Next Article in Journal
“You Know, Coaching, It Feels Like a Bit of a Magpie Game’’: A Qualitative Investigation into Sources of Teacher-Coach Knowledge and the Subsequent Impact on Espoused Teacher-Coach Pedagogy
Previous Article in Journal
Vocational Education, Skill Formation, and Social Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Education Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/educsci15010108
education-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Inclusive Education and Physical Education in Spain: A Qualitative Analysis of Teachers’ Perspectives

by
Pablo Saiz-González
*,
Sara de la Fuente-González
,
Jacob Sierra-Díaz
and
Pablo Uría-Valle
Department of Educational Sciences, University de Oviedo, 33001 Oviedo, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2025, 15(1), 108; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010108
Submission received: 12 December 2024 / Revised: 8 January 2025 / Accepted: 9 January 2025 / Published: 20 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Equity and Inclusion in Physical Education: Challenging Power Structures and Fostering Equal Opportunities for Diverse Students)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study examined the perceptions of physical education teachers regarding inclusive education in their classes. A qualitative, cross-sectional design was employed, using a digital survey with an open-ended question designed to explore barriers and needs in implementing inclusive practices. Thematic content analysis was conducted to identify key themes from the responses. Seventy-five in-service physical education teachers from diverse educational contexts in Spain participated, sharing their experiences and challenges. Participants expressed genuine interest in receiving training and incorporating inclusive principles into their practices. However, structural limitations, such as high student–teacher ratios and insufficient specialized resources, significantly hindered their ability to implement these strategies effectively. Persistent challenges, including excessive workloads and the lack of support personnel, were reported, leading to frustration in their efforts to provide an equitable education for all students. Although focused on the Spanish context, these findings resonate with international research, highlighting similar structural barriers to inclusive education. This study underscores the need for ongoing, discipline-specific training for physical education teachers, supported by strong institutional commitments to ensure the provision of adequate human and material resources. Without such support, the burden on teachers remains disproportionate and ultimately unfair, hindering progress towards a truly inclusive educational environment.

1. Introduction

Inclusive education has been the subject of extensive academic and political debate as it represents a paradigm shift in how teaching and learning are conceived for all students. Beyond the integration of students with disabilities into regular classes, it involves creating an educational environment that removes barriers for all students, regardless of their characteristics or circumstances (Ainscow, 2005). Over time, the concept of inclusion has evolved, encompassing various dimensions, such as gender, ethnicity, and religion, reflecting its polysemic nature (Fierro & Contreras, 2024).
Historically, inclusion in the field of education has primarily focused on integrating students with disabilities into regular classes (Hodge et al., 2018; Rekaa et al., 2019). This approach, linked to the medical model of disability, attributes learning access difficulties to an individual’s functional condition that requires solutions oriented toward rehabilitation and normalization of the student’s disabilities (Brittain, 2004; Connor & Ferri, 2007), rather than valuing diversity as an inherent and enriching characteristic of the student body (Apelmo, 2022). This paradigm has been criticized for its limited perspective, as it does not promote an educational environment where individual differences are seen as an opportunity for enrichment but as something to be corrected to fit a standard (Echeita & Ainscow, 2011). In response to these critiques, an inclusive approach has been suggested, envisioning continuous improvement to enable the full participation of all students, regardless of their characteristics (Simón & Echeita, 2013).
Over the past decades, inclusive education has advanced internationally through various initiatives that have emphasized the importance of building an educational system accessible to all. Since the late 20th century, programs such as the “Education for All Movement” (UNESCO, 1990) and the World Conference on “Special Needs Education: Access and Quality” (UNESCO, 1994) have stressed the need to ensure that schools are flexible and adapt to the needs of all students. These initiatives have fostered a global commitment to constructing educational environments where diversity is valued as a central component of the teaching–learning process (Valencia-Peris et al., 2020).
However, despite legislative and political progress, such as Spain’s LOMLOE (Organic Law 3/2020), significant barriers remain, including high student–teacher ratios, insufficient specialized resources, and limited access to specific training on the inclusion of students with special educational needs (Cañadas et al., 2023; Pereira et al., 2023; Valencia-Peris et al., 2020). These challenges are particularly evident in physical education (Pereira et al., 2023), where the predominantly practical nature of the subject demands a particular approach to ensure equitable participation for every learner (Canales Nuñez et al., 2018). In this context, the subject is seen as a meaningful tool for developing and achieving the goals of an inclusive project, considering all students (Fierro & Contreras, 2024). This characteristic presents specific challenges in implementing inclusive education policies, as adapting physical activities to address student diversity requires specialized resources, which are often challenging to implement in schools (Hutzler et al., 2019).
One of the biggest obstacles to effectively implementing the inclusion of students with special educational needs in physical education lies in the lack of specialized staff to support teachers in their work. While in other subjects, therapeutic pedagogy specialists play an essential role in adapting lessons for students with functional diversity, physical education teachers often lack this direct support (González López & Macías García, 2018). This shortage of specialized staff, combined with high student–teacher ratios and limited access to specific training on the inclusion of students with special educational needs, poses significant barriers for teachers, who must ensure that all students actively participate in scheduled activities, regardless of their individual needs (Valencia-Peris et al., 2020). The inherent demands of physical education, such as ensuring safety and success in activities, require individualized attention that is difficult to provide without adequate support, leading to frustration and limiting the effectiveness of inclusive measures (Mendoza Laiz, 2008; Ríos, 2009).
These barriers are exacerbated by the need for a practical environment that requires physical interaction and active group management, complicating individualized attention in classes with high student–teacher ratios (Lafuente Fernández et al., 2024). Physical education teachers who have received adequate training and had positive prior experiences with students with disabilities tend to show more favorable attitudes toward inclusion. However, they agree that this factor must be complemented by material resources and specialized support to make inclusion truly effective (Braksiek, 2022; Doulkeridou et al., 2011; Sharma, 2018). While teachers recognize the importance of inclusion, it is essential that it is accompanied by material resources and specialized support, as without these, training efforts are limited (Pérez Vera et al., 2024).
Given this historical context and current barriers, the present study aims to authentically explore teachers’ concerns about inclusive education in physical education. Since this is, to our knowledge, the first study to address teachers’ perspectives on inclusive education from an intersectional standpoint (and not only on students with disabilities), an open-ended question was used, allowing participants to freely express their concerns and challenges without the constraints imposed by predefined questions (Rodrigues de Andrade, 2023). This qualitative approach differs from previous studies focusing on students with disabilities, which also primarily employed quantitative methods, such as standardized questionnaires to measure teachers’ attitudes (Forlin et al., 2011; Saloviita, 2015). By adopting this approach, the study seeks to provide a more representative view of teachers’ concerns and contribute to the development of policies and strategies that better address their needs and those of their students.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design and Development of the Tool

