INCLUSIVE EDUCATION AND STUDENTS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES (IDs)
IN THE STATE OF KUWAIT:
ARE WE READY?
By
HAWAA ALSHEMARI
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Teaching and Learning
MAY 2016
© Copyright by HAWAA ALSHEMARI, 2016 All Rights Reserved
© Copyright by HAWAA ALSHEMARI, 2016 All Rights Reserved
To the Faculty of Washington State University:
The members of the Committee appointed to examine the dissertation of HAWAA
ALSHEMARI find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.
______Darcy Miller, Ph.D., Chair
______Susan Rae Banks, Ph.D.
______Michael Dunn, Ph.D.
______Brenda Barrio, Ph.D.
______Richard Lamb, Ph.D.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I thank Allah for his grace and mercy upon me, providing me with faith, energy, and support to undertake this journey. I am profoundly thankful to the gift of Allah, my son Salim for
being in my life, as he has been the inspiration and motivation of my journey toward helping
people with disabilities.
I am extremely grateful to my best friend, my oldest son Ghanem for his understanding, patience, and support. I am so fortunate to have him in my life. I would also like to acknowledge
my supervisor, Dr. Darcy Miller and my committee members for their scholarly comments,
support and encouragement. Thank you for your guidance and trust in completing this study.
Finally, my appreciation is for my precious friend, Mary Kaye for her support and unconditional
love.
iii
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION AND STUDENTS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES (IDs)
IN THE STATE OF KUWAIT:
ARE WE READY?
Abstract
by Hawaa Alshemari, Ph. D. Washington State University May 2016
Chair: Darcy Miller
Policies regarding inclusion that have been adopted by Kuwait emphasize the rights of individuals with disabilities to be integrated into society and learn beside students without disabilities (Al-Kandari & Salih, 2008). Of particular concern in this study was the lack of research regarding the topic of inclusive education in the State of Kuwait. Thus, this study was conducted to investigate special education pre-service teachers’ preparedness for inclusive education in Kuwait. The research question that guided this study concerned Kuwaiti special education preservice teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of students with Intellectual
Disabilities and was explored through the administration of a survey and conducting interviews.
The data were collected from special education pre-service teachers specializing in Intellectual
Disabilities in the College of Basic Education in the State of Kuwait. One hundred ten special education pre-service teachers completed the survey and ten special education pre-service teachers were interviewed in order to explore their: a) attitudes toward students with Intellectual
Disabilities, b) attitudes toward inclusive education, and, c) level of confidence about teaching students with Intellectual Disabilities in inclusive settings. The study involved the examination of predictor variables on attitudes and confidence. The study also explored the type of training about inclusion that was desired by the special education pre-service teachers. The associated
iv
factors (teacher, student, and environment factors) for successful inclusion for students with
Intellectual Disabilities were examined. The results indicate that the special education pre- service teachers had a conditional positive attitude toward students with Intellectual Disabilities and inclusive education. The pre-service teachers’ level of confidence regarding teaching students with Intellectual Disabilities was also conditional, depending on the support and resources that would be available. Implications for improving teacher education and training programs, social awareness, and human and physical support are included. Based on the results, several recommendations for practice and future research are suggested.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii
ABSTRACT ...... iv-v
LIST OF TABLES ...... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ...... xv
DEDECATION ...... xvi
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Rationale of the Study ...... 3
Significance of the Study ...... 3
Limitations ...... 4
Definition of Terms...... 4
Intellectual disability ...... 4
Inclusion ...... 5
Attitude ...... 5
Self-efficacy ...... 5
The State of Kuwait ...... 5
Researcher’s Positionality ...... 5
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 6
Terminology and Intellectual Disabilities ...... 6
vi
Inclusive Education ...... 7
Education as a human right ...... 7
Terminology and inclusion ...... 8
The basis for inclusive education ...... 9
Philosophical foundations ...... 10
Legal foundations ...... 11
Ethical foundations ...... 13
Benefits ...... 13
Research outcomes for students with disabilities ...... 13
Research outcomes for students without disabilities ...... 17
Challenges ...... 20
Teachers’ attitudes and aptitudes toward students with disabilities
...... 20
Teachers’ collaboration and cooperation skills ...... 21
The characteristics of the disability ...... 22
Implementation and delivery of services ...... 23
Teachers’ Attitudes ...... 24
General and special education teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion ...... 24
General and special education teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion students
with IDs ...... 27
Teachers’ Self-efficacy ...... 31
Recurrent Themes about Inclusion ...... 33
Professional training and staff development ...... 34
vii
Adaptations and alternatives ...... 34
Collaboration among general education and special education teachers ..35
Severity of the disability ...... 35
Class size ...... 36
Cultural Aspects of Inclusion Across Countries ...... 36
Inclusion in the Middle East ...... 37
Policies ...... 37
Practices ...... 38
Challenges ...... 39
Inclusion in the European Union ...... 40
Policies ...... 40
Practices ...... 42
Challenges ...... 44
Inclusion Across Countries ...... 46
Themes ...... 46
Teachers’ attitudes ...... 46
Education and teacher preparation programs ...... 47
Collaboration, communication, and teachers’ responsibilities .....47
Parental involvement ...... 48
Curricula and resources ...... 48
Differences and Similarities among Countries ...... 48
Cultural Factors across Countries ...... 49
The Special Education System in Kuwait ...... 50
viii
Inclusive Education in Kuwait ...... 50
Policies ...... 51
Practices ...... 51
Challenges ...... 52
Factors Impacting Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion ...... 53
Summary ...... 54
3. METHOD ...... 57
Purpose of Research ...... 57
Research Design...... 57
Sampling design ...... 59
Research questions ...... 59
Theoretical Framework ...... 60
Study Setting ...... 61
Participants ...... 61
Instrumentation ...... 63
Quantitative phase – survey ...... 63
Validity and reliability ...... 66
Validity ...... 67
Construct validity ...... 67
Validity evidence ...... 69
Reliability ...... 70
Qualitative phase–interview ...... 72
Procedures ...... 76
ix
Quantitative phase–survey ...... 76
Qualitative phase–interviews ...... 75
Data Analysis ...... 76
Survey data ...... 76
Interview data ...... 78
4. RESULTS ...... 79
Response Rate ...... 80
Quantitative Survey Results: Descriptive Statistics ...... 80
Demographic information ...... 80
Teachers’ attitudes toward students with intellectual disabilities ...... 85
Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education ...... 90
Level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive
settings ...... 100
Desired training ...... 109
Quantitative Survey Results: Linear Regression ...... 112
Influence of demographic variables on teachers’ attitudes and confidence
...... 112
Teacher, student, and the environment variables ...... 116
Teachers-related factors ...... 116
Student-related factors ...... 119
Environment-related factors ...... 120
Qualitative Interview Results ...... 123
Teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs ...... 130
x
Teachers’ attitudes toward IE ...... 132
Teacher self-efficacy ...... 136
Teacher preparation programs ...... 138
Challenges and obstacles ...... 140
Facilitation of inclusion ...... 144
Training ...... 147
Mixed Data Results ...... 148
Teachers’ attitudes and confidence ...... 148
Demographic variables influencing teachers’ attitudes and confidence .149
Desired training ...... 152
5. DISCUSSION ...... 154
Teachers’ Attitudes toward Students with Intellectual Disabilities ...... 155
Teachers’ Attitudes toward Inclusive Education ...... 162
Teachers’ Level of Confidence toward Teaching Students with Intellectual
Disabilities in Inclusive Settings ...... 167
Desired Training ...... 171
Conclusion ...... 173
Teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy toward the inclusion of the students
