Primary Class Teachers’ Perceptions of their Knowledge and Efficacy to Teach Students with SEN in Mainstream Classrooms in England
By
Emir Omer EMRE
A dissertation submitted for the Masters of Arts in Education: Special Educational Needs in the Graduate School of Education in the University of Exeter
Exeter © 2016
1
Student No :
650032899
DECLARATION I declare that ‘Primary class teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and efficacy to teach students with SEN in mainstream classrooms in England’ is my own work, and that all of the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references in the text. Furthermore, I declare that this research report has not been submitted at any university, college or institution of higher learning for any degree or academic qualification.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS All praise and thanks are due to the most merciful Allah (God) due to his eternal help. He has bestowed upon me the courage and strength to fulfil an ambition of mine. I would like to thank Doctor Hazel Lawson, my supervisor, for her guidance, encouragement, support and much appreciated assistance in guiding my work and shaping my character as a student. My wife, Elfide, who has been patient and very understanding with me when I was ever busy with my studies and who also contributed by typing my data into the SPSS system. My parents, Fadime and Aliseydi, for always believing in me and supporting me from the inception of my studies. My sisters and brother for all the words of encouragement and unwavering support. My unborn daughter, who has inspired me in my studies with feelings of love. My dear friends for their generous support, and special thanks to Zeynep, who assisted me with the statistics component of this research.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………….………………….4 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS………………………………………………………....4 1. INTRODUCTION…………….……...……………………….……………….5 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………….……...…………………………….8 3. METHODOLOGY…………….……...……………………………………….15 4. DATA ANALYSIS …………….……...……………………………………...24 5. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION …………….……...…………….………….27 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS …………………….……….42
APPENDICES
A. QUESTIONNAIRE …………….……...………………………………………45 B. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS…………….…………………… ……………….52 C. INFORMED CONSENT FORMS…………….……...……………………….53 D. ETHICS FORM FROM INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD……………...54 E. PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEET……………………………………58 F. INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT………………………………………………….61
REFERENCES………………….……...………………………………………………62
3
ABSTRACT Inclusive education has gained more significance in general education in the last few decades, and it is becoming increasingly important for class teachers to be knowledgeable and fully efficacious when working with pupils with SEN in regular education classrooms. This multimethod small scale study explores the degree of relationship between primary class teachers’ sense of self‐efficacy and sense of knowledge in teaching students with SEN in mainstream classrooms in England. By using questionnaires and interviews, I will also assess whether there is a link between teachers’ knowledge perceptions, efficacy perceptions, and other elements such as gender, age, grade level taught, years of teaching experience, and qualification level. By sharing Likert-type questionnaires with 35 primary class teachers and conducting semistructured interviews with six of them as part of this mixed methods research, which includes both qualitative and quantitative research methods, primary class teachers were asked to give their responses to closed and open-ended questions. The empirical data that was gathered via the questionnaires was analysed via the SPSS program, and the interviews have been duly evaluated via the technique of thematic analysis. These data analysis methods enabled me to find major themes arising from the responses. In particular, the results showed that teachers’ knowledge and years of teaching experience have more impact on their efficacy than other factors such as age, gender, grade level taught and qualification level. In comparison with these findings, previous research has found that qualification level and years of teaching experience have more of an impact on teachers’ knowledge. From an education point of view, this study can help educators to develop their self-knowledge and can motivate them to improve themselves to be more knowledgeable and efficient.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS SEN: Special Educational Needs SENCo: Special Educational Needs Coordinator
4
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Over the past two decades, the inclusion of children with disabilities in mainstream education around the world, and especially in England, has gained more significance among education pedagogues, policy makers and educators (Salamanca Statement, 1994; Pijl, Meijer and Hegarty, 1997; Peters, 2004; Singal, 2005), in connection with human dignity, human rights and social justice (Barton and Armstrong, 2007; Terzi, 2008). Despite there being conceptual confusion and disagreement over inclusive education, UNESCO has described inclusive education as a process which includes all children within the regular education system, regardless of their level of ability or disabilities (2009, 9). Additionally, it is argued that inclusion does not only mean the placement of children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) into mainstream schools, but is also about providing any necessary additional support in order for them to participate fully in the school environment (Polat, 2011). Inclusive education aims to change values, attitudes, practices and policies, in order to enhance improvement possibilities and reduce learning barriers for pupils with SEN (Kozleski et al., 2007; Kinsella and Senior, 2008). Janney and Snell (2006) claimed that students from different backgrounds should have the opportunity to take part fully in school and classroom activities in terms of considering themselves to be genuine members of their school community. It is, therefore, considered that inclusion is necessary for schools, and classroom teachers in particular, to focus on facilitating an improvement towards the full participation of all children, with or without SEN, in mainstream classrooms. Because students with SEN are being accommodated in mainstream classrooms, classroom teachers play a critical role in the implementation of inclusive education within the classroom (Forlin et al. 2010). Teachers have to teach students with SEN, who may learn differently and may have different behavioural and sensorial disorders (Westwood, 2007, p.1). Besides, various researchers have shown that classroom teachers feel that they do not have the necessary knowledge to teach children with disabilities, and also they believe that they cannot cope with behavioural and sensorial disorders (Blandford and Gibson, 2005; Marshall et al, 2002). Winter (2006) claimed that classroom teachers must be equipped with the necessary skills and positive attitudes towards the inclusion of learners from different backgrounds. They should be 5
able to encourage positive behaviours and should be skilled in handling misbehaviour from students in an effort to minimise any negative environment in the classroom (Furlong, Morrison, and Jimerson, 2004). While teachers mostly accept the concept of inclusion, in contrast their perceptions of their own knowledge, skill and experience are often considerably lower (Scruggs and Mastropieri, 1996; Avramidis and Norwich, 2002). Most teachers claim that they suffer from a lack of time, inappropriate training, and inadequate support or resources when asked to meet the learning needs of pupils with SEN (Avramidis, Bayliss and Burden, 2000). More recent works have reported that teachers wish to receive sufficient long-term and initial training on inclusion (Avramidis and Kalyva, 2007; Khochen and Radford, 2012), and to have more coordination time to negotiate with their colleagues, meet parents, plan their teaching, and prepare all of the SEN students’ paperwork (Horne and Timmons, 2009). Teachers have also mentioned that they do not have sufficient educational materials and support staff to implement inclusive education successfully in their classrooms (Scruggs and Mastropieri, 1996). Ryan (2009) stated that teachers’ feelings of adequacy affect the quality of teaching and the learning environment in the classroom in a positive manner.
I aimed to focus on this particular area of educational research due to the increasing prevalence of inclusion, and the key role of classroom teachers in inclusive classrooms. During my six years as a SEN Teacher, I have witnessed an increase in the implementation of inclusion in mainstream classrooms. In my personal experience, while education policy makers and school administrators have supported inclusion and have encouraged the full implementation of inclusion in schools, classroom teachers themselves have often thought they were not sufficiently ready for inclusion, in terms of their knowledge and efficacy to teach students with SEN in their mainstream classrooms. I started pondering why teachers’ perceptions tend towards this direction, and I thought that to analyse these perceptions deeply could contribute to their professional development and could also contribute to academic work in the field of education.
I have become particularly interested in primary class teachers’ perceptions of knowledge and efficacy to teach to students with SEN in mainstream classrooms in England. Through this research, I hoped to reveal the relationship level between class teachers’ sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy. Moreover, I researched the influence of class teachers’ personal 6
characteristics on their professional perceptions. I preferred to do my research focusing only on primary class teachers in order to achieve meaningful results. During the research, I benefitted from various different academic studies in terms of conducting valid and reliable research, and also in terms of comparing my findings with other research. Subsequently, these opposing academic papers have created the essence of my research question and are the areas of discussion that I will focus on. In this current study I researched and examined primary teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and efficacy to teach students with SEN in mainstream classrooms in two schools in England. To research the issue, I incorporated a Likert-scale questionnaire and semistructured interviews. I assessed whether there is a link between teachers’ knowledge perceptions, efficacy perceptions, and other elements such as gender, age, grade level taught, years of teaching experience, and graduate level. Finally, I analysed the data collections and discussed the strengths and weaknesses of this proposed research. In the following chapter, I will evaluate academic papers that have influenced my ideas on the research topic, and have therefore also contributed to me basing this dissertation on an appropriate foundation. I have presented these texts as a conceptual framework which includes different ideas and evidences, and I have used these academic texts to critique my own research findings. The concepts that evolved out of my review of the selected literature were then used to inform the remainder of this dissertation.
7
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2. 1. Chapter Introduction It is becoming increasingly important to be knowledgeable and fully efficient when working with pupils with SEN in regular education classrooms. Class teachers are likely to come across children identified as having SEN in their classrooms because of the trend towards inclusion in general education (Shillingford and Karlin, 2014). These teachers’ responses to pupils with SEN will play a crucial role towards the achievement of inclusion aims. A teacher’s ability to handle the challenging circumstances sometimes created by students with SEN mainly depends on their knowledge and efficacy (Furlong, Morrison, and Jimerson, 2004). Previous research has underlined that while there seems to be some degree of relationship between teachers’ sense of self-efficacy and sense of knowledge, there are many other factors affecting teachers’ sense of knowledge and efficacy to educate children in a regular classroom (Chiner and Cardona, 2012; Mulholland and O'Connor, 2016). In this chapter, I will review the academic literature under these headings: teachers’ sense of efficacy, teachers’ sense of knowledge and factors influencing teachers’ sense of efficacy and knowledge.
2. 2. Class Teachers’ sense of efficacy According to Bandura (1997), teachers’ belief in their own efficacy influences their teaching practices and influences their wish to increase their knowledge in order to enhance their teaching strategies (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk and Hoy, 1998). According to Bandura’s theory, a teacher with a high sense of efficacy will believe that all students are capable of learning regardless of their disabilities, and this teacher will try to influence their students’ learning positively. Whereas a teacher with a low sense of efficacy might think that there is very little or nothing he or she can do to teach a student with disabilities, and might also believe that some students cannot learn in a mainstream classroom (Gibson and Dembo, 1984; Ashton and Webb, 1986). This would suggest that a teacher’s perception of self-efficacy holds an important place in the generation of an inclusive classroom environment. Teachers’ efficacy beliefs are also linked to their attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. In their extensive study, Soodak, Podell and 8
Lehman (1998) reported that teachers’ perception of efficacy is an important premise to understand their attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with disabilities. They also pointed that teachers with low perceptions of efficacy are against the idea of inclusion and do not feel enough confident to include a child with special needs in their classrooms. Moreover, Weisel and Dror (2006) found that teachers with a low sense of efficacy felt anxious about including children with SEN in their classrooms. Furthermore, in their comprehensive literature review on teachers’ perceptions and attitudes towards inclusion, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) realised that although classroom teachers accept the general concept of inclusion, their perceptions and attitudes become negative when they have to involve pupils with SEN in their classrooms. Winzer (1999) emphasised that some classroom teachers have expressed critical issues with the implementation of inclusion, and they do not feel that they have the necessary skills to teach pupils with special needs. This suggests that, because of their low perception of self-efficacy, some classroom teachers do not want to include any students with disabilities. Apart from that, there are also negative attitudes among general education teachers towards the inclusion of such students in their classrooms (D’Alonzo, Giordano, and Cross, 1996). Some classroom teachers have asserted that they do not have enough knowledge and skills to manage SENs in their regular classrooms and there is no benefit to inclusion for student with SEN, instead of making the necessary structural and educational arrangements for these students (Grieve, 2009). As mentioned earlier, teachers’ attitudes influence their efficacy beliefs toward inclusion. As well as this, Mulholland and O'Connor (2016) found that class teachers who had experience of working in an inclusive classroom did not generally have positive efficacy beliefs. However, some of those teachers who had personal contact with people with SEN seemed to have more favourable efficacy beliefs. On the other hand, a comparison study between novice and experienced teachers has shown that novice teachers had a lower self-efficacy belief than experienced teachers (TschannenMoran and Hoy, 2007). So, enhancing teachers’ knowledge in a pedagogical context and enabling them to have training experience in an actual inclusive classroom could possibly increase their perceptions of their ability to work with pupils with diverse needs (Swachhamer et al. 2009; Tschannen-Moran and McMaster, 2009). However, Forlin et al. (2008) reported that despite novice teachers’ lack of skills and experiences, they enable the implementation of inclusion in their classroom more than experienced teachers. This suggests that providing 9
appropriate support and assistance to novice teachers to meet the needs of all learners can increase their self-efficacy. In their own research, Brownell and Pajares (1999) claimed that if general education classroom teachers were to participate in pre-service coursework, they would feel more efficient themselves in their ability to manage an inclusive classroom and teach pupils with disabilities. However, Winter (2006) reported that while in-service teacher training can increase the development of classroom teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusion, applying certain training during the initial stages of teachers’ education is very important to contribute positively to their perceptions of efficacy. Additionally, Brownell and Pajares (1999) stated that the development of teachers’ beliefs in their own ability to teach students with SEN should not be underestimated in the course of initial teacher training programmes. To put it another way, the influence of classroom teachers’ perceptions of efficacy cannot be underestimated in terms of the successful implementation of inclusion.