As part of a broader project, this study adopted a qualitative, cross-sectional qualitative design. Specifically, a methodology similar to other studies (Dillman et al., 2014) was employed using digital self-report surveys to allow participants to freely share their opinions on specific educational issues (Rodrigues de Andrade, 2023). Since this is, to our knowledge, the first study to address the teachers’ perspectives on inclusive education from an intersectional standpoint in physical education in Spain, we decided to use one open-ended question. The use of a broad and open-ended question was intentional to allow participants to express their perceptions freely, without being constrained by predefined assumptions. This approach is common in qualitative research when the goal is to explore complex and subjective phenomena (Patton, 2015).
Once the first version of the questionnaire was created, it was shared with a group of physical education teachers external to the research to verify all semantic and lexical aspects. Following minor corrections approved unanimously by all authors, the final version of the questionnaire was disseminated via Microsoft Forms®. The questionnaire was structured into two parts: (I) demographic and descriptive questions (years of teaching experience, region, type of institution, and urban or rural location of the school) and (II) an open-ended question about the challenges of inclusive education in the specific context (“What are your current concerns regarding inclusive education in your classes?”).

2.2. Recruitment Process and Participants

The target population consisted of primary and secondary school physical education teachers in Spain. All participants were actively teaching physical education at the time of the study, regardless of their educational category or level. The questionnaire was disseminated through the official email addresses of all educational institutions in the country. Additionally, the social network X® (formerly Twitter®) was used to expand its reach. Therefore, a snowball sampling method (non-probabilistic) was employed to leverage the networks and connections of the target population to recruit a larger number of participants (Denzin & Lincoln, 2013). The digital questionnaire remained open for three weeks and could be completed at any time without requiring personal information. Because this study adopts a qualitative exploratory approach, the depth and richness of data were prioritized over representativeness, as is typical in qualitative research (Smith, 2018).
Ultimately, 75 active physical education teachers responded to the questionnaire. Specifically, there were 3 early childhood teachers (17.33 ± 2.51 years of teaching experience), 38 primary school teachers (15.34 ± 9.22 years of teaching experience), 30 secondary school teachers (14.33 ± 10.32 years of teaching experience), and 4 teachers in other categories (vocational training modules, with 5.25 ± 6.55 years of teaching experience). Specific sociodemographic characteristics of the participants are provided in Table 1.
The research data were treated confidentially, respecting participants’ anonymity. To this end, no personal information was requested, except for the autonomous community in which they worked. Moreover, the ethics committee of the [blinded] University reviewed and approved the project. Prior to answering the questionnaire, participants were required to read and agree to the informed consent statement in line with the procedures outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2013) adapted for educational sciences.

