Revista Universitaria del
CARIBE
Volumen 32, No. 2, Julio-Diciembre, 2024
COPYRIGHT © (URACCAN) TODOS LOS DERECHOS RESERVADOS • ISSN: 23115807 PRINT • ISSN: 23117346 Online •
https://doi.org/10.5377/ruc.v32i2.22295
19
Recibido: 28/05/2025 - Aprobado: 23/10/2025
Gallardo Herrerías, C. (). Geometría accesible en aulas inclusivas: un estudio comparativo entre Estados Unidos y España. Revista Universitaria
del Caribe, 32(), -. https://doi.org/./ruc.vi.
Licencia Creative Commons
Atribución-NoComercial-NoDerivadas
Accessible Geometry in Inclusive Classrooms: A
Comparative Study between the United States and Spain
Geometría accesible en aulas inclusivas: un estudio comparativo entre Estados Unidos y España
Celia Gallardo Herrerías
1
ABSTRACT
is is a comparative analysis study that highlights the application of math games specically developed
for Spanish and USA inclusive classes involving students suering from learning disability and other
special needs. is study has been done on information collected from 24 schools, 12 schools in each
country. Findings indicate that American educators incorporate games based upon principles of Universal
Design for Learning (UDL), individualized education programs (IEP), and dierentiated instruction. is
is increasingly formalized, backed by teacher training, and built into curriculum goals. Spanish educators,
while positive about engaging in game-playing activities, resort to game-playing to a lesser extent and place
more emphasis on improvisation, due to limited training availability and a more formalized curriculum.
Both sets of students enjoy the games, however, only the U.S. students demonstrate improvement in school
performance because of modied games. e Spanish schools prefer using games more for motivation than
for instructional methods, making more accommodations for diering needs. Cultural preferences for
handling dierentiation and disability aect the implementation process because the U.S. culture embraces
independence and autonomy, while the Spanish culture values unity and standardization. It is found that
there is immense potential in modied versions of games to be included if they are developed according
to their requirements. It suggests more professional development, openness of curriculum, and culturally
responsive practice while modifying. By citing its limitations and advantages at the national level, it gives
a glimpse of the potential of classrooms of the future.
Keywords: Geometry, Inclusive Education, special needs, instruction, Universal Design for Learning
RESUMEN
Este estudio de análisis comparativo destaca la aplicación de juegos matemáticos especícamente desarrollados
para clases inclusivas españolas y estadounidenses con estudiantes con discapacidades de aprendizaje y otras
necesidades especiales. Este estudio se realizó con información recopilada en 24 escuelas, 12 de cada país.
Los resultados indican que los educadores estadounidenses incorporan juegos basados en los principios
del Diseño Universal para el Aprendizaje (DUA), los programas de educación individualizada (PEI) y la
1
Doctora en Educación. Profesora de la Universidad de Almería, España. Correo electrónico: cgh188@inlumine.ual.es. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5515-
1269
Doctor of Education. Professor at the University of Almería, Spain.
URACCAN
REVISTA UNIVERSITARIA DEL CARIBE No. 32
20
instrucción diferenciada. Esto se formaliza cada vez más, se respalda con la formación docente y se integra en
los objetivos curriculares. Los educadores españoles, si bien se muestran positivos respecto a la participación
en actividades lúdicas, recurren a ellos en menor medida y priorizan la improvisación, debido a la limitada
disponibilidad de formación y a un currículo más formalizado. Ambos grupos de estudiantes disfrutan de los
juegos; sin embargo, solo los estudiantes estadounidenses muestran una mejora en su rendimiento escolar
gracias a los juegos modicados. Las escuelas españolas preeren usar los juegos más como motivación
que como métodos de enseñanza, adaptándose a las diferentes necesidades. Las preferencias culturales
para abordar la diferenciación y la discapacidad afectan el proceso de implementación, ya que la cultura
estadounidense promueve la independencia y la autonomía, mientras que la española valora la unidad y la
estandarización. Se ha descubierto que existe un inmenso potencial en las versiones modicadas de juegos,
si se desarrollan según sus requisitos. Esto sugiere un mayor desarrollo profesional, una mayor apertura
curricular y prácticas culturalmente receptivas durante la modicación. Al mencionar sus limitaciones y
ventajas a nivel nacional, se vislumbra el potencial de las aulas del futuro.