2. 3. Class Teachers’ sense of knowledge Tamir (1991) suggested that teacher knowledge is commonly referred to as a set of knowledge and skills necessary for successful functioning in the teaching profession. He added that this knowledge is both general and personal-experiential. On the other hand, Clandinin and Connelly (1996) expressed that teacher knowledge is a body of professional knowledge that includes both knowledge on a general educational basis and also skills and knowledge of the subject to be taught. They appended that teacher knowledge is not only in the mind, but also in the body, and it must be seen in teachers’ practices. D’Alonzo, Giordano, and Cross (1996) emphasised that classroom teachers in regular education have little or no preparation to teach students with SEN. According to Schumm and Vaughn (1991), while some classroom teachers had adopted the ideas and principles of inclusion, they found it difficult to apply inclusion in practice and they expressed their concerns in terms of its functionality. For example, in the study by Grieve (2009) into teachers’ beliefs in the UK, one of the classroom teachers stated:
10
“It is really difficult to teach students with SEN mostly if you have not been trained for them, so I ignored a few children within this condition and simply referred these children to a special school for pupils who are disabled.” Another teacher expressed: “It is difficult to teach pupils with learning disabilities, if you are not trained in special education to deal with such students, you teach to students at normal level and SEN students work at their own pace.” (Grieve, 2009) In another study, Oswald and Swart (2011) found that teachers who had taken a compulsory course in inclusive education linked to teaching methods, additional learning supports and assessment, expressed an improvement in their knowledge but did not show any change in their beliefs in their ability to teach students in an inclusive classroom. However, those teachers demonstrated an upturn in their interest in their professional ability to educate pupils with SEN. Besides, different researchers have stated that general education teachers have expressed anxiety around inclusion, due to the lack of knowledge, time, resources and additional support (Soodak, Podell and Lehman, 1998; Shippen et al., 2005). As a solution to reduce teachers’ anxiety, regular field experience and attendance on a special educational needs course could be introduced. In an investigation into teacher education with regards to inclusion, Lombardi and Hunka (2001) found that general education teachers had a low perception of their knowledge of inclusion. They claimed that they need greater knowledge and competencies in order to teach students with special needs in an effective inclusive setting (Daniels and Vaughn, 1999). Furthermore, many classroom teachers who are in the early years of their occupation see themselves as neither sufficiently knowledgeable nor competent to include children with special needs in their classrooms (Lombardi and Hunka, 2001). Nevertheless, in their comprehensive literature review, Avramidis and Norwich (2002) reported that if classroom teachers have taken qualified pre-service or in-service training, they are most likely to have a high perception of their knowledge and they feel more competent in their ability to educate SEN students in an inclusive classroom setting. They also illustrated that “school ethos” and teachers’ cooperation have a significant influence on teachers’ sense of knowledge. In a similar manner, some researchers have emphasised that when teachers spend more time
11
with students with SEN, their perceptions of knowledge and confidence to teach pupils with SEN in inclusive classroom setting increase (Murphy, 1996; Hobson et al., 2006). In the meantime, some researchers have argued that the curricula have an ambiguity in relation to inclusion, and this case has led to confusion in teachers’ minds (Garner, 2000; Slee, 2000). Likewise, Bines (2000) stressed that while there are precise targets for each year group, there is also an inclusion policy with broader goals in the national curriculum for general education in England and Wales, and this duality of curricula damages teachers’ positive perceptions of knowledge (DoE, 2014). On the other hand, she considered that if schools can create efficient educational policies via binding the general and inclusive aims of the curriculum strongly to each other, teachers can feel a high perception of knowledge. Furthermore, Initial Teacher Education (ITE) Programmes have a crucial responsibility to increase teacher candidates’ required knowledge and skills to prepare them to meet the diverse needs of all pupils found in an inclusive classroom (Hodkinson, 2009; Beacham and Rouse, 2011). According to research carried out by Hobson et al. (2006), pre-service teachers noted that the initial teacher training programme in the UK gave them the opportunity to have schoolbased experiences, and reported that this affected their perceptions of knowledge, skills and efficacy. However, some teachers stated that they had inadequate education, a lack of hands-on training, and insufficient access to required information in their ITE programmes (Sikes, Lawson and Parker, 2007; Grieve, 2009; Goodman and Burton, 2010). At an international level, UNESCO (2009, 17) has stated that pre-service and in-service teacher education programmes should be reconfigured and adapted to incorporate inclusive education approaches, in order to supply teachers with the educational needs necessary to meet the diverse needs of pupils with or without disabilities. Hobson et al. (2006) added that providing schoolbased training related to inclusive settings can make a significant contribution to the success of teacher-training programmes. However, Mock and Kauffman (2002) stressed that in ITE courses it is impossible fully to educate mainstream classroom teachers on how to teach in inclusive classrooms. Some teachers may have had their training in an inclusive school with extensive coursework, whereas others may have had very little or no opportunities to train in a manner linked to inclusive education. Furthermore, Forlin and Chambers (2011) explained that while ITE courses are designed within a certain curriculum to improve teachers’ abilities, some teachers considered their previous training to have no effect on their sense of efficacy to teach students with disabilities. 12
2. 4. Factors influencing Teachers sense of efficacy and sense of knowledge Independently from other variables, teachers’ own individual characteristics may have an influence on their perceptions of knowledge and perceptions of efficacy. With regards to those independent influencing factors such as teachers’ gender, age range and grade level taught, there is no single consensus on which all researchers have agreed. Hutzler, Zach and Gafni (2005) emphasised that male teachers are less patient and less tolerant towards the inclusion of pupils with special needs than their female counterparts. In their analysis of teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, Eichinger, Rizzo and Sirotnik (1991) noted that female teachers compared to male teachers were more inclined towards the inclusion of students with behavioural problems. On the contrary, other researchers presented how there was no meaningful relationship between teachers’ sense of inclusion and their gender (Batsiou et al. 2008; Leyser et al., 1994). Data from several studies has shown that younger and less experienced teachers are more willing to practise inclusion in their classrooms than their older colleagues (Forlin, Keen and Barrett 2008; Gal, Schreur and Engel-Yeger, 2010; Parasuram, 2006). For example, in his study, Parasuram (2006) observed that older teachers’ had more resistance to include children with special needs in their classrooms, and they referred to their lack of ability and to insufficient additional support for inclusion. In another study, Cardona (2011) pointed out that although non-experienced teachers claimed a higher level of support for inclusion, they also expressed the need for collaboration in inclusion more highly than experienced teachers. Likewise, Leyser et al. (1994) noted that if teachers had 14 years teaching experience or less, they showed a substantially higher positive support for inclusion then their more experienced counterparts. Conversely, other research has not found any significant differences between younger and more experienced teachers (Ross-Hill, 2009). Some studies have claimed that nursery and primary school teachers feel more confident about their knowledge and efficacy toward inclusion than secondary education teachers (Avissar, Reiter and Leyser, 2003). Moreover, Cardona (2011) illustrated that secondary education teachers expressed greater concerns than primary class teachers about disabled students’ negative influence on the success of their non-disabled classmates. a different view was put forward by Clough and Lindsay (1991), who claimed that primary class teachers are comparatively more inclusivist than higher level class teachers, because the primary school culture is more inclusive and the secondary school system is more subject-based. On the other 13
hand, other works have not mentioned any important differences between the different grade levels of teachers (Avramidis, Bayliss and Burden, 2000). In the study conducted by Hodkinson (2009), it was shown that if teachers are given additional in-service training on inclusion, it affects their sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy positively. Furthermore, Goodman and Burton (2010) stated that the quality of training is also significant for teachers’ perceptions. Furthermore, Leyser et al. (1994) found that teachers with more contact and experience of low-ability children had considerably more positive perceptions towards the inclusion of these children in their classrooms than teachers with less or no interaction. However, other research has claimed that regardless of their experience or training related to inclusion, teachers have similar perceptions towards inclusion, which are shown to be generally positive (Ross-Hill, 2009). Chapter Summary To sum up, the previous academic literature displays very different views on teachers' perceptions of knowledge and efficacy towards the inclusion of SEN students in mainstream classrooms. It can be seen in the literature review that the determination of the relationships between these teachers’ perceptions and other influencing factors can be an important cornerstone, as a large-scale systematic literature review on inclusion demonstrated that classroom teachers’ sense of knowledge, sense of efficacy, and other influencing factors have a very complex relationship with each other, and there are no conclusive results between these findings (Avramidis and Norwich, 2002). Accordingly, this research has been designed to answer the following questions: Research Question 1. To what extent do general class teachers feel themselves sufficiently knowledgeable and efficient to teach pupils with SEN in a mainstream classroom? Research Question 2. Are there any significant connections between teachers’ sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy to teach in an inclusive classroom? Research Question 3. To what extent are class teachers’ gender, age range, taught grade level, professional qualification, inclusive training, teaching experience, current school role and teaching time influencing factors which have an impact on their sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy?
14
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 3. 1. Chapter Introduction Dewey (2010) suggested that, ‘Philosophical positions can influence not just how the research is conducted but rather more importantly what is researched and how it is interpreted.’ From this point of view, I considered and recognised that my research philosophy informed my design framework and research perspective. In this chapter I will include the philosophical foundations of this study, explain the research design, describe the data collection methods and analyse the process in a sequential order. The methodology section is divided into two sub-headings, namely quantitative and qualitative phases. Each of those phases is also explained under three sub-headings, which are participants, instruments and data collections. 3. 2. Philosophical Foundations This study is a small-scale study which draws upon a pragmatist paradigm. Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) claimed that a pragmatist paradigm is the most appropriate philosophical position for a study which focuses on the issues to be researched and the consequences of the research. Moreover, Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2005) emphasised that, because of the complexity and uncertainty of social sciences, particularly education, pragmatism is the most appropriate approach to find out “what the researcher wants to know” through generating useful knowledge. Because of the focus on the researched issues and the consequences of the research within the complexity of itself, this current study has been carried out on a pragmatic basis. I examined the phenomenon of the relationship between class teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and efficacy towards inclusion, and designed my investigation on this paradigm. Likewise, my epistemological understanding of the world, instead of looking at a subject with intellectual and practical constraints and “being a prisoner of the truth and reality”, allows me to think more independently (Robson, 1993, p. 291). On an ontological level, pragmatists claim that there are multiple realities and stand close to ‘existential reality’, which refers to an experiential world with different factors and layers, some subjective, some objective, and some a mixture of the two (Dewey, 1925). This small-scale study was designed to find some answers to questions on the complexity of teachers’ perceptions, rather than seeking to find ‘the truth’. Likewise, a pragmatist approach seeks to find answers to the questions of ‘what is it for?’, ‘who is it for?’, and ‘how do researchers values affect the research?’, and researchers need to consider 15
their usefulness and purposiveness (Feilzer, 2010; Rotry, 1999). If we analyse it in this regard, this current study asked questions about teachers’ perceptions and used different types of questions to find answers Similar to most other pragmatic studies (Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009), this small scale-study was improved and applied to a mixed methodology research design. I included a Likert-type questionnaire to gather information quantitatively, and also incorporated interviews to gather in-depth information qualitatively. Johnson, Onwuegbuzie and Turner (2007) stated that, “Mixed methods research is a systematic integration of quantitative and qualitative methods in a single study for purposes of obtaining a fuller picture and deeper understanding of a phenomenon.” Moreover, Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) underlined that the idea of mixed methods research brings together the value and benefits of both quantitative and qualitative methods, whilst at the same time finding a middle solution for many (research) problems of interest. 3. 3. Research Design As researchers desire to gain more in-depth information on previously researched topics, they sometimes need to reinterpret and redesign previously used research methods in order to obtain new outputs (Charmaz, 2006). Despite various researchers having examined teachers’ knowledge perception and efficacy perception separately, studies examining these two elements together in terms of meeting the diverse needs of pupils with SEN in mainstream classrooms are limited. However, it would seem to be significant to examine these together in regards to examining the relationship level of these two variables. Furthermore, rather than measuring teachers’ perceptions about their knowledge and efficacy, some studies have often been prepared to measure their efficacy and knowledge (Horne and Timmons, 2009; Hsien, Brown and Bortoli, 2009). Inclusion requires significant teacher knowledge and efficient teaching skills in inclusive settings (Buell et al., 1999). That is to say, teacher knowledge and efficacy are key factors for the success of inclusion. For this reason, and taking advantage of relevant previous scales, I designed and applied a new advanced scale to measure class teachers’ perceptions of knowledge and efficacy. As mentioned earlier, this study used a mixed method design that combined both quantitative and qualitative data. Firstly, quantitative data was collected through a Likert scale questionnaire. Secondly, qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews. Finally, a questionnaire was issued to detail and clarify the findings of the previous 16
questionnaire through a more in-depth focus. Abowitz and Toole (2009) remarked that combining methods is a kind of cross-examination, and can be beneficial for the researcher to gather more detailed information about their research subject. This two-dimensional (quantitative and qualitative) data collection also allows the researcher to eliminate, analyse, control or account for diverse relevant variables, which might possibly have an impact on the elements under investigation (Buchanan, 1992; Hafford-Letchfield, 2014). In this study therefore I obtained a general picture of teachers’ sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy in regard to inclusive classrooms through a questionnaire, and then elicited in-depth information on these perceptions and presuppositions through semi-structured interviews.
