Index

ABSTRACT

Social inclusion in many cases refers to measures and actions in various fields to increase the rate of active participation of people in all dimensions of life, valuing the civic and democratic responsibility to accept and promote diversity. Educational inclusion cannot be achieved in isolation from social inclusion, between the two concepts being a relationship of double determination. This research aims to investigate the teachers' ability to teach in an inclusive school environment and looks at to which extent the education process at a microlevel is favourable to the inclusion of students with SEN across schools in Romania.  Moreover, the research tries to investigate to which extend are teachers influenced by their attitudes and knowledge about educational inclusion and its practice when it comes to the inclusion of SEN students. These results show that teachers expressed both acceptance and concern about the inclusion of students with SEN in mainstream schools. However, in general, the answers indicate that most teachers are in favour of inclusion by expressing positive beliefs and attitudes, such as: seeing inclusive education as a way to combat discrimination, the acceptance of each student regardless of health, etnic or religious staus and socioeconomic status are welcome in mainstream education system and what stands out is the fact that techers disagree with the view that inclusion is problematic, rather than beneficial.

Keywords: Attitudes, Inclusive education, Self-efficacy, Teachers.

DOI: 10.55284/ajel.v7i2.708

Citation | Elena Marin (2022). Teachers' Self-Assessment Ability to Teach in an Inclusive School Environment. American Journal of Education and Learning, 7(2): 85-97.

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Funding : This study received no specific financial support.

Competing Interests: The author declares that there are no conflicts of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

History : Received: 16 July 2022 / Revised: 31 August 2022 / Accepted: 14 September 2022 / Published: 7 October 2022.

Publisher: Online Science Publishing

1. INTRODUCTION

The investment in human capital in mainstream schools is also significant in terms of the cost-benefit relationship for inclusion (Zarghami & Schnellert, 2004) and is supported by international organizations. According to the OECD (2005) adequate teacher training is a priority for school performance and well-being of pupils in a changing world. The investment in the human resource of schools is confirmed by a multitude of researches, unlike other costly measures that produce mixed results, such as reducing the number of students in the classroom (there is no exact number that can ensure better interaction with students, does not have clear effects on students with serious educational skills, cannot provide space or teaching staff to support more classes) (Zarghami & Schnellert, 2004).  Rix (2006) fully supports the fact that teachers who are confident that the inclusion of pupils with Special Education Needs (SEN) and/or disabilities is part of their professional duties achieve much more effective and qualitative interaction with their students. As ways to empower future teachers to manage diversity in the classroom, the European Agency for the Development of Inclusive Education summarizes the results of more research and initial teacher training programmes:

• Loreman (2007) mentions the importance of opportunities in initial teacher training to interact directly with students with SEN and/or disabilities and to become more confident in pragmatic teaching situations.
• Alsheikh and Elhoweris (2006) argue that the theme of diversity of learning and teaching methods must be deepened in training courses.
• The Accept model at Northern Illinois University includes inclusive classroom practice and student evaluation through a simulated teaching project for classes that include students with SEN.
• Rodrigues et al. (2009) supports the 4R model for teachers: the attitude of researcher to better understand the "unknown" (Research attitude), Reflection, Knowledge in Real Situations and Resilience.

The OECD (2007) states that elite school ideals still prevail in Romanian school culture. However, some progress has been made. A broader range of services and a new trend in the acceptance of children into public schools are emerging compared to special schools, where special schools and foster care were the only options in the 1990s. Additionally, Marin (2018) found that different behaviors are required to promote inclusion in schools. It begins with developing strategies and ends with training teachers with the knowledge and skills to work with children with special educational needs. Our society must not only know that every child is unique, but be prepared to understand and embrace diversity.

1.1. Culture and Attitudes in Favour of Inclusion

The culture of diversity that enables the successful training of categories of pupils susceptible to learning difficulties of any type and of any reason is based on intercultural competence. The OECD (2018) emphasizes the importance of teachers' skills to analyse and understand intercultural and global issues. The positive attitude towards cooperation with persons of other ethnicities/nationalities is not sufficient in an inclusive class; certainly, teachers need to demonstrate sensitivity and understanding of other cultures and subcultures, an indispensable ability to achieve inclusivity.

