University of Groningen Teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and teaching strategies towards students with special educational needs in primary inclusive education in Indonesia Kurniawati, Farida IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below. Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Publication date: 2014 Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database Citation for published version (APA): Kurniawati, F. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and teaching strategies towards students with special educational needs in primary inclusive education in Indonesia. [S.l.]: s.n. Copyright Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum. Download date: 15-05-2019
Transcript
University of Groningen
Teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and teaching strategies towards students with specialeducational needs in primary inclusive education in IndonesiaKurniawati, Farida
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite fromit. Please check the document version below.
Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:2014
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):Kurniawati, F. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and teaching strategies towards students withspecial educational needs in primary inclusive education in Indonesia. [S.l.]: s.n.
CopyrightOther than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of theauthor(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons thenumber of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and teaching strategies towards students
with special educational needs in primary inclusive education in
Indonesia
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op gezag van de
rector magnificus prof. dr. E. Sterken en volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties.
De openbare verdediging zal plaatsvinden op
donderdag 19 juni 2014 om 09.00 uur
door
Farida Kurniawatigeboren op 8 December 1966
te Jakarta, Indonesia
PromotoresProf. dr A.E.M.G. MinnaertProf. dr. F. M. Mangunsong
CopromotorDr. A.A. de Boer
BeoordelingscommissieProf. dr S.J. PijlProf. drs. D. van VeenProf. dr. C.R. Semiawan
1
Contents
Chapter 1 General introduction 3
Chapter 2 Primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education
9
Chapter 3 Teachers’ attitudes and their teaching strategies in inclusive classrooms
23
Chapter 4 Characteristics of primary teacher training programs on inclusion: a literature focus
39
Chapter 5 Developing a teacher training program for the inclusion of students with special educational needs
57
Chapter 6 Evaluating the effect of a teacher training program on the inclusion of students with special educational needs in primary schools
67
Chapter 7 General discussion 83
Summary 91
Samenvatting (Dutch summary)
References
Acknowledgements
95
99
121
1
2
3
Chapter 1
General introduction
4
] Chapter 1
1.1 From segregation to inclusionThe inclusion of students with special educational needs (SEN) in regular education to ensure rights to education for all (“Indonesia: National Report”, 2009) is now a global trend. The movement towards the inclusion of students with SEN has been strongly endorsed by the United Nations’ declarations and conferences, such as the Salamanca World Declaration (UNESCO, 1994) and most recently, Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability (United Nations, 2006). By signing the Declaration, countries commit themselves to accommodating all children in regular schools regardless of their individual differences and needs. They also agree to re-design their policies to promote inclusive education. Numerous countries have made great efforts to implement policies that ensure the inclusion of students with SEN (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Meijer, 2003). As a result, the inclusion of students with SEN has also been mandated by special education legislation enacted in many countries, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004) in the United States, and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (2001) in the United Kingdom. In this study, the terminology of special educational needs (SEN) refers to the needs of the ‘classic’ population of students with communication disorders, motor skills disorders, sensory disorders, learning disorders, mental retarda-tion, behavioral disorders, and students with a chronic disease (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).
The terms ‘integration’, ‘mainstreaming’, and ‘inclusion’ have been used in relation to educational provision for students with SEN. While the emphasis of integration and mainstreaming is on the student to fit into the system rather than the system to adapt to meet the educational needs of a student, the concept of inclusion is more related to the recognition of diversity (Mittler, 2000). This requires the system to be adapted to be able to cope with this diversity. As inclusive education takes places in regular school settings, the school staff, mainly regular education teachers, are mostly responsible for its success (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Forlin, 2001). Consequently, regular school teachers must be adequately prepared to provide the necessary support and modifications to meet the diverse needs of students.
The development of international policies with the aim of including students with SEN in regular education has been driven by several factors. First, ‘integration’ referred only to the setting in which students were placed and not to how to accommodate the learning needs of students with SEN best (Farrel, 2004). Second, the inclusion of students with SEN is part of an international human rights agenda (UNESCO, 1994; United Nations, 2006). This indicates that all forms of segregation are morally refutable. In particular, the movement towards self-advocacy in which individuals with SEN demand equal rights and equal opportunities in all areas of life (Florian, 1998). Third, it has been argued that segregation has not led to any particular long-term positive outcomes for students with SEN (Kavale & Forness, 2000). Fourth, on the contrary, students with SEN in regular schools consistently benefit from such schools compared to students in segregated settings (see Booth, Ainscow, Black-Hawkins, Vaughn, & Shaw, 2000; Kalambouka, Farrell, Dyson, & Kaplan, 2005). These four factors suggest promising outcomes of inclusive education for students with SEN.
General introduction [
5
1.2 Inclusive education in the Indonesian contextThe educational provision for students with SEN in Indonesia started with the opening of a sheltered workshop for individuals with visual impairment in 1901 (Sunardi, 2011). After Indonesia’s independence in 1945, a few special schools for different types of SEN were established in accordance with the stipulation of the 1945 Constitution that ‘every citizen has the right to schooling’. Most schools were managed by private foundations. In the late 1970s the Government began to pay attention to the importance of integrated education (Tarsidi, 2004). With the support of NGOs, students with SEN were given the opportunity to learn together with their typically developing peers in regular educational settings. In addition to this movement, a few regular schools were piloted as integrated schools in 1984 as part of the implementation of compulsory education in primary schools. However, admission was restricted to students of at least average intelligence, mostly with visual impairments, so that they would be able to adapt to the regular educational curriculum.
Inclusive education was formally introduced into the Indonesian educational system in 2003. The principle of inclusive education is stated in Indonesia’s Constitution and National Education Law, No. 20/2003, and National Ministerial Decree No. 70 on Inclusive Education Services. Directive Letter No. 380/C.66/MN/2003 of the Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education about Special Education in Regular Schools states that every district must operate at least four inclusive schools: a primary, a secondary, a general high, and a higher vocational school. In response to this Directive Letter, up to the year 2007/2008, 796 inclusive schools (17 kindergartens, 648 primary schools, 75 junior secondary schools, and 56 senior secondary schools) with a total of 15,144 students with SEN (“Indonesia: National Report,” 2009) were developed all over Indonesia.
The Indonesian government has made various attempts to meet their commitment to inclusive education as enshrined in the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO, 1994). Some efforts have been made to increase teachers’ knowledge of inclusive education through pre-service and in-service training, increasing the education budget, the empowerment of special schools as a central source of teachers’ learning, making rules and guidelines for the implementation of inclusive education, subsidies for accessibility to inclusive schools and improving the infrastructure, and scholarships for students with SEN in inclusive schools (“Indonesia: National Report,” 2009).
According to Article 1 of the Public Act No. 4/1997, “A disabled person (later called individual with special needs) is someone who has physical and/or mental abnormality, which could disturb or be seen as obstacle and constraint in performing normal activities, and consisted of: a. physically disabled; b. mentally disabled, and c. physically and mentally disabled”. More recently, Article 32 of the National Education System Act No. 20/2003 states that “Special education is provided for learners who have difficulties in following the learning process because of physical, emotional, mental, and social deficiencies, and also for those with proven intelligence and especially gifted”.
The number of school-aged children with special educational needs (5 – 18 years old) in Indonesia was 21.42% (N = 330,764) of the total population of individuals with special needs (N = 1,544,184) in 2009 (“Indonesia: National Report,” 2009). Of all school-aged children, 25.9% (N = 85,645) attended school and 74.1% (n =
6
] Chapter 1
245,119) did not attend. While 70,501 children were taught in special schools, the remaining 15,144 were at inclusive schools. (An inclusive school is a regular school which includes students with SEN.) Of the children with SEN in inclusive schools, 13,590 were enrolled in primary schools. Five categories of SEN are encountered most in regular primary schools in Indonesia, namely: Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD), dyslexia, mild intellectual disability, mild Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), and hearing and visual impairments (Directorate of Special Education, 2009).
Evaluation of the implementation of inclusive education found the following factors to have challenged the success of implementing inclusive education in Indonesia (“Indonesia: National Report,” 2009): 1) lack of local government commitment to the implementation of inclusive education, 2) limited and varied understanding of teachers of the concept of inclusive education, 3) very low ability of teachers to educate students with SEN, 4) inaccessibility of inclusive schools due to geographical barriers, and 5) very low awareness among parents of students with SEN of their entitlement to the educational services available. The studies presented in this dissertation aim to improve the second and third aspects, namely: teachers’ understanding of the concept of inclusive education and teachers’ ability to educate students with SEN. Focusing on these two aspects ultimately leads to the long-term effect of increasing teachers’ awareness of meeting the needs of students with SEN in regular primary education. This current study focused on primary education as this level of education lays a foundation for the subsequent school career of students with SEN and teachers’ influence becomes more important. More particularly, it was argued that childhood years might be a critical time for students to learn about and accept diversity and disability (i.e. Innes & Diamond, 1999).
1.3 The role of teachers in inclusive educationResearchers have consistently stressed that regular school teachers are important in determining the success of implementing inclusive education (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Forlin, 2001). Studies state that teachers’ attitudes (Cook, 2002; Folsom-Meek & Rizzo, 2002; Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2007; Hastings & Oakford, 2003; Pivik, McComas, & La Flanne, 2002), their knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies are prerequisites for implementing inclusive education successfully (e.g. Forlin, 2010; Pearce, 2008). Findings suggest that the more knowledge teachers have about SEN might result in more acceptance and confidence in dealing with students with SEN (see Shippen et al., 2005). It was also found that teachers with more positive attitudes towards students with SEN were more willing to include such students in the classroom (e.g. Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008). Hence, it is imperative to address teachers’ attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies to support teachers in inclusive settings.
An attitude is usually defined as a learned and stable disposition to respond favorably or unfavorably to an object, person, institution or event in a consistent way (Corsini & Auerbach, 1998). Similarly, Gall, Borg, and Gall (1996, p. 273) define an attitude as “an individual’s viewpoint or disposition toward a particular ‘object’ (a person, a thing, an idea, etc.)”. According to Eagly and Chaiken (1993), and Triandis (1971) attitudes are considered to comprise three components: 1) cognitive, 2) affective, and 3) behavioral components. The cognitive component reflects one’s
General introduction [
7
beliefs and knowledge about the object of the attitude. The affective component reflects a person’s feelings and the behavioral component refers to a predisposition to act towards the object of the attitude. Knowledge refers to descriptive/declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge (Anderson, 1981). In the context of inclusive education, declarative knowledge comprises knowledge about students with SEN, such as characteristics, causes, and prevalence. Procedural knowledge is related to teaching strategies which are associated with successful inclusion, including differentiation, cooperative learning, activity-based learning, classroom management, and social skills (Florian, 2006; Janney & Snell, 1996; Scott, Vitale, & Masten, 1998; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994).
A growing number of research projects have been carried out on teachers within the context of inclusive education. However, some empirically based studies are lacking inknowledge regarding the role of teachers in inclusive education, particularly when it concerns improving their attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies. First, several instruments have been used to measure teachers’ attitudes but the majority of studies lack a theoretical framework. It was also known that a limited number of studies have focused on the three components of attitudes (De Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2011). Previous studies mainly only focused on one or two attitude components. Hence, there is a need for an instrument that encompasses all three attitude components and with a well-considered theoretical framework to measure teachers’ attitudes towards students with SEN. Second, a number of studies has been conducted on teachers’ attitudes and teaching strategies. However, the studies mainly used self-reported questionnaires and lacked measurements of actual teaching strategies in the classroom. As it has been argued that the true criterion for successfully implementing inclusive classrooms largely depends on what teachers do (Ainscow, 2007), it is imperative to use a mixed-method design to examine teachers’ willingness to implement inclusive education, and their knowledge and use of teaching strategies. Third, to bridge the gap between teachers’ attitudes and their knowledge about teaching strategies, it seems advisable to develop and implement an in-service training program to change teachers’ attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies. Hence, research focusing on the effectiveness of such a training program is necessary. This study was instigated to fill this gap.
1.4 Aims and outline of this studyAs mentioned above, teachers have been found to play a central role in the success of implementing inclusive education. Attitude, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies are seen as prerequisites for teachers to accommodate students with SEN. The general aim of this study was to obtain more knowledge about SEN and the attitudes and teaching strategies of teachers in regular primary schools in Indonesia and to improve these three factors by means of a teacher training program. More specifically, this study consists of five sub-studies with the following aims of:
1. To develop and evaluate an attitude scale comprising the three attitude components to measure teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education.
2. To examine teachers’ attitudes and their use of teaching strategies related to SEN.3. To describe teacher training programs on inclusive education in terms of their
components and effectiveness.
8
] Chapter 1
4. To develop an in-service teacher training program to improve teachers’ attitudes, and knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies related to SEN.
5. To implement and evaluate the effectiveness of an in-service teacher training program with the aim of improving teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, and knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies related to SEN.
The improvement of teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education as well as their knowledge about SEN and teaching strategies may contribute to better implementation of inclusive education in regular educational settings in Indonesia. Rouse (2008, cited in Florian, 2009) has suggested that the challenge of implementing inclusive education is how to help teachers to develop knowledge (knowing), attitudes (believing) and teaching strategies (doing) that support inclusion.
This dissertation consists of seven chapters. Following this introduction, chapter 2 describes the development and evaluation of an attitude scale which was designed to measure teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. In chapter 3, teachers’ attitudes and teaching strategies are measured. More specifically, the chapter focuses on examining 1) teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education and 2) their teaching strategies for students with SEN in regular education.
Chapter 4 presents a literature review on teacher training programs and describes: 1) the components of training programs in terms of target groups, type of SEN, content, length of time, delivery mode/activities and 2) the effectiveness of training programs in improving teachers’ attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies. The knowledge gathered in the aforementioned studies formed the basis of chapter 5. This chapter describes in detail the development of an in-service teacher training program on inclusive education. Chapter 6 aims to improve the attitudes, and knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies of regular school teachers. The focus of the chapter lies on evaluating the effectiveness of the in-service teacher training program. Lastly, chapter 7 presents a general discussion in which the major findings of the study are outlined, together with some of its limitations, strengths, reflections, and implications on a political and practical level.
9
Chapter 2
Primary school teachers’ attitudes towards
inclusive education
A slightly adapted version of this chapter is published as:
Kurniawati, F., Minnaert, A., Mangunsong, F., & Ahmed, W. (2012). Empirical study on primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education in Jakarta, Indonesia. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1430-1436.
10
] Chapter 2
Abstract
Despite the arguments that teachers’ attitudes play a crucial role
in the success of inclusive education implementation, research in
the field of teacher attitudes revealed mixed findings. The aims of
this study, therefore, were to 1) develop and evaluate an attitude
scale, 2) measure teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education,
and 3) examine which variables are related to these attitudes.
Using the three component model of attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken,
1993) as a framework, the development of the scale resulted in
two components of attitudes, namely the cognitive-affective and
behavioral components. It was also found that teachers were
positive in the beliefs and feelings towards students with special
educational needs (SEN), and had a strong willingness to include
such students in their classroom. Their attitudes were found to
be related to their teaching experience and training in special
education. These findings suggest that qualitative studies should be
carried out to obtain a real picture of teachers’ teaching strategies
in inclusive classrooms.
Keywords: inclusive education, teachers’ attitudes, primary school
Attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education [
11
2.1 IntroductionInclusive education has become an important goal in many countries in the last few decades (Meijer, 2003). Through inclusion, students with special educational needs (SEN) have the opportunity to learn together with their typically developing peers in regular schools instead of being put in special schools. The inclusion of students with SEN has been regarded as part of an international human rights agenda (UNESCO, 1994; United Nations, 2006). It has also been found that segregation has not led to any particular long-term positive outcomes for students with SEN (Kavale & Forness, 2000). On the contrary, students with SEN in regular schools have consistently benefited from such schools compared to students in segregated settings (see Booth, Ainscow, Black-Hawkins, Vaughn, & Shaw, 2000; Kalambouka, Farrell, Dyson, & Kaplan, 2005). Moreover, inclusive education has resulted in positive outcomes for both students with and without SEN (Flem & Keller, 2000). Thus, the findings suggest promising outcomes of inclusive education for all students in regular education.
Teachers play a key role in the success of inclusive education implementation (Meijer, 2003; Norwich, 1994). Among teacher characteristics, teacher attitudes are regarded as highly important (Chow & Winzer, 1992). Norwich (1994) argued that teachers’ acceptance of the inclusive policy is likely to affect their commitment to implement the policy of inclusive education. Moreover, Parasuram (2006) acknowledged that teachers’ beliefs underlying the philosophy of inclusion are important predictors of inclusive education outcomes. Previous research showed that teachers’ positive attitudes might increase their willingness to accommodate the learning needs of students with SEN while negative attitudes of teachers may inhibit social participation and academic achievement of those students in inclusive settings (Beattie, Anderson, & Antonak, 1997; Subban & Sharma, 2005). Students also experience greater satisfaction from the learning environment in classrooms of teachers with positive attitudes towards the inclusion (Monsen & Frederickson, 2004). These findings imply the importance of addressing the formation of teachers’ positive attitudes to support the inclusion of students with SEN.
Concept of attitude in the context of inclusive educationAn attitude is usually defined as a learned and stable disposition to respond favorably or unfavorably to an object, person, institution, or event in a consistent way (Corsini & Auerbach, 1998). Previously, attitude was viewed as a single factor. The most contemporary analysis pioneered by Rosenberg and Hovland (1960) distinguishes three-component of attitudes: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. Reflecting a different theoretical background, this tripartite model of attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) assumes that each component is defined independently. Firstly, the cognitive component reflects individual’s beliefs or knowledge about the object. Secondly, the affective component concerns the individual’s feelings about the object. Lastly, the behavioral component refers to a verbal indication and typical behavior tendency of the individual towards theobject.
Numerous studies have been conducted to measure what attitudes teachers hold towards inclusive education. Despite reported benefits of teachers’ positive atti-tudes for the successful implementation of inclusive education, it is known that teach-ers’ attitudes are not uniformly positive. Some of this research stated that teachers
12
] Chapter 2
hold neutral attitudes regarding the philosophy of inclusive education (Avramidis & Kayla, 2007; Batsiou, Bebetos, Pantelli, & Antoniou, 2008; Rheams & Bain, 2005), whereas other studies reported that teachers indicate positive attitudes toward inclu-sive education (Everington, Stevens, & Winters, 1999). Different results were found by other studies, indicating that teachers have serious reservations about inclusive edu-cation in practice (Florian, 1998; Pearman, Huang, & Mellblom, 1997; Ring, 2005). The findings suggest that the measurement of attitudes is still a challenge in inclusive education.
Research has shown that positive attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education relate to the following variables: having more experience with inclusion (see Avramidis, Bayliss & Burden, 2000b; Moberg, 2003), having special education training (see Van-Reusen, Shoho & Barker, 2001; Whinnery, Fuchs& Fuchs, 1991), being of younger age (see Heflin & Bullock, 1999; Suk Hwang & Evans, 2011), and having fewer years of teaching experience (see Forlin, 1995; Leyser, Kapperman, & Keller, 1994). It was also found that female teachers are more positive towards inclusion compared to male teachers (see Alghazo & Naggar Gaad, 2004; Hodge & Jansna, 1999; Leyser & Tappendorf, 2001). Moreover, Avramidis and Norwich (2002) found the consistent influence of the type of SEN of students on teachers’ attitude. It was known that teachers’ attitudes are less positive towards the inclusion of students with emotional and behavioral problems, and students with higher level of SEN. They are also more willing to accommodate students with physical and sensory disorders, and students with mild intellectual disability (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Hastings & Oakford, 2003). Hence, it is important to consider these variables in promoting teachers’ positive attitudes towards inclusive education.
Research in the field of attitudes has resulted in the construction and evalua-tion of various scales to measure teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion aspects (Vignes, Colet, Grandjean, Godeau, & Arnaud, 2008). The three-component theory (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Triandis, 1971) has been used as a theoretical framework for some attitude scales. Over the years a number of attempts have been made to confirm the distinction of the three components of attitudes (Bagozzi, 1978; Bagozzi & Burnkrant, 1979; Breckler, 1984; Kothandapani, 1971; Ostrom, 1969). Some of the findings estab-lished the three-attitude component model (Breckler, 1984; Mahat, 2008), while oth-ers supported a two-component or a single-component model (Bagozzi & Burnkrant, 1985; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1974). Within the context of inclusive education, a recent lit-erature review by De Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert (2010; 2011) found that many of the at-titude scales used in the reviewed studies lack any theoretical basis which may impede the interpretation of the scales. There is also a limited number of the studies focusing on all three attitude components. The studies mainly focus on one or two compo-nents of attitudes. As it is evident that attitude measurements should be based on a well-considered theoretical framework, the findings urge the importance of research focusing on all three-attitude components with a well-considered theoretical basis.
In Indonesia, people with special needs are viewed as an integral part of society who enjoy the same rights and obligations as other Indonesians. Under Indonesian inclusion policies, like National Education System No. 20/2003, National Ministerial Decree No. 70 on Inclusive Education Services, and Directive Letter No. 380/C.66/MN/2003 of the Director General of Primary and Secondary Education about Special
Attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education [
13
Education in Regular Schools, students with SEN have now become members of regular educational settings. As stated above, teachers’ attitudes are predictors of the success of inclusive education implementation in other countries (Folsom-Meek & Rizzo, 2002; Hastings & Oakford, 2003; Pivik, McComas, & La Flanne, 2002), less is known, however, about attitudes of teachers in Indonesia. There is also no empirical evidence yet on which teachers’ characteristics relate to teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Combined with a need of a well-considered theoretical framework instrument to measure teachers’ attitudes, as previously mentioned, this study aimed at 1) developing and evaluating an attitude scale, 2) measuring teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, and 3) examining which variables are related to their attitudes.
2.2 Methods
Procedure for questionnaire developmentThe questionnaire was developed through the following steps: 1) adopting a set of items for each subscale of the questionnaire (i.e. cognitive, affective, behavioral) and 2) assessing and improving the quality of the questionnaire. The two steps are described below.
Conceptual framework of the questionnaireFor the purposes of this study, the three-component model of attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) has been adopted. These components are specified as cognitive, affective, and behavioral. Within the context of inclusive education, the cognitive component reflects general beliefs about the philosophy of inclusive education and educational rights of children, knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies. The affective component includes teachers’ feelings towards students with SEN and inclusive education (e.g. confidence, competence, irritation, rejection) whereas the behavioral component shows the willingness of teachers to include students with SEN in their classroom (e.g. allowing extra time for assignments, altering instruction).
QuestionnaireThe questionnaire was developed based on several existing instruments. The instruments were selected because they included relevant constructs of the cognitive, affective, and behavioral components. The instruments also posed good reliable scores (> 0.80) (Drenth & Sijtsma, 2006).
The instruments from which the questionnaire was developed included: 1) the SACIE scale (Loreman, Earle, Sharma, & Forlin, 2007), 2) the MTAI scale (Stoiber, Gettinger, & Goetz, 1998), 3) the ORM scale (Antonak & Larrivee, 1995), 4) the MATIES (Mahat, 2008), and 5) the attitude subscale of Avramidis et al. (2000b). Thirty-eight items representing the three components of attitudes, i.e. cognitive (12 items), affective (13 items), and behavioral (13 items), were selected for the questionnaire. To complete the questionnaire, respondents could indicate the extent of their agreement with each statement by selecting one of the following response choices: Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Agree (3), and Strongly Agree (4). Some
14
] Chapter 2
items were negatively worded and therefore their ratings were reversed before adding up the scores. The total scoreon the subscale was the total number of the raw scores for each item. High scores indicated more favorable attitudes towards inclusion on each component of attitudes.
The questionnaire which was developed in English was then translated into Bahasa Indonesia (the official language in Indonesian educational settings). We asked a group of experts in the content area to review the item pool. Three experts, in the area of special education, inclusive education and measurement, were requested to review the content and the structure of the questionnaire. Based on the feedback, a number of items were rephrased to ensure clarity, and some favorable items were also negatively worded for a more balanced response set.
The initial form of the questionnaire was given to four primary school teachers for a pilot. The teachers represented public/private schools, and regular/inclusive schools. At this stage, firstly the teachers were asked to complete the questionnaire. Then they were asked to provide comments on the clarity of the items and how the questionnaire might be improved. Suggestions for changes in terms of readibility, clarity, wording, and appropriateness of the items were taken into consideration in the final version of the questionnaire. Based on the teachers’ feedback, some words in the questionnaire were substituted with more common words.
Procedure for participants in the evaluation of the questionnaireParticipants included 208 teachers from three types of schools (i.e. special schools, inclusive schools, and regular schools) comprising thirteen schools in total. The schools (i.e. public and private primary schools) were purposively sampled across the five regions of Jakarta. Out of the total sample of the study, 56 (26.9%) were male and 152 (73.1%) were female. 83 (39.9%) teachers had special education training and 78 (37.5%) had teaching experience in special education (see details in Table 1).
An approval for this study was obtained from the school principals. Teachers were approached in groups and the aim of the survey was explained to them. They were asked to complete the questionnaire which contained an attitude scale. At the end of the questionnaire they were requested to supply their demographic characteristics, like gender, age, education level, years of teaching experience, years of teaching experience in educating children with special needs, special education training undertaken.
AnalysisRegarding the first research question, we evaluated the psychometric properties of the questionnaire based on factor analysis. With regard to the second research question, descriptive analysis was used to estimate the levels of teachers’ attitudes. To answer the third research question, an independent t-test or one-way ANOVA analysis was conducted on each of the demographic characteristics with attitude score means. This has been done to investigate whether teachers’ demographic characteristics affect their attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN. Follow-up tests were conducted using the Tukey posteriori test of contrast (see Table 3).
Attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education [
15
Table 1Characteristics of Teachers (N = 208)Demographic Variables n %Gender
Male 56 26.9Female 152 73.1
Age<= 40 71 34> 40+ 137 66
EducationHigh school 35 17University 173 83
Training in special needsYes 83 39.9No 125 60.1
Teaching experience< 9 years 57 27.410-14 years 11 5.3> 14 years 140 67.3
Teaching experience in special educationNo 78 37.5Yes 130 62.5
Type of school (1)Public 129 62.1Private 79 37.9
Type of school (2)Inclusive school 45 21.6Regular school 92 44.2Special School 71 34.2
2.3 Results The results regarding the evaluation of the questionnaire, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education and variables related to these attitudes are presented below. The evaluation is described first, followed by the results of the study which measured teachers’ attitudes and examined which variables relate to these attitudes.
Evaluation of the psychometric propertiesThe Cronbach’s Alpha reliabilities of the sub-scales were 0.84 for the cognitive-affective component and 0.89 for the behavioral component of attitudes. The item-
16
] Chapter 2
total correlations of all items ranged from 0.27 to 0.79. Due to insufficient reliability scores (i.e. α< 0.60), seven out of 38 items were removed from the questionnaire. It was found that these items were less strongly related to other items and used wording which could be perceived ‘extreme’ by participants (e.g. ‘Inclusion facilitates socially appropriate behavior among all students’).
The 31 items of the attitude scale were subjected to principal component analysis. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure verified the sampling adequacy for the analysis, KMO = 0.83. Bartlett’s test of sphericity χ2 (465) = 2562.931, p = 0.00, indicated that correlations between items were sufficiently larger for CPA. An analysis was run to obtain eigenvalues for each component in the data. The results revealed the presence of seven components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, totally explaining 59.73 per cent of the variance. An inspection of the scree plot indicated a clear break after the second component. Using Cattell’s (1966) scree test, it was decided to retain two components for this study. Two factors accounting for 36% of common variance were obtained. The first factor accounted for 23.82% of the variance (eigenvalue = 7.38) and the second factor accounted for 12.19% of the variance (eigenvalue = 3.78).
The analysis further revealed that six cognitive items, together with all the affective items loaded on the second factor, and have been named the cognitive-affective component. All the behavioral items loaded on the first factor. Table 2 shows the factor loadings after varimax rotation. The items that clustered on factor 1 represent the behavioral component and the ones that clustered on factor 2 represent the cognitive-affective component of attitudes. The final scale included 31 items, of which 19 measured teachers’ beliefs and feelings, and 12 measured teachers’ behavioral intentions.
Attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education [
17
Table 2 Factor Loadings for the Rotated Factor
Item Factor Loading Standard ErrorFactor 1 Factor 2
Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive educationThe results of the study indicated that the overall mean of teachers were 2.82 (SD = 0.34) and 3.18 (SD = 0.38), for the cognitive-affective component and the behavioral component respectively. These indicated that teachers’ attitudes on the two components of attitude were above the mid-point of the response scale score, indicating positive attitudes towards inclusive education. The teachers were positive in their beliefs about inclusive education and held positive feelings towards students with SEN. They also showed positive behavioral intentions towards such students.
Variables related to teachers’ attitudesThe third research question of this study concerned variables which relate to teachers’ attitudes. The results of the study in relation to these variables are presented below (see details in Table 3).
Training in special education The results of the study revealed a significant difference between teachers with and without training in special education on the two attitude components. It was found that teachers with training in special education held more positive attitudes towards inclusive education compared to their counterparts without such training background on the components of cognitive-affective (t = 4.09, p <0.01) and behavioral (t = 2.73, p <0.01).
Teaching experience in special educationThe findings showed that teachers’ teaching experience in special education was significantly related to their scores on the two components of attitudes. Teachers with teaching experience in special education held higher positive attitudes towards inclusive education than those with no such teaching experience on the cognitive-affective component (t = -5.20, p<0.01) and the behavioral component (t = -2.61, p < 0.05).
Type of school (public versus private schools)With respect to ‘type of school (public versus private schools)’, it was found that private school teachers had a more favorable attitude towards the inclusion of students with SEN compared to public school teachers on the behavioral component (t = -2.73, p <0.01).
Type of school (inclusive versus regular versus special schools) The findings of the study showed significant effects of ‘type of school’ on the cognitive-affective component, F (2, 205) = 12.92, p< 0.01, and the behavioral component, F (2, 204) = 6.31, p< 0.01. Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey’s HSD test showed that the regular school teachers and the special school teachers differed significantly on the cognitive-affective scores (p< 0.01). Similar findings between these two groups of teacher were also found in the behavioral scores (p< 0.01).
Attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education [
19
Table 3Mean Scores and Standard Deviation of Teachers’ Characteristics
2.4 ConclusionThis study was set up to develop and evaluate a scale to measure teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Which variables are related to teachers’ attitudes was also examined in the study.
With regard to the first research question, it can be concluded that the development of the scale resulted in two components of attitudes, namely the cognitive-affective and behavioral components. With respect to the second research question, it can be concluded that teachers held positive attitudes on the two components of attitudes. Teachers were positive in their beliefs about inclusive education and their feelings about students with SEN. Furthermore, they showed strong willingness to include such students. Regarding the third question, the study revealed that training in special education, teaching experience in special education, and type of school, all related to teachers’ attitudes. Teachers with training in special education and more teaching experience of special education held more positive attitudes compared to those without training in special education and less teaching experience in special education. In addition to this, it was also known that special school teachers held the highest attitudes scores on the inclusion meanwhile a group of regular school teachers had the lowest scores. Private schools teachers were also more willing to accommodate students with special needs in their classrooms compared to teachers working in public schools.
20
] Chapter 2
2.5 DiscussionTeachers’ attitudes have been argued to play a critical role in the success of inclusive education implementation. It is therefore not surprising that numerous studies have been carried out to obtain knowledge about teachers’ attitudes and which variables are related to their attitudes. As a result, various instruments have been developed to measure teachers’ attitudes. However, only a limited number of studies have used a well-considered theoretical framework. Some studies used the three-attitude component model (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) as a framework, but most mainly focused on one or two components of attitudes. This study, therefore, was set up to develop an attitude scale using the three-component of attitudes. The scale adopted items from several existing instruments. The evaluation of psychometric properties of the scale was also examined based on Indonesian teacher samples. Lastly, the study identified which variables are related to teachers’ attitudes.
Regarding the development of the attitude scale, statistical analysis failed to confirm the distinction of the three components of attitudes. A majority of the items of cognitive component loaded on the same factor with affective components. Therefore, the new scale designed to measure teachers’ attitude towards the inclusion consisted of two components, i.e. cognitive-affective and behavioral components. The unsuccessful attempt to differentiate between the three components of attitudes was also found in previous studies (e.g. De Boer, Timmerman, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2012).
There are some possible explanations for the finding above. Firstly, Indonesian teachers might perceive cognitive items to be more affective than cognitive, reflecting a synergetic relation between cognitive and affective (Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1994). Secondly, the teachers’ responses appear to be consistent with the associative hypothesis that holds that people use their affective as information (see Schwarz, 1990; Trafimow & Sheeran, 1998), and make a decision based on “their evaluation about ‘how performing behavior X makes me feel’ and ‘how good it is to perform behavior X” (Trafimow & Sheeran, 1998, p. 395). All these findings may question the empirical basis of the three-component model of attitudes. Thirdly, the finding may relate to the quality of the scale which was considered less enough to measure the three components.
The results of the study showed that in general, Indonesian teachers were positive towards students with SEN on the two attitude components. This is surprising as inclusive education has only recently gained momentum in Indonesia. These results seem to deviate from the more negative conclusion of previous studies (e.g. Ring & Travers 2005) regarding the attitudes towards inclusive education, but concur with other studies (e.g. Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Considering the mixed results of research on attitudes, future research focusing on teachers’ attitudes is still recommended.
The study revealed that several variables were related to teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Teachers having experience of teaching students with SEN had significantly more positive attitudes than those without relevant experience. This finding could be explained in relation to the theory of attitude formation (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) which states that attitudes are formed by direct and indirect experience. Thus, having real-life experience of teaching students with SEN might improve the likelihood of teachers holding positive attitude. Such experience could also increase
Attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education [
21
teachers’ knowledge about SEN. This result confirmed previous studies (Avramidis, et al., 2000a; Jerlinder, Danermark, & Gill, 2010; Smith & Thomas, 2006) which concluded that teachers’ commitment and confidence in educating students with SEN often emerge after they have gained mastery of professional expertise needed to implement inclusive programs.
Another finding of the study showed the influence of training in special education on the formation of teachers’ positive attitudes towards inclusion. It was found that teachers with training in special education held significantly more positive attitudes than those with no training concerning inclusive education. This is hardly surprising when remembering the abundance of attitudinal studies in the literature confirming the positive influence of such training programs on teachers’ attitudes (Leyser, et al., 1994; Lifshitz, Glaubman, & Issawi, 2004; Powers, 2002). This means that if teachers are supported with training in special education, a considerable attitude change can be obtained. Research (e.g. Avramidis & Kayla, 2007) suggested that such a training program should enable teachers to feel more positive towards students with SEN and have more willingness to educate these students. The findings suggest that teacher training in inclusive education could improve teachers’ attitudes and their willingness to implement inclusive education.
The results of the study should be interpreted cautiously in the light of its limitation. The measurement of teachers’ attitude was solely based on their responses to the self-report instrument. Generally, when dealing with questions about attitudes, we have to be aware of the underlying assumption that self-reported attitudes are congruent with actual behavior. Accordingly, classroom observations need to be conducted to validate these findings, as also suggested by Avramidis et al. (2000) and De Boer et al. (2011). Moreover, although it seems politically correct to be positive to inclusion, in reality teachers’ teaching practice could be different. It is possible that some teachers have answered the items in the questionnaire according to the regulations they are working under and not according to how they actually think.
Future recommendationsBased on the results of the study, the implication for policy-makers is therefore to support the implementation of inclusive education. Providing teachers with training programs in special education might enhance teachers’ attitudes as well as their knowledge and teaching strategies related to SEN. The training programs should provide teachers with real teaching experience with SEN students.
22
23
Chapter 3
Teachers’ attitudes and their teaching strategies
in inclusive classrooms
This chapter is submitted for publication as: Kurniawati, F., De Boer, A. A., Minnaert, A. E. M. G., & Mangunsong, F. Teachers’ attitudes and their teaching strategies in inclusive classrooms.
24
] Chapter 3
Abstract
While there is increased interest in examining attitudes and
teaching strategies of teachers in educating students with special
educational needs (SEN) in regular education, there is a lack of
knowledge about teachers’ willingness to accommodate SEN
students in the classroom. There is also a need to measure actual
teaching strategies teachers use for such students. By means of
interviews and video recordings, the aims of this study were 1)
to measure teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students
with SEN and 2) to identify teaching strategies teachers use for
such students. The findings of the study revealed the critical role
of knowledge about SEN and teaching strategies in teachers’
willingness to include students with SEN. Future research and
implications of the study are also described.
Keywords: attitudes, teaching strategies, inclusive education, video recordings, primary school
Attitudes and teaching strategies of teachers in inclusive classrooms [
25
3.1 IntroductionInclusive education has mandated educational provision for students with special educational needs (SEN) in regular classrooms. As inclusive education has become a major goal of the education systems in many countries (see Armstrong, Armstrong, & Spandagou, 2010), a growing number of students with SEN are now included in regular classrooms. It is also increasingly suggested that teachers are the key persons in the development and implementation of inclusive education (Meijer, 2003; Norwich, 1994).
The inclusion of students with SEN in regular schools has provided teachers with a tremendous challenge. They are required to meet the learning needs of all students, regardless of the SEN type. Teachers’ attitudes are seen to be hugely important in implementing inclusive education (Folsom-Meek & Rizzo, 2002; Hastings & Oakford, 2003; Pivik, McComas, & La Flanne, 2002). Positive attitudes are considered to encourage inclusive education, while negative ones might lead to less acceptance and low educational attainment of such students (Cook, 2002; Van der Veen, Smeets, & Derriks, 2010). An attitude is usually defined as a learned and stable disposition to respond favorably or unfavorably to an object, person, institution or event in a consistent way (Corsini & Auerbach, 1998). Similarly, an attitude can also be defined as “an individual viewpoint or disposition toward a particular ‘object’ (a person, a thing, an idea, etc.)” (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996, p. 273). Attitudes are comprised of three linked components: cognitive, affective, and behavioral (Triandis, 1971). In the context of inclusive education, the cognitive component reflects an individual’s beliefs or knowledge about inclusive education and students with SEN, while the affective component is the individual’s feelings about students with SEN. The behavioral component, on the other hand, refers to a predisposition to act in a particular way when dealing with students with SEN.
Numerous studies have been conducted to measure teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN and have resulted in mixed findings (see Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; De Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2011). Some studies concluded that teachers hold positive attitudes towards inclusive education (Abbott, 2006; Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000a, 2000b; Kurniawati, Minnaert, Mangunsong, & Ahmed, 2012), while others reported more resistant attitudes of teachers (e.g. Ring & Travers, 2005). A recent review by De Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert (2011) found that, on average, teachers are neutral in their beliefs about inclusive education. This study also revealed that teachers rate themselves as having insufficient knowledge about SEN, and feel less competent and confident in teaching such students. With respect to the behavioral component of attitude, it was reported that teachers hold neutral behavioral intentions towards students with SEN.
Besides attitudes, teaching strategies have been consistently associated with successful implementation of inclusive education (Florian, 2009; Forlin, 2011). Based on the literature review of Scott, Vitale and Masten (1998), Florian (2009) developed a list of teaching strategies that are frequently used to accommodate the inclusion of students with SEN. Teaching strategies refer to plans or programs initiated by teachers to ensure that a certain message or lesson is passed from the teacher to the student (see Anderson, 1981; Florian, 2009). The Florian strategies are organized under four categories (see details in Figure 1): 1) differentiation (e.g. shortened assignment,
26
] Chapter 3
consult with pupils on preferred learning styles, vary teaching style, alter instruction, allow additional time to complete assignments), 2) cooperative learning (e.g. peer collaboration, peer tutoring), 3) classroom management (e.g. vary group composition for different kinds of activities, use of praise, frequent monitoring and feedback, modify seating plan), and 4) social skills (e.g. explicitly teach social and group skills). The strategies are required to ensure the meaningful participation of students with SEN in social (Maheady, Mallette, & Harper, 2006) and academic activities (Mc Leskey & Waldron, 2002) within the regular classroom.
Figure 1. The concept ‘teaching strategies’ and its four categories
Research has suggested that teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education might relate to their teaching strategies in class (Bransford, Darling-Hammond, & LePage, 2005; Hasting & Oakford, 2003). Here, one should expect that teachers with positive attitudes use more effective teaching strategies towards students with SEN. However, it was also found that teachers’ intention to teach students with SEN is influenced by resources and the support or knowledge teachers perceived they possessed (see Hodge et al., 2004; Kuyini & Desai, 2007; Sato & Hodge, 2007; Qi & Ha, 2012) or the school culture (see Stanovich & Jordan, 1998). The majority of these studies, however, focused on the cognitive and affective components of attitudes with little attention paid to the role of teachers’ willingness to implement inclusive education. They also used self-reported questionnaires and lacked any actual teaching behavior measurements, which is powerful in examining teaching strategies. This study, therefore, was set up to answer the following questions:
1. What attitudes do teachers hold towards the inclusion of students with SEN?
2. Which teaching strategies do teachers use to teach students with SEN in regular education?
Attitudes and teaching strategies of teachers in inclusive classrooms [
27
3.2 MethodDesign In order to answer the research questions, I set up a qualitative study in which I used a combination of semi-structured interviews and video recordings. The semi-structured interview was chosen as it affords some flexibility to both researcher and interviewee (Freebody, 2003; Rose & Cole, 2002). Though the interview guide contains topics or themes to be covered during the process of interview, the approach is still flexible. The interview allows the participants to express their opinions and perceptions in their own words in a way that may not have been considered by the interviewer (Coll & Chapman, 2000). In addition, the interviewer has the opportunity to explore particular themes in depth.
Video recordings were made to capture teachers’ behavior within a natural context. This method is considered one of the most powerful tools for studying the complexity of the classroom, including teaching strategies (Borko, Jacobs, Eiteljorg, & Pittman, 2008; Brophy, 2004). The combined approach of interviewing and video recording allowed me to examine the attitudes and teaching strategies of teachers within the context of their inclusion practices.Participants and settingThe study took place in two regular primary schools in Jakarta, Indonesia, where inclusive education was introduced in early 2005. The two schools were selected because they were among five piloted as inclusive schools by the Indonesian government in 2005. Both schools matched in terms of following the same national curriculum.
Participants were chosen according to convenience and purposive sampling (Boeije, 2010). Five teachers (three from school X and two from school Y) participated in the study. They all worked with students in grade two, three or five (age range: 7-11 years). Three teachers had worked at these schools for more than 10 years (teachers B, C, and E), the other two for eight (teacher D) and three years (teacher A). Nevertheless, Four teachers had been working with students with SEN since inclusive education was first introduced at their school, while for teacher A it was her first experience of teaching students with SEN. All teachers had attended in-service trainings related to special education, which mainly focused on theoretical knowledge rather than practical experience of working with students with SEN. Three teachers in school X were supported by a teacher’s assistant when teaching students with SEN.
MeasuresWe used two data sources for this study: interviewing and video recording, the procedure for both is described below.
InterviewTo answer the first research question (RQ1), teachers were interviewed using a semi-structured interview schedule based on a review of related literature (i.e. attitude and teaching strategies). This schedule was developed by two researchers, both of whom had expertise in educational psychology and special education. The topics of the interview concentrated on teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN on cognitive, affective and behavioral components. The interviews comprised
28
] Chapter 3
questions such as: “What do you think about the inclusion of students with SEN?” What are the benefits of inclusion on students with SEN (e.g. on social, emotional and academic development)?” (cognitive); “How confident are you in teaching students with SEN?” (affective); “To what extent, are you willing to include such students in class activities?” (behavioral).
To answer the second research question (RQ2), teachers were asked to describe their use of teaching strategies in class, focusing on the following four categories: differentiation, collaborative learning, classroom management, and socialskills (see Figure 1). Examples of questions are: “Can you explain the teaching strategies you choose for teaching students with SEN? What do you do to support the participation of SEN students in the classroom?”
All interview questions were open-ended, thus allowing teachers to define and direct their responses and share their individual experience. Each interview began with giving the participant the purposes of the interview, assurance of confidentiality and collecting demographic characteristics of the teachers (e.g. education background, teaching experience, and type of SEN of students taught). Interviews lasted between 45 and 60 minutes and were conducted before and after the video recording in their own school. Each interview was recorded with the teachers’ consent.
Video recordingIn order to understand which teaching strategies teacher use in their daily practice when teaching students with SEN (RQ2), video recordings were made of the five teachers during their teaching time. The recordings focused on the four categories of teaching strategies and were scheduled over three consecutive days at times convenient for the teachers, and with the schools’ consent. Five classes were videotaped when three of the core primary school subjects in primary schools, maths (2 lessons), science (2 lessons), and social studies, were being taught. During the video recordings, one video camera was set up in the front corner of the classroom and was operated by a research assistant. All teachers wore a wireless microphone.
The teachers’ lessons typically comprised an introduction, the body of the lesson, and a closure. All lessons were taped and we later coded behaviors shown during the body of the lessons (see 3. 4 Analysis). Given that recordings occurred during highly engaging instructional times, their average length (35 mins) was considered sufficient to capture a valid snapshot of teacher’s teaching strategies (Sharpe & Koperwas, 2003; Sugai & Tindal, 1993).
AnalysisTo answer the first research question I used the interview data, whereas the second research question was answered using interview data and video recordings. The analyses of the data are presented below.
InterviewThe interview data were transcribed verbatim by a team of researchers. The research assistant (a school psychologist, who also had experience of working with teachers) read the transcripts of all the interviews to grasp the overall content and identify relevant units that corresponded with the research question. These units were further
Attitudes and teaching strategies of teachers in inclusive classrooms [
29
coded and categorized within the theory of attitude and teaching strategies. The three-component theory (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) provided a useful framework to present the results of the study on teachers’ attitudes (RQ1), while the four categories of teaching strategies of Florian (2009) were used to describe the results on teaching strategies (RQ2). Next, the data was sent to the first and fourth authors for verification and feedback. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. Inter-coder reliability score was 0.85.
Video recordingTwo researchers with an educational background in psychology and holding work-related experience with teachers, developed a coding sheet and coded information about the occurrence of classroom-based teaching strategies. Event recording is the appropriate strategy for collecting data on particular aspects of behaviors, including teaching strategies (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 1987).
The coding procedure included identifying teaching strategies for each of Florian’s four categories within every five minute segment of lesson recorded, so seven segments in all. The researchers and two other school psychologists did the coding on a dichotomous scale (no display versus clear display) for all the recording data. The coding was processed in Bahasa Indonesia (the official language in Indonesian public primary schools). Afterwards, the coding data was compared and discussed. To resolve disagreements among the coders, we first re-operationalized the teaching strategies into more behavioral indicators. For example, the category of social skills were operationalized in terms of the following teachers’ behaviors: encourage students to appropriately express feelings and ask permission before using another student’ property; appreciate students’ offer for help, etc. Following this, we conducted a joint observation of the video data. The four coders agreed on all five coded lessons at above satisfactory levels, with an 0.89 average value of inter-coder reliability, as suggested by Cohen (1960).
3.3 ResultsTeachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN Teachers’ attitudes are presented below according to the three-component of attitude: cognitive, affective, and behavioral.
CognitiveThe results of the interview showed that all teachers believed in the idea of inclusion and that students with SEN have the right to be educated in regular schools as a legal requirement. They were supportive of inclusion and accepted students with SEN in their classroom. When they were asked about the SEN type of students in their classroom, teachers C and D identified the type of SEN correctly, whereas teachers A, B, and E replied:
To be honest, I don’t know their special needs… Our principal never told me… Also I was not trained to teach such students (A)
I thought he had autism …. He’s also visually impaired, but … I’m not sure (B)
30
] Chapter 3
According to the special education teacher, the student has ADHD. I seated her in the back row. She’s able to concentrate on the lesson (E)
Three teachers indicated the positive effect which inclusion may have on students with SEN, e.g. they might feel more motivated to learn and have more opportunities to be included in class activities and social life. Teachers A and B, however, were more negative about the effect of inclusion, as they saw that such students may experience feelings of failure, frustration, and isolation during on-going peer activities:
During lunch time he stays in the classroom with the teacher’s assistant. I think he finds it very difficult to make friends, although his classmates sometimes ask him to join in an activity… (B)
He never asks questions … He cried and begged me to stop…. He didn’t want to do anything … (A)
With respect to students without SEN, teachers C and D saw that there were benefits of including such students.
Having a classmate with SEN makes other students more caring, helpful… (D)
I think they can learn to accept that people are different, nobody is perfect … (C)
AffectiveThe interview data showed that none of the participating teachers felt competent and confident in working with students with SEN. Teachers expressed many doubts and questions about the support they provide for such students. In addition, teacher B considers students with SEN as a burden and hassle:
Sometimes I’m not sure of myself... Do they improve in my class…? (D)
Teachers B and A expressed similar views:
I felt uncomfortable. I hope they gained more and more, but I couldn’t do anything more. I just wanted to teach normal students (B) The parents never stopped complaining... I thought I did my best (A)I had just started teaching … I had no experience with SEN. They were funny,but sometimes I was afraid of having children like them of my own…
On the other hand, teachers C, D, and E expressed more positive feelings regarding students with SEN in their classroom. Teacher C said:
I’m retiring soon ... I’m blessed with having an opportunity to teach students like them (C)
Attitudes and teaching strategies of teachers in inclusive classrooms [
31
BehavioralThe results of the interview data indicated that four teachers expressed their willingness to accommodate such students in their classroom. However, the level and type of SEN had become a concern for them. Teachers indicated that they were reluctant to educate students with a more severe intellectual disability. In this regard, teacher D mentioned students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD):
For me a student with autism is very challenging …. The behavior is unpredictable…. I have many problems dealing with one boy. I also need some knowledge ... how to teach him (D)
I know he has a hearing problem, but as long as he can follow instructions, It’s fine by me (C)
Students who need more individual attention and struggle with academic tasks … should be placed in a special school (A)
For better implementation of inclusive education, teachers indicated the importance of more training in special education and better teaching materials. With regard to training, teacher D expressed a need for more knowledge relating to a specific SEN as well as training on teaching strategies in inclusive settings. She stated:
What I want to know is how to manage his behavior. I’m untrained for this type of SEN (D)
Like Braillers, we didn’t have any…. It was very important for students who can’t read because they’re visually impaired (A)
To sum up, the results showed that teachers accepted the inclusion of students with SEN in their classrooms as a legal requirement. However, none of them reported themselves as very knowledgeable about educating these students. With regard to the affective component, while teachers A and B were more negative towards students with SEN, others expressed a neutral attitude. Furthermore, with respect to the behavioral component, it was found that four of the teachers held neutral behavioral intentions towards students with SEN. Their willingness to accommodate them in the classroom appeared to vary according to the type and level of SEN, and the resources provided to support inclusion. Students with more severe intellectual disability were considered to present more concern and stress by all teachers, followed by those with ASD. In particular, all teachers agreed that the regular classroom was not an appropriate educational setting for students with a more severe intellectual disability.
Teachers’ teaching strategies towards students with SEN Four categories were used to describe teachers’ teaching strategies: i.e. differentiation, collaborative learning, classroom management, and social skills. The data of each category for the interviews are presented first, followed by the data from the video recordings. Overviews of teaching strategies used in educating students with SEN are presented in Table 1, and in Figures 2 - 4.
32
] Chapter 3
Interview
Differentiation. Across teachers, with regard to curriculum, lesson objectives, and performance expectations were said to be the same for all students. A degree of differentiation took place in terms of assignments. All teachers stated that they often gave shortened assignments to students with emotional and attention problems, as well as those with intellectual disability. “Whenever Teddy (a student with mild autism) refused to do his tasks, I allowed him to do them as homework” (A). Similarly, teacher D said, ”I just reduce the amount of work in a given task. If I force him (a student with intellectual disability) to do it, I am just making problems for myself”. The shortened assignment was not given to students with other SEN types, as all teachers believed they were just as competent as typically developing students.