Leech and Onwuegbuzie (2009) presented that whenever preparing mixed methods research, three important dimensions need to be taken into account: time orientation (concurrent versus sequential), emphasis of methods (equal status versus dominant status) and the level of mixing (partially mixed versus fully mixed). Time orientation refers to the sequence of quantitative and qualitative data collection and data analysis in the research, and whether these methods are applied concurrently or sequential. Emphasis of the approach refers to which method, either qualitative or quantitative, is given more importance or priority in the research. Level of mixing refers to the balance in the research process with regards to whether the two methods, qualitative and quantitative, are partially mixed or fully mixed (Ivankova and Creswell, 2009).
This small-scale study was carried out using an explanatory sequential mixed methods design (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2011), which is a commonly used design in applied education research. It was a sequential two-phased survey and used a mixture of quantitative and qualitative research methods. The first stage included the collection process of quantitative, numeric data, using a questionnaire, which was then statistically analysed to provide descriptive and inferential statistics. The results of the analysis provided the level of teachers’ perceptions of knowledge and efficacy and the relationship between teachers’ sense of knowledge, sense of efficacy and other influencing factors (gender, age range, taught grade level, professional qualifications, inclusive training, teaching experience, current school role and teaching time). To explain these results, the second stage included qualitative data, using semi-structured interviews and the open-ended questions section of the questionnaire, which was then analysed using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) to ensure a deeper understanding of the quantitative data. Equal status was given to the quantitative and qualitative methods and these
17
methods were fully mixed. With respect to the mixing dimension, connecting across stages was used. To show the research methodology more clearly, the first part of the mixed methods procedural diagram for the study is presented in Figure 1. Phase 1
Phase 2
Questionnaires
Interviews
Quantitative
Quantitative
Qualitative
Qualitative
Data
Data
Data
Data
Collection
Analysis
Collection
Analysis
Figure 1. The First Part of the Sequential Mixed Methods Design of Teachers’ Perceptions of Knowledge and Efficacy to teach to student with SEN in mainstream classrooms in England
Accordingly, while the quantitative data (questionnaires) gave numeric answers to Q1, Q2 and Q3, the qualitative data (interviews) provided deeper knowledge for each question. Q1. To what extent do general class teachers feel themselves sufficiently knowledgeable and efficacious to teach pupils with SEN in mainstream classrooms? Q2. Are there any significant connections between teachers’ sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy to teach in an inclusive classroom? Q3. To what extent are class teachers’ gender, age range, grade level taught, professional qualifications, inclusive training, teaching experience, current school roles and teaching time influencing factors which have an impact on their sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy?
3. 4. Methods This small-scale study included two research methods: questionnaires and interviews. Those two methods have some advantages and disadvantages, and to make the study more reliable and valid I mixed these two methods. In terms of the questionnaire, in his book “Social research methods”, Walliman (2006 pp. 87-91) claimed that a questionnaire is practical and allows the researcher to collect large amounts of information from a large number of people in a short period of time. Moreover, Ackroyd and Hughes (1981) indicated that when questionnaire data 18
has been quantified it can be used to compare with other research, and because of certain measurements, it can be affected to some degree by researchers or other people. For those reasons, I preferred to prepare and apply a questionnaire to find the relationship level of teachers’ perceptions of knowledge and efficacy and the relationship between teachers’ sense of knowledge, sense of efficacy and other influencing factors, which are gender, age range, grade level taught, professional qualifications, inclusive training, teaching experience, current school roles and teaching time.
However, Creswell and Clark (2007) mentioned that
questionnaires can provide a limited amount of information without explanation, and cannot allow for changes of emotions and feelings.
Because of these limitations of a questionnaire, I decided to use an additional method which would minimise the limitations and increase the validity and reliability of the study. Meanwhile, I searched for an appropriate additional method for my research. In his article, Opdenakker (2006) noted that semi-structured interviews can enable a researcher to develop a keen understanding of the topic and can develop deeper and meaningful responses to questions. Moreover, Kajornboon (2005) stated that a semi-structured interview can increase the reliability and comparability of data. Because of its positive features and suitability, I preferred to do semistructured interviews in the second part of my research.
Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) suggested that a mixed method design broadens research in a way that a single method can’t, and the process of offering a statistical analysis, along with interviews, makes research more comprehensive. Moreover, Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) notified how mixed methodology researches usually offer a broader landscape and more data for social and behavioural research. Therefore, I decided to carry out mixed method research in order to be more comprehensive.
3. 5. Research settings The participants in this study included a convenience sample of primary class teachers, both female and male, who teach students with SEN in mainstream classrooms in two primary schools located in a mid-sized city in England. I first visited and observed both schools, and then decided to carry out my study in those schools. These schools were chosen because of their policies, which identified inclusion as an integral part of education, and because of their willingness to take part in this academic study.
19
Phase 1: Quantitative Phase Participants While 50 teachers were asked to complete the questionnaire, only 35 primary class teachers (7 males and 28 females) did so. According to these numbers, the total completion rate accounted for 70 % for the questionnaires, and the response rate for completed questionnaires was 97%. 19 out of 26 teachers from school A and 16 of 24 teachers from school B filled in the questionnaire. Their age range was diverse, with teachers from their early twenties to teachers in their early sixties. Seven of them were teaching at pre-school level, 15 were in key stage 1, and 13 were in key stage 2. 28 of them had a bachelor’s degree, three of them had master’s degree, and four of them held an unidentified degree. Their teaching experience ranged from less than two years to more than 20 years.
Instruments The first part of the survey was a questionnaire, which was comprised of an adaptation of the Teacher Qualifications and Attitudes toward Inclusion (TQAI) Scale survey, and an adaptation of the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practice (TEİP) Scale survey. The TQAI scale – developed in Melbourne by Hsien, Brown and Bortoli (2009) – includes 36 items, and the TEIP scale – developed through international academic collaboration between Sharma, Loreman and Forlin (2011) – includes 18 items. In order to avoid repetitively addressing the same issues, and because of purposive incompatibility and the diffusiveness of some questions, nine questions were selected studiously from each scale to create the new ‘Teachers’ Perceptions of Efficacy and Knowledge toward Inclusion’ (TPEKI) questionnaire. Adaptation of the scales included modification of spelling and wording to British English, and implementing a 6-point Likerttype scale. The creators of the TQAI and TEIP scales gave their permission for me to use these scales in the new survey. The questionnaire (see Appendix A) was comprised of three sections: the first section included ten multiple-choice questions, which were designed to gather background and demographic information on each teacher; the second section was a Likerttype scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), and participants responded to 18 items related to their sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy regarding teaching students with SEN and inclusion; and the final section included four open-ended questions requesting the teachers’ ideas and reflections on inclusion. I designed these openended questions related to the research questions in order to get more detailed information.
20
In the original studies, while the TQAI scale (Brown and Bortoli 2009) had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.83, the TEIP scale (Sharma, Loreman and Forlin, 2011) represented a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.80, which means that both of them demonstrated a reasonably high level of reliability. In this study, the reliability of the questionnaire as calculated on Cronbach’s alpha was 0.67, which reveals a lower internal consistency. Because of the very small sample size (only 35 participants), the study illustrated a lower level of reliability. Also, two of the questions (Q8, Q14) were noted to be working in opposite directions. When they were removed from the survey, a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.73 was shown, which indicates quite a good level of reliability. Data Collection On the days of the questionnaire in each school, all of the classroom teachers came to the staff room. They were informed about the survey and the purpose of the research through a presentation, and were given questionnaires to complete. The teachers then completed the questionnaires returned them to me.
Phase 2: Qualitative Phase Participants Participants were asked if they were willing to be interviewed at the end of the questionnaire. Nine out of the 19 teachers from school A and five out of the 16 teachers from school B agreed to be interviewed. In total, 14 of the teachers from 35 questionnaire participants agreed to take part in the interviews. Five teachers (two males, three female) from school A and one female teacher from school B, making a total of six teachers, were selected for interview. According to the quantitative data collection, I consciously selected six teachers based on their gender, age range and grade level taught in order to maximise variation sampling. The sample included two male and four female teachers, who were teaching at key stage 1, key stage 2 and nursery level.
Instrument The second part of the data collection was done via semi-structured interviews designed to elicit more detailed responses. I prepared a guide for the interviews which had a framework of the themes to be explored. The semi-structured interviews were open, and allowed new ideas to be brought up during the interview as a result of what the interviewee might say. The semistructured interview questions were related to the teachers’ sense of knowledge, sense of efficacy and the relationship of these perceptions with their gender, age range, grade level 21
taught, professional qualifications, inclusive training, teaching experience, current school roles and teaching time (see Appendix B). These questions were prepared taking into account the questionnaire findings and research questions. After all of the audio recordings had been typed up, these transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Data Collection On each of the interview days, I first shared the consent forms with the interviewees (See Appendix C). Everyone agreed to participate in the interviews, and signed the consent form. For the purposes of anonymity, pseudonyms were used: Emma, Clara, Harry, John, Laura and Sabrina. The interviews were held in a classroom in each school. The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured manner, with open-ended questions related to the research questions. The researcher began each interview by briefly explaining the purpose of research and asking the interviewee to be sincere and honest. The questions encouraged discussion, and enabled the teachers to share their concerns, ideas and personal experiences of the inclusion of pupils with SEN. I had planned an average time of 30 minutes for each interview, and the average interview lasted 32 minutes, with the shortest 25 minutes and the longest 40 minutes. Each interview was recorded on a smartphone.
3. 6. Ethics As the first step of the research, the dissertation proposal ethics form was filled in and given to the university's GSA Ethics Officer and GSA Ethics The administrator subsequently confirmed the dissertation ethics form (see Appendix D). After the confirmation of the research ethics form, I commenced my research. For the questionnaire and interviews, the teachers were given participant information sheets (see Appendix E). Prior to the interviews with each individual teacher, written consent was gained from the class teachers themselves, in addition to the head teacher or assistant head teacher if the school processes required this. All participant teachers took part on a voluntary basis and they had the right to withdraw from participation in the survey or interview if desired. The questionnaire data was initially gathered in handwritten form on hard copy, and that data was kept securely in my home. Interview data was recorded on a smartphone and then transferred to my password protected personal computer, and subsequently erased from the 22
smartphone for security reasons. Neither the questionnaire data nor the interview data included confidential information. All data reported has been anonymised - the schools, individual staff or pupils were not named, and where it was necessary to name individuals, they were named differently. Every effort was made to ensure that people cannot be identified.