with IDs in Kuwait ...... 173
Meta-inferences...... 174
Proposed program training ...... 176
Challenges and obstacles toward inclusion of the students with IDs in
Kuwait ...... 177
xi
Limitations ...... 179
Implications for Future Research ...... 180
REFERENCES ...... 182
APPENDIX
A. APPROVAL LETTER FROM COLLEDGE OF BASIC EDUCATION IN KUWAIT
FOR NUMBER OF STUDENTS IN SUMMER 2015 ...... 198
B. SURVEY INSTRUMENT ...... 200
C. RESEARCH STUDY CONSENT FORM ...... 211
D. MODEL SUMMARY FROM LINEAR REGRESSION ...... 216
xii
LIST OF TABLES
1. Research Questions ...... 60
2. Number of Students Distributed Over the Areas of Specialization at CBE in the
Spring of 2015 ...... 61
3. Number of Students Registered for Summer Session Courses 2015 ...... 62
4. Factors and Themes Used in Developing The Survey to Examine Kuwaiti SPEDPS
teachers’ perceptions of The Inclusion of The Students with Intellectual
Disabilities ...... 65
5. Relevance Rating for Each Item on The SPEDPS Teacher Survey ...... 68
6. Summary of Validity Evidence ...... 69
7. A Priori Interview Questions ...... 72
8. Frequency and Percent of Pre-service Teacher Participants by Gender, Age, and
Citizenship ...... 81
9. Frequency and Percent of Pre-service Teachers for City, Educational Attainment, and
Previous Training about Students with Disabilities ...... 82
10. Frequency and Percent of Pre-service Teachers’ by Previous Course Work about IDs,
Course Work about Inclusion, and Experience with a Child/Children with ID/ IDs ...... 84
11. Teachers’ Attitudes toward Students with Intellectual Disabilities ...... 86
xiii
12. Average of the Teachers’ Negative and Positive Attitudes toward Students with
Intellectual Disabilities ...... 88
13. Teachers’ Attitudes toward Inclusive Education ...... 93
14. Average of the Teachers’ Negative and Positive Attitudes toward Inclusive Education .96
15. Level of Confidence toward Teaching Students with IDs in Inclusive Settings ...... 102
16. Average of the Lower and Higher Level of Confidence toward Teaching Students with
IDs in Inclusive Settings ...... 105
17. Pre-Service Training Desired by Special Educating Pre-Service Teachers ...... 109
18. In-Service Training Desired by Special Educating Pre-Service Teachers ...... 111
19. Estimates from Linear Regression on the Average of the SPEDPS teachers’ Responses to
the Survey ...... 115
20. Estimates from Linear Regression on the Average of the SPEDPS Teachers’ Responses
to the Teachers-Related Factor ...... 118
21. Estimates from Linear Regression on the Average of the SPEDPS Teachers’ Responses
to the Student-Related Factor ...... 120
22. Estimates from Linear Regression on the Average of the SPEDPS Teachers’ Responses
to the Environment Related Factor Dimension ...... 122
23. Original and Final Interview Questions ...... 123
24. Interview Participant Demographics ...... 128
25. Themes and Sub-Theme That Emerged From the Interviews ...... 129
26. Meta-Inferences for the Influential Factors of Special Education Pre-Service Teacher’s
Attitudes and Confidence ...... 174
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Figure 1; Sequential explanatory mixed methods design (Creswell, 2003) ...... 59
xv
Dedication
This dissertation is especially dedicated to my loving father who inspired me from my early years with the dream that one day I would receive a PhD degree. Finally, this dream turns into a reality with his support and encouragement. I would also like to dedicate this dissertation to my sons, Ghanim and Salim for their continued support and encouragement over the past eight
years. To my neighbor and my classmate Omar Al Howikan who passed away in 2015 few
months before he finished his dissertation.
xvi
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Students with intellectual disabilities (IDs), along with students with other disabilities, have been the subjects of many researchers’ interests (Alghzo & Gaad, 2004). The topic of including students with disabilities in general education classroom has become a conventional topic in modern education systems both in developed and developing countries (Farrell, Dyson,
Hutcheson, & Gallannaugh, 2007).
Two studies by Hamaidi et al. (2012) and Sakiz & Woods (2014) have shown similar international trends toward fulfilling the commitments about inclusion. Yet, in these studies both developed and developing countries were experiencing issues with the practice and implementation of inclusive education (IE) in their schools. Although there are cultural differences among, countries they are subjected to the same relevant challenges and barriers in their journey toward inclusion (Gaad, 2004). The lack of teachers who are qualified to work in inclusive settings is a dominant theme has been seen in all educational systems worldwide (Amr,
2011).
Teachers’ beliefs and attitudes are critical factors impacting the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms (Fazio, 1986). Research on the topic of inclusion and students with IDs has shown considerable concerns among teachers about IE (Alquraini, 2012).
“The success of IE is thus reliant on teachers’ attitudes” (Emam & Mohamed, 2011, p. 977). In addition, teachers’ self- efficacy is a critical factor in and has a significant impact on teachers’ attitudes toward IE (Emam & Mohamed, 2011). Self-efficacy, therefore, is an important predictor of either increasing or decreasing motivation toward achieving the goal of IE as well as coping with unfavorable environments (Bandura, 1997).
1
The gap between the theory of inclusion and practice is an issue in developing countries
(Hamaidi et al., 2012). A scarcity of research in the field of IE has been noted for Middle East countries (Amr, 2011). Most of the research has been more focused on the theoretical aspects than on measuring the actual aptitude and preparation for the process of IE implementation
(Melekoglu et al., 2009; Sakiz & Woods, 2014). Perhaps the top priority for experimental studies, as well as studies that explore the attitudes of potential teachers, is the need for research exploring the attitudes of pre-service and in-service teachers toward IE, and examination of the factors that may affect their attitudes (Al Zyoudi et al., 2011; Amr, 2011; Anati, 2012).
Although researchers have studied the perceptions about IE and attitudes of teachers toward IE (Alquraini, 2012; Amr, 2011; Anati, 2012; Bandura, 1997; Emam & Mohamed, 2011;
Fazio, 1986), there are no studies that have been conducted in Kuwait, that have investigated the perceptions and attitudes of special education pre-service (SPEDPS) teachers toward IE, as well as their attitudes about having students with IDs in their schools.
The adopted policy of inclusion in Kuwait Law No.13 of 1996 emphasizes the rights of individuals with disabilities be integrated into the society (Salih & Al-Kandari, 2007). Inclusion policy gives students with disabilities the right to be learning beside other students without disabilities (Al-Kandari & Salih, 2008). However, Kuwait does not yet have a clear strategy for implementation (Aldaihani, 2010; Al-Kandari & Salih, 2008).
Through an investigation of special education pre-service (SPEDPS) teachers’ perceptions, attitudes, and self-efficacy, we can explore their preparedness for IE and their need for professional development to address any gaps or lack of training. This study aims to investigate SPEDPS teachers’ preparedness for IE. The study is designed to investigate Kuwaiti
2
SPEDPS teachers’ perceptions about inclusion of students with IDs by addressing the following
question:
What are Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of the students with IDs?
Rationale of the Study
The topic of the inclusion of students with IDs into the general education classroom is
new in Kuwait and as of yet has not received a great deal of attention (Al-Kandari & Salih,
2008). Attitudes and self-efficacy of pre-service teachers are critical components of the inclusion
of students with disabilities (Brownlee & Carrington, 2000; Forlin, et al, 2009). A significant
number of studies from a variety of countries have shown that pre-service teachers have concerns
about working with students with disabilities. Thus, understanding pre-service teachers' attitudes
toward IE and understanding of students with IDs seem to be missing from the research
foundation, for Kuwait in particular. Therefore, this study fills a gap in our understanding of
these pre-service teachers, including their attitudes toward students with IDs and toward IE, level
of confidence in teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings, as well as understanding the
type of training the preservice teachers desire to increase their skills for IE. The study will fill
this gap by also exploring the predictor variables that contribute to teachers’ perceptions.
