Conference Agenda

Internationally, inclusion has become a fundamental principle of modern education systems (Ainscow, 2020). While policies and legislation are necessary to begin the process of inclusion, they do not necessarily provide sufficient guidance about how inclusive education can be achieved (Woodcock & Hardy, 2022). Our research and that of our colleagues has found that in order for inclusive education to be successful, it is dependent on school educators’ collective attitudes, commitment, and intention to teach learners with diverse abilities, and the availability of support for educators to include all learners (Leyser et al., 2011; Sharma et al., 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007). We believe that an individual teacher’s attitude, efficacy, and the availability of support to the teacher may not fully predict how likely it is that the school will implement inclusive practices. The school’s overall collective efficacy to include learners with diverse abilities may also be equally critical. Surprisingly, not much research has examined how the combination of factors i.e. individual educator’s intentions, individual teacher’s efficacy, and a school’s collective efficacy for inclusive education can have impact upon the school’s implementation of inclusive practices. While it may be difficult to measure the effectiveness and use of inclusive practices, teachers’ intentions to teach inclusively may be a basis to predict the inclusive practices (Sharma & Jacobs, 2016). Awareness of these factors that relate to the effectiveness and use of inclusive practices, including teachers’ intentions to include all students, can allow policy makers to understand where the resources and supports need to be applied to in order to make schools and classrooms more inclusive, and what types of resources and supports those should be. For example, if the majority of teachers in a school have lower sense of teaching efficacy to teach in inclusive classrooms, not much progress can be made unless all educators are adequately prepared to teach all learners through well designed professional learning programs. On the other hand, if a school lacks collective efficacy to include all learners, intervention will be needed by the leadership team to enhance a school’s overall commitment and confidence to include all learners (Wilson et al., 2020). Research of this nature can also move our theoretical and conceptual understanding of important aspects that relate directly to employment of effective inclusive practices.

This symposium consists of three presentations. The first presentation acknowledges the importance of parents’ involvement in their child’s education. It focuses on school leaders of highly inclusive schools and examines the ways in which they engage with parents towards making the school highly inclusive. The second presentation highlights the importance of the challenges that teachers face in being inclusive as well as support mechanisms that are in place for them. It also focuses on teachers’ intentions towards inclusive education and how these relate to the challenges and supports that teachers experience. The third presentation examines the relationships between teachers’ self-efficacy and collective efficacy with regard to inclusive practices and their attitudes towards inclusion. It argues the importance of the interrelations between them in working towards more inclusive schools.

The aim of this symposium is to bring together important elements of inclusive practices to support policymakers, school leaders, educators, and parents. We will share these findings from a global perspective.

Inclusive education remains a contested concept (Woodcock & Hardy, 2022), despite being driven by a strong social justice agenda. In this context, school leaders play a critical role in the support and direction of the school’s inclusive practices (Subban et al., 2022). Research reveals the significance of both teachers’ and school leaders’ perceptions to facilitate inclusive practices (Woodcock & Woolfson, 2019), however collaboration with parents is increasingly regarded as a vital component to supporting inclusion, and successful outcomes for students with disabilities (Wilson, 2016). This study examined approaches that leaders of highly inclusive schools utilised to engage parents into the daily functioning and operations of their school. As an exploratory qualitative study, it drew on collective data from 12 highly ranked inclusive schools from Italy, Switzerland, Australia, and Greece. The schools were acknowledged in each country as being highly inclusive within the school community. Schools varied across a number of characteristics including size (ranging from 100-750), socio-economic status and cultural context. Semi-structured focus group discussions and interviews were conducted each lasting approximately 60 minutes. Group discussions and interviews were conducted with school leaders specifically, with these then recorded, transcribed, and professionally translated. Subsequent to data cleaning, Miles, Huberman, and Saldana’s (2019) thematic analysis approach, involving multiple cycles of data coding, reflecting on connections and identifying themes within the data was applied to probe the data set. Three predominant findings emerged from the data. Firstly, the interviewed leaders explicitly acknowledged parents as integral stakeholders to be drawn into decision-making regarding inclusive practices for students with disabilities. Secondly, they noted that while schools maintained an open-door policy regarding parental involvement, they found that parental engagement may often be limited to advocacy with many parents, delegating weighty decisions to school staff and leaders. Thirdly, leaders recognised that concerted programs, which embedded parental input more intentionally, were likely to contribute more authentically to successful inclusion. The study reiterated the need for collaboration between schools and parents to drive inclusive practices, inviting all stakeholders to occupy active roles to support the success of students with additional learning needs.

Subban, P., Woodcock, S., Sharma, U., & May, F. (2022). How can school leaders create an inclusive culture and commitment? Monash Education Teach Space, Accessed from: https://www.monash.edu/education/teachspace/articles/how-can-school-leaders-create-an-inclusive-culture-and-commitment. Wilson, J. (2016). Reimagining Disability and Inclusive Education Through Universal Design for Learning. Disability Studies Quarterly (DSQ), 37. Woodcock, S., & Hardy, I. (2022). 'You're probably going to catch me out here': principals' understandings of inclusion policy in complex times. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26(3), 211-226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1645891 Woodcock, S., & Woolfson, L. M. (2019). Are leaders leading the way with inclusion? Teachers’ perceptions of systemic support and barriers towards inclusion. International journal of educational research, 93, 232-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.004

