156 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Let./Vol. 71 (137)
 Št./No. 2/2020
 Str. /pp.  156–173
ISSN 0038 0474 Siniša Kušić, Sofija Vrcelj,  
and Irena Lesar
Perception of academics on content and 
realization of pedagogical study programmes 
for the implementation of inclusiveness: 
The cases of Slovenia and Croatia
Abstract: The article assumes that for inclusiveness to be effectively introduced into the school system, 
a reform of the school system is necessary; in this context, the education of (future) teachers must also 
be reviewed. After the introductory presentation of the concept of inclusiveness, a comparison of teacher 
education courses in Slovenia and Croatia is highlighted. In the empirical portion, based on a sample 
of academics from universities in Ljubljana, Maribor, and Primorska (Slovenia) and Rijeka (Croatia), 
a study on the quality of current courses and the main contents and methods of the study process is 
presented. Almost half of the academics are convinced that the current study programmes do not allow 
(future) teachers to acquire sufficient professional knowledge and skills to work with the marginalised. 
Most respondents consider content related to the teaching itself to be the most important, while broader 
educational aspects (e.g. a pleasant atmosphere, different ways of disciplining) are less often selected as 
relevant content for future teachers. The majority is convinced that the most effective means for future 
teachers to work in heterogeneous groups is to teach relevant theoretical concepts, experience direct 
pedagogical work with marginalised children, and include numerous current examples in lectures that 
illuminate the situation of marginalised children groups in society in general or in the context of school.
Keywords: teacher education, inclusiveness, content of study programme, implementation of study 
programme
UDC: 378
Scientific article
Siniša Kušić, PhD., associate professor, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, 
Sveučilišna avenija 4,  HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia;  e-mail: skusic@ffri.uniri.hr
Sofija Vrcelj, PhD., full professor, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, 
Sveučilišna avenija 4, HR-51000 Rijeka, Croatia; e-mail: svrcelj@ffri-uniri.hr
Irena Lesar, PhD., full professor, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education, Kardeljeva ploščad 16, 
SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia; e-mail: irena.lesar@guest.arnes.si     

 K ušić,Vrcelj,Lesar157
Introduction
Following the Salamanca Statement, inclusive education has become part of 
the educational policy discourse and is considered a fundamental dimension of edu-
cation policy worldwide. The Salamanca statement and the Framework for action 
on special needs education articulates the idea that education plays an important 
role in eliminating discrimination and improving social justice (UNESCO 1994), 
which implies that broader educational goals are also important in this process. 
By broader educational goals, we understand that apart from the achievement of 
a high-quality education (qualification) and the creation of respectful members of 
a society (socialization), the promotion of the comprehensive development of the 
child and emancipation (subjectification) (Biesta 2010) is the goal or purpose of 
the aforementioned processes. However, discussions on inclusive education have 
led to different interpretations, definitions, and practices in transnational contexts 
(Hodkinson 2011; Opertti et al. 2014; Vrcelj and Čubra 2012). The existing differ-
ences are a result of a historical or socio-political context that influences attitudes 
towards the marginalised members of society and the concept of inclusive education 
and, consequently , the implementation of inclusive practices (Hardy and Woodcock 
2015; Kozleski et al. 2007).
Inclusive education is often understood to focus only on learners with disabili-
ties (Engelbrecht et al. 2015; Messiou 2017; Opertti et al. 2014), while neglecting 
other learners with different socio-cultural backgrounds. A possible reason for 
such a narrow understanding lies in the Salamanca Statement itself. Specifically, 
the Statement promotes a discourse of needs and an individual perspective on dif-
ficulties that excludes social conditionality, which is why the seeking of solutions 
remains at the individual level (e.g. individual help) and not at the level of the 
overall educational process (Lesar 2018). Due to this reductionist approach, there 
is a need to conceptualise inclusive education and equality in a multidimensional 
and interdisciplinary context (Kozleski et al. 2014), which is not focused only on 
all heterogeneous groups in the school system but requires a transformation of the 
school system itself (Lesar 2009; Opertti et al. 2014). This understanding implies 
the need and obligation to ensure quality education, acceptance, and respect for 

158 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Vrcelj, Lesar
K ušić,
diversity (Wapling 2016). Simultaneously , much attention must be paid to analysing 
the capacity of educational institutions to act, which often exacerbates social in-
equalities (Lesar 2019; Lynch and Lodge 2002; Kibria 2005).
The implementation of inclusive education appears to be one of the greatest 
challenges facing education systems worldwide, regardless of existing policy docu-
ments. Moreover, the implementation of inclusive education can be interpreted as 
a social microscope (Beebe 2014 in Vrcelj 2018) and has become a tool for critical 
analysis of the extent and manner in which global problems are contextualised in 
local conditions. 
The Republic of Slovenia and the Republic of Croatia have accepted inclusive 
education with the aim of providing education for all (UNESCO 1994; Karamatić
Brčić 2011; Martan 2018). T eacher education must also be part of such an educa-
tion policy , as teachers are one of the most important agents of change (Dyson et al. 
2002; Forlin and Chambers 2011; Dreyer 2017). For the purpose of this article, we 
compare the teacher education study programmes in Slovenia and Croatia; there-
after, we present the results of the survey conducted among a sample of academics 
from all three major universities in Slovenia and the University of Rijeka in Croatia 
who are involved in the implementation of the above-mentioned study programmes.
Teacher education in Slovenia and Croatia
Teacher education in both countries involves not only the acquisition of more 
in-depth, subject-specific knowledge but also the acquisition of teacher competences, 
particularly pedagogical, psychological, didactic, and special didactic competences. 
However, although there are similarities in teacher education in Croatia and 
Slovenia, as evidenced by the duration of the study programme and the similar 
number of ECTS credits acquired, there are a few visible differences. Following 
the introduction of the Bologna Process, which was initiated in Croatia in 2005 
and Slovenia in 2006, a minimum number of ECTS credits was required for the 
acquisition of teacher competences. Specifically, in Croatia, a minimum number 
of 55 ECTS credits is required by law; however, at the same time, there are no 
prescribed subjects or learning outcomes to be included in study programmes. In 
Slovenia, the number of credits is not prescribed by law , but a minimum of 60 ECTS 
credits is recommended (Merila 2008).
Initial teacher education is conducted at universities in Slovenia and Croatia 
within the framework of several teacher education programmes according to the 
following envisaged models:
 – The concurrent model, where students acquire specialist knowledge in a partic-
ular field during their undergraduate studies (BA), while teacher competences 
are acquired through graduate studies (MA).
 – The integrated model, in which pedagogical-psychological-didactical-special 
didactical contents are offered as part of certain existing courses in under-
graduate studies.

