Perceived Efficacy of Teachers in Macao and Their Alacrity to Engage with Inclusive Education

International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

Perceived efficacy of teachers in Macao and their alacrity to engage with inclusive education

Elisa Monteiro, Angus C. H. Kuok, Ana M. Correia, Chris Forlin & Vitor Teixeira

To cite this article: Elisa Monteiro, Angus C. H. Kuok, Ana M. Correia, Chris Forlin & Vitor Teixeira (2018): Perceived efficacy of teachers in Macao and their alacrity to engage with inclusive education, International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1514762 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1514762

Published online: 29 Aug 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 11

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1514762

Perceived eﬃcacy of teachers in Macao and their alacrity to engage with inclusive education Elisa Monteiroa, Angus C. H. Kuoka, Ana M. Correia a, Chris Forlin b and Vitor Teixeiraa aSchool of Education; Faculty of Social Sciences, University of St. Joseph, Macao, People’s Republic of China; bInternational Inclusive Education Consultant, Bayswater, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS This paper reports findings of a mixed methods study examining Inclusive education; teacher private school teachers’ perceptions of efficacy in dealing with the efficacy; teacher education; challenges presented by inclusive education in Macao. This is Macao highly pertinent after the Government invited consultation to propose changes to amendments of the Decree Law of 1996 concerning the education of students with Special Education Needs (SEN) which will likely see private schools being required to accept these students in the future. Within the context of teacher preparedness for inclusive education, the study found that a number of teachers felt that they were not at all prepared to teach students with SEN. Whilst some teachers suggested that they lacked skills and knowledge in teaching in inclusive classrooms, some felt overwhelmed with the challenges. The teachers proposed that they would need to know how to provide instructional adaptations and modifications to support students with SEN. Implications for continuous development of teacher training and education are discussed within the context of improving teacher efficacy and how private school teachers could better respond to the challenges of inclusive education in Macao.

Introduction

As a former Portuguese colony, Macao was returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1999 and is now a special administrative region (SAR) of the People’s Republic of China. Although it remains an autonomous territory, it is under the one country two systems rule. Situated in Southern China with an area of approximately 30.5 square kilometres, Macao is considered the most densely populated region in the world. Its economy is heavily dependent upon gambling and tourism. Under Portuguese rule the education system developed mainly from private organisations rather than government. In the 2016–17 school year the majority of students (>96%) were educated in the 64 private schools with the government providing a further 10 schools. In the same year, approximately one half of the private schools and nine government schools were accepting students with mild special needs in the regular classroom. Some students were also included in special education classes and others in segregated special schools. The majority of students with special