Palabras Clave: Geometría, educación inclusiva, necesidades especiales, instrucción, Diseño Universal
para el Aprendizaje
I. INTRODUCCIÓN
e teaching of geometry has been the center of numerous pedagogical and curricular discussions
throughout recent decades, with specic emphasis within the context of inclusive education. Despite the
advances made with regards to the law of education and integration policies, signicant obstacles remain
in Spain and the United States alike for full access by students with special educational needs (SEN) to
geometrical content. e challenges that come with such students are not only those related to the content
of mathematics itself, but also with how they are instructed, with what materials one instructs using,
methodology approaches used, and teacher education to address diversity in classrooms.
Geometry, as a branch of mathematics concerned with shape, space, and the way shapes are related to
each other, also possesses a unique capacity to be learned visually, by hand, and via computer technology.
Yet the same spatial and visual nature can be challenging for specic student proles such as visual
impairment, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), specic learning diculties, or intellectual disability. In
that scenario, speaking about "accessible geometry" signies more than reducing the material: it involves
re-designing the learning process in a way that all students, irrespective of their capabilities, are able to
take part, learn, and acquire mathematical skills on the same conditions.
Scholarly literature has begun looking into the problem of mathematics education and access in inclusive
settings. However, there exists a vast gap in knowledge regarding distinctive pedagogical practices of
geometry in multicultural settings. Previous research has been committed to general mathematics inclusion
problems or assistive technology utilization but none compared applying geometric accessibility measures
in various education systems critically.
In this respect, the United States and Spain are two similar and relevant learning environments for
several reasons. Both countries have enacted and signed into political agreements of inclusion (e.g., IDEA
in the United States and LOMLOE in Spain), implemented curricula on basis of care for diversity, and there
are dynamic scientic communities in educational research shared between them. ey also, however,
dier structurally and culturally in school building, teacher training, and application of Universal Design
for Learning principles, so they are complementary case studies with which to learn about best practice,
pitfalls, and opportunities.
Educación
URACCAN
21
e goal of this article is to examine comparatively the available teaching methods utilized in geometry
in inclusive classrooms in the United States and Spain. It is our interest to know how accessible geometry
is being conceived and developed at dierent education levels, which methodological trends are shared,
what didactic tools are utilized, and how advancement and diculties are perceived from teachers' and
other signicant educational actors' points of view.
To these ends, comparative qualitative research is proposed drawing on semi-structured interviews
with teachers in both countries, curriculum document analysis, observation of classrooms, and analysis
of documents on extant policies and regulatory practices. rough this methodological triangulation,
sophisticated and contextualized understanding of practice presently will be facilitated alongside the
production of evidence-led recommendations for transitional steps toward genuinely inclusive geometry.
e specic purposes driving this research are:
•
To ascertain the pedagogical approaches and didactic materials employed in the teaching of inclusive
geometry to inclusive classrooms in the U.S. and Spain.
•
To examine teachers' attitudes towards facilitators and barriers to SEN students' inclusion in
learning geometry.
•
To compare policy, curricular guidelines, and teacher training on inclusive geometry in the two
countries
•
To make suggestions and guidelines for inclusive and culturally responsive learning experience
construction in geometry.
Based on these objectives, the research questions guiding this study are as follows:
• What are the method and approach used to teach geometry inclusively in inclusive classrooms in
the U.S. and Spain currently?
• What are the primary perceived barriers to teaching geometry inclusively?
•
How do both countries' curriculum and regulatory systems encourage or discourage inclusive
geometry?
• What are initial and ongoing teacher training in mathematics inclusive teaching similarities and
dierences?
• How can practices be improved now to make teaching of geometry inclusive and fair?
e research is a contribution to the construction of mathematics education literature from an inclusive
perspective, providing empirical evidence and critical notes on reclaiming geometry teaching in order
to empower all students. It also tries to promote international conversation among educationalists and
researchers during and after the conference so that they can learn from one another, experience, and
diculties in constructing mathematics education for all.