Research limitations The research did not reach a reliable sample size for the questionnaire due to an insufficient number of classroom teachers in those schools and limitations in research time. Moreover, the numbers and features of the interviewee teachers were insufficiently convenient to obtain more reliable data. There was a gender inequality in terms of the number of interviewee teachers, as four of the teachers were female, but only two were male. Because of the low number of participants, the results of this study cannot be generalised. Furthermore, the limitations of time meant that I was not able to carry out a pilot study, or to test the validity of the study. Future research should use multiple methods of data collection from multiple stakeholders in order to achieve a more holistic picture. Furthermore, due to the subjectivity of the interviewee teachers’ explanations, the reliability rate of this study is decreased.
Chapter Summary In brief, the methodology of this small-scale study was conducted on a pragmatist paradigm and used mixed methods to gather comprehensive research data. While quantitative data (questionnaires) gave numeric answers to the research questions Q1, Q2 and Q3, qualitative data (interviews) enabled me to gain a deeper understanding of the answers to these questions. This mix of methods allowed me to obtain more desirable and feasible information, because this multi-methodology provided a more complete view (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003; Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007).
23
CHAPTER 4. DATA ANALYSIS 4.1. Chapter Introduction In this chapter, the results of the data analysis will be presented. The data was gathered and then processed in response to the research questions indicated at the end of chapter 2. The data was analysed under two substantial headings, which are quantitative and qualitative data analyses. The goals of the data collection and analyses were to develop a base of knowledge about class teachers’ perceptions of knowledge and efficacy to teach students with SEN in mainstream classrooms in England. The data was analysed in different ways in order to gather more comprehensive information about the research topic. Although data analysis was described in the previous chapter, I would like to describe and justify the data analysis in more detail here, in order to make it more clear and understandable.
4.2. Quantitative Data Analysis Bryman (2015) emphasised that the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software analysis program is an integrated collection of many quantitative analysis methods, and it is an appreciated program for analysing social science research. He added that the statistical package of SPSS is easy to use and includes add-on modules. For these reasons, after the collection of the shared questionnaire, the participants’ responses to each of the 18 Likert scale items were entered into the SPSS, version 22, data analysis program. Descriptive statistics (numbers, mean and standard deviation) were computed to demonstrate the demographics and answer research questions one and three. These descriptive statistics searched for the levels of similarity between the independent and dependent variables. Ten broad comparative analyses were conducted, with gender, age range, grade level taught, teachers’ qualifications, inclusive training, additional qualifications, years of teaching experience, current roles in school, teaching time and inclusive training for the last five years as the independent variables, and teachers’ sense of knowledge and efficacy as the dependent variables. As mentioned earlier, a Likert-type scale was used for quantitative data collection, and this scale was designed with six levels. These six levels were directly coded to the SPSS program in order to measure the variables. For example, the value of “4” means “agree somewhat” for the related variable. In this way, descriptive and comparative statistics were gathered for each variable.
24
Table 1. Kolmogorov-Smimov Normality Test
Then, as seen in Table 1, the ‘Kolmogorov-Smimov’ normality test was conducted to decide whether to use a Pearson or Spearman correlation test to examine the levels of similarity between teachers’ perceptions of knowledge and efficacy. The result of the normality test displayed the significance score .026 for teachers’ total knowledge perceptions, and displayed .068 for teachers’ total efficacy perceptions. Rumsey (2009) stated that if a normality test result is less than 0.5, it means that the relationship between the variables is not linear, and it may be more appropriate to use the Spearman rank correlation method. According to the normality result, the nonparametric statistical analysis (Spearman’s correlation coefficient) test was conducted to find any potential correlation between teachers’ perceptions of knowledge and their perceptions of efficacy.
4.3. Qualitative Data Analysis After the interviews were completed, I wrote the recordings of the conversations to my personal notebook (see Appendix F) and to my computer and analysed them using thematic analysis. Braun and Clarke (2006) emphasised that thematic analysis is a useful method to identify, analyse and report patterns (or themes) within data. They added that it allows a researcher to be flexible and to give details of the data when the analysis is being designed and described. In other words, instead of constraining the study within certain theory and epistemology, it can instead be implemented across a wide range of epistemological and theoretical models (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Therefore, Querstret and Robinson asserted that thematic analysis is an ideal method for evaluating qualitative data in mixed methods research. During the analysis of the interview results, only completed answers, meaning those which answered the questions in entirety, were taken into account, and meaningless answers, meaning those which did not make any sense, were not taken into account. The thematic analysis was completed through the process of coding the data in six stages to form systematic and meaningful patterns. First, the interviewees’ responses were transcribed 25
and the transcripts were read several times so that I could familiarise myself with the data related to the classroom teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and efficacy to teach students with SEN in mainstream classrooms. Second, data was created using the initial deductive codes based on the research questions, and those codes were collected under three headings. For example, the second code was the relationship issue between teachers’ sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy. I removed some parts of the data unrelated to the topic in order to generate categories for more efficient examination. Third, the codes were analysed, and one of them was divided into sub-themes. Themes were formed in accordance with inductive interpretation of the individual ideas. Due to their irrelevance to teachers’ sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy towards inclusion, some of the teachers’ ideas were removed. Fourth, I reviewed the themes and refined them in order to provide sufficient thematic data. Then I defined and clarified each theme and created a title for each of these themes. Finally, I composed the final results of the thematic analysis. The thematic analysis led to ten themes, which were the main issues highlighted by the teachers and related to the research questions. 1. The level of teachers’ knowledge perceptions and efficacy perceptions. 2. The level of relationship between teachers’ sense of efficacy and sense of knowledge. 3. Relationship between teachers’ gender and their perceptions. 4. Relationship between teachers’ age range and their perceptions. 5. Relationship between grade levels taught and teachers’ perceptions. 6. Relationship between teacher’s qualifications and their perceptions 7. Relationship between inclusive training and teachers’ perceptions. 8. Relationship between years of teaching experience and teachers’ perceptions. 9. Relationship between current teaching roles and teachers’ perceptions. 10. Relationship between teaching time and teacher’s perceptions. Chapter Summary To sum up, the data analysis methods have been explained in this chapter. These analysis methods were used according to the gathered data. While the SPSS statistical data analysis package was used for the quantitative data, the thematic analysis method was used to evaluate and interpret the qualitative data. In the next chapter, the findings of the research into teachers’ professional perceptions will be presented and discussed.
26
CHAPTER 5. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 5.1. Chapter Introduction In this section, the research results are presented in detail and discussed in terms of their practical aspects and compatibility with the results of previous studies. These findings and discussions are conducted in a sequential order according to the research questions. Each chapter starts with the quantitative data findings and is followed by the qualitative (interview) data findings, in order to gain deeper insight into teachers’ professional perceptions of inclusion. For the purpose of explanation, firstly the background information of the teachers who participated in this academic research are given in the below table: Table 2: Background Information of Classroom Teachers
27
As Table 2 indicates, 35 primary classroom teachers who teach SEN students in two primary schools in England responded to a Likert-type questionnaire. The teachers’ background information included their gender, age range, grade level taught, professional qualifications, inclusive training, teaching experience, current school roles and teaching time. Apart from the above, to explain the tables that are used below, six levels were taken directly from a Likert-type scale, and those 6 levels were directly coded to the SPSS program to measure the variables. In this numbering system, if the numbers are growing from the bottom up, it means that the detection level of the teacher was in the direction of positive change. For the coding, while the minimum score was 1, the maximum score was 6. For example, the value of “4” means “agree somewhat” for the related variable.
5.2. Findings and Discussions for Question One (Q1) Question 1. To what extent do general class teachers feel themselves sufficiently knowledgeable and efficacious to teach pupils with SEN in mainstream classrooms? Table 3: Classroom Teachers Total Perception of Knowledge and Efficacy Total Knowledge Perception
Total Efficacy Perception
Valid
35
35
Missing
0
0
Mean
39.89
38.19
Median
39.82
38.00
N
As part of the questionnaire results, Table 3 shows that while the classroom teachers’ total sense of knowledge mean score was 39.89, in the meantime their total sense of efficacy mean score was 38.19. Their knowledge and efficacy mean scores were nearly at a score of 4, which represented the mean of ‘agree somewhat’. Therefore, these results demonstrate that teachers perceive that they have professional knowledge and efficacy to some degree. According to first theme of the interview results, all of the participants expressed that they feel themselves sufficiently knowledgeable and efficacious to teach pupils with SEN in their classrooms, and supported the view that disabled students have the right to study with their nondisabled peers. From their point of view, they have enough knowledge, skills and experience to teach SEN children in their classrooms. On the other hand, they claimed that they are more 28
likely to face teaching difficulties with severely disabled children. One of those teachers, Emma, explained her ideas on this issue: “I have been teaching for ten years, and I had a range of different children with various issues which might be affecting them. I do have knowledge and I feel very confident, so I teach the lessons very different ways; I do quite well. But sometimes, if the child is misbehaving and is unable to calm down, I call for the senior leadership team to come in to calm down the student and I cooperate with the inclusion officer.” Both the questionnaire and the interview results display how the classroom teachers consider themselves to be somewhat efficient and knowledgeable. However, the self-professional perceptions of those teachers needed to be improved. A fully inclusive school policy and inservice teacher training may serve to increase the self-knowledge and self-efficacy perceptions of those teachers towards inclusion. These results seem consistent with data obtained in other studies (Chiner and Cardona, 2012; Mulholland and O’Connor, 2016).
However, the results have varied slightly for these
professional perceptions. When examined carefully, the total mean score of the teachers' knowledge perceptions was higher, with 1.7 points, than their efficacy perceptions, and these results give different ideas to the findings of other researchers (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk and Hoy (1998). In other words, the results show that teachers have more confidence about their knowledge than their efficacy.
5.3. Findings and Discussions for Question Two (Q2) Question 2. Are there any significant connections between teachers’ sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy to teach in an inclusive classroom? Table 4: Spearman Rho Correlation Coefficient Test
29
The significant Spearman rho correlation coefficient value of 0.472 confirms what was apparent from table 4: there appears to be a moderately positive correlation between the two variables. Thus, teachers’ perceptions of knowledge are associated withtheir perceptions of efficacy. In terms of the interview results for theme two, all of the teachers expressed how there is a high level of relationship between their sense of efficacy and sense of knowledge. The general consensus among the interviewees was that there is a strong positive relationship between those two perceptions, and that it is a two-way relationship. For example, Laure said: “I think it is good to have up to date knowledge and probably it is affecting my efficacy. I think they complete each other. It is good to be familiar with the current policies, but also it is important to know how to do that, how to teach your students efficaciously.” In general, the interview results are similar to the questionnaire results. A possible explanation may be that as the knowledge of teachers’ increases, it will cause a possible increase in their perceptions of efficacy, and this finding is similar to the study of Daniels and Vaughn (1999). However, this implication may not work in the same way. I will provide a further explanation and discussion of the correlation between teachers’ perceptions in the section on the semistructured interview.
5.4. Findings and Discussions for Question Three (Q3) Question 3. To what extent are class teachers’ gender, age range, grade level taught, professional qualifications, inclusive training, teaching experience, current school role and teaching time influencing factors which have an impact on teachers’ sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy?
In this part, the other factors (teachers’ gender, age range, grade level taught, professional qualifications, inclusive training, teaching experience, current school role and teaching time) influencing teachers’ sense of knowledge and efficacy will be examined, and the results will be given in sequence.