CONTACT Chris Forlin [email protected] © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2 E. MONTEIRO ET AL. education needs were either educated in public schools or in segregated private schools. In the Macao context special education is considered to be education that is provided to students with moderate to high support needs for a disability. This is provided through a regime of segregated special schools that are mainly provided by non-government agencies or religious groups. Only students with mild disabilities who can achieve the same learning outcomes as their peers are included in regular schools. Similar to Hong Kong, Macao has a strong Confucian heritage and deep-rooted tra- ditions regarding children with disabilities (Tait, Mundia, and Fung 2014), and transform- ing schools into inclusive environments has been slow. Regular school teachers in Macao have, therefore, had limited exposure to students with special educational needs and further report that they have received insufficient training about special or inclusive education (Forlin 2011). In Macao the education law (Decreto-Lei n.° 33/96/M, Governo de Macao 2015 ) aims to provide equity in education (Direcção dos Serviços de Educação e Juventude, 2015). This law also addresses the provision of special education (Lau and Yuen 2010). In 2015, the Government invited consultation to propose changes to amendments of this law (Teixeira et al. 2018). In particular, aspects associated with supporting learners with special education needs (SEN) were to be revised. The consultation document proposed that changes be made in the special education system and instigated discussion about inclusive education (Direcção dos Serviços de Educação e Juventude 2015). These proposed changes to the legislation are likely to impact on schools and teachers. Schools will need to restructure themselves if they are to expand their intake to cater for increasing numbers of students with SEN. In addition, teachers will need to be better prepared to accommodate the diversity of this new entry of students. Private schools in Macao are faced with difficulties in hiring teachers with either experience in teaching students with SEN or training in inclusive education. Findings from previous cross-cultural research (Malinen, Savolainen, and Xu 2012) have linked experience in teaching students with disabilities with positive attitudes, beliefs, and an increased sense of efficacy. It is thus very important to develop empirical research on teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and efficacy about teaching in inclusive settings, to know whether the move for including all learners is being well supported by teachers’ attitudes about the process. Without teachers’ willingness and preparedness, it will not be possible to effectively translate the new legislation into inclusive practices. Research findings (e.g. Copfer and Specht 2014) have demonstrated that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about disability and their responsibility to nurture and teach students with SEN are paramount in the pursuit to change schools from a segregated education system to more inclusive one. In order to work effectively in inclusive settings, it is not sufficient to only possess positive attitudes and beliefs towards people with disability/inclusion. A sense of efficacy is necessary. Teacher efficacy is defined as a belief in their capability to carry out the planning and delivering actions required to successfully teach diverse students. It is not just about whether teachers can ‘handle’ the inclusive classroom, but also about their confidence in choosing the strategies that promote success (Lancaster 2014). It has been found that teacher efficacy affects teacher levels of effort, planning, organisation, persistence, and reliance on others. ‘Specifically, teachers with a high sense of efficacy utilise more behaviours that have the potential to enhance student learning and motivation’ (Lancaster 2014, 240). Previous research also suggests that teachers’ efficacy affects teachers’ INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 3 classroom management skills (Ahsan, Sharma, and Deppeler 2012; Park et al. 2016). Indeed, Martin, Linfoot, and Stephenson (1999) proposed that teachers’ responses to classroom misbehaviour may be mediated by their confidence with their ability to deal with student behaviour. Applied to the teaching field, Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy (Bandura 1977) suggests that teachers with a low sense of efficacy may put less effort in their work, may be easily overwhelmed by challenges, and may be more uncertain on their capability to affect the students’ outcomes. Within the field of education, a number of researchers have used the concept of efficacy to investigate teachers’ perspectives and several scales have been developed to measure this (e.g. Malinen, Savolainen, and Xu 2012). Another area of need in regard to preparing for inclusive education is that of teacher preparation. The need for more education about inclusive education consistently appears in the literature (McCullough 2005). A lack of appropriate or sufficient teacher education is considered a potential reason as to why children with disabilities are unable to access school (Save the Children 2009). Specifically, teacher education institutions do not appear to be preparing teachers, during their initial training, with the skills to cater for diversity in the mainstream classroom (e.g. Sharma et al. 2006; Singh 2009). Further, ongoing teacher education is similarly a significant factor in the success of inclusive education (Leko and Roberts 2014). Teaching in an inclusive classroom will require training to help prepare teachers to use differentiated instruction, assessment, and learning strategies for mixed-ability classrooms (Tomlinson 2014). Teacher education programmes must consider the attitudes, beliefs, and concerns of teachers and ensure that they provide the most appropriate preparation to enable them to be better prepared for inclusive education (Sharma et al. 2006). This is particularly pertinent as it is reported that substantial training continues to be found to result in more positive attitudes towards inclusion (Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden 2000; Weisel and Dror 2006) and increased efficacy about inclusion (Malinen, Savolainen, and Xu 2012). While teacher education is important, it has also been noted in the Asian region that by itself this will not enable greater inclusion. Training needs to be supplemented by a change in mindset about how students learn and system-wide changes to curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment to provide the necessary attitude to support inclusive education (Forlin and Sin 2010). If teachers are to become active inclusive practitioners, then they need to be able to collaborate effectively with colleagues and a range of paraprofessionals and parents (Carr, Herman, and Harris 2005; Groom and Rose 2005 ; Paulsen 2008). Teachers who are competent in collaborating with others and managing disruptive behaviours are considered to be more likely efficacious when teaching in an inclusive classroom (Sharma, Loreman, and Forlin 2012). Positive correlations have also been reported between teacher democratic beliefs, teacher efficacy, and effective strategies to work with students with difficult behaviour problems (Almog and Shechtman 2007). Collaboration is frequently emphasised as a key component as an effective tool to support inclusion and student needs in inclusive classrooms (Loreman 2010; Loreman, Deppeler, and Harvey 2005). Collaboration with colleagues has been seen as the key coping aspect for overcoming teachers’ concerns around inclusion (Forlin, Keen, and Barrett 2008). The success to inclusion and access to core curriculum for all students will require collaboration between classroom and paraprofessionals, continuous 4 E. MONTEIRO ET AL. assessment for learning and response to early intervention. Teachers need to build their practice in ensuring that all students benefit from quality teaching in an inclusive classroom. Lack of collaboration between teachers and other stakeholders may include concerns about implementation, lack of training in collaborative skill, and lack of communication efforts (Copfer and Specht 2014; Montgomery and Mirenda 2014). Concerning inclusive education, the scale created by Sharma, Loreman, and Forlin (2012), Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP), is specifically designed to measure teachers’ efficacy for inclusive settings. The TEIP scale has been used to analyse pre- service teachers’ differences in efficacy to teach inclusive classrooms in Canada, Australia, Indonesia, and Hong Kong (Loreman, Sharma, and Forlin 2013). In 2014, it was also used in Bangladesh (Park et al. 2016) and in Canada (Copfer and Specht 2014). The TEIP scale was recently applied in Hong Kong by Chao, Forlin, and Ho (2016) to measure teachers’ changes in efficacy following a short training programme aimed to improve their efficacy for working in inclusive classrooms. The latter study is particularly significant to Macao due to the commonalities between Hong Kong and Macao cultures. This research was, therefore, designed to investigate teachers perceived efficacy and alacrity about the proposed move forward towards greater inclusive educational practices in Macao.

Method

This study adopted a mixed methods research approach as a means for enriching the research data and providing a fuller picture of the study. Numerical data were gathered from the TEIP scale and the qualitative data included semi-structured interviews.

Teacher efficacy for inclusive practice (TEIP) The TEIP scale consists of 18 items scored on a six-item Likert scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = disagree somewhat, 4 = agree somewhat, 5 = agree, and 6 = strongly agree. The TEIP scale has three distinct subscales related to three aspects of inclusive education: (1) Efficacy in managing behaviour, (2) Efficacy in instruction, and (3) Efficacy in collaboration. The English and Chinese versions of the scales were used for the present study and administered to the teachers according to their pre- ferred language. The quantitative data were analysed by using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 23.