Significance of the Study
This study will be contributing to the field of special education in general and in
particular in the State of Kuwait. In the long run, the results could potentially improve the
educational programs and services for students with intellectual disabilities. The study will
provide the field, and also the Ministry of Education in Kuwait with important data about pre-
service teachers’ perceptions and understanding of students with IDs and inclusion. These data
may be also informative for a future professional development of teachers. The study may also
3
inform the Department of Special Education at the College of Basic Education (CBE) in terms of curriculum needs, practicum needs, and/or student experiences.
Limitations
Although a variety of data collected in this study provided valuable information, there are limitations to the study. The participants were limited to SPEDPS teachers from the Special
Education Department at the CBE. Results, therefore, might not be generalizable to general education pre-service (GEPS) teachers.
Additionally, the sample was drawn from SPEDPS teachers who are specializing in IDs; therefore, other SPEDPS teachers who are specializing in other types of disabilities were not included in the study and their perceptions and knowledge may be different from the study sample.
Furthermore, cultural aspects might cast a shadow over the responses about attitudes and level of confidence toward IE. Although this study used a self-report survey and interviews with respondents, “the respondents may have had a positive response bias and provided socially acceptable answers” (Han & Chadsey, 2004, p. 213). Thus, Amr (2011) stated that some teachers in the Arab world “still perceive inclusive education as a luxury” (p.406). Also, because participation in the survey and interview phases of this study was voluntary, it may be that only those with a high level of confidence participated.
Definition of Terms
Intellectual disability. The characteristics of this disability include both limitations in intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior that originate before the age of 18 and impact many everyday social and practical skills. http://aaidd.org/intellectual- disability/definition#.VOLOSvnF-So
4
Inclusion. Inclusion means that "all students with disabilities will spend the majority of their time in the general education environment" (Yell, 2012).
Attitude. “[A]ttitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor” (Fazio, 1986, p. 269).
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as people’s beliefs in their own competence to execute required behavior successfully to get expected results (Bandura, 1997).
The State of Kuwait. The State of Kuwait is one of the Middle East Arab countries and a member of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). GCC includes Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, and United Arab Emirates (Aldaihani, 2010).
Researcher's Positionality
The researcher is in the privileged position of being not separate from the social processes of the study. She graduated as a special education teacher from the College of Basic Education in
Kuwait, which was the site of the study. She worked at special education schools and taught students with IDs in Kuwait. The researcher also had a personal experience with enrolling her son, who has an intellectual disability and demonstrates autistic behavior, in an inclusive elementary school in Kuwait for five years. Her positive experience with her son and inclusion, in addition to her expertise in special education, increased her desire to engage in research on this topic. Therefore, this study and the research questions were shaped by the researcher’s positionality.
5
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter contains the review of the research literature pertaining to teacher attitudes about students with intellectual disabilities (IDs), as well as teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy about inclusion. Included in this literature review is a historical overview of intellectual disabilities (IDs) and related terminology. The historical overview also includes research on inclusion as a method of educating all students, regardless of disabilities, in general classroom settings. Research on teacher attitudes and self-efficacy is then reviewed, as well as teacher attitudes toward inclusive education and students with IDs. An overview of cultural aspects regarding inclusion across countries follows. The chapter ends with an examination of the special education system in Kuwait.
Terminology and Intellectual Disabilities
The term Intellectual Disabilities (IDs) is included under the umbrella of Developmental
Disabilities (DD). However, the definition of IDs has been changed many times (Odom et al.,
2007). Not only have the definitions evolved, the terminology used to signify IDs has evolved as well. Formerly, scholars and practitioners used terms such as “Feeble-minded,” “Mentally
Retarded,” and “Mentally Impaired” to refer to the population of people with cognitive challenges. The recent decision of Rosa’s Law (2010), however, has made “Intellectual
Disability” the professionally preferred terminology that replaces the older terms (Harries, 2013).
Rosa’s Law was created “[t]o change references in Federal law to mental retardation to references to an intellectual disability, and change references to a mentally retarded individual to references to an individual with an intellectual disability” (Public Law 111-256, Rosa’s law).
6
The intellectual disability term is seen as being less offensive to persons with
disabilities than were previously used terms, and it is more consistent with international
terminology (Odom et al., 2007). The condition of intellectual disability is described and
defined by the American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) in terms of three major
components: intellectual functioning, adaptive behavior, and systems of support (Smith, 2007).
The AAMR Definition and Diagnostic System for IDs are based on three criteria: “significant
limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual,
social, and practical adaptive skills. This disability originates before age 18” (Smith, 2007, p.
280). However, supports remain the cornerstone of the AAIDD System; that is, once a
diagnosis of IDs is made, planning and providing supports are key to reducing the mismatch
between a person’s capabilities and the skills and behaviors needed to successfully participate
in all aspects of daily life. A low score on a test of intelligence alone is insufficient for a
diagnosis of ID. Low intellectual functioning must co-exist with limitations in adaptive
behavior and appearing in the developmental period. Adaptive behavior refers to those social
and practical skills people use for daily living functions. These Adaptive behavior skills benefit
the individual in such areas as communication, social interactions, and autonomy. An accurate
diagnosis of ID according to the AAIDD system thus requires three components: an intellectual
score on a standardized scale of approximately 70 or below, a determination of deficits in
adaptive behavior, and origins of the disability prior to age eighteen (Harries, 2013; Odom et
al., 2007; Salvia et al., 2010; Smith, 2007).
Inclusive Education
Education as a human right. Education is seen as a vital sociocultural component for civilizations all over the world. The idea of education as a necessity is as old as human existence
7
and helps to satisfy the human desire to explore the world and make it more conducive to civilization (Christie, 2010). People learn from ongoing interactions with their environment, and they learn to crystallize their personal experiences in ways that make their lives more satisfactory; therefore, there is a relationship between gaining knowledge and improving the lives of humans (Alshammari & Yawkey, 2011). Education should not be restricted to a particular group of people, nor should it be limited to a certain age group. Rather, it should be for everyone, anywhere, regardless of differences in class, race, ability, or gender (Amr, 2011).
Evident “challenges facing the Arab world are linked to inequality of educational opportunity: marginalization and exclusion for poor children, girls, members of minority groups, and children with disabilities still occur in educational system” (Amr, 2011, p.401). Vally and Spreen, (2006) mentioned that depriving people of their right to education, under any pretense, leads to imbalance among the populations within a society. The lack of education can burden populations with poverty and ignorance, such that “[T]he right to education must be linked with other human rights” (p. 355) and social movements in order to achieve social justice for the entire community
(Vally & Spreen, 2006).
Terminology and inclusion. It is important to clarify the many terms used synonymously with inclusive education. For instance, mainstreaming was first introduced in the
1970s “ to educate students with developmental disabilities in regular schools - albeit in self- contained classrooms - rather than in special education schools with little or no contact with general education students, settings, or curricula” (Odom et.al, 2009, p.270). The philosophy of mainstreaming was based on giving students with and without disabilities opportunities for interaction during nonacademic classes (Yell, 2012). In contrast, the integration approach; another related concept introduced in the 1980s which mediate between the two periods of
8
mainstreaming and the inclusion, recommended that selected students with particular disabilities be included in general education classrooms (Odom et.al, 2009). Based on the integration philosophy, for some students, full-time general classroom placement is appropriate, but for others, a limited amount of time in regular classrooms may be more appropriate. Taking the student’s progress into account, a decision would be made to either increase or decrease the student’s degree of participation in the general education system (Murphy, 1996).
The inclusion model, “began to appear in the literature with some frequency around
1990” (Odom et.al, 2009, p. 269) and it differs from the previously held philosophies of mainstreaming and integration. “Inclusion refers to the full participation by children with disabilities in programs and activities for typically developing children” (Baily et al., 1998, p.
