Inclusion of struggling students was globally poorly accomplished
When the pandemic forced schools to close their doors, teachers across Portugal adapted with unexpected resilience — yet a study from the University of Porto reveals that this adaptation carried an unequal burden. Surveying 1,306 educators across two moments of the crisis, researchers found that while teachers reported genuine professional growth and stronger family connections, the students most in need of support — those with learning difficulties, low incomes, and other vulnerabilities — were left inadequately served by remote instruction. The pandemic did not invent these inequities; it illuminated them with uncomfortable clarity.
- Teachers reported a paradox: distance learning felt globally positive for their own professional development while simultaneously failing the students who needed the most support.
- Students with learning difficulties, low-income backgrounds, and other vulnerabilities experienced a measurable collapse in educational inclusion during pandemic remote learning.
- Educators absorbed a hidden cost — the shift online dramatically increased lesson preparation time, penalizing teachers even as they adapted and grew.
- The University of Porto research team, led by Sofia Pais and Pedro Ferreira, is treating these findings as a first step, with deeper comparative analysis and educator interviews planned to map the full scope of the disparities.
- The study's central tension — teachers thriving while vulnerable students fell further behind — points to a structural failure that predates the pandemic and demands systemic response.
In the spring of 2021, researchers at the University of Porto's Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences published findings from "Education in Times of Exception," a study that surveyed 1,306 teachers across two pandemic periods — May 2020 and March 2021 — to understand what happened to teaching when it moved entirely online. Respondents were predominantly women, averaging 50 years old with roughly 25 years of experience, and the research examined everything from technological competence to workload and the conditions required for effective remote instruction.
What emerged was a paradox. Teachers described their overall experience with distance learning as "globally and positively surprising" — they had built stronger ties with parents, deepened collegial connections, and grown in digital literacy. The crisis had forced adaptation, and many found it enriching. Yet when researchers asked specifically about inclusion, the picture darkened considerably. Teachers perceived that students with learning difficulties, low incomes, and other vulnerabilities had been "globally poorly" served under the remote model — a gap that reflected real failures in access and support, not merely perception.
Alongside this inclusion failure, teachers reported another burden: remote instruction had significantly increased the time required to prepare lessons and activities. Researcher Pedro Ferreira noted that while educators identified many positives, they felt penalized by the expanded demands of teaching effectively through digital means.
The team framed their findings as preliminary, describing them as "only the beginning" of a broader investigation. They plan to compare data across the two survey periods, examine outcomes for different groups of educators, and conduct interviews to capture what numbers alone cannot convey. What the study ultimately documented was an adaptation that came at an unevenly distributed cost — teachers had risen to an extraordinary challenge and grown through it, while the students already most at risk had fallen further behind.
In the spring of 2021, researchers at the University of Porto's Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences released findings from a study that had been tracking how teachers adapted to remote instruction during the pandemic closures. The work, titled "Education in Times of Exception," surveyed 1,306 teachers across two periods—May 2020 and March 2021—to understand the practical and emotional terrain teachers had navigated when schools shut their doors.
The research team, led by investigators from the Center for Educational Research and Intervention, built their inquiry around a simple question: what happened to teaching when it moved entirely online? The survey respondents were predominantly women, averaging 50 years old with roughly 25 years of classroom experience behind them. The researchers examined multiple dimensions of the transition—personal and professional characteristics, technological competence, effects on workload, and the preconditions teachers needed to teach remotely.
What emerged from the data was a paradox. When asked about their overall experience with distance learning, teachers reported something "globally and positively surprising." They highlighted genuine gains: stronger communication with parents, better connections with colleagues, and a sense of growth in their own digital literacy. The pandemic had forced them to learn new tools, and many found the experience enriching. Yet beneath this generally positive assessment lay a troubling shadow.
When researchers Sofia Pais and her colleagues asked teachers specifically about inclusion—whether students with learning difficulties, low incomes, and other vulnerabilities were being adequately served—the answer was unambiguous. Teachers perceived that inclusion "was not properly achieved" during remote learning. The report stated plainly that in the view of many participating teachers, the inclusion of students facing particular challenges or vulnerabilities "was globally poorly accomplished" under the distance-learning model. This was not a matter of perception alone; it reflected real gaps in access, support, and the ability of struggling students to keep pace.
Another burden emerged alongside this inclusion gap. Teachers reported that remote instruction had increased the time they spent preparing lessons and activities. Researcher Pedro Ferreira noted that while teachers identified many positive dimensions of their work, they felt penalized by the expanded preparation demands required to teach effectively through digital means. The transition had not simply moved teaching online; it had intensified the labor involved.
The researchers framed their work as preliminary. Ferreira emphasized that this was "only the beginning" and the "first step toward a series of further investigations." The team plans to dig deeper into the statistical differences between the two survey periods, to examine what happened specifically to different groups of teachers, and to understand how the various dimensions they measured relate to one another. They intend to conduct interviews with educators holding different roles and responsibilities, seeking to capture the texture of experience that survey data alone cannot convey.
What the study captured, in essence, was a moment of adaptation that came at a cost unevenly distributed. Teachers had risen to an extraordinary challenge and, by their own account, had grown in the process. But the students most in need of support—those already struggling academically, those from low-income families, those navigating vulnerabilities—had fallen further behind. The pandemic had not created these inequities; it had simply made them more visible, and more urgent to address.
Notable Quotes
The inclusion of students with particular difficulties or vulnerabilities was globally poorly accomplished in the implementation of the distance-learning model— Study report, University of Porto
Teachers identified positive dimensions of remote teaching, but felt penalized by expanded preparation demands required to teach effectively through digital means— Pedro Ferreira, researcher
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that teachers felt the inclusion was poorly achieved? Couldn't they have just been pessimistic?
Because these weren't abstract opinions. Teachers were in the classroom—or trying to be, through a screen. They saw which students stopped showing up to online classes, which ones couldn't access the materials, which ones fell silent. Their perception was grounded in daily experience.
So the study is saying remote learning itself was the problem?
Not exactly. Teachers actually found remote teaching rewarding in many ways—they learned new skills, communicated better with parents. But the tools that worked for most students created barriers for others. A student with a learning disability needs different support than a video lecture can provide. A student without reliable internet or a quiet place to work is already behind before class starts.
Did the researchers offer solutions?
Not in this phase. They're treating it as the beginning of a longer investigation. They want to understand the variations between 2020 and 2021, to see if things improved or worsened. They're planning interviews with teachers in different roles—special education teachers, administrators, others—to get a fuller picture.
What strikes you most about the findings?
The honesty of it. Teachers could have said remote learning was a success across the board. Instead, they acknowledged the gap between their own adaptation and the reality for vulnerable students. That's the kind of truthfulness that makes change possible.
Will this study change how schools approach distance learning in the future?
That depends on whether anyone acts on it. The data is clear: inclusion requires more than moving a classroom online. It requires intentional design, additional resources, and attention to students who don't fit the standard model. Whether schools will invest in that is a different question.