Geometry, as a branch of mathematics concerned with shape, space, and their relationships, has the
advantage of being learnable visually, manually, and with the help of technology. However, its spatial-visual
nature creates a challenge for certain proles of students, such as those with visual impairments, ASD, or
intellectual disabilities.
URACCAN
REVISTA UNIVERSITARIA DEL CARIBE No. 32
22
In this situation, "accessible geometry" goes far beyond the simplication of the material: it implies
rethinking learning as a process that needs to provide equal conditions for every student to participate,
learn, and reach mathematical competence. is echoes approaches that demand responsive teaching in
diverse classrooms, as proposed by authors such as del Cerro Velázquez & Morales Méndez (2018).
e academic literature also supports the place of multisensory approaches in mathematics as a means of
responding to variability in learning needs. For instance, Russo et al. (2023) recommended the inclusion of
visual and kinesthetic approaches in mathematics education. e importance of appropriate instructional
design in mathematics education has also been considered by Senk et al. (2012). In any case, educators
have to deal with structural obstacles. Too much rigidity in the curriculum and extremely standardized
models aect the innovative potential and capability for adjustment, which, according to Moleko (2022),
may lead to a moment when the inexibility of curricula marginalizes students with diverse characteristics.
us, reducing the successful implementation of inclusion requires a view of the school's commitment to
inclusion, not an individual teacher's concern—a view shared by Rodriguez-Ascaso et al. (2018). Again, the
value of equally exible assessments has been pointed out, which automatically demands that adaptive
approaches be used in inclusive education assessments according to Quintero et al. (2019).
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
Geometry is now subject to important educational debates with regard to education for inclusivity. Even
if geometry, as understood as the subject matter of mathematics involving the study of shape, space, and
relationships, holds the extraordinary privilege of learnability by vision alone, by hand alone, and with the
aid of computer technology,, this vision and spatial character hold important complicity relationships with
students characterized by precise proles, as those with visual impairments, with autism and specically
with ASD, with specic learning diculties, and with intellectual disabilities. So, in this dicult context, the
term "accessible geometry" is born. is term means the necessity for reinstating the process of learning.
"Accessible geometry is about much more than dumbing down the math": it is about providing the same
opportunity for participation and achievement for all learners regardless of their abilities. So it has many
points in common with other models that emphasize responsive teaching for inclusive classrooms, like
the model set out by del Cerro Velázquez & Morales Méndez (2018), for instance.
Foundations of Pedagogy for Accessible Mathematics
It is also apparent that the literature expresses a signicant interest in multisensory approaches, as a way
to face these kinds of issues. For instance, Russo et al. (2023) state that it is important to start visual and
kinesthetic approaches in mathematics for pupils who have problems of learning. It is also apparent that the
literature shows key issues that need to be put at the forefront of mathematics education. Instruction design
is one among them, properly done (Senk et al., 2012). When instructional design is considered, educators
meet issues of obstacles in the system design level. More specically, the inexibility of curricullum and
standardized models hinder innovation and adaptation to meet new needs, possibly excluding those with
dierent qualities. ere are also pupils who face being “lost in the education system“ according to Moleko
(2022). erefore, inclusion is more of a whole school issue that needs to be dealt with, rather than becoming
a personal matter of the teacher. It is also stated by Rodriguez-Ascaso et al. (2018) that understanding
school inclusion is important to fully achieve its implementation. Moreover, adaptive approaches need to
be applied to assessments of inclusion; therefore, equally exible assessments are more valued.
Educación
URACCAN
23
The Research Gap: The Need for Comparative Analysis
Despite signicant legislative developments and the introduction of integration policies, such as the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of the United States and the LOMLOE in Spain, important
barriers still remain to be overcome so that SEN students may have equal opportunities to access geometric
knowledge. Although there has been a recent growth in the number of research studies relating to
mathematics accessibility in inclusive contexts, there is still an important gap in research that specically
deals with specic pedagogical approaches to geometry within dierent educational systems. Most of
the earlier research focused on general problems of inclusion in mathematics or in the use of AT without
critically comparing how geometric accessibility applies across dierent national frameworks.
