Practices and Prospects of Inclusive Education for Lifelong Learning in Ethiopian Higher Education: A Comparative Case Study of Arsi and Madewalabu Universities

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

The confluence of Inclusive Education (IE) and Lifelong Learning (LLL) represents a paradigm shift in global educational philosophy, moving from selective, time-bound instruction to a holistic, continuous, and equitable learning ecosystem [39]. IE, rooted in the Salamanca Statement (1994) and the [37], advocates for the accommodation of all learners’ diverse needs within mainstream settings. When integrated with LLL—a process of continuous learning throughout life for personal, civic, social, and employment-related purposes [12] IE becomes the foundational principle for ensuring equitable learning opportunities across the lifespan.

Globally, frameworks like SDG 4 mandate inclusive, equitable, quality education and promote LLL opportunities for all. In higher education (HE), this translates to creating institutions that are physically, pedagogically, and attitudinally accessible, serving traditional students, adult learners, professionals, and marginalized groups [24]. However, a persistent policy-practice gap exists, particularly in low-resource contexts [4]. In Africa, challenges include colonial legacies of exclusion, resource constraints, and attitudinal barriers, though promising practices are emerging [25].

Ethiopia’s commitment is evident in national policies like the ESDPs and the 2019 Higher Education Proclamation. Despite this, its HEIs face profound challenges: rapid massification, limited resources, rigid curricula, and deeply ingrained pedagogical traditions [31]. The inclusion of students with disabilities, those from pastoralist communities, ethnic minorities, and adult learners remains precarious. While studies have examined LLL [5] or IE [20] in isolation, there is a critical paucity of research investigating how Ethiopian HEIs operationalize IE as a mechanism for enabling LLL. This study seeks to fill this gap by interrogating the practices, challenges, and prospects at two emerging universities.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Ethiopian higher education expansion has not been met with proportional advances in inclusivity and lifelong learning capacity. Despite progressive policies, universities like Arsi and Madewalabu struggle to translate inclusion mandates into daily practice, thereby failing to fully actualize their role as hubs for LLL. The problem is manifested in: 1) Physical and pedagogical barriers that exclude learners with disabilities; 2) Inflexible academic programs that do not cater to working professionals or non-traditional entrants; 3) Limited staff preparedness to handle diverse classrooms; and 4) a siloed approach where disability units operate in isolation from broader LLL and curriculum development initiatives. This disconnect undermines social equity, human capital development, and the national ambition to harness education for sustainable development. A comparative investigation is needed to uncover context-specific impediments and identify transferable promising practices.

1.3. Research Questions

1. How are policies and practices of Inclusive Education implemented at Arsi and Madewalabu Universities, and what are the perceived barriers and enablers?
2. What are the perceptions of academic staff and students regarding the readiness of institutional infrastructure, pedagogy, and assessment to support inclusive lifelong learning?
3. How do the universities conceptualize and facilitate the linkage between inclusive education and lifelong learning opportunities for diverse learner groups?
4. What comparative differences and similarities exist between the two universities in their approach to IE for LLL, and what factors account for these variations?

1.4. Objectives of the Study

1. To analyze the implementation status of IE policies and support systems at Arsi and Madewalabu Universities.
2. To assess the perceptions of key stakeholders on institutional readiness for inclusive pedagogy and accessible learning environments.
3. To explore the existing and potential linkages between IE frameworks and LLL initiatives within the universities.
4. To compare and contrast the strategies, challenges, and prospects of both universities in promoting IE for LLL.

1.5. Significance of the Study

This study holds significance for multiple stakeholders. For policymakers (MoE, HERQA), it provides evidence for refining national IE and LLL frameworks. For university leaders, it offers a diagnostic tool for institutional self-assessment and strategic planning. For academic staff, it highlights professional development needs in inclusive pedagogy. For students, particularly those from marginalized groups, it amplifies their voices and experiences. For the academic community, it contributes a comparative, context-rich case study to the global literature on inclusive higher education in the Global South.

1.6. Definition of Important Terms

• Inclusive Education (IE): A process of addressing and responding to the diversity of needs of all learners through increasing participation in learning and reducing exclusion within and from education. In IE, it involves structural, curricular, and pedagogical transformation [38].
• Lifelong Learning (LLL): All learning activities undertaken throughout life, to improve knowledge, skills, competencies, and/or qualifications for personal, social, civic, or employment-related reasons [12].
• Universal Design for Learning (UDL): A framework to improve and optimize teaching and learning for all people based on scientific insights, offering multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression [9].
• Reasonable Accommodation: Necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate burden, to ensure persons with disabilities can enjoy and exercise rights on an equal basis with others [42].

1.7. Limitations of the Study

The study is limited to two universities, limiting generalizability to all Ethiopian HEIs. Social desirability bias may affect interview and survey responses. The cross-sectional design provides a snapshot (2018-2025) rather than a longitudinal trajectory. The focus is primarily on inclusion related to disability and learner diversity, with less emphasis on gender and socio-economic inclusion, though these intersect.

1.8. Delimitation of the Study

The study is delimited to Arsi and Madewalabu Universities as comparative public institutions. It focuses on institutional practices, stakeholder perceptions, and policy-practice gaps. It prioritizes the intersection of IE and LLL, not treating them as separate domains. Data collection is confined to academic staff, students, and institutional leaders directly involved in or affected by IE and LLL initiatives.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature on IE in HE has evolved from a focus on legal compliance and disability services to a broader concept of diversity [24]. Globally, frameworks like UDL have gained traction as proactive approaches to inclusion [9]. Concurrently, LLL discourse has shifted from economic upskilling to a rights-based, holistic view of learning across the lifespan [42]. The synergy between IE and LLL is clear: an inclusive system is a prerequisite for true lifelong learning [40] Institute for Lifelong Learning, 2022).

In Africa, challenges include resource constraints and attitudinal barriers [27]. Promising practices are emerging, such as flexible learning pathways in South Africa [28]. Research in Ethiopia has identified barriers like inaccessible infrastructure, lack of assistive technologies, and negative attitudes [2]; [33]. Studies on LLL highlight policy-practice disconnects and rigid curriculum structures (Assefa et al., 2024). However, a critical gap persists: no study has systematically investigated how Ethiopian HEIs leverage IE principles to build a culture and infrastructure for LLL. This study addresses this gap by employing a comparative case study to uncover the nuanced realities of two institutions.

3. METHODS AND MATERIALS

3.1. Research Design

A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design within a comparative case study framework was employed [10]. The comparative case study approach [6] allowed for an in-depth, contextualized analysis of practices across Arsi and Madewalabu Universities.

3.2. Population and Sampling Techniques

The study targeted three groups: academic staff, final-year undergraduates, and administrative leaders.

Quantitatively, 380 participants (190 per university) were selected via stratified random sampling. Strata were based on college/faculty and role (staff/student), with purposeful oversampling of students with disabilities.

Qualitatively, 24 participants were purposively chosen to provide depth: 4 university leaders, 4 Disability Resource Unit officers, 8 academic staff, and 8 students with a range of disabilities. This mixed approach ensured both broad representation and detailed, insightful perspectives.

3.3. Data Collection Tools

A 5-point Likert scale questionnaire (α=0.87) assessed key areas and perceptions. Semi-structured interview guides were tailored for leaders, staff, and students. A checklist systematically analyzed policy documents, strategic plans, and disability unit reports from 2018–2025.

3.4. Validity and Reliability

Content validity was ensured by expert review. For qualitative trustworthiness, triangulation, member checking, and thick description were used. Inter-coder reliability for thematic analysis was established (Cohen’s Kappa > 0.80).

3.5. Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS v.26 (descriptive statistics, t-tests, ANOVA). Qualitative data were transcribed and analyzed thematically using NVivo 12, following Braun and Clarke’s (2021) approach. Integration occurred during interpretation, where quantitative trends were explained by qualitative narratives.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Table 1 shows the survey respondents’ demographic profile (N=380), evenly split between two Ethiopian universities. Each university’s sample comprised 95 academic staff and 95 students. Within the student groups, 15.8% and 18.9% reported having disabilities, respectively. Male respondents represented 68% and 65% of each university’s sample.

4.2. Implementation of IE Policies and Support Systems

While 70% of surveyed staff were aware of an institutional Inclusive Education (IE) policy, only 35% felt “very familiar” with its specific contents, indicating a gap between awareness and practical understanding.

A significant divergence was observed in staff perceptions of the Disability Resource Unit (DRU), the primary support system. As shown in Table 2, mean effectiveness scores (on a 1-5 scale) were consistently and significantly higher at Madewalabu University compared to Arsi University across all measured service aspects.

Qualitative findings explained this disparity. A leader at Madewalabu noted: “Our DRU reports directly to the VP and has a dedicated budget line… Arsi’s unit is buried under the Dean of Students.” An Arsi student with visual impairment shared: “I registered with the unit, but they said they have no braille paper. I rely on friends.” This aligns with global findings that institutional commitment, reflected in structure and funding, is critical (Moriña, 2017).

4.3. Institutional Readiness: Infrastructure, Pedagogy, and Assessment

Respondents gave low ratings to physical infrastructure at both institutions (Mean=2.4/5). However, digital accessibility was a more critical concern: over 80% reported that online platforms and e-resources were incompatible with screen readers. This digital divide significantly worsens exclusion, a widespread challenge across Sub-Saharan Africa [7].

Regarding pedagogy, Table 3 shows a gap between staff values and practice. While supportive of inclusion, implementation was inconsistent.

Interview data highlighted a training deficit. A lecturer from Arsi confessed: “My job is to deliver the content. I don’t know how to teach a deaf student in a class of 100.” This reflects a global need for systemic professional development [41].

4.4. Linkages between IE and LLL

This area revealed the largest gap. Only 15% of all respondents could describe any university program explicitly linking inclusion and LLL. Document analysis showed strategic plans treated “inclusion” and “community lifelong learning” as separate pillars. However, promising fragments existed. Madewalabu’s DRU had partnered with the Continuing Education Directorate on a sign language course, a nascent example of inclusive LLL outreach. This aligns with the [39] vision of HEIs as inclusive LLL hubs.

Institutional lineage and leadership partly explain these differences. This comparison underscores that context shapes strategy [6]. While both universities have foundational policies, Arsi’s strength lies in informal advocacy, whereas Madewalabu demonstrates more formalized structures and training. Each faces the distinct challenge of scaling its unique advantages into systemic, institutional transformation for genuine inclusive LLL.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Conclusion

This comparative study concludes that both Arsi and Madewalabu Universities have embarked on the journey towards inclusive education, but remain in the early stages of realizing their full potential as a foundation for lifelong learning. While policy frameworks exist, implementation is hampered by: 1) Systemic Barriers: Inadequate funding, siloed structures, and lack of enforceable accountability; 2) Capacity Gaps: Insufficient training for staff in UDL; 3) Infrastructural Deficits: Critical shortcomings in physical and digital accessibility; 4) Conceptual Disconnect: A pronounced gap between IE initiatives and LLL strategies. Neither institution has successfully mainstreamed inclusion as a core, transformative principle guiding all activities.

5.2. Recommendations

For National Policymakers (MoE): The Ministry should develop Binding National Guidelines for Inclusive Higher Education, integrating Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and clear Lifelong Learning (LLL) pathways. To incentivize action, a portion of university block grants should be linked to performance on inclusion metrics and the creation of inclusive LLL outreach strategies.

For University Leadership: Inclusion requires structural commitment. Disability/Inclusion Units must report directly to the President/Vice-Chancellor, supported by ring-fenced budgets. Mandatory, ongoing UDL training for all academic staff should be a promotion prerequisite. Furthermore, institutions must launch at least one interdisciplinary micro-credential pilot, designed with UDL to serve non-traditional learners flexibly.

For Academic Staff: Proactive engagement is crucial. Staff should participate fully in UDL training and form communities of practice to share inclusive resources. They must also advocate within curriculum reviews to embed flexible engagement and assessment methods.

For Future Research: A robust evidence base is needed. Longitudinal studies must track students with disabilities through graduation and into careers. Additionally, action research projects, co-designed with students with disabilities, should develop context-sensitive assistive technologies and pedagogical models.

REFERENCES

1.Abate, S., & Mulugeta, M. (2021). Barriers to academic success of students with disabilities in Ethiopian public universities. African Journal of Disability, 10, 767. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v10i0.767

2.Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education. Nordic Journal of Studies in

Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1730092

3. Alemu, Y., & Tekleselassie, A. A. (2020). Inclusive education in Ethiopia: A dream or reality? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(7), 735–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1482015

4.Armstrong, D., Armstrong, A. C., & Spandagou, I. (2019). Inclusive education: Global issues and Controversies. Brill.

5. Assefa, Y., Moges, B. T., & Tilwani, S. A. (2024). Lifelong learning measurement scale (LLMS): development and validation. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 16(3), 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-08-2022-0256

6. Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Rethinking case study research: A comparative approach. Routledge.

7. Borrow, J., & Hüfner, K. (2021). The digital divide in higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of International Education, 25(2), 145–167.

8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.

9. CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org

10. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.

11. Devecchi, C., Dettori, F., Doveston, M., Sedgwick, P., & Jament, J. (2012). Inclusion: Creating effective and sustainable learning environments. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.

12. European Commission. (2021). European skills agenda for sustainable competitiveness, social fairness and resilience. https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1223

13. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia [FDRE]. (2019). *Higher Education Proclamation No.1152/2019*. Federal Negarit Gazeta.

14. Getahun, M. (2019). Assessment of the accessibility of physical environment for students with physical disabilities at Addis Ababa University [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Addis Ababa University.

15. Griful-Freixenet, J., Struyven, K., Verstichele, M., & Andries, C. (2020). Exploring the interrelationship between UDL and Differentiated Instruction. Educational Research Review, 29,100306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100306

16. Habtamu, M. (2019). Attitudes of teachers and students towards inclusion. Ethiopian Journal of Education and Sciences, 14(2), 1–20.

17. Lyner-Cleophas, M. (2019). Disability inclusion in higher education: The University of the Western Cape experience. African Journal of Disability, 8, a504. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v8i0.504

18. Materu, A. (2020). Decolonising inclusive education in African contexts. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(7), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1514742

19. Mekonnen, H. (2020). Inclusive pedagogy in higher education: Ethiopian instructors’ knowledge, attitude, and practice. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 4(2), 100–115.

20. Merga, H., & Abdi, M. (2021). Challenges and opportunities of implementing inclusive education in Ethiopian higher learning institutions. Journal of Ethiopian Education, 34(1), 45–67.

21. Ministry of Education [MoE]. (2012). Special Needs / Inclusive Education Strategy. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

22. Ministry of Education [MoE]. (2015). Education Sector Development Programme V (ESDP V). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

23. Ministry of Education [MoE]. (2021). Education Sector Development Programme VI (ESDP VI). Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

24. Moriña, A. (2017). Inclusive education in higher education: challenges and opportunities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1254964

25. Mpofu, J., & Shumba, A. (2021). Inclusive education for students with disabilities in African universities. In J. M. Luetz, D. Dowden, & B. Norsworthy (Eds.), Reimagining Christian Education (pp. 423–438). Springer.

26. Mugambi, M. M. (2018). Challenges facing implementation of inclusive education in public universities in Kenya. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development, 7(3), 357–369.

27. Mugumbate, J., & Nyoni, C. (2013). Disability in Africa: A cultural/religious perspective. Journal of Disability Studies, 4(1), 22–35.

28. Ntombela, S., & Maseko, P. (2021). Inclusive education in South African higher education. South African Journal of Higher Education, 35(4), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.20853/35-4-4095

29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2019). OECD skills outlook 2019: Thriving in a digital world. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/df80bc12-en

30. Opoku, M. P., Agyei-Okyere, E., Offei, Y. N., & Torgbenu, E. L. (2021). Inclusive education in Ghana:The experiences of students with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(3), 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1642396

31. Semela, T., Adugna, B., & Tassew, A. (2020). Massification and quality in Ethiopian higher

102245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102245

32. Shakespeare, T. (2018). Disability: The basics. Routledge.

33. Tefera, B., Van Horn, M. L., & Percy, S. L. (2018). Attitudes toward students with disabilities in Ethiopian universities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 65(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2017.1403576

34. Teklu, B. (2018). Functionality of disability support units in selected Ethiopian public

universities [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of South Africa.

35. Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.

36. United Nations [UN]. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

(CRPD). https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-      with-disabilities.html

37. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education.

38. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2017). A guide for

ensuring inclusion and equity in education.

39. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO]. (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all.

40. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Institute for Lifelong Learning [UIL]. (2022). Making lifelong learning a reality: A handbook.

41. Waitoller, F. R., & King Thorius, K. A. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and universal design for learning. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3),

366–389. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.366

42. Yang, J., Schneller, C., & Roche, S. (2015). The role of higher education in promoting lifelong learning. UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.