Hernandez and Kose (2012) explains intercultural competence through stages that describe how personal perceptions filter on the other as belonging to another culture. The first stage is rejection - in this type of perception, a subculture is not recognized as existence or relevance, and when there is interference with it, the members of the subculture are perceived as foreign or minority. Only the perception of one's own culture that is seen as the dominant one is preserved.

At the defence stage, the person has a dichotomic perception of the dominant culture vs. minority culture (e.g., neurotypical students vs.  neurodiverse students). It operates with stereotypes, and the culture perceived as dominant is exaggerated positive traits.

In the case of acceptance, there is awareness of cultural differences and interest or even respect for them. However, knowledge of student culture with SEN is scarce and teacher behaviour is not always appropriate. A higher step is that of the adaptation in which the perceptive mechanism of empathy towards others dominates. The teacher who is at this stage of competence can manage his behaviour towards a minority group and feel feelings of closeness.

The stage of integration, the reality of the person is built taking into account the rest of the subcultures in the system, and the ability to build relationships in the school environment with people from other socio-cultural categories is sustainable.

Educational leadership in favour of inclusion is as dynamic as the whole concept of inclusion. There are still many school organizations whose management style is an individualistic, hierarchical one in which subordinates must adapt to the system of thinking of superiors. Inclusion at the management level is developed through transformational leaders, communication culture and collaboration in the organization, mentoring and representation in the school management team of persons with disabilities or who are part of other minority groups (Pless & Maak, 2004).

Depolarization and constant communication between schools is seen as a long-term measure for the culture of inclusion (Muijs, 2011). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO Guide to Inclusion and Equity in Education exemplifies how in Ethiopia,6 schools have been grouped into an educational cluster to allow access to education for more than 700 students with SEN and then to constantly work with 30 other schools to promote appropriate inclusion and pedagogical practices in working with SEN students.

The attitudes of the teacher are, according to numerous studies carried out since the 1990s, an important predictor for the development of the sense of belonging of students (Meijer, De Groot, Van Boxtel, Van Gerven, & Jolles, 2006) which subsequently has a major influence on the climate of the class of students. Ainscow, Connelly, He, and Phillion (2007) notes that there is no effective training if teachers believe that students with poor academic performance have a deficit to be treated, and Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, and Earle (2009) points out that negative attitudes of teachers in initial training that are not addressed in time, hinder the development of inclusive education.

A peer review of Boyle et al. 2011 in Wanderers (2015) notes that achieving the Education for All goal can be achieved even in situations where the school's material resources are limited, but teachers show an inclusive attitude. Pears and Malmi (2009) shows that most positive attitudes towards inclusion are manifested by teachers who have had their initial training of diversity courses in the classroom and teaching for all types of students. Marin (2016) agrees that teachers who say they have little information on the concept of inclusion, would have negative consequences on the process of developing an inclusive school education and therefore, it must be implemented a system of initial and continuing training that meets the current requirements of future teachers, providing compulsory courses in the field of inclusive education to all the future teachers regardless of their specialization. Even in research where teachers' attitudes were influenced by the category of disability/SEN (teachers exhibiting negative attitudes for the inclusion of people with behavioural disorders and multiple disabilities), teachers did not have professional or academic experiences with special inclusion or psych pedagogy, so negative attitudes were derived from stereotypes and generalizations (Hastings & Oakford, 2003 in Wanderers (2015)).

Another dimension of inclusive culture is also the perception of teachers on the level of preparation to cope with a heterogeneous class or perceived self-efficacy (the term favoured by behaviourism). Avramidis and Norwich (2002) conclude that many teachers have an explicit attitude in favour of inclusion, but the personal level of trust in teaching students with SEN is low.  Participants in McCray and McHatton (2011) note that they need more knowledge and skills to put into practice the positive attitudes developed following initial training (Peebles & Mendaglio, 2014) and Forlin and Chambers (2011) finds the perceived self-efficacy of the teacher a strong predictor for the positive experience with students with SEN and disabilities. Although the courses in initial training on what SEN and disabilities mean in theory, anxiety about inclusive teaching has increased as a result of awareness of the teacher's impact on the student's well-being and success. Positive attitudes support the removal of barriers to inclusion, but do not guarantee a sense of preparedness to meet the challenges of inclusive education (Peebles & Mendaglio, 2014).