2.3. Qualitative Data Analysis

All responses were stored digitally. Once the data collection period ended (lasting three weeks), the information was cleaned and organized into plain text. A thematic content analysis technique (Braun & Clarke, 2021) was employed, which involved the following phases: (I) familiarization with the responses, (II) coding, (III) generation of initial themes, (IV) review and discussion of themes with a critical expert, (V) definition and determination of final themes, and (VI) writing process. The analysis was conducted by the study’s authors. Specifically, the first author organized and led the process, while the second author reviewed and supervised the entire process, providing feedback and contributions throughout the six phases. In fact, these two authors proposed new categories and themes during the intermediate phases of the analysis. The remaining authors analyzed parts of the discourse that posed the most difficulties or discrepancies to reach a joint conclusion, acting as critical experts throughout the process.
During the coding phase, the data were systematically analyzed using small codes that summarized participants’ key ideas. Examples of these codes included ‘overcrowded classes’, ‘overwhelmed’, ‘need for more time’, ‘poor initial training’, and ‘insufficient materials’. These initial codes were then grouped into broader categories that captured patterns within the responses. For example, codes such as ‘insufficient materials’ and ‘need for support staff’ were grouped under the broader category ‘Resources’.
In the theme generation phase, these first-order categories were grouped into final themes. The themes were reviewed collaboratively, with the first and second authors discussing discrepancies. These final themes were (1) Barriers to Inclusion, grouping structural challenges such as high student–teacher ratios, limited resources, and the lack of specialists; and (2) Opportunities for Improvement, focusing on the role of teacher training and the desire for specialized training. The process of coding and theme generation is summarized in Table 2.

3. Results

3.1. “Lowering the Student–Teacher Ratio Is the First Step to Success”: STUDENT–TEACHER RATIO

In the context of implementing inclusive practices in physical education, the discussion about the student–teacher ratio emerges as a critical point for ensuring equitable teaching. A high ratio not only prevents individualized attention but also limits the possibility of adapting teaching materials to meet the needs of all students. Even when teachers believe their training is adequate for implementing inclusive strategies, such as Universal Design for Learning, they report that a high student–teacher ratio prevents them from applying these strategies. Similarly, some teachers suggest that lower ratios demonstrate how inclusion becomes feasible when the teacher can address all students effectively. This view is reflected in the words of Participant 9, who noted the following:
“Inclusion can be achieved if there is additional human support. No matter how well-trained you are, if you have 25 students in the classroom, you cannot provide the required attention to the inclusive student”.
This perspective is supported by other teachers who also emphasize the importance of a low ratio for adequately planning lessons and delivering quality inclusive education. For example, Participant 1 stated the following:
“The main foundation for inclusive education, in addition to the teacher’s training and dedication, is having a low student–teacher ratio and specific time in the schedule for lesson preparation. But neither exists. No matter how much training I receive, if I don’t have time to prepare the necessary materials for all my students to participate equally in the teaching–learning process, it won’t matter. No matter how well-trained I am to address special needs, if I have a class with more than 25 students, some with different issues, and I don’t have time, eyes, or hands to reach all of them with the attention they deserve, it won’t work. And, of course, who gives back to the other children the time their teacher invests in focusing exclusively on students with special needs? Universal Design for Learning is beautiful in theory, but an unattainable dream in reality.”
Conversely, the testimony of Participant 49, who works in a setting with lower ratios, shows that inclusion is possible when the conditions are right, specifically with reduced student–teacher ratios:
“In the school where I teach, the low ratio (9–13 students) facilitates inclusive education. It is very likely that with a high ratio, I wouldn’t be able to adequately address the personal needs of all students, especially those requiring specific educational support.”

3.2. “If You Have the Proper Resources, Inclusion Is Effective; Otherwise, It’s Very Difficult to Reach Everyone”: RESOURCES