Teachers A, C, D, and E gave extra time to complete the assignments and provided additional time before or after school hours for the low achievers to have extra practice with certain topics:
Sometimes I wait for Rangga (a student with emotional problems) to finish his task until the lesson’s over at around 1pm, or until after school hours (D)
With respect to varying teaching style, all teachers preferred to use the lecture method in delivering the topic, unless the subject required the students to work in groups. The teachers suggested that working in groups was positive and can reinforce the maximum participation of all students, including those with SEN. However, due to various reasons, collaboration among students was uncommon in their classrooms. According to teacher D, having students work in small groups was ineffective because most students were not interested in taking part: they preferred to work by themselves or did unproductive activities, such as walking around and chatting to each other. Thus, with 39 students, including six challenging ones, she had difficulty managing her own class and covering all the set topics. Teacher A also gave another reason:
Having small groups only created trouble in class. Everybody talked and the class became noisy. I only had small groups whenever it was required, for examplein art lessons (A)
All teachers recognized a need for more time and support for students with SEN. To support students with SEN, teachers gave individual instruction and altered/simplified the instruction to these pupils, particularly to those without a teaching assistant. Three teachers (A, C, E) also explained the lesson in more detail and provided step-by-step instruction if necessary.
The teachers’ main concern was their limited knowledge and experience in using effective teaching strategies for SEN students. Teachers, therefore, emphasized the importance of consulting with pupils (e.g. special school teachers, other staff) on students with SEN. The five teachers described their experiences of meeting with other staff and parents of students with SEN to discuss ways of working on the challenges with the SEN students present. Teacher D said, “We share our experience of students with SEN, usually during lunch break”. Teacher A added, “It’s really important to talk to parents, they know their children better”.
Attitudes and teaching strategies of teachers in inclusive classrooms [
33
Collaborative learning. To support peer collaboration, teacher A required students with SEN to work with their typically developing classmates. She said peer collaboration was more effective and could be applied to all students, except for those with emotional and behavioral problems. Teacher D also indicated the benefit of this method, “At least the student with SEN had someone to ask when he encountered problems, so that he felt more comfortable and didn’t easily give up. I knew he wanted to be engaged in the activities, he was just unable to do so”.
Classroom management.Modified seating plans/arrangements were provided for students with SEN by all teachers. These students were seated in the front row, near to their teacher. Teacher C said, “By placing them (students with SEN) next to me, it is easier to communicate, especially with those with a hearing impairment”. “He can pay more attention to the lesson”, commented teacher E on her student with an attention problem. When students were required to work in groups, teachers A, C, and D varied the group composition. Teacher A, “They sit in the front row all the time, but because of a weekly seating rotation for other students, the students with SEN get to work with different students”. Teacher C, “I use the attendance list to form working groups”. Teachers D and E also attempted to monitor SEN students frequently and to give individual feedback to them during lessons.
Teachersinthis study also providedappreciation indifferentways to all students.Most gave verbal praise or put forward studentswho excelled in certain areas as role modelsfortheotherstudents. Teacher C, “Whenever he completed a task, I said ‘well done’… I then saw he was more willing to do his task, and even faster”.
Social skills.All teachers reported on focusing on social skills when teaching students with SEN: “I asked one boy to stop crying and then encouraged him to speak. I feel he should learn how to express his feelings” (E). Similar responses were also shown by teacher B, “I tried to calm him down. I said that he had to finish the task by himself”. In addition, teacher A encouraged students with SEN to greet their teachers whenever they meet them.
Video recordingsRegarding the category of differentiation, four teachers were observed using altered instruction to teach students with SEN. While teacher C used such a strategy more frequently compared to the others, it was found that teacher B did not use this approach at all (see Figure 2). During the lessons it was observed that four teachers used of praise in teaching students with SEN. Teacher E used the strategy more frequently compared to the other teachers. During the recordings teacher B offered no teaching strategies in dealing with students with SEN (see Figure 3). While all teachers taught social skills to students with SEN (see Figure 4), there were no teaching strategies observed during the recordings that fell into the category of collaborative learning. Hence, no further attention is given to this category in the results section.
34
] Chapter 3
Table 1Overview of Used Teaching Strategies
Teaching strategies TeacherA B C D E
Differentiation strategiesAdapt the curriculum
Shorten assignment X X X X X
Use alternative papers, worksheets
Adjust performance expectations
Offer choice of materials
Consult with pupils on preferred learning styles X X X X X
Offer choice of task
Give supplemental instructions
Vary teaching style X X X
Alter instruction X X X X
Adjust lesson pace
Modify lesson objectives
Adapt assignments
Use supplementary aids
Break down activities into smaller steps
Provide abridged/modified texts
Use computer-assisted instruction
Allow additional time to complete assignments X X X X X
Use shorter & more frequent methods of assessing performanceBase evaluation on the amount of individual improvementUse of drama or role play
Allow alternative responses
Collaborative learning strategies
Jig-sawing
Peer collaboration X X
Peer tutoring
Classroom management
Vary group composition for different kinds of activities
X X X X
Use of visual cues around the room
Use of praise X X X X X
Frequent monitoring and feedback X X X
Modify seating plan X X X X X
Social skills
Explicitly teach social and group skills X X X X X
Attitudes and teaching strategies of teachers in inclusive classrooms [
35
Figure 2. Teacher strategies for differentiation
Figure 3. Teacher strategies for classroom management
Figure 4. Teacher strategies for social skills
36
] Chapter 3
To sum up, the results of the interviews have showed that two teachers (A and D) used all categories of teaching strategies, whereas the three others addressed the categories of differentiation, classroom management, and social skills. All teachers, however, reported the use of the following teaching strategies: shortened assignment, consult with pupils, allow additional time, use of praise, modify seating plan and explicitly teach social skills.
The results of the video recordings have revealed that all teachers used three categories of teaching categories when teaching SEN students (differentiation, classroom management, and social skills). The teaching strategies used by all teachers were alter instruction, use of praise, frequent monitoring and feedback as well as explicitly teaching social skills.
3.4 Conclusion and discussionThe purpose of this study was twofold: 1) to examine teachers’ attitudes towards students with SEN and 2) to identify teaching strategies used by teachers in teaching students with SEN. With respect to the first aim, it can be concluded that, in general, teachers’ attitudes were negative to neutral regarding the three-component of at-titude. With respect to the second aim, it was found that teachers reported using a limited number of effective teaching strategies to teach students with SEN. Based on the outcomes of this study, several issues should be discussed in more detail.
Research has consistently argued the importance of teachers’ holding positive attitudes for the successful inclusion of students with SEN in regular classrooms (see Avramidis et al., 2000a, 2000b). It was expected, therefore, to find positive results in relation to teachers’ attitudes in this study. It seemed reasonable to expect that teachers were more accepting of students with SEN and showed willingness to accommodate such students, seeing that the implementation of inclusive education in the participating teacher schools was started in 2005. With regard to the formation of attitudes, Eagly and Chaiken (1993) state that positive attitudes are formed by direct experience, in this case, direct contact with students with SEN. By being in contact with such students it was assumed that teachers were more familiar and more confident with them. However, the results of the current study revealed that teachers held more negative attitudes. Specifically on the affective component, two of the teachers considered students with SEN aroused anxiety and created additional challenges for them. The outcomes of the study seem to deviate from the more positive results of previous studies (see Avramidis & Norwich, 2002), but in line with the results of other studies (see De Boer et al., 2011; Ferguson, 2008) regarding teachers’ attitudes towards students with SEN. The findings suggest that the implementation of inclusive education is still challenging.
With respect to the second research question, the results showed that teachers did not use a lot of effective teaching strategies in accommodating students with SEN. Further analysis of the teaching strategies used revealed that teachers appeared to use teaching strategies which required little extra effort and time on their part, such as shortened assignment or allowing additional time to complete assignments. This finding was also apparent in previous studies (e.g. Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Schumm & Vaughn, 1991). Given the fact that teacher training programs in Indonesia do not emphasize preparing regular school teachers to work with students with SEN, it seems reasonable that these teachers are unprepared to use effective teaching strategies necessary for successful implementation of inclusive education.
An additional outcome of the study was found in relation to including students
Attitudes and teaching strategies of teachers in inclusive classrooms [
37
with behavioral problems and intellectual disability. The results of this study indicated that regular educational settings were considered by teachers as inappropriate to place these students. This indicates that especially students with behavioral problems and intellectual disability are at risk for being rejected by teachers’ negative attitudes. In line with previous studies (i.e. Avramidis & Norwich, 2002), teachers in this study were more willing to include students with mild disability than those with more severe ones. A possible explanation of this outcome might be related to the behavioral typical of such students, i.e. difficulty with social relationships and regulating their own behavior. As students with more diverse SEN are being educated in the regular classroom, the findings may suggest negative implications for their inclusion.
The unexpected findings of the current study in terms of teachers’ attitudes and teaching strategies towards SEN students might be linked to their lack of knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies as well as resources, which were also found in other studies (Blecker & Boakes, 2010; Pijl, 2010; Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008). It has been argued that when teachers are not provided with knowledge and teaching strategies to implement inclusion successfully, then their frustration and resentment can be anticipated (see Armstrong et al., 2005; Brice & Miller, 2000), thereby indicating less positive attitudes towards students with SEN and inclusive education. In addition, without adequate knowledge it is unsurprising if teachers fail to use effective teaching strategies for students with SEN in the classroom (Florian, 2009). Using the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 2005), it can be argued that teachers’ intention to accept the inclusion of students with SEN and to use effective teaching strategies are influenced by internal factors (e.g. knowledge, ability) or external factors (e.g. time, school support) (Ajzen & Madden, 1986). These findings suggest the importance of focusing on knowledge about SEN and teaching strategies in teacher training programs.
Within the context of inclusive education, a few studies have attempted to examine the extent to which teachers’ attitudes are reflected in their teaching strategies. It was found that teacher’s attitudes on inclusion may have a direct influence on the realization of teaching strategies in the classroom (Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1992). Teachers with more positive attitudes are more likely to use effective teaching strategies. Unfortunately, the study design of the current study did not allow us to examine the relationship between attitudes and teaching strategies of teachers. To establish more empirical evidence for the relationship between attitudes and teaching strategies of teachers in class, future research on this topic is recommended.
When interpreting the outcomes of the study, its limitations need to be considered. The study used both interviews and video recordings, which may produce a wider range of information of inclusive practices at classroom level and thus can be used as evidence to evaluate the implementation of inclusive education in Indonesia. The use of a qualitative method to address a complex question, such as inclusion, is recommended (see Lindsay, 2003) and was certainly the strength of this study. However, as only a small number of teachers were looked at, the generalization of the findings should be taken with caution. The results do not claim to be representative of inclusive practices in public primary schools. Given that a different interpretation of inclusion might apply for each school (Lindsay, 2003; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002; Peters, 2003), it is recommended that future research uses larger samples of teachers coming from more different school backgrounds.
There was also a gap between what teachers said in interviews about their teaching strategies and the few examples recorded where teachers actually put these
38
] Chapter 3
into practice in the classroom. There are two reasons for this outcome. First, teachers may have reported using teaching strategies they did not use in reality and second, the videotaped teaching segment may not be representative of their authentic classroom teaching strategies. We therefore emphasize the use of a longitudinal study in order to establish the consistency of teachers’ strategies when teaching students with SEN.
Implications of the studyResearches have revealed that adequate training program that promotes changes in teachers’ attitude and their teaching strategies must be provided to make inclusion successful (see Leyser, 2002; Wilkins & Nietfield, 2004). This is important in the present context, in the light of a perceived need by teachers for more training programs. When teachers’ knowledge and teaching strategies increased, their commitment to inclusion (Avramidis et al., 2002) and their likelihood for implementing effective teaching strategies might also increase. In addition, training programs should be provided on a regular basis for teachers, as simply supporting them in the early stages of implementing inclusive education is not enough (Avramidis et al., 2002; King-Sears & Cummings, 1996). Teachers need sustained and sufficient supports in relation to including students with SEN in regular education.
39
Chapter 4
Characteristics of primary teacher training
programs on inclusion: A literature focus
A slightly adapted version of this chapter is accepted for publication as: Kurniawati, F., De Boer, A. A., Minnaert, A. E. M. G., & Mangunsong, F. Characteristics of primary teacher training programs on inclusion: A literature focus (in press). Educational Research.
40
] Chapter 4
Abstract
Teachers’ readiness and willingness to accommodate the learning
needs of students with SEN was determined by their training
they received. The purpose of this review is to present a focused
analysis of: 1) studies which examined, in detail, the components
of teacher training programs for pre-service or in-service teachers
in regular primary schools in terms of target groups, type of SEN,
content, length of time, delivery mode, learning activities and
2) consideration of the effectiveness of these training programs.
The literature review was restricted to empirical studies published
in international peer-reviewed journals after 1994 [i.e. since
the Salamanca statement (UNESCO, 1994) was signed].Analysis
towards the 13 reviewed studies indicated that the majority
of trainings programs focused on attitude, knowledge, and
teaching strategies related to SEN. The training programs were
also performed on what might be considered short-term practice
and supplemented with field experience. Although the training
programs appeared to have positive effects on teachers’ attitudes,
knowledge, and teaching strategies, follow-up sessions and
students’ outcomes measures may increase training effectiveness.
Keywords: teacher training programs, primary school, inclusive education, literature review
Characteristics of teacher training programs on inclusive education [
41
4.1 Introduction Approaches to the education of students with a range of learning needs [often
called special educational needs (SEN)] have changed dramatically over the past two decades (e.g. UNESCO, 1994; United Nations, 2006). Many countries all over the world have adopted policies that foster the inclusion of these students into regular classrooms (Vislie, 2003). As a result, a growing number of students with SEN have been educated in regular school environments (Forlin & Chambers, 2011; McLeskey & Waldron, 2011). Within an inclusive perspective on teaching, students with SEN are not only physically integrated, but also socially, culturally, and emotionally integrated (Moen, Nilssen, & Weidemann, 2007). The concept of inclusion thereby becomes part of a broad human rights agenda that values the education of students with SEN in regular educational systems, as stated in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) and the UNESCO Salamanca Statement (1994).
It is widely agreed that the co-operation and commitment of those directly involved, particularly teachers, is very important for successful implementation of inclusive education (Forlin, 2010; Hegarty, 1994; Meijer, 2003). Teachers play a decisive role in the inclusive context (Jerlinder, Danermark, & Grill, 2010). In some countries, by law, teachers are required to provide the necessary and appropriate services to ensure successful outcomes for students with SEN (Patterson, 2005). Teachers are in charge of implementing and facilitating any innovation at the classroom level (Florian & Spratt, 2013). In line with this, Hegarty (1994) has argued that teachers might influence the students in their classes, as well as their colleagues and the parents of their children. They may also act as facilitators and managers of educational environments (Block & Obrusnikova, 2007; Morley, Bailey, Tan, & Cooke, 2005). Taken together, these suggest that teachers are responsible for ensuring the success of all their students, including those with SEN.
The implementation of inclusive education creates challenges for regular classroom teachers who have to meet the learning needs of students with and without SEN. The classrooms, therefore, have to be transformed in ways that increase teachers’ ability to accommodate every child irrespective of their needs and ensure that all learners belong to a school community (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000). Implementation of this school reform requires teachers to acquire new teaching strategies, behaviors, and beliefs (Bransford, Darling-Hammond, & LePage, 2005). However, results of research on teachers working in inclusive settings have demonstrated that they have serious reservations about including students with SEN in their classrooms (Pijl, 2010; Ring & Travers, 2005). Teachers vary significantly in their ability or willingness to make adaptations (McLeskey & Waldron, 2002). In their study, McLeskey and Waldron (2002) revealed that while some teachers stressed the importance of curricular and instructional adaptations, other teachers reported continuing difficulties in making all of the necessary adaptations in order to meet the needs of such students. Moreover, teachers also strongly expressed a need for more information, knowledge, and expertise to support their attempts to include students with SEN into inclusive classrooms (De Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2011; Subhan & Sharma, 2005). It has been argued that when teachers gain the extensive professional knowledge needed to implement inclusive programs, they may support the inclusion of students with SEN (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000; Winter, 2006).
42
] Chapter 4
Research on inclusive education suggests that one of the greatest barriers to effectively implementing inclusion is that many teachers feel that they are inadequately trained to provide quality services to students with SEN (e.g. Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000; Pijl, 2012). The movement toward inclusive education, therefore, has challenged teacher preparation programs to better prepare teachers for dealing with students with SEN as well as other students in classrooms. In many educational systems, teacher training programs are now required to produce graduates who are able to respond to diverse student populations in their mainstream classes (Rouse, 2010). Research has argued about which components should be addressed in teacher training programs (see Florian, 2009; Harriott, 2004; Rouse, 2010), such as the development of behavioral management skills, the construction of effective learning experience, the management of inclusive curricula for all students and understanding of teaching theories, characteristics of SEN, attitudes towards students with SEN, and the legal and ethical issues involved in inclusive education.
Though research on teacher training programs and inclusive education has been conducted over two decades, no consensus has been reached about how programs can best prepare teachers to be inclusive teachers (Kim, 2011). Because teacher training programs are prepared for, and conducted in many ways (Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, & Trezek, 2008; Kim, 2011), it is important to consider what such training programs actually consist of, and in what ways they may be considered to be ‘effective’.
The aim of this study, therefore, was to examine literature focusing on teacher training programs for the inclusion of students with SEN in regular primary schools. The following research questions were addressed: (1) What are the components of available teacher training programs on the inclusion of students with SEN in regular primary school? and (2) What was considered to be the ‘effectiveness’ of these teacher training programs?
4.2 MethodsSearch procedureThis review study aimed to review recent empirical studies published in international peer-reviewed journals after 1994 [i.e. since the Salamanca statement (UNESCO, 1994) was signed]. The electronic browser ‘EBSCO host Complete’ was used to search for relevant articles, which includes about 30 databases among which ERIC, MEDLINE, Psych ARTICLES, Psych INFO, and Soc INDEX.
A number of keywords were used to search for relevant literature. The terms ‘teacher’ and ‘educator’ were combined with the following terms: ‘training’, ‘disability’, ‘inclusion’, ‘inclusive education’, ‘impairment’, ‘special educational needs’, ‘children with special needs’, and ‘disorder’. The combinations of those keywords were used to search in both abstracts and titles, resulting in 2,077 references.
Selection procedureIn order to answer the first research question, each study had to meet the following criteria:
1. Study participants were either pre-service or in-service teachers in regular primary schools.2. The study was focused on teacher training programs in inclusion or inclusive education.
Characteristics of teacher training programs on inclusive education [
43
After reading the title and/or abstract and applying the selection criteria, 2,048 references were discounted because they were clearly irrelevant to the current review. These studies did not satisfy the inclusion criteria for a number of reasons (see details in Table 1): for example, they involved participants (i.e. pre-service teachers, in-service teachers) of special school settings (914) rather than regular school settings; they did not focus on teacher training programs (406). Twenty-nine references were retained and became subject to further analysis. Four of these references were untraceable, resulting in a database of 25 studies. After carefully reading these 25 studies, 10 were excluded because they did not meet the selection criteria: they did not focus on teacher training programs (2 studies); they focused on special education teachers (4 studies), school counselors (1 study), and high school teachers (1 study); or they included participants from different levels of school settings, so we could not split up the results (2 studies).
One criterion was applied to the remaining 15 studies to address the second research question about ‘effectiveness’: the study must consist of a pre- and post-test design. Two studies did not meet this criterion, so 13 studies were reviewed for this research. These formed a small core of studies for detailed further analysis.
Table 1 Reasons for Rejection of the Studies not Included in the Analysis, First Filtering
No Reasons Numbers1 Involved participants (i.e. in-service teachers, pre-service
teachers) of special school settings914
2 Did not focus on teacher training program in inclusion or inclusive education
406
a. Focused on the development or preparation of teacher training program
141
b. Focused on the effectiveness of specific instructional program or curriculum change
340
c. Included the implementation of inclusive education at certain region
97
d. Focused on the policy or legislation of inclusive education 110e. Suggested the importance of teacher and parent partnership and teacher collaboration in inclusive education
40
Total rejected 2,048
AnalysisTo investigate the first research question, we analyzed the studies in terms of the training program’s structure and content, covering aspects such as target groups, type of SEN, content, length of time, medium of course delivery, and learning activities. Several studies involved both regular school teachers and those with other qualifications (e.g. special school teachers). In those cases, this review only reported the findings related to regular school teachers. This also applied to studies that included teachers from both primary schools and other educational levels (e.g. middle or secondary schools). In line with our research questions, we only reported findings related to primary school teachers.
44
] Chapter 4
In order to investigate the second research question, it was necessary to consider the concept and meanings associated with ‘effectiveness’. Effectiveness of teacher training programs in the field of inclusive education could be measured in terms ofdifferent ways, like students’ outcomes (e.g. Browder et al., 2012), attitude change (e.g. Chong, Forlin, & Au, 2007), knowledge and teaching strategies improvement (e.g. Chandler, 2000), teachers’ concerns (e.g. Forlin, Keen, & Barrett, 2008), teachers’ self efficacy (e.g. Lancaster & Bain, 2010). This current study focused on the effectiveness of teacher training programs in changing attitudes, knowledge, and teaching strategies of teachers in relation to the inclusion of students with SEN in regular schools. The effectiveness of the quantitative studies was evaluated based on the Cohen’s d effect size (Cohen, 1988). An effect size represents study findings in the form of standardized mean differences between two groups (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Effect size is particularly valuable for quantifying the effectiveness of a particular intervention. To calculate the effect size, we recorded statistical data from each study, including mean scores and standard deviations. When a study had several mean scores and standard deviations, they were averaged and the averages were used to calculate the effect size (see Bernard et al., 2004). The guidelines for interpreting effect sizes were ES = 0.2 (small effect), ES = 0.5 (medium effect), and ES = 0.8 (large effect) (Cohen, 1988). For studies with follow-up data, effect sizes were calculated by comparing the follow-up phase to the baseline phase.
The effectiveness of the qualitative studies in improving attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies of teachers was analyzed based on percentage of non-overlapping data (PND) (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Casto, 1987). To interpret PND, I used criteria as outlined by Scruggs, Mastropieri, Cook, and Escobar (1986): PND < 50% (ineffective); PND 50% - 70% (minimally/questionable effective); PND 70% - 90% (moderately/fairly effective); and PND > 90% (highly effective). Similar method was also applied to measure students’ outcomes.
4.3 ResultsThe first part of the results section reports on the first research question: it provides an overview of the studies (see Table 2) and describes their components. The second part of the results section reports on the second research question: an overview of the effect sizes of each quantitative study is summarised in Tables 3 whereas the outcome of the qualitative studies is presented in Table 4.
Three main categories were assessed to answer the research questions: attitudes, knowledge, and teaching strategies related to SEN. Attitude has been described as “an individual’s viewpoint or disposition toward a particular ‘object’ (a person, a thing, an idea, etc.)” (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996, p. 273). Attitudes are considered to have three components: 1) cognitive, 2) affective, and 3) behavioral (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The cognitive component consists of an individual’s beliefs or knowledge about the attitude object, the affective component refers to feelings about the attitude object, while the behavioral component reflects someone’s predisposition to act toward the attitude object in a particular way. In this study, the attitude object was students with SEN and inclusive education. Knowledge refers to descriptive knowledge and procedural knowledge (Anderson, 1981). Descriptive or declarative knowledge describes how things are, including its process, attributes, and relations
Characteristics of teacher training programs on inclusive education [
45
between things whereas procedural knowledge relates to how to perform or operate things. In the context of inclusive education, descriptive knowledge covers knowledge about students with SEN, such as characteristics, causes, and prevalence. Procedural knowledge relates to teaching strategies which are associated with successful inclusion, including differentiation, cooperative learning, activity-based learning, classroom management, and study skills (Florian, 2009; Van Tartwijk & Hammerness, 2011). Teaching strategies refer to the actual use of teaching strategies in teaching students with SEN.
As stated earlier, the effectiveness of the quantitative studies was evaluated based on the effect size. For the qualitative studies, the training program was considered effective if there was a substantial change in the intervention compared to the baseline measurement by using the PND.
The components of the teacher training programs In the 13 studies under investigation, training program components were described in terms of target groups, type of SEN, content, length of time, delivery mode, and learning activities.
The content of four studies focused on inclusion in relation to changing participants’ attitudes. Other studies aimed at improving teachers’ knowledge (4 studies) and teaching strategies (2 studies) related to students with SEN. Two studies measured the effects of teacher training programs on a combination of attitude and knowledge. The final study was devoted to examining changes in attitudes, sentiments, and concerns of participants towards the inclusion of students with SEN.
The target groups involved in the reviewed studies were pre-service teacher groups, in-service teacher groups or combinations of both groups. Six out of 13 studies examined pre-service training programs, while another six looked at in-service programs. The study by Edwards, Carr and Siegel (2006) was unclear as it involved both pre- and in-service teachers. In addition, a range of providers was involved in delivering teacher training programs: universities were the largest, followed by government and the researchers themselves.
Seven out of 13 studies specified the type of pupil learning need in the training content: three involved students with behavioral, emotional and attention problems, and four included communication, physical, visual, intellectual or hearing impairments. The other six studies addressed all categories of SEN.
Most programs were at least 20 hours long. The majority of studies used the stand-alone unit, and others were infused programs. The infused programs embedded modification of curriculum for students with SEN within and across all curricular areas (Loreman, Forlin, & Sharma, 2007). However, the study by Sharma, Forlin and Loreman (2008) compared the effect of training programs in terms of these two different training approaches. This review classified the mode of course delivery into coursework and field experience: seven studies delivered the training content through coursework, and the other six used a combination of coursework and field experience. Two of the 13 studies involved follow-up activities in order to monitor the implementation (Wolery & Anthony, 1997), and to request feedback on impact (Rae, McKenzie, & Murray, 2011), while the other studies had no information about this.