     159 Perception of academics on content and realization of pedagogical study programmes ... 
 – The consecutive model, which represents a lifelong educational programme for 
the acquisition of teaching skills, offered to all those who have not completed 
teacher education. These programmes provide pedagogical-psychological-di-
dactical-special didactical education and enable the acquisition of a partial 
qualification. Upon completion of such a programme, students receive a certi-
ficate that enables them to work in the school.
In Croatia, there is no national standard of competence for teachers that could 
serve as a basis for the development of (initial or lifelong) teacher education pro-
grammes. Consequently, there is a mismatch between the available programmes, 
as they differ significantly in terms of content, organisation, and faculty members 
involved, thereby resulting in each faculty offering a different programme (Domović 
et al. 2013). Moreover, in recent years, there has been a significant increase in the 
number of lifelong education programmes for teachers in non-teaching faculties. 
The lack of a national standard of competence for teachers and the implement-
ation of teacher education programmes at non-teaching faculties indicates the 
marginalisation and neglect of the teaching profession in the educational policy in 
Croatia. Although there is still no national standard of competences for teachers in 
Croatia, in 2016, the National Council for Education issued a recommendation in 
the Framework National Standard of Qualifications for Teachers in Primary and 
Secondary Schools.
1
 The document indicates the importance of teacher competences, 
which are closely linked to the concept of inclusiveness.
The research, the results of which are presented in this paper, was conducted 
on a sample of academics at the University of Rijeka (Croatia). Therefore, the 
framework structure of the teacher education programme (initial teacher education 
programme (MA)
2
 and the lifelong learning programme
3
), which is implemented at 
the University of Rijeka is presented here. It must be emphasised that only those 
portions of the programmes that allow the acquisition of teacher competences are 
analysed. The programmes are divided into the following three modules:
 – General education subjects comprise compulsory subjects for the acquisition of 
basic teacher competences in the scientific disciplines of psychology , pedagogy , 
and general didactics, which total to 31 ECTS credits.
 – Professional education subjects comprise compulsory and optional subjects 
(special didactics and/or specific areas of pedagogy, psychology, philosophy, 
linguistics, and computer science) for the acquisition of specific teacher com-
petences, which total to 15 ECTS credits.
1
  Nacionalno vije će za odgoj i obrazovanje (2016).»Okvir nacionalnoga standarda kvalifikacija za 
učitelje u osnovnim i srednjim školama« can be found at http://nvoo.hr/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/
Okvir-standarda-kvalifikacije-final..pdf
2
  The detailed structure of the initial teacher education programme (MA) »Curriculum of graduate 
university studies—Teacher module«  can be found at https://www.ffri.uniri.hr/files/dokumentiodsjeka/
CON/NM_program_2019_2020.pdf 
3
  The detailed structure of the lifelong learning programme for acquiring teaching competences 
»Supplementary teacher education programme (DPPO)« can be found at https://www.ffri.uniri.hr/files/
dokumentiodsjeka/DPPO/DPPO_program_2019-2020.pdf

160 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Vrcelj, Lesar
K ušić,
 – Special didactics with teaching practice comprise compulsory subjects (special 
didactics and teaching practice) for the acquisition of professional competences 
through direct practical experience, which total to 14 ECTS credits.
On the other hand, in Slovenia, there is a content framework for study pro-
grammes (within 60 ECTS credits) (Merila 2008), but there are also a few differ-
ences among the three universities (in terms of content, organisation, and faculty 
members involved). Despite the differences, the following programmes for the 
acquisition of teacher competences in Slovenia must be included:
 – social sciences and humanities, which enable students to acquire pedagogical 
and psychological knowledge, along with elements of developmental and edu-
cational psychology , pedagogy and general didactics (most programmes include 
andragogy , special pedagogy , research methodology , educational philosophy , and 
educational sociology as well);
 – specialist didactics or subject didactics in connection with the study of the 
main discipline;
 – pedagogical practice amounting to at least 15 ECTS credits (Merila 2008; P eček 
and Lesar 2011).
With regard to teacher education to implement inclusiveness, academics in 
Slovenia are autonomous in deciding on the contents of courses and thereby de-
termining future teachers’ conceptualisation of inclusive ness (Lesar and Žveglič
Mihelič2018).
Inclusive education addresses issues of social justice; thus, future teachers 
must know how to promote respect, fairness, and justice in their classrooms and 
schools (Ballar d 2004). The results of certain studies (Skočić Mihić 2011; Skočić
Mihić et al. 2014) suggest that preschool teachers and primary and secondary 
school teachers express uncertainty regarding their competences for working in 
an inclusiveenvironment.M. P eček and I. Lesar (2006) found similarresults in a
representative sample of Slovenian primary school teachers.
Moreover , according to the European Agency for Development in Special Needs 
Education (2011), it is necessary to pay attention to pedagogical education, which 
enables teachers to acquire competences for implementing inclusive practice, support, 
preparation, and time and skills necessary to achieve broader educational goals.
The presentation of that portion of the study programmes which enables the 
acquisition of teaching skills has shown that they are very similar in content and 
ECTS at all the universities involved in this study. In contrast to Croatia, most 
teacher education programmes in Slovenia contain not only pedagogical, psycho-
logical, didactic, and special didactical content but also subjects from the field of 
andragogy (P eček and Lesar 2011), which prepare future teachers for working with 
adults, who can often be marginalised.
Further, when it comes to content related to inclusiveness, students at Slov-
enian universities as well as at the University of Rijeka have subjects for teaching 
learners with special needs (usually compulsory subjects, but also optional subjects 