In line with the need to reduce student–teacher ratios, teachers also highlighted the lack of human and material resources as a significant barrier to achieving effective inclusive education, limiting their ability to adequately address all students. For example, Participant 9 stated the following:
“Basically, inclusion can be achieved if there is additional human support. No matter how well-trained you are, if you have 25 students in the classroom, you cannot provide the required attention to the inclusive student.”
This testimony reflects a frustration shared by other teachers who feel the available resources are insufficient to effectively meet the needs of all students. Participant 12 explained how these limitations can affect students even when inclusive proposals are applied:
“It should be noted that the lack of human and financial resources, as well as the student-teacher ratio, can make it difficult to attend to students, even when you try to apply universal measures.”
Access to appropriate materials and spaces for equitable student attention is also necessary. Participant 74 emphasized the following:
“In my limited experience, the need for resources, especially human ones (which also requires necessary financial investment), as well as reducing the student-teacher ratio, seem to be fundamental factors for achieving real and effective inclusion.”
As a result, teachers feel overwhelmed. Participant 16 described the daily difficulties they face when trying to meet the needs of a diverse group of students without the necessary resources:
“A teacher cannot truly address diversity in the classroom alone. I have classes of 30 students, some of whom don’t speak Spanish, others have disabilities, and others lack a supportive family environment.
A law is more inclusive if it allocates funds to implement it, not just mentions inclusion more frequently.
Some students need good parents, and that has no price.
No matter how much I train, I’m still alone.”
Similarly, Participant 24 expressed how the lack of resources leaves teachers feeling overwhelmed:
“With classes of 30 students, an uncovered playground with temperatures reaching 30–35 degrees in the shade, no lift or ramps, and a shared indoor space used only in case of rain, the inclusion of students with disabilities, along with the diversity of the others, is simply a fantasy.”
Lastly, Participant 58 linked their testimony to the following section, specifying that material resources alone are not enough. They highlighted the unique nature of physical education, which requires specialists in therapeutic pedagogy who typically do not participate in physical education classes:
“It is necessary to have appropriate facilities and materials to enable inclusive education and, above all, support staff in the classroom.”

3.3. “Support for This Student Profile Is Always Directed at Other Subjects, Never at Physical Education”: SPECIALISTS

Support provided by specialists in therapeutic pedagogy for physical education classes was also a recurring theme in participants’ testimonies. They emphasized the need for these professionals to better address student diversity, especially in cases of disability. Participant 44 expressed this clearly:
“The reality of classrooms makes real inclusion difficult. Certain needs require a support teacher to better address diversity (hemiparesis, autism, Down syndrome…).”
In contrast, teachers who have support in their classrooms reported that this is fundamental to achieving inclusion:
“I work in a school that specializes in ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder). To implement inclusive practices in our subject, the collaboration and appreciation of the Special Education Assistant are essential. They provide great support and contribute significantly to the educational team.”
(Participant 29)
Similarly, Participant 75 noted how support from a specialist in therapeutic pedagogy improved the teaching process for students with autism spectrum disorder:
“The support from the therapeutic pedagogy specialist has improved the process for TEA students in my classes (so efforts should be made to ensure there is support in class to further individualize lessons).”
Some participants advocated for the presence of “a second teacher in the classroom” (Participant 55). Participant 38 provided a detailed analysis of why a second teacher in physical education classes is necessary:
“The quality of inclusive education is not only directly linked to adequate teacher training, as focusing only on training places all responsibility on the teacher leading the group. Given the increasing diversity in our classes, it is essential to have multiple people in the classroom to adequately address such diversity if we don’t want all the rhetoric in educational laws to remain empty words.”
Reasons for increasing human resources in physical education classrooms:
  • We work in much larger spaces than regular classrooms.
  • We handle varied materials (sometimes heavy or bulky) during our classes, which need to be taken out of storage, set up, removed, and put away.
  • There is often significant dynamism in student groupings, occupied spaces, dispersion, and concentration…
  • Current student–teacher ratios are excessive for adequately addressing diversity in all subjects.
“All this requires substantial investment and long-term planning (decades) to genuinely tackle this issue, not just provide some teacher training and significantly increase their responsibilities. Are the various administrations willing to do this? I doubt it.”

3.4. “Teacher Training Is Fundamental”: TRAINING

As seen throughout some of the previous responses, teachers also emphasized the need for adequate training to implement inclusive strategies in physical education classrooms. Many noted that their initial training was insufficient and that continuous training is essential. For example, Participant 73 expressed this concern:
“At university, I personally received very little training on this topic.”
Similarly, Participant 72 stressed the importance of continuously updating their knowledge through specific and practical training:
“We physical education teachers working in specific schools would like to receive continuous training on new courses that can be applied in the classroom.”
Despite the demand for more training, some teachers, like Participant 7, pointed out that most or all of the training they receive throughout their professional careers is self-funded and carried out in their personal time:
“We need more training on this topic, especially with practical cases (although each situation is different) to gain applicable tools and avoid relying on trial and error. On the other hand, workshops or training on awareness and respect are also greatly needed.”
Additionally, some teachers emphasized that training must be specific to the unique nature of physical education and the diverse needs of students. Participant 31 commented on this:
“Training is fundamental, but it must be as specific as possible. Teaching mathematics is not the same as teaching physical education, and teaching a deaf person is not the same as teaching an autistic person.”
However, many testimonies underscored that, while training is fundamental, it is not sufficient on its own. It must be accompanied by adequate human and material resources to put that knowledge into practice. Participant 18 explained this point:
“Teacher training is essential, but it must be supported by the provision of necessary resources to implement the knowledge gained. This refers to any of the possible variables to consider that determine the development of a physical education class.”
This sentiment was echoed by Participant 19, who highlighted that, while training is crucial, investment in human resources is even more important:
“Investment in teacher training on inclusion is essential, but investment in human resources to reduce ratios and provide quality time to our students is even more important.”