46
] Chapter 4
Tabl
e 2
Ove
rvie
w o
f Com
pone
nts
of T
each
er T
rain
ing
Prog
ram
s in
the
Sele
cted
Stu
dies
(N
= 1
3).
Aut
hor(
s)N
Targ
et
Gro
ups1
Type
of
SEN
Co
nten
t2Le
ngth
of
Tim
eD
eliv
ery
Mo
de/
Act
iviti
es3
AK
TS
Alld
ay e
t al.
(201
2)
3IS
TEm
otio
nal/
Beha
vi-o
ral
Disa
bilit
ies
X30
-40
min
utes
tr
aini
ng
pro
gram
w
ith
perf
orm
ance
fe
edba
cks
give
n ev
ery
3 da
ys v
ia e
mai
l
Co
urse
wo
rk
and
inte
rve
nti
on
activ
ities
Car
roll,
Fo
rlin
&
Jo
blin
g (2
003)
22
0 PS
TA
ll ca
tego
ries
o
f SE
N
X10
-wee
k co
urse
in
volv
ing
a o
ne-h
our
le
ctur
e an
d a
two
-ho
ur
smal
l gr
oup
tu
tori
al p
er w
eek
(a t
ota
l of
30 h
our
s)
Co
urse
wo
rk
and
field
-exp
erie
nce
Edw
ards
, C
arr
&
Sieg
el (
2006
) 13
&
19
PST,
IST
All
cate
gori
es
of
SEN
XX
One
day
(gr
oup
of
pre-
serv
ice
teac
hers
) an
d tw
o
days
(g
roup
o
f in
-ser
vice
te
ache
rs)
(a t
ota
l of
7-14
ho
urs)
Co
urse
wo
rk
Gür
sel (
2007
) 81
PST
Phys
ical
di
sabi
lity
X14
-wee
k co
urse
(a
tota
l of
42 h
our
s)C
our
sew
ork
an
d fie
ld-e
xper
ienc
e
Le
bl
an
c,
Ric
hard
son
&
Burn
s (2
009)
105
PST
Aut
ism
Spec
trum
D
isord
ers
(ASD
)
XX
A t
ota
l of
200
min
utes
Co
urse
wo
rk
Lieb
erm
an
&
Wils
on
(200
5)
27PS
TV
isual
im
pair
men
t an
d de
af-
blin
dnes
s
XA
one
-wee
k sp
ort
s ca
mp
prac
ticum
(a
tota
l of
56 h
our
s)C
our
sew
ork
an
d fie
ld-e
xper
ienc
e
Mal
e (2
011)
48
PS
TA
ll ca
tego
ries
o
f SE
N
XA
10-
wee
k co
urse
(a
tota
l o
f at
lea
st 4
0 ho
urs)
Co
urse
wo
rk
Characteristics of teacher training programs on inclusive education [
47
Mill
er,
Wie
nke
&
Sava
ge (
2000
)64
IST
All
cate
gori
es
of
SEN
XTe
n tw
o-a
nd-a
-hal
f ho
ur w
eekl
y se
min
ars
(a t
ota
l of
25 h
our
s)C
our
sew
ork
Rae
et
al. (
2011
)19
IST
Inte
llect
ual
disa
bilit
yX
A h
alf-d
ay t
rain
ing
sess
ion
(les
s th
an 5
ho
urs)
Co
urse
wo
rk
Ren
shaw
et
al
. (2
008)
3
IST
Beha
vio
ral
and
atte
ntio
n pr
obl
ems
XFo
ur
one
-ho
ur
gro
up
trai
ning
se
ssio
ns
ove
r a
10-w
eek
peri
od,
tw
o
priv
ate
indi
vidu
al
cons
ulta
tion
sess
ions
la
stin
g 5-
15 m
inut
es (
a to
tal o
f 12
wee
ks)
Co
urse
wo
rk
and
inte
rve
nti
on
activ
ities
Sari
(20
07)
112
IST
Hea
ring
im
pair
men
tX
21 h
our
s o
ver
eigh
t da
ys,
one
day
eac
h w
eek
Co
urse
wo
rk
Shar
ma,
Fo
rlin
&
Lo
rem
an (
2008
) 60
3F
iv
e g
rou
ps
of
PST
All
cate
gori
es
of
SEN
XA
to
tal o
f at
leas
t 20
ho
urs
Co
urse
wo
rk
Wo
lery
& A
ntho
ny
(199
7)
3IS
TA
ll ca
tego
ries
o
f SE
N
XO
ne
30-4
5 m
inut
e in
divi
dual
tr
aini
ng
sess
ion
and
verb
al
feed
back
o
n im
plem
enta
tion
for
five
days
Co
urse
wo
rk
and
inte
rve
nti
on
activ
ities
Not
e. 1
IST
= in
-ser
vice
tea
cher
s; P
ST =
pre
-ser
vice
tea
cher
s. 2
Co
nten
t: A
= a
ttitu
des,
K =
kno
wle
dge,
TS
= t
each
ing
stra
tegi
es.
3
Co
urse
wo
rk in
clud
es le
ctur
e, d
iscus
sion,
tut
ori
al, w
ork
sho
p et
c.
48
] Chapter 4
The effectiveness of the teacher training programs
Consideration of ‘effectiveness’ in the 10 quantitative studiesThe effectiveness of these studies was evaluated by the effect size (Cohen, 1988). The distribution of the effect sizes is presented in Table 3, in which the effect sizes ranged from-0.04 to 2.67. The medians of attitudes’ and knowledge’ effect sizes were 0.60 and 1.03, respectively. Seven studies measured the attitude content. Two studies (Leblanc, Richardson, & Burns, 2009; Lieberman & Wilson, 2005) identified a large effect size (ES ≥ 1), whereas another one (Male, 2011) had a medium effect size (ES = 0.77) and two others (Carroll, Forlin, & Jobling, 2003; Gürsel, 2007) present small effect sizes (between 0.2 and 0.5). Edwards et al. (2006) reported different effect sizes for two groups of participants: a group of pre-service teachers had a higher effect size (ES = 0.32) than in-service teachers (ES = -0.04). The study conducted by Sharma et al. (2008), which involved five groups of participants, found effect sizes between 0 and 1. In sum, the mean effect size of the attitude was 0.64, suggesting that the training program had medium positive effects in changing the attitude of teachers towards the inclusion of students with SEN in regular primary schools.
Out of 10 studies, five measured the knowledge content. Two studies (Rae et al., 2011; Sari, 2007) showed large effect sizes (more than 1) whereas Miller, Wienke, and Savage (2000) reported an effect size of 0.43. One other study, conducted by Edwards et al. (2006), indicated effect sizes of 1.09 for a group of pre-service teachers and 0.37 for a group of in-service teachers. In their study, Leblanc et al. (2009) demonstrated effect sizes of 1.03 for knowledge about students with SEN and 0.97 for knowledge about teaching strategies. In addition, the study conducted by Sharma et al. (2008) reported the effect sizes of different training contents, namely ‘sentiment’ (ES of -1.01 to 0) and ‘concern’ (ES of -1.71 to -0.07). Since this study measured the sentiment and concern in a negative way, the negative effect sizes indicated increased and positive training outcomes. Teachers were less sentiment and concern about students with SEN after the training program was performed. Besides pre- and post-tests, one study also carried out a follow-up test (Rae et al., 2011). This study reported a large effect size (ES = 0.86) on pre-test and follow-up test data. To sum up, the effect size mean of 1.29 on the knowledge content suggested that training program contributed large positive effects to teachers’ knowledge about students with SEN and about teaching strategies.
Characteristics of teacher training programs on inclusive education [
49
Tabl
e 3
Ove
rvie
w o
f Out
com
es o
f Tea
cher
Tra
inin
g Pr
ogra
ms
in th
e Q
uant
itativ
e St
udie
s (N
= 1
0)
Aut
hor(
s)Ta
rget
G
roup
s1A
ttitu
deK
now
ledg
e2Te
achi
ng
stra
tegi
esSE
NTS
SEN
+ T
S
Pre-
test
3Po
st-
test
3Ef
fect
siz
e4Pr
e-te
st3
Post
-te
st3
Effe
ct
size4
Pre-
test
3Po
st-
test
3Ef
fect
siz
e4Pr
e-te
st3
Post
-te
st3
Effe
ct
size4
Car
roll,
Fo
rlin
&
Jobl
ing
(200
3)
PST
2.94
(0
.42)
3.12
(0
.41)
0.43
Edw
ards
, C
arr
&
Sieg
el
(200
6)
IST
4.45
(0
.57)
4.43
(0
.52)
-0.0
43.
60
(0.8
5)3.
87
(0.5
8)0.
37
PST
4.49
(0
.45)
4.63
(0
.42)
0.32
3.50
(0
.68)
4.11
(0
.40)
1.09
Gür
sel
(200
7)PS
T56
.5
(12.
9)61
.3
(13.
6)0.
36
Lebl
anc,
R
icha
rdso
n &
Bur
ns
(200
9)
PST
5.3
(1.6
)6.
9 (1
.6)
13.
85
(2.1
)6.
36
(2.7
5)1.
030.
40
(0.8
1)1.
49
(1.3
7)0.
97
Lieb
erm
an
& W
ilso
n (2
005)
PST
2.78
(0
.94)
1.60
(0
.57)
-1.5
2*
Mal
e (2
011)
PST
4.23
(0
.86)
4.86
(0
.78)
0.77
Mill
er,
Wie
nke
&Sa
vage
(2
000)
IST
3.81
(0
.86)
4.16
(0
.75)
0.43
50
] Chapter 4
Rae
et
al.
(201
1)IS
T0.
3 (0
.16)
2.29
(1
.04)
2.67
Sari
(20
07)
IST
33.2
0 (9
.07)
59.0
3 (1
1.68
)2.
47
Shar
ma,
Fo
rlin
&
Lore
man
(2
008)
PST1
4.13
(0
.62)
4.60
(0
.62)
0.76
PST2
4.16
(0
.68)
5.04
(0
.68)
1.29
PST3
4.57
(0
.65)
4.85
(0
.65)
0.43
PST4
3.53
(0
.53)
3.97
(0
.53)
0.83
PST5
3.59
(0
.59)
3.62
(0
.59)
0.05
Not
e.
1 IST
= in
-ser
vice
tea
cher
s; P
ST =
pre
-ser
vice
tea
cher
s; P
ST1
= 1s
t gr
oup
of
pre-
serv
ice
teac
her;
PST
2 =
2nd
gro
up o
f pr
e-se
rvic
e te
ache
r; P
ST3
= 3r
d
gro
up o
f pr
e-se
rvic
e te
ache
r; P
ST4
= 4t
h gr
oup
of
pre-
serv
ice
teac
her;
PST
5 =
5th
gro
up o
f pr
e-se
rvic
e te
ache
r.2 SE
N =
kno
wle
dge
abo
ut s
tude
nts
with
SEN
; TS
= k
now
ledg
e ab
out
tea
chin
g st
rate
gies
.3 Pr
e- a
nd p
ost
-tes
t sc
ore
s ar
e pr
esen
ted
in M
ean
(SD
).4
Effe
ct s
izes
are
exp
ress
ed in
d in
dexe
s (C
ohe
n, 1
998)
: 0.
2 =
sm
all e
ffec
t; 0
.5 =
med
ium
eff
ect;
0.8
= la
rge
effe
ct.
*The
eff
ect
was
rep
ort
ed in
line
with
the
aut
hors
: ne
gativ
e sc
ore
s in
dica
te in
crea
sed,
po
sitiv
e o
utco
mes
.
Characteristics of teacher training programs on inclusive education [
51
Consideration of ‘effectiveness’ in the three qualitative studiesAll three qualitative studies examined the effects of training programs about behavioral management strategies [e.g. function-based support, behavior-specific praise (BSP)] and instructional strategies on teachers’ knowledge and their teaching strategies in educating students with SEN (see Table 4). However, the effectiveness of a study of Wollery and Anthony (1997) could not be assessed as the study had no adequate data.
The findings revealed that the training programs were thought moderately to highly effective in increasing teachers’ knowledge and their teaching strategies. In addition, the findings suggested that such training programs increased students’ per-formance in terms of on-task behaviors (Allday et al., 2012) and decreased students’ behavioral problems (Renshaw et al., 2008). However, none of the studies reported the effect that the training programs had on attitudinal change.
Table 4 Overview of Outcomes of Teacher Training Programs in the Qualitative Studies (N= 3)
Voice recording data revealed that the training program increased all participants’ BSP2 praise by 83-100%.
Observation data revealed that the training program increased the on-task behavior of all participating students with or at risk for emotional/behavioral disabilities (EBD) by 11-100%.
Renshaw et al. (2008)
Knowledge test data revealed that the training program improved teachers’ knowledge by 100%.
Observation data revealed that all students made positive gains by 17-100%.
Wolery & Anthony (1997)
N/A N/A
Note.1 Effectiveness of the training programs was expressed in PND criteria (Scruggs et al. 1986):< 50% = ineffective; 50% - 70% = minimally/questionable effective; 70% - 90% = moderately/fairly effective; > 90% = highly effective.2 Behavior specific praise (BSP) is defined as “providing students with praise statements that explicitly describe the behavior being praised” (Allday et al., 2012, p. 87).
52
] Chapter 4
4.4 Discussion Researchers have recognized the importance of teachers in effectively implementing inclusive education (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Forlin & Lian, 2008). Teachers’ readiness and willingness to accommodate the learning needs of students with SEN is determined by their training program (Arthur-Kelly et al., 2013; Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000). However, there is a concern about the adequacy of such a training program in terms of the program components and the effectiveness of the program. This current study aimed to address both aspects by: 1) presenting a small core of 13 studies which examined the components of teacher training programs on inclusion for regular primary in-service/pre-service teachers in terms of target groups, type of SEN, content, length of time, delivery mode, learning activities and 2) considering the effectiveness of the training programs.
With regard to the first aim, the findings revealed that the majority of the reviewed studies had a number of common characteristics. First, the studies were performed on what might be considered relatively short-term training programs (a total training program time between 200 minutes and 56 hours). Second, the field experience was provided to participants. Third, most studies focused on attitudes, knowledge, and teaching strategies related to SEN. In terms of the second aim, the analysis of effect size suggested that the majority of the quantitative studies appeared to have positive effects on participants. Similar findings were also indicated by the qualitative studies.
Changing attitudes, knowledge, teaching strategies, and combinations of these topics were a focus in the majority of the reviewed studies. As previous studies showed that the majority of teachers hold a neutral attitude, and have limited knowledge and teaching strategies in dealing with students with SEN (De Boer et al., 2011; Rose, 2001), these training topics appear to be relevant to increasing teachers’ ability and willingness to educate students with SEN in inclusive settings. Moreover, several authors argued that attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies as prerequisites for inclusive teachers (Cook, 2002; Forlin, 2010; Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2007). However, for teachers benefitting from the training program, it was argued that such a training program should be carefully planned and well structured (Desimone, 2009); this is a point that, we suggest, should be emphasized in teacher training programs.
Several studies used field experience whereby participants had direct and systematic contact with students with SEN. Although other studies employed coursework as the main medium of course delivery, further analysis revealed that other special need-related learning activities (e.g. school visits, guest lectures by people with SEN) were also provided. Therefore, participants also had opportunities to make contact with students with SEN. The experience might reduce teachers’ concerns and improve their attitudes towards inclusion, as indicated by previous research (e.g. Richards & Clough, 2004; Winter, 2006). This kind of experience might also increase participants’ knowledge and their teaching strategies, since such experience provides learning opportunities that are necessary for teachers to integrate new knowledge into practice (Brunero, Lamont, & Coates, 2010). A number of researchers (e.g. Birman et al., 2000; Garet et al., 2001) have echoed how important it is that teacher preparation programs provide teachers with rich content and opportunities to practice what they
Characteristics of teacher training programs on inclusive education [
53
are learning. These findings are also consistent with the theory on the formation of attitudes that states that attitudes are created by direct experience (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The results also showed that in the quantitative studies, the effect size mean of ‘knowledge’ (mean ES = 1.29) was found to be higher than ‘attitude’ (mean ES = 0.64). As most studies were more information-based courses, this outcome is not surprising. Results of other studies also demonstrated that information-based courses are more likely to lead to changes in knowledge (Tait & Purdie, 2000). Another possible explanation for this outcome is that attitudinal change needs a more structured program, since attitudes are likely to be resistant to change (Ajzen, 2005; Campbell, Gilmore, & Cuskelly, 2003). Hence, it may be the case that such training programs are less effective in terms of attitudinal change.
Training programs focused on a specific type of SEN had greater effect sizes (Leblanc et al., 2009; Lieberman & Wilson, 2005; Rae et al., 2011; Sari, 2007) than training programs that addressed all categories of SEN. This result partially supports Cohen and Hill (2000) and Desimone et al. (2002), who revealed that training programs focusing on specific teaching strategies, materials and assessments associated with particular curricula is far more effective in promoting change in teachers’ teaching strategies than training programs addressed to general teaching strategies. When teachers might be confronted with difficult classroom experience with students with a growing range of behavioral and learning difficulties, it seems logical to conclude that such a training program is very helpful for teachers. Hence, such teachers are more supportive towards the inclusion of students with SEN.
Research revealed that more effective teacher training programs needs to be long-term and provide direct support as teachers implement instruction (e.g. Yoon et al., 2007). Long-term training and follow-up sessions might ensure that teachers sustain changes in practice. In this review, the majority of the quantitative studies looked at what were considered to be relatively short-term practice sessions (between 200 minutes and 56 hours) and only two studies included follow-up sessions (Rae et al., 2011; Wolery & Anthony, 1997). Further analysis, however, indicated that follow-up sessions without adequate feedback or supported practice sessions resulted in a significant decrease in participants’ knowledge, compared to knowledge levels measured immediately after training sessions (Rae et al., 2011). This finding might indicate a loss of knowledge over time, suggesting that positive changes arising from the training participation may only be temporary. From these data it can be concluded that a combination of long-term training and follow-up sessions with adequate supports may increase the effectiveness of in-service training programs. Similarly, more recent studies state that ongoing coaching and technical assistance are imperative to support teachers’ use of best teaching strategies in applied settings after the training program is carried out (see Fixsen et al., 2013; Odom, Cox, & Brock, 2013).
Although students’ outcomes has been proposed as one indicator of training effectiveness (Browder et al., 2012; Crosskey & Vance, 2011; Fishman et al., 2003), only three of the reviewed studies examined the impact of training programs on student achievement. This lack of evidence about how teacher learning affects student achievement has already been identified by researchers (e.g. Desimone et al., 2002; Fishman et al., 2003). For example, Yoon et al. (2007) reported that of the 1,300 studies on teacher training programs they examined; only nine studies demonstrated
54
] Chapter 4
the impact of such training programs on students’ achievement. In order to understand the effectiveness of training programs on teachers, future research should also examine the students’ outcomes.
We calculated the effectiveness of the training programs based on pre- and post-training data. Before training, the majority of studies showed that participants tended to have positive attitudes towards SEN. Their knowledge and teaching strategies were low. After the training program, the scores became more positive for all contents. A possible explanation for this outcome might be related to the participants’ characteristics. As the majority of the participants were pre-service teachers enrolling in a special and inclusive educational program, they might have a particular interest in this field. Consequently, they may have already held a more positive attitude towards inclusion before the training program was performed and be more open to attitudinal shift during the training sessions. In a similar vein, previous findings demonstrated that a compulsory university course is more likely to result in a significant attitude change among student teachers (e.g. Chong et al., 2007).
While it seems that university training programs positively impacted pre-service teachers’ attitudes, Edwards et al. (2006) found a different result for the in-service teachers they studied. Interestingly, those teachers’ attitudes were less positive after the training program was performed. It seems reasonable to argue that as teachers’ knowledge and their teaching strategies increased, they are more aware of the classroom challenges that may be created by students with SEN and more concerned about the type of support required to assist such students in the regular classroom. From this point of view, it seems likely that more experienced teachers need a different approach during their training programs in order to become more positive towards inclusion.
The present study has a number of limitations which suggest a need for caution in interpreting the results. The first is that the majority of the reviewed studies used self-reported scales whereby the participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement on attitude and knowledge items. This means that the expression reflected perceptions of teachers about their attitudes and knowledge what may not necessarily correspond with their behaviors. For example, participants may have given answers that they felt to be politically and socially ‘correct’. They might also have possessed more or less knowledge than they realized in practice. Future research should include another measure of empirical evidence, such as observation, which was used in the reviewed qualitative studies.
Second, the reviewed studies differed in, for example, target groups, type of SEN, and delivery mode/activities. Moreover, the studies were also conducted in different countries, which may have different educational policies and types of training programs. Although this makes comparison difficult and may limit the generalization of the findings, the calculation of effect size and the PND might help to assess and identify the critical features of effective teacher training programs.
Third, the effectiveness of the reviewed studies was assessed in terms of changing attitudes, knowledge, and teaching strategies of teachers related to students with SEN. Although the outcomes showed statistically significant improvement on teachers’ attitudes, the effectiveness of training programs at practice level is still unknown as attitudes change needs some time. As it has been argued that the concept
Characteristics of teacher training programs on inclusive education [
55
of effectiveness can be interpreted and measured in different ways, the effectiveness of training programs found in this current study could be taken less inconclusive. We underline the importance of using different angles in examining effectiveness of training programs as stated above in future research.
Despite the limitations mentioned above, this study showed the effectiveness of short-term teacher training programs on changing teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and teaching strategies. However, we suggest that training programs with longer term and followed by follow-up sessions and students’ outcome measures will be more likely to sustain teachers’ implementation and increase the effectiveness of training programs.
56
57
Chapter 5
Developing a teacher training program for
the inclusion of
students with special educational needs (SEN)
58
] Chapter 5
5.1 IntroductionInternationally, educational provision for students with special educational needs (SEN) has changed considerably. Since the 1970s education has changed from segregated settings to integrated or inclusive education in regular classrooms. The basic premise underpinning inclusion is that all children regardless of ability or disability have a basic right to learn alongside their typically developing peers in their local neighborhood school (UNESCO, 1994; United Nations, 2006).
Research findings have demonstrated that teachers are a key factor in the successful implementation of inclusive education (Campbell, Gilmore, & Cuskelly, 2003; Forlin & Chambers, 2011). Regarding this, it is argued that teachers’ knowledge about SEN and their teaching strategies have been identified as prerequisites to implementing inclusive education successfully (e.g. Forlin, 2010; Pearce, 2008) as well as positive attitudes (Cook, 2002; Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2007).
Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, their knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies are largely determined by the training program they receive (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000; Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Ellins & Porter, 2005). It is reported that most teachers are inadequately prepared to accommodate the learning needs of students with SEN in their classrooms (Forlin, Keen, & Barrett, 2008; Jobling & Moni, 2004), like students with intellectual disability (Forlin, Keen, & Barrett, 2008), visual impairment (Lieberman & Wilson, 2005), AD/HD (Ghanizadeh, Bahredar, & Moeini, 2006), and speech and language difficulties (Sadler, 2005). Regarding attitudes, it has been found that teachers hold neutral ones towards students with SEN (De Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2011), but show less willingness to teach them (McLeskey & Waldron 2002). These neutral attitudes towards SEN and teachers’ unpreparedness to implement inclusive education have implications for teacher training programs.
Traditionally, teacher training colleges have had a separate training model for special school teachers (Shippen et al., 2005). Such a training model was generally not given to regular school teachers so that they also would have the knowledge and experience to deal with students with SEN. As a consequence, regular school teachers expressed a need for more guidance in teaching SEN students (De Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2011; Subhan & Sharma, 2005). Thus, an increasing body of literature has advocated improving and revising teacher training programs to better prepare teachers in inclusive settings (e.g. Milton & Rohl, 1999; Smith & Hilton, 1997). It has been suggested that including a SEN course in teacher training programs could be an effective means to change teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and their teaching strategies positively (see Kurniawati, De Boer, Minnaert, & Mangunsong, in Chapter 4). This result emphasizes the importance of teacher training programs focusing on developing teachers’ attitudes towards students with SEN, and improving the level of their knowledge and teaching strategies in special education.
More recent in-service training programs for teachers (e.g. Jones & Chronis-Tuscano, 2008; Sahbaz, 2011; Sari, 2007; Stella, Forlin, & Mei Lan, 2007) have included special education topics. Although such training programs have increased, few published studies examined the effect of training programs on the change of teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and their teaching strategies. One review of literature on teacher training programs (see Kurniawati, De Boer, Minnaert, & Mangunsong, in
Development of a teacher training program on inclusive education [
59
Chapter 4) has revealed that the majority of the teacher training programs focused on the change of teachers’ attitudes and knowledge. However, the highest effect size mean was found for knowledge, followed by attitudes. It is also demonstrated that in order to become more positive towards inclusive education, it seems that teachers need training programs focusing more on specific types of SEN than addressing all categories. Additionally, most reviewed studies were limited by the lack of a control group which could pose a threat to the internal validity of research results. As an increasing number of students with SEN are being educated in inclusive settings, it is suggested that developing an in-service training program would result in improving attitudes, knowledge, and teaching strategies of teachers. This chapter, therefore, describes the development of such a training program for regular primary school teachers in inclusive settings.
5.2 Teacher training program in the Indonesian contextLike many countries all over the world (e.g. Egelund, 2000; Meijer, 1998; Norwich, 2000), Indonesia has adopted the principle of inclusion in educating children with SEN since early 2000. According to the Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture, inclusive education is based on the principle that individuals with SEN continue to be educated alongside their typically developing peers in primary and secondary education institutions where support services are offered (Directorate of Special Education, 2009). Inclusion policies, such as the National Education System Act No. 20/2003 and the Regulation of Minister of National Education on Inclusive Education state that each compulsory education unit is obliged to support the inclusion of students with SEN in regular education. The Construction Building Act No. 28/2002 also requires local district/city governments to have at least one school set up to implement inclusive education. Despite the change towards inclusive education, the practices are not yet common in Indonesia. However, the prevalence of students with SEN being educated in inclusive settings has increased consistently in recent years: there were 10,338 students attending regular schools in 2004/2005 and the number had increased to 15,144 in 2007/2008 (Directorate of Special Education, 2009).