28). Inclusive education requires the integration of all students with disabilities, regardless of the classification and intensity of their disabilities, into local general education schools with their same-aged peers (Odom et.al, 2009). Inclusive education carries the assumption that students with disabilities should be a part of the general education environment (Odom et.al, 2009). From this perspective, special education and support services should always be provided within the general education environment unless the nature of the student’s disability requires otherwise
(Murphy, 1996). Inclusion is about full participation in the general education system, while integration and mainstreaming are about increasing the opportunities of the participating students with disabilities in general classrooms (Odom et.al, 2009; Yell, 2012)
The basis for inclusive education. The literature provided a number of foundational principles influencing what is known today as inclusive education (Bailey, 1998). These bases include philosophical, legal, and ethical foundations, and each will be addressed in turn in the discussion that follows.
9
Philosophical foundations. One of the philosophical concepts that proved foundational to the special education movement was the principle of normalization (Smith, 2007). It was one of the generally accepted practices used in order to achieve a full inclusive life for all people with disabilities (Smith, 2007). The principle of normalization has Danish roots as it was first described by Bank-Mikkelsen in 1959. However, in 1969, a Swedish researcher, Bengt Nirje, formalized the word “normalization”. In the 1970s, Wolf Wolfensbeger transferred the idea to the United States and called for closing all the institutions for people with disabilities. He also encouraged legislators to apply the principle of normalization to practical services for people with disabilities (Smith, 2007). The normalization concept does not mean that society is trying to make people with disabilities “normal,” rather it refers to providing those with disabilities with the chance to live with people without disabilities, in same communities and cultures they would live in if they were without disabilities. Those advocating for normalization called for all people with disabilities to have the chance to access everyday ordinary living (Culham & Nind, 2003).
The normalization approach endorses the idea that people with disabilities belong to their society and its culture and norms (Wolfensberger, 1970).
Coined by Bob Perske in the1960s, the philosophical concept dignity of risk shaped the beginnings of what is now known as “inclusion” (Slayter, 2007). Dignity of risk was based on the idea that regular risk is part of the human experience. This principle assumes that people with disabilities have the right to self-determination. Giving people with disabilities the chance to participate in prudent risk-taking is one of the aspects of human dignity, social justice, normalization, community inclusion, and self-determination (Slayter, 2007). One of the factors affecting self-determination among people with disabilities is “the degree to which the environment promotes social inclusion and social competence” (Wehmeyer & Bolding, 2001, p.
10
380). “Overprotection can keep people from becoming all they could become” (Slayter, 2007, p.
654); people with disabilities need to have opportunities to interact with their environment, and that cannot happen without social inclusion (Slayter, 2007).
The philosophy of inclusion consists of a number of factors and beliefs. According to
Culham and Nind (2003), true normalization and equality are not possible without effective social interaction and the prohibition of discrimination. The philosophy of inclusion is a response to the belief that a student with disabilities belongs in and should be a member of the general education classroom. Odom et al. (2009) posited that “the single most identifiable characteristic of inclusive education is membership” (p. 270). Furthermore, inclusion applies to all students, not just students with disabilities (Hossain, 2012).
Legal foundations. In line with the change in the world’s nations with UNESCO’s 1950
Statement, Brown v. the Board of Education Case in 1954 had an influence on the racial segregation in schools in the United States (Smith, 2007). Although the advantages of the Brown decision toward equality in education, the actual application of equality in education came with many challenges. The challenges included biased curricula, teachers’ negative perceptions, biased assessments, and over-referral of certain races and ethnicities to special education
(Blanchett, et al., 2005). Despite the challenges following the Brown decision, it “was a major victory for the civil rights movements and became the major underpinning for further civil action” (Yell, 2012, p. 49). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 began to address institutional and systematic racism in all of its forms in the United States. It called for social justice for all
American citizens regardless of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Any violation of the Civil Rights would be subject to the law (Yell, 2012). Students with disabilities, as a part of society, benefited from this democratic movement in the late 1960s and 1970s. Other court
11
cases gave great hope for students with disabilities. The Pennsylvania Association for Retarded
Children (PARC) v. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 1972 set a precedence for the provision of special education to all children with IDs. In the same year, Mills v. the Board of Education of the District of Columbia set a precedent for the right of special education to cover all children with disabilities to receive free public education (Smith, 2007).
In 1968, Dunn’s recommendations concerning the assessment, instruction, and placement of students with disabilities, had a positive influence on the field of special education
(McLeskey, 2004). McLeskey (2004) discussed how Dunn’s article is considered as the inspiration for Public Law (PL) 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) of 1975. That Act, passed by the US Congress, called for a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for all students with disabilities. Thus, the idea of inclusive education came out of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004), specifically in the provisions of free and appropriate public education (FAPE) and LRE.
Although the term “inclusion” is not specifically mentioned in the education laws, LRE shaped and gave legal status to inclusive education (McLeskey et al., 2013; Taylor, 2011). Remarkably, the LRE does not mandate inclusion. However, the amendments of IDEA in 1997 mandated providing appropriate educational opportunities for all students with disabilities alongside their peers with and without disabilities (Yell, 2012). In light of the LRE, appropriate education means that inclusive education is the baseline, while restrictive settings are conditional decisions. If a student requires placements other than the general education classroom in order to receive appropriate education, then more restrictive settings can be considered. In the inclusive education setting, special education is considered a service, not a place, and students receive the appropriate service in the LRE environment (Hossain, 2012).
12
Ethical foundations. Ethical factors influence the trends of society and its perceptions and attitudes. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, was the most prominent law based on an ethical and a moral foundation. Ethical demands are great motivation for individuals when it comes to maintaining the culture and the values of society. After the Civil Rights Act became a reality, many efforts at the individual, group, and legislative levels were made to demand the rights of people with disabilities, including the right to be embraced as part of the community
(Bailey et al., 1998).
Benefits. There are many studies have been conducted to investigate the benefits and the advantages of inclusive education for students with and without disabilities. Most of the emphasis in the literature has focused on five variables to investigate the benefit of inclusive education: academic performance, social interaction, behavioral outcomes, development in communication, and school attendance (Dessemontet et al., 2012; Dore et al., 2002; Foreman et al., 2004; Freeman & Alkin, 2000; Rea et al., 2002; Ryndak et al., 1999; Waldron, McLeskey, &
Pacchiano, 1999).
Research outcomes for students with disabilities. The impacts of inclusion on academic and behavioral performance in students, age seven to eight years, with intellectual disabilities
(IDs) were the focus of a Swiss study by Dessemont et al. (2012).The researchers conducted a comparative study to investigate the academic achievement and the adaptive behavior of 55 students with IDs who had full-time placement in a general classroom compared to a group of 79 students with the same IDs who had full-time placement in a special education setting. The authors reviewed the academic achievement and the adaptive behavior scores for the two groups of students during two school years. The data analyses presented evidence of a significant difference in the literacy skills of the two groups. The students in inclusive settings tended to
13
make significantly more improvement in their reading and writing skills than did the students in special education classrooms. However, no significant difference was found in scores for mathematics and adaptive behavior among the two groups of students. The researchers pointed out that four years of follow-up, as several previous studies provided, would provide clearer information regarding changes in student performance.
Freeman and Alkin (2000) reviewed 36 studies that investigated the effectiveness of inclusion on the academic and the social performance of students with IDs. The researchers clarified those the students with IDs showed higher academic performance when they participated fully in the general education classroom compared with their peers in special education classrooms. They claimed teachers’ performance accounted for the disparity in the students’ academic gains. Freeman and Alkin believed that teachers in general education classrooms utilized classroom instruction styles that took students’ differing abilities into account. Freeman and Alkin also argued that teachers performed a higher level of instruction in the general classroom than in the special classroom and that this higher level of instruction benefited all students, with and without disabilities, in positive ways. Regarding the social performance of students with IDs in inclusive settings, studies reviewed by Freeman and Alkin
(2000) showed that the interaction between students with IDs and their peers without disabilities in the general classroom positively impacted the social skills of students with IDs. However,
Freeman and Alkin (2000) added, this did not mean that students with IDs would have the same level of social skills as students without IDs; rather, these students with IDs would have a higher level of social skills than peers with IDs in segregated classrooms.