Semi-structured interviews A series of 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted with teachers to gain greater depth of knowledge of their perceived eﬃcacy and alacrity towards inclusive education. The data collected were used to support the analysis of the questionnaires. The interviews were conducted in English or Cantonese by a bilingual research assistant depending upon the teachers’ preference. Each interview was audio recorded to preserve the integrity of the data and ease of transcribing. The transcripts that were in Chinese were all translated into English and were analysed through data summary and reduction techniques and content analysis with NVivo software version 11. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 5

Participants

The questionnaires were administered to 754 teachers in total from seven private schools in Macao who reported themselves as accepting students with SEN. Finally, 508 questionnaires were returned giving a total response rate of 68.8% ranging from 57.7% to 96.5%. The teachers in the study included 508 full-time (91 Kindergarten, 198 Primary, 249 Sec- ondary, 3 Special Education) teachers from private schools in Macao. The teachers com- prised of 385 (85.4%) females, 111 (12.9%) males, and 12 teachers (1.8%) did not disclose their gender. Approximately half of the teachers (49.1%) had received some training, 13.1% had received extensive training, and 37.8% of the participants indicated no training in inclusive education. A nonrandom purposive sampling technique was used, which relies on the judgment of the researcher to specify the characteristics of the population of interest and deliberately locate individuals with those characteristics (Johnson and Christensen 2012). Interviews were arranged through the principals of the schools. Interviews were conducted at the schools providing a surrounding convenient for and familiar to the participants.

Results

Teachers were asked to respond to all items within each of the subscales. These related to their perceptions of efficacy in dealing with a range of aspects associated with inclusive education. To identify further teachers’ perceived efficacy in creating inclusive learning environments, and whether these varied according to demographics, a series of one-way (between subjects) analysis of variance were undertake on the three subscales of the TEIP. Demographics included teacher’s age, gender, level of training, knowledge of laws and policy related to students with disability, confidence in teaching students with SEN, medium of instruction, and mode of education. Post hoc analyses were performed when significant results were found using Tukey’s procedure. Effect sizes were calculated using analysis of variance (ANOVA) to ascertain the effect sizes of significant interactions between participants and the demographic variables. Teachers’ perceptions about their own confidence to teach students with SEN varied. While 22 teachers expressed a very low level of confidence and another 100 had a low level, 299 believed that they had an average level. Of all the teachers, only 83 indicated a high level of confidence in teaching students with SEN.

Teacher efficacy for dealing with disruptive behaviour Results for the six items in the managing disruptive behaviour subscale indicated that teachers were fairly positive and confident about handling all types of misbehaviour in their classes (Table 1). They were, however, the least confident with dealing with students who were physically aggressive. The ANOVA results indicated that significant differences were found for all of the demographic variables with the subscale of teacher efficacy in dealing with disruptive behaviour. With increased knowledge, confidence, and training about including students with SEN there was a similar increase in perceived efficacy (Table 2). The highest effect sizes were obtained for level of confidence in teaching students with SEN. Similarly, an 6 E. MONTEIRO ET AL.

Table 1. Means and SD for the TEIP subscale of disruptive behaviour. M SD Total scale score 4.49 0.63 I can make my expectations clear about student behaviour. 4.78 0.71 I am able to get children to follow classroom rules. 4.72 0.75 I am able to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy. 4.58 0.76 I can control disruptive behaviour in the classroom. 4.57 0.83 I am confident in my ability to prevent disruptive behaviour in the classroom before it occurs. 4.51 0.84 I am confident when dealing with students who are physically aggressive. 3.76 1.09 Notes: Mean responses range from 1 (Strongly Disagree); 2 (Disagree); 3 (Disagree Somewhat); 4 (Agree Somewhat); 5 (Agree); 6 (Strongly Agree). increase in teacher’s age was related to improved efficacy. Significant differences were also found with male teachers, those using English as the MOI, and those working in inclusive classrooms; all indicating higher efficacy in dealing with disruptive behaviour. From the interviews, it became apparent that teachers with less teaching experience often encountered more behavioural challenges from students with SEN. Teachers reported that these behaviours significantly interfered with the students’ learning and the learning of their peers. Teachers reported that students may exhibit externalising behaviours such as compulsive behaviours or oppositional behaviours. For example, one teacher remarked:

Sometimes we have a hard time understanding why a child is behaving in a certain manner, or having such emotions. For example, if a child has a visual problem, he can’t see clearly and write properly. This we can understand. But why a child suddenly sits on the ﬂoor in the middle of the class. This I can’t understand, I’m not sure how to handle it. (T4) As reported by some of the teachers, many students with SEN exhibit behaviours such as being noncompliant or they have compulsive behaviours. Given these characteristics, teachers felt they needed more training in classroom management in inclusive classrooms. For example, one teacher commented:

We need speciﬁc training for deeper knowledge on how to handle students with behavioural problems, AD/HD, emotional exertions. (T16)

Table 2. One-way between subjects ANOVA for teacher efficacy for dealing with disruptive behaviour. Variable Significance Results Age Sign F(3, 498) = 9.789, p = .000, ƞ Older ≥ Efficacy DB = .059 Gender Sign F(1, 491) = 4.684, p = .031, ƞ Males > Females = .009 Level of Sign between none with some & high groups. More training > F(2, 490) = 5.772, p = .003, ƞ training Efficacy DB = .022 Knowledge Sign between good with none, poor & average F(3, 499) = 13.132, p = .000, ƞ Higher knowledge > Efficacy DB = .073 Confidence Sign between High and very low, low & average F(3, 498) = 27.506, p = .000, ƞ Higher confidence > Efficacy DB = .142 MOI Sign F(1, 491) = 6.416, p = .012, ƞ English MOI > Chinese = .013 Mode Sign F(1, 501) = 12.607, p = .000, ƞ Inclusive classrooms > Efficacy than regular classrooms = .024 Notes: Sign = significant p < .05; ƞ =effect size; Confidence = in teaching students with SEN; Knowledge = laws and policy related to students with disability; MOI = Main medium of instruction; Mode = regular or inclusive class. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 7

Another teacher remarked on the need for more training to handle behavioural and emotional problems of students with SEN:

Teachers need more training on how to handle emotional diﬃculties. I think emotion and social skills training is essential and very helpful. Speciﬁc training should include real classroom situations for teachers to observe and learn how to intervene. (T18)

Teacher efficacy for collaborating with parents and paraprofessionals Table 3 provides a summary of the results. The collaborating with parents and parapro- fessional subscale contains six items. Overall, the teachers agreed somewhat with their perceived efficacy in collaborating with a range of people in relation to the inclusion of students with disabilities. They were, nonetheless, unsure about informing others about laws and policies relating to the inclusion of students with disabilities. Inclusive education invariably requires considerable collaboration between the regular class teacher, parents, and other peripatetic staff. For teachers’ perceptions about their efficacy in relation to collaborating with parents and paraprofessionals, significant differences were found for most of the independent variables. With increased knowledge, confidence, and training about including students with SEN there was a comparable increase in perceived efficacy for collaboration by the teachers (Table 4). Again, level of confidence had the highest effect size closely followed by knowledge of policy and legislation about inclusive education. Correspondingly, an increase in teacher’s age was related to improved efficacy. Significant differences were also found with teachers using English as the MOI, and those working in inclusive classrooms; all indicating higher efficacy in collaborating with parents and paraprofessionals. During the interviews teachers expressed the need for communicating and collaborating with other members of the school community, including paraprofessionals whose con- tributions were deemed vital to the preparation of individual planning in the form of an Individualised Education Plan (IEP). Comments from some of the teachers indicated a need for collaboration:

Many teachers lack training on how to teach SEN. I think real practice and practical training and techniques is important for me. We usually have to deal with co-morbid cases and have to handle the situations immediately. We do not have enough skills and training. We need to share and work with other teachers to resolve the cases involved with SEN. (T19)

Table 3. TEIP subscale of teacher efficacy for collaborating with parents and paraprofessionals. M SD Total scale score 4.19 0.69 I can make parents feel comfortable coming to school. 4.59 0.80 I can assist families in helping their children do well in school. 4.39 0.79 I am able to work jointly with other professionals and staff (e.g. aides, other teachers) to teach students with 4.39 0.94 disabilities in the classroom. I can collaborate with other professionals (e.g. social workers and school counsellors; resource teachers) in 4.20 1.03 designing educational plans for students with disabilities. I am confident in my ability to get parents involved in school activities of their children with disabilities. 4.06 0.88 I am confident in informing others who know little about laws and policies relating to the inclusion of 3.54 1.13 students with disabilities. Notes: Mean responses range from 1 (Strongly Disagree); 2 (Disagree); 3 (Disagree Somewhat); 4 (Agree Somewhat); 5 (Agree); 6 (Strongly Agree). 8 E. MONTEIRO ET AL.

Table 4. One-way between subjects ANOVA for teacher efficacy in collaboration. Variable Significance Results Age Sign F(3, 498) = 5.589, p = .001, ƞ = .033 Greater age < Efficacy Collaboration Gender Not Sign F(1, 491) = 0.012, p = .914 Level of training Sign between all 3 groups. More training < efficacy collaboration F(2, 490) = 12.819, p = .000, ƞ = .050 Knowledge Sign between good with none, poor & average F(3, 499) = 20.963, p = .000, ƞ Higher knowledge < efficacy collaboration = .112 Confidence Sign between High and very low, low & average F(3, 498) = 29.653, p = .000, ƞ Higher confidence < efficacy collaboration = .152 MOI Sign F(1, 491) = 23.352, p = .000, ƞ English < Chinese Efficacy collaboration = .045 Mode Sign F(1, 501) = 30.066, p = .000, ƞ Inclusive schools < Reg Schools Efficacy collaboration = .057 Notes: Sign = significant p < .05; ƞ =effect size; Confidence = in teaching students with SEN; Knowledge = laws and policy related to students with disability; MOI = Main medium of instruction; Mode = regular or inclusive class. There were, however, no significant differences for gender with all teachers indicating the same levels of efficacy when collaborating with their peers.

Support from the administrators and the principal is very important. To carry out inclusive practices, I think that it’s important to start from the top to the bottom so that all stakeholders work together. (T1) Another important role deemed by the teachers was the need to collaborate with the parents of the students with SEN. Some teachers believed that with greater participation from parents, teachers, and paraprofessionals they would be able to better support students with SEN.

Teacher efficacy for inclusive instruction The overall mean response by teachers for the six items in the subscale on their perceived efficacy for inclusive education indicated positive agreement with those relating to pedagogy (Table 5). The teachers were confident in being able to support students in their learning, organise group work, provide appropriate challenging curricula, and assess learning. They were less confident in designing learning tasks so that the individual needs of students with disabilities could be accommodated. Significant differences were, additionally, found between teachers in their perceived efficacy for inclusive instruction. The ANOVA results showed that with increased knowledge, confidence, and training about including students with SEN there was a parallel

Table 5. Teacher’sefficacy for inclusive education. M SD Total scale score 4.50 0.61 I am able to provide an alternate explanation or example when students are confused. 4.69 0.76 I am confident in my ability to get students to work together in pairs or in small groups. 4.68 0.83 I can provide appropriate challenges for very capable students. 4.59 0.80 I can accurately gauge student comprehension of what I have taught. 4.50 0.74 I can use a variety of assessment strategies (e.g. portfolio assessment, modified tests, performance-based 4.45 0.95 assessment, etc.). I am confident in designing learning tasks so that the individual needs of students with disabilities are 4.04 0.99 accommodated. Notes: Mean responses range from 1 (Strongly Disagree); 2 (Disagree); 3 (Disagree Somewhat); 4 (Agree Somewhat); 5 (Agree); 6 (Strongly Agree). INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 9 increase in perceived efficacy by the teachers (Table 6). Likewise, an increase in teacher’s age was related to improved teacher efficacy. Significant differences were also found with male teachers, those using English as the MOI, and those working in inclusive classrooms, all indicating higher efficacy for inclusive instruction. Level of confidence had the highest effect size. The overall responses from the interviews show that some teachers felt unprepared to teach in inclusive classrooms and were unsure of how to differentiate the curriculum. For example, two teachers stated that:

For us, it’s still the lack of experience of teaching, and the teachers always come and go, so not many accommodations are done for students because the experience is not there, we don’t know what to do with them. (T6) and

For me is the specific knowledge for specific type of inclusive student, I don’t know or have enough knowledge. When we have an ADHD or autistic student (sic), what should I do and what teaching strategy is better? Should it be different from the traditional way of teaching (direct instruction)? (T11) Teachers also recommended that there was going to be a need for specific training, for example:

For inclusive education, counselling will need to learn more therapeutic techniques. More speciﬁc for autism, or other special needs student. I want to learn something like a set of sys- tematic framework or strategy to help these inclusive students. (T15)

Emotions and social skill training is essential and very helpful. Learn how to lead small group. Learn how to provide a real life social situation for us to observe and do some intervention. More training on emotional behaviour difficulties. (T3) One teacher without specific training for inclusive education voiced concerns as a prac- titioner in a school accepting students with SEN and admitted to relying on intuition while interacting with students: ‘I don’t have any specific training … I do according to my own gut feelings’ (T6). Within the context of teacher preparedness for inclusive education, a number of teachers felt that they were not fully prepared to teach students with SEN. Whilst some teachers suggested that they lacked skills and knowledge in teaching in inclusive classrooms,

Table 6. One-way between subjects ANOVA for teacher efficacy for providing inclusive instruction. Variable Significance Results Age Sign F(3, 498) = 3.294, p = .020, ƞ = .019 Older ≥ efficacy II Gender Not Sign F(1, 491) = 0.250, p = .617 Level of training Sign between all 3 groups. More trainingr ≥ Efficacy II F(2, 490) = 10.483, p = .000, ƞ = .041 Confidence Sign between High and very low, low & average F(3, 498) = 28.904, p = .000, ƞ = .148 Higher confidencer ≥ efficacy II Knowledge Sign between good with none, poor & average F(3, 499) = 9.153, p = .000, ƞ = .052 Higher knowledger ≥ Efficacy II MOI Sign F(1, 491) = 39.275, p = .000, ƞ = .074 English < Chinese for II Efficacy Mode Sign F(1, 501) = 23.630, p = .000, ƞ = .045 Inclusive schools < Reg Schools for efficacy in II Notes: Sign = significant p < .05; ƞ =effect size; Confidence = in teaching students with SEN; Knowledge = laws and policy related to students with disability; MOI = Medium of instruction; Mode = regular or inclusive class. 10 E. MONTEIRO ET AL. some said they were overwhelmed with the challenges, for example, one teacher stated that, ‘The challenge is that I’m afraid of this group of inclusive students … if we do not distribute these students to other schools they become too concentrated in a few schools, our work will be very heavy. Become really difficult’ (T5). A few teachers expressed feelings of anxiety and their ability to cope when teaching in inclusive classrooms, viewing themselves as being under-trained or under-skilled to meet the challenges of managing specific behaviour or teaching practice in diverse classrooms.