     161 Perception of academics on content and realization of pedagogical study programmes ... 
at a few universities) (P eček and Lesar 2011). However , an analysis of teacher 
education curricula at all universities (Ljubljana, Maribor, Primorska, and Rijeka) 
suggests that the understanding of inclusiveness is usually linked to the inclusion 
of learners with disabilities and special needs, while a more complex understanding 
of inclusiveness is neglected. It must be noted that it is possible that the broader 
understanding of inclusiveness mentioned above has been incorporated into other 
subjects; thus, a more comprehensive qualitative analysis of all educational pro-
grammes may be a good idea for future research.
Research problem
As we have seen in the previous analysis of the education of future teachers 
in Slovenia and Croatia, there are no standards for teacher qualification at the 
national level; thus, it may be concluded that at the university level, the profes-
sional autonomy of the subjects is rather high. This implies that the majority of the 
academics can independently decide the relevant content of their subjects and the 
manner in which the pedagogical process is conducted. Therefore, we reviewed their 
beliefs regarding the adequacy of the implementation of the pedagogical process 
at the tertiary level and the key contents that provide (future) teachers with skills 
for qualitative pedagogical work with different groups of children and adolescents.
Specifically, we formulated the following research questions:
 – How do academics assess the suitability and efficiency of the current study 
programme in terms of providing quality knowledge and skills for working 
with marginalised learners?
 – In what manner must a high-quality study process be implemented according 
to the academics of pedagogical study programmes?
 – In the opinion of the academics, what are the most important contents in rela-
tion to inclusiveness of the study programmes for future teachers?
We analysed the data to identify statistically significant differences in relation 
to the country , the years of work experience at the faculty , and the subject they teach.
Methodology
Sample
The sample comprised 219 academics, 70.6% of whom were female and 28.9% 
male; one academic (0.5%) chose not to indicate gender. The majority were em-
ployed at the University of Ljubljana (44.1%), one-third at the University of Rijeka 
(36.2%), and one-tenth at the University of Maribor (10.8%) and the University 
of Primorska (9.9%). 

162 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Vrcelj, Lesar
K ušić,
On average, the participants had 14.57 years of professional experience at 
the university (SD = 10.08). Over two-thirds (71.5 %) had a PhD, 20.2% had a 
first degree or a master’s degree (first and second Bologna cycles), and 8.3 % had 
a master’s of science or other type of specialisation. In terms of university titles, 
27.1% were assistant professors, 25.2% assistants, 21.0% associate professors, 
16.2% full professors, 4.3% (senior) lecturers, 2.4% professional support staff, 1.9% 
external staff, and 1.0% research fellows. A majority of the participants (67.1%) 
had previously worked for at least six months in kindergartens, schools, or other 
educational institutions. 
With regard to the subjects, most of them are professors, assistants, etc. of 
social sciences and humanities subjects (37.7 %); professors, assistants, etc. of dis-
cipline areas subjects (33.7 %); professors, assistants, etc. of special didactics (20.1 
%); and others (8.5 %) involved in special pedagogues etc. 
Over half of the participants (59.1%) were found to devote very little or no time 
to the topic of marginalised groups in their lectures and other pedagogical work, 
while 40.1% were found to devote at least some time to these topics.
Instrument
The data for the study were collected by a survey using the questionnaire 
entitled »University Employees about Inclusion of Marginalised Students« (Lesar 
2017). The questionnaire was translated into Croatian for the respondents from 
the University of Rijeka. To answer the three research questions, closed questions 
were also included. The perceived importance of different contents in the pedago-
gical study programmes was measured in greater detail on a five-point Likert scale 
(where 1 indicates strongly disagree and 5 indicates strongly agree) consisting of 
14 statements. In addition, questions regarding the personal characteristics of the 
participants (country, years of work experience at the faculty, and subject field) 
were also included in the questionnaire.
Data collection and analysis
The questionnaires were initially piloted with 30 academics of the Faculty of 
Education, the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Social Work at the University of 
Ljubljana. Thereafter , the online survey was conducted via e-mail invitations to the 
Slovenian participants from January to February and to the Croatian participants 
from November to December 2017.
The data were used for an exploratory factor analysis to determine the 
structural validity and reliability of the scales and to form aggregated variables. 
Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed on the group of items from 
the scale with oblique rotation (oblimin). The Keiser-Meyer-Olkin measure (KMO) 
verified the adequacy of the sample for the analysis, KMO = .79 (KMO values for 