is is especially problematic because the geometric subject matter implies basic sensorial and visual
challenges for students with proles such as visual impairment, ASD, or intellectual disabilities. ese
problems cannot be reduced to merely simplifying the content; a dierent content or kind of teaching, like
"responsive teaching" proposed by del Cerro Velázquez and Morales Méndez (2018), needs to rethink the
process of learning in order to take care of equal participation. Moreover, Russo et al. (2023) underline the
need for multisensory input as an approach to variability in learning but provide little data on how these
inputs are systematically included in geometry curricula.
e United States and Spain represent complementary contexts for addressing this knowledge gap in
inclusive education. Both countries have committed themselves to inclusion through policy and share
dynamic scientic communities, but they vary structurally in teacher training, school organization, and the
implementation of UDL principles. Tatto and Senk (2011) have noted how dierences in teacher education
and the digital divide-further explored by Li (2025) with respect to technology as an access tool-aect these
inclusive practices.
Further, this chasm of research also pertains to policy support and how it is executed on the ground. While
in the United States, it involves support and accommodations within Individualized Education Programs
and systemic support, within Spain, it is left either to the initiative of teachers and their creativity because
of a lack of strong support structures or is a whole-school approach as recommended by Rodriguez-Ascaso
et al. in 2018 and as indicated by their concerns regarding placing inclusion on the shoulders of individual
teachers as a burden.
Finally, as shown by researchers such as Moleko in 2022, there is also a way to marginalize various learners
if standardized learning models are too inexible. With this research comparing the U.S. to Spain, it hopes
to ll a gap of understanding by discussing how "accessible geometry" is dened or developed, going beyond
diculties of government procedures lamented by Lombardi et al. in 2015 to overcome related diculties
to Spanish education outlined by Gee et al. (2020).
III. METHODS AND MATERIALS
e study employs a comparative case study, qualitative design with a view to investigating how current
geometry is taught and learned within inclusive classrooms in the United States and Spain. e study draws
on more than one source of data to lend validity, triangulation, and richness of interpretation of practice
at the classroom- and system-level. e reason for seeking a qualitative design is the need to unearth the
intrinsic, context-specic nature of pedagogical decisions, the ideology of teachers, the implementation
of policies, and the inclusion of students.
Participants were selected by means of purposive sampling in a way that reected teachers with direct
familiarity with the process of teaching geometry to SEN students in inclusive classroom settings. ere
were 24 teachers, 12 from each country. Participants were recruited from urban and semi-urban government
schools to capture a range of socio-demographic and institutional settings. All the participant teachers also
possessed two or more years of inclusive classroom working experience and ve or more years of teaching
URACCAN
REVISTA UNIVERSITARIA DEL CARIBE No. 32
24
experience. In addition, most of the participants also possessed formal training in inclusive education,
Universal Design for Learning (UDL), or special education. Recruitment was facilitated by working in
collaboration with educational networks and professional development programs within the university.
Participants' informed consent was secured, and condentiality and anonymity were maintained in
accordance with ethical research standards.
For ensuring a rich description of teaching practices and system eects, four broad data collection
instruments were employed: (1) semi-structured interviews, (2) classroom observations, (3) analysis
of curriculum materials, and (4) instructional artifacts produced by the teachers. e semi-structured
interviews were conducted on an overall protocol with local context-specic modication. e interviews
were conducted in the mother tongue of the participants, i.e., English, Spanish, and audio-recorded after
obtaining the consent of the participants. All of the interviews lasted between 45 and 75 minutes and
dealt with the overall topics of the teacher's conceptualization of accessible geometry, specic strategies
and devices employed, experienced diculties, support from others, and their views in relation to policy
usefulness and teacher professional development. e interview guide consisted of 15 open-ended guiding
questions with optional probes and was piloted with two non-study sample teachers to gauge clarity and
consistency.
Classroom observation was carried out with 16 of 24 teachers, depending on availability and willingness.
e teachers were observed across two lessons of geometry each, and this was equivalent to a total of 32
observations. ey were implemented in person in Spain and virtually in the United States due to logistical
and institutional constraints, primarily regarding school district clearances and post-pandemic procedures.
An observation guide was used to document pedagogical routines, student participation, utilization
of materials, strategies of dierentiation, and physical and intellectual access to the classroom. Field
observations were also conducted by observers to record contextual variables, teacher-student interactions,
and salient events, which would be combined with qualitative data.