Discussion

This research revealed a number of factors associated with teachers’ attitude to and perceived efficacy in managing behaviour, efficacy in instruction and collaboration in inclusive schools. Overall, within the context of teacher preparedness for inclusive education, the study found that teachers in private schools in Macao felt that they were not prepared to teach students with SEN. This is quite concerning considering that while Macao has pre- viously acknowledged the need for a range of placement options within the same mainstream school (Forlin 2011), the proposed amendments to the Decree Law continue to emphasise that inclusive education is to be one option while retaining integration and seg- regation options (Teixeira et al. 2018). If teachers believe they are not ready for inclusive education this is likely to increase their selection of an alternative non-inclusive option for students with SEN. With respect to teacher efficacy for dealing with disruptive behaviour, the results revealed that teachers were generally confident about handling classroom misbehaviour, but least confident with students showing physical aggressiveness. The study also found that the less teaching experience teachers had, the more challenges the teachers faced with classroom management of students with SEN. This study provides support for the general notion that existing knowledge and efficacy influences teachers’ classroom management skills (Ahsan, Sharma, and Deppeler 2012). The findings also suggest that teachers most effective in dealing with misbehaviour are those teachers with most confidence in their ability to teach students with SEN and those who have more years of teaching experience. Given these characteristics, teachers clearly require more training in the area to be better prepared to increase their classroom behaviour management plans – especially new teachers in inclusive classrooms. The study found that with increased knowledge, confidence, and training, there is an increase in perceived efficacy for collaborating with other teachers, parents, and other peripatetic staff. The findings highlight important issues proposed earlier by Forlin, Keen, and Barrett (2008) and Loreman (2010) that resonate the importance of collaboration among teachers and stakeholders, especially the need for school wide teacher collaboration. Inclusive education invariably requires considerable collaboration between the regular class teacher, parents, and other paraprofessionals. The involvement of parents in all stages of the educational process was also viewed by the teachers as paramount. Indeed, the success to inclusion and access to core curriculum for all students in private schools in Macao, like elsewhere, will require collaboration between classroom and paraprofessionals, continuous assessment for learning and response to early intervention. Tea- chers, however, will also need to build their practice in ensuring that all students benefit from quality teaching in an inclusive classroom. Barriers to collaboration and collaborative INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 11 partnerships at the classroom level and whole school level in some schools may include issues around implementation and the lack of sufficiently trained paraprofessionals in the field (Copfer and Specht 2014; Montgomery and Mirenda 2014). Collaboration in teaching and planning of implementation of inclusive schools in Macao should be stressed more by school management as well as in teacher development programmes. Although the Education and Youth Affairs Bureau (DSEJ) launched a mentoring programme in 2010 to provide support to teachers and parents, many teachers still expressed grave concern with the reality of implementing inclusive education within the school’s everyday life. More mentoring opportunities that are intentionally and systematically promoted in a structured process by identifying good mentors and providing benefits for being available for this role will go some way towards alleviating these concerns. The overall responses from the data also indicate that some teachers felt unprepared to teach in inclusive classrooms and were unsure of how to differentiate the curriculum. Although the majority of teachers were accepting of inclusive education, some expressed feelings of anxiety and their ability to cope when teaching in inclusive classrooms, viewing themselves as being under-trained to meet the demands of managing specific behaviour or teaching practice in diverse classrooms. Along with the teachers’ knowledge of what they lack about implementing inclusion, they expressed concern over the lack of ongoing inclusive training in schools that accommodate students with SEN. In addition to the changes proposed in the consultation document, the need for formal training for teachers about inclusive education was highly rated by teachers with support for individualising curriculum for students with SEN. The teachers suggested that there was a critical need to establish structures at both a whole school and classroom level to support the teaching and learning of students with SEN and to promote inclusive practices. The teachers themselves were aware that they currently work only within a limited scope and have very little knowledge of inclusive education. The study reinforces the need for teacher training institutions to offer training for both general and inclusive education (Leko and Roberts 2014; Singh 2009). The current teacher education programmes in Macao appear to be inadequate in meeting the needs of teachers to meet the growing numbers of students with SEN, particularly for these teachers working in private schools. Furthermore, unless teachers can access ongoing teacher training in inclusive education they will have little or no experience of the realities of teaching in inclusive classrooms. Having the ability to be able to differentiate instruction and to adopt a range of pedagogies to ensure that children with SEN are able to access the curriculum is critical to ensuring the success of inclusive education (Malinen, Savolainen, and Xu 2012; Tomlinson 2014). It was evident from the responses of these Macao teachers that increased knowledge, confidence, and training about including students with SEN was associated with an increase in perceived efficacy to implement inclusive instructions. Older teachers and males and those working in schools where English was the MOI and in particular those teaching in inclusive classes, all indicated higher efficacy for inclusive instruction.

Implications

The data from the TEIP scale and interviews point to a central role for the teacher to collaborate with paraprofessionals, parents, and school community as well as the need for 12 E. MONTEIRO ET AL. extensive training in inclusive education to increase teacher eﬃcacy in preparing an inclusive curriculum. The results of this study have a number of implications for teachers within the private school system in Macao.

Collaboration Working with others is highly valued by the teachers. The feeling of not being alone and sharing responsibilities and experiences might be protective against emotional exhaustion within the private school system. Particularly, the more experienced, knowledgeable, and confident teachers could be an effective support to the younger and less experienced ones. Highly confident and experienced teachers who were clearly more efficacious about their role and their ability to collaborate could be used as mentors for newly graduated teachers. Creating more opportunities for novice teachers to be mentored by more experienced inclusive teachers would provide in-school support where they could observe good practices, receive informed validation by recognised competent peers, and get feedback on their developing practices. Planning strategically for including students with SEN implies shared school policy objectives related to what is expected to be achieved as an outcome for all children. Respect- ing the culture and tradition of each school by defining plans of action and practical measures to achieve objectives by identifying the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders; establishing the mechanisms of communication and sharing information; organ- ising schedules for meetings and discussions; and preparing suitable documents and instruments to be used to confirm the needs of students with SEN, are all critical for whole school planning. It is also important to define procedures to evaluate whether the school is achieving the expected outcomes. As private schools in Macao remain independent it is important to define well-planned and documented procedures to promote a collaborative whole school approach to create real inclusive education teams that could meet the government requirements promoted in the consultation document. Without these teams, individual teachers will continue to face challenges they will find hard to overcome. More than individual professionals for specific assignments (e.g. the counsellor, the resource teacher, the speech therapist, etc.) every private school should have a support team with at least one resource teacher trained in special and inclusive education. This Inclusive Support Team (IST) would need to work closely with the principal and the heads of all the other departments to provide guidance and support for implementing a whole school approach to inclusive practice. Within each school, it would be important to recognise the value and status of the resource and special education teachers with a career, salary, and working conditions at least similar to those of their class teacher colleagues.

