This work is linked to a wider research project funded by the Andalusian Regional Council for Economy, Knowledge, Business and University (US-1381423/FEDER funds). Given the importance of faculty members in the processes of inclusion of students with disability at university, this study focuses on what inclusive faculty members do, how and why they do it, analysing exclusively their actions in relation to Learning Management Systems (LMS), used as a complement to face-to-face teaching. Three research questions guided the analysis:

1. What are the reasons why inclusive faculty members use LMSs?
2. What are the areas in which faculty members make use of LMSs in their inclusive practices?
3. What influence do LMSs have on students' learning, and especially on students with disability?

In the last decade, educational opportunities in universities are evolving beyond the traditional classroom environment thanks to educational technologies (Chinkes & Julien, 2019). The development of new virtual environments as a complementary tool to face-to-face teaching (Anthony et al., 2020) and the increased presence of students with disability in the classroom are changing the landscape of face-to-face teaching.

In Spain, the majority of universities use LMS to support teaching in an effort to provide alternative learning scenarios and solutions especially favourable for students with disability (Perelmutter et al., 2017). However, as technology-enhanced learning in the classroom advances as a complement to face-to-face teaching, universities and faculty members are facing the challenge of promoting changes in students' acceptance and trust in LMSs (Wang, 2014).

The challenges posed by these changes, and the poor preparation of faculty members in the use of LMS, are evident. Among the difficulties related to faculty members' use of LMSs, studies identify various barriers, such as fear of using these learning environments, low belief in the effectiveness of their use in teaching (Al-Zoubi, 2019), lack of confidence in using these environments pedagogically, and poor preparation and experience in teaching students with disability in both face-to-face and online environments (Dawley et al., 2010).

Currently, training programmes in technology-supported instruction focus on accessibility issues rather than on understanding the specific learning needs of students with disability (Fichten et al., 2009). Greer et al. (2014b) show that many faculty members who teach using technology-enhanced instruction have little awareness of LMSs as promising tools for individualised student education. Moreover, most university faculty members need training to effectively implement individualised and inclusive teaching in a virtual learning environment (Terras et al., 2020).

Adaptations of LMSs and materials are not sufficient if training programmes are inadequately designed and create additional barriers to participation (Burgstahler, 2015). There are several considerations when designing a training programme and presenting content that is accessible to all learners (Greer et al., 2014a). One of these is to use the principles of universal design for learning (UDL). Designing a training programme based on UDL principles contributes to making education inclusive, improves accessibility without the need for environmental adaptations and engages participants in their learning (CAST, 2020).

These studies highlight the existing barriers and give a general idea of how faculty member training should be oriented towards an effective use of this technology. This makes it necessary to design specific training programmes that address the professional development of faculty members in order to acquire the technopedagogical skills that allow them to integrate and use technological resources appropriately with students with disability (Perera & Moriña, 2019).

In summary, this study provides interesting results on the use that university faculty members make of LMSs to cater for diversity. In addition, it addresses some keys to developing inclusive educational practices using virtual learning environments.

The study involved 119 faculty members from 10 Spanish public universities. The Disability Support Services of the universities were requested to collaborate in the study. The technicians of these services asked students with disability to name the faculty members who had facilitated their academic inclusion and who were characterised as inclusive. A snowball technique was also used: the research team contacted university students with disabilities who had previously collaborated in other projects. Finally, information was disseminated among colleagues and students from different universities to reach other students with disability who wanted to participate. Regarding the characteristics of the participants, 24 belonged to the area of Arts and Humanities (20.2%), 14 to Engineering and Sciences (11.8%), 16 to Health Sciences (13.4%), 25 to Social and Legal Sciences (21%), and 40 to Education Sciences (33.6%). Also, 58.3% were men and 41.7% were women. In terms of age, 108 faculty members were between 36 and 60 years old, seven were under 35 years old (7.8%) and four were over 60 years old (4.4%). Regarding teaching practice, most of the faculty members had more than 10 years of teaching experience (68.4%), 24 had between 5 and 10 years (25.4%), and only 6 faculty members (6.2%) had less than 5 years of experience. All participants had previous experience with students with disability. The design of this study was framed in a qualitative approach. The data collection instrument was the semi-structured interview. An interview was conducted with each participant in order to find out: 1) the reasons for inclusive learning with technology platforms; 2) the settings in which faculty members make use of LMSs in their inclusive educational practices; and 3) the influence that LMSs have on students' learning, especially students with disability. The data collection lasted 7 months. The duration of each interview was approximately 90 minutes. Most of the interviews were conducted face-to-face, although 18 interviews were conducted via Skype and 12 via telephone. Prior to conducting the interviews, all participants gave informed consent and were assured that the data provided would be treated confidentially and anonymously. All interview information was audio-recorded and then carefully transcribed in literal form. Data analysis was carried out using a system of categories and codes created inductively. The analysis was carried out using MaxQDA Qualitative Data Analysis Software.