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. Research Aim

This research issue aims to investigate the teachers' self-assessment ability to teach in an inclusive school environment and to which extent the instructional process is favourable to the inclusion of students with SEN across schools in Romania.  Moreover, the research objectives try to investigate to which extend are teachers influenced by their attitudes and knowledge about educational inclusion and its practice when it comes to the inclusion of SEN students.

The objectives of this research focus on the following ideas as presented in Figure 1. The focus is on the identification of teachers personal and academic experiences regarding inclusion, going on through their level of readiness to teach in an inclusive setting and then reaching their perception regarding good practices in order to create an inclusive school environment.

2.2. Participants

The study population is 45 primary school teachers (N=45). They were divided according to their professional stage, so that the respondents are 21 teachers in initial training (student teachers) and 24 teachers who completed the initial training.

The sampling technique is a non-probabilistic, convenience- snowball type (Popa, Rotărescu, Sulea, & Albulescu, 2013). A number of subjects meeting the conditions for inclusion in the research sample were initially identified, and then the subjects were responsible for selecting other subjects who meet these criteria for participation in the study.

The online questionnaire was opened for the population of students in the initial training process (pre-service teachers) at the Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, at the University of Bucharest and for in-service teachers who completed initial training. The number of pre-service teachers is 44 and the number of in-service teachers is 24.

2.3. Research Instrument

According to the purpose, the research is a practical-applicative one (it addresses a narrow problem and aims to improve the area explored), and from the point of view of the working methodology addressed, is an experimental type.

The motivation to use a survey to identify the attitudes and knowledge of primary school teachers is the easy distribution of the tool to respondents and the approach of a wide range of sub-themes of attitude and knowledge in a short time. At the same time, given that in countries where there is a tradition of dichotomy between special schools and mainstream schools and the segregation of the person with SEN or disability by a typical person, educational inclusion tends to be a controversial subject and loaded with stereotypes. Probing perceptions of a sensitive and controversial topic is easier through an anonymous questionnaire.

The questionnaire is divided into 4 sections covering 4 dimensions. On this paper we should focus on: the following sections:
Section III – Perceived self-efficacy of primary school teachers in practicing inclusive principles:

• Behaviours related to teaching – adapted assessment.
• Socio-educational partnership.
• Responsibility for inclusion.

Section IV – The section is dedicated to developing personal beliefs and arguments for/to the detriment of inclusion, with the aim of verifying the consistency between the explicit attitude of teachers. Items/questions are formulated in the form of statements that respondents evaluate on an adapted Likert scale. Neutrality was avoided on this scale in order to reduce the chance of respondents expressing an evasive and highly influenced attitude. 

Items were either performed ad-hoc or are adapted after two questionnaires with psychometric properties according to the study conducted by Ewing (2018) revised Teacher’s Attitude towards Inclusive education Scale  (TAIS) and Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns Inclusive Education Revised Scale (SAICE-R). In Table 1 the questionnaire items are listed, as follows:

3. RESULTS

This section is dedicated to analysing teachers' self-assessment of personal ability to teach in an inclusive way. The first question concerned confidence in applying consistently differentiated teaching in the classroom.

Figure 2 illustrates the belives of teachers regarding their skills in terms of usings learning strategies that are relevant and usefull for all learners. As presented in the figure above, both categories of primary education teachers that are in different professional stages, are either to a great extend or in total agreement that they can teach consistently differentiated. The percentage of student teachers who are concerned about their ability to apply differentiated teaching is 33.33% (total disagreement) compared to the other population of teachers where only 20.83% are concerned about their ability to apply differentiated teaching strategies for all learners.

Regarding the lack of confidence in teaching inclusively for students with SEN if they are not accompanied by a learning support teacher it is seen in the Figure 3 that varies widely.  The trend in both cases is to argue that they can handle students with SEN and that can create meaningful learning environments that will support they learning process. But, a contrasting higher number among student teachers (23.81%) show no confidence at all in the ability to handle a student with SEN who does not have specialized support during classes. In this respect, it would worth mention the importance of specialized courses that will prepare future teachers to adapt the curriculum and their teaching and evaluation skill to the learners needs, equipping them not only with ne needed confidence to work in an inclusive educational setting, but to see the differences amongst students as learning resources.

Figure 4 evaluates the extend that teachers feel confident in terms of their assemesnt skills when it comes to SEN children. Proper assessment of school progress is a topic for which respondents have some concerns. Mainly 42.85% of preservice teachers largely agree that they are concerned about the issue and also 41.66% of in-service teachers, who have had initial training, share a similar concern regarding their ability to properly asses the academic process of a student with SEN. A big difference is seen in in-service teachers’ readiness versus pre-service teacher readiness in term of their ability to handle the assessment process properly.

