Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | ||
04 SES 15 D: Removing Barriers to Inclusive Education
Paper Session | ||
    | ||
04. Inclusive Education
Paper Identifying and Removing Barriers to Education for Children and Adolescents Treated for Cancer. What we can learn from parents' experiences 1: Maynooth University, Ireland; 2: Kennedy Krieger, USA Presenting Author:Inclusive education policy across Europe, and internationally, has increasingly emphasised participation, rights, and equity for learners experiencing disability, marginalisation, or vulnerability. However, children and adolescents treated for cancer remain largely invisible within inclusive education discourse and policy frameworks. Despite well-established evidence of long-term physical, cognitive, and psychosocial effects of cancer treatment, survivorship is rarely recognised as a legitimate basis for educational accommodation or support. This paper addresses this gap by examining parents’ experiences of their child's education during and post cancer treatment. The paper is guided by the overarching research question: How do parents perceive and experience barriers to their child’s access to, participation in, and progression through education during and after cancer treatment? Subsidiary questions explore academic engagement, social belonging, physical participation, communication across systems, and the impact of schooling on the wider family, including siblings. Theoretically, the paper is grounded in a social model of disability, situated within the broader field of inclusive education. Rather than locating difficulty within the child’s medical history or individual impairment, the analysis focuses on how education systems, policies, and practices create disabling conditions through inflexibility, categorisation, and poor inter-agency coordination. This is complemented by a rights-based framework, drawing on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and European commitments to inclusive education, which position access to education as a fundamental entitlement rather than a discretionary accommodation. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is used as a sensitising framework to interrogate how curricula, assessment, attendance norms, and support structures fail to anticipate fluctuating capacity, fatigue, cognitive processing differences, and trauma-related needs. From this perspective, childhood cancer survivorship exposes broader structural weaknesses within education systems that rely heavily on fixed categories of disability and deficit-oriented eligibility criteria. The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, it seeks to centre parents as key knowledge holders whose lived experiences reveal how inclusive education is enacted—or undermined—in practice. Second, it aims to contribute to theorising inclusion by extending social models of disability to encompass chronic illness and survivorship, areas that remain underdeveloped in inclusive education research. Third, it aims to inform international debates on inclusive education policy by highlighting the consequences of failing to recognise non-visible, non-static forms of disability. Although the empirical data are drawn from Ireland, the findings are explicitly situated within a European and international context, engaging with comparative research from across Europe, North America, and Australia. The paper argues that the barriers identified are not country-specific but are indicative of wider tensions between medicalised understandings of difference and inclusive, rights-based education systems. As such, the findings have relevance for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners concerned with disability, families, participation, and educational equity across Europe. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This paper draws on data from a qualitative-dominant mixed-methods study, with data collection completed . The study was designed to capture parents’ perspectives on schooling during and after their child's cancer treatment, recognising parents as primary advocates and mediators between health and education systems. Data sources included an online survey distributed nationally to parents and guardians of children treated for cancer and in-depth semi-structured focus groups. The survey collected descriptive quantitative data alongside open-ended responses relating to academic participation, social inclusion, physical access, communication with schools and hospitals, and access to supports. The focus groups constitute the primary qualitative dataset analysed in this paper. Discussions were structured around core research questions addressing academic, social–emotional, physical, and systemic dimensions of education. A constructivist grounded theory approach was employed to analyse the data, allowing themes to emerge inductively while remaining theoretically informed by social models of disability and inclusive education scholarship. Analysis involved iterative coding, constant comparison, and memo-writing to explore relationships between themes. Parents’ accounts highlighted how barriers were produced through institutional practices such as rigid attendance policies, categorical eligibility systems for support, lack of recognition of cognitive late effects, and an over-reliance on parental advocacy. Particular attention was paid to how these