30
Teachers’ Gender Table 5: The Comparison of Teachers’ Total Knowledge and Efficacy Perception by Gender
Table 5 demonstrates the mean scores and Standard Deviation scores for teachers’ perceptions of knowledge and perceptions of efficacy in accordance with their gender. Table 5 shows that for total knowledge perception the mean score was 38.24 for the male teachers and 39.05 for the female teachers. In the meantime, the male teachers’ total efficacy perception mean value was 37.97, whilst it was 38.25 for female teachers. According to these scores, female teachers’ total perceptions are higher than male teachers in both efficacy and knowledge. In the interview section for theme 3, all six of the teachers believed that they have a high level of knowledge and efficacy towards inclusion. While three female teachers and one male teacher stated that they have enough knowledge and efficacy, one female and one male teacher claimed that they know everything and that they are very efficacious to teach students with SEN in their classrooms. Based on these statements, there is no certain division for the perception of knowledge and perception of efficacy between genders. For example, Sabrina said: “I think I know everything that I need to know and I know how to teach to those students with SEN. I’m able to teach topics in accordance with the level of all students.” John said: “I think I have the knowledge and efficacy to teach all of the students in the class, but I sometimes need to receive some help to calm down a student with SEN.” The questionnaire results are in agreement with the previous research findings, which have shown that male teachers express more negative feelings on the issue of inclusion (Eichinger, Rizzo and Sirotnik, 1991; Hutzler, Zach and Gafni, 2005). However, the findings of the 31
interviews do not support the findings of the questionnaire. The interview results were similar with the previous research, which reported that there is no meaningful correlation between teachers’ professional perceptions about inclusion and their gender (Leyser et al., 1994; Batsiou et al., 2008). In the meantime, these findings may be somewhat limited due to the inequality between the number of female and male teachers in both studies. For example, while there were 28 female teachers who participated in the questionnaire, there were only seven male teachers, and this gender inequality limits the validity of the study.
Teachers’ Age Range Table 6: The Comparison of Teachers’ Total Knowledge and Efficacy Perception by Age Range
Table 6 displays the distribution of teachers’ overall sense of knowledge and efficacy according to their age group. The table indicates that teachers younger than 35 years old have lower mean scores for their knowledge perception and efficacy perception, whilst teachers aged 36 years and older have higher scores than their younger counterparts. One of the interesting findings is that the youngest teachers have the lowest knowledge and efficacy perceptions, and another surprising finding is that the middle-aged teachers (aged between 35 & 45) have the highest level of efficacy and knowledge perceptions. Contrary to expectations, the older teachers had lower perceptions scores compared to the middle-aged teachers.
32
With regards to theme 4, and in view of the interview results, all of the interviewees considered that there could be some relationship between teachers’ age range and professional perceptions towards inclusion. They expressed how older teachers probably have better knowledge and are more efficacious, but that this generalisation cannot be made. They added that the correlation depends on the person rather than their age range. For instance: Clara said: “Some of the younger teachers will have the most up to date research and try new things, and some of the older teachers teach as well. Older teachers are more experienced in some ways, but I cannot say older teachers are better than younger ones. It really depends on the person.” The questionnaire results support previous research into this education area, which has emphasised that younger teachers need more cooperation to include SEN students in their classrooms than their older colleagues (Cardona, 2011). Whereas these results differ from some published studies, all of those studies expressed how older teachers feel themselves unable to cope with SEN students because of their lack of knowledge (Parasuram, 2006; Gal, Schreur and Engel-Yeger, 2010). On the other hand, the interview results are not as clear as the questionnaires. While the interviewee teachers agreed that older teachers can be more experienced, they didn’t think that this is a common situation for all teachers. Both of these findings are in contrast to one earlier study, which found that there is no substantial relationship between teachers’ perceptions and their age ranges (Ross-Hill, 2009). Additionally, the results from the 55 to 65 years’ age group must be interpreted with caution, because there was only one person in this year group.
Teachers’ Grade Level Taught Table 7: The Comparison of Teachers’ Total Knowledge and Efficacy Perceptions by Grade Level Taught
33
As Table 7 illustrates, the mean scores of pre-school (nursery) level teachers’ perceptions are the highest among all of the three levels. However, the observed difference between nurserylevel mean scores and key stage 1 level mean scores was statically significant. The mean scores were found to be 40.52 and 40.27 for nursery-level, whereas the scores were calculated as 37.28 and 36.79 for key stage 1 level. With regards to Theme 5, in terms of the interview results, although teachers from all levels taught stated that they are equipped with the necessary knowledge and are able to teach all students effectively in their classrooms, pre-school level teachers expressed that they have a high level of knowledge and they are very efficacious to teach students with and without disabilities in their classrooms. One of the Key Stage 1 teachers, Laura, said that: “I think I have general knowledge and I’m efficacious to teach SEN students in my classroom. I apply differentiation and I pay close attention to those students with SEN. But, obviously, all children’s needs are very different and I sometimes need some other professionals’ help.” However, Emma said that: “I have been working in the nursery for 3 to 4 years and I can say that I have a broad understanding of what needs to be taught, and we use a different style to teach our students. They are nursery class students and our teaching is mixed with play. I think I am very good at teaching. These questionnaire and interview results are consistent with the findings of Avissar, Reiter and Leyser (2003), which stated that nursery class teachers feel more confident towards the inclusion of SEN pupils in their classrooms. On the other hand, the questionnaire results in terms of the key stage 2 level teachers’ perceptions findings point in the opposite direction to the findings of previous study (Cardona, 2011). These findings suggest that key stage 1 and key stage 2 teachers may need support with essential training and knowledge to take on children with SEN in their classroom.
34
Table 8: The Comparison of Teachers’ Total Knowledge and Efficacy Perceptions with Their Professional Qualifications
Table 8 demonstrates that class teachers’ sense of efficacy and sense of knowledge were higher if they had a professional qualification higher than a Bachelor degree. Moreover, these findings indicate that their perception of knowledge scores were higher than their perception of efficacy scores. Taking into account the results of the interview results in terms of theme 6, only one of those six interviewee teachers had a Masters degree, while five of them had a Bachelor degree. While the teacher with the Masters degree asserted that she feels that she has a high level of knowledge and efficacy, the other teachers expressed that they have a sufficient level of knowledge and efficacy. One of the teachers who had a Bachelor degree, John, said: “I think I needed to have some specific knowledge and skills to teach students with SEN. Although I didn’t attend any relevant course on SEN, I have been teaching for six years and have improved my knowledge and teaching skills.” Both the questionnaire and the interview findings confirm the study of Hobson et al. (2006), which claimed that higher qualifications with school-based training in inclusive settings is an ideal set of conditions for the improvement of teachers’ efficacy perceptions. In this case, those results may offer an implication that if higher qualification institutes provide more inclusive settings for their qualifications and degrees, teachers’ positive attitudes and knowledge levels may be increased. 35
Table 9: The Comparison of Teachers’ Sense of Knowledge and Efficacy with their Inclusive Training
As table 9 reveals, teachers who took ‘After school inclusive training with SENCo’ showed higher scores for their efficacy and knowledge perceptions than other groups. Surprisingly, there were no significant semantic differences between the scores of teachers who took an ‘Inschool Course’ or ‘University Course’. This finding may suggest that teachers should have more practical training within inclusive settings. In the interview section for theme 7, all six teachers believed that the ‘university course’ and ‘in-school course’ did not really give specific training on SEN, and ‘after school training with SENCo’ would be best suited to the needs of teachers in terms of teaching students with SEN. They added that this ‘after school training with SENCo’ could increase their knowledge and teaching skills. One of them, Clara, said: “I have done all types of courses about inclusion and I can say that the ‘university course’
and ‘in-school course’ don’t really give you more specific training on SEN. I never did universal provision or anything like that during those courses. I personally think that the ‘after school training with SENCo’ can increase teachers’ knowledge and efficacy on SEN, and it needs to be done.”
36
The results of the questionnaire and interviews are in line with each other. In a similar vein, in their previous research, Mulholland and O’Connor (2016) highlighted that teachers claim to receive appropriate initial and in-service training for the better inclusion of SEN children in their classrooms. However, the possibility of this education taking place in inclusive settings is difficult due to the difficulties encountered in its implementation.
Table 10: The Comparison of Teachers’ Total Knowledge and Efficacy Perceptions with their Years of Teaching Experience
Table 10 represents how teachers’ years of experience has myriad relationships with their sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy. As we look at the overall table, it can be observed that experienced teachers have higher mean scores than their younger colleagues. While teachers with less than two years of experience have the lowest mean scores, teachers with 16 to 20 years (or more) of experience seem to have the highest mean scores. In the interview section for theme 8, all six interviewees believed that there is a positive correlation between teachers’ years of teaching experience and their professional perceptions.
37
They agreed that more experienced teachers are mostly more knowledgeable and more efficacious. One of the interviewee teachers, Sabrina, said: “I’m only in my second year of teaching, and if I need some help, I just ask the more experienced teachers. So, I think that experienced teachers have more knowledge and skills to teach students with SEN, because that is something you just learn over time as you have lots of children with lots of different needs.” The questionnaire and interview findings are mostly consistent with each other. However, these general findings have no similarity with one previous piece of research (Parasuram, 2006), which underlined that older and more experienced teachers have less knowledge and skills and demonstrate more resistance against the inclusion of children with SEN in their classrooms. Similarly to this previous research, the mean score of teachers with two to five years of teaching experience seems extremely high, but this stands as an exception in the overall table.
Table 11: The Comparison of Teachers’ Total Knowledge and Efficacy Perception with their Current Role in School
Table 11 displays that the mean scores for teachers who teach permanently in a classroom were higher than for the other teachers who work as supply teachers. At the same time, because of their higher level of training and experience, the teachers who work as SENCos in school had the highest mean scores.
38
In the interview section for theme 9, all of the interviewees reported that because of SENCo teachers’ relatively long period working with SEN students, and their focus on the inclusion of SEN students, they have more knowledge and teaching skills than other teachers. To put in another way, a teacher’s current role has an effect on that teacher’s perceptions of their knowledge and efficacy. As much as their working with students with SEN has an impact, their professional perceptions are growing at a significant rate. Moreover, the interviewees expressed that classroom teachers are more likely to have higher sense of efficacy and sense of knowledge than supply teachers and part time teachers, because they have more opportunities to encounter SEN students. One of the six teachers, Laure, said: “I think more teaching of students with SEN makes a teacher more knowledgeable and efficacious; that is something you just learn over time as you have lots of different children with lots of different needs. Also, I think a SENCo has a broader knowledge and efficacy to deal with SEN students for the same reason.”
Both of the above quantitative and qualitative findings are consistent with Leyser et al.’s (1994) previous study, which reported that classroom teachers with more interaction and more experience of SEN students had significantly higher positive perceptions towards inclusion. In addition, one unanticipated finding was that the efficacy perception mean score was higher than knowledge perception among teachers who are working as SENCos. A possible explanation for this might be that these teachers have a higher sense of efficacy because of their non-stop engagement with SEN students during every school day.
Table 12: The Comparison of Teachers’ Total Knowledge and Efficacy Perception with their Teaching Time
39
Lastly, Table 12 clarifies that both the efficacy perception and knowledge perception mean scores of the classroom teachers in full-time teaching were higher than those of teachers in parttime teaching. In the interview section for theme 10, five out of the six interviewee teachers expressed that if the teaching time of teachers were to increase in an inclusive classroom, it would make a significant contribution to the development of their sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy to teach students with SEN. However, one of them claimed the opposite, that the teaching time of teachers cannot have a significant effect on their sense of knowledge and efficacy. One of those five teachers, Harry, said: “I think teaching full-time can increase your knowledge and efficacy, because if you work full-time in a classroom you will face more challenges with SEN students and you will learn how to cope with those challenges. So, if you teach full-time, you will know what other elements within the theory will work.” The findings of the questionnaire and interview are similar to each other. Those results are also in line with the Leyser et al.’s (1994) previous study, which reported that classroom teachers with more interaction with children with SEN had significantly higher positive perceptions towards inclusion. This would suggest that teaching full-time in a classroom increases teachers’ sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy.
The general findings of this mixed methods study indicate that there are complicated relationships between teachers’ perceptions and the influencing factors on those perceptions towards the implementation of inclusion. The result of the study shows that a majority of the respondent classroom teachers had a relatively high sense of knowledge and high sense of efficacy towards the practice of inclusion. On the other hand, a small number of teachers responded that their sense of efficacy and knowledge towards the inclusion of SEN students is low. Likewise, the study displays that there is a positive correlation between teachers’ perceptions of knowledge and perceptions of efficacy. On the other hand, the study has shown that there are differences between the features of the other influencing factors. While some factors demonstrated positive relationships, others displayed negative relationships with teachers’ professional perceptions.