While personal trust in maintaining a positive relationship with the student's family in school is often shaped by professional experience in Figure 5 it is presented teachers concerns regarding their ability to maintain a successful partnership with the SEN children` families. As for 71.42% of pre service teachers agree that partnering with the family is not a cause for concern. The variation in responses is similar for both samples, being fairly few respondents in each sample who feels unsecure with the ability to maintain a successful partnership. Almost half of the population of each sample (47.62% of the pre- service teachers and 45.83% of the in-service teachers), indicate that they feel confident in establishing trusting partnerships. That is why it is important that teachers and school board members to feel responsible for ensuring that children's development and education are supported in the best possible way. Inclusive schools must value and integrate each student's uniqueness as a participant in the educational process. More than that, parents must support school activities, recognize the relevance of education in the training and development of children, and recognize the importance of activities that contribute to the development of skills and pupils' goals for success.

This next section is dedicated to developing personal beliefs and arguments for/to the detriment of inclusion, with the aim of verifying the consistency between the explicit attitude of teachers. For a better presentation of the data, we identified significant code categories and we mapped them with supporting ideas, through the teachers voices on the open-ended questions as it is presented in Table 2 where preservice teacher and/or practitioner share their first experience with inclusive education practices so that it may halp other to rethink their practice or help generate common knowledge.

When it comesd to the quality of training programmes  (initial and/or continuous) regarding diversity and inclusion in the classroom  we used key qestions as listed in Table 3. We wanted to evaluate what impact a highly qualitive initial and continuous professional development may have on their professional life and how this ifluences their practices as presented below whitin teachers` testimonies.

In Table 4 a set of questions are used to emphasize the reasons why a SEN student's access and participation in mainstream school often remains at the stage of physical integration of the student. This remains a key aspect when talking about inclusion, that sometimes remains at some very initial stage, such as just allowing access to classes but without facilitating the learning environment, the learning materials to the needs of different special educational needs that a student may have.

Based on content analysis, much more defined nuances of expression can be observed. According to the answers, the majority are teachers who have experienced the educational inclusion of people with SEN and disabilities directly in the activity of teacher or following professional practice.

4. CONCLUSION

The last decades have brought in the education system or a wide range of reformist measures. Like any European education, the Romanian one has the responsibility to respond to the new requirements, especially of the formal education with inclusive orientation. Although there is no comprehensive definition of educational inclusion, it can be argued that it is the opposite of exclusion and a reconsideration of educational integration that has proved insufficient to ensure access to and success in school other than special educational needs other than disabilities. The environment includes a necessary framework to change the perceptions and attitudes that segregate students behind the label of normal or abnormal / deficient depending on school adaptation and performance, but also to improve teaching activity to match the current world. Encouraging cooperative relationships between students, making school curricula more flexible, community-school partnerships or support for students with learning disabilities are essential for personal development and school success for any child, not just those with SEN.

In this research, teachers expressed both acceptance and concern about the inclusion of students with SEN and disabilities in mainstream schools. However, in general, the answers to the items in the questionnaire indicate that most teachers are in favour of inclusion by expressing positive beliefs and attitudes: the relevance of inclusive education to combat discrimination, the acceptance of each student regardless of health or socioeconomic status. be initially enrolled in general education and disagree with the view that inclusion is problematic rather than beneficial. In comparison with other educational systems, the studies emphasize other clues to the teacher’s self-ability and attitude to teach in an inclusive environment. In the research of Desombre, Lamotte, and Jury (2019) attitude and effectiveness were associated with behavioural intentions to include students with SEN and disabilities. Given that in France a special psychoeducational teacher has 400 hours of training in initial training dedicated to social and educational inclusion, this explains the large discrepancy between the attitudes and knowledge of mainstream teachers and those of special education teachers. Özokcu (2018) research shows the same pattern. In Saloviita (2018) research on a sample of 1,764 teachers in Finland, the relationship between perceived self-efficacy and expressed attitude is insignificant.