barriers shifted over time and across educational transitions. To strengthen the European and international relevance of the analysis, findings were examined in dialogue with international literature on childhood cancer survivorship and education, and with similar studies carried out in Maryland, USA. This comparative engagement allowed identification of shared structural issues across education systems, including inadequate communication between health and education sectors and limited recognition of survivorship within inclusive education policy. Ethical approval was obtained from Maynooth University, and care was taken to ensure informed consent, confidentiality, and sensitivity to trauma. The methodological approach aligns with inclusive research principles by prioritising voice, participation, and the experiential knowledge of families. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The findings demonstrate that children and adolescents treated for cancer encounter systemic and persistent barriers to inclusive education that extend well beyond treatment completion. Parents consistently described education systems that were ill-equipped to recognise fluctuating needs, invisible impairments, and the long-term effects of treatment. Rather than being supported through coherent inclusive frameworks, families were required to rely on personal advocacy, professional knowledge, and financial resources to secure participation for their children. A central conclusion is that the absence of survivorship within inclusive education policy effectively disables children, not through impairment, but through institutional inaction. The reliance on categorical models of disability excludes many childhood cancer survivors from timely and appropriate supports, undermining their rights to participation and equity. The findings also reveal how inclusive education failures affect families as a whole. Parents experienced significant emotional exhaustion, while siblings’ educational experiences were often disrupted. These dynamics highlight the importance of understanding inclusion not only at the level of the individual learner, but within family–school relationships. From a European and international perspective, the study reinforces international evidence that better coordination between education and health systems is essential. The paper argues that adopting social models of disability and UDL-informed approaches can support education systems to respond more equitably to chronic illness and survivorship, without requiring medicalised labelling. The paper concludes by calling for policy recognition of childhood cancer survivorship within inclusive education frameworks and for greater engagement with families as partners in inclusion. These findings contribute to inclusive education scholarship by extending debates on disability, rights, and participation to a population that remains largely marginalised within the field. References Beeler, D., Paré-Blagoev, E. J., Jacobson, L. A., & Ruble, K. (2021). Educating childhood cancer survivors: A qualitative analysis of parents mobilising social and cultural capital. Journal of Cancer Education, 36(4), 819–825. Collins, D. E., Ellis, S. J., Wakefield, C. E., & Fardell, J. E. (2019). Bullying in childhood cancer patients and survivors: A systematic review. Psycho-Oncology, 28(2), 222–236. Donnan, B. M., Webster, T., Wakefield, C. E., & Marshall, G. M. (2015). What about school? Educational challenges for children and adolescents with cancer. The Educational and Developmental Psychologist, 32(1), 23–40. Erdmann, F., Frederiksen, L. E., Bonaventure, A., et al. (2021). Childhood cancer: Survival, treatment modalities and late effects. Cancer Epidemiology, 71, 101733. Flood, M.; Carey, L. (2025) 'A Comparative Analysis of the Protection of the Rights of Childhood Cancer Survivors to Education Under Special Education Law'. Continuity in Education, 6. Inhestern, L., Peikert, M. L., Krauth, K. A., & Bergelt, C. (2020). Parents’ perceptions of reintegration after childhood cancer treatment. PLOS ONE, 15(10), e0239967. Martinez‐Santos, A. E., Fernandez‐De‐La‐Iglesia, J. C., & Coyne, I. (2021). Educational experiences of children with cancer returning to school: A systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(7), 2971–2994. McLoone, J. K., Wakefield, C. E., & Cohn, R. J. (2013). Childhood cancer survivors’ school re-entry: Parents’ perceptions. European Journal of Cancer Care, 22(4), 484–492. Paré‐Blagoev, E. J., Ruble, K., Bryant, C., & Jacobson, L. A. (2019). Schooling in survivorship: Understanding caregiver challenges. Psycho-Oncology, 28(4), 847–853. 04. Inclusive Education