     163 Perception of academics on content and realization of pedagogical study programmes ... 
individual items = .5). Bartlett’s sphericity test [χ2(78) = 771.93, p < .001] revealed 
that the correlations between the items were sufficiently large for PCA. The PCA 
resulted in a four-component solution, with 13 items that explained 80.79% of the 
variance. One item (Assumption of (shared) responsibility by the teachers for the 
learning and personal progress of each child) was excluded from the original item 
set due to its high exposure to two factors. According to the percentage of the total 
variance explained by the first component (44.26%), the scale has an acceptable 
validity, while the value of Cronbach’s alpha suggests an acceptable reliability of 
the total scale (α = .88). 
In addition, Pearson’s Chi-square test was performed to ascertain the relation-
ship between two categorical variables, along with Cramer’s contingency coefficient as 
a measure of the strength of the relationship between two variables. Mann-Whitney 
Kruskal-Wallis tests were also performed on the scale data to identify statistically 
significant differences in the subscale scores for respondent characteristics. The 
Mann-Whitney test also served as a post-hoc test for the Kruskal-Wallis test; in this 
case a Bonferroni correction was applied (the effect is reported at a significance 
level of .003). The data for categorical variables are presented as percentages for 
individual categories.
Results 
Assessment of the academics regarding the quality of the study programmes 
We asked the participants whether the study programme provides future 
teachers with the high-quality knowledge and skills necessary to work with mar-
ginalised learners. The results are presented in Table 1 below.
The study programme I contribute to for the most part... Frequency Percent
a) enables the acquisition of sufficiently high-quality knowledge and skills.
64 33.0
b) requires a partial revision in order to obtain high quality and relevant knowledge 
and skills.
89 45.9
c) does not enable the acquisition of high quality knowledge and skills and should be 
substantially revised.
23 11.9
d) does not enable the acquisition of high-quality knowledge and skills, but I believe 
that such knowledge and skills can be acquired in in-service education and, 
therefore, there is no need to include them in study programmes.
18 9.2
Total 194 100.0
Table 1: Responses from academics regarding the level of provision of quality knowledge and skills to 
future teachers for their work with marginalised learners

164 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Vrcelj, Lesar
K ušić,
Similar to the analysis presented for the Slovenian sample only (Lesar and 
Žveglič Mihelič 2018), we found that the most common answer selected by re-
spondents was that the study programme to which they contribute most often 
requires a partial revision (45.9%). Some were more critical and felt that the study 
programme did not enable the acquisition of high-quality knowledge and skills, 
requiring either a significant revision (11.9%) or a wider range of programmes in 
in-service education (9.2%). One-third (33.0%) of the participants believe that the 
study programme, enables obtaining sufficient quality knowledge and skills for 
work with marginalised children.
Further analysis revealed a weak but statistically significant correlation between 
the country and the responses of academics regarding the level of provision of quality 
knowledge and skills for future teachers for their work with marginalised learners 
[χ2(3) = 8.753, p < .03, V = .21]. The majority of Croatian academics working at 
the University of Rijeka is convinced that the study programme does not allow for 
the acquisition of quality knowledge and skills, which requires a wider range of 
programmes in in-service education (Croatia 15.6% vs Slovenia 5.1%). 
Academics on the quality of the study process
When asked how a high-quality study process must be conducted so that 
well-educated teachers can work with different groups of children, respondents 
were able to select up to three of the answers given (see Table 2).
In my opinion, a high-quality study programme that helps well-
educated teachers to work with different groups of children is one 
that…
Frequency
Percent 
of n
a) provides students with relevant theoretical concepts that are important for 
designing quality teaching practices in heterogeneous groups of children.
121 62.7
b) includes numerous current examples in the lectures that shed light on the 
situation of marginalised groups of children in society in general or in school 
contexts.
117 60.6
c) encourages students to follow current social events and to work voluntarily 
with the marginalised.
103 53.4
d) gives the students numerous experiences in direct pedagogical work with 
marginalised individuals or groups.
119 61.7
e) gives the students first-hand experience in teaching with the regular 
population of children and then experiences with the marginalised.
58 30.1
Table 2: Responses from academics on implementing quality study programmes
Almost two-thirds of the respondents (62.7%) were convinced that students 
must be offered relevant theoretical concepts that are important for designing qual-
ity-teaching practices in heterogeneous groups of children. Slightly fewer (61.7%) 
selected the answer that a high-quality study programme enables students to gain 
varied experience in direct pedagogical work with marginalised individuals or 

     165 Perception of academics on content and realization of pedagogical study programmes ... 
groups. A similar proportion of respondents (60.6%) believe that the study process 
is of high quality if numerous current cases are included in the lectures that shed 
light on the situation of marginalised children’s groups in society in general or in 
school contexts. Half of the respondents selected the answer »encourage students 
to follow current social events and to work voluntarily with the marginalised«, and 
less than one-third selected the answer »give the students first-hand experience 
in teaching with the regular population of children and then experiences with the 
marginalised.«
With regard to years of work experience at a university, statistically signi-
ficant differences were found in answer (b): »It includes many current examples 
in the lectures that shed light on the situation of marginalised groups of children 
in society in general or in school contexts.« [2Ȋ(4) = 15.43, p < .01, V = .28]. 
As many as four-fifths (81.5%) of the respondents with 1–3 years of experience 
and over two-thirds (71.4%) of the respondents with 19–30 years of experience 
selected this answer, while a significantly lower proportion (48.7%) of the re-
spondents with 7–18 years of experience agree with this method of pedagogical  
work.
With regard to the subject areas, we found two statistically significant differ-
ences, with the first (a) [2Ȋ(4) = 24.63, p < .00, V = .36] and the last (e) answer 
[2Ȋ(4) = 26.43, p < .00, V = .36]. As many as four-fifths (80.0%) of the participants 
who teach social sciences and humanities subjects believe that a high-quality study 
programme is one that »provides students with relevant theoretical concepts that 
are important for designing quality teaching practices in heterogeneous groups 
of children.« A significantly lower proportion of respondents who teach discipline 
areas subjects (47.7%) and special didactics (42.9%) selected this answer. However, 
in the last answer (e), a significantly higher proportion of respondents who teach 
special didactics (54.3%) and discipline areas subjects (41.5%) and a significantly 
lower proportion of respondents who teach social sciences and humanities subjects 
(15.7%) selected the answer that study programmes enable students to experience 
teaching with the regular population of children and then to have experience with 
the marginalised.
Academics on the most important contents in the education of future teachers
We asked the participants which contents for implementation of inclusiveness 
do they consider to be the most important in the study programmes for future 
teachers. They could choose three answers (see Table 3). Similar to the analysis 
of only the Slovenian sample (Lesar and Žveglič Mihelič 2018), a majority of 
academics were convinced that «different teaching methods and forms of differ-
entiation and individualisation» must be guaranteed in the education of future  
teachers (73.1%). 