40
The majority of the participants indicated that female teachers in terms of gender; older teachers in terms of age range, pre-school level teachers in terms of grade level taught, experienced teachers in terms of years of teaching experience and full-time class teachers in terms of teaching time have higher levels of knowledge perception and efficacy perception. Moreover, the results represent how teachers with a qualification level higher than a Bachelor’s degree and teachers who have taken ‘inclusive after school training with SENCo’ have higher levels of professional perceptions. Those results suggest that if education policy makers and authorities were to design a training programme for classroom teachers in an inclusive setting to increase classroom teachers’ skills, experience, knowledge and interaction with SEN students, their sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy would increase. Moreover, the causes of male teachers’ low professional perceptions must be investigated thoroughly, and more emphasis should be placed on enabling inclusive training for male teachers, with strategies for increasing their motivation and for facilitating their professional improvement. However, a minority of teachers had different ideas. While some of them expressed they have totally opposite feelings, others claimed that there is no relationship between teachers’ characteristics and their professional perceptions. They also claimed that there is less or no correlation between teachers’ knowledge perceptions and efficacy perceptions. The reasons for the emergence of such different results may be that all of the teachers come from different backgrounds from an educational angle, and therefore the variation in results can be explained by their individual differences.
Chapter Summary To sum up, in this part of the study I have explained and discussed the findings on teachers’ knowledge and efficacy perceptions towards inclusion. The findings of the study have been presented and discussed under different headings and subheadings, according to the research questions and sub-topics. The questionnaire and interview results were respectively shared together, and after that the similarities and differences of the findings were discussed in relation to previous studies.
41
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6. 1. Conclusion England is one of the best examples of an inclusive education among all of the countries in Europe, with advancing legislation that assures the full inclusion of pupils with SEN into the mainstream education system (Lindsay, 2007). From this point of view, and as a significant factor, the professional perceptions of primary classroom teachers with regards to the practice of inclusion are very important. To examine the complex relationships between teachers’ sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy, this dissertation was carried out using mixed methods of educational research. Initially, I introduced a new Likert-type scale, which concerned primary class teachers’ sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy to teach pupils with SEN in mainstream classrooms. Additionally, the research included a semi-structured interview to elicit in-depth information about the professional perceptions of classroom teachers. This combination of quantitative and qualitative data contributed to examining the complex relationship between teachers’ perceptions and the influencing factors on those perceptions. This study has shown that the influence of different factors is complicated in terms of teachers’ knowledge and efficacy perceptions. In addition, there was no consensus on these influences, and perceptions varied from teacher to teacher. This study has revealed that class teachers need more training related to inclusion, but a point has also arisen that more attention needs to be paid to teachers perceived professional inadequacy in order to provide a permanent solution.
6.2. Recommendations In this study I have pointed out that teachers who have less desirable professional perceptions are those with low levels of essential knowledge, skills, resources and support to include pupils with SEN in their mainstream classrooms. These findings give a meaningful message to education authorities and education policy makers.
42
Therefore, in light of this study, educational policy makers, administrators and applicators should examine every point of inclusion meticulously in order to develop the conditions of inclusive settings, from the planning stage through to the final implementation stage. Education authorities should make accessible to teachers the additional support and teaching materials needed to make them feel more compatible with the possible implications of inclusion. Moreover, respective educational institutions and schools should provide more specific and well-structured in-service and pre-service training on inclusion to classroom teachers. 6.3. Limitations Although this study has been structured very precisely, it involves obvious limitations. Firstly, it does not include any longitudinal data to test the teachers’ responses with a cross-lagged prediction model on whether it is sense of knowledge which predicts sense of efficacy, or whether efficacy perceptions predict knowledge perceptions. Secondly, it was conducted under constraints in time and financial resources. All of the preparation, implementation and analysis of the questionnaires and interviews was carried out in a short period of three months. In terms of the questionnaire, it was intended to reach 50 participants, but only reached 35, and there was an imbalance in respect of the test subjects’ properties. Moreover, no pilot study was conducted prior to the actual questionnaire due to time constraints. Therefore, the results of this study cannot be generalised for further research. For the semi-structured interviews, a small sample size was chosen, which consisted of only six teachers and may not be representative of a particular population. Moreover, it was also difficult to categorise and interpret those interviews objectively. Furthermore, there were some limitations to using thematic analysis to evaluate interview data. One of them is the unmeasurable reliability of this method. The wide variety of interpretations that arise from the patterns (themes), as well as implementing themes to large amounts of documents, caused a reliability concern. Chapter Summary All in all, this research was designed to be a first step towards measuring the relationship between teachers’ knowledge and efficacy perceptions, and this topic certainly calls for further research. Future research should be more comprehensive and should include a sufficient 43
number of participants in terms of reliability. Before the main research, a pilot study should be done in terms of ensuring high validity, and different research methods should also be used, such as observation and discussion groups.
44
APPENDICIES
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRE
Teachers’ Perception of Knowledge and Efficacy towards Inclusion of Students with SEND Questionnaire Ethical Statement My name is Emir Omer EMRE and I am a student at University of Exeter studying a MA Education: Special Educational Needs. I invite you to participate in this research study. The purpose of this research study is to examine primary teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and efficacy to teach students with SEND in mainstream classrooms in England and will take you approximately 15 minutes to complete. Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary and you can withdraw at any time. All information and responses will be used solely for the purposes of the master project, which may include publications or academic conference or seminar. All information will be treated as confidential and the researcher will make every effort to preserve participants’ anonymity. For further information, please contact: Emir Omer EMRE:
[email protected] or Professor Hazel Lawson (academic supervisor):
[email protected]
Section A: Background Information Please tick/check the boxes that most apply to you. You are:
Male
Female
In which age range are you? < 25
25-35
35-45
45-55
55-65
65 +
You are currently teaching in: Pre-school level (e.g., Nursery) Key Stage 1 Key Stage 2 What is your highest educational qualification? Bachelor’s Degree ■ Doctorate (e.g., PhD, EdD)
Master’s Degree
■
Other ………………..
If you have had training on inclusion in mainstream classrooms, how was the training delivered?
45
In-school Course
University Course Other ………………..
After School Training with SENCo
Do you have any additional qualification relevant to special educational needs? ■
Yes ■
No
If yes, please give further information …………………..■ How many years have you been teaching? < 2 years ■
■
11 to 15 years
2 to 5 years
6 to 10 years
16 to 20 years ■
> 20 years
What is your current role in school? Classroom teacher
SENCo
Headteacher/ Deputy headteacher
Other ……….
Do you teach: Full-time ■
Part-time
No classroom teaching
What is the approximate number of training hours you have participated in regarding inclusive practices in the last 5 years? < 5 hours ■ 15 to 20 hours
5 to 10 hours■ ■
10 to 15 hours ■
> 20 hours
Section B: Teachers’ Perception of Knowledge and Efficacy towards Inclusion of Student with SEND Please circle the number that best represents your perception about each of the statements. Please attempt to answer each question 1 2 Strongly Disagree Disagree
3 Disagree Somewhat
4 Agree Somewhat
1 SD 1. I have the skills to help children with and without SEND to become comfortable when interacting with one another. 2. I am able to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy. 3. I had experience working with children with SEND during teaching practice in my initial teaching education (ITE). 4. I am confident in designing learning tasks so that the individual needs of students with SEND are accommodated. 5. I know how and where to seek information about including children with SEND in the classroom.
2D
3 DS
5
6 Strongly Agree
Agree
1
2
4 AS 3
4
5A
6 SA 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
46
6
6. I collaborate with other professionals (e.g., speech therapists, behaviour support teachers) in designing educational plans for students with SEND. 7. I did not have sufficient class time learning about inclusion during my ITE course. ■ 8. I am confident in informing others who know little about laws and policies relating to the inclusion of students with SEND. 9. I need continuing professional development to meet the needs of children with SEND. 10. I am able to develop a differentiated education environment for pupils with SEND.■ 11. I am not confident in my ability to get parents involved in school activities of their children with SEND. 12. I am not able to identify a child with SEND 13. I am able to get children to follow classroom rules. 14. I feel that the structure, content and delivery of material on inclusion is sufficient during ITE. 15. I am able to work jointly with other professionals and staff (e.g., TAs, other teachers) to teach students with SEND in the classroom. 16. I would feel more ‘prepared’ if more training on inclusive practices was available. ■ 17. I am not confident when dealing with students who are physically aggressive. 18. I am able to provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused.
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
■ ■Sources: Nine questions are adapted from Hsien, M., Brown, P. and Bortoli, A. (2009): Teacher Qualifications and Attitudes toward Inclusion, and nine questions are adapted from Sharma, U., Loreman, T. and Forlin, C. (2011): Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices.
Section C: Participants’ Reflections Please answer the following questions: 1.
What do you think teacher training programmes should include to educate teacher trainees in their knowledge for inclusion of pupils with SEND in the classroom?
2.
What do you think is the best way for you to learn about including children with SEND in your classroom?
47
3.
What sorts of additional support do you think would enhance inclusive practice in the school (e.g., materials, teaching approaches, human resources)? Why? Please give details.
4.
Are there any other concerns or comments you would like to share?
Lastly, I would you like to ask you if you would please volunteer for an interview to talk about your ideas further: Yes
No
If yes, could you write your name here please: And your phone or email address to contact please:
*Thank you so much for your valuable contribution to this academic survey.* Emir Omer EMRE ***
48
FILLED QUESTIONNAIRE SAMPLE:
49
50
51
APPENDİX B: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Teachers’ Perception of Knowledge and Efficacy towards Inclusion of Students with SEND
1. To what extent, you have the skills to help children with and without SEND to become comfortable when interacting with one another? 2. To what extent, you are confident in designing learning tasks so that the individual needs of students with SEND are accommodated? 3. What sort of continuing professional development you need, to meet the needs of children with SEND? 4. To what extent, you are confident in informing others who know little about laws and policies relating to the inclusion of students with SEND? 5. How do you develop a differentiated education environment for pupils with SEND?? 6. To what extent, the structure, content and delivery of material on inclusion was sufficient during your ITE? 7. To what extent you feel yourself knowledgeable and efficacious to teach pupils with SEN in mainstream classrooms? 8. To what extent, there is a relationship between your sense of knowledge and sense of efficacy to teach in an inclusive classroom? 9. To what extent, your gender, age range, grade level taught and professional qualifications have an influence on your knowledge and efficacy? 10. To what extent, your inclusive training, teaching experience, current school roles and teaching time have an influence on your knowledge and efficacy?
*Thank you so much for your valuable contribution to this academic survey.* Emir Omer EMRE ***
52
APPENDİX C: INFORMED CONSENT FORM
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
Title of Research Project: Primary Class Teachers’ Perceptions of their knowledge and efficacy to teach students with SEND in mainstream classrooms CONSENT FORM I have been fully informed about the aims and purposes of the project. I understand that: •
•
• • •
there is no compulsion for me to participate in this research project and, if I do choose to participate, I may at any stage withdraw my participation and may also request that my data be destroyed any information which I give will be used solely for the purposes of this research project, which may include publications or academic conference or seminar presentations if applicable, the information, which I give, may be shared between any of the other researcher(s) participating in this project in an anonymised form all information I give will be treated as confidential the researcher(s) will make every effort to preserve my anonymity
............................……………….. (Signature of participant )
................................ (Date)
…………………… (Printed name of participant) One copy of this form will be kept by the participant; a second copy will be kept by the researcher(s) Contact phone number of researcher(s): 07459 846321 If you have any concerns about the project that you would like to discuss, please contact: Emir Omer EMRE:
[email protected] ……………………………………….………..……….. Or Professor Hazel LAWSON (academic supervisor):
[email protected] …….….…………… Data Protection Act: The University of Exeter is a data collector and is registered with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner as required to do under the Data Protection Act 1998. The information you provide will be used for research purposes and will be processed in accordance with the University’s registration and current data protection legislation. Data will be confidential to the researcher(s) and will not be disclosed to any unauthorised third parties without further agreement by the participant. Reports based on the data will be in anonymised form.