Waldron et al. (1999) interviewed 46 teachers who had experience teaching in inclusive school programs to explore their opinions about the effectiveness of including students with mild
14
disabilities, such as IDs, LDs, and emotional and behavioral disabilities, in the general education classroom. Teachers harbored positive attitudes regarding the benefits of inclusive education “on the academic progress, classroom behavior, and social relationships of students with disabilities”
(p. 150). Based on the teachers’ views, the researchers found that students’ progress in the inclusive education classroom improved when compared to previous outcomes in a special education setting. Remarkably, Waldron et al. (1999) mentioned that the findings of their study were in contrast to the results of previous studies that had shown negative outcomes from inclusive education. However, Waldron et al. made sure to point out that the participants in the previous studies were teachers who did not have any experience with teaching in inclusive schools. The researchers emphasized that such studies reflected misleading results.
Another supportive study, of inclusion, conducted by Rea et al. (2002) provided additional evidence for the advantages of inclusive education. The authors aimed to investigate and compare the academic and the behavioral outcomes and the daily school attendance of all eighth-grade students with LDs at two middle schools with different educational systems. The first school provided special education services through an inclusive environment while the other school provided special education services through a resource room model. By reviewing students’ individual education programs (IEPs), grades, test scores, behavioral data, Rea et al.
(2002) found that students with LDs in the inclusive program attained better academic and behavior outcomes than their peers in pullout programs. Students in the inclusive program got higher grades in their course work and state proficiency tests compared with those in a special program. At the level of daily school attendance, students in inclusion settings had a higher rate of attendance than other students who received special education services in a resource room.
15
An Australian study by Foreman et al. (2004) the researchers used a behavior state assessment to find out the impact of two different integration and inclusion environments on two groups of students with profound and multiple disabilities by identifying their level of involvement and communicating with teachers and peers. As mentioned previously in this chapter, “integration is considered to be the process of moving to less restrictive environment and involves part-time placement in a general education classroom” (p. 183). The researchers wanted to observe the target students in the special classroom (integration program) and the students in general classroom (inclusive program). By observing eight matched pairs of school- age students for one full day in both the special classroom and the inclusive classroom, it appeared that students in the general classroom participated more and engaged in more communication than their corresponding peers in the segregated classroom. The data collection showed that students with disabilities in the special classroom spent more than fifty percent of the time with no communication while the other group of students in the inclusive classroom participated in communication seventy percent of the time. In terms of the quality of the communication, students in the inclusive setting showed a desirable behavior most of the time compared with their peers in the segregated setting.
A seven-year-long tracking case study by Ryndak et al. (1999) investigated the literacy progress of young a woman with moderate to severe disabilities before and after including her in the general education classroom. Initially, the young woman experienced communication problems and behavioral challenges as a result of the language difficulties she had. Her literacy difficulties affected her academic performance and social interaction. Numerous intervention plans were created to aid the young woman during the duration of the study, and it is important to note that these intervention plans were provided in an inclusive environment (i.e., along with
16
students without disabilities). In the inclusive settings she received special education services along with alternative assessments, instructional support, and assistive technology. The process of seven years of data collection for her literacy progress demonstrated a remarkable improvement in her literacy skills. The improvement in her reading and writing had a positive reflection on her ability to communicate with others. The development in communication gave her the opportunity “to take risks” (p. 19) and to experience requesting and obtaining assistance from other people. This case study provided strong evidence of the advantages of inclusive education. In addition, it showed that involving students with disabilities in the general classroom can provides them with good opportunities to practice real life experiences.
A multiple case study by Dore et al. (2002) examined the outcome of two full-time students with IDs transferring to a general education setting in the middle of the academic year.
The researchers wanted to understand the extent to which the inclusion settings could affect the students’ academic achievement and social interaction with classmates. Two days a week, two girls were observed in the classroom and in the cafeteria for the rest of the academic year. The observations monitored frequent forms of engagement in class activities for both students with the passage of time. The researchers attributed this progress in the students’ classroom participation to the diversity of the individual activities in the general classroom being commensurate with the abilities of each student. It is noteworthy that the student who achieved more social engagement and more participation in classroom activities was the girl who had the lower IQ score compared with her peer. The researchers, therefore, inferred that IQ would not be an obstacle to integrating students with IDs in general education schools.
Research outcomes for students without disabilities. In addition to the attention given to the benefits of inclusion for students with disabilities, it is also important to consider the effects
17
of inclusive education for students without disabilities (Carter & Hughes, 2006; Idol, 2006; Peck et al., 2004; Salend & Duhaney, 1999). Numerous studies have been conducted to investigate the impacts of inclusion on the academic, social, and emotional aspects of typical students in inclusive schools.
In 1999 Salend and Duhaney reviewed approximately fifteen studies, conducted between
1983 to 1998 that examined the impact of inclusion on students with and without disabilities.
The authors were specifically looking for the impacts of inclusion on the academic and the social outcomes of students with and without disabilities. In their review, Salend and Duhaney were also trying to investigate teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. The data collected from the previous studies indicated academic and behavioral improvement among students with disabilities. At the same time, these data did not show any negative effects on the educational outcomes of students without disabilities. The findings also presented a positive picture for the general education students’ perception toward inclusion and its benefits on their social lives.
Students without disabilities in inclusive settings reported benefits such as “increased acceptance, understanding, and tolerance of individual differences” (p. 120). General education students also showed “a greater awareness and sensitivity to the needs of others; greater opportunities to have friendships with students with disabilities; and an improved ability to deal with disability in their own lives” (p.120). However, students without disabilities did express concerns about their ability to communicate with their peers with disabilities and their ability to deal with unpredictable behavioral problems stemming from their peers' disabilities.
To investigate the impact of the inclusion system on the typical students, Carter and
Hughes (2006) disseminated a questionnaire to one hundred professionals: 36 general education teachers, 29 special education teachers, 19 administrators, and 16 paraprofessionals. The
18
questionnaire sought out participants’ perspectives on the barriers to, and the risks and benefits of applying the inclusion system in their schools. The one hundred participants were interviewed in person in eleven urban high schools. The eleven high schools served a total of 211 students with moderate to severe disabilities such as IDs, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and multiple disabilities. The results of the data collection and analyses indicated that all participants believed the importance of including students with disabilities was “substantial” (p. 181). According to participants, facilitation of social interactions between students with and without disabilities contributed to amending peers’ attitudes and perceptions toward disabilities and was another benefit of inclusion.
A study conducted by Peck et al. (2004) in a northwest school district in the United States examined the impact on peers without disabilities of including students with severe disabilities in the general classroom. To do this, the researchers distributed a survey to parents of students without disabilities in six elementary schools in order to explore their perceptions about the impact of inclusive education settings on their children. Students with severe disabilities
(including IDs, ASD, cerebral palsy, and Down syndrome (DS)) were enrolled in the six inclusive elementary schools. Seventy-five percent of the parents declared there were no negative effects on their child’s academic outcomes, and seven percent of parents cited a negative impact on the academic progress of their children. Fifteen percent of the parents, however, reported a positive improvement on their children’s academic performance. With respect to social and emotional developmental, eighty-seven percent of the participants indicated positive impacts on their children’s behavior (i.e., learning to respect the needs of their peers with disabilities, gaining awareness about differences among people, feeling more confident, and improving their ability to make friendships with students with disabilities). In contrast, only one
19
percent of the parents thought inclusion had negative effects on the social and behavioral performance of their children without disabilities.