This study focuses, from the perspective of university faculty members, on the conditions that determine the pedagogical use that these faculty make of virtual environments to facilitate student inclusion. A first conclusion is related to the idea shared by faculty members that the integration of technological resources in their teaching projects is a consolidated reality. They consider that this technology has become a key element in educational practices, and indicate that its use facilitates the development of inclusive practices (Perelmutter et al., 2017). One of the most relevant conclusions presented in this study is related to the areas in which faculty members use LMSs to support their face-to-face teaching. Three are distinguished: the environment as an accessible space that contains the material and tools that support students and allows them to regulate the pace and intensity of their learning (Kent et al., 2018); the environment as a space that facilitates the development of digital educational processes (Batanero et al., 2019); and the environment as a space to store and provide accessible materials, with which students improve significantly in their studies by being able to interact with learning objects (Greer et al. 2014a). Finally, regarding the impact of the LMS on student learning, faculty members emphasise the importance of the didactic approach with which the technology is used to meet the educational needs of students. (Fichten et al., 2009). Faculty members considered that LMSs are not always infallible and it is necessary to use resources adapted to the specific needs of each student with disability and their technological competence. Therefore, the usefulness of these technological means depends on the environment (Batanero et al., 2019), its materials (Greer et al., 2014a) and teaching (Burgstahler, 2015) being adapted to the student's circumstances in order to promote their academic success.

Al-Zoubi, S.M. (2019). Obstacles of Using Edmodo Platform in the Omani Resource Room Program. International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education, 8(5),130–135. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED606182.pdf Anthony, B., Kamaludin, A., Romli, A., Raffei, A.F.M., Phon, D.N.A.L.E.; Abdullah, A. & Ming, G.L. (2020) Blended Learning Adoption and Implementation in Higher Education: A Theoretical and Systematic Review. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-020-09477-z Batanero, C., de-Marcos, L., Holvikivi, J., Hilera, J.R. & Oton, S. (2019). Effects of new supportive technologies for blind and deaf engineering students in online learning. IEEE Transactions on Education, 62(4), 270–277. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2019.2899545 Burgstahler, S. (2015) Opening doors or slamming them shut? Online learning practices and students with disabilities. Social Inclusion, 3(6), 69-79. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v3i6.420 CAST (2020). The UDL Guidelines. http://udlguidelines.cast.org Chinkes, E. & Julien, D. (2019). Las instituciones de educación superior y su rol en la era digital. La transformación digital de la universidad: ¿transformadas o transformadoras?. Ciencia y Educación, 3(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.22206/CYED.2019.V3I1.PP21-33 Dawley, L., Rice, K. & Hinck, G. (2010). Going Virtual 2010: The Status of Professional Development and Unique Needs of k-12 Online Teachers. Boise State University. http://edtech.boisestate.edu/goingvirtual/goingvirtual.htm Fichten, C., Ferraro, V., Asuncion, J., Chwojka, C., Barile, M. & Nguyen, M. (2009). Disabilities and e-learning problems and solutions: An exploratory study. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 241-256. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/74984/ Greer, D.L., Smith, S.J. & Basham, J.D. (2014a). Practitioners’ Perceptions of Their Knowledge, Skills and Competencies in Online Teaching of Students with and without Disabilities. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 150–165. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1134799 Greer, D., Rowland, A. & Smith, S (2014b). Critical considerations for teaching students with disabilities in online environments. Teaching Exceptional Children. 46(5), 79–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0040059914528105 Kent, M., Ellis, K. & Giles, M. (2018). Students with Disabilities and eLearning in Australia: Experiences of Accessibility and Disclosure at Curtin University. TechTrends, 62, 654–663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0337-y Perelmutter, B., McGregor, K.K. & Gordon, K.R. (2017). Assistive technology interventions for adolescents and adults with learning disabilities: An evidence-based systematic review and meta-analysis. Computers and Education, 14, 139-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.06.005 Perera, V.H. & Moriña, A. (2019). Technological Challenges and Students with Disabilities in Higher Education. Exceptionality, 27(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2017.1409117 Terras, K., Anderson, S. & Grave, S. (2021). Comparing Disability Accommodations in Online Courses: A Cross-Classification. Journal of Educators Online, 17(2). https://www.thejeo.com/archive/archive/2020_172/terras_anderson_gravepdf Wang, Y.D. (2014). Building student trust in online learning environments. Distance Education, 35, 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2015.955267