53
APPENDİX D: ETHICS FORM FROM INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD
M/15/16/2
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION DISSERTATION ETHICS FORM When completing this form please remember that the purpose of the document is to clearly explain the ethical considerations of the research being undertaken. As a generic form it has been constructed to cover a wide-range of different projects so some sections may not seem relevant to you. Please include the information which addresses any ethical considerations for your particular project which will be needed by your tutors to approve your proposal. Please refer to the Graduate School of Education Module Assignment Ethics Form guidance notes. Please note that this form and process applies to taught postgraduate dissertations only. Guidance on all aspects of the GSE Ethics application process for taught postgraduates can be found on ELE at http://vle.exeter.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=2804. SUBMISSION PROCEDURE Students and supervisors should follow the procedure below. 1. Send a draft application to your supervisor. 2. Complete any changes requested and re-send to your supervisor. 3. Your supervisor will then forward your application to a second tutor for checking. Your application will then either be approved or returned for further changes. If further changes are required, return to step 1. NB. If either your supervisor or the second tutor deem the research to require full review, the application will be sent to the GSE Ethics Officer before approval can be given. See the document minimal risk descriptors for the criteria regarding full review. 4. You will receive confirmation of approval from the GSE ethics administrator. Please note: • You should not gather any data until your ethics form has been approved. • This form must be included as an appendix in your assignment. Applicant details Student number UoE email address Programme Name of supervisor
650032899
[email protected] EFPM308 Preparing for Educational Research and Dissertation Hazel Lawson
Duration for which permission is required You should request approval for the entire period of your research activity. The start date should normally be at least two weeks from the date that you submit this form. Students should use the
54
anticipated date of completion of their module as the end date of their work. Please note that retrospective ethical approval will never be given. Start date:04/05/2016 End date:05/09/2016 Date of application:26/04/2016 Certification for all submissions I hereby certify that I will abide by the details given in this application and that I undertake in my research to respect the dignity and privacy of those participating in this research. I confirm that if my research should change radically I will complete a further ethics proposal form. EMIR OMER EMRE Submission of this ethics proposal form confirms your acceptance of the above.
TITLE OF YOUR PROJECT Primary class teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and efficacy to teach students with SEN in mainstream classrooms (MA Education EFPM308 Preparing for Educational Research and Dissertation)
SYNOPSIS OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT As a guide – approx. 200 words.
It is becoming increasingly important to be knowledgeable and fully efficacious when working with pupils with SEN in regular education classrooms. Class teachers will likely come across children diagnosed with SEN in their classrooms because of the trend towards inclusion in general education (Shillingford and Karlin, 2014). These teachers’ responses to pupils with SEN will play a crucial role towards the achievement of inclusion aims. A teacher’s ability to handle the potentially challenging circumstances when students with SEN are included mainly depends on their perception of knowledge and efficacy (Furlong, Morrison, and Jimerson, 2004). Previous research has underlined that while there seems to be some degree of relationship between teachers’ sense of self-efficacy and sense of knowledge, there are many other factors affecting teachers’ sense of knowledge and efficacy to educate children in a regular classroom (Chiner and Cardona, 2012; Mulholland and O'Connor, 2016). Therefore, this study will research and examine primary teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and efficacy to teach students with SEN in mainstream classrooms in England. Using questionnaires and interviews, it will assess whether there is a link between teachers’ knowledge perception, efficacy perception, and other elements such as gender, age, grade level taught, years of teaching experience, and qualification level.
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH Not applicable The following sections require an assessment of possible ethical consideration in your research project. If particular sections do not seem relevant to your project please indicate this and clarify why. RESEARCH METHODS 55
This study will use a mixture of quantitative and qualitative research methods: • questionnaire • semi-structured interview. The first part of the study will be a 6-point Likert-type scale questionnaire, which is comprised of an adaptation of two associated published scales (TQAI and TEIP). Nine questions have been selected from each scale to create a new ‘Teachers’ Perceptions of Efficacy and Knowledge toward Inclusion’ (TPEKI) questionnaire. The creators of the TQAI scale and TEIP scale gave their permission to use these scales in the new survey. The questionnaire will be given in hard copy format to class teachers who volunteer to participate. They will be asked to complete and return the questionnaire in 2 weeks. The researcher will go back in the school/s and collect data papers after 2 weeks.
The second part of the data collection will involve semi-structured interviews designed to elicit more detailed responses. Five volunteer teachers will be selected for interviews. The semi-structured interviews will be conducted face to face, and the audio will be recorded on a smartphone.
PARTICIPANTS The participants in this study will include a convenience sample of primary class teachers who teach students with SEN in mainstream classrooms, both female and male, teaching in primary schools located in a mid-sized city. It is aimed that fifty primary class teachers will be involved in the questionnaire, and within this sample five primary class teachers, who have volunteered to be interviewee, will be selected based on their taught experience and taught level for interviews. The sample will include teachers who are teaching at key stage 1, key stage 2 and nursery level.
THE VOLUNTARY NATURE OF PARTICIPATION Overall consent for the research study to be carried out in the school/s will be gained from the Headteacher/s. All participant teachers will take part on a voluntary basis and have the right to withdraw from participation in the study if desired.
SPECIAL ARRANGEMENTS Not applicable THE INFORMED NATURE OF PARTICIPATION Participants will be fully informed about the purpose of the research project, that is, to help reveal the nature of elements influencing teachers’ knowledge and efficacy towards the inclusion of students with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) in mainstream classrooms, and whether there is any relationship between teachers’ sense of their knowledge and sense of their efficacy. They will be informed that all background information and responses will be used solely for the purposes of this master project, which may include publications or academic conference or seminar presentations in an anonymized form.
56
Questionnaire participants will be informed through the introductory section of the questionnaire and this will indicate that consent will be implied through completion of the questionnaire. Interview participants will be informed through an information sheet. Written consent will be gained for individual interviews from the class teachers themselves. All information will be treated as confidential and the researcher will make every effort to preserve participants’ anonymity.
ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE HARM Harm, detriment or unreasonable stress are not expected during data collection.
DATA PROTECTION AND STORAGE Questionnaire data will be collected in hard copy format. These data will be kept securely by the master student (Emir), on his person and in his home. They will not include confidential information. Interviews will be audio-recorded on a smartphone, then transcribed. Once transferred, data will be deleted from the smartphone and stored on a password protected computer. All data reported will be anonymised - the school, individual staff or pupils will not be named and every effort will be made to ensure that people cannot be identified.
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS Not applicable USER ENGAGEMENT AND FEEDBACK When the data are analysed, the school/s of participants will be informed about the outcomes of the study. After the masters’ dissertation is written and approved by university, the researcher will send the school/s a copy of this approved dissertation. If the researcher wishes to use this gathered data for further purposes, he will inform the school.
57
APPENDİX E: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION SHEETS
College of Social Sciences and International Studies Graduate School of Education
Questionnaire Participant Information Sheet Title of Research: Primary class teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and efficacy to teach students with SEND in mainstream classrooms My name is Emir Omer EMRE and I am conducting this research as a student in the MA Education: Special Educational Needs at University of Exeter. What is the study about? The purpose of this study is to examine primary teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and efficacy to teach students with SEND in mainstream classrooms in England. It will also assess whether other factors, such as teaching experience, influence teachers’ knowledge perception and efficacy perception. Why have I been approached? You have been approached because I would like to gather information from people who are a class teacher and who teach students with SEND in mainstream classrooms. Do I have to take part? No. It’s completely up to you to decide whether or not you take part. What will I be asked to do if I take part? If you decide you would like to take part, you would be asked to complete a questionnaire and answer questions about your experience, knowledge and efficacy to teach students with SEND in your classroom. Will my data be Identifiable? All information will be treated as confidential and the researcher will make every effort preserve participants’ anonymity. The data collected for this study will be stored securely and only the researcher conducting this study will have access to this data: o Hard copies of questionnaires will be kept securely in the researcher’s home and will be destroyed and/or deleted once the project has been submitted. o The data files on the computer will be kept securely on the researcher’s password protected computer. o The data of your questionnaire will be made anonymous by removing any identifying information including your name, if given. Anonymised direct quotations from your questionnaire may be used in the reports or publications from the study, but your name will not be attached to them. What will happen to the results? 58
The results will be summarised and reported in a dissertation and may be submitted for publication in an academic or professional journal. Who has reviewed the project? This study has been reviewed by the Graduate School of Education Research Ethics Committee at Exeter University. Where can I obtain further information about the study if I need it? If you have any questions about the study, please contact the main researcher: Emir Omer EMRE:
[email protected] Or Professor Hazel Lawson (academic supervisor):
[email protected]
*Thank you for taking the time to read this information sheet* Emir Omer EMRE
College of Social Sciences and International Studies Graduate School of Education
Interview Participant Information Sheet Title of Research: Primary class teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and efficacy to teach students with SEND in mainstream classrooms My name is Emir Omer EMRE and I am conducting this research as a student in the MA Education: Special Educational Needs at University of Exeter. What is the study about? The purpose of this study is to examine primary teachers’ perceptions of their knowledge and efficacy to teach students with SEND in mainstream classrooms in England. It will also assess whether 59
other factors, such as length of teaching experience, influence teachers’ knowledge perception and efficacy perception. Why have I been approached? You have been approached because I would like to gather information from people who are a class teacher and who teach students with SEND in mainstream classrooms. Do I have to take part? No. It’s completely up to you to decide whether or not you take part. What will I be asked to do if I take part? If you decide you would like to take part, you would be asked to answer questions about your experience, knowledge and efficacy to teach students with SEND in your classroom. Will my data be Identifiable? All information will be treated as confidential and the researcher will make every effort preserve participants’ anonymity. The data collected for this study will be stored securely and only the researcher conducting this study will have access to this data: o Audio recordings will be destroyed and/or deleted once the project has been submitted. o The data files on the computer will be kept securely on the researcher’s password protected computer. o The typed version of your interview will be made anonymous by removing any identifying information including your name. Anonymised direct quotations from your interview may be used in the reports or publications from the study, but your name will not be attached to them. What will happen to the results? The results will be summarised and reported in a dissertation and may be submitted for publication in an academic or professional journal. Who has reviewed the project? This study has been reviewed by the Graduate School of Education Research Ethics Committee at Exeter University. Where can I obtain further information about the study if I need it? If you have any questions about the study, please contact the main researcher: Emir Omer EMRE:
[email protected] Or Professor Hazel Lawson (academic supervisor):
[email protected]
*Thank you for taking the time to read this information sheet* Emir Omer EMRE ***
60
APPENDİX F: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT
61
REFERENCES Abowitz, D. and Toole, T. (2010). Mixed Method Research: Fundamental Issues of Design, Validity, and Reliability in Construction Research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(1), pp.108-116. Alghazo, E. and Naggar Gaad, E. (2004). General Education Teachers in the United Arab Emirates and Their Acceptance of the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 31(2), pp.94-99. Almog, O. and Shechtman, Z. (2007). Teachers' democratic and efficacy beliefs and styles of coping with behavioural problems of pupils with special needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(2), pp.115-129. Ashton, P. and Webb, R. (1986). Making a difference. New York: Longman. Avissar, G., Reiter, S. and Leyser, Y. (2003). Principals' views and practices regarding inclusion: the case of Israeli elementary school principals. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(3), pp.355-369. Avramidis, E. and Kalyva, E. (2007). The influence of teaching experience and professional development on Greek teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(4), pp.367-389. Avramidis, E. and Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration / inclusion: a review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), pp.129-147. Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P. and Burden, R. (2000). A Survey into Mainstream Teachers' Attitudes Towards the Inclusion of Children with Special Educational Needs in the Ordinary School in one Local Education Authority. Educational Psychology, 20(2), pp.191-211. Bandura, A. (n.d.). Self-efficacy: the Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. Barton, L. and Armstrong, F. (2007). Policy, experience and change. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Batsiou, S., Bebetsos, E., Panteli, P. and Antoniou, P. (2008). Attitudes and intention of Greek and Cypriot primary education teachers towards teaching pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12(2), pp.201-219. Beacham, N. and Rouse, M. (2011). Student teachers' attitudes and beliefs about inclusion and inclusive practice. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), pp.3-11. 62
Bines, H. (2000). Inclusive Standards? Current developments in policy for special educational needs in England and Wales. Oxford Review of Education, 26(1), pp.21-33. Blandford, S. and Gibson, S. (2005). Managing Special Educational Needs: A Practical Guide for Primary and Secondary Schools. Sage Publications. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp.77-101. Brownell, M. and Pajares, F. (1999). Teacher Efficacy and Perceived Success in Mainstreaming Students with Learning and Behaviour Problems. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 22(3), pp.154-164. Bryman, A. (2015). Social Research Methods - 5th Edition. Oxford: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS. Buchanan, D. (1992). An Uneasy Alliance: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods. Health Education & Behaviour, 19(1), pp.117-135. Buell, M., Hallam, R., Gamel-Mccormick, M. and Scheer, S. (1999). A Survey of General and Special Education Teachers' Perceptions and In-service Needs Concerning Inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46(2), pp.143-156. Burchardt *, T. (2004). Capabilities and disability: the capabilities framework and the social model of disability. Disability & Society, 19(7), pp.735-751. Cardona, M. (2012). Teachers’ Opinion Relative to Inclusion in Spain: A comparison between experienced and inexperienced teachers. The International Journal of Diversity in Organizations, Communities, and Nations: Annual Review, 11(3), pp.151-168. Carpenter, C., Schulz, J. and Turnbull, A. (1991). Mainstreaming Exceptional Students: A Guide for Classroom Teachers. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Chan, D. (2008). Dimensions of teacher self‐efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 28(2), pp.181-194. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage Publications. Chiner, E. and Cardona, M. (2013). Inclusive education in Spain: how do skills, resources, and supports affect regular education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(5), pp.526-541. Clandinin, D. and Connelly, F. (1996). Teachers' Professional Knowledge Landscapes: Teacher Stories Stories of Teachers School Stories Stories of Schools. Educational Researcher, 25(3), pp.24-30.