In Indonesia, the teacher training program comprises pre- and in-service programs. Pre-service training program offers three-year diploma and bachelor program degrees. The universities have prepared two types of training program: i.e. a regular school teacher program and a special school teacher program, operated under a dual system.
Following the trend towards inclusive education, the Indonesian government has recognized the importance of equipping regular school teachers with knowledge about SEN as well as teaching strategies to cater for children with diverse needs. With the support from NGOs, such as Braillo Norway and Helen Keller Indonesia (HKI), the Government has organized in-service courses for regular school teachers working within inclusive classrooms. More than 2,000 teachers have been provided with in-service training programs in six provinces since 2003 (“Inclusive Education: Opportunities for Vulnerable Children (OVC),” 2013).However, as the growing number of regular schools has started to include students with SEN, many more regular school teachers in Indonesia are still not trained (Directorate of Special Education, 2009). They have insufficient knowledge about students with SEN and inclusion (UNESCO, 2009), and
60
] Chapter 5
this may lead to negative attitudes towards inclusive education. Besides, although teachers have been reported to be more positive towards students with SEN and tended to support the policy of inclusion after their training program, they reported less frequent use of teaching strategies known to facilitate the effective inclusion of student with SEN (see Kurniawati, Minnaert, Mangunsong, & Ahmed in Chapter 3). Furthermore, there is currently little evidence as to the effectiveness of such training programs, particularly in terms of the impact on teachers’ teaching strategies and students’ outcomes. This may emphasize the need for adequate preparation, such as in-service teacher training programs, in order to change attitudes, knowledge, and teaching strategies of teachers to provide better education for students with SEN within inclusive settings.
5.3 Development of a teacher training programGoals of the teacher training programThis chapter describes the development of a teacher training program for preparing regular primary school teachers in Indonesia to teach students with SEN. The program aims to increase teachers’ attitudes towards students with SEN, as well as their knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies. Specific goals of the training program are:
• Teachers have an understanding of inclusive education;• Teachers have knowledge of five different SEN in the classroom;• Teachers have knowledge of assessment methods in special education;• Teachers have knowledge of teaching strategies in special education;• Teachers have knowledge of an Individualized Education Program (IEP).
Content of the teacher training programThe training program focuses on inclusive principles and practices. In particular, the following topics are addressed during the training sessions: 1) an overview of the historical development of special education, including a review of the debates and philosophical underpinnings of inclusive education from a local and international perspective, 2) an overview of five types of SEN (e.g. AD/HD, dyslexia, intellectual disability, physical disability and sensory disorders, ASD), 3) assessment, 4) teaching strategies, and 5) IEP (Details about the goal and content of the training program are given in Table 1).
Development of a teacher training program on inclusive education [
61
Table 1Overview of the Training Content
Goal Topic Teaching Method Teaching Aid
Participants have an understanding of inclusive education
a. History and law of special education
Lecture, discussion
Power point slides, video/film/movieb. The philosophy of inclusion:
Benefits of inclusionBarriers to inclusion
c. Overview of disability and inclusive education in Indonesia: History and law of special education in IndonesiaPolicy on ‘education for all’Implementation of inclusive education: supporting and inhibiting factorsRole of teachers in inclusive education
Participants have knowledge of five types of SEN
a. Overview of students with Attention Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD):DefinitionEtiologyCharacteristicsEducational needs and abilities
Lecture, group task and discussion, panel discussion
Slide presentations, case study, video/film/movie
b. Overview of students with Dyslexia:DefinitionEtiologyCharacteristicsEducational needs and abilities
c. Overview of students with Intellectual disability:DefinitionEtiologyCharacteristicsEducational needs and abilities
d. Overview of students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD):DefinitionEtiologyCharacteristicsEducational needs and abilities
e. Overview of students with physical and sensory disorders:DefinitionEtiologyCharacteristicsEducational needs and abilities
62
] Chapter 5
Participants have knowledge of assessment in special education
Overview of assessment: Definition and purpose of assessmentMethods of assessmentUse and limitations of assessment instrumentsSelect, develop or modify individualized assessment strategies
Lecture, group task and discussion, panel discussion
Slide presentations
Participants have knowledge of teaching strategies in special education
Overview of teaching strategies:National curricula standardsDifferentiationCooperative learningClassroom managementSocial and group skills
Lecture, group task and discussion, panel discussion
Slide presentations, case study
Participants have knowledge of an Individualized Education Program (IEP)
Overview of IEP:DefinitionComponentWho is involved in an IEP developmentDevelop or modify an IEP
Lecture, group task and discussion, panel discussion
Slide presentations, case study
The training program consists of thirty-two hours of face-to-face training sessions, spread over four Saturdays in one month. The training program comprises a number of pedagogic aspects in the form of lectures, group discussion, group task, and watching movies. Two experts whose areas of expertise are psychology and special education act as instructors/trainers during the training sessions.
Measuring the effects of the teacher training program Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education is measured by the 31-item attitude scale comprising the three-component of attitudes, namely cognitive, affective, and behavioral. This scale was adapted and evaluated in a study by Kurniawati, Minnaert, Mangunsong, and Ahmed (2012) in the Indonesian teacher sample. Teachers’ knowledge about students with SEN is assessed by the knowledge scale developed by Srivastava, De Boer, and Pijl (submitted). Lastly, the effect of the training program on teachers’ knowledge about teaching strategies is measured using a 25-item scale. This scale was based on a list of Florian (1996), and examines teachers’ inclusive teaching strategies in terms of differentiation, collaborative learning, classroom management, and social and group skills. All three measures are carried out at two moments in time: before the first and after the last sessions of the training program. Information concerning teachers’ characteristics, like gender, age, highest educational level, training in special education, teaching experience, teaching experience in special education, student number taught per class, is also gathered from participating teachers.
Validity of the teacher training program Before implementing the training program, it was validated by three experts – one in educational psychology and teacher training development and the other two in psychology, special education and teacher training development. The experts were provided with written information/summary briefly describing the rationale of the
Development of a teacher training program on inclusive education [
63
teacher training program, including its goals and content. They were asked to judge the availability of measurable learning objectives, realistic agenda, timeframe, and active learning activities as well as the appropriateness of teaching methods and aids (see Table 2). Their responses were recorded by marking an ‘X’ either in the Yes or No box. For a No response, the experts were asked to supply suggestions in relation to a specified item in order to improve the training program.
Recommendation from the expertsIn general, the experts positively validated the goals and content of the training program. They did advise providing teachers with more case studies and more opportunity for working in small groups. Since inclusion has gained momentum in Indonesian primary schools, the experts expected that each group member would benefit from working with teachers from other schools. Moreover, the experts anticipated the case study would contribute to the development of teacher understanding and stimulate teachers to think about possible application of their knowledge. In order to assist teachers in attaining the entire picture of inclusion practices in primary school, one expert advised inviting a guest from an inclusive primary school. An overview of the experts’ validity is presented below in Table 2.After this round of feedback, more case studies were developed and information on resources in special education inserted into the training program. Other comments were also incorporated into the final version.
64
] Chapter 5
Tabl
e 2
Ove
rvie
w o
f Exp
erts
’ Val
idity
of t
he T
each
er T
rain
ing
Prog
ram
Des
ign
elem
ent
Des
crip
tion
Expe
rt A
Expe
rt B
Expe
rt C
Yes1
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Age
nda
and
timef
ram
e.
Is
a tr
aini
ng
out
line
with
a
real
istic
tim
efra
me
pro
vide
d?
Do
es
the
trai
ning
pr
ovi
de
a cl
ear
and
org
aniz
ed
brea
kdo
wn
of
wha
t ea
ch s
essio
n w
ill c
ove
r?X
XX
If y
es,
does
the
out
line
pro
vide
an
estim
ate
of
how
m
uch
time
to a
llow
fo
r ea
ch p
art
of
the
sess
ion?
XX
X
If y
es, i
s th
e se
quen
ce lo
gica
l?X
XX
Do
lea
rnin
g o
bjec
tives
exp
lain
wha
t pa
rtic
ipan
ts a
re
inte
nded
to
kno
w, f
eel,
or
do a
s a
resu
lt o
f ex
posu
re t
o
the
trai
ning
co
nten
t o
r le
arni
ng a
ctiv
ity?
XX
X
Do
lea
rnin
g o
bjec
tives
ind
icat
e th
e ex
pect
ed t
rain
ing
out
com
es
and
esta
blish
ac
coun
tabi
lity
betw
een
the
trai
ner
and
the
part
icip
ants
?
XX
X
App
ropr
iate
te
achi
ng
met
hods
. A
re
teac
hing
m
etho
ds a
ppro
pria
te t
o t
he
stat
ed o
bjec
tives
?
Is it
po
ssib
le t
o a
chie
ve t
he le
arni
ng o
bjec
tives
usin
g th
e te
achi
ng m
etho
ds s
peci
fied
in t
he t
rain
ing
pro
gram
?X
XX
Teac
hing
aid
s an
d ha
ndo
uts:
D
oes
th
e tr
aini
ng
pro
vide
te
achi
ng a
ids
and
hand
out
s?
Ove
rhea
ds,
slid
e pr
esen
tatio
ns,
case
stu
dy s
lides
, an
d o
ther
visu
al a
ids.
XX
X
Vid
eos,
tap
e re
cord
ings
, and
oth
er e
lect
roni
c m
edia
XX
X
Part
icip
ant
wo
rksh
eet,
as
signm
ent
shee
ts,
and
oth
er
hand
out
sX
XX
Development of a teacher training program on inclusive education [
65
Sess
ion
plan
ning
an
d ch
eckl
ists.
Do
es t
he t
rain
er
man
ual
incl
ude
form
s to
he
lp t
he t
rain
er p
repa
re f
or
inst
ruct
ion?
List
s o
r ch
eckl
ists
of
mat
eria
ls a
nd s
uppl
ies
need
ed t
o
supp
ort
inst
ruct
ion
XX
X
Less
on
plan
fo
rms
or
tem
plat
es
to
help
th
e tr
aine
r o
rgan
ize
trai
ning
ses
sions
XX
X
Act
ive
lear
ning
ex
erci
ses.
A
re
they
in
clud
ed
in
the
trai
ning
?
Gro
up d
iscus
sions
: pa
rtic
ipan
ts d
iscus
s iss
ues
toge
ther
an
d th
en p
rese
nt id
eas
and
opi
nio
ns t
o o
ther
sX
XX
Cas
e st
udie
s: p
artic
ipan
ts w
ork
indi
vidu
ally
or
in g
roup
s to
ana
lyze
and
disc
uss
a re
al o
r fic
tiona
l sit
uatio
n w
ith
criti
cal d
ecisi
on
poin
ts
XX
X
Task
gro
ups:
par
ticip
ants
wo
rk t
oge
ther
to
co
mpl
ete
a ta
skX
XX
Teac
hing
str
ateg
ies
prac
tice:
par
ticip
ants
wo
rk i
n sm
all
gro
ups
to p
ract
ice
new
tea
chin
g st
rate
gies
XX
X
Add
itio
nal
reso
urce
s an
d re
fere
nce
mat
eria
ls.
Are
th
ese,
o
r a
list
of
them
, pr
ovi
ded?
Thes
e m
ight
inc
lude
rea
ding
sug
gest
ions
, ph
oto
copi
ed
mat
eria
l, w
ebsit
e ad
dres
ses,
and
co
ntac
t inf
orm
atio
n fo
r o
rgan
izat
ions
.
XX
X
If t
hey
are
incl
uded
, ar
e th
ey a
ppro
pria
te a
nd r
elev
ant
to t
he t
rain
ing
cont
ent?
XX
X
Not
e.1 A
n ex
pert
indi
cate
s ag
reem
ent
with
a s
peci
fied
elem
ent
66
] Chapter 5
5.4 Summary of the final teacher training program
Box 1Summary of the Teacher Training Program
Content of the teacher training programRegular goals:The teacher training program aims to increase teachers’ attitudes towards students with SEN, as well as their knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies. 32 hours, 4 daysDay 1 consists of four sessions focusing on:
• History and law of special education, the philosophy of inclusion• Overview of disability and inclusive education in Indonesia • AD/HD• Dyslexia
Day 2 consists of four sessions focusing on:• Intellectual disability• ASD• Physical and sensory disorders• Assessment in special education
Day 3 consists of four sessions focusing on:• 1x assessment in special education• 3x teaching strategies in special education
Day 4 consists of four sessions focusing on:• 4x IEP
Description of each sessionTeaching methodsTeaching aids
67
Chapter 6
Evaluating the effect of a teacher training
program on the inclusion of
students with special educational needs (SEN)
in primary schools
This chapter is submitted for publication as: Kurniawati, F., De Boer, A. A., Minnaert, A. E. M. G., & Mangunsong, F. Evaluating the effect of a teacher training program on the inclusion of students with special educational needs in primary schools
68
] Chapter 6
Abstract
This study examines the effects of an in-service teacher training
program which focuses on regular primary school teachers’
attitudes, and knowledge about special educational needs (SEN)
and about teaching strategies. A pre- and post-test control group
design study was set up (Nexperimental group= 33, Ncontrol group= 34),
comprising eleven public primary schools. The training program
consisted of thirty-two hours face-to-face training sessions,
covering topics about attitudes, and knowledge about SEN and
about teaching strategies. In order to establish the effects of the
training program, attitudes and knowledge were measured at two
moments: before and after the training program was performed.
The outcomes of ANCOVA revealed significant positive effects
of the training program on most dependent variables (attitudes,
knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies) with medium
to large effect sizes. Implications for future research and practice
Effects of a teacher training program on inclusive education [
69
6.1 IntroductionIncluding students with special educational needs (SEN) in regular classrooms has become a global trend. International policies have continually strived for the inclusion of such students, starting with the Warnock report (1979) and followed by the Salamanca statement (UNESCO, 1994). Most recently, Article 24 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability (United Nations, 2006) guarantees that all children regardless of ability or disability have a basic right to be educated alongside their typically developing peers in a local school. Thus, a large number of countries now provide a better education for students with SEN.
Indonesia has also followed this international trend. Under inclusion policies like the National Education System Act No. 20/2003 and the Regulation of Minister of National Education on Inclusive Education, each compulsory education unit is obliged to educate students with SEN and provide them with adequate support. Along with nine years of compulsory basic education for children starting at the age of seven, the rights of all children to an education are now protected. As a result, a growing number of children with various types of SEN are now included in regular classrooms. Among the most common types of SEN encountered in Indonesian primary schools are Attention Deficit/Hyperactive Disorder (AD/HD), dyslexia, mild intellectual disability, mild Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) as well as hearing and visual impairments (Directorate of Special Education, 2009).
A number of researchers have revealed that teachers play a significant role in educating students with SEN (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Forlin, 2001). It is also known that teachers’ attitudes are important in relation to inclusive education (Chalmers, Hoover, & Olson, 1997). Teachers who are favorably disposed to this tend to more willing to use effective teaching strategies, whereas teachers with less positive attitudes can undermine the efforts of inclusion (Gal, Schreur, & Engel-Yeger, 2010; Worrell, 2008). Research on teachers’ attitudes, however, has showed mixed results. While some studies revealed teachers are in favor of inclusive education (Abbott, 2006; Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000; Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Marshall, Ralph, & Palmer, 2002), others showed different results (Alghazo, Dodeen & Algaryouti, 2003). A recent review of literature on teachers’ attitudes demonstrated that teachers hold a neutral attitude towards inclusive education (De Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2011). In this review, it was also stipulated that, in practice, teachers in that review have serious reservations about inclusive education. Teachers feel a lack of competence and confidence in teaching students with various types of SEN.
Previous studies found that teachers’ reservations towards inclusion can be explained in relation to both their lack of knowledge as well as lack of experience of working with students with SEN (Avramidis et al, 2000; Rose, 2001). In this current study, an attitude was defined as “an individual’s viewpoint or disposition toward a particular ‘object’ (a person, a thing, an idea, etc.)” (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996, p. 273). Attitudes are considered to have three components: 1) cognitive, 2) affective, and 3) behavioral (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Knowledge refers to descriptive knowledge and procedural knowledge (Anderson, 1981). Descriptive or declarative knowledge describes how things are, including the process, attributes, and relationships between things, whereas procedural knowledge relates to how to perform or operate things. In the context of inclusive education, declarative knowledge covers knowledge
70
] Chapter 6
about students with SEN, such as characteristics, causes, and prevalence. Procedural knowledge relates to teaching strategies associated with successful inclusion, like differentiation, cooperative learning, activity-based learning, classroom management, and social and group skills (Florian, 2009; Janney & Snell, 1996; Scott, Vitale, & Masten, 1998; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1994).
Research showed that teachers’ attitudes are influenced by information and knowledge they have about including students with SEN in regular classrooms (Batsiou, Bebetsos, Panteli, & Antoniou, 2008; Sledge & Morehead, 2006). The more knowledge teachers have about students with SEN, the more positive their attitudes towards the inclusion of such students (Ghanizadeh, Bahredar, & Moeini, 2006). From another research finding, it is known that teachers’ less positive attitudes and lack of knowledge accounted for a limited use of effective teaching strategies (Kuyini & Desai, 2007). Hence, it can be concluded that positive attitudes and knowledge about SEN and teaching strategies are imperative for teachers to effectively support the inclusion of students with SEN in regular schools.
It is argued that teachers’ attitudes, their knowledge about SEN, and relevant teaching strategies are influenced by their training program (e.g. Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Ellins & Porter, 2005). In recent years, certain teacher training programs which focus on inclusive education have been offered to primary school teachers. However, limited studies have evaluated the effectiveness of such training programs in changing teachers’ attitudes and knowledge about inclusion. A recent review of 13 studies on teaching training programs, published between 1994 and 2012, revealed that the majority of studies were of short-term duration and specified the type of SEN in the training content (see Kurniawati, De Boer, Minnaert, & Mangunsong, in Chapter 4). The review showed that the studies were standalone, offering either coursework or combination of coursework and had field experience. The effectiveness of the reviewed quantitative studies was measured by the effect size on pre- and post-training data and showed that the highest effect size mean was found for knowledge, followed by attitudes. Moreover, the qualitative studies demonstrated the positive effect of the training programs on the improvement of teachers’ teaching strategies. However, only a few studies used a control group, had a follow-up session or measured students ‘outcomes.
In Indonesia, training programs for teaching students with SEN was only given to existing special school teachers, who are responsible for such students either in special or inclusive schools. Consequently, regular school teachers may be supporting students with SEN in their classroom without adequate preparation in this field. Following the movement towards inclusive education, the Indonesian government has espoused the importance of equipping regular school teachers with knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies in order to work with diverse types of SEN. The government has organized in-service courses which focused on preparing regular school teachers to support students with SEN in inclusive settings. Since 2003, and with the support from local and international NGOs, in-service training programs have been offered to more than 2,000 teachers across six provinces (“Inclusive Education: Opportunities for Vulnerable Children (OVC),” 2013). However, there is currently little evidence as to the effectiveness of such training programs, particularly in terms of the impact on teaching strategies of teachers. A preliminary study on inclusive education in
Effects of a teacher training program on inclusive education [
71
Indonesia has revealed that although teachers are more favor of inclusion after the training sessions, they are less confident and willing to accommodate students with SEN by using effective teaching strategies (see Kurniawati, Minnaert, Mangunsong, & Ahmed in Chapter 3). This emphasizes the need for an empirical study of feasible in-service training programs to support teachers in accommodating students with SEN in the classroom. This current study was set up to fill this gap of knowledge by developing and evaluating the effectiveness of an in-service training program in inclusive education on attitudes, and knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies of regular school teachers.
6.2 MethodDesign and procedureA pre- and post-test control group design study was set up to examine the impact of the training program on teachers’ attitude towards students with SEN, and teachers’ knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies. The measurements were administered anonymously to the group as a pre-test before the first session of the training (Time 1). To determine the extent of change from the baseline measure, the post-test was carried out after the last session (Time 2). To maintain anonymity, pre- and post-tests were matched using the last digits of each participant’s year of birth and the house number of each participant’s address.
In order to participate in the study, schools were required to meet the following criteria: 1) regular public primary school and 2) located in one of two districts and less than 15 kilometres from the training center. A total number of twenty regular primary schools were invited to participate in this study. Eleven schools were willing to participate (response rate 55%). They were then asked to supply a list of teachers who were willing to participate in the study on a voluntary basis. All 67 participating teachers were randomly assigned to an experimental group (N = 33) and a control group (N = 34), whereby teachers from the same school were appointed into different groups.
ParticipationEighty-eight percent of the experimental group and eighty-two per cent of the control group were female. Twenty participants (61%) in the experimental group and twenty-three (68%) in the control group were over forty. Forty-eight percent of the participants in the experimental group indicated having had twenty years or more teaching experience (N = 16), while 59% (N = 20) of the control group had similar experience. A chi-square analysis indicated a significant difference between the experimental group and the control group on the variable of teaching students with SEN (see details in Table 1).
72
] Chapter 6
Table 1 Characteristics of Participants
EG* (n = 33) CG (n = 34) χ2 df pGender
Male 4 6 0.40 1 0.53Female 29 28
Age< = 40 years old 13 11 0.36 1 0.55> 40 years old 20 23
Training programIn order to answer the research question, we developed a training program which aims to increase teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, and their knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies. The training program focused on inclusive principles and practices (see Box 1 for the training content). In particular, the following topics were addressed during the training sessions: 1) an overview of the development of special education, including a review of the debates and philosophical underpinnings of inclusive education within international and local perspectives; 2) an overview of five types of SEN (AD/HD, dyslexia, intellectual disability, ASD as well as physical and sensory disorders; 3) assessment; 4) teaching strategies; 5) Individualized Education Program (IEP). The teaching methods included lectures, group discussion, and viewing videos on related topics. Participants also had the opportunity to listen to a guest lecturer working in an inclusive primary school. A pack covering a timetable of the training program and reading materials on training topics covered was distributed to all the participants.
The training program comprised thirty-two hours of face-to-face training sessions, and was spread across four Saturdays in April and May 2013. On the first day of training, the first two sessions presented inclusive education in terms of development, law and philosophy from international and Indonesian perspectives, while the remaining sessions presented information about AD/HD and dyslexia. The
Effects of a teacher training program on inclusive education [
73
second day of training looked at intellectual disability, ASD as well as physical and sensory disorders, while the third and fourth days’ activities were aimed at explaining assessment, teaching strategies in special education, and writing up an IEP. The fourth day also included a guest speaker who shared her experience working with students with SEN in an inclusive primary school. Teachers were also expected to work on a number of activities in small groups of five or six participants, each group required writing up an IEP based on study cases.
Box 1Summary of the Teacher Training Program
Content of the teacher training programRegular goals:The teacher training program aims to increase teachers’ attitudes towards students with SEN, as well as their knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies. 32 hours, 4 daysDay 1 consists of four sessions focusing on:
• History and law of special education, the philosophy of inclusion• Overview of disability and inclusive education in Indonesia • AD/HD• Dyslexia
Day 2 consists of four sessions focusing on:• Intellectual disability • ASD• Physical and sensory disorders• Assessment in special education
Day 3 consists of four sessions focusing on:• 1x assessment in special education• 3x teaching strategies in special education
Day 4 consists of four sessions focusing on:• 4x IEP
Description of each sessionTeaching methodsTeaching aids
Validity of the teacher training programIn order to ensure the appropriateness of content validity, the training
program was reviewed by three experts – one in educational psychology and teacher training development, two in psychology, special education and teacher training development – before it was implemented. Comments were given on goals, content, learning objectives, timeframe, teaching methods and aids, while their suggestions for arranging more group discussions, providing study cases and resources on inclusive education and SEN as well as inviting a guest lecturer were taken into account in the final design of the training program.
74
] Chapter 6
MeasuresA four-part questionnaire was used to collect data from the participants for the study. Each part is elaborated in greater detail below:
Part 1: demographic informationThis part of the questionnaire included demographic questions about gender, age, highest level of education, previous training related to inclusive education, total number of years in teaching, teaching experience in inclusive settings, and average class size.
Part 2: attitudes towards inclusive educationAttitudes of participants were assessed by using the attitudes scale of Kurniawati, Minnaert, Mangunsong, and Ahmed (2012). Following the adaptation of this attitude scale, statistical analysis failed to confirm three distinct components of attitudes, i.e. cognitive, affective, and behavioral. It was found that a majority of items of cognitive component loaded on the same factor with affective component. Therefore, this scale designed to measure teachers’ attitude towards inclusion consisted of two components, the cognitive-affective and the behavioral.
The scale included 31 items. Teachers were asked to indicate their degree of agreement using a four point Likert-scale, ranging from one (strongly disagree) to four (strongly agree). Higher scores on the scale indicated more favorable attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN. The mean score of each participant was included in the analysis as a dependent variable. Examples of items and reliability coefficients for the cognitive-affective and behavioral components are presented in Table 2.
Part 3: knowledge about SENParticipants’ knowledge about SEN was measured by a survey instrument comprising four vignettes (developed by Srivastava, De Boer, & Pijl, submitted) relating to AD/HD, dyslexia, intellectual disability, and ASD. For each vignette, participants were asked to rank their level of knowledge about a particular type of SEN in terms of characteristics and teaching strategies. Participant responses ranged from one (strongly disagree) to four (strongly agree). Higher scores on the scale indicated a greater level of knowledge about each type of SEN. The mean score on each vignette of each participant was included as a dependent variable in the analysis.
As the original scale was available in English, it was translated into Bahasa Indonesia (the official language of Indonesian public primary school). It was then reviewed for content and face validity by two experts. The scale was also administered as a proof trial to three primary school teachers, who provided information about the readability and clarity of the items and the ease of use of the rating scale. Their comments and suggestions were all incorporated into the final scale. Examples of items and reliability coefficients for each vignette are presented in Table 2.
