04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Course Aspects of an Inclusive Education Course That Support Positive Changes in Teacher Attitudes and Self-efficacy for Implementing Inclusive Education
Triin Ulla, Katrin Poom-Valickis
Tallinn University, Estonia
Presenting Author: Ulla, Triin;
Poom-Valickis, Katrin
Teacher education has an essential role in shaping incoming teachers' positive attitudes towards inclusive education and the skills and knowledge to support the learning of different learners. Research has shown that teacher attitudes and self-efficacy are important determinants of success in inclusive classrooms because they influence teacher behavior, which in turn affects classroom climate and students´ chances of success (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Jordan et al., 2009; Silverman, 2007). Teachers' positive attitudes also predict success of inclusive education reforms (Forlin, 2010). Thus teachers' interpretations and understanding of their roles play a critical role in implementing inclusive practices. Research has indicated that examining teacher attitudes are crucial for developing more effective teacher training programmes (Engelbrecht & Savolainen, 2018); research is adamantly looking into ways that teacher training can assist in preparing teachers for a highly diverse yet inclusive educational reality (e.g. Peebles & Mendaglio, 2014; Sharma & Nuttal, 2016).
The preservice teacher education course "Implementation of Inclusive Education" was redesigned in Tallinn University with more emphasis on teacher professionalism and reflection, as well as one’s ability to carry out small-scale action research, collaborate and make research-informed decisions. The main aim of the course is to support positive and self-efficient attitudes of future teachers for implementing inclusive education, as those attitudes encourage them to find strategies for providing quality educational opportunities for each learner in their classroom. After the course redesign, teacher students’ attitudes at the beginning and after the course were mapped, and positive changes in their willingness to include, as well as self-efficacy were reported (Poom-Valickis & Ulla, 2019; Poom-Valickis & Ulla, forthcoming). The aim of the current study is to understand which course aspects contributed most to the change in teacher students’ attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive practice.
The following research questions were posed:
-
Which course aspects are perceived by teacher students as most relevant for impacting their knowledge, skills, and attitudes in inclusive education at the end of the course “Implementation of inclusive education at school”;
-
Which course aspects most predict positive changes in students' attitudes towards inclusion and their self-efficacy for inclusive practice, at the end of the course “Implementation of inclusive education at school”.
The results of the study may help evaluate which course aspects could be the most relevant predictors of change in attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive education; and contribute to the evaluation and development of pre- and inservice teacher training programs related to inclusive education.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe current study collects data from the 2022/2023 cohort of Tallinn University teacher training (n=150). The following data collection instruments will be used to allow more in-depth inferences about the possible role of the “Implementation of inclusive education at school” course in preservice teachers' attitudes and self-efficacy. For data collection about preservice teachers attitudes about the inclusive settings, the Teachers Attitudes Towards Inclusive Education (Saloviita, 2015) will be used. The instrument Teacher Efficacy in Inclusive Practice (Sharma, Loreman & Forlin, 2012) will be used for efficacy. A scale of course aspects is created by the authors of the study based on previous rounds of data collection, namely teacher students’ qualitative accounts of the course aspects that increased their self-efficacy and openness towards inclusion. Additionally, background data about participants' teaching experience, additional training in inclusive education topics, and personal experience with people with special educational needs will be collected.
Data collection for the 2022/2023 cohort takes place in February and May 2023. Linear regression analysis will be used to assess which course aspects would predict the increase or decrease in self-efficacy and positive attitudes towards inclusion.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe current study takes a novel approach by listing relevant course aspects from previous qualitative data collection rounds, and assessing the relationship between relevant course aspects and attitudes towards and self-efficacy in inclusive education quantitatively. This may further inform teacher trainers of the efficient aspects of curricula or course designs that may best prepare teacher students for the inclusive education reality, as well as add to the discussion of quality teacher training design in inclusive education. Based on the data collected in 2022, small-scale action research with its collaborative and thorough evidence based approach to a specific student or situation, may contribute significantly to the positive change in teacher students’ attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive education.
ReferencesAvramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration / inclusion: a review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129-147.
Engelbrecht, P., & Savolainen, H. (2018). A mixed-methods approach to developing an understanding of teachers’ attitudes and their enactment of inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(5), 660-676.
Forlin, C. (2010). Re-framing teacher education for inclusion. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Teacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative approaches (pp. 3–10). Abingdon: Routledge.
Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 535–542.
Peebles, J.L., & Mandaglio, S. (2014). The impact of direct experience on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching in inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(12), 1321-1336.
Poom-Valickis, K., & Ulla, T. (2020). Õpetajakoolituse võimalused toetada tulevaste õpetajate valmisolekut kaasava hariduse rakendamiseks. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri, 8(1), 72-99.
Poom-Valickis, K., & Ulla, T. (forthcoming). Possibilities of using Action Research to Support positive attitudes towards the implementation of inclusive education in initial teacher education.
Saloviita, T. (2015). Measuring pre-service teachers' attitudes towards inclusive education: Psychometric properties of the TAIS scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 66-72.
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teaher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12-21.
Sharma, U., & Nuttal, A. (2016). The impact of training on pre-service teacher attitudes, concerns, and efficacy towards inlcusion. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(2), 142-155.
Silverman, J. (2007). Epistemological beliefs and attitudes toward inclusion in pre-service teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(1), 42–51.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Exploring Inclusive Practices in Initial Teacher Education Through the Lens of Practice Architectures
David Pérez-Castejón
University of Zaragoza, Spain
Presenting Author: Pérez-Castejón, David
The 2030 Agenda (UNESCO, 2015) calls for promoting learning opportunities for all through inclusive and equitable quality education. At European level, European Commissions (2018) stress the imperative of inclusive education and training at all levels. However, promoting access, participation and achievement for all learners (Both and Ainscow, 2002) is not an easy task. Policy and practices are failing in achieving inclusive education in the interest of social justice in schools (De Beco, 2018). Initial Teacher Education (ITE) plays an important role in this respect. European studies show that ITE does not always prepare preservice teachers for the education challenge (Acquah et al., 2020; Vigo-Arrazola et al., 2019). The literature shows similar results in the Spanish context (Sánchez-Serrano et al., 2021). Among the reasons, are the different conceptualisation of inclusive education (Artiles, 2020) or the dominant special education perspective (Rice, 2020). Research on inclusive education in ITE has focused on previous contact experiences with diversity (Sharma et al., 2008), linking theory and practice (Zeichner, 2010) or the importance of considering spaces for reflection and discussion and individual and collective research (Vigo-Arrazola et al., 2019). However, little research has focused on what arrangements exist in particular sites of practices that are enabling and constraining preservice teachers´ inclusive practices.
This paper takes as a reference the lenses of the Theory of Practice Architectures (Kemmis and Grootenboer, 2008) and its conceptualization of practice as a set of “sayings” (understanding), “doings” (actions), and “relatings” (ways in which people relate to). I argue to consider inclusive practice as a practice with its particular “sayings”, “doings” and “relating”. Practices are shaped by individual dispositions, experience or intentions, but are also shaped intersubjectively by arrangements that exist in sites of practice (Mahoon et al., 2016). The arrangements (also called practice architectures) exist simultaneously in a place of practice and enabled and constrained a particular practice (Mahoon et al., 2016). The arrangements are cultural-discursive, material-economic and social-political arrangements (Mahoon et al., 2016). Furthermore, practice can be situated in multiple sites of practices (Schatzki, 2002). In this paper, two sites of practices that shape preservice teachers´ practices in ITE are considered: university and school placements.
Using this theoretical framework, the aim is to identify what arrangements (practice architectures) exist in sites of practice that shape preservice teachers´ practice, enabling and constraining inclusive practices.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWithin an interpretive research paradigm, a qualitative approach to the data collection is adopted. The research takes the form of an institutional ethnography (Smith, 2005) that is framed by Theory of Practice Architectures (Kemmis and Grootenboer, 2008). The participants are 10 preservice teachers attending university courses and school placements during the research. Fieldwork and data analysis are ongoing during the academic year 2022-2023. The empirical data consist of 2 semistructured interviews with each participant, group discussion, reflexive individual essays, document analysis and participant observation by the researcher. The research was conducted through the following phases: phase 1 includes individual reflective narrative in which participants had to describe in their own words what inclusive education is, what inclusive practice is and constraining and enabling conditions for its implementation, what are the principles which provide your framework to implement inclusive practices and how do you make decisions about inclusive practices in school; phase 2 includes regular meetings in which inclusive practices were discussed. During this process, the data were completed by 2 interviews with each participant and the researcher's reflective notes. The information collected has been transcribed and analysed following the phases established by Charmaz (2006) of Grounded Theory. The constant comparative method and a combination of inductive and deductive thinking have characterised the process. In this analysis, and drawing on the conceptual lens of practice architectures, I examine how practices are prefigured by arrangements conceptualised as practice architectures (Mahoon et al., 2016).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAlthough empirical findings are not generalizable to other contexts, there are features that can be transferable to the European context. The results confirm previous research. Findings show: (i) a ‘gap’ between preservice teachers´ sayings (theory) and doings (practice) regarding inclusive practices. (ii) The existence of different enabling and constraining arrangements existing beyond preservice teachers´ subjectivities in both sites of practices (university and school) and how they relate. Some enablers for inclusive practices are: discussion/sharing spaces, attitude and belief, teacher's research role, shared theoretical framework or work-sharing. Constraints for inclusive practices are: resources (personal and material), time, hegemonic thinking, teachers-pupil´ratio or specialized-knowledge. I conclude by drawing some implications for teaching inclusive practices in ITE. On the one hand, I urge that inclusive education requires attending to differences between sayings (discourse and understanding about inclusive practice) and doings (implementing practice). Paying more attention to the discourses employed and the need for a common interpretive framework on inclusive practices in ITE are key questions. On the other hand, the arrangements and the disconnection between both sites of practices, university and school, present a resistance (Sjølie, 2016). The lack of shared understanding between the university and the school practices in which preservice teachers are immersed must be addressed. As shown, theory of practice architectures helps to examine the ways in which possibilities are opened and closed (Mahoon et al., 2016). Findings present opportunities (enablers) and possibilities to find an equilibrium between theory (sayings) and practice (doings), and between site of practices and its arrangements: university and school. The research presented here has limitations such as the reduced sample or the particularities of particular contexts, but it can contribute to improving ITE in the European context in favour of inclusive education in the interest of social justice.
ReferencesAcquah, E., Szelei, N., and Katz, H. (2019). Using modelling to make culturally responsive pedagogy explicit in preservice teacher education in Finland. British Educational Research Journal. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3571
Artiles, A. (2020). Inclusive education in the 21st century: Disruptive interventions. The Educational Forum, 84, 289-295.
Barbour, R. (2013). Los grupos de discusión en investigación cualitativa. Ediciones Morata.
Booth, T. and Ainscow, M. (2002). Guía para la evaluación y mejora de la educación inclusiva. UNESCO.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
De Beco, G. (2018). The right to inclusive education: why is there so much opposition to its implementation?. International Journal of Law in Context, 143 (3), 396-415. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744552317000532
Kemmis, S. and Grootenboer, P. (2008). Situating praxis in practice: Practice architectures and the cultural, social and material conditions for practice. In S. Kemmis & T. Smith (Eds.), Enabling praxis: Challenges for education 37–62. Sense.
Mahon, K., Francisco, S., & Kemmis, S. (Eds.) (2016). Exploring education and professional practice: Through the lens of practice architectures. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2219-7
Rice, B. (2020). Opportunities for Inclusive Practice: The Stories Our Students Tell. In Inclusive Education Is a Right, Right? 132-144. Brill.
Sánchez-Serrano, J., Alba-Pastor, C., and del Río, A. (2021). Training for inclusive education in preservice programs for Primary Education teachers in Spanish universities. Revista de Educación, 393, 311-340.
Schatzki, T. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical account of the constitution of social life and change. University Park
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., and Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of Training on Pre-service Teachers’ Attitudes and Concerns about Inclusive Education and Sentiments about Persons with Disabilities. Disability and Society 23, (7), 773–785. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802469271
Smith, D. (2005). Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Lanham, MD: Altamira Press.
Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston
UNESCO (2015). Rethinking education: Towards a global common good?. UNESCO.
Vigo-Arrazola, B., Dieste, B., and García-Goncet, D. (2019). Teacher Education in and for Social Justice. An Ethnographical Research. Profesorado, revista de currículum y formación del profesorado 23, (4), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.30827/profesorado.v23i4.11415
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 6, (1–2), 89-99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109347671
04. Inclusive Education
Ignite Talk (20 slides in 5 minutes)
Teachers' Understanding and Practices with Twice-exceptionality
Zaure Yermakhanova
Nazarbayev Intellectual School, Kazakhstan
Presenting Author: Yermakhanova, Zaure
The Inclusive education recently introduced in Kazakhstani education system has a goal to be pioneered by 30 percent of mainstream schools by 2022. Due to this reason many teachers, practitioners and researchers are in the dilemma over how to teach students with additional needs such as twice-exceptional students. The purpose of this qualitative research is to investigate, from the perspectives of various subject teachers, the educational experience of twice-exceptional students with cerebral palsy who are currently studying in a school for gifted and talented.