4. Discussion

The study aimed to analyze the perceptions of physical education teachers regarding the perceived importance and implementation of inclusive education in their subjects. The results showed that, in general, teachers are interested in receiving training on inclusive education and incorporating its principles into their classes. However, participants reported being limited by the lack of personal and material resources, a circumstance that hinders the implementation of pedagogical strategies framed within the inclusive paradigm. This context generates frustration among teachers, who, despite their commitment to inclusion, feel incapable of responding equitably to the needs of all their students. Consequently, a significant portion of the testimonies collected highlights the daily barriers faced by teachers, primarily due to high student–teacher ratios and the absence of specialized support resources.
Firstly, the results highlight that the student–teacher ratio plays a fundamental role in incorporating an inclusive approach in physical education classes. A significant number of participants identified high ratios as a determining obstacle to providing individualized attention and adapting activities to students’ needs. This finding aligns with previous research, which reports that the number of students per teacher is a critical component when deciding whether or not to implement inclusive methodological strategies (de la Fuente-González et al., 2024; Haegele & Hodge, 2016). In this sense, the ratio has been identified as a barrier for at least fifteen years, as shown in the study by Verdugo and Rodríguez-Aguilella (Verdugo Alonso & Rodríguez Aguilella, 2013). Despite this, it seems this phenomenon has persisted over time and remains an insurmountable challenge today (Feria Gómez, 2021).
In this context, the large number of students per teacher makes it necessary to allocate human and material resources to address the classroom’s needs and characteristics effectively. However, the lack of human and material resources emerged from participants’ testimonies as another crucial element. The absence of specialized support staff in the subject, such as therapeutic pedagogy specialists, was mentioned as a significant barrier, reflecting a structural–administrative problem in resource allocation for inclusion. Previous studies have also reported the importance of having additional classroom support to implement inclusive strategies (San Martín Ulloa et al., 2020), particularly in physical education, where the learning environment is experiential, corporeal, and dynamic (Cañadas et al., 2023; de la Fuente-González et al., 2024). Without such support, teachers feel overwhelmed trying to equitably address the needs of large and diverse groups. These findings reinforce the need for educational policies to focus not only on teacher training but also on prioritizing the allocation of adequate material and human resources to make inclusion a reality in classrooms (Haegele et al., 2021).
Additionally, the testimonies highlight the importance of specialists, especially in the case of students with disabilities or severe learning difficulties. The responses suggest a tension with the holistic meaning of inclusion, which views diversity as a shared responsibility and commitment among the entire educational community (Castillo Acobo et al., 2022). This situation underscores the need for inclusive training that is not limited to specialist teachers but involves the entire teaching staff (González Fenoll et al., 2023).
Regarding this premise, teacher training emerged as a concern among the participants in this study, a concern also reflected in previous research (Ayala de la Peña et al., 2023; García-Barrera, 2023). Teachers noted that training must be continuous, specific, and tailored to the particularities of physical education. They stated that initial and general training on inclusion is insufficient for the diversity present in their classes (Ainscow, 2005; de la Fuente-González et al., 2024). Indeed, the subject’s idiosyncrasy, with its focus on physical activities, requires specific training to successfully implement inclusive practices.
On the other hand, even when teachers reported having the necessary training to implement inclusive proposals, such as Universal Design for Learning, they expressed that current conditions prevent them from fully applying these strategies due to limited time to address individual differences. This issue is once again linked to the high ratios characteristic of our educational system. In some cases, the overwhelming number of students leads to less time for teachers to address individual differences or prepare materials or didactic proposals from an inclusive perspective (González-Gil et al., 2016). For all these reasons, the present article, consistent with the findings of previous research, supports the need to reduce student–teacher ratios as a fundamental step toward creating more inclusive environments (Ainscow, 2005; Simón & Echeita, 2013).
Finally, returning to the challenges related to training, participants agreed that training must necessarily be linked to an institutional commitment to ensure that teachers have the resources needed to implement what they have learned (Arnaiz Sánchez et al., 2019). Thus, resources and training constitute two sides of the same coin, and without structural investment in both, teachers are left with a disproportionate responsibility. Without such structural support, training alone cannot address the barriers teachers face in their daily practice. Otherwise, teachers would bear an unbalanced and ultimately unfair burden (Simón & Echeita, 2013). These findings underscore the importance of a strong institutional commitment to provide resources and support so that inclusive education in physical education becomes truly achievable.
To summarize, the strength of this study lies in being, to our knowledge, the first in the Spanish context to address this topic from an intersectional perspective, extending beyond a sole focus on students with disabilities. By providing a detailed account of teachers’ perceptions in this context, this study contributes to ongoing efforts to address inclusion in education. However, this study is not without limitations. The use of one open-ended question may have limited the depth of the qualitative analysis, and it is possible that there is response bias, as those who decided to share their experiences and concerns may have been particularly concerned about inclusion. Future research should seek to build on these findings by using more comprehensive methods and exploring the impact of specific interventions. Finally, regarding policy suggestions derived from this analysis, our study highlights the need to reduce student–teacher ratios and increase resources to effectively support inclusive education in physical education.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights that, although physical education teachers show a genuine interest in training and incorporating inclusive principles into their practices, current structural conditions—such as high student–teacher ratios and a lack of specialized resources—significantly limit their ability to implement these strategies effectively. The identified barriers, including excessive workloads and the absence of support staff, contribute to generating frustration among teachers who, despite their commitment to inclusion, feel overwhelmed in their efforts to provide inclusive education for all their students.
The findings underscore the need for continuous and specific training for physical education, which must necessarily be supported by an institutional commitment to ensure the allocation of adequate human and material resources. Without such support, the burden placed on teachers becomes disproportionate and, ultimately, unfair.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.S.-G. and S.d.l.F.-G.; methodology, P.S.-G., S.d.l.F.-G., J.S.-D. and P.U.-V.; software, P.S.-G. and S.d.l.F.-G.; validation, J.S.-D. and P.U.-V.; formal analysis, P.S.-G., S.d.l.F.-G., J.S.-D. and P.U.-V.; investigation, P.S.-G., S.d.l.F.-G., J.S.-D. and P.U.-V.; data curation, P.S.-G. and S.d.l.F.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, P.S.-G. and S.d.l.F.-G.; writing—review and editing, J.S.-D. and P.U.-V.; supervision, J.S.-D. and P.U.-V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities grant numbers [FPU20/01405] and [FPU21/02826].

