INCLUSIVE PEDAGOGY
Weakening of the sense of belonging: When courses lack varied entry points – differentiated materials, opportunities for feedback and spaces for exchange – students who are furthest from academic norms struggle to find their place. The learning experience becomes solitary and potentially impersonal. Withdrawal does not always translate into dropping out: it often manifests itself in passive attendance, reduced engagement, or strategic selection of tasks to be completed. These effects describe the friction between homogeneous teaching structures and heterogeneous student profiles. Inclusion aims precisely to reduce this friction by acting on design, clarity and regulation. The blind spots of inclusion Inclusion policies are not progressing at the same pace in all areas. Three mechanisms help to explain these differences. The first is measurability bias; this relates to aspects of inclusion that lend themselves easily to quantification, meaning that progress is faster than in those areas directly related to teaching practices, which are less easily quantifiable. Institutions measure what can be measured: building compliance, the number of disability training courses, or the existence of a dedicated service. On the other hand, qualitative aspects, such as the clarity of assessment criteria, the diversity of learning methods and the quality of feedback given to students are more difficult to monitor and evaluate. This asymmetry often leads to a strengthening of administrative measures rather than transforming the ways in which teaching or learning support is provided. Furthermore, issues that have a clear legal framework or high public visibility, such as gender parity or physical accessibility, benefit from identified resources and structured policies. Conversely, other forms of educational inequality remain largely overlooked: these include social and territorial diversity, multilingualism, neurodiversity, digital precariousness and mental health. Yet these circumstances directly influence students’ ability to thrive academically. They affect large but often invisible groups, for whom support mechanisms are still poorly integrated into the design of teaching programmes. Beyond content, each lesson conveys norms about how to learn and express oneself: language register, form of argumentation, valuing spontaneity or verbal competition.
These implicit codes form a hidden curriculum that favours students who are already prepared for such expectations, regardless of their actual understanding of the concepts. The bias does not stem from a desire to exclude, but from the belief that this mode of interaction is universally accessible. If we are not careful, therefore, oral participation, academic writing and time management become implicit filters for success. Added to this logic is a disconnect between institutional messaging and profound pedagogical transformation. Universities and schools readily communicate their commitment to inclusion through labels, charters and events, while teaching, assessment and organisational practices evolve slowly. This gap fuels a form of ‘inclusive washing’ – ie where institutional rhetoric outpaces real change – that risks feeding students’ scepticism and mistrust. Reducing these blind spots requires action at the level of learning design: making expectations explicit, varying forms of participation, adjusting study pace and recognising real pedagogical efforts. It is at this level, where the learning relationship is designed and experienced, that the concrete value of inclusion is measured. From adjustment to transformation Inclusion progresses when institutions view it as a collective practice rather than a series of isolated measures imposed on an already complex organisation. Transformation, in this sense, consists of linking intentions of equity to the lived reality of students and teachers. Student mental health is fully part of this perspective. When requirements are clear, schedules allow for rest and people can speak without fear of judgement, the learning environment becomes safer and more equitable. Inclusive teaching that recognises the diversity of situations and enables lasting engagement increases well-being from this perspective. Transforming an institution, therefore, means that paying attention to people becomes a normal part of collective work, in the sense described by Nel Noddings in her book, Caring: A Relational Approach to Ethics and Moral Education . It means supporting teams in their efforts, valuing teaching practices that promote this approach and recognising that the success of an institution is measured not only by performance, but also by the opportunities it offers everyone to learn without losing themselves.
BIOGRAPHY
Stéphane Justeau holds a PhD in economics and has been teaching since 2000. He trained at the University of Lausanne and at the Open University, where he was awarded a postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice. Justeau is in charge of ESSCA’s Institute of Advanced Pedagogy where he trains faculty members of ESSCA School of Management, as well as lecturers from other universities and schools both in France and abroad. Previously dean of faculty, he is now associate dean for pedagogy
Ambition • ISSUE 2 • 2026 45
Made with FlippingBook - Share PDF online