This study was based on a case study method of qualitative research. The main participants of the study were twelve teachers with at least five years teaching in a school for gifted and talented who participated in a semi-structured interview, focus group discussion and were observed during their teaching to triangulate the research results. Reviewing relevant empirical research literature and conducting qualitative research, the teachers’ awareness, beliefs and experience with gifted additional needs students such as twice–exceptional students and methods how twice-exceptional students are identified in the classroom were analysed. Furthermore, the research explores the effects of labeling and non-labeling twice-exceptional students on the academic performance followed by examining the inclusive education techniques to accommodate twice-exceptional students. The results of the study revealed that twice exceptionality is a challenge in participating school. The case study research concluded that educational experience of twice exceptional children is based on crucial factors such as teachers using a differentiated teaching approach as an inclusive strategy to accommodate the unique needs of gifted students with cerebral palsy.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe purpose of this qualitative study is to investigate teachers' perspective of twice-exceptional children with the use of gifted program. According to Missett, Azano, Callahan, and Landrum (2016), the participating teacher's low expectations on twice-exceptional students likely drive the choice of deficit-based interventions more than strength-based ones which are indicated in the IEP rather than the gifted program. In that case, twice-exceptional students may demonstrate low performance because of their disabilities. Although twice-exceptional students are following the gifted curriculum, teachers' negative assumptions about twice-exceptional students may impede their academic progress and inhibit their potential.Developing the skills of twice-exceptional students is not considered appropriate when compiling the gifted program in schools for gifted and talented (Omdal, 2015). On that account, gifted children with cerebral palsy are unable to receive gifted instruction. Instead of being educated in inclusive classes, gifted students with cerebral palsy areplaced in special institutions for students with a similar diagnosis. The special educational need of twice-exceptionality was not put into consideration in curriculum and lesson
planning including an individual differentiated approach for students in the classroom (Omdal, 2015). Lack of knowledge among teachers and family members leads to non-identification of twice-exceptional students and unreasonably forcing the learners to bear a considerable learning burden. Twice-exceptional students are often underrepresented in schools for gifted and talented due to the tiny percentage of their enrollment in schools for gifted and talented.The aim of this qualitative research is to investigate the educational experience of teachers and their opinion on how their understanding impacts on the use of a gifted
program in the context of a case study of a twice-exceptional student. The research examines whether teachers’ opinions about the twice-exceptional students influence the
use of instructions or the way of presenting lesson objectives to a twice-exceptional student indicated in the gifted program. It also studies inclusive strategies that enhance the
performance of a twice-exceptional student – giftedness and cerebral palsy.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings, described in this chapter, uncover the influence of the usage of the gifted curriculum in teaching twice-exceptional students from two basic angles:
1. Teacher practice with twice-exceptional students
2. Teachers’ perceptions of teaching twice-exceptional students.
The findings were analyzed according to the four research questions developed for the study:
Research questions
Main RQ: What are teachers’ perceptions of giftedness and exceptionality intersection and experience of using the gifted curriculum with twice-exceptional students in school for the gifted and talented in southern Kazakhstan?
Sub RQ1: What is teachers’ experience on teaching twice-exceptional students and the paradox of twice-exceptionality in the participating school?
Sub RQ2: How does the labeling or the non-identification of twice-exceptional students influence their academic performance?
Sub RQ3: How does the teacher's opinion about the twice-exceptional students with cerebral palsy influence the choice of inclusive strategies in the classroom?
ReferencesReferences
American Psychiatric Association Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Psychiatric
Disorders. (2009). doi:10.1176/appi.books.9780890423905.154688
Assouline, S., Nicpon, M., & Huber, D. (2006). The impact of vulnerabilities and strengths
on the academic experiences of twice-exceptional students: A message to school
counselors. Professional School Counseling, 10(1), 14-24.
. Baum, S. (1990). Gifted but learning disabled: A puzzling paradox (ERIC Digest #E479).
Reston VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 321 484)
Baum, S., & Owen, S. (1988). Learning disabled students: How are they different? Gifted
Child Quarterly, 32, 321-326.
Beckley, D. (1999). Gifted and learning disabled: Twice exceptional students. Storrs, C.T:
University of Connecticut.
Bell, C. D., & Roach, P. B. (2001). A new problem for educators: Identification of the
non-achieving gifted student. Education, 107(2), 178-18.
Bulgren, J., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (1988). The effectiveness of a concept
teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level
mainstream classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(1), 3-17.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Coleman, M. R., Harradine, C, & King, E. W. (2005). Meeting the needs of students who
are twice-exceptional. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 5-6
Coleman, M. R. (2005). Academic strategies that work for gifted students with learning
disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 28-32.
Corker, M., & Davis, J. M. (2000). ‘Disabled children–(Still) invisible under the law. In J.
Cooper (ed) Law, Rights and Disability, London: Jessica Kingsley.
Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. (2002). The paradox of self‐stigma and mental illness.
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9(1), 35-53.
Eade, S. J., & Merrotsy, P. (2013). Knowing the person brings light to the gifts: A study of
a gifted child with cerebral palsy. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education,
22(1),5-7.
Goodley, D. and Lawthom, R. (eds) (2005). Disability and Psychology: Critical
Introductions and Reflections. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory
of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child development, 72(2),
625-638
Hernández-Torrano, D., & Tursunbayeva, X. (2016). Are teachers biased when nominating
students for gifted services? Evidence from Kazakhstan. High Ability Studies, 5, 1–
13.
|