Inclusive curriculum The problems that many students with SEN face can be addressed or moderated by early intervention. For example, providing instructional supports to assist students at an early stage and closely monitoring them to provide rich learning experiences can be highly effective early intervention strategies (Barrett 2014). Some of the common teaching adjust- ments or modifications can include preparing a different test or exam paper, providing INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 13 additional classes, or having an assistant in class helping the student during the lesson to help regulate and monitor their thinking and behaviour. Structuring lessons to provide for all students’ needs should form part of regular planning. Consideration of diversity when conducting lessons, setting and correcting home- work, giving feedback, designing assessments including tests and exams are all part of the role of an inclusive teacher. If schools have the recommended Inclusive Support Team it will be possible for teachers to access the support they need to become inclusive curriculum planners. If inclusive education is to become a reality in private schools in Macao the needs of students with SEN must be paramount and suitable modification must be provided for them. Teachers should be required to acknowledge in their curriculum planning how they will accommodate the needs of any students with SEN in their classes. Being able to modify or differentiate curriculum to support all students working at different levels with same age peers will help overcome the tendency in private schools in Macao to retain students in grade or exclude them from the school. The teachers in the study acknowledged that when moving to an inclusive approach this will require increased effort to plan, differentiate the curriculum, and modify assessments, which are all likely to result in additional workload for inclusive teachers. If teachers are to be willing to include students with disabilities, then this additional workload must be considered in light of normal workload allocations which can be already high in the private schools. Teachers also proposed that the Government teacher training programmes currently available in Macao could be enhanced to prepare teachers to teach and plan for students with SEN, by providing additional training in the areas requested by teachers themselves. In addition, a variety of training formats should be considered, in particular more opportunities to learn about, as well as experience, a wide range of behaviour problems, differentiated teaching and learning strategies, and behaviour management strategies. While progress towards inclusive education is being enacted, not all teachers in the private schools will find that they have children with SEN in their classes. To ensure that teachers are willing to accept students with SEN, careful thought must be given as to how this can be equitable and how they can be compensated for taking on this additional work. It is important to plan at the school level how the inclusive teachers can best be supported. A range of options that are contextually appropriate for each individual school and potentially acceptable in Macao could be considered which might include additional time, reduced face to face teaching, co-teaching, peer tutoring, addition of education assistants, etc. Promoting partnerships with other professionals, provided that time is allocated for these to occur, may also be very supportive. The local education authority could involve extensive teacher training for inclusive education into a more formalised working schedule while also setting up more training centres for on-job teacher training to enhance teachers’ skills on a regular basis in real classroom settings. Providing more attention to practice-based aspects of teacher education is deemed what teachers now need if they are to become effective inclusive practitioners. This shift would have beneficial impact on pedagogy and training in effective inclusive practice especially of regular teachers. In Macao, specifically, training for teachers should be focused not only on knowledge about policy and legislation, inclusive education, curriculum differentiation, and 14 E. MONTEIRO ET AL. behaviour management, but also on expelling myths, misunderstandings, and incorrect assumptions that are often inherent in schools. Further training should similarly be provided for resource teachers, principals, and heads of department so that they have the greatest expertise in supporting the inclusion of students with SEN at a whole school level. Recognition of the value of this training by way of incentives and promotional opportunities will ensure a good uptake. Opportunities for graduate training in special and inclusive education by way of Post Graduate Diplomas and Master Courses will lead to higher qualified teachers who would have the skills to act as important inclusive facilitators within schools.

Conclusion

This study investigated private school teachers’ perceptions about their perceived efficacy to work with students with SEN and their readiness towards accepting greater inclusive practices in Macao. The study reported here indicates that, in general, teachers felt that they were not fully prepared to teach students with SEN. Consensus shows that many teachers perceived that they needed more skills training in the area of inclusive education to increase collaboration, classroom management, and how to differentiate the curriculum to accommodate diverse learning needs. In order for teachers to better respond to the current momentum in educational reforms in Macao for inclusive education, teacher education and training must undergo major changes to ensure that all pre-service teachers are prepared to educate all students in order to support teachers to advance inclusive practices. In addition, private schools must take a whole school approach to this process and not expect individual teachers to undertake this responsibility without appropriate support across the school. Teachers’ preparedness is pivotal to gradually overcome the challenges identified in this research that teachers are currently facing with inclusive classrooms in private schools in Macao.

Disclosure statement

No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Elisa Monteiro is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education and is currently the Coordinator for the Bachelor of Education Programme. Her research interests cover a range of topics including pedagogic approaches and learning, online/blended learning, teacher professional development and inclusive education. Angus C. H. Kuok is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Saint Joseph. His research interests include topics in applied social psychology and organisational behaviour, focusing on work engagement, burnout and contemporary social indicators within Macau. Ana Correia is an Associate Professor and Dean of the School of Education at the University of Saint Joseph. She is also the developer of and the Coordinator for the Master of Education Pro- gramme. Her research interests include gender studies, intercultural responsiveness, inclusive education and teacher education. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 15

Chris Forlin is an international private consultant on inclusive education. She has extensive experience working with governments, educational systems and schools to foster eﬀective inclusive practices. Vitor Teixeira is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Saint Joseph and a clinical child psychologist. He is currently the Coordinator for the Master of Counsel- ling and Psychotherapy Programme. His research interests include children’s time use, children’s development and children with special education needs.

ORCID

Ana M. Correia http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5840-4161 Chris Forlin http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6438-9591