Analysis of curriculum documents included a review of national curriculum frameworks, inclusive
education policy, and contextualized school-level implementations of curricula. Material reviewed for the
United States was the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, Individualized Education Program
(IEP) reports, and inclusive education manuals. For Spain, the materials included the national curriculum
in LOMLOE, curricular adaptation in the regions, and school-based educational response plans for SEN
students. All the documents were coded using a coding scheme from accessibility, inclusion principles,
and geometry content representation. e coding scheme was developed step by step via initial document
analysis and consisted of categories such as "visual representation," "manipulative use," "integration of
technology," "alignment with UDL," and "dierentiation in assessment."
Teachers' instructional artifacts, such as lesson plans, adapted materials, worksheets, student assignments,
and computer programs, were collected with their consent and analyzed to see how teachers incorporate
accessible geometry in the curriculum. Materials were coded for level of adaptation (low, medium, high),
type of accessibility feature (tactile, sound, visual simplication), and target student prole. Materials were
translated and anonymized where necessary for cross-country comparison, included follow-up interview
questions in artifact analysis to capture thought behind design decisions.
Data were coded and analyzed using NVivo software with thematic. Open coding was subsequently
followed by an initial coding phase in which two researchers coded separately a subset of observation
and interview transcripts. Axial coding was subsequently incorporated to establish relationships among
categories and thematic clustering to establish core themes. To assess reliability, intercoder agreement was
estimated and a Cohen's Kappa of 0.82 was obtained, indicating substantial agreement. Disagreements
were debated and resolved collectively. After setting up the coding scheme, this was applied to all of the
dataset, including interview transcripts, observation notes, documents, and artifacts.
Educación
URACCAN
25
e protocol gave methodological rigour and ethical compliance in the process of research. All
participants were provided with a detailed information sheet that presented the aim of the study, use of
data, condentiality measures, and a right to withdraw at any stage of time without any repercussions.
Data storage complied with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and comparable institutional
norms in America. Ethical review boards of the co-leading institutions in both countries reviewed and
cleared all stages of the study.
e contrastive nature of the research necessitated particular care with contextual sensitivity and
equivalency. While eorts were made to replicate protocols in similar conditions in the two countries, some
accommodations were unavoidable due to dierences in language, culture, and institutions. For instance,
observation schedules were tailored to t respective academic calendars and lesson arrangements of each
respective setting. Similarly, interview questions also were adapted to t the respective vocabulary and
respective education policies of each country setting. ese modications were thoroughly recorded and
referred to in order to ensure methodological transparency.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Comparisons of interview data, classroom observation records, curriculum documents, and instructional
materials brought along were utilized to reveal a series of convergent and divergent themes for inclusive
geometry education in the United States and Spain. Results are presented in the most suitable format to
respond to research questions and objectives, being most understandable, usable, and evidence-based.
ese results are designed to reect thematic priorities as a product of coding in a controlled fashion with
little regard for purposes of usefulness and replicability.
Both countries, in an unprecedented manner, exhibited congruence in pedagogical stance and instructional
content utilized for dierentiated instruction and greater respect for the need to make geometry accessible
for teaching. Exhibitions of this congruence were varied. U.S. teachers commonly used online programs
like GeoGebra, Desmos, and interactive whiteboards in a bid to individualize teaching for students of
diverse needs. All these allowed multimodal representations of geometric concepts, including dynamic
visualization and sound, which were particularly helpful for visually impaired or cognitively challenged
students. American teachers employed manipulatives such as polyhedral solids, tangrams, and touch
diagrams, often linked to students' Individualized Education Plans (IEPs).
Spanish teachers employed more traditional manipulatives and commercially printed visual materials,
often supplemented with teacher-developed modications. Although they had limited access to certain
digital technologies, use was less common and usually limited by inadequate training or technological
support. But among other Spanish teachers were low-tech innovations, such as touch paper prints, color
maps, and cooperative learning templates that were designed to encourage peer support and collective
problem-solving. Both sets recognized the necessity of hands-on practice in the development of spatial
skills, although institutional backing in the U.S. setting for such instruction appeared more robust.