166 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Vrcelj, Lesar
K ušić,
The most important contents in the study courses for the education of 
future teachers are...
Frequency
Percent 
of n
a) high-quality special-needs education 92 47.7
b) possibilities to create a pleasant atmosphere in a group or an educational 
institution
68 35.2
c) the knowledge of as many psycho-physical characteristics of individual 
marginalised groups (poor, immigrants, SEN, etc.) as possible
85 44.0
d) recognising and transforming own prejudices towards marginalised groups 106 54.9
e) different teaching methods, forms of differentiation, and individualisation 141 73.1
f) different educational methods, possibilities of disciplining, and punishment 24 12.4
g) others 11 5.7
Table 3: Responses from academics on the main content of the courses of study that educate future 
teachers
In this sample as well we found that only half of the academics (54.9%) em-
phasised that attention must be paid to recognising and transforming students’ 
prejudices towards marginalised groups and only a third of them (35.2%) consider 
it important to familiarise future teachers with a variety of ways to create an in-
viting atmosphere in a group or an educational institution, even though they are 
one of the most important factors in implementing inclusiveness (Dyson et al. 2002; 
Forlin and Nguyet 2010). Further , over two-fifths of the respondents (44.0%) believe 
that the study programme must provide knowledge of as many psycho-physical 
characteristics of individual marginalised groups as possible as well as high-quality 
special-needs education for future teachers (47.7%). Both can be placed within the 
concept of integration, since the psychomedical paradigm and the individualistic 
perspective or the professional discourse and the focus on facilitating learning are in 
the foreground (Lesar and Žveglič Mihelič 2018). Slightly over one-tenth (12.4%)  of 
the academics consider «different educational methods, possibilities of disciplining 
and punishment» to be relevant. 
In terms of years of experience, statistically significant differences were found 
in the answers (b) [2Ȋ(4) = 9.92, p < .05, V = .23] and (f) [2Ȋ(4) = 13.42, p < .01, V 
= .27]. A significantly higher proportion (58.8%) of the respondents with 4–6 years 
of experience and a significantly lower proportion (23.8%) of the respondents with 
19–30 years of experience consider the possibilities of creating a pleasant atmosphere 
in a group or an educational institution to be more or less important content in 
the education of future teachers. A significantly higher percentage (33.3%) of the 
respondents with 1–3 years of experience consider different educational methods 
and possibilities of disciplining and punishment as important content in the edu-
cation of future teachers.
Further, there was a difference with regard to the subject area, namely in 
answer (d) [2Ȋ(4) = 22.35, p < .00, V = .34]. A significantly higher proportion 
(72.9%) of respondents who teach social science and humanities subjects consider 
the recognition and transformation of own prejudices towards marginalised groups 
to be relevant and a significantly lower proportion of respondents who teach special 
didactics (28.6%) consider this to be relevant content in the study process.

     167 Perception of academics on content and realization of pedagogical study programmes ... 
Specifically, we requested relevant content from those respondents who at 
least occasionally include topics on the marginalised in their work (n = 74). Table 
4 presents the statements with mean value, standard deviation, and saturation 
value within a certain factor. 
Factor
In the educational programmes of (future) teachers, the 
most important role should be that of content:
M (SD)
Saturation 
value of 
variables
F1: The Social 
status of the 
marginalised
9) Social position of the SEN children.
4.00
(.95)
,960
11) Social position of children in poverty.
4.16
(.89)
,930
13) Social position of children of immigrants.
4.14
(.86)
,933
Eigenvalue = 5.75; % of variance = 44.26; α  = .96
F2: Process of 
integration
1) 
Preparation of documentation of the individual child for 
external experts who can decide most objectively and 
professionally on the adjustments to a pedagogical process.
2.46
(1.09)
,856
3) 
Possibilities of providing individualised (learning) support 
for individual groups of marginalised children.
4.12
(.85)
,556
5) 
Early detection of developmental deviations in children for 
the purpose of initiating a process of placement.
3.58
(1.03)
,730
7) 
Efficient ways of working with parents to become aware and 
accept the key role in promoting their child’s learning and 
helping with homework.
3.76
(1.30)
,914
Eigenvalue = 2.52; % of variance = 19.37; α = .84
F3: Inclusive 
atmosphere
2) 
Adjustments in the everyday educational process for each 
child.
4.26
(.83)
-,660
4) 
Ways to create a better social atmosphere in a group of 
children.
4.62
(.63)
-,913
8) 
Possibilities of creating a pleasant atmosphere in an 
educational institution.
4.33
(.64)
-,754
Eigenvalue = 1.21; % of variance = 9.32; α  =.79
F4: Teaching 
adjustments 
for the 
marginalised
10) 
Teaching adjustments for individual groups of SEN 
children.
4.28
(.73)
-,569
12) Teaching adjustments for children in poverty.
3.82
(1.06)
-,999
14) Teaching adjustments for children of immigrants.
3.98
(.96)
-,916
Eigenvalue = 1.02; % of variance = 7.85; α = .88
Table 4: Academics who at least occasionally include topics related to the marginalised on the most 
important contents in the courses of study for future teachers: Factor analysis