63
Creswell, J. and Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. and Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. Daniels, V. and Vaughn, S. (1999). A Tool to Encourage: “Best Practice” in Full Inclusion. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 31(5), pp.48-55. D'Alonzo, B., Giordano, G. and Cross, T. (1996). Improving teachers' attitudes through teacher education toward the inclusion of students with disabilities into their classrooms. The Teacher Educator, 31(4), pp.304-312. Davis, L. (2013). The disability studies reader. 4th ed. New York and London: Routledge. De Mesquita, P. and Drake, J. (1994). Educational reform and the self-efficacy beliefs of teachers implementing nongraded primary school programs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(3), pp.291-302. Dewey, J. (1925). Experience and Nature. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD., pp.42-49. DfE (Department for Education), (2014). National curriculum and assessment: information for schools. London: HMSO. Education for all handicapped Act of 1975, (1991). Integration and the support service. Slough: NFER, pp.94-142. Eichinger, J., Rizzo, T. and Sirotnik, B. (1991). Changing Attmitudes Toward People with Disabilities.Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 14(2), pp.121-126. Finkelstein, V. (2016). A personal journey into disability politics. Centre for Disability Studies. Leeds: Leeds University. Forlin, C. and Chambers, D. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive education: increasing knowledge but raising concerns. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), pp.17-32. Forlin, C., Cedillo, I., Romero‐Contreras, S., Fletcher, T. and Rodríguez Hernández, H. (2010). Inclusion in Mexico: ensuring supportive attitudes by newly graduated teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), pp.723-739. Forlin, C., Keen, M. and Barrett, E. (2008). The Concerns of Mainstream Teachers: Coping with inclusivity in an Australian context. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 55(3), pp.251-264.
64
Furlong, M., Morrison, G. and Jimerson, S. (2004). Externalizing behaviours of aggression and violence and the school context: Handbook of research in emotional and behavioural disorders. New York: The Guildford Press. Gal, E., Schreur, N. and Engel-Yeger, B. (2010). Inclusion of children with disabilities: Teachers’ attitudes and requirements for environmental accommodations. International Journal of Special Education, 25(2), pp.89-99. Garner, P. (2003). Pretzel Only Policy? Inclusion and the Real World of Initial Teacher Education.British Journal of Special Education, 27(3), pp.111-116. Gibson, S. and Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), pp.569-582. Goodman, R. and Burton, D. (2010). The inclusion of students with BESD in mainstream schools: teachers' experiences of and recommendations for creating a successful inclusive environment. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 15(3), pp.223-237. Gorard, S. and Taylor, C. (2004). Combining methods in educational and social research. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Grieve, A. (2009). Teachers' beliefs about inappropriate behaviour: challenging attitudes? Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), pp.173-179. Hafford-Letchfield, T. (2014). Doing a Successful Research Project: Using Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Social Work Education, 34(2), pp.244-245. Hobson, A., Malderez, A., Tracey, L., Giannakaki, M., Pell, R., Kerr, K., Chambers, G., Tomlinson, P. and Roper, T. (2006). Becoming a Teacher: Student teachers’ experiences of initial teacher training in England. Research Report RR 744. London: DfES. Hodkinson, A. (2009). Pre‐service teacher training and special educational needs in England 1970– 2008: is government learning the lessons of the past or is it experiencing a groundhog day? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24(3), pp.277-289. Horne, P. and Timmons, V. (2009). Making it work: teachers’ perspectives on inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(3), pp.273-286. Hsien, M., Brown, P. and Bortoli, A. (2009). Teacher Qualifications and Attitudes toward Inclusion. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 33(1), pp.26-41. Hutzler, Y., Zach, S. and Gafni, O. (2005). Physical education students’ attitudes and self‐efficacy towards the participation of children with special needs in regular classes. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20(3), pp.309-327. 65
Ivankova, N. and Creswell, J. (2009). Mixed Methods. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A Practical Introduction. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire [England]: Palgrave Macmillan. Janney, R. and Snell, M. (2006). Modifying Schoolwork in Inclusive Classrooms. Theory into Practice, 45(3), pp.215-223. Johnson, R. and Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), pp.14-26. Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A. and Turner, L. (2007). Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research.Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), pp.112-133. Kajornboon, A. (2005). Using interviews as research instruments. E-journal for Research Teachers, 2(1). Khochen, M. and Radford, J. (2012). Attitudes of teachers and head teachers towards inclusion in Lebanon. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16(2), pp.139-153. Kinsella, W. and Senior, J. (2008). Developing inclusive schools: a systemic approach. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12(5-6), pp.651-665. Kozleski, E., Artiles, A., Fletcher, T. and Engelbrecht, P. (2007). Understanding the dialectics of the local and the global in education for all: A comparative study. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Practice, 8, pp.19-34. Leech, N. and Onwuegbuzie, A. (2007). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43(2), pp.265-275. Leech, N., Barrett, K. and Morgan, G. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc: Hillsdale, New Jersey. Lewis, A. and Norwich, B. (2004). Special teaching for special children? Maidenhead: Open University Press. Leyser, Y., Kapperman, G. and Keller, R. (1994). Teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming: a cross‐ cultural study in six nations. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9(1), pp.1-15. Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), pp.1-24. Lombardi, T. and Hunka, N. (2001). Preparing General Education Teachers for Inclusive Classrooms: Assessing the Process. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 24(3), pp.183-197.
66
Marshall, J., Ralph, S. and Palmer, S. (2002). 'I wasn't trained to work with them': mainstream teachers' attitudes to children with speech and language difficulties. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6(3), pp.199-215. Mastropieri, M. and Scruggs, T. (1996). Reflections on 'Promoting Thinking Skills of Students with Learning Disabilities: Effects on Recall and Comprehension of Expository Prose'. Exceptionality, 6(1), pp.53-57. Miles, S. and Singal, N. (2010). The Education for All and inclusive education debate: conflict, contradiction or opportunity? TIED, 14(1), pp.1-15. Minke, K., Bear, G., Deemer, S. and Griffin, S. (1996). Teachers' Experiences with Inclusive Classrooms: Implications for Special Education Reform. The Journal of Special Education, 30(2), pp.152-186. Mock, D. and Kauffman, J. (2002). Preparing teachers for full inclusion: Is it possible? The Teacher Educator, 37(3), pp.202-215. Mukhopadhyay, S. (2012). Botswana primary schools teachers' perception of inclusion of learners with special educational needs. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 14(1), pp.3342. Mulholland, M. and O'Connor, U. (2016). Collaborative classroom practice for inclusion: perspectives of classroom teachers and learning support/resource teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, pp.1-14. Oliver, M. (1996). Defining impairment and disability: issues at stake. Exploring the divide. Illness and disability, (3), pp.39-54. Onwuegbuzie, A. and Leech, N. (2005). On Becoming a Pragmatic Researcher: The Importance of Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), pp.375-387. Opdenakker, R. (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in qualitative research. In Forum: Qualitative Social Research/ Sozialforschung, 7(4). Oswald, M. and Swart, E. (2011). Addressing South African Pre-service Teachers’ Sentiments, Attitudes and Concerns Regarding Inclusive Education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58(4), pp.389-403. Parasuram, K. (2006). Variables that affect teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive education in Mumbai, India. Disability & Society, 21(3), pp.231-242.
67
Peters, S. (2004). Inclusive education: An EFA strategy for all children. Washington, DC: World Bank. Pijl, S., Meijer, C. and Hegarty, S. (1997). Inclusive education. London: Routledge. Polat, F. (2011). Inclusion in education: A step towards social justice. International Journal of Educational Development, 31(1), pp.50-58. Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. (2009). Paris: UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), pp.3-7. Querstret, D. and Robinson, O. (2013). Person, Persona, and Personality Modification: An In-Depth Qualitative Exploration of Quantitative Findings. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 10(2), pp.140-159. Robson, C. (1993). Real world research: A resource for social scientist and practitioner-researchers. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, p.291. Rorty, R. (1999). Philosophy and social hope. New York: Penguin Books. Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs students. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), pp.188-198. Rumsey, D. (2009). Statistics II for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Pub. Ryan, T. (2009). Inclusive attitudes: a pre-service analysis. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), pp.180-187. Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. (1994). Education. Paris: UNESCO. Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Savolainen, H., Engelbrecht, P., Nel, M. and Malinen, O. (2012). Understanding teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive education: implications for pre-service and in-service teacher education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(1), pp.51-68. Schumm, J. and Vaughn, S. (1991). Making Adaptations for Mainstreamed Students: General Classroom Teachers' Perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12(4), pp.18-27. Shakespeare, T. (2006). The social model of disability. The disability studies reader, 2, pp.197-204. 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 & Society, 23(7), pp.773-785.
68
Sharma, U., Loreman, T. and Forlin, C. (2011). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), pp.12-21. Shillingford, S. and Karlin, N. (2013). Preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and knowledge of emotional and behavioural disorders. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 19(2), pp.176-194. Shippen, M., Crites, S., Houchins, D., Ramsey, M. and Simon, M. (2005). Preservice Teachers' Perceptions of Including Students with Disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 28(2), pp.92-99. Sikes, P., Lawson, H. and Parker, M. (2007). Voices on: teachers and teaching assistants talk about inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11(3), pp.355-370. Singal, N. (2005). Mapping the field of inclusive education: a review of the Indian literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(4), pp.331-350. Slee, R. (2000). Professional partnerships for inclusive education?. Melbourne Studies in Education, 41(1), pp.1-15. Soodak, L., Podell, D. and Lehman, L. (1998). Teacher, Student, and School Attributes as Predictors of Teachers' Responses to Inclusion. The Journal of Special Education, 31(4), pp.480-497. Swackhamer, L., Koellner, K., Basile, C. and Kimbrough, D. (2009). Increasing the self-efficacy of inservice teachers through content knowledge. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36(2), pp.63-78. Tamir, P. (1991). Professional and personal knowledge of teachers and teacher educators. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(3), pp.263-268. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioural research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications. Teddlie, C. and Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research. Los Angeles: CA: SAGE Publications. Terzi, L. (2008). Justice and equality in education. London: Continuum. Tschannen-Moran, M. and Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), pp.944-956. Tschannen‐Moran, M. and McMaster, P. (2009). Sources of Self‐Efficacy: Four Professional Development Formats and Their Relationship to Self‐Efficacy and Implementation of a New Teaching Strategy. The Elementary School Journal, 110(2), pp.228-245.
69
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. and Hoy, W. (1998). Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and Measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), pp.202-248. Weisel, A. and Dror, O. (2006). School climate, sense of efficacy and Israeli teachers' attitudes toward inclusion of students with special needs. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1(2), pp.157174. Westwood, P. (2007). Commonsense methods for children with special educational needs. 5th ed. New York: Routledge., p.1. Winter, E. (2006). Preparing new teachers for inclusive schools and classrooms. Support for Learning, 21(2), pp.85-91. Winzer, M. and Mazurek, K. (2000). Special education in the 21st century. Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press. Woolfolk, A., Rosoff, B. and Hoy, W. (1990). Teachers' sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2), pp.137-148.
70