Part 4: knowledge about teaching strategiesTeachers’ knowledge about teaching strategies was measured using the 25-item test based on the list of Florian (2009). This measure asked teachers to indicate how
Effects of a teacher training program on inclusive education [
75
familiar they were with each item on a scale, ranging from one (not familiar) to three (very familiar). The scale was judged by experts as being valid and reliable for use with Indonesian teachers. Again the scale was piloted by three primary school teachers. A higher score on the scale indicated that a respondent was more familiar with inclusive teaching strategies. The mean score of each participant was included in the analysis as a dependent variable. Examples of items and reliability coefficients for this measure are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 Example of Items per Scale and Reliability Scores on all Scales
Scale No. of Items
Example of Item(s) α
Attitude
Cognitive-Affective
19 Inclusive education ensures academic progress for all students regardless of their ability.
0.90
I feel confident to be able to support the social development of students with SEN in my class.
Behavioral 12 I am willing to adjust teaching methods to accommodate the learning needs of students with SEN.
0.92
Knowledge about SEN
AD/HD 11 Satrio can learn together with his classmates.
0.63
Satrio has normal intelligence.
Dyslexia 5 Arka should be given individual attention to read.
0.71
Arka reads fluently.
Intellectual disability
8 If Putra is given concrete experiences for concepts, he will learn better.
0.72
Small group teaching will benefit Putra.
ASD 5 Tasks can be broken into small steps for Kevin.
0.69
Kevin learns with repetition.
Knowledge about teaching strategies
25 On a scale of 1 to 3 rate the extent to which you are familiar with these strategies:- Adapt the curriculum- Peer collaboration
0.94
76
] Chapter 6
Training evaluationA feedback form was given after the training sessions to evaluate how useful teachers found the training content and how appropriate was the method and duration of the training program. Teachers were asked to rate the questions on a scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to four (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating the training program was more useful and appropriate.
AnalysisThis study was carried out to determine the effects of an in-service training program on teachers’ attitudes, and their knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies. In order to answer the research question on teachers’ attitudes, I conducted an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). In this, post-test scores of the attitude components (i.e. the cognitive-affective component and the behavioral component) were included as dependent variables. At the same time, the variable ‘condition’ (i.e. experimental or control group) was used as a between-subjects factor. In the analysis I controlled for the pre-test scores. The variable ‘teaching students with SEN’ was included as a covariate due to a significant difference between two conditions (see Table 1). The same procedure was also applied for the other four dependent variables of knowledge about SEN (e.g. AD/HD, dyslexia, intellectual disability, and ASD) and knowledge about teaching strategies.
Given the sample size the assumptions for equality of variance were checked by using a Bootstrap test prior to the analysis. For all statistical analysis, the alpha-level was set at p < 0.05. Partial eta square served as an indicator of effect size, which are judged to be small at 0.01, medium at 0.06, and large at 0.14 (Cohen, 1988).
6.3 ResultsDescriptive statisticsDescriptive statistics showed that the experimental group of teachers had higher scores than the control group on all variables at post-test (Time 2). On Time 2, the overall mean scores of the experimental group for the cognitive-affective and behavioral components were 3.24 and 3.26, respectively, indicating teachers’ ‘agreement’ with the inclusion of students with SEN. Similar results were also found for teachers’ knowledge about SEN: their mean scores for AD/HD, dyslexia, intellectual disability, and ASD fell between responses 3 and 4, indicating their level of knowledge was ‘good’. For knowledge about teaching strategies, the overall mean scores of the experimental group leaned more towards response 2, indicating that teachers were familiar with teaching strategies for students with SEN (see details in Table 3).
Effects of a teacher training program on inclusive education [
77
Table 3 Means and SDs on Attitude, Knowledge about SEN and about Teaching Strategies (N = 33experimental group, N = 34control group)
Variable Conditionc Time 1 Time 2 Adjusted Scoresd
M SD M SD M SE
Cognitive-Affectivea
EG 2.84 0.53 3.24 0.33 3.21 0.06
CG 2.70 0.41 2.75 0.32 2.78 0.06
Behaviorala EG 3.31 0.43 3.26 0.38 3.14 0.05
CG 2.99 0.28 2.91 0.35 3.03 0.05
AD/HDa EG 3.07 0.35 3.09 0.27 3.04 0.04
CG 2.90 0.22 2.87 0.25 2.92 0.04
Dyslexiaa EG 3.41 0.40 3.32 0.36 3.30 0.06
CG 3.33 0.39 3.21 0.35 3.23 0.06
Intellectual disability
EG 3.19 0.34 3.20 0.24 3.13 0.04
CG 2.90 0.22 2.85 0.23 2.93 0.04
ASDa EG 3.10 0.47 3.15 0.35 3.08 0.05
CG 2.86 0.31 2.84 0.31 2.91 0.05
Teachingb strategies
EG 2.25 0.44 2.43 0.41 2.44 0.07
CG 2.28 0.43 2.19 0.50 2.18 0.07Note. aMeans are based on a 4-point scale. bMeans are based on a 3-point scale. cEG = experimental group, CG = control group. dAdjusted post-test scores (Time 2)
Effects of the training program on attitudes The results of the ANCOVA showed a significant difference between the two conditions on the cognitive-affective component, F(1, 63) = 29.38, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.32. This means that teachers who received the training program held more positive attitudes on the cognitive-affective component towards inclusive education after the training sessions, than teachers in the control group.
On the behavioral component, the findings revealed no significant difference between two conditions on post-test scores, F(1, 63) = 1.97, p> 0.05, η2 = 0.03.This outcome indicates there was no significant difference between teachers’ attitude on the behavioral component in the experimental group and the control group after the training sessions.
Effects of the training program on knowledge about SENThe results of the ANCOVA showed a significant difference between the two conditions on AD/HD, F(1, 63) = 4.38, p< 0.05, η2 = 0.07, intellectual disability, F(1, 63) = 14.05, p< 0.01, η2 = 0.18, and ASD, F(1, 63) = 5.98, p< 0.05, η2 = 0.09. For dyslexia, the results indicated no significant difference between the conditions,
78
] Chapter 6
F(1, 63) = 0.67, p> 0.05, η2 = 0.01. These results suggest that teachers’ knowledge about AD/HD, intellectual disability, and ASD in the experimental group was higher after the training sessions than that for the control group.
Effects of the training program on knowledge about teaching strategiesThe results of the ANCOVA revealed that teachers’ knowledge about teaching strategies was significantly different between conditions, F(1,63) = 6.28, p< 0.05, η2 = 0.09. This outcome indicates that participants’ knowledge about teaching strategies in the experimental group was higher after the training sessions compared to teachers in the control group.
Training evaluation Following the training program, participants were asked to evaluate its appropriateness. Of the 33 participants, 91 percent (N = 30) indicated that the training program improved their knowledge about SEN, while 42 percent (N =14) of participants strongly agreed that their knowledge about teaching strategies increased after receiving the training program (see Table 4). In addition, when asked for suggestions about the training program, 70 percent of participants (N = 23) expressed a need to continue the training program, while 24 (N = 8) of the total participants hoped to have an opportunity to gain direct contact with students with SEN.
Table 4 Summarizing Overview of the Training Evaluation (N = 33)
All items Responses in Frequencies (%)a
1 2 3 4
The training program improves my knowledge about students with SEN
- - 3 (9%) 30 (91%)
The training program improves my knowledge about teaching strategies
- - 19 (58%)
14 (42%)
The duration of the training program is appropriate
6.4 Conclusion and discussionThis current study was aimed at measuring the effectiveness of a teacher training program to promote positive attitudes of regular primary school teachers towards inclusive education as well as to increase their knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies. Based on the findings, we conclude that teachers hold significantly more positive attitudes on the cognitive-affective component after the training program compared to teachers in the control group. Besides this, teachers’ knowledge
Effects of a teacher training program on inclusive education [
79
about AD/HD, intellectual disability, and ASD was found to be higher after the training program, compared to those in the control group. Similar results were also found in relation to teachers’ knowledge about teaching strategies, indicating that their knowledge increased after the training sessions. We did not find a significant effect of the training program on the behavioral component of attitude and knowledge about dyslexia. Based on the effect sizes, we conclude that the training program had a medium-to-large size effect on teachers’ attitude, and their knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies.
A remarkable result was the non-significant outcome on teachers’ behavioral component of attitudes. A small decrease in this component score was found at the second measure of teachers in the experimental group. There are some possible explanations for this lack of significance. Firstly, it is possible that improving knowledge and cognitive-affective of attitudes is insufficient to improve the behavioral component. It has been suggested that if teachers are to be more willing to accommodate the learning needs of students with SEN, they must not only have relevant teaching strategies and knowledge (Forlin et al., 2009). This also suggests a need for studies to evaluate the impact of training program on other important constructs which might relate closely to teachers’ behavior, like self-efficacy (Palmer, 2006). Secondly, this non-significant effect might also be linked to the fact that implementing inclusive education in Indonesian schools is only recent. As such, teachers appear to hold concerns in relation to factors like large classroom size, limited teaching and learning facilities, and an increase in workload. In the study of Oswald and Swart (2011) it was reported that although participants were more positive towards inclusion and gaining knowledge to deal with students with SEN after receiving relevant training sessions, they were still concerned about the availability of resources and support services. In line with this, the Planned Behavior Theory states that behavior is preceded by an intention. The stronger one’s intention, the greater the likelihood someone will act on that intention (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). However, the person’s decision to perform a particular behavior could be influenced by internal factors, such as knowledge and ability or external factors, such as time and opportunity (Ajzen & Madden, 1986). This underlines the importance of addressing such factors in order to support teachers in educating students with SEN.
In the current study, we did not find any significant effect of the training program on teachers’ knowledge about dyslexia. The results also showed that teachers under both conditions already had high mean scores at pre-training sessions (Time 1) (see Table 3), indicating that they had a good base of knowledge about dyslexia prior to training sessions. This knowledge level of teachers might be partially related to their pre-service training program. The curriculum for Indonesian primary education focuses, among others, on language, and it appears that the topic of dyslexia is covered in the pre-service training program. As such, teachers may have more knowledge and feel more familiar with dyslexia. Similar outcomes were observed in teachers’ attitudes and knowledge about teaching strategies at Time 1. Teachers under both conditions already had positive attitudes and a good level of knowledge. Teachers’ experience in educating students with SEN might explain such positive outcomes: according to previous research experience with inclusive education may result in a more positive attitude (Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Batsiou et al., 2008; Brantlinger, 1996), and
80
] Chapter 6
increased teachers’ confidence in teaching such students (LeRoy & Simpson, 1996). Contact with students with SEN during field experience has also been found to result in more positive attitudes and support for inclusion (Forlin, 2003; Richards & Clough, 2004). With regard to the improvement of teachers’ attitudes and knowledge, this indicates that providing more inclusive experiences, either inside or outside the classroom, is essential for teachers.
With respect to the inclusion of students with SEN, it has also been argued that teachers need to work collaboratively with parents of students with or without SEN, as parental support and involvement is essential in facilitating inclusive education (Palmer, Fuller, Arora, & Nelson, 2001). One recent review showed that parents who have experience of inclusive education hold more positive attitudes than those who have not (De Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2010). Parental involvement could be done through IEP development, by being volunteers in the classroom (Stanovich, 1996). Thus, the role of parents could be taken into consideration for the effectiveness of the training program.
The training program was effective in improving teachers’ attitude and knowledge, however, some limitations should be considered when interpreting the outcomes. Firstly, participation in the current study was on a voluntary basis. This may have resulted in an unrepresentative sample, comprising teachers who were highly motivated and more open to change. Thus, any generalization of the results of this study should be approached with caution. Secondly, the survey instruments used in this study were developed to measure teachers’ knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies. It was found that although these instruments were tested for validity and reliability, the reliability score of one of the instruments, i.e. sub-scale AD/HD, was low (α = 0.63). Regular use of this instrument, therefore, should only be considered after further validation studies have been conducted using larger samples with greater diversity (e.g. more diversity in terms of teaching experience, gender, etc). Thirdly, the training program discussed five types of SEN, but not all types were covered in the instruments used due to a lack of a proper instrument. The instrument used for knowledge contained no items measuring the effect of the training program on teachers’ knowledge about physical and sensory disorders, and IEP. This means that no effects were measured for these aspects. Future research on knowledge about such SEN may provide a picture of an overall effect of the training program. The outcomes indicated that the training program resulted in a significant increase in teachers’ positive attitudes and knowledge. However, the impact of these changes on teachers’ actual teaching strategies and students’ outcomes has not yet been examined. The study might be more informative if the actual behavior of the participants in classrooms and how students benefit from the training program were investigated. Additionally, the effectiveness of the training program was examined on a short-term basis, so the question remains about the long-term effectiveness. It is highly recommended to measure teachers’ classroom behavior, students’ outcomes and long-term effect to establish what teachers really learned from the training program.
The training program evaluated in this study had significant effects on most dependent variables (attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and knowledge about teach-ing strategies) with medium to large effect sizes. The training evaluation outcomes
Effects of a teacher training program on inclusive education [
81
corroborate these findings, as the majority of the teachers agreed that the training program improved their knowledge while the duration of the training and method used were appropriate for them. These results indicate the potential of the training program to influence attitudes and knowledge positively. This study can be seen as a first step in offering an evidenced-based training program in an Indonesian educa-tional setting. A challenging next step should be to measure possible effects on teach-ers’ actual behavior in class and students’ outcomes after following such a training program.
82
83
Chapter 7
General discussion
84
] Chapter 7
7.1 IntroductionInclusive education has been developed to accommodate the learning needs of students with diverse needs (e.g. UNESCO, 1994; United Nations, 2006). It has been argued that with adequate support such students may develop academically and socially. The benefit of inclusive education, however, largely depends on regular school teachers as inclusion takes place in regular educational settings. Research on teachers within the context of inclusive education has been conducted since the development of this form of education. It was found that teachers showed resistance to accepting such students and felt untrained to support them. These findings have triggered researchers to think about the reasons for this and how to improve teachers’ preparedness for educating students with special educational needs (SEN).
It has been consistently argued that the attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies of regular school teachers play a role in realizing inclusive education. Numerous studies on teachers’ attitudes have been carried out. However, the majority of these studies lack a theoretical framework, whereas others use the Planned Behavior Theory (Ajzen, 2005) or the three-component theory of attitude (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Triandis, 1971). According to this theory, attitudes are considered to have three components, namely a cognitive, an affective, and a behavioral component. The cognitive component reflects one’s beliefs and knowledge about the object of the attitude. The affective component reflects a person’s feelings and the behavioral component refers to a predisposition to act towards the object of the attitude. With respect to knowledge about SEN and teaching strategies, it was found that knowledge relates to attitude in a positive way. This indicates that teachers with more knowledge about SEN and teaching strategies were more favorable to including students with SEN and were willing to support their learning needs. It was suggested that teachers’ attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies were determined by the training program they received. Teacher training program could improve teachers’ knowledge and help them feel more positive, which in turn make them feel more competent and confident in dealing with such students. An overview of these training studies, however, is lacking. Hence, it is unclear which components should be included in a teacher training program and how effective such a training program is in promoting attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies. Gaining knowledge about those two aspects (i.e. components and effectiveness) may lead to the development and implementation of in-service training program whereby teachers’ attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies can effectively be improved. 7.2 Major findings7.2.1 Developing and evaluating a scale to measure teachers’ attitudes
towards inclusive education This study started with developing an attitudes scale in which the three-component theory of attitude was used as theoretical framework. The scale included statements reflecting the cognitive, affective and behavioral components of attitudes which were derived from existing instruments. The examination of the psychometric properties of the questionnaire revealed that the reliability was satisfactory. Further analysis did not provide empirical evidence for the three-component theory: the questionnaire resulted in a two-component model, namely cognitive-affective and behavioral components. A cognitive-affective component includes a mix of items originally related to the cognitive and affective components.
General discussion [
85
Using the scale, we measured teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Overall, we found that Indonesian teachers have positive attitudes on both the cognitive-affective and behavioral components. The outcomes were more positive than the results of previous studies (see Abbott, 2006; De Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2011; Marshall, Ralph, & Palmer, 2002). Teachers were positive about the inclusion of students with SEN and expressed willingness to support such students in the classroom. The positive results of the study were related to the following teachers’ demographic variables, namely training in special education and experience of teaching students with SEN. A training program could result in an increase in teachers’ knowledge about SEN and teaching strategies, and positive feelings towards such students. These outcomes are in line with other studies (see Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Lifshitz, Glaubman & Issawi, 2004; Powers, 2002).
7.2.2 Examining teachers’ attitudes and their teaching strategies related to SENThe first study resulted in positive outcomes related to teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN in regular education. It was also found that training and teaching experience in special education were positively related to teachers’ attitudes, indicating that teachers with knowledge about SEN and teaching strategies were more positive towards such students. This leads us to the next question which relates to teachers’ teaching strategies for students with SEN.
Examining teachers’ attitudes and teaching strategies towards students with SEN in regular schools was the aim of the second study. By means of a mixed-method study we found that teachers’ attitudes on the three components of attitudes were negative to neutral, and that they did not use many effective teaching strategies in educating students with SEN in regular education. In addition to this, teachers expressed a need for training programs on knowledge about SEN, in particular about SEN teaching strategies to support the inclusion of SEN students in the classroom. Although the study did not attempt to measure the relationship between attitudes and teaching strategies, after careful consideration we concluded that there is no clear connection between attitudes and teaching strategies.
Based on the outcomes of the first and second studies, the need for training program on attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teachers’ strategies to support teachers of students with SEN increased. Previous studies also came to this conclusion (e.g. Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden 2000; Pijl 2010). Hence, a growing number of teacher training programs in special education has been developed and implemented in the last decade. However, the question still remains which components (e.g. content, target groups, type of SEN, length of time, and delivery mode/activities) should be included in a training program on inclusion and what the effectiveness is of such training programs focusing on improving attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies of regular school teachers.
7.2.3 Describing teacher training programs on inclusive educationTo develop a teacher training program with an explicit focus on attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies, a literature review was made to gain more knowledge about teacher training programs in terms of components and effectiveness. The literature review resulted in an overview of recently published studies describing 1) training components (e.g. content, target groups, type of SEN, length of time, and delivery mode/activities) and 2) training effectiveness in relation to teachers’ change in attitude, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies.
86
] Chapter 7
With respect to training components, it was found that the programs focused on relatively short-term practice sessions, used field experience and focused on attitude, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies. When examining the effectiveness of the programs, positive effects of the training programs on teachers (e.g. attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies) were found. The outcomes supported previous studies which argued that teachers’ attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies were critical in supporting students with SEN in regular educational settings (see Cook, 2002; Forlin, 2010). It was also found that training programs which focused on a specific type of SEN showed higher positive effects, compared to training addressing all types.
Based on the outcomes of the literature review, it could be argued that teacher training programs on inclusive education might enhance teachers’ attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies. In addition to this, the following components are considered imperative to support the effectiveness of such training programs, namely content (attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies), field experience (e.g. school visits, guest lectures by people with SEN), and specific type of SEN. These components should be taken into account when aiming to promote positive attitudes as well as increase knowledge about SEN and teaching strategies for students with SEN.
7.2.4 Developing a teacher training program on inclusive educationThe literature review resulted in an overview of teacher training programs in terms of their components and effectiveness on changing teachers’ attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies. Based on the outcomes of the literature review, we developed an in-service teacher training program. This program aimed at 1) improving regular primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, 2) knowledge about SEN, and 3) knowledge about teaching strategies. In order to influence all three aspects, the content of the training program focused on principles and practices of inclusive education (attitudes), five types of SEN (e.g. Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD), dyslexia, intellectual disability, physical and sensory disorders, Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) (knowledge about SEN), and knowledge about teaching strategies. With respect to length of time, the training program lasted thirty-two hours over four consecutive Saturdays. A number of pedagogies were employed in delivering training materials, namely lectures, group discussions, group work, and watching movies. To measure the effectiveness of the training program, we used three instruments: 1) the 31-item attitude scale (see 7.2.1), 2) a knowledge scale (Srivastava, De Boer, & Pijl, submitted) measuring knowledge about SEN, and 3) a 25-item scale measuring knowledge about teaching strategies(Florian, 2009).
The training program was validated by three experts specialized in educational psychology, special education, and teacher training development. They were asked to evaluate the training program in terms of goals and content, learning objectives, timeframe, teaching methods and aids; they found it to be both positive and satisfactory. To increase the effectiveness of the training program, the experts’ advice on a) giving teachers more case studies and working with peers in small groups and b) inviting a guest lecturer from an inclusive school were taken into consideration in the final version of the program.
General discussion [
87
7.2.5 Implementing and evaluating the effectiveness of an in-service teacher training program on inclusive education
In the last study an initial attempt was made to implement and evaluate the teacher training program to improve attitudes, and knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies of regular primary school teachers. In a study with a pre- and post-test control group design it was found that the training program had a significant positive effect on the cognitive-affective component of attitude, and teachers’ knowledge about three types of SEN (i.e. AD/HD, intellectual disability, and ASD) and about teaching strategies. No significant effects of the training program were found on the behavioral component of attitude and teachers’ knowledge about dyslexia.
7.3 Limitations and strengths of the studyA growing number of studies have consistently revealed the role of attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies of regular primary school teachers in the success of including students with SEN. Nonetheless, several questions remain unanswered about these three aspects and how to improve them. This study attempted to fill this gap in knowledge. When interpreting the outcomes of the study, some limitations should be taken into consideration.
First, a self-reported measurement was used to measure teachers’ attitudes (see Chapters 2 and 6), teachers’ knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies for students with SEN (see Chapter 6). The use of such a measurement may have resulted in socially desirable responses. With respect to the outcomes of this study, it could be argued that teachers might report attitudes that are more or less positive than their attitude actually is. Similarly, they might have possessed more or less knowledge than they actually realized in practice. This leads us to the second limitation of the study.
Second, because of the study design used in Chapter 3, it is still doubtful whether a relationship really exists between teachers’ attitudes and their actual teaching strategies. It is likely, that teachers’ limited use of teaching strategies relate to other factors, e.g. class size, teaching materials than their attitudes. Third, participation in the training program study was on a voluntary basis (see Chapter 6). This may have resulted in a sample of teachers with more positive attitudes towards inclusive education than Indonesian teachers in general actually have. It is likely that involving teachers with less positive attitudes (or who are more resistant towards inclusive education) would have resulted in different outcomes in relation to the effectiveness of the training program.
A fourth limitation relates to the evaluation of the teacher training program (see Chapter 6). The study design only allowed us to evaluate short-term effects, not long-term effects. Hence, the effect in terms of actual teaching strategies and student outcomes (e.g. well-being) remains unanswered. It is likely that teachers’ knowledge may vary over time. Another possibility is that the improvement of teachers’ attitudes, and knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies may not be reflected in actual teaching strategies and may not relate to student attainment at school.
Despite the limitations stated above, this study does have some strengths which should be mentioned. The combination of different studies resulted in more knowledge about attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies of regular primary school teachers in Indonesia in relation to the inclusion of students with SEN. When measuring attitudes and teaching strategies, the use of mixed methods, which included video recordings, made it possible to capture the actual teaching strategy accurately. Although the study did not find strong empirical evidence about
88
] Chapter 7
the relationship between teachers’ attitudes and teaching strategies, a mixed-method is not often used in the field of inclusive education. Hence, it can be seen as a strength of this study.
To promote attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies of regular school teachers in inclusive settings, a literature review on teacher training programs in terms of their components and effectiveness was carried out. The study pointed out the components which should be taken into account when designing an effective in-service training program to support teachers in inclusive education. The results of the study were of great value for developing the teacher training program aiming to improve teachers’ attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies. Hence, the literature review can be seen as a strength of this Ph.D. thesis on developing a teacher training program.
The development of a training program made it possible to improve teachers’ attitudes, and knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies for educating students with SEN. The validation of the content of the training program by experts can be seen as an additional strength of this study, as this resulted in suggestions for improving the training program prior to its actual implementation. Finally, the last study indicated the possibility to change teachers’ attitudes, knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies in relation to the inclusion of students with SEN in regular education. The effect of such a training program on the three aspects was clearly evident among regular primary school teachers in Indonesia. To the best of our knowledge this was the first study in which the effectiveness of a training program on attitudes, and knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies was empirically established.
7.4 Reflections of the studyThis study examined attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies of regular primary school teachers for the inclusion of students with SEN. Some critical considerations need to be taken into account regarding this study.
When measuring teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, one point should be mentioned concerning a measurement-related issue. By means of a self-reported questionnaire (see Chapters 2), teachers were found to hold more positive attitudes than those they had expressed in interviews (see Chapter 3). This implies that the use of different methods may result in different outcomes. Future research focusing on the use of different measurement methods in the field of attitude is recommended.
Another consideration is related to the representation of the sample used in the study.Although the best attempts possible were made to select (see Chapter 2) and assign teachers into groups (see Chapter 6), the results showed that teachers’ responses in relation to attitudes appeared to be identical. It could be argued that their ‘similar responses’ may reflect their homogeneity in terms of demographic variables (e.g. educational background, teaching experience, and teacher training program).In view of future research, it is worth emphasizing that it is imperative to include a larger sample of teachers with a more diverse background.
An attempt was made to examine teachers’ attitudes, their knowledge about teaching strategies, and their use of them (see Chapter 3). With regard to this study, a concern was expressed about its design which made it more difficult to establish the relationship between teachers’ attitudes and teaching strategies. It might have been better to add more measurements so that such relationships could be examined, as previous studies (e.g. Hodge, et al., 2004; Kuyini & Desai, 2007; Sato & Hodge,
General discussion [
89
2007; Stanovich & Jordan, 1998; Qi & Ha, 2012) revealed unclear findings on this relationship due to methodological problems.