References

Ahsan, M. T., U. Sharma, and J. M. Deppeler. 2012. “Exploring Pre-service Teachers’ Perceived Teaching-efficacy, Attitudes and Concerns about Inclusive Education in Bangladesh.” International Journal of Whole Schooling 8 (2): 1–20. Almog, O., and Z. Shechtman. 2007. “Teachers’ Democratic and Efficacy Beliefs and Styles of Coping with Behavioural Problems of Pupils with Special Needs.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 22: 115–129. Avramidis, E., P. Bayliss, and R. Burden. 2000. “A Survey into Mainstream Teachers’ Attitudes Towards the Inclusion of Children with Special Educational Needs in the Ordinary School in one Local Education Authority.” Educational Psychology 20 (2): 191–211. Bandura, A. 1977. “Self-efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.” Psychological Review 84: 191–215. Barrett, D. 2014. “Resourcing Inclusive Education.” In Measuring Inclusive Education, Vol. 3, edited by C. Forlin and T. Loreman, 75–91. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Carr, J. F., N. Herman, and D. Harris. 2005. Creating Dynamic Schools Through Mentoring, Coaching, and Collaboration. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Chao, G., C. Forlin, and F. C. Ho. 2016. “Improving Teaching Self-efficacy for Teachers in Inclusive Classrooms in Hong Kong.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 20 (11): 1142–1154. doi:10.1080/13603116.2016.1155663. Copfer, S., and J. Specht. 2014. “Measuring Effective Teacher Preparation for Inclusion.” In Measuring Inclusive Education, Vol. 3, edited by C. Forlin and T. Loreman, 93–113. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Direcção dos Serviços de Educação e Juventude. 2015. General Survey of Education in Figures. Alteraçaõ ao "Regime educativo especial"- documento de consulta. Macao: Região Adminstrativa Especial de Macao. [Alteration to the Special Education Regime-consultation document]. Accessed March, 2017. http://www.dsej.gov.mo/~webdsej/www/edulaw/201503/ index-p.html?timeis=Mon20Oct20032008:26:1220GMT+08:00%202016&&. Macao: Education and Youth Affairs Bureau. Forlin, C. 2011. “From Special to Inclusive Education in Macau (SAR).” International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 (4): 433–443. doi:10.1080/13603110903079516. Forlin, C., M. Keen, and E. Barrett. 2008. “The Concerns of Mainstream Teachers: Coping with Inclusivity in an Australian Context.” International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 55: 251–264. Forlin, C., and K. Sin. 2010. “Developing Support for Inclusion: A Professional Learning Approach for Teachers in Hong Kong.” Journal of Whole Schooling 6 (1): 7–26. Groom, B., and R. Rose. 2005. “Supporting the Inclusion of Pupils with Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties in the Primary School: The Role of Teaching Assistants.” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 5 (1): 20–30. 16 E. MONTEIRO ET AL.

Johnson, B., and L. Christensen. 2012. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. 4th ed. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Lancaster, J. 2014. “School and Classroom Indicators of Inclusive Education.” In Measuring Inclusive Education, Vol. 3, edited by C. Forlin and T. Loreman, 227–245. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Lau, D. C. M., and P. K. Yuen. 2010. “The Development of Special Education in Macau.” International Journal of Special Education 25: 119–126. Leko, M. M., and C. A. Roberts. 2014. “How Does Professional Development Improve Teacher Practice in Inclusive Schools?” In Handbook of Effective Inclusive Schools: Research and Practice, edited by J. McLesky, N. Woldron, F. Spooner, and B. Algozine, 43–52. New York: Routledge. Loreman, T. 2010. “Essential Inclusive Education-related Outcomes for Alberta Pre-service Teachers.” The Alberta Journal of Educational Research 56: 124–142. Loreman, T., J. Deppeler, and D. Harvey. 2005. Inclusive Education: A Practical Guide to Supporting Diversity in the Classroom. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Loreman, T., U. Sharma, and C. Forlin. 2013. “Do Pre-service Teachers Feel Ready to Teach in Inclusive Classrooms? A Four-country Study of Teaching Self-efficacy.” Australian Journal of Teaching Education 38 (1): 27–44. Malinen, O.-P., H. Savolainen, and J. Xu. 2012. “Beijing In-service Teachers’ Self-efficacy and Attitudes Towards Inclusive Education.” Teaching and Teacher Education 28: 526–534. Martin, A., K. Linfoot, and J. Stephenson. 1999. “How Teachers Respond to Concerns about Misbehavior in their Classroom.” Psychology in the Schools 36: 347–358. McCullough, R. 2005. “Challenges in Paradise: Inclusive Education in the South Pacific.” http:// www.eenet.org.uk. Montgomery, A., and P. Mirenda. 2014. “Teachers’ Self-efficacy, Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about the Inclusion of Students with Developmental Disabilities.” Exceptionality Education International 24: 18–32. Park, M., D. Dimitrov, A. Das, and M. Cichuru. 2016. “The Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) Scale: Dimensionality and Factor Structure.” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 16 (1): 2–12. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12047. Paulsen, K. J. 2008. “School-based Collaboration: An Introduction to the Collaboration Column Intervention in School and Clinic.” Intervention in School and Clinic 43 (5): 313–315. Save the Children. 2009. “Inclusive Education Policy Brief.” http://www.savethechildren.org/. Sharma, U., C. Forlin, T. Loreman, and C. Earle. 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. Sharma, U., T. Loreman, and C. Forlin. 2012. “Measuring Teacher Efficacy to Implement Inclusive Practices.” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 12 (1): 12–21. doi:10.1111/j.1471- 3802.2011.01200.x. Singh, R. 2009. “Meeting the Challenge of Inclusion—From Isolation to Collaboration.” In Inclusive Education Across Cultures: Crossing Boundaries, Sharing Ideas, edited by M. Alur and V. Timmons, 12–29. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Tait, K., L. Mundia, and F. Fung. 2014. “Raising Young Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders in Hong Kong: The Impact of Cultural Values and Stigma on Chinese Parents’ Coping Strategies.” International Journal Advances in Social Science and Humanities 12 (1): 7–15. Teixeira, V., A. Correia, C. Forlin, A. Kuok, and E. Monteiro. 2018. “Placement, Inclusion, Law and Teachers’ Perceptions in Macao’s Schools.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 9 (22): 1–19. doi:10.1080/13603116.2017.1414318. Tomlinson, C. A. 2014. The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All Students. 2nd ed. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Weisel, A., and O. Dror. 2006. “School Climate, Sense of Efficacy and Israeli Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion of Students with Special Needs.” Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 1 (2): 157–174.