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Oviedo (23_RRI_2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge that electronic tools were used to translate and/or enhance the English in certain sections of the manuscript. However, these tools have not contributed any new ideas or content.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6(2), 109–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Apelmo, E. (2022). What is the problem? Dis/ability in Swedish physical education teacher education syllabi. Sport, Education and Society, 27(5), 529–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Arnaiz Sánchez, P., de Haro Rodríguez, R., & Maldonado Martínez, R. M. (2019). Barriers to student learning and participation in an inclusive school as perceived by future education professionals. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Research, 8(1), 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ayala de la Peña, A., De Haro Rodríguez, R., & Serna Belmonte, R. (2023). Barreras que menoscaban la inclusión en las culturas y políticas educativas del centro escolar. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 26(2), 179–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Braksiek, M. (2022). Pre-service physical education teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive physical education. German Journal of Exercise and Sport Research, 52(1), 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  7. Brittain, I. (2004). Perceptions of disability and their impact upon involvement in sport for people with disabilities at all levels. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 28(4), 429–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Canales Nuñez, P., Aravena Kenigs, O., Carcamo-Oyarzun, J., Lorca Tapia, J., & Martinez-Salazar, C. (2018). Prácticas pedagógicas que favorecen u obstaculizan la inclusión educativa en el aula de educación física desde la perspectiva del alumnado y profesorado (Students’ and teachers’ perspective on pedagogical practices promoting or holding up educational incl. Retos, 34, 212–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cañadas, L., Zubillaga-Olague, M., & Santos-Calero, E. (2023). Actitudes del profesorado de educación física hacia la inclusión educativa. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación Del Profesorado, 26(3), 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Castillo Acobo, R. Y., Quispe, H., Arias Gonzáles, J. L., & Amaro Guzmán, C. J. (2022). Consideraciones de los docentes sobre las barreras de la educación inclusiva. Revista de filosofía, 39(Extra 2), 587–596. [Google Scholar]
  11. Connor, D., & Ferri, B. (2007). The conflict within: Resistance to inclusion and other paradoxes in special education. Disability & Society—DISABIL SOC, 22(1), 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. de la Fuente-González, S., Díaz-Tejerina, D., Sierra-Díaz, J., & Saiz-González, P. (2024). Inclusive education in physical education: Teachers’ perspectives for effective inclusion. Under Review. [Google Scholar]
  13. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2013). Las estrategias de investigación cualitativa: Manual de investigación cualitativa (Vol. III). Editorial GEDISA. [Google Scholar]
  14. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley. [Google Scholar]
  15. Doulkeridou, A., Evaggelinou, C., Mouratidou, K., Koidou, E., Panagiotou, A., & Kudlacek, M. (2011). Attitudes of Greek physical education teachers towards inclusion of students with disabilities in physical education classes. International Journal of Special Education, 26, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  16. Echeita, G., & Ainscow, M. (2011). La educación inclusiva como derecho: Marco de referencia y pautas de acción para el desarrollo de una revolución pendiente. Available online: https://repositorio.uam.es/handle/10486/661330 (accessed on 14 September 2024).
  17. Feria Gómez, I. (2021). La inclusión del alumnado con necesidades específicas de apoyo educativo en un centro ordinario. Un estudio etnográfico. Revista de Educación Inclusiva, 14(2), 27–40. [Google Scholar]
  18. Fierro, B., & Contreras, A. (2024). Perspectivas históricas relacionadas a la inclusión de personas en situación de discapacidad en educa-ción física escolar (Historical perspectives related to the inclusion of disabilities in school physical education). Retos, 55, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2011). The Sentiments, Attitudes and Concerns about Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) scale for measuring teachers’ perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 21, 50–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. García-Barrera, A. (2023). Cambiando el paradigma inclusivo: Las necesidades educativas personales. Revista Brasileira de Educação Especial, 29, e0115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. González Fenoll, E., Alcaraz García, S., & Arnaiz Sánchez, P. (2023). Análisis de los recursos educativos que utilizan los tutores/as de las aulas abiertas especializadas. Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa, 16(1), 11–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. González-Gil, F., Martín-Pastor, E., Poy, R., & Jenaro, C. (2016). Percepciones del profesorado sobre la inclusión: Estudio preliminar. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 19(3), 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. González López, I., & Macías García, D. (2018). La formación permanente como herramienta para mejorar la intervención del maestro de educación física con alumnado con discapacidad (Lifelong learning as a tool to improve physical education teachers’ intervention with students with disabilities). Retos, 33, 118–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Haegele, J. A., & Hodge, S. (2016). Disability discourse: Overview and critiques of the medical and social models. Quest, 68(2), 193–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Haegele, J. A., Wilson, W. J., Zhu, X., Bueche, J. J., Brady, E., & Li, C. (2021). Barriers and facilitators to inclusion in integrated physical education: Adapted physical educators’ perspectives. European Physical Education Review, 27(2), 297–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hodge, S. R., Haegele, J., Gutierres Filho, P., & Rizzi Lopes, G. (2018). Brazilian physical education teachers’ beliefs about teaching students with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 65(4), 408–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hutzler, Y., Meier, S., Reuker, S., & Zitomer, M. (2019). Attitudes and self-efficacy of physical education teachers toward inclusion of children with disabilities: A narrative review of international literature. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(3), 249–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lafuente Fernández, J. C., Díaz-Tejerina, D., Uría-Valle, P., & Fernández-Río, J. (2024). Los juegos tradicionales: Herramienta de inclusión en la formación de futuros docentes de educación (Física. traditional games: An inclusive tool in the training of future physical education teachers). Retos, 54, 561–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mendoza Laiz, N. (2008). La formación del profesorado en educación física con relación a las personas con discapacidad. Psychosocial Intervention, 17(3), 269–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (4th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  31. Pereira, A. M. A., Celestino, T. F. d. S., & Ribeiro, E. d. R. J. (2023). Determinantes para uma Educação Física Inclusiva: Perceção de um conjunto de professores especialistas em inclusão (Determinants for an Inclusive Physical Education: Perception of a group of specialist teachers in inclusion) (Determinantes para una Educación Física Inclusiva: Percepción de un grupo de docentes especialistas en inclusión). Retos, 47, 282–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Rekaa, H., Hanisch, H., & Ytterhus, B. (2019). Inclusion in physical education: Teacher attitudes and student experiences. A systematic review. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 66(1), 36–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pérez Vera, L., Sánchez Herrera, S., Rabazo Méndez, M. J., & Fernández Sánchez, M. J. (2024). Inclusión educativa de los estudiantes con discapacidad: Un análisis de la percepción del profesorado (Educational inclusion of students with disabilities: An analysis of teachers’ perception). Retos, 51, 1183–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ríos, M. (2009). La inclusión en el área de educación Física en España: Análisis de las barreras para la participación y aprendizaje. Ágora para la Educación Física y el Deporte, 9, 83–114. [Google Scholar]
  35. Rodrigues de Andrade, F. M. (2023). El cuestionario en una investigación cualitativa: Reflexiones teórico-metodológicas. Revista Pesquisa Qualitativa, 11(26), 28–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Saloviita, T. (2015). Measuring pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: Psychometric properties of the TAIS scale. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 52(1), 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. San Martín Ulloa, C., Rogers, P., Troncoso, C., Rojas, R., San Martín Ulloa, C., Rogers, P., Troncoso, C., & Rojas, R. (2020). Camino a la educación inclusiva: Barreras y facilitadores para las culturas, políticas y prácticas desde la voz docente. Revista Latinoamericana de Educación Inclusiva, 14(2), 191–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sharma, U. (2018). Preparing to teach in inclusive classrooms. In U. Sharma (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of education. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Simón, C., & Echeita, G. (2013). Comprender la educación inclusiva para intentar llevarla a la práctica (pp. 33–65). Wolters Kluwer España. [Google Scholar]