Paper UDL Into Practice: How Training Influences Primary Teacher Perceptions Of Addressing Students' Diversity of Needs UOC, Spain Presenting Author:Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is increasingly recognised as a key framework for promoting equity and inclusion in education systems, particularly in contexts characterised by learner diversity (King-Sears et al., 2023). Conceived as a proactive approach, this educational framework encourages educators to design flexible curricula by incorporating multiple means of engagement, representation, and action and expression (CAST, 2022). Research describes UDL not only as a pedagogical model but as a mechanism for reducing systemic barriers and ensuring equitable access to learning opportunities (Fornauf et al., 2020; Ok et al., 2017). However, despite policy interest and institutional endorsement, teachers continue to report significant challenges in applying this framework in real classrooms. The latest studies suggest that most UDL uptake remains theoretical rather than practical, with teachers struggling to translate principles into everyday lesson planning (King-Sears et al., 2023; Sala-Bars & Moriña, 2023). This tendency is also evident throughout the European countries (Galkiene & Monkeviciene, 2021). In Spain, an educational law that advocates improving inclusion and suggests adopting UDL principles in classrooms was promulgated in 2020 (Organic Law 3/2020, of December 29, amending Organic Law 2/2006, of May 3, on Education). Nonetheless, Spanish and Catalan educators often perceive UDL as inaccessible due to limited training, lack of concrete examples, and feelings of unpreparedness (Martínez & Ruiz, 2024; Sala-Bars & Moriña, 2023). Scholars increasingly agree that teacher professional development should move beyond conceptual familiarisation and incorporate practice-oriented approaches, including practical modelling, co-design, and iterative application (Craig et al., 2022). The transformation of UDL theory into practice is usually influenced by teachers’ affective and pedagogical competencies (Fornauf et al., 2020). Consequently, training primary teachers beyond theoretical knowledge is essential to strengthen their abilities to respond to children's diversity, support learning and instructional design with informed decision-making, and promote the sustained implementation of inclusive practices (King-Sears et al., 2023). In this regard, teachers value active, collaborative, and experiential formats, including lesson simulations, structured feedback cycles, and opportunities to rehearse complex classroom decisions (Ok et al., 2017). Therefore, the present research aligns with this evolving evidence base by identifying teachers’ perceived needs, designing interactive UDL-based simulation materials, and evaluating whether such tools bridge the gap between conceptual understanding and practical application in Catalan schools. The project's main objective is to strengthen teachers’ understanding, confidence, and ability to apply UDL in real classrooms. These are the project's specific aims:
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This research project is organised around four sequential phases that aim to design, implement, and evaluate an educational intervention aimed at strengthening teachers’ understanding, mastery, and application of UDL in Catalan primary schools. The overall study adopts a mixed-methods approach, progressing from quantitative exploration to qualitative interpretation and iterative refinement. The first phase consists of developing and validating a quantitative questionnaire designed to identify the main facilitators and barriers that influence UDL implementation in primary classrooms, particularly those related to teachers’ training and professional preparation. Once validated, the survey will be administered to a broad sample of teachers, and the resulting dataset will be statistically analysed following Cook and Cook’s (2014) procedures to determine priority areas of need and inform subsequent stages of the project. Drawing on these findings, the second phase focuses on designing and developing a training programme (simulation-based pedagogical materials) that enables teachers to engage with UDL principles through authentic practice scenarios. The training includes interaction with practice-based resources aiming at strengthening teachers’ confidence and practical competence by enabling them to explore and rehearse UDL application based on real-life situations. The materials will be piloted with selected teachers and school teams to test feasibility and relevance. The third phase involves evaluating the perceived impact, clarity, and usefulness of the simulation materials. To do so, a post-intervention questionnaire will be administered. Furthermore, the research team will conduct in-depth interviews with a sample of the teachers participating in the intervention, so we can gather their insights regarding whether and how the materials helped them overcome previous challenges in understanding, mastering, and applying UDL in their classrooms. All qualitative data will be inductively analysed through thematic analysis (Braun and Carke, 2006) to identify deeper meanings and shared understandings among participants’ narratives. Finally, the fourth phase is dedicated to refining the intervention resources, based on empirical evidence and teachers’ feedback. This final stage will lead to improved versions of the materials and generate practice-based recommendations for professional development and school-level support structures that facilitate sustained UDL implementation. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Expected Outcomes This project is expected to generate significant contributions to understanding and supporting the implementation of UDL in Catalan primary schools. First, the study will provide empirical evidence on the specific barriers and facilitators that teachers encounter when attempting to integrate UDL principles into their instructional practice. Beyond identifying the extent of teachers’ familiarity with the framework, these insights will enable us to understand which aspects of their training administration should focus on and how schools’ environment influences their capacity to implement UDL effectively. The development of innovative simulation-based materials that translate UDL theory into practice is also expected. These tools are designed to offer teachers structured, realistic opportunities to engage with UDL across different classroom scenarios, supporting the development of pedagogical judgement and confidence. We intend that these materials help teachers move from conceptual understanding toward practical mastery, reducing hesitation, uncertainty, and perceived complexity. The project aims to generate evidence of the usefulness, clarity, and impact of the training resources on teachers’ knowledge, perceptions, and instructional decisions through systematic evaluation. Based on self-reported experiences and qualitative analysis, we expect to see improvements in teachers’ confidence, self-efficacy, and willingness to use UDL strategies in their everyday practice. Finally, the iterative refinement process will result in stronger, evidence-informed professional development materials, accompanied by practical recommendations for schools, training institutions, and education policy stakeholders. In the long term, the project aims to contribute to a more inclusive educational culture, where teachers are supported not only with theory but with tools that make inclusion actionable, sustainable, and meaningful. References Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa CAST. (2022). UDL Guidelines version 3.0. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/ Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2008). Nonexperimental Quantitative Research and Its Role in Guiding Instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(2), 98-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451208321565 Craig, S. L., Smith, S. J., & Frey, B. B. (2022). Professional development with universal design for learning: Supporting teachers as learners to increase the implementation of UDL. Professional Development in Education, 48(1), 22-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1685563 Fornauf, B. S., Higginbotham, T., Mascio, B., McCurdy, K., & Reagan, E. M. (2020). Analyzing Barriers, Innovating Pedagogy: Applying Universal Design for Learning in a Teacher Residency. The Teacher Educator, 56(2), 153-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2020.1828520 Galkiene, A., & Monkeviciene, O. (Ed.). (2021). Improving Inclusive Education through Universal Design for Learning. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80658-3 King-Sears, M. E., Stefanidis, A., Evmenova, A. S., Rao, K., Mergen, R. L., Owen, L. S., & Strimel, M. M. (2023). Achievement of learners receiving UDL instruction: A meta-analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 122, 103956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103956 Martinez, P., & Ruiz, S. (2024). Developing an Inclusive Curriculum Framework for Students with Disabilities in Spain. Global Dialogues in Humanities and Pedagogy, 2(5), 38-49. https://journal.grasglobal.org/index.php/gdhp/article/view/58 Ok, M. W., Rao, K., Bryant, B. R., & McDougall, D. (2017). Universal Design for Learning in Pre-K to Grade 12 Classrooms: A Systematic Review of Research. Exceptionality, 25(2), 116-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2016.1196450 Organic Law 3/2020, of December 29, amending Organic Law 2/2006, of May 3, on Education [Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de diciembre, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación], Pub. L. No. Ley Orgánica 3/2020, BOE-A-2020-17264 122868 (2020). https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2020/12/29/3 Sala-Bars, I., & Moriña, A. (2023). Universal design for learning: A challenge and an opportunity for Spanish universities. En Handbook of Higher Education and Disability (p. 365-376). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781802204056/book-part-9781802204056-40.xml 04. Inclusive Education
Paper Assessing the Readiness of Pre-Service Teachers in Teaching Learners with Special Needs in an Inclusive Classroom University of Southeastern Philippines, Philippines Presenting Author:The integration of learners with special needs into mainstream classrooms remains a critical and complex issue in the field of education. Among the most discussed and researched topics in recent years are the concepts of inclusion and integration, which have sparked considerable debate and inquiry (Downs, 2001). Despite extensive research, significant gaps persist, particularly in terms of pre-service teachers' preparedness to effectively manage inclusive classrooms. One of the main hurdles in implementing inclusive education is the educators’ lack of comprehension of inclusive education principles. This deficiency often results in ineffective communication and collaboration between special education instructors and general education teachers, further complicating the inclusion process. Research suggests this challenge is due to the insufficient preparedness of pre-service teachers, who are expected to educate students with special needs in inclusive settings. The readiness of these teachers is crucial, as their ability to implement inclusive practices directly influences the success of students with special educational needs (SEN) (Di