All in all, even though teachers are in favour of inclusion they still have a lot of worries and concerns about their confidence in effectively managing a class after the inclusion of a student with disabilities or SEN and the tendency to associate the student with SEN with social behaviours very different from those considered normal. Generally, they are concerned that it will not be possible to divide between the support for the student with SEN and the others without SEN, and the lesson will be difficult.

REFERENCES

Ainscow, M., Connelly, M., He, M. F., & Phillion, J. (2007). Teaching for diversity: The next big challenge. In The Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction: Sage Publications Ltd.

Alsheikh, N., & Elhoweris, H. (2006). Teachers' attitudes towards inclusion. International Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 115-118.

Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129-147.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056.

Desombre, C., Lamotte, M., & Jury, M. (2019). French teachers’ general attitude toward inclusion: The indirect effect of teacher efficacy. Educational Psychology, 39(1), 38-50.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1472219.

Ewing, E. L. (2018). Ghosts in the schoolyard: Racism and school closings on Chicago's South side: University of Chicago Press.

Forlin, C., & Chambers, D. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive education: Increasing knowledge but raising concerns. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 17-32.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866x.2010.540850.

Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Earle, C. (2009). Demographic differences in changing pre-service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(2), 195-209.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701365356.

Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2011). The sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education revised (SACIE-R) scale for measuring pre-service teachers’ perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality Education International, 21(3), 50-65.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v21i3.7682.

Hernandez, F., & Kose, B. W. (2012). The developmental model of intercultural sensitivity: A tool for understanding principals’ cultural competence. Education and Urban Society, 44(4), 512-530.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124510393336.

Loreman, T. (2007). Seven pillars of support for inclusive education: Moving from. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 3(2), 22-38.

Marin, E. (2016). Teacher education for inclusion-the premises for implementing a new initial teacher training programme. Special Education, 2(35), 9-37.Available at: https://doi.org/10.21277/se.v1i35.267.

Marin, E. (2018). Teachers’ perspective towards the implementation of inclusive education. Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(33), 36-44.

McCray, E. D., & McHatton, P. A. (2011). Less afraid to have them in my classroom: Understanding pre-service general educators' preceptions about inclusion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(4), 135-155.

Meijer, W. A., De Groot, R. H., Van Boxtel, M. P., Van Gerven, P. W., & Jolles, J. (2006). Verbal learning and aging: Combined effects of irrelevant speech, interstimulus interval, and education. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 61(5), P285-P294.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/61.5.p285.

Muijs, D. (2011). Leadership and organisational performance: From research to prescription? International Journal of Educational Management, 25(1), 45-60.

OECD. (2005). Teachers matter: Attracting, developing and retaining effective teachers, education and training policy. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2007). Education at a glance 2007: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2018). Education at a glance 2018: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Özokcu, O. (2018). The relationship between teacher attitude and self-efficacy for inclusive practices in Turkey. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(3), 6-12.Available at: https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i3.3034.

Pears, A., & Malmi, L. (2009). Values and objectives in computing education research. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 9(3), 1-6.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/1594399.1594400.

Peebles, J. L., & Mendaglio, S. (2014). The impact of direct experience on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching in inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(12), 1321-1336.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.899635.

Pless, N., & Maak, T. (2004). Building an inclusive diversity culture: Principles, processes and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 54(2), 129-147.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-9465-8.

Popa, M., Rotărescu, V., Sulea, C., & Albulescu, P. (2013). Toxic driving assessment scale – Romanian adaptation. Human Resources Psychology/Psychology of Human Resources, 11(2), 57-70.

Rix, J. (2006). Simplified language materials—their usage and value to teachers and support staff in mainstream settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1145-1156.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.030.

Rodrigues, F. F. L., Zanetti, M. L., Santos, M. A. D., Martins, T. A., Sousa, V. D., & Teixeira, C. R. D. S. (2009). Knowledge and attitude: Important components in diabetes education. Latin American Journal of Nursing, 17(4), 468-473.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1590/s0104-11692009000400006.

Saloviita, T. (2018). How common are inclusive educational practices among Finnish teachers? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(5), 560-575.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1390001.

Wanderers, P. G. (2015). An assessment of teachers' attitudes and their committee to inclusive educational settings in Bahati Sub-County, Kenya. Dissertation Work, University of Oslo. UiO Research Archive.  

Zarghami, F., & Schnellert, G. (2004). Class size reduction: No silver bullet for special education students' achievement. International Journal of Special Education, 19(1), 89-96.