With respect to the intervention study (see Chapter 6) aimed at improving teachers’ attitudes, and knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies, some concerns should be taken into account. A first concern relates to the measurement of training effectiveness. To measure the effect of the training program, pre- and post-test scores were compared, and the effect sizes were expressed in Cohen’s d (1988). What teachers think and believe is not always in line with their actual behavior, hence the effectiveness of the training program should be questioned when it is put into practice. The use of actual behavior measurements, like observation, might give a clear picture of such a training program. Second, the effectiveness of a training program is established when teachers put their knowledge into practice and students benefit accordingly (see Browder et al., 2012; Crosskey & Vance, 2011; Fishman et al., 2003). We did not measure students’ outcomes. Although this is to be recommended, this study was carried out across schools and grades which may require a unique measure for compatibility in terms of such outcomes. Third, the training program was found to be more effective in improving knowledge than attitudes. It also had a non-significant effect on the behavioral component of attitudes. This implies that attitudes are more resistant to change (especially behavioral intentions), as also found in previous studies (see Ajzen, 2005; Campbell, Gilmore, & Cuskelly, 2003). To support the change of teachers’ attitudes, some researchers have suggested the importance of providing long-term training program in combination with follow-up activities (i.e. ongoing coaching and technical assistance) (see Fixsen et al., 2013; Odom, Cox, & Brock, 2013). As knowledge may change over time (Rae, McKenzie, & Murray, 2011), the long-term training and follow-up activities may also support teachers’ changes in practice.
Using the three-component model (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Traindis, 1971) as a theoretical framework, an attempt to measure teachers’ attitudes on inclusive education was carried out (see Chapter 2). The outcomes of the study showed a high correlation among items which originally belong to the cognitive and affective component, and separate behavioral items, constituting a two-component model of attitudes. Although the outcomes failed to support the three-component model, it is evident that the attitude measurements used (Chapters 2 and 6) are based on a well-considered, conceptual framework.
The importance of direct contact with students with SEN in the formation of teachers’ attitudes has been suggested by previous studies (see Kurniawati, Minnaert, Mangunsong, & Ahmed, 2012). Similar findings (Chapters 2 and 4) were also found in this study, indicating that teachers’ training in special education and teaching experience with SEN related to their attitudes in a positive way. Direct contact with students with SEN may result in teachers becoming more familiar with and knowledgeable about such students, which in turn makes teachers less concerned, more confident and willing to accommodate these students’ learning needs. As stated by Eagly and Chaiken (1993) and Zajonc (2001), attitudes are formed and changed by direct and repeated experience of the object of the attitude. Studies testing the Contact Theory of Allport (1954) have also often stated this hypothesis. When considering future research within the field of inclusive education, it is worth emphasizing the role of some background factors (e.g. direct contact with SEN) in influencing and changing attitudes (Ajzen, 2005; Allport, 1954).
90
] Chapter 7
7. 5. Implications of the studyThe inclusive education movement has been driven by the belief that students with SEN benefit socially and academically from being part of regular educational settings. The successful inclusion of students with SEN, however, largely depends on teachers in regular classrooms.This study was instigated to examine teachers’ attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies for inclusive education. The outcomes described in this study have important implications at a political and practical level.
In general, teachers did not have positive attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN in regular educational settings. They were also not competent and confident in dealing with such students. It seems that they are only willing to educate such students because it is a legal requirement, implying that they are resistant to the concept of inclusive education. With respect to knowledge, teachers felt untrained in special education and expressed a need for training programs to be able to make inclusion successful. Given their limited knowledge and experience in teaching students with SEN, it is not surprising that they used few effective teaching strategies. This implies that students with SEN were merely physically placed in the classroom without adequate support from teachers. Following the development of inclusive education in Indonesia, policy makers are required to take the important role of teachers, especially regular primary school teachers, into consideration in the implementation of inclusive education.
As inclusive education is given in regular schools, it is clear that regular school teachers are mainly responsible for the successful inclusion of students with SEN. To respond to the learning needs of students with diverse needs, it is critical to equip teachers with more knowledge about SEN and teaching strategies during their training program. As found in this study, the training programs are required to address the following aspects: 1) inclusive principles and policies, 2) characteristics and needs of students with different types of SEN, and 3) teaching strategies. Research revealed that the more knowledge teachers have about SEN, the more confident and willing they are to deal with such students. If teachers have positive attitudes and are knowledgeable about special education, students can be expected to benefit from inclusive education.
The implementation of inclusive education is intended to accommodate the learning needs of students with SEN. It has been consistently suggested that teachers’ attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies are vital to the success of inclusive education. We conducted a first study focusing on these three aspects within Indonesian primary educational settings. In general, the outcomes of this study were in line with previous studies, indicating the important role of these three aspects in supporting SEN students. Focusing on them, therefore, could enable teachers to serve SEN students and to make “Education for All” a reality.
91
Summary
92
] Summary
BackgroundThe inclusion of students with special educational needs (SEN) in regular education (often called inclusive education) has been an international trend. By being part of regular educational settings, it argued that students with SEN could benefit academically and socially. To support the inclusion of students with SEN, regular schools often need to restructure and adapt their system. To make inclusion happen, regular school teachers must have positive attitudes, and need knowledge about SEN and about effective teaching strategies. Research conducted so far, however, has revealed worrying findings in relation to these three aspects (i.e. attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education have been found to be negative to neutral. They were also resistant to including students with SEN in their classroom because of their limited experience and lack of knowledge in teaching such students.
The general aim of the study was to examine teachers’ attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies towards the inclusion of students with SEN in regular educational settings. More particularly, the study was set up to achieve the following aims: 1) developing an attitude scale to measure teachers’ attitudes, 2) examining teachers’ attitudes and their teaching strategies, 3) describing teacher training programs on inclusive education, 4) developing an effective in-service training program, and 5) implementing and evaluating a teacher training program with the aim of improving teachers’ attitudes, and knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies.
Summary of the chapters Chapter 2 aims at describing regular school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. An attitude scale was developed and evaluated to achieve this. The scale used the three-component theory of attitude as a theoretical framework and included items adopted from some existing instruments. By means of a factor analysis, the psychometric properties for the scale were established. The definitive questionnaire showed that a two-component model of attitude is applicable, namely a cognitive-affective component and a behavioral component. Using the scale to measure teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, we found that Indonesian regular school teachers (N = 208) were positive about the two components of attitude. Teachers showed positive acceptance of the inclusion of students with SEN and they were willing to accommodate the learning needs of such students in their classroom. In addition to this, teaching experience and training in special education were found to have positive effects on teachers’ attitudes.
Chapter 3 focuses on examining attitudes and teaching strategies of regular school teachers towards students with SEN in regular educational settings. By means of a mixed-method design, attitudes of five teachers in regular primary schools were assessed according to the three-component theory of attitudes. With respect to teaching strategies, teachers were asked to describe their experience in teaching students with SEN, focusing on four categories of teaching strategies (i.e. differentiation, collaborative learning, classroom management, and social skills). The outcomes showed that teachers had negative to neutral attitudes towards students with SEN. They also used a limited number of effective teaching strategies to accommodate the learning needs of these students.
Summary [
93
A literature review of the components (e.g. target groups, type of SEN, content, length of time, and delivery mode/activities) and effectiveness of teacher training programs - published in internationally peer-reviewed journals - is described in chapter 4 (N= 13). With respect to components, it was found that the majority of the training programs were similar in terms of the following characteristics: 1) focused on attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies, 2) carried out in relatively short-term practices, 3) equipped with field experience (i.e. direct contact with students with SEN), and 4) intended for a particular type of SEN. Regarding the effectiveness of the teacher training programs, the outcomes showed that the programs had positive effects on improving teachers’ attitudes, knowledge about SEN, and teaching strategies, with stronger effects on knowledge than on attitudes. This suggests that attitudinal improvements may need longer training programs and the opportunity for or exposure to direct contact with students with SEN.
Chapter 5 describes the development of an in-service teacher training program aimed at improving attitudes, and knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies of teachers in regular educational settings in Jakarta. A 32-hour program was designed which focused on inclusive principles and practices (attitudes), five types of SEN (Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD), dyslexia, intellectual disability, Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), and physical and sensory disorders (knowledge about SEN), and knowledge about teaching strategies. Three experts evaluated the content validity of the training program in terms of goals and content, learning objectives, timeframe, teaching methods and aids. They validated the training program as satisfactory.
Chapter 6 focuses on implementing the training program and evaluating the effectiveness of such a training program in improving attitudes, and knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies of regular school teachers. A pre- and post-test control group design study was set up (Nexperimental group= 33teachers, Ncontrol group= 34teachers), comprising eleven primary schools in total. The outcomes showed that the training program had significant positive effects on attitudes, and knowledge about SEN and about teaching strategies of regular school teachers.
Chapter 7 presents the major findings of each study. Moreover, it describes the limitations and the strengths of the study, as well as the reflections and the implications.
Finally, it can be concluded that improving attitudes, knowledge, and teaching strategies of regular school teachers in relation to SEN could support the inclusion of students with SEN in regular classrooms as endorsed by the international human rights agenda.
94
95
Samenvatting
(Dutch summary)
96
] Samenvatting (Dutch summary)
AchtergrondDe inclusie van SEN*-leerlingen in normale scholen (heel vaak ook inclusief onderwijs genoemd) is tegenwoordig een internationale trend geworden. Het is een argument geworden dat SEN-leerlingen academisch en sociaal kunnen genieten van de normale pedagogische omgeving. Om aan deze wensen te kunnen voldoen moeten deze scholen herstructureren en de lesmethode aanpassen. Om de inclusie uit te voeren moeten de leraren een positieve houding hebben ten opzichte van SEN en kennis hebben over effectieve lesstrategieën. De reeds gedane onderzoekingen hebben echter verontrustende bevindingen naar voren gebracht, vooral wat de drie aspecten betreffen, namelijk de houding, de kennis over SEN, en de strategie van lesgeven. De houding van de leerkrachten betreffende het lesgeven door middel van het inclusieve onderwijs aan de leerlingen is negatief of neutraal bevonden. Ze hebben ook weerstand geboden om SEN-leerlingen in hun klassen te laten zitten vanwege de beperkte ervaring en kennis over het lesgeven aan deze leerlingen. Het algemene doel van deze studie is het onderzoek van houding, kennis en lesstrategie aan SEN-leerlingen in gewone scholen. In het bijzonder heeft de studie de volgende doeleinden: (1) een instrument ontwikkelen om de houding van de leraren te meten, (2) de houding en de lesstrategie van de leraren te onderzoeken, (3) een effectief programma voor leerkrachten op te zetten, (4) het lesplan voor leerkrachten in inclusief onderwijs beschrijven, en (5) de uitvoering en de evaluatie van leraren trainingsprogramma met het doel om de houding, de kennis over SEN en over lesstrategie te bevorderen.
Samenvatting van de hoofdstukken Hoofdstuk 2 heeft het doel een beeld te geven van de houding van de leerkrachten ten opzichte van het inclusief onderwijs. Er is een schaal van de houding ontworpen en geëvalueerd om de doelstelling te bereiken. De schaal maakte gebruik van drie componenten theorie over houding als theoretische achtergrond en adopteerde onderdelen van bestaande instrumenten. Door middel van een factoranalyse zijn de psychometrische eigenschappen van deze schaal opgezet. De definitieve vragenlijst gaf een beeld dat een twee-componenten model van houding bruikbaar is, n.l. een cognitieve, affectieve, en een gedrag component. Met deze schaal (classificatie) is de houding bevonden dat de gewone Indonesische leerkrachten (N = 208) de inclusie van leerlingen in hun klassen konden accepteren. Bovendien hadden de ervaringen en lesgeven in orthopedagogiek positieve effecten op de houding van de leerkrachten.
Hoofdstuk 3 concentreerde zich op het onderzoek naar houding en lesstrategie van reguliere leraren tegenover SEN-leerlingen in de normale omgeving. Door middel van een gemengd methode ontwerp van houding is de houding van vijf leraren in de gewone lagere scholen getest met de drie componenten theorie over houding. In verband met de strategie van lesgeven werden de leerkrachten gevraagd hun ervaringen te beschrijven in het lesgeven aan SEN-leerlingen met een focus op vier soorten strategie (namelijk differentiatie, collaboratief leren, klasbeheer, en sociale bekwaamheden). Het resultaat gaf een beeld aan dat de leraren een negatieve en neutrale houding hadden t.o.v. lesgeven aan SEN-leerlingen. Er werd ook een beperkt aantal strategieën in effectief lesgeven gebruikt om leerbehoeften van de leerlingen te accommoderen.
Het literatuur onderzoek van de componenten (namelijk de doelgroepen,
Samenvatting (Dutch summary) [
97
soorten SEN, inhoud, de duur, de levering van activiteiten) en de effectiviteit van de trainingsprogramma’s die uitgegeven zijn in internationale peer review journals zijn in het hoofdstuk 4 beschreven (N = 13). Wat de componenten betreffen is het bevonden dat het grotendeel van deze trainingsprogramma’s dezelfde eigenschappen hadden, namelijk (1) gericht op houding, kennis over SEN, en strategie van het lesgeven, (2) uitgevoerd in relatief korte activiteiten, (3) toegerust met veldervaringen (namelijk direct contact met SEN-leerlingen, (4) bedoeld voor een bepaalde soort SEN. Betreffende de effectiviteit van de programma’s voor onderwijstraining toonden de bevindingen aan dat er een positief effect was van de houding van leerkrachten, de kennis over SEN, en de strategie met een groter effect op kennis dan op houding. Het suggereerde dat langere trainingsprogramma’s en de gelegenheid om direct contact met SEN-leerlingen nodig wordt geacht.
Hoofdstuk 5 beschrijft de ontwikkeling van een leerkracht trainingsprogramma met het doel om de houding, de kennis, en de strategie van het lesgeven aan SEN-leerlingen in normale schoolsettings in Jakarta te bevorderen. Een ontwerp van een 32 uur programma is ontwikkeld en het is gericht op inclusieve principes en houding, vijf types van SEN (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)), dyslexia, intellectual disability, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), lichamelijke en zintuiglijke ongesteldheid (kennis over SEN), en kennis over de strategie van lesgeven. Drie specialisten hebben de waarde van de “content validity” van de trainingsprogramma’s berekend in verband met de bestemming en de inhoud, de doelstelling, de duur, de lesmethode, en hulpmiddelen. De validiteit van het programma is als volwaardig bevonden.
Hoofdstuk 6 is gericht op de trainingsprogramma’s en de evaluatie van de effectiviteit van het programma om de houding, de kennis, en de strategie van het lesgeven van SEN-leerlingen voor gewone leerkrachten te bevorderen. Een voor (pre) en na (post) test controlegroep ontwerp was opgezet, bestaande uit in totaal elf lagere scholen (33 leraren van de te onderzoeken groep; 34 leraren van controlegroep). Het resultaat liet zien dat de trainingsprogramma significant positief effect had op hun houding, de kennis over SEN, en lesstrategie van gewone leerkrachten.
Hoofdstuk 7 beschreef de belangrijke bevindingen van elke studie. Het beschrijft zowel de beperkingen en de krachten van de studie als de reflectie, en de implicaties.
Ten laatste wordt er geconcludeerd dat de bevordering van houding, kennis en lesstrategie aan gewone leraren de inclusie van SEN-leerlingen kan ondersteunen (zoals aanbevolen in de agenda van de Internationale Mensenrechten (International Human Rights).
98
99
References
100
] References
Abbott, L. (2006). Northern Ireland head teachers’ perceptions of inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10, 627–643.
Ainscow, M. (2007). Taking an inclusive turn. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. eScholarID:1b10507. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2007.00075.x
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal attitudes, intentions and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453–474.
Ajzen, I., & Timko, C. (1986). Correspondence between health attitudes and behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7(4), 259-276.
Alghazo, E. M., & NaggarGaad, E. 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), 94-99.
Alghazo, E.M., Dodeen, H., & Algaryouti, I. A. (2003). Attitudes of pre-service teachers’ persons with disabilities: Predictions for success of inclusion. College Student Journal, 37(4), 515-521.
Allday, R. A., Hinkson-Lee, K., Hudson, T., Neilsen-Gatti, S., Kleinke, A., & Russel, C. S. (2012). Training general educators to increase behavior-specific praise: Effects on students with EBD. Behavioral Disorders, 37(2), 87-98.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders(DSM-IV-TR) (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Anderson, J. R. (1981). Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Antonak, R. F., & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of the Opin-ions Relative to Mainstreaming Scale. Exceptional Children, 62(2), 139-149.
Armstrong, A., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I. (2010). Inclusive education: International policy and practice. London: Sage.
Armstrong, A. C., Armstrong, D, Lynch, C., & Severin, S. (2005). Special and
References [
101
inclusive education in the Eastern Caribbean: Policy practice and provision. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9, 71-87.
Arthur-Kelly, M., Sutherland, D., Lyons, G., Macfarlane, S., & Foreman, P. (2013). Reflectionson enhancing pre-service teacher education programmes to support inclusion: Perspectives from New Zealand and Australia. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 217-233.
Avramidis, E., & 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), 367-389.
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.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000a). A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in one local educational authority.Educational Psychology, 20(2), 193-213.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000b). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(3), 277-293.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2002). Inclusion in action: An in-depth case study of an effective inclusive secondary school in the south-west of England. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6(2), 143-163.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1978). The construct validity of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of attitude by analysis of covariance structures. Multivariate Behavior Research, 13, 9-31.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1979). Attitude organization and the attitude- behavior relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 913-929.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1985). Attitude organization and the attitude- behavior relation: A reply to Dillon and Kumar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 47-57.
Batsiou, S., Bebetsos, E., Panteli, P., & 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), 201-219.
102
] References
Beattie, J. R., Anderson, R. J., & Antonak, R. F. (1997). Modifying attitudes of prospective educators toward students with disabilities and their integration into regular classrooms. The Journal of Psychology, 131(3), 245-259.
Bender, W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers’ attitudes toward increased mainstreaming: Implementing effective instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(2), 87-94.
Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 379-439.
Birman, B., Desimone, L. M., Garet, M., & Porter, A. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28–33.
Blecker, N. S., & Boakes, N. J. (2010). Creating a learning environment for all children: Are teachers able and willing? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(5), 435-447.
Block, M. E., & Obrusnikova, I. (2007). Inclusion in physical education: A review of the literature from 1995-2005. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 29, 103-124.
Block, M. E., & Rizzo, T. L. (1995). Attitudes and attributes of physical educators associated with teaching individuals with severe and profound disabilities. Jash, 20(1), 80-87.
Boeije, H. R. (2010). Analysis in qualitative research.London, UK: Sage.
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (Eds.). (1998). From them to us. London: Creative Print Design.
Booth, T., Ainscow, M., Black-Hawkins, K., Vaughn, M., & Shaw, L. (2000). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools. Bristol, UK: Centre forStudies on Inclusive Education.
Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Eiteljorg, E., & Pittman, M. E. (2008). Video as a tool for fostering productive discussion in mathematics professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 417-436.
Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & Le Page, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond, J. Bransford, P. LePage, K. Hammerness, & H. Duffy (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1–39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
References [
103
Brantlinger, E. (1996). Influence of pre-service teachers’ beliefs about pupil achievement on attitudes toward inclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19(1), 17-33.
Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1191-1205.
Brice, A., & Miller, R. J. (2000). Case studies in inclusion: What works, what doesn’t? Communication Disorders Quarterly, 21(4), 237-241.
Brophy, J. (Ed.). (2004). Advances in research on teaching: Vol. 10. Using video in teachereducation. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Browder, D. M., Jimenez, A., Mims, P. J., Knight, V. F., Spooner, F., Lee, A., & Flowers, C.(2012). The effects of a ‘’Tell-Show-Try-Apply’’ professional development package on teachers of students with severe developmental disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 35(3), 212–227.
Brunero, S., Lamont, S., & Coates, M. (2010). A review of empathy education in nursing. Nursing Inquiry, 17(1), 64–73.
Campbell, J., Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Changing student teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 28(4), 369-379.
Carroll, A., Forlin, C., & Jobling, A. (2003). The impact of teacher training in special education on the attitudes of Australian pre-service general educators towards people with disabilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30, 65–79.
Cattell. R. B. (1966). Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Causton-Theoharis, J. N., Theoharis, G. T., & Trezek, B. J. (2008). Teaching pre-service teachers to design inclusive instruction: A lesson planning template. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12(4), 381-399.
Chalmers, L., Hoover J., & Olson, M. (1997). Attitudes and attributes of general education teachers identified as effective inclusionists. Remedial and Special Education, 18(1), 28-35.
Chandler, L. K. (2000). A training and consultation model to reduce resistance and increase educator knowledge and skill in addressing challenging behaviours. Special Education Perspectives, 9(1), 3-13.
104
] References
Chong, S., Forlin, C., & Au, M. L. (2007). The influence of an inclusive education course on attitude change of pre-service secondary teachers in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 161–179.
Chow, P., & Winzer, M. M. (1992). Reliability and validity of a scale measuring attitudes towardmainstreaming. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 52(1), 223-228.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record 102(2), 294–343.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science. (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Coll, R. K., & Chapman, R. (2000). Qualitative or quantitative? Choices of methodology for cooperative education researchers. Journal of Cooperative Education, 35(1), 25-35.
Construction Building Act, Republic of Indonesia. (2002).
Cook, B. G. (2002). Inclusive attitudes, strengths, and weaknesses of pre-service general educators enrolled in a curriculum infusion teacher preparation program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(3), 262–277.
Cooper, J., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1987). Applied behavior analysis. New York: Macmillan.
Corsini, R. J., & Auerbach, A. J. (Eds.). (1998). Concise encyclopedia of psychology (2nd ed.). NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.
Crosskey, L., & Vance, M. (2011). Training teachers to support pupils’ listening in class: An evaluation using pupil questionnaires. Child Language Teaching and Thera-py 27(2), 165–182.
De Boer, A. A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2010). Attitudes of parents towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(2), 165-181.
De Boer, A. A., Pijl, S.J., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2011). Regular primary school teachers’attitudestowards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(3), 331 – 353.
References [
105
De Boer, A. A., Timmerman, M. E., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2012). Thepsychometric evaluation of a questionnaire to measure attitudes towardsinclusive education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, DOI:10.1007/s10212-011-0096-z.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,24(2), 81-112.
Directive Letter of Director General of primary and secondary education No.380/C.C6/MN/2003 concerning Inclusive Education.
Directorate of Special Education. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.pkplk-plb.org.
Dowing, J., Eichinger, J., & Williams, L.J. (1997). Inclusive education for students with severedisabilities: Comparative views of principals and educators at differentlevelsof implementation. Remedial and Special Education, 18(3), 133-142.
Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The nature of attitudes. InA.H. Eagly & S.Chaiken (Eds.),The Psychology of attitudes(1sted., pp. 1-21). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace, Jovanovich.
Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (2007). The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Social Cognition, 25(5), 582-602.
Eagly, A.H., Mladinic, A., & Otto, S. (1994). Cognitive and affective bases of attitudes toward social groups and social policies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30(2), 113-137.
Edwards, C. J., Carr, S., & Siegel, W. (2006). Influences of experiences and training on effective teaching practices to meet the needs of diverse learners in schools. Education 126(3), 580-592.
Egelund, N. (2000). Special education in Denmark. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15(1), 88–99.
Ellins, J., & Porter, J. (2005). Departmental differences in attitudes to special educational needs European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9, 91-106.
106
] References
Everington, C., Stevens, B., & Winters, V. R. (1999). Teachers’ attitudes, felt competence, and need of support for implementation of inclusive educational programs. Psychological Reports, 85, 331-338.
Farrell, P. (2000). The impact of research on developments in inclusive education. InternationalJournal of Inclusive Education, 4(2), 153-162.
Farrell, P. (2004). Making inclusion a reality for all. School Psychology International, 25(1), 5-19.
Ferguson, D. L. (2008). International trends in inclusive education: The continuing challenge to teach each one and everyone. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23, 109-120.
Fewell, R.R., &Oelwein, P.L. (1990). The relationship between time in integrated environments and developmental gains in young children with special needs. Topicsin Early Childhood Special Education, 10(2), 104-116.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single andmultiplebehavioral criteria. Erratum. Psychological Review, 81(1), 59-74.
Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Besta, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 643–658.
Fixsen, D., Blasé, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence- based programs. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 213-230.
Flem, A., & Keller, C. (2000). Inclusion in Norway: A study of ideology in practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15(2), 188-205.
Florian, L. (1998). An examination of the practical problems associated with the implementationof inclusive education policies. Support for Learning, 13(3), 105-108.
Florian, L. (2009). Towards inclusive pedagogy. In P. Hick, R. Kershner, & P. Farrell (Eds.), Psychology for inclusive education: New directions in theory and practice (pp. 38-51).London: Routledge/Falmer.
Florian, L., & Spratt, J. (2013). Enacting inclusion: A framework for interrogating inclusive practice. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(2), 119-135.
Folsom-Meek, S. L., & Rizzo, T. L. (2002). Validating the physical educators’ attitude toward teaching individuals with disabilities III (PEATID III) survey for future professionals. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 19(2), 141-154.
References [
107
Forlin, C. (1995). Educators’ beliefs about inclusive practices in Western Australia. BritishJournal of Special Education, 22(4), 179–185.
Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers. Educational Research, 43(3), 235-245.
Forlin, C. (2003). Pre-service teacher education: Involvement of students with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Learning, 10, 317-326.
Forlin, C. (2010a). Re-framing teacher education for inclusion. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Teacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative approaches (pp. 3–10). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Forlin, C. (2010b). Teacher education reform for enhancing teachers’ preparedness for inclusion, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), 649-653. doi: 10.1080/13603111003778353
Forlin, C. (2011). Developing and implementing quality inclusive education in Hong Kong: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 10(3), 41-48.
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.