Gennaro et al., 2014). Internationally, there has been a strong emphasis on ensuring that pre-service teacher education programs are designed to equip future educators with the necessary knowledge and skills for inclusive education. Di Gennaro et al. (2014) emphasize the importance of preparing pre-service teachers to plan, manage, and promote classroom engagement that meets the diverse needs of all learners. Similarly, Dally and Dempsey (2015) highlight that while many programs provide foundational knowledge on disabilities, diagnosis, management, and rehabilitation, a significant gap remains in addressing whether general education instructors feel adequately prepared to meet the needs of students with SEN. In the Philippines, inclusive education is currently governed by Department of Education Order No. 72, series of 2012. 2009, which outlines the framework for inclusive education in primary education. However, this policy has faced criticism for being outdated and lacking consistency in its approach to integrating learners with SEN into general education (Philippine Department of Education, 2009). The ongoing review of the Special Education Act, as outlined in Philippine Senate Bill 3002, aims to address these issues; however, progress has been slow, and challenges in meeting the required standards persist (Philippine Senate, 2023). The gap between policy and practice is particularly evident in pre-service teacher training programs, where inclusive education often receives insufficient focus.
In our locality, these challenges are particularly pronounced. Pre-service teachers are expected to be well-prepared to manage the complexities of inclusive classrooms. However, the institution continues to struggle with aligning its training programs with the demands of inclusive education. Literature suggests the need for stronger collaboration between general and special education faculties, as well as a more robust integration of inclusive education policies into teacher preparation programs (Kauffman et al., 2005). Therefore, this study assessed the readiness of pre-service teachers in one private school in Cotabato Province to effectively educate learners with special educational needs (SEN) in inclusive classrooms, focusing on key variables such as knowledge of inclusion, educational preparation, attitudes toward SEN, instructional competence, behavior management, and assessment skills. The research employed a mixed-method approach, combining surveys and interviews. Hence, this study aimed to fill that gap by providing a comprehensive analysis of the current state of pre-service teacher preparedness and offering recommendations to enhance the institution’s training programs, ultimately aiming to meet the demands of inclusive education better. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used This study employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design to comprehensively address the research questions. The initial phase involved collecting and analyzing quantitative data through surveys or structured self-assessments, focusing on the level of readiness of pre-service teachers in managing learners with special educational needs (SENs) in inclusive classrooms. This qualitative phase aimed to explore in greater depth the pre-service teachers' self-assessments and their perceived readiness. The analysis conducted for the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) utilized thematic analysis, a qualitative research method used to identify and analyze patterns within the data. The study selected 125 pre-service teachers (PSTs) enrolled in Bachelor’s programs in Elementary and Secondary Education. These respondents had actively engaged in the survey, forming the core group of respondents for the research. To gain deeper insights into their readiness, a subset of approximately 10 participants was selected for focus group discussions (FGD). This approach ensures a comprehensive evaluation of pre-service teachers’ preparedness to effectively teach learners with special needs. Participants in the survey were pre-service teachers enrolled in teacher education programs, selected based on specific inclusion criteria. According to Creswell (2014), universal sampling ensures that the entire population is represented, thus providing a comprehensive overview of the group’s readiness to teach learners with special educational needs. On the other hand, Patton (2015) claimed that purposive sampling was applied, selecting participants for the focus group discussions (FGDs) based on specific criteria relevant to the study. To ensure the study underwent the appropriate procedure, the researchers asked permission and approval from the school authorities and target respondents to comply the ethical standards in research. The quantitative phase involved analyzing survey data using descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics, including mean, median, and standard deviation, are employed to provide a concise summary of the survey data. In the qualitative phase, thematic analysis was used to analyze data from focus group discussions (FGDs). This process involved coding the data, categorizing responses, and identifying overarching themes to reflect participants’ perspectives and experiences. The analysis adhered to Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework, which involved familiarizing oneself with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing them, defining and naming them, and writing up the results. The findings from both quantitative and qualitative phases were integrated to provide a comprehensive understanding of pre-service teachers’ readiness. This integration correlated statistical trends with qualitative insights, thereby enhancing the overall interpretation of the data. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings In the quantitative phase, the findings suggest that pre-service teachers are generally well-prepared to engage in inclusive education, particularly in terms of knowledge, attitudes, and assessment. Nonetheless, gaps remain in domains requiring practical experience, such as behavior management and educational preparation. These findings align with conclusions by Florian (2012), who emphasized the importance of transforming teacher education to blend theoretical grounding with immersive learning opportunities. While the overall readiness among pre-service teachers is commendable, with particular strengths in “knowledge of inclusion” and positive “attitudes towards learners with SENs,” areas such as “educational preparation’ and “instructional competence” may benefit from further professional development. These findings provide valuable insights for guiding future training and support programs, ensuring that all pre-service teachers are fully equipped to succeed in inclusive educational environments. On the other hand, the results of the thematic analysis revealed recurring patterns that reflect the perceptions, experiences, and needs of pre-service teachers about inclusive education. Through the focus group discussions, participants expressed varying degrees of understanding and readiness to teach learners with special educational needs (SEN). The themes that emerged from the data provide insight into both the strengths and the challenges within their current teacher preparation programs. Three dominant themes were identified: Emerging Awareness of Inclusion, Inadequate Practical Exposure and Training, and Desire for Interdisciplinary Support and Resources. Each theme is presented with supporting narratives and excerpts that illustrate the participants lived experiences and professional expectations as future educators in inclusive settings. When triangulated, both quantitative and qualitative findings suggest that pre-service teachers in this study hold positive attitudes and foundational knowledge of inclusion, supported by modest instructional and assessment competencies. However, their readiness is challenged by insufficient exposure to inclusive classrooms and limited applied training. References Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration/inclusion: a review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129-147. DOI: 10.1080/08856250210129056 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Dally, K., & Dempsey, I. (2015). Pre-service teachers' attitudes towards students with special educational needs: The influence of inclusive education training. Journal of Special Education, 49(2), 121-129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466914557795 Di Gennaro, D., Latham, R., & Eger, J. (2014). Teacher preparation for inclusive education: An analysis of program effectiveness. Educational Research and Review, 9(8), 241-258. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2014.1835 Downs, J. (2001). Inclusive education: Challenges and strategies. Journal of Educational Research, 94(3), 146-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109598712 Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813-828. DOI: 10.1080/01411926.2010.501096 Kauffman, J. M., Hallahan, D. P., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Special education: Foundations and best practices. Pearson Education. Logroño, O. C., & Gongora, J. T. (2023). Readiness of regular teachers for the inclusion of learners with special education needs. East Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 2(11), 4459-4472. https://doi.org/10.55927/eajmr.v2i11.5149 Loreman, T. (2010). Essential inclusive education-related outcomes for Alberta preservice teachers. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56(2). O’Toole, C., & Burke, N. (2013). Ready, willing and able? Attitudes and concerns in relation to inclusion amongst a cohort of Irish pre-service teachers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(3), 239-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2013.768451 Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications. Philippine Department of Education. (2009). Department of Education Order No. 72, s. 2009: Guidelines on the implementation of inclusive education. Retrieved from https://www.deped.gov.ph/ Philippine Senate. (2023). Special Education Act (Senate Bill 3002). Retrieved from https://www.senate.gov.ph/ Rodriguez, K. F. R., & Abocejo, F. T. (2018). Competence vis-à-vis performance of special education pre-service teachers. European Academic Research, 6(7), 3474-3498. Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & 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, 13(7), 773–785. doi:10.1080/09687590802469271 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1471-3802.2011.01200.X Subban, P., & Sharma, U. (2006). Primary school teachers' perceptions of inclusive education in Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 42-52. | ||