168 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Vrcelj, Lesar
K ušić,
The first component, »The social status of the marginalised«, is represented 
by items that highlight knowledge of the social status of the marginalised. The 
second component, »Integration process«, is represented by the items dealing with 
practises that are important for the concept of integration. The third component, 
»Inclusive atmosphere« comprises items that emphasise the importance of the 
social atmosphere either in a group of children or in an educational institution as 
well as everyday adjustments of the educational process. The fourth component, 
»Teaching adjustments for the marginalised«, includes three items that highlight 
the adaptation of the teaching to either the poor , immigrants, or special educational 
needs SEN population.
The academics in our study, similar to the survey in the Slovenian sample 
(Lesar and Žvegič Mihelič 2018), expressed a high degre e of agreement with the
importance of providing content on all content groups offered in the study pro-
grammes for future teachers: an inclusive atmosphere (subscale mean = 4.41, SD 
= .63), the social status of the marginalised (subscale mean = 4.16, SD = .88), 
teaching adjustments for the marginalised (subscale mean = 4.06, SD = .85), and 
the integration process (subscale mean = 3.65, SD = .87). It is evident from the res-
ults that academics who devote at least some time to the issues of the marginalised 
consider a more inclusive atmosphere and an understanding of the social status of 
the marginalised to be more important than adjustments in teaching. Therefore, 
they prioritise opportunities for social participation over academic success.
However , there are a few statistically significant differences in the support for 
the provision of this content with regard to different characteristics of academics. 
Depending on the country , we found differences in the second factor [z = -2.48, p. 
< .05]. The level of agreement with integration-related content was significantly 
higher among respondents from Croatia (M = 3.96) than among respondents from 
Slovenia (M = 3.50).
With regard to the subject field, we only found a statistically significant differ-
ence in the fourth factor [H(2) = 6.17, p < .05]. Additional pair-wise comparisons 
revealed that respondents who teach subjects in the social sciences and humanities 
agreed significantly less with the involvement of the teaching adjustment to the 
marginalised in the education of future teachers (M = 3.88) than respondents who 
conduct special didactics (M = 4.52).
Discussion
Most of the academics in our study are convinced that current study programmes 
do not enable (future) teachers to acquire sufficient professional knowledge and 
skills to work with the marginalised. However , it must be emphasised that Croatian 
respondents expressed greater criticism of the study programmes. In the opinion 
of all respondents and with regard to the content of the study programmes that 
must be offered to future teachers, the results reveal a similar pattern as that in 
the previously published article on the Slovenian sample (Lesar and Žveglič Mihelič 
2018). Indeed, academics are ambivalent between basic educational content and 

     169 Perception of academics on content and realization of pedagogical study programmes ... 
content that is important for the implementation of inclusiveness or integration 
(ibid.). Most of the respondents (73.1%) consider the content related to teaching itself 
to be the most important, while broader educational aspects (e.g. a pleasant atmo-
sphere, various possibilities of disciplining) are less frequently selected as relevant 
content for future teachers. Further analysis reveals that younger academics are 
more aware of the importance of knowledge and skills that enable future teachers 
to create a constructive social climate and resolve conflicts, thereby contributing 
to a pleasant atmosphere, which is also confirmed by foreign researchers as a more 
important factor in achieving inclusiveness (e.g. Dyson et al. 2002). One of the 
most important factors influencing pedagogical practise is the prejudice against 
the marginalised (ibid.), which has been recognised by academics teaching social 
sciences and humanities subjects as an important factor in the study process of 
future teachers.
The analysis of the data of those respondents who deal with at least a few topics 
related to the marginalised in their subjects reveals that this group of academics 
is more aware of the importance of creating an inclusive climate, of being aware 
of the social position of the marginalised, and of (special) didactical adaptations to 
marginalised children as processes relevant for the implementation of the concept 
of inclusiveness. However, we also identified a few differences between them. In 
particular, respondents from Croatia are more in favour of involving content that 
is relevant to the integration process. Moreover, academics who teach special di-
dactics agree more strongly with the involvement of teaching adaptation for the 
marginalised in the education of future teachers, while significantly fewer of those 
who teach social sciences and humanities subjects agree with this aspect.
When asked about the study process, a majority of the academics are convinced 
that the most important aspect is the teaching of theoretical concepts that are 
relevant for the design of high-quality teaching practise in heterogeneous groups 
(62.7%), the experience of direct pedagogical work with marginalised children 
(61.7%), and the inclusion of numerous current examples in lectures that shed 
light on the situation of marginalised children’s groups in society in general or in 
school contexts (60.6%). The academics of social sciences and humanities subjects 
are somehow more aware that a high quality implementation of inclusiveness 
does not require special pedagogical knowledge and specific methods for working 
with certain groups of marginalised learners, but particularly the recognition and 
reduction of prejudices against marginalised groups.
Conclusions 
The results of this study have revealed that most academics evaluate the special 
didactics adjustment of the teaching process as a key feature of the education of 
future teachers with regard to working with marginalised learners. Such a narrow 
understanding of the adaptation of the teaching process to marginalised learners 
continues to promote a narrow understanding of inclusiveness, while a broader 
understanding (including the element of subjectification and other marginalised 

170 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Vrcelj, Lesar
K ušić,
groups of learners not only children with disabilities) is neglected. In this manner, 
the educational process and, thus, the education of future teachers is approached in 
a technical manner, thereby focusing mainly on teaching methods and techniques 
and simultaneously on important pedagogical practices in working with marginalised 
learners groups that are largely neglected. The teacher education courses in most 
study programmes have a dichotomy of content, with a sharp distinction between 
the general pedagogical and psychological subjects and the narrower subject-specific 
content that students are likely to teach in their future work as teachers. Because of 
this sharp distinction in content, very little attention is paid to the general pedago-
gical and psychological subjects. In contrast, in teacher education in connection with 
the study of the main discipline, the study of the main discipline is emphasized. In 
this context, there is an interesting thought expressed in Medveš (2011): »Uf, what 
about the Slovenian construction of the pedagogical module 2011! Which amounts 
to 60 ECTS, including only one fifth of the pedagogical subjects (and even this is to 
be lost in the broader field of ‘humanities’, where pedagogy could become a mere 
optional subject for students of pedagogical studies) and more than two-thirds of 
the subject didactics and practice?« (p. 153).
According to the results of this study , younger academics are more aware of the 
broader educational dimension of pedagogical work (which includes the element of 
subjectification). In this context, they believe that more content must be included 
in the programme, in the context of ensuring an inclusive atmosphere and the use 
of different educational methods while ensuring discipline. These educational as-
pects have been confirmed in both national and international research as important 
factors for achieving inclusiveness. 
On the other hand, almost half of the academics considered characteristics 
related to the psycho-physical characteristics of individual groups of marginalised 
learners to be very important, which implies that specific treatments must be de-
signed for marginalised learners. Accordingly , we can conclude that almost half of 
the academics advocate a narrower understanding of the concept of inclusiveness. 
These academics do not appear to be aware of the broader social impact of marginal-
isation and only (un)directly support the existing school system and the integration 
of marginalised learners if they can be integrated into the majority system with 
maximum support. Therefore, these views of academics tend to support the concept 
of integration rather than inclusiveness in the broader sense.
The results also reveal that academics who teach social sciences and humanities 
subjects are more aware of the complexity of various influences on the inclusion 
of marginalised learners, particularly the importance of prejudice. They include 
topics in their subjects that relate to a broader understanding of the concept of 
inclusiveness and are not limited to the special didactic adaptation of the teaching 
process to marginalised learners. This approach in the education of future teachers 
promotes a more constructive teacher education in which teachers are not considered 
exclusively as experts in subject didactics.
In view of the existing teacher education programmes in Slovenia and Croatia, 
the question that arises is how to respond appropriately to the increasing need 
for teachers to work with marginalised groups. Should teacher education pro-

     171 Perception of academics on content and realization of pedagogical study programmes ... 
grammes be thoroughly redesigned or should the approach of the entire faculty be 
changed to reflect curricular cooperation and inclusive philosophy? (Forlin 2010) 
It is obvious that a broader understanding of inclusiveness remains at the level of 
mere rhetoric and is not recognised as an important part of everyday life, as it is 
insufficiently represented in the education of future teachers in terms of content. 
In the future, attention must be paid to marginalised groups and individuals when 
designing the curriculum for teacher education, since inclusiveness has emerged 
as an expression of the actual needs of society and, thus, also of teacher education. 
In addition, inclusiveness must be understood as a philosophy of life and not be 
reduced to people with disabilities.
References
Ballard, K. (2004). Children and disability: Special or included? Waikato Journal of Educa-
tion, issue 10, pp. 315–326.
Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. 
Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Domović, V ., Gehrman, Z . E., Knežević, Ž., Oreški, P ., P etravić, A., Šimović, V . and V ican, D .
(2013). P erspektive razvoja obrazovanja učitelja i nastavnika u R epublici Hrvatskoj.
In: V . Domović, S . Gehrman, J . Helmchen, M. Krüger-P otratz and A. P etravić (eds.).
Europsko obrazovanje učitelja i nastavnika - na putu prema novom obrazovnom cilju. 
Izvještaji iz Zapadne i Jugoistočne Europe. Zagreb:Školskaknjiga,pp.128–159.
Dreyer , L. (2017). Inclusive education. In: L. Ramrathan, L. Le Grange and Ph. Higgs (eds.). 
Education for initial teacher training. Publisher: Juta & Company (Pty), pp. 383–400.
Dyson, A., Howes, A. and Roberts, B. (2002). A systematic review of the effectiveness of school-
level actions for promoting participation by all students. London: EPPI-Centre, Social 
Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
Engelbrecht, P ., Nel, M., Nel, N. and Tlale, D. (2015). Enacting understanding of inclusion 
in complex contexts: classroom practices of South African teachers. South African 
Journal of Education, 35, issue 3, pp. 1–10.
European agency for development in special needs education. (2011). Teacher education for 
inclusion across Europe – challenges and opportunities. Odense, Denmark: European 
Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
Forlin, C. (2010). Reframing teacher education for inclusion. In: C. Forlin (ed.). Teacher 
education for inclusion. London: Routledge, pp. 3–12.
Forlin, C. and Nguyet, D. T. (2010). A national strategy for supporting teacher educators 
to prepare teachers for inclusion. In: C. Forlin (ed.). Teacher education for inclusion. 
London: Routledge, pp. 34–44. 
Forlin, Ch. and Chambers, D. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive education: increas-
ing knowledge but raising concerns. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 
issue 1, pp. 17–32.
Hardy , I. and Woodcock, S. (2015). Inclusive education policies: discourses of difference, diver-
sity and deficit. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19, issue 2, pp. 141–164. 