  40. Smith, B. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: Misunderstandings, opportunities and recommendations for the sport and exercise sciences. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 10(1), 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. UNESCO. (1990). Declaración mundial sobre educación para todos y marco de acción para satisfacer las necesidades básicas de aprendizaje. Available online: https://bibliotecadigital.mineduc.cl/handle/20.500.12365/18063 (accessed on 3 September 2024).
  42. UNESCO. (1994). Marco de acción sobre necesidades educativas especiales. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427_spa?posInSet=1&queryId=11660a72-6484-47d8-bb61-79c4d5b07d22 (accessed on 3 September 2024).
  43. Valencia-Peris, A., Mínguez-Alfaro, P., & Martos-García, D. (2020). La formación inicial del profesorado de Educación Física: Una mirada desde la atención a la diversidad. Retos, 37, 597–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Verdugo Alonso, M. Á., & Rodríguez Aguilella, A. (2013). Valoración de la inclusión educativa desde diferentes perspectivas. Siglo Cero, 39(3), 5–25. [Google Scholar]
  45. World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association, 310(20), 2191–2194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of participants.
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of participants.
NameACYTETI (PCP)TI (UR)RatioStage
Participant 1Asturias5PublicRuralBetween 10 and 24 studentsPrimary Education
Participant 7Catalonia26PublicUrbanBetween 10 and 24 studentsPrimary Education
Participant 9Catalonia17PublicUrbanMore than 25 studentsEarly Childhood Education
Participant 12Andalusia5PublicUrbanBetween 10 and 24 studentsPrimary Education
Participant 16Madrid12PublicUrbanMore than 25 studentsSecondary Education
Participant 18Cantabria26PublicRuralMore than 25 studentsSecondary Education
Participant 19Asturias4PublicUrbanBetween 10 and 24 studentsSecondary Education
Participant 24Madrid20PublicUrbanMore than 25 studentsPrimary Education
Participant 25Canary Islands6PublicUrbanMore than 25 studentsSecondary Education
Participant 29Castilla-La Mancha10PublicUrbanMore than 25 studentsSecondary Education
Participant 31Castile and León15PublicRuralBetween 10 and 24 studentsPrimary Education
Participant 44Castile and León29PublicUrbanBetween 10 and 24 studentsPrimary Education
Participant 49Galicia6CharteredUrbanMore than 25 studentsSecondary Education
Participant 55Galicia3PublicUrbanMore than 25 studentsSecondary Education
Participant 58Canary Islands18PublicUrbanMore than 25 studentsSecondary Education
Participant 72Canary Islands3PublicUrbanLess than 10 studentsVocational Training
Participant 74Aragón11PublicRuralBetween 10 and 24 studentsPrimary Education
Participant 75Galicia5CharteredUrbanMore than 25 studentsPrimary Education
Note: AC = Autonomous Community; YTE = years of teaching experience; TI (PCP) = type of institution (public/chartered/private); TI (UR) = type of institution (urban/rural).
Table 2. Coding and theme generation.
Table 2. Coding and theme generation.
Initial CodesFirst-Order CategoriesFinal Themes
Insufficient materialsResourcesBarriers to Inclusion
Overcrowded classesStudent–Teacher RatioBarriers to Inclusion
Need for support staffSpecialistsBarriers to Inclusion
Positive experience with trainingTrainingOpportunities for Improvement
Desire for specialized trainingTrainingOpportunities for Improvement
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Saiz-González, P.; de la Fuente-González, S.; Sierra-Díaz, J.; Uría-Valle, P. Inclusive Education and Physical Education in Spain: A Qualitative Analysis of Teachers’ Perspectives. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010108

AMA Style

Saiz-González P, de la Fuente-González S, Sierra-Díaz J, Uría-Valle P. Inclusive Education and Physical Education in Spain: A Qualitative Analysis of Teachers’ Perspectives. Education Sciences. 2025; 15(1):108. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010108

Chicago/Turabian Style

Saiz-González, Pablo, Sara de la Fuente-González, Jacob Sierra-Díaz, and Pablo Uría-Valle. 2025. "Inclusive Education and Physical Education in Spain: A Qualitative Analysis of Teachers’ Perspectives" Education Sciences 15, no. 1: 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010108

APA Style

Saiz-González, P., de la Fuente-González, S., Sierra-Díaz, J., & Uría-Valle, P. (2025). Inclusive Education and Physical Education in Spain: A Qualitative Analysis of Teachers’ Perspectives. Education Sciences, 15(1), 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15010108

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop