Inclusive Education and Personalization: An Analysis of a Participatory Action Research Experience

Abstract

This article presents a Participatory Action Research (PAR) experience carried out by a group of 17 individuals—16 teachers from eight educational centers across various Spanish regions and one university researcher—aimed at improving teaching personalization processes. The research is structured around two main objectives: (1) to systematize the research process undertaken and (2) to analyze PAR as a methodological tool, identifying learnings, challenges, and strengths that emerged throughout the process.

The need that sparked this initiative stemmed from a shared desire to “make learner-centered teaching a reality, from a holistic view of the person.” Although personalization is recognized in Spain’s current education law (LOMLOE, 2020), its effective implementation requires practical tools, reflective teaching practices, and supportive organizational conditions. Thus, the group identified the development of a self-assessment guide as a key need to support teachers in reflecting on and improving their practices from an inclusive perspective.

The PAR process was structured into three phases: research, education, and action. In the research phase, participatory techniques such as the matrix of present and future scenarios and brainstorming were used to identify needs, concerns, and aspirations regarding personalization. During the education phase, the group deepened their understanding of key theoretical frameworks such as self-determination, quality of life, Universal Design for Learning, and person-centered planning. In the action phase, the group collaboratively developed the guide Gafas para reflexionar y mejorar la personalización de la enseñanza (“Glasses to Reflect and Improve Teaching Personalization”), structured into two dimensions: an individual one focused on teaching practice, and an institutional one addressing school-wide conditions.

The analysis of the process revealed significant insights. One key learning was the importance of distinguishing between personalization and inclusive education. While personalization is a powerful tool to address diversity, inclusive education requires broader systemic transformation. The process also highlighted the cultural impact of personalization, fostering greater involvement of students, families, and teachers, and emphasizing the teacher’s role as a facilitator of learning. Additionally, the need to rethink school organization to sustain change was underscored.

Challenges identified included transforming teaching methodologies, clarifying professional development models, reorganizing time and space, and securing institutional support. PAR was valued as a powerful methodology for generating situated knowledge, empowering educational communities, and promoting meaningful change from within.

In conclusion, this experience demonstrates that it is possible to move toward more inclusive education through participatory processes that empower professionals and bridge theory and practice. The research not only produced a practical tool for schools but also fostered an inter-school support network committed to educational improvement. This work invites us to rethink not only what we research, but how and why we do it—placing educational communities at the heart of transformation.