definition of creativity in some articles, the term appears adjacently and pragmatically as a consequence and not as an intentionally proposed pedagogical objective in all the studies.

In addition to outlining multiple inclusion strategies for high school, several studies indicate that such strategies amplify creativity. Similarly, despite differences in provenance, objectives, and methods, the corpus exhibits points of convergence, underscoring conceptual and practical correlations among the authors.

Therefore, creative problem solving in challenging situations is an essential resource for advancing student learning, even in situations of exclusion, inequality, and marginalization. To this end, it is essential to adapt and transform pedagogical practices anchored in creative processes.

The relevance of the teacher in the relationship between inclusion and creativity is perceived as fundamental because in times of adversity, few resources, and lack of support, curriculum flexibility, empathy, listening to students’ voices, and considering their rights are essential conditions to promote equity in education.

In this sense, the role of teachers in the inclusive education creativity interface, through the development of practices committed to inclusion, is fundamental, as it is up to them to appropriate knowledge and principles that constitute creativity to enable the transformation of the educational act, investing in scenarios and learning networks that can commit to the formation of a more equitable reality.

Curriculum flexibility, assessments, the environment, and school interactions assume a reflective and responsive character so that students feel represented in the content and in the way that they learn, removing barriers arising from race, ethnicity, language, class, and social origin.

This study reveals that public policies, initial and continuing education courses, the management team, and everyone involved in the educational process need to reinforce the role of inclusion and creativity in pedagogical practices so that school can continue to be not the only space but the main space for the formation and integral development of human beings based on its commitment to their needs and the needs of their surroundings, whether in their contexts or on a planetary scale.