Teachers from both countries painted the same image of open geometry as a pedagogy that goes beyond
reducing content coverage. ey all indicated that resorting to modulating speed, vocabulary, form of
representation, and test mechanism in attempts to make geometrical ideas accessible to SEN pupils was
imperative. is was not necessarily being performed as shared practice, especially where no professional
training existed for such. A number of the teachers in both institutions reported that they were not adequately
prepared to handle some disabilities, especially visual impairment and autism spectrum disorders.
e observed barriers in this instance were primarily the tension between uniform curricula and
accommodation for inclusive education. American teachers most frequently cited pressure to pass state
measurement tests as a limitation on their capacity to innovate or slow down for students needing extra help.
Spanish teachers cited curriculum overload and lack of good models of co-teaching as signicant barriers.
URACCAN
REVISTA UNIVERSITARIA DEL CARIBE No. 32
26
Both countries shared concerns over inadequate access to professional training and lack of planning time
and collaboration, which persisted.
ere were also dierences in how policy is generated at the classroom level. In the United States, the
legal mandate of IEPs provided the individualized instruction its legal foundation, though the quality
and uniqueness of plans diered widely. Teachers in some districts described receiving thoughtful
accommodations and consultative services from special education sta, whereas teachers in other districts
described the IEP process as bureaucratic and removed from concerns of instruction. And in Spain as well,
support plans were implemented but more general in their purview and less highly individualized in their
focus than plans constructed in the United States. Spanish instructors discussed implementing more casual
accommodations and peer assistance and less formalized processes for accountability.
In contrast to curriculum alignment vs. access, American teachers were exposed more to Universal Design
for Learning (UDL) concepts that appeared to be infused in district policy and professional development.
is was provided in exible grouping, voluntary testing, and modes of instruction within varied formats.
Spanish teachers, more accustomed to the concept of inclusion, applied it less in specic UDL models than
in general group dierentiation strategies. A number indicated that curriculum guides were not highly
specic regarding direction on access, particularly for the geometry content.
is self-report was complemented by classroom observation. In the USA, the most frequent witnessed
lessons were student choice, problem-solving activities facilitated, and embedded accommodations such
as graphic organizers or auditory instructions. ere were some witnessed sessions with classroom aides
and co-teachers included in the lesson, varying and facilitating in the moment. Classroom observations in
Spain documented very high levels of participation and close relationships between teachers and students,
but less tangible structural support for inclusion. ere were discovered to be the most lessons structured
about whole-class instruction, and provision for individual children being made using informal strategies
like simplifying the used language or providing additional examples to individual children.
Artifact analysis indicated the dierences as well. e instructional materials employed in the US were
alternative measures, for instance, oral presentations, draw activities, and project assignments to try out
geometric reasoning that did not depend entirely on written production. e materials were constantly
aligned with IEP objectives and students' accommodations and needs as note documentation. Spanish
materials were innovative in worksheet organization, i.e., visual support, color coding, but without
rationales for adaptation evident. Minimal references were made to unconventional forms of assessment
or accommodation to specic requirements.
One element in both countries was teacher agency and innovation as the source of remedy for system
constraints. Teachers described making their own materials, defying mainstream training, or informally
collaborating with other teachers to co-design inclusive lessons. Strongest were the stories of teachers
taking o-the-shelf materials and modifying them for their students, like rewriting online geometry
problems in plain language with step-by-step descriptions or incorporating touch elements into print
diagrams. ey demonstrated that even in tight systems, committed teachers can make a notable impact
on inclusive practice.
Another cross-cutting theme was leadership and school culture. ose teachers who reported high
commitment in schools where leadership commitment was evident, and common planning space was
available reported more positive experiences of teaching accessible geometry. In the schools which. completely
centered on inclusion, it lay with special education personnel which isolated the teachers and denied them
assistance. is means that access is not only an issue of the ability of one teacher but is contingent on
institutional values and structure.
Educación
URACCAN
27
e ndings provide a nuanced understanding of how inclusive geometry is taught and performed
in multicultural classrooms in two education systems. Compared with literature, the ndings conrm
and extend existing themes in inclusive mathematics education and contribute to these context-specic
sensitivities with implications for practice and policy.