A program evaluation was conducted by Idol (2006) in four elementary and four secondary schools that had applied inclusive education. The program evaluation aimed, via questionnaire, to gather information from school personnel regarding their experiences with the inclusive education system in their schools and, in particular, personnel’s perceptions of the effect of inclusion on typical students. More than half of the sample reported that students’ status improved in general. They also stated that there was no negative impact on students without disabilities from being in the same classroom with their peers with disabilities. Personnel also reported on the effect of inclusion on statewide test scores. While 36% believed that the statewide test scores of students without disabilities were steadily progressing, 33% believed there had been no change in statewide test scores for this population. Finally, the researcher investigated the impact of inclusion on the social behaviors of students in general education. All personnel in one of the elementary schools reported that typical students showed improvement in social behaviors in inclusion settings while personnel in the other schools said social behaviors remained the same.
Challenges. Despite all the benefits, there are challenges to the implementation of inclusive education. Studies have indicated that four main factors have affected the practical movement of inclusive schooling; those factors include teachers’ attitudes, teachers’ collaboration skills, the nature of the student’s disability, and the implementation of inclusive practices.
Teachers’ attitudes and aptitudes toward students with disabilities. Teacher beliefs play a vital role in the process of implementing any educational program (Garrington, 1999). Beliefs
20
are not less important than the professional skills of the teachers (Garrington, 1999). As members of society, teachers are influenced by the beliefs, values, and norms of mainstream culture (Garrington, 1999). Transforming the culture of individuals, society, and the educational body is required for the development toward inclusive schooling (Burstein et al., 2004).
Teachers are “the ultimate key to educational change and school improvement” ((Garrington,
1999, p. 264).Teachers do not merely deliver the curriculum; instead, they have the potential to effectively contribute to defining, developing, and improving the whole educational process
(Garrington, 1999). Any negative attitudes that a teacher might have toward people with disabilities will reflect on the teacher’s ability to serve students in the classroom (Carrington,
1999).Teacher training, staff development, and professional skills are core elements to developing schooling and improving teachers’ efficiency, especially for the inclusive education programs to be successful (Burstein et al., 2004). Continued personnel development is a critical factor in the training programs (Burstein et al., 2004). However, current teacher specialization and certification practices often fail to prepare a teacher for inclusive education as they tend to only provide the teacher with an understanding of disabilities in the teacher’s area of interest
(Burstein et al., 2004; Mariano, 2004).
Teachers’ collaboration and cooperation skills. Collaboration skills among general and special education teachers are critical to the success of the inclusive education movement (Kim,
2012). General and special education teachers need time for planning, collaborating, and communicating in order to make inclusion successful. The lack of planning time for collaboration and communication among general and special education teachers is considered a critical problem confronting endeavors toward inclusion (Burstein et al., 2004). The lack of collaborative planning time results in a lack of cooperative teaching between general and special
21
education teachers and doesn’t support the partnerships between teachers and other staff members (Burstein et al., 2004; Salend & Duhaney, 1999). Classroom support and resources can also be impacted by limited collaboration and interaction between school personnel (Carrington,
1999; Subban & Sharma, 2005). Additionally, teachers’ commitment is another form of collaboration that has been misinterpreted by both general and special education teachers (Kim,
2012). Some general education teachers, because of their perceptions of inclusion, still consider students with disabilities in their class as outside the scope of their responsibility (Kim, 2012). At the same time, some special education teachers may wrongly think that by including students’ with disabilities in the general education classroom, it would make them, the special education teacher, less responsible for the student’s learning (Kim, 2012).
The characteristics of the disability. Behavioral problems constitute one of the biggest classroom challenges for both general and special education teachers (Alper et al. 2002).
Challenging behavior can disrupt classroom activities and limit teachers’ ability to provide services to all students. Challenging behaviors, in some cases, are used as an excuse for referring students to a more restrictive environment. With the demands placed on the general education teacher, behavioral problems may be seen as too much work on the part of the teacher (Alper et al., 2002; Burstein et al., 2004; Salend & Duhaney, 1999). The communication difficulties related to the nature of some types of disabilities such as IDs, ASD, visual and hearing impairment, and other disabilities affect the social interaction between students with disabilities, their teachers, as well as their peers (Alper et al., 2002; Kelly et al., 2014).
Another challenge related to the characteristics of some disabilities is the need for unbiased assessments to measure students’ abilities and progress (Bowen & Rude, 2006). School districts generally have three options for assessments; schools have the option of using regular
22
assessments, making accommodations on the regular assessments, or using alternative assessments (Bowen & Rude, 2006). However, not all schools have these options. For example,
Fuchs and Fuchs (2001) argued, “some states prohibit the very accommodations” (p. 177) necessary to assess certain students. This forces one to question the credibility of tests used to measure students’ abilities and progress and to question the extent of the accommodations that school districts can make to meet the exceptional students' needs (Bowen & Rude, 2006).
Implementation and delivery of services. The transition to inclusive education can be a critical challenge for students with and without disabilities, their parents, and school personnel
(Burstein et al., 2004; Kelly et al., 2014; Kim, 2012 Mariano, 2004); inclusion that moves too slowly or too quickly can lead to failure. Including students with disabilities in the general classroom without taking into account their academic, emotional, behavioral, and social needs hinders the process of inclusion. It also impacts the progress of all students with and without disabilities and limits the benefits of related services (Kim, 2012). Another challenge regarding the implementation of inclusion, is the delivery of services. Exclusion within inclusion became a big concern among researchers; for example, grouping numbers of students with disabilities in one classroom, teaching students with disabilities exclusively by special education teachers, and providing excessive support can also be types of isolation (Burstein et al., 2004; Kim, 2012;
Mariano, 2004) “within the wall of the inclusive classroom” (Mariano, 2004, p. 35). In the inclusive settings, schools have the option of either making curricular and procedural adaptations or designing alternative activities to insure all students have access to the general education curriculum (Alice, 1992). Of course, it is incredibly challenging to provide alternative activities and/or appropriate Assistive Technology (AT) for students with different needs when adequate financial support is not available (Salend & Duhaney, 1999).
23
Teachers’ Attitudes
“The work related to teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion originated from the theoretical framework developed by Fazio (1986) who viewed attitudes as having an evaluative component”
(Emam & Mohamed, 2011, p. 977). Significant inclusive education cannot be achieved until we revise our cultural and educational attitudes toward people with disabilities and value their rights as members of society. Teachers are key to changing society’s perception on issues related to students; furthermore, society could be willing to reject or accept any new education system based on teachers' attitudes, positive or negative. Teachers’ everyday experiences with their students provide an important resource for researchers. Teachers are cornerstones of their communities, and they are in the position to demand rights for children with disabilities. The attitudes of teachers do make an impact on the community and decision-makers (Gaad, 2004).
Going beyond language and terminology into deeper issues of inclusion and social acceptance of people with IDs, one must discuss the different attitudes toward inclusion, particularly attitudes about including students with IDs in inclusive school settings. Such explorations are necessary to understand a given society’s understanding of, acceptance toward, and beliefs about persons with individual differences.
General and special education teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. A meta-analysis conducted by Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) reviewed 28 survey studies, from 1958 through
1995, about American teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. The data collected from the meta- analysis showed that forty percent of the participants considered inclusion to be a realistic demand for most students. However, the responses were influenced by the conditions of the students’ disability. Interestingly, the authors reported that there were no changes to the teachers’ attitudes over the years. In the same year, 1996, Vaughn et al. conducted a focus group
24
interview to investigate American special education teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion.
Remarkably, these interviewees did not teach in schools that participated in or practiced inclusion. The interviewees reported a very negative perspective toward inclusive schooling.
This result, however, was explained by the idea that teachers’ years of teaching experience could have an effectual impact on his or her beliefs and perceptions on teaching methods and systems.
Studies showed an improvement on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion when they themselves participated in inclusive settings (LeRoy & Simpson, 1996; Sebastian & Mathot-Buckner’s,
1998; Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Nevin, 1996).
More recent studies have been conducted in the United Kingdoms (UK) and in Australia in order to investigate teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. An UK qualitative study by Smith and Smith (2000) investigated early-childhood and elementary general education school teachers’ perspectives toward the factors of successful inclusive classrooms. The participants presented a positive attitude toward inclusion in general; however, they indicated a number of factors that had a critical impact on the practical administration of inclusion, such as the need for professional training for both general and special education teachers, consistency in class size and the severity of disabilities, level of support and collaboration, and adequate time for planning.
In the same year, 2000, another UK study on primary and secondary teachers was conducted. Some of the teachers who participated in the study had previous experience in inclusive education while others had never taught in environments that had implemented inclusive education. Additionally, some of these teachers had participated in professional development programs while others had not. The researchers used a mixed method to survey teachers’ attitudes toward including students with disabilities in the general education classroom.
25
Analysis of Likert-type inventories and open-end questionnaire data indicated more positive attitudes among teachers who practiced inclusive education and had experienced professional development programs than teachers who were without any experience in inclusion. In addition, teachers who held more positive attitudes also presented more confidence in meeting the
Individual Education Program (IEP) needs of their students with disabilities when compared with teachers who had not experience any professional development program (Avramidis et al.,
2000).
Australian researchers, Subban and Sharma (2005), conducted an empirical study to investigate general education teachers’ concerns and perspectives toward inclusion. All teachers in this study had previous experience teaching students with special education needs, and most of them had professional training in special education. Remarkably, all participants exhibited a level of confidence toward including students with disabilities in their classrooms. The findings from the semi-structured interviews that were prepared for this investigation presented the need for more ongoing knowledge, experience, and know-how for teachers in order for them to be confident and successful in inclusive education. The analysis of the interview data indicated that both the severity of disability and the previous opportunity to contact people with disabilities had a great impact on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. In contrast, a study by Woolfson and
Brady (2009) examined inclusive teachers’ beliefs about teaching students with disabilities and reported that teachers’ previous teaching and training experiences no significant effect on teachers’ beliefs about self-efficacy.
Many of the studies conducted to examine both special and general education teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion presented a number of similarities and differences in participants’ attitudes. For example, neither general nor special education teachers who participated in a study
26
by Semmel et al. (1991) showed negative attitudes toward pull-out special education programs.
In contrast, a study by Elhoweris and Alsheikh (2006) used a Q-methodology “involves the rank ordering of a set of statements from agree to disagree” (p. 116) to survey in-service general and special education teachers who were participating in master’s and doctoral programs of education. The majority of teachers presented a positive attitude toward including students with disabilities in the general classroom. However, special education teachers were more accepting of the idea of full-inclusion. Pre-service general and special education teachers participated in a study by Shade and Steward (2010) in which teachers joined a required special education course.
The researchers conducted an inclusion inventory prior to the beginning of the special education course and a post-test inventory at the end of the course. Both pre-service and special education teachers’ post-test attitudes toward inclusion were significantly and positively transformed when compared with their responses in the pre-test. This is consistent with the findings of a state-wide needs assessment by Buell et al. (1999) that emphasized the importance of the existence of professional development programs for both general and special education teachers. By assessing teachers’ efficacy, ability, understanding, and resources, the survey results of Buell et al. indicated more confidence among special education teachers about their ability and preparation to serve in inclusive settings in contrast to their colleagues from the general education field.
General and special education teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion students with
IDs. Researchers from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), and
UK investigated general education teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of students with IDs in general classrooms (Alghazo & Gaad, 2004; Hastings & Oakford, 2003; Memisevic & Hodzic
2011). A mixed methods study by Alghazo and Gaad (2004) applied a questionnaire and a series of and structured individual interviews to explore UAE teachers’ perspectives about including
27
students with IDs in general education schools. The teachers’ gender, past teaching experience, and the severity of student disability were also factored into teacher responses. Both groups of
UAE teachers presented negative attitudes toward including students with IDs in the general classroom. In particular, UAE teachers were more opposed to inclusion for students with severe
IDs, and male teachers presented more negative attitudes compared to female teachers. Teachers who had up to five years teaching experience, showed more acceptance for the inclusion of students with IDs in their classrooms. For the teachers who showed both positive and negative attitudes, the authors included open-ended questions to gather more detailed explanations for these teachers’ responses. Unfortunately, the researchers did not discuss any of these more open- ended responses in their article.
Memisevic and Hodzic (2011) surveyed Bosnian elementary school teachers’ attitudes about the inclusion of students with IDs into general classrooms. The majority of Bosnian teachers expressed their support for the inclusion of students with IDs. Nevertheless, the teachers stated concerns about the existence of adequate training in order to support students with IDs in the general classroom. Unlike the study conducted in UAE, no significant differences in attitudes could be attributed to teachers’ gender or level of experience in the Bosnian study.
However, teachers who had taught lower elementary students tended to have more supportive perspectives toward the inclusion of students with IDs than those teachers who experienced teaching higher elementary students.
When comparing the type of disability, training background, and teaching experience,
Hastings and Oakford (2003) used the Impact of Inclusion Questionnaire (IIQ) to examine pre- service teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with IDs and emotional and behavioral difficulties (EBDs). Pre-service teachers presented more positive attitudes toward the
28
inclusion of students with IDs and more negative attitude toward the inclusion of those with
EBDs. The participants’ concerns were about the negative impact of including students with
EBDs on their peers, teachers, and school environments. In contrast to the previous Memisevic and Hodzic (2011) study, this study showed more positive attitudes among pre-service teachers who were trained to serve older students. No significant differences in attitudes could be attributed to teachers’ level of teaching experience.
Numerous studies have explored special and general education teachers’ and other stakeholders’ attitudes toward inclusion and students with IDs. For example, Vernier (2012) investigated the effects of in-service program training on special and general education teachers’ attitudes. Vernier also compared the changes in the perspectives of both special and general education teachers before and after the program training. While post-test data analysis showed an improvement in the attitudes of both groups of teachers, special education teachers had higher pre-test rates of positive perspectives toward the inclusion of students with IDs than did the general education teachers. The researcher attributed this difference in pre-test responses to the probability that special education teachers had previous training in inclusive education in the form of a required course needed to obtain their special education license. Unfortunately, the data analysis that was done in this study did not present the relationship between teachers’ attitudes and other variables that had been collected, such as years of teaching experience and grade level taught.
A quantitative study conducted by Alquraini (2012), investigated special and general education teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with severe IDs in general classrooms in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Teachers’ responses on the Arabic version of Opinions Relative to Inclusion of Students with Disabilities (ORI) were measured and
29
analyzed in association with their previous experience with teaching, level of contact with a person with disabilities, past professional training, and other variables. Male teachers and general education teachers in this study were actually less rejecting than female teachers and special education teachers. In contrast to the previous studies of Hastings and Oakford (2003) and
Memisevic and Hodzic (2011), this study exhibited no significant attitude differences attributable to grade level taught, years of teaching experience, level of education, or having a family member with a disability.
Further findings from the Alquraini (2012) study concluded that teachers in KSA presented comparatively negative attitudes toward the inclusion of severely disabled students in general public schools. The researcher speculated that teachers’ negative attitudes toward inclusion of students with severe disabilities might be related to the particular severe disability he was investigating. Teachers who had previous teaching experience with students with disabilities, however, presented less negative perspectives about the inclusion of students with severe IDs. Teachers working with a large-size classroom showed more negative attitudes and more concerns toward the inclusive education of students with severe IDs.
An Australian study by Yazbeck, McVilly, and Parmenter (2004) examined the attitudes of non-teachers toward students with IDs. The researchers aimed to compare the attitudes of university students, disability-service professionals, and individuals in the general population with regard to their age, level of education, and degree of contact with a person with disability.
Data collected through a standardized questionnaire indicated less positive attitudes toward students with IDs among the individuals in the general population in the east coast of Australia.
Students and disability-service professionals presented more acceptance of the idea of including students with IDs in general education classrooms. Positive attitudes were also found in the
30
younger participants, participants with higher levels of education, and those in contact with a person with disability. The researchers emphasized the need for new policies and strategies in order to achieve successful inclusion.
Teachers’ Self-efficacy
In 1977 Bandura defined self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p.3). Bandura further asserted that people might be resistant to acting if they lack the knowledge to carry out the course of action completely (1982). Bandura (1986) later concluded that “[w]hat people think, believe, and feel affects how they behave” (p.25). Thus, “[p]eople have attitudes when they love or hate things or people and when they approve or disapprove of them” (Fazio, 1986, p. 269). In this regard, “[t]eachers’ self-efficacy was considered a vital factor which has a significant impact on their attitudes toward inclusion” (Emam & Mohamed, 2011, p.977).
Teachers’ self-efficacy has been the topic of many studies; particularly, a number of studies have been conducted to investigate teachers’ perceptions about their professional skills regarding inclusion (Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2013). Teachers, regardless of their attitudes toward inclusion, may or may not have adequate skills to successfully facilitate, apply, and practice inclusive education. Studies have shown that some teachers who presented positive attitudes lacked adequate knowledge of and skills necessary for inclusion. While teachers’ beliefs certainly impact their attitudes, their professional skills can impact the overall success or failure of the entire educational practice (Carrington, 1999). As a result, “a lack of preparation to teach special needs students, and thus a decreased level of confidence, can have a direct influence on one’s overall view of inclusion” (Rosenzweig, 2009, p. 19). In such a circumstance,
31
teachers’ attitudes could impact their behavior with students with disabilities, and this in turn could highly affect student outcomes (Rosenzweig, 2009).
Studies investigating pre-service teachers’ perceptions about their abilities to navigate inclusive education settings have suggested that teachers’ responses were generally based on their classroom experiences rather than a theoretical understanding of inclusion (Burke &
Sutherland, 2004). Pre-service teachers believe in the benefit of inclusion for students with disabilities; however, these same teachers have concerns about the actual practice of inclusion
(Brackenreed & Barnett, 2006). Brackenreed and Barnett (2006) indicated that most pre-service teachers expressed cautious confidence in their abilities to cope with an inclusion situation. They also indicated that pre-service teachers were concerned about their teacher preparation experiences with inclusion. Pre-service teachers reported inadequate instructional skills regarding inclusive education (Cook, 2002). Cook (2002) indicated that pre-service teachers were also concerned about the ability of general education teachers to teach students with certain type of disabilities, such as students with IDs, EBD, and multiple disabilities. However, they tended to believe that they would feel more confident when teaching students with LDs.
Although pre-teachers presented a greater knowledge background about inclusion than did in- service teachers (Burke & Sutherland, 2004), they stated that there was a lack of resources and training which caused them a great deal of stress and attrition (Marshall et al., 2002).
A study by Rosenzweig (2009) investigated general education teachers’ preparation for inclusive education. Although general education teachers accepted the theory of inclusion, they expressed low self-efficacy and a lack of desired skills for teaching students with disabilities.
The majority of the participants were uncomfortable using the Response to Intervention (RTI) model, Functional Behavior Assessments (FBAs), and Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) in
32
their general classrooms. General education teachers reported a lack of additional teaching strategies appropriate for certain disabilities. General education teachers also reported lacking an understanding of the differentiated instruction required to meet the students’ needs, fears about lacking the teaching skills, and the ability to engage all students in the inclusive classroom were also shown to be of high concern. General education teachers expressed their need for adequate professional training in line with the trend toward inclusive education.
Austin (2001) indicated that in the inclusive classroom, the greater responsibility is on general education co-teachers rather than on special education co-teachers. The researcher stated that special education co-teachers, instead of being content-area experts, were considered visitor specialists with the job of providing assistance to adapt and remediate the curricula. Shade and
Steward (2010) found that 71% of teachers believed that they did not have adequate experience and training to succeed in the inclusive classroom. However, teachers with higher self-efficacy felt more capable of dealing with students’ problems than were teachers with lower self-efficacy
(Woolfson & Brady, 2009). The studies emphasized the need for continued professional training for both pre-service and in-service teachers (Shade & Steward, 2010).
Recurrent Themes about Inclusion
A number of themes have emerged from the review of literature pertaining to the topic of inclusion of students with IDs. Specifically, the researcher has identified five main themes regarding general attitudes toward inclusion and inclusion of students with IDs. From the studies reviewed, teachers who presented positive attitudes as well as those teachers who presented negative attitudes toward inclusion in general and the inclusion of students with IDs, all indicated that one or more of the following elements were unsupportive for inclusive education: inadequate teacher preparation, inadequate resources, and a lack of collaboration among
33
personnel. The category and the severity of disability were also big concerns to most of the teachers who participated in these research studies. The extent to which students could benefit from inclusive education in high enrolled classrooms was another theme that emerged from the literature.
Professional training and staff development. Numerous studies using quantitative methods in addition to some studies using qualitative methods highlight the importance of teacher training and staff development (Subban & Sharma, 2005; Avramidis, Vayliss, & Burden,
2000). Both general and special education teachers reported that professional training and personnel developmental (Vernier, 2012), as well as both pre-service and in-service training, were critical to supporting inclusive practices (Avaramidis & Norwich, 2002). Additionally, most studies demonstrated that professional training and staff development were critical factors in improving teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and students with disabilities (Subban
&Sharma, 2005; Vernier, 2012). Further, teachers insisted on the importance of continuing and expanding staff training to insure the ongoing success of inclusion (Avaramidis & Norwich,
2002). Similarly, special education teachers showed more support of and positive attitudes toward inclusion when the completion of training programs in inclusion were required to obtain a special education license (Vernier, 2012).
Adaptations and alternatives. In the inclusive setting, schools have the option to either make adaptations to the curriculum and procedures or to design alternative activities that insure all students have access to the general education curriculum (Alice, 1992). A number of studies have indicated the need for adapting the existing materials to meet the needs of students with disabilities (Rosenzweig, 2009). Also affecting teachers’ attitudes and their discussion of factors necessary for successful inclusive education was their schools’ ability to, with respect to
34
education laws; provide appropriate resources allowing students with disabilities to benefit from the general education curriculum (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).
Collaboration among general education and special education teachers. A lack of collaboration between classroom teachers, administrators, and other professional staff in the school may be seen as an obstacle to the successful practice of inclusion (Avramidis & Norwich,
2002; Subban & Sharma, 2005). Leadership (Shade & Stewart, 2010), co-teaching (Hamilton-
Jones & Vail, 2013), and classroom support (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002) are forms of collaboration that foster supportive environments for implementing inclusive education. In addition, the extent of information sharing, planning time, and the level of partnership between general and special education teachers enhance teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion as well as the learning environment for all students (Kim, 2012). The availability of opportunities for supporting and consulting with other teachers and relevant personnel has been identified as an important factor influencing teachers’ attitudes in many of these studies (Avramidis & Norwich,
2002).
Severity of the disability. Situations in which students with IDs are learning in the same environment as students with other categories of disabilities have been of interest to researchers.
Most of the studies that focused on inclusion and students with IDs and Physical Impairments indicated a considerable concern among teachers about the inclusion of students with severe disabilities, especially when associated with high enrolled classrooms (Alquraini, 2012).
However, when comparing with teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of the other types of disabilities, the studies indicated less acceptance among teachers toward inclusion of students with