Forlin, C., & Lian, M. G. J. (2008). Contemporary trends and issues in educational reform for special and inclusive education. In C. Forlin & M. G. J. Lian (Eds.), Reform, inclusion and teacher education: Towards a new era of special education in the Asia-Pacificregion (pp. 3-12). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Forlin, C., Keen, M., & Barrett, E. (2008). The concerns of mainstream teachers: Coping with inclusivity in an Australian context. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 55(3), 251-264.
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.
Fox, N., & Ysseldyke, J. (1997). Implementing inclusion at the middle school level: Lessons from a negative example. Exceptional Children, 64(1), 81-98.
Freebody, P. (2003). Qualitative research in education: Interaction and practice. London: Sage.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). General educators’ instructional adaptations for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 23-33.
108
] References
Gal, E., Schreur, N., & Engel-Yeger, B. (2010). Inclusion of children with disabilities: Teachers’ attitudes and requirements for environmental accommodations. International Journal of Special Education, 25(2), 89 – 99.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Research methods. In M. D. Gall, W. R. Borg, & J. P. Gall (Eds.), Educational research: An introduction (6th ed., pp. 165-370). New York, NY: Longman.
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L. M., Birman, B.,& Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Analysis of a national sample of teachers. American Education Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
Ghanizadeh, A., Bahredar, M. J., & Moeini, S. R. (2006). Knowledge and attitudes towards attention deficit hyperactivity disorder among elementary school teachers. Patient Education and Counseling, 63, 84-88.
Gürsel, F. (2007). Attitudes of physical education majors in Turkey towards disability are changed by adaptive physical education training. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 104(1), 166-170.
Hall, L. (1994). A descriptive assessment of social relationship in integrated classrooms.Journal of Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 103-111.
Harriott, W. A. (2004). Inclusion in-service: Content and training procedures across the United States. Journal of Special Education Leadership,17(2), 91-102.
Hastings, R. P., & Oakford, S. (2003). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special needs. Educational Psychology, 23(1), 87-94.
Heflin, L. J., & Bullock, L. M. (1999). Inclusion of students with emotional/behavioural disorders: A survey of teachers in general and special education. PreventingSchool Failure, 43(3), 103–124.
Hegarty, S. (1994). Integration and the teacher. In C. W. Meijer, S. J. Pijl, & S. Hegarty (Eds.), New perspectives in special education: A six-country study of integration (pp. 125-31). London, UK: Routledge.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Hodge, R. S., & Jansna, P. (1999). Effects of contact time and location of practicum experiencesonattitudes of physical education majors. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 16(1), 48–63.
Hodge, S. R., Ammah, J. O. A., Casebolt, K., Lamaster, K., & O’Sullivan, M. (2004). High school general physical education teachers’ behaviors and beliefs associated with inclusion. Sport Education and Society,9(3), 395-419.
References [
109
Inclusive education: Opportunities for vulnerable children (OVC). (2013). Retrieved from http://www.hki.org/working-worldwide/asia-pacific/indonesia/#ov.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, United States. (2004).
Indonesia: National report on the provision of inclusive quality primary and junior secondary education for children with disabilities (2009). Retrieved from http://www.Ibe.Unesco.Org.
Innes, F. K., & Diamond, K. E. (1999). Typically developing children’s interactions with peers with disabilities: Relationships between mothers’ comments and children’s ideas aboutdisabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19(2), 103-111.
Janney, R. E., & Snell, M. E. (1996). How teachers use peer interactions to include students with moderate and severe disabilities in elementary general education classes. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21, 72-80.
Jerlinder, K., Danermark, B., & Gill, P. (2010). Swedish primary school teachers’ attitudes to inclusion –– the case of PE and pupils with physical disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(1), 45-57.
Jobling, A., & Moni, K. B. (2004). I never imagined I’d have to teach these children: Providing authentic learning experiences for secondary pre-service teachers in teaching students with special needs.Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32(1), 5-22.
Jones, H. A., & Chronis-Tuscano, A. (2008). Efficacy of teacher in-service training for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychology in the School, 45(10), 918- 929.
Kalambouka, A., Farrell, P., Dyson, A., & Kaplan, I. (2005). The impact of population inclusivity in schools on student outcomes. London: Centre for Evidence-Informed Policy and Practice in Education, University of London. Retrieved from http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk.
Kavale, K . A ., & Forness, S . R. (2000). History, rhetoric, and reality. Remedial & Special Education, 21(5), 279-296.
Kim, J. (2011). Influence of teacher preparation programmes on pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(3), 355-377.
King-Sears, M. E., & Cummings, C. S. (1996). Inclusive practices of classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 217-225.
110
] References
Kothandapani, V. (1971). Validation of feeling, belief, and intention to act as three components of attitude and their contribution to prediction of contraceptive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19(3), 321-333.
Kozub, F., & Porretta, Z.D. (1998). Interscholastic coaches’ attitudes toward integration of adolescents with disabilities.Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 180-196.
Kurniawati, F., De Boer, A., Minnaert, A. E. M. G., & Mangunsong, F. (in press). Characteristics of primary teacher training programs on inclusion: A literature focus. Educational Research.
Kurniawati, F., Minnaert, A., Mangunsong, F., & Ahmed, W. (2012). Empirical study on primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education in Jakarta, Indonesia. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1430-1436.
Kurniawati, F., Minnaert, A., Mangunsong, F., & Ahmed, W. (submitted). Teachers’ attitudes and their teaching strategies in inclusive classrooms. Manuscript sub-mitted for publication.
Kuyini, A. B., & Desai, I. (2007). Principals’ and teachers’ attitudes and knowledge of inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching practices in Ghana. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7(2), 104-113.
Lancaster, J., & Bain, A. (2010). The design of pre-service inclusive education courses and theireffects on self-efficacy: A comparative study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,38(2), 117–128.
Leblanc, L., Richardson, W., & Burns, K. A. (2009). Autism spectrum disorder and the inclusive classroom: Effective training to enhance knowledge of ASD and evidence-based practices. Teacher Education and Special Education, 32(2), 166-179.
LeRoy, B., & Simpson, C. (1996). Improving student outcomes through inclusive edu-cation. Support for Learning, 11(1), 32–36.
Leyser, Y. (2002). Choices of instructional practices and efficacy beliefs of Israeli general and special educators: A cross-cultural research initiative. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(2), 154-167.
Leyser, Y., & Tappendorf, K. (2001). Are attitudes and practices regardingmainstreaming changing? A case of teachers in two rural school districts. Education, 121(4), 751–761.
Leyser,Y., Kapperman, G., & Keller, R. (1994). Teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming: A cross-cultural study in 6 nations. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9(1), 1-15.
References [
111
Lieberman, L. J., & Wilson, S. (2005). Effects of a sports camp practicum on attitudes toward children with visual impairments and deaf blindness. RE:View: Rehabilitation Educationfor Blindness and Visual Impairment, 36(4), 141.
Lifshitz, H., Glaubman, R., & Issawi, R. (2004). Attitudes toward inclusion: The case of Israeli and Palestinian regular and special education teachers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19(2), 171-190.
Lindsay, G. (2003). Inclusive education: A critical perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 30, 3-12.
Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Loreman, T., & Earle, C. (2007). The development of attitudes, sentiments, and concerns about inclusive education in a content-infused Canadian teacher preparation program. Exceptionality Education Canada, 17(1), 85–106.
Loreman, T., Forlin, C., & Sharma, U. (2007). An international comparison of pre-service teacher attitudes towards inclusive education. Disability Studies Quarterly, 27(4). Retrieved from http://www.dsq-sds.org.
Loreman, T., Earle, C., Sharma, U., & Forlin, C. (2007). The development of an instrument for measuring pre-service teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education. International Journal of Special education, 22(2), 150-159.
Mahat, M. (2008). The development of a psychometrically-sound instrument to measure teachers’ multidimensional attitudes toward inclusive education. International Journal of Special Education, 23(1), 82- 92.
Maheady, L., Mallette, B., & Harper, G. F. (2006). Four class wide peer tutoring models: Similarities, differences, and implications for research and practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 22, 65-89.
Male, D. B. (2011). The impact of a professional development programme on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Support for Learning, 26(4), 182-186.
Maoi, G.R., & Haddock, G. (2009). The psychology of attitudes and attitude change. Los Angeles: Sage.
Marshall, J., Ralph, S., & 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), 199-215.
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2002). Inclusion and school change: Teacher perceptions regarding curricular and instructional adaptations. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25(1), 41-54.
112
] References
McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. L. (2011). Educational programs for elementary students with learning disabilities: Can they be both effective and inclusive? Learning Disabilities Practice, 26(1), 48-57.
Meijer, C. J. W. (2003). Special needs education across Europe. Middelfart, Denmark: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
Miller, K. J., Wienke, W. D., & Savage, L. B. (2000). Elementary and middle/second-ary educator’s pre and post training perceptions of ability to…….. Rural Special EducationQuarterly, 19(3), 3–14.
Milton, M., & Rohl, M. (1999). Children K-2 who are of concern to their teachers: Identification, programs and the professional needs of teachers. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3(1), 9-16.
Mittler, P. (2000). Working towards inclusive education: Social context. London, UK: Fulton
Moberg, S. (2003). Education for all in the North and South: Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education in Finland and Zambia. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 417-428.
Moen, T., Nilssen, V., & Weidemann, N. (2007). An aspect of a teacher’s inclusive educationalpractice: Scaffolding pupils through transitions. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(3), 269–286.
Monsen,J. J., & Frederickson, N. (2004). Teachers’ attitudes towards mainstreaming and their pupils’ perceptions of their classroom learning environment. Learning Environments Research, 7, 129-142.
Morley, D., Bailey, R., Tan, J., & Cooke, B. (2005). Inclusive physical education: Teacher’s views of including pupils with special educational needs and/or pupils with disabilities inphysical education. European Physical Education Review, 11(1), 84–107.
Mrug, S., & Wallander, L. J. (2002). Self-concept of young people with physical disabilities: Does integration play a role? International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 49(3), 267-274.
National Education System Act (2003). Republic of Indonesia.
Norman, R. (1975). Affective-cognitive consistency, attitudes, conformity, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(1), 83-91.
Norwich, B. (1994). The relationship between attitudes to integration of children with special educational needs and wider socio-political views: A US-English comparison. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9, 91-106.
References [
113
Odom, S. L., Cox, A. W., & Brock, M. E. (2013). Implementation science, professional development, and autism spectrum disorders. Exceptional Children,79(2), 233-251.
Osgood, C. E. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Ostrom, T. M. (1969). The relationship between the affective, behavioral and cognitive components of attitude. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5(1), 12-30.
Oswald, M. & 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), 389-403.
Palmer, D. (2006). Durability of changes in self-efficacy of pre-service primary teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 655 – 671.
Palmer, D. S., Fuller, K., Arora, T., & Nelson, M. (2001). Taking sides: Parent views on inclusion for their children with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67(4), 467-484.
Parasuram, K. (2006). Variables that affect teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive education in Mumbai, India. Disability & Society, 21(3), 231-242.
Patterson, K. (2005). What classroom teachers need to know about. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 41(2): 62-67.
Pearce, M. (2008). The inclusive secondary school teacher. In C. Forlin & M. G. J. Lian (Eds.), Reform, inclusion and teacher education: Towards a new era of special education in the Asia-Pacific region (pp. 142–152). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Pearman, E. L., Huang, A. M., & Mellblom, C. I. (1997). The inclusion of all students: Concerns and incentives of educators. Education and Training in
Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 32(1), 11-20.
Peters, S. (2003). Inclusive education: Achieving education for all by including those with disabilities and special needs.Washington, DC: World Bank.
Pijl, S. J. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Some reflections from the Netherlands. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10(s1), 197–201. Retrieved fromhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01165.x/full.
Pivik, J., McComas, J., & LaFlanne, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education. Exceptional Children, 61(1), 97-107.
114
] References
Powers, S. (2002). From concepts to practice in deaf education. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7(3), 230-243.
Public Act, Republic of Indonesia. (1997).Qi, J., & Ha, A. S. C. (2012). Hong Kong physical education teachers’ beliefs about
teaching students with disabilities: A qualitative analysis. Asian Social Studies, 8(8), 3-14.
Rae, H., McKenzie, K., & Murray, G. (2011). The impact of training on teacher knowl-edge about children with an intellectual disability.Journal of Intellectual Dis-abilities, 15(1), 21-30.
Renshaw, T. L., Christensen, L., Marchant, M., & Anderson, T. (2008). Training el-ementary school general educators to implement function-based support. Edu-cation & Treatment of Children (West Virginia University Press), 495-521.
Rheams, T. A., & Bain, S. K. (2005). Social interaction interventions in an inclusive era: Attitudes of teachers in early childhood self-contained and inclusive settings. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 53-63.
Richards, G., & Clough, P. (2004). ITE students’ attitudes to inclusion. Research in Education, 72, 77-86.
Ring, E. (2005). Barriers to inclusion: A vignette of a pupil with severe learning difficulties in Ireland. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20(1), 41-56.
Ring, E., & Travers, J. (2005). Barriers to inclusion: A case study of a pupil with severe learning difficulties in Ireland. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20(1), 41-56.
Rizzo, T. L., & Vispoel, W. P. (1992). Changing attitudes about teaching students with handicaps. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,9(1), 54-63.
Rose, R. (2001). Primary school teacher perceptions of the conditions required to include pupils with special educational needs. Educational Review, 53(2), 147-156.
Rose, R., & Cole, C. (2002). Special and mainstream school collaboration for the promotion of inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 2(2), 1-17.
Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In C.I. Hovland & M.J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 1-14). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
References [
115
Rouse, M. (2010). Reforming initial teacher education: A necessary but not sufficient condition for developing inclusive practice. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Teacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative approaches (pp. 47–55). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Sadler, J. (2005). Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs of the mainstream teachers of children with apreschool diagnosis of speech/language impairment. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 21, 147-163.
Salisbury, C., Gallucci, C., Palombaro, M., &Peck, C. (1995). Strategies that promote social relations among elementary students with and without severe disabilities in inclusive schools. Exceptional Children, 62, 125-137.
Sarı, H. (2007). The influence of an in-service teacher training (INSET) program on attitudes towards inclusion by regular classroom teachers who teach deaf students in primary schools in Turkey. Deafness and Education International, 9(3), 31–46.
Sato, T., Hodge, S. R., Murata, N. M., & Maeda, J. K. (2007). Japanese physical education teachers’ beliefs about teaching students with disabilities. Sport, Education and Society, 12(2), 211-230.
Schumm, J. S., &Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers’ perspectives. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 18-27.
Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affective states. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (Vol. 2., pp. 527-561). New York: Guilford Press.
Scott, B.J., Vitale, M.R., & Masten, W.G. (1998). Implementing instructional adaptations for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms: A literature review. Remedial and Special Education, 19(2), 106-119.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1994). Successful mainstreaming in elementary science classes: A qualitative study of three reputational cases. American Education Research Journal, 31, 785-811.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74.
Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Casto, G. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single subject research methodology: Methodology and validation. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 8:24-33.
116
] References
Scruggs, T.E.,Mastropieri, M.A., Cook, S. B., & Escobar, C. (1986). Early intervention for children with conduct disorders: A quantitative synthesis of single-subject research. Behavioral Disorders, 11, 260-271.
Seçer, Z. (2010). An analysis of the effects of in-service teacher training on Turkish preschool teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(1), 43-53.
Shade, R. A., & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 46(1), 37-41.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre‐service teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23(7), 773-785.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Loreman, T., & Earle, C. (2006). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes, concerns and sentiments about inclusive education: An international comparison of the novice pre-service teacher. International Journal of Special Education, 21(2), 80–93.
Sharpe, T. L., & Koperwas, J. (2003). Behavior and sequential analysis: Principles and practice. Las Vegas: Sage.
Shippen, M. E., Crites, S. A., Houchins, D. E., Ramsey, M. L., & Simon, M. (2005). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of including students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 92. doi: 10.1177/088840640502800202.
Sledge, J., & Morehead, P. (2006, January). Teacher quality and teacher leadership. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on Education, USA. Retrieved from http://www.hiceducation.org/2006 Final Program.pdf
Smith, A., & Thomas, N. (2006). Including pupils with special educational needs and disabilities in National Curriculum Physical Education: A brief review. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(1), 69–83.
Smith, J., & Hilton, A. (1997). The preparation and training of the educational community for the inclusion of students with developmental disabilities: The MRDD position. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 32(1), 3-10.
Special Educational Needs and Disability Act, United Kingdom. (2001).
Srivastava, M., De Boer, A., & Pijl, S. J. (submitted). What are the needs of regular school teachers to include students with disabilities in India. Manuscript submitted for publication.
References [
117
Stanovich, J. P., & Jordan, A. (1998). ‘Canadian teachers’ and principals’ beliefs about inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 98(3), 221-238.
Stanovich, P. J. (1996). Collaboration: The key to successful instruction in today’s inclusive schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32(1), 32-39.
Stella, C. S. C., Forlin, C., & Lan, A. M. (2007). The influence of an inclusive education course on attitude change of pre-service secondary teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 161-179.
Stoiber, K. C., Gettinger, M., & Goetz, D. (1998). Exploring factors influencing parents’ and early childhood practitioners’beliefs about inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13(1), 107–124.
Subban, P., & Sharma, U. (2006/5?). Understanding educator attitudes toward the implementation of inclusive education. Disability Studies Quarterly, 25(2). Retrieved from http://www.dsq-sds.org.
Sugai, G. M., & Tindal, G. (1993). Effective School Consultation: An Interactive Approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Suk-Hwang, Y., & Evans, D. (2011). Attitudes towards inclusion: Gaps between belief and practice. International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 136-146.
Sunardi, Yusuf, M., Gunarhadi, Priyono, & Yeagerb, J. L. (2011). Excellence in Higher Education,2,1-10. Retrieved from http://ehe.pitt.edu. doi: 10.5195/ehe.2011.27
Tait, K., & Purdie, N. (2000). Attitudes toward disability: Teacher education for inclusive environments in an Australian university. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 47(1), 25–38.
Tarsidi, D. (2013, November 10). Implementation of inclusive education in Indonesia: A persons with disabilities’ perspective [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://d-tarsidi.blogspot.nl/2007/07/inclusiveeducationindonesia.html.
Trafimow, D., & Sheeran, P. (1998). Some tests of the distinction between cognitive and affective beliefs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(4), 378-397.
Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitudes measurement and methodology. In H. C. Triandis (Ed.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 26-59). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and the framework for action on special needs education. Paris: UNESCO.
118
] References
United Nations (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol. New York: United Nations.
Van der Veen, I., Smeets, E., & Derriks, M. (2010). Children with special educational needs in the Netherlands: Number, characteristics and school career. Educational Research, 52(1), 15-43.
Van-Reusen, A.K., Shoho, A.R., & Barker, K.S. (2001). High school teacher attitudes toward inclusion. High School Journal, 84(2), 7-20.
Van Tartwijk, J., & Hammerness, K. (2011). The neglected role of classroom management in teacher education. Teaching Education, 22(2), 109–112.
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Jallad, B., Slusher, J., & Saumell,L. (1996). Teachers’ views of inclusion. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11(2), 96-106.
Vignes, C., Coley, N., Grandjean, H., Godeau, E., & Arnaud, C. (2008). Measuring children’s attitudes towards peers with disabilities: A review of instruments. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 50(3), 182-189.
Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Meyers, H., & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 29-45.
Vislie, L. 2003. From integration to inclusion: Focusing global trends and changes in the western European societies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 18(1), 17– 35.
Warnock, M. (1979). Children with special needs: The Warnock Report. British Medical Journal, 1, 667-668.
Whinnery, K. W., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1991). General, special, and remedial teachers’acceptance of behavioral and instructional strategies for mainstreaming students withmild handicaps. Remedial and Special Education, 12(4), 6–17.
Wilkins, T., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2004). The effect of a school-wide inclusion training program upon teachers’ about inclusion. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 4, 115- 121.
Winter, E. C. (2006). Preparing new teachers for inclusive schools and classrooms. Support for Learning, 21(2), 85-91.
Wolery, M., & Anthony, L. (1997). Training elementary teachers to embed instruction during classroom activities. Education and Treatment of Children, 20(1), 40-58.
Worrell, J. L. (2008). How secondary schools can avoid the seven deadly schools “sins” of inclusion. American Secondary Education, 36(2), 43 – 56.
References [
119
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Wen-Yu Lee, S., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007, October).Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement.Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/rel_2007033.pdf.
Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 225–228.
120
121
Acknowledgements
122
] Acknowledgements
Working on a Ph. D is a kind of learning process for my academic and personal life. Throughout the Ph. D process I have learnt strategies to set up a good research and to write in a systematic way. This process also trained me skills to regulate myself, including how to keep high motivation and manage emotion. The accomplishment of the Ph. D, however, was supported by several people. Now, I take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank people who played a crucial role in this ‘learning process’.
First and foremost, I would like to deeply thank my supervisors, Prof. Alexander Minnaert, Prof. Frieda Mangunsong, Dr. Wondimu Ahmed, and Dr. Anke de Boer. For his outstanding contribution, critical reading, constructive comments, and sense of humour, I am grateful to Alexander. Frieda, your persuasive approach and friendly support gave me more energy everytime I must go back to Groningen. I still remember our long distance discussion somewhere in winter last year. You were very supportive and lively although it was very late in Jakarta (Jakarta was 6 hours ahead). Wondimu, thank you for your guidance in my first halfway of the Ph. D. We discussed a lot about methodology and statistics. Anke, although you just joined us later, you also played a critical role in the supervision team. You decided to join precisely at the moment when I most needed somebody with whom I can share both ideas and concerns. I also like your optimism and the importance of organization you always suggested in the writing process. My special appreciation goes to the members of the assessment committee, Prof. Conny R. Semiawan, Prof. Sip Pijl, and Prof. D. van Veen for accepting my thesis.
I am indebted to Prof. Bert Creamers who introduced me to Alexander. I met Bert during his visit to Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia. Although Alexander has sent me a letter of acceptance in the beginning of 2007, I officially began my Ph. D at the University of Groningen on May 2010. I cancelled to start my Ph. D due to my parents’ health. I am very much thankful to Prof. Sutarlinah Soekadji who kept encouraging and supporting me to pursue a Ph. D abroad. She believed that study abroad could expose me with a different academic environment and new experience in research which is good for myself and later also for my students.
My heartfelt appreciation is also given to the participants of the study. I thank the teachers and principals of sampled primary schools in Jakarta and Depok for accepting to involve in. To my research assistants, Dewi, Ajeng, Nova, and Banyo, thank you. You all did a great job! Widayatri Sekka Udaranti and Sari Zakiah Akmal, thank you for your invaluable assistance in the video analysis. Gugah Bawono, thank you for speedy response whenever I got computer-related problems. Conny Semiawan, Sugeng Riyanto, and Alexander also took care of the Dutch translation of thesis Summary. Pratiwi Widyasari, thank you for being my partner in preparing a lay out of the thesis, and Aditya Sonihaya for a beautiful cover design (and lay out). I thank Gerda van den Hooff for her warm assistance, especially when I got difficulties in keeping a contact with Alexander. Because of you I felt Jakarta – Groningen was just a 5 minute distance. I also thank to Daly Erni, Derriansyah Saputra, Henry Been, Agnes Bugel, and Hans Knot for taking care of the financial and administrative needs of my study at the University of Groningen.
In a special way, I would like to thank Puri. You picked me up at Groningen station and brought me to my ‘new’ family in Groningen. Tante Tini and Om Fred Berg, you made my stay in Groningen pleasant. It was a blessing to find you in
Acknowledgements [
123
Groningen. To Ika Widyariani, you helped me to settle down in Groningen at first days. You guided me to ‘Rozenstraat 38’, and introduced bus lijn 3 Vinkhuizen – Lewenborg. I very much appreciate the care you showed me. Tante Hanna de Jong, tante Tati and om Bokken, thank you for making me feel at home. To the family of Gereja Bethel Indonesia in Groningen (I say some of them: Louis, Jenny, Ela, koh Jeffrey, Winarto, Laura), you opened the door for me as if I am belong to you. I am grateful to you. To Rini Braak, thank you for sharing your good moments in my home country.
I would like to thank colleagues at the Department of Special Needs Education for their friendship and support: Maartje, Jorith, Erika, Annelies, Gustav. I am particularly grateful to Kim and Meenakshi with whom I shared ups and downs in pursuing the Ph.D. Kim, you welcomed me since the very beginning of my stay in Groningen. Meenakshi, we spent much time together during lunch break and after working hours in the park and city center. We shared our happiness and sorrow. To Ridwan and Azky, thank you for our evening moments. To my colleagues from Universitas Indonesia: Yeti, Tulus, Debby, Ike, and Agnes, maju terus, pantang mundur.
My big family at Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Indonesia, I thank for your constant encouragement: Romy Prianto, Gagan Hartana, Puji Prianto, Lucy Royanto, Iin Sitorus, Linda Primana, Dieny Tjokro, Miranda Zarfiel, Evita Singgih, Reni Hawadi, Airin Saleh, Eva Barlianto, Patricia Adam, Fannie Indrasari, Wuri Prasetyawati, Dianti Kusumawardhani. I also thank to Anik Maryani, Helmi Ruspini, and Sarija for their support. I extend my gratitude to Dr. Wilman Dahlan, a former dean, and Dr. Tjut Rifameutia, a dean of Faculty of Psychology for offering me the opportunity to pursue and complete the Ph. D.
For my parents, thank you for your unconditional love and endless prayers. You, together with my brothers, also took care of my own family when I was away. Bapak, engkau pergi sebelum melihat keberhasilan ini. Semoga Bapak bisa merasakan kebahagiaan kami. Ibu, engkau selalu mengingatkanku agar sabar dan ikhlas dalam menjalani kehidupan ini. Inilah buah kesabaran dan keikhlasan itu. To my beloved Fathur, I am very proud of you!
Above all, I am grateful to God Almighty for all the blessing on me throughout my Ph. D.