One of the strongest ndings of this study is the prominent place of dierentiated instruction and
experiential learning support in both countries. is validates del Cerro Velázquez & Morales Méndez
(2018) proposition of responsive teaching in diverse classrooms and conrms Russo et al. (2023) advocacy
for visual and kinesthetic approaches to mathematics to address variability in pupils' learning needs.
e widespread application of manipulatives and adapted visual aids in the two settings reects a wider
pedagogical move towards multimodal learning, also addressed by Senk et al. (2012) in their examination of
instructional design in mathematics education. Yet, greater use of digital technology within U.S. classrooms
aligns with Li (2025) research, where greater technology use as a means to increase access for students with
disabilities, particularly in STEM, was found.
Conversely, the more frequent use of improvised and low-tech solutions on the part of Spanish teachers is
consonant with previous research by Sinclair et al. (2016), where they described Spanish teachers frequently
making up for a lack of materials by being creative and by sharing with others. e variation also aligns
with research by Tatto & Senk (2011) who caught up on the digital divide in European educational contexts
and its eect on inclusive practices. Whereas American teachers were provided with formal professional
development in Universal Design for Learning (UDL). is distinction lends credence to claims by Tatto
& Senk (2011) that systemic application of UDL in Spain still remains sporadic and highly dependent on
individual teachers.
e emphasis in the present study on systemic and institutional support aligns with the perspective of
Rodriguez-Ascaso et al. (2018) that inclusive education must be envisioned as a whole-school commitment,
and not an individual one. e educators in the schools with explicit inclusion ethos and principal support
indicated more ecacious and longer-term available geometry practice, a result also reached by Ruiz et al.
(2021) through their comparative study of inclusive school cultures.
e result that U.S. teachers employed alternative assessment more and provided multiple means of
expression of geometric knowledge is consistent with the tenets of Quintero et al. (2019) research, who
advocated the necessity for adaptive approaches to assessment for inclusive education. Overdependence on
oral scaolding and ad hoc adjustments on the part of Spanish teachers, although eective in most instances,
suggests that there is a need for more formal systematic training in formal examination accommodation.
ese implementation barriers—curricular inexibility, lack of preparation, and time constraints—
are replicated in literature decades earlier. is would then indicate that in spite of policy development,
implementation barriers on a daily basis continue to hinder substantive inclusion in math instruction. As
it stands, critique of the over-standardized model curricula is echoed by Moleko (2022), who cautioned
against marginalizing diverse learners in overly rigid curricula.
Among the strongest new information here is the extent to which policy frameworks are realized in diverse
classroom realities. Regardless of how much individualized planning has been institutionalized through
IEPs in the US under IDEA mandates and perhaps able to guarantee accessibility, the implementation lag
reported by some participants is valid in grounds for criticism on over-bureaucratization by Lombardi et
al. (2015). In contrast, the LOMLOE policy framework in Spain sets out overarching principles of inclusion
but often does not provide action-driven detail, an omission also noted by Gee et al. (2020). e contrast
between these two policy approaches illustrates the reciprocal interdependence of policy design and
pedagogical practice hypothesized by Graham (2020), who argue that policy is interpreted and reinterpreted
at the local level.
URACCAN
REVISTA UNIVERSITARIA DEL CARIBE No. 32
28
Finally, this research and analysis add to a growing body of comparative education research that seeks
to describe how education tradition, policy, and national culture shape inclusive practice. e dierence
in UDL implementation, application of digital technologies, and assessment between exibility in Spain
and the U.S. illustrates how context matters mediate the realization of global inclusion results.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this case, the study sought to establish the current status of inclusive geometry education in inclusive
classrooms in both the United States and Spain. is is supported by the ndings outlined below in the
four major conclusions:
•
Conceptual Appreciation of Accessibility: e conceptual appreciation of accessibility within geometry
teaching as a complex construct was enthusiastically received by the teaching community in the
UK and Australia. e complex construct surpasses simplistic content by incorporating physical
accessibility of materials, cognitive support, social participation, and assessment dierentiation.
Yet, to what extent this conceptual framework can be applied in practice is diversely dependent
upon structural, cultural, and organizational entities.
• Lack of Divergence between Systemic Support and Personal Inspiration to Action: While systemic
reform in the form of IEPs, mandate IDEA, and heightened sensitivity of the system to UDL principles
makes more systematic accessibility available within the United States, in the case of Spanish
education reform, the support is largely dependent on the initiative of the teacher. LOMLOE's
framework mentioned inclusion, but its lack of specicity is directly reliant on the inclination of
the teacher.
•
Universal Barriers: Lack of Training and Curricular Rigidity: e most prominent barrier to education,
cited by educators in both nations, is the lack of training on inclusive education in geometry,
particularly in respect to individualswith dierent disabilities such as visual impairment and/or
ASD. Moreover, teaching has always remained hampered by rigid curriculum requirements or high
stakes testing programs, thus making it dicult to teach in a creative way.
•
Critical Role of Culture and School Leaders: It is evident in this study that outstanding results
in inclusive geometry instruction were achieved in schools with visible commitment to values of
inclusiveness. ere is an implication here that while providing lessons with a focus on inclusiveness
is in the hands of individual educators, creating results requires collective or at least organizational
commitment.
VI. REFERENCES
del Cerro Velázquez, F., & Morales Méndez, G. (2018). Augmented reality and mobile devices: A binominal
methodological resource for inclusive education. An example in secondary education. Sustainability,
10(10), 3446. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103446
Gee, K., Gonzalez, M., & Cooper, C. (2020). Outcomes of inclusive versus separate placements: A matched
pairs comparison study. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(4), 223-240.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796920943469
Graham, L. J. (2020). Inclusive education: three (and a bit) years on. In L. Graham (ed.), Inclusive
education for the 21st century: eory, policy and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://www.
routledge.com/Inclusive-Education-for-the-21st-Century-eory-Policy-and-Practice/Graham/p/
book/9781032396859
Educación
URACCAN
29
Li, M. (2025). Exploring the digital divide in primary education: A comparative study of urban and rural
mathematics teachers’ TPACK and attitudes towards technology integration in post-pandemic China.
Education and Information Technologies, 30(2), 1913-1945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12890-x
Lombardi, A., Vukovic, B., & Sala-Bars, I. (2015). International Comparisons of Inclusive Instruction
among College Faculty in Spain, Canada, and the United States. Journal of postsecondary education
and disability, 28(4), 447-460. https://les.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1093535.pdf
Moleko, M. M. (2022). Using universal design for instruction principles to guide exible, inclusive and
accessible teaching of geometry. Issues in Educational Research, 32(2), 613-633. https://www.iier.org.
au/iier32/moleko.pdf
Quintero, J., Baldiris, S., Rubira, R., Cerón, J., & Velez, G. (2019). Augmented reality in educational
inclusion. A systematic review on the last decade. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1835. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01835
Rodriguez-Ascaso, A., Letón, E., Muñoz-Carenas, J., & Finat, C. (2018). Accessible mathematics videos
for non-disabled students in primary education. PloS One, 13(11), 208-217. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0208117
Ruiz, R. M., Torres, M. T. M., & Allegue, P. S. (2021). Comparative analysis between the main 3d scanning
techniques: Photogrammetry, terrestrial laser scanner, and structured light scanner in religious
imagery: e case of the holy christ of the blood. ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage
(JOCCH), 15(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3469126
Russo, M., Giugliano, A., Flenghi, G., Carnevali, L., Martone, M., Marrella, A., & Sapio, F. (2023).
Augmented Geometry in university education. Inted Proceedings, 1787-1796. https://doi.org/10.21125/
inted.2023.0506
Senk, S. L., Tatto, M. T., Reckase, M., Rowley, G., Peck, R., & Bankov, K. (2012). Knowledge of future
primary teachers for teaching mathematics: An international comparative study. ZDM: International
Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(3), 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0400-7
Sinclair, N., Bartolini Bussi, M. G., de Villiers, M., Jones, K., Kortenkamp, U., Leung, A., & Owens, K.
(2016). Recent research on geometry education: An ICME-13 survey team report. ZDM: International
Journal on Mathematics Education, 48(5), 691-719. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0796-6
Tatto, M. T., & Senk, S. (2011). e mathematics education of future primary and secondary teachers:
Methods and ndings from the teacher education and development study in mathematics. Journal
of Teacher Education, 62(2), 121-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110391807