Inclusion has become a fundamental principle of modern education systems around the world. Inclusive education is built on a premise of the right to an education for every student, where systems and schools are responsible for educating all young people within their communities (Nilholm, 2021). While inclusive education has been around for several decades, there are still challenges occurring with the way in which it should be employed. For inclusive education to be effective the need for a collective engagement is critical (Subban et al., 2023). Policy makers, school leaders, educators, and parents/carers, are some of the key stakeholders in engaging with effective inclusive practices for all students. Teachers’ beliefs in inclusive education, their capability to teach inclusively, and their intention to teach inclusively are some important aspects of their engagement in employing inclusive practices within their classrooms (Sharma & Jacobs, 2016; Woodcock et al., 2022). However, without support, teachers may face challenges that they are not able to overcome in order to engage effectively with inclusion (Woodcock & Woolfson, 2019). This study examined the relationship between teachers’ intentions to teach inclusively and the support and challenges that they experience. In-service teachers (n=869) across Switzerland, Canada, and Italy were surveyed. In each country teachers with the highest and lowest intentions to teach inclusively were identified through the ‘Intention to Teach in Inclusive Classroom’ scale (Sharma & Jacobs, 2016). Thematic analysis was employed to examine and probe teachers’ supports and challenges. Findings reveal that across all countries and levels of intention to teach in inclusive classrooms teachers identified professional development, and classroom practices as key supports. However, across all countries teachers who hold a lower level of intention to teach in inclusive classrooms had support experiences of education assistants (e.g., teacher aide), and collaboration as key supports, whereas teachers with a high intention to teach in inclusive classrooms had support experiences of teacher autonomy and social and emotional wellbeing. Across all countries teachers who hold a lower level of intention to teach in inclusive classrooms had challenging experiences lacking parent involvement and expectation, whereas teachers with a high intention to teach in inclusive classrooms faced challenging experiences towards other teachers’ resistance and attitudes towards teaching inclusively. Studies have shown the importance of teachers’ intention to teach inclusively. Teachers have different intentions to teach inclusively and face various challenges and support needs in order to effectively teach inclusively. Further investigation is needed.

Nilholm, C. (2021). Research about inclusive education in 2020–How can we improve our theories in order to change practice?, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36 (3), 358-369. Sharma, U., & Jacobs, K. (2016). Predicting in-service educators' intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms in India and Australia. Teaching & Teacher Education, 55, 13-23. Subban, P., Bradford, B., Sharma, U., Loreman, T., Avramidis, E., Kullmann, H., Sahli-Lozano, C., Romano, A., & Woodcock, S. (2023). Does it really take a village to raise a child? Reflections on the need for collective responsibility in inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 38(2), 291-302. Woodcock, S., Sharma, U., Subban, P., & Hitches, E. (2022). Teacher self-efficacy and inclusive education practices: Rethinking teachers’ engagement with inclusive practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, 103802. Woodcock, S., & Woolfson, L. M. (2019). Are leaders leading the way with inclusion? Teachers’ perceptions of systemic support and barriers towards inclusion. International journal of educational research, 93, 232-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.11.004

To address the diverse needs of students effectively, teachers’ individual competences as well as their collective performance are indispensable (Sharma et al., 2023). This also includes collective efficacy, which is defined as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment” (Bandura, 1997, p. 477). Individualized teaching adapted to cater to students’ diversity requires well-functioning teams of teachers. To reach this objective, shared goals are essential. According to Goddard et al. (2000), they can be regarded as normative expectations for individual teachers, influencing their beliefs about teaching and learning as well as their performance in the classroom. Accordingly, self-efficacy and collective efficacy are interconnected (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), and teachers’ collective efficacy is known for being linked to their attitudes towards inclusion and their intentions to teach (e.g., Leyser et al., 2011; Sharma et al., 2012). International comparisons are of particular interest for each country or school system, respectively, as they can help to identify alternative approaches and possibilities for inclusive school development (e.g., Sharma et al., 2023). Against this background, this paper examines the relationships between teachers’ self-efficacy and collective efficacy with regard to inclusive practices and their attitudes towards inclusion in a global context. A total of N=897 preschool, primary, and secondary school teachers from Canada, Germany and Switzerland were surveyed about their individual self-efficacy (TEIP; Sharma et al., 2012) and their collective self-efficacy (CTEIP; Sharma et al., 2023) with regard to inclusive practices as well as their attitudes towards inclusion (AIS; Sharma & Jacobs, 2016). The results indicate that Canadian teachers have higher levels of individual and collective efficacy than German and Swiss teachers. Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are significantly lower in Germany and Switzerland compared to Canada. However, the correlations between AIS, TEIP, and CTEIP are not significantly different within the three countries. The results indicate that while both, individual as well as collective efficacy are significantly related to attitudes, the correlation between TEIP and AIS is much stronger compared to CTEIP vs. AIS. Directional interrelations between the three aspects of teacher professionalism together with country-specific interpretations will be presented and discussed.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and effect on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479–507. Leyser, Y., Zeiger, T., & Romi, S. (2011). Changes in self-efficacy of prospective special and general education teachers: Implication for inclusive education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58, 241–255. Sharma, U., & Jacobs, D. K. (2016). Predicting in-service educators’ intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms in India and Australia. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 13–23. Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21. Sharma, U., Loreman, T., May, F., Romano, A., Sahli Lozano, C., Avramidis, E., Woodcock, S., Subban, P., & Kullmann, H. (2023). Measuring collective efficacy for inclusion in a global context. European Journal of Inclusive Education. doi:10.1080/08856257.2023.2195075 Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625.