172 Sodobna pedagogika/Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies Vrcelj, Lesar
K ušić,
Hodkinson, A. (2011). Inclusion: A defining definition? Power and Education, 3, issue 2, 
pp. 179–185. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2304/power.2011.3.2.179  (accessed on 
12. 2. 2019).
Karamatić Brčić, M. (2011). Svrha i cilj inkluzivnog obrazovanja.Acta Iadertina, 8, issue 
1, pp. 39–47.
Kibria, G. (2005). Inclusion education the developing countries: The case study of Bangladesh. 
Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 6, issue 1, pp. 43–47.
Kozleski, E. A., Artiles, A., Fletcher , T . and Engelbrecht, P . (2007). Understanding the dialec-
tics of the local and the global in education for all: A comparative study . International 
Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Practice, 8, issue 1, pp. 19–34.
Kozleski, E. B., Artiles, A. and Waitoller, F . (2014). Translating inclusive education: Equity 
concerns. In: L. Florian (ed.). The handbook of special education. New York: Sage 
Publications, pp. 231–249.
Lesar , I. (2009). Šola za vse?: Ideja inkluzije v šolskih sistemih. Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta.
Lesar , I. (2017). University employees about inclusion of marginalised students: measurement 
instrument. Unpublished Instrument.
Lesar , I. (2018). Celovitejše razumevanje pravičnosti kot podlaga vpeljevanja inkluzivnosti.
In: D. Rutar (ed.). Egalitarne simbolizacije življenja s posebnimi potrebami. Kamnik: 
Cirius Kamnik, pp. 117–139.
Lesar, I. (2019). Izzivi pedagogike pri vpeljevanju inkluzivnosti v šolski sistem. Sodobna 
pedagogika, 70, issue. 1, pp. 50–69.
Lesar , I. and Žveglič Mihelič, M. (2018). Beliefs of university staff teaching in pedagogical
study programmes on concept(s) of inclusiveness – the case of Slovenia. International 
Journal of Inclusive Education (online).
Lynch, K. and Lodge, A. (2002). Equality and power in school: Redestribution, recognition 
and representation. London: RoutledgeFalmer. 
Martan, V . (2018). Pregled istraživanja inkluzivnog odgoja i obrazovanja iz perspektive 
učitelja i studenata. Školski vjesnik: časopis za pedagogijsku teoriju i praksu, 67, is-
sue 2, pp. 265–285. 
Medveš, Z . (2011). Kakršna je družba, taka je šola!Sodobna pedagogika, 62, issue 5, pp. 
148–170.
Merila za akreditacijo študijskih programov za izobraževanje učiteljev , Svet R epublike Slo-
venije za visoko šolstvo. (2008). Ur. list 70/11. 
Messiou, K. (2017). Research in the field of inclusive education: time for a rethink? Inter-
national Journal of Inclusive Education, 21, issue 2, pp. 146–159.
Opertti, R., W alker , Z . and Zhang, Y . (2014). Inclusive education: from targeting groups and
schools to achieving quality education as the core of EFA. In: L. Florian (ed.). The 
SAGE Handbook of special education. London: SAGE, pp. 149–169.
P eče k, M. and Lesar , I. (2006).Pravičnost slovenske šole: mit ali realnost. Ljubljana: Sophia.
P eček, M. and Lesar , I. (2011).Governance of educational trajectories in Europe: teacher 
education Slovenia (GOETE work package III: country report). Ljubljana: University 
of Ljubljana, Faculty of Education; [Frankfurt am Mein]: GOETE, Governance of 
Educational Trajectories in Europe.
Skočić Mihić, S . (2011).Spremnost odgajatelja i faktori podrške za uspješno uključivanje djece 
s teškoćama u rani i predškolski odgoj i obrazovanje. Doktorska disertacija. Zagreb:
Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijskifakultetSveučilištauZagrebu.

     173 Perception of academics on content and realization of pedagogical study programmes ... 
Skočić Mihić, S ., Lončarić, D . and K olombo, M. (2014). Samoprocijenjene kompetencije stude-
nata učiteljskog studija za rad s djecom s posebnim odgojno-obrazovnim potrebama.
Napredak, 155, issue 3, pp. 303–322.
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and Framework for action on special needs 
education. World conference on special needs education: access and quality . UNESCO: 
Salamanca.
Vrcelj, S. (2018). Što školu čini školom - teorijski pristupi, koncepti i trendovi. Rijeka: Filo-
zofski fakultet.
Vrcelj, S . and Čubra J . (2012). Inkluzivno obrazovanje - mogućnosti i ograničenja.Kaloka-
gathia, 1,  issue 1, pp. 24–31.
Wapling, L. (2016). Inclusive education and children with disabilities: ouality education for 
all in low and middle income countries. CBM.
SinišaK UŠIĆ(UniverzanaRijeki,Hrvaška)
Sofija VRCELJ (Univerza na Rijeki, Hrvaška)
Irena LESAR (Univerza v Ljubljani, Slovenija) 
VISOKOŠOLSKI UČITELJI O VSEBINI IN IZVEDBI PEDAGOŠKIH ŠTUDIJSKIH PRO-
GRAMOV ZA IMPLEMENTACIJO INKLUZIVNOSTI: PRIMERA SLOVENIJE IN HRVAŠKE
Povzetek: Članek je grajen na predpostavki, da je za učinkovito implementacijo inkluzivnosti potrebna 
reforma šolskega sistema in v tem kontekstu bi bilo treba kritično analizirati tudi izobraževanje (bodočih) 
učiteljev . P o uvodni predstavitvi koncepta inkluzivnosti je narejena primerjava programov izobraževanja 
(bodočih) učiteljev v Sloveniji in na Hrvaškem. V empiričnem delu, ki temelji na vzorcu visokošolskih
učiteljev z univerz  v Ljubljani, Mariboru, na Primorskem in na R eki, je predstavljena študija o kakovo-
stiaktualnihštudijskihprogramov ,glavnihvsebinahinnačinihizvajanjaštudijskegaprocesa.Skoraj
polovica visokošolskih učiteljev je prepričana, da sedanji študijski programi (bodočim) učiteljem ne omo-
gočajo pridobitev zadosti strokovnih znanj in veščin za delo z marginaliziranimi. V ečina anketirancev
ocenjuje, da so vsebine,  povezane s samim poučevanjem, najpomembnejše,  medtem ko so širši pedagoški 
vidiki (npr . prijetno vzdušje, različni načini discipliniranja) manj pogosto izbrani kot pomembne vsebine 
za (bodoče) učitelje. Prepričanje večine visokošolskih učiteljev je, da je najučinkovitejši način izobraževa-
nja za delo (bodočih) učiteljev v heterogenih skupinah, da študente sezn anijo z ustreznimi teoretičnimi
kon ce pti , p a tu di  d a študentom omogočijo izkušnje  neposrednega pedagoškega  dela z  marginaliziranimi 
in da v predavanj a vključijo številn e aktualne primere, ki osvetlijo položaj marginaliziranih v družbi
na sploh ali v šolskem kontekstu. 
 
Ključne besede : izobraževanje učiteljev , inkluzivnost, vsebina študijskega programa, izvajanje štu-
dijskega programa
E-naslov: irena.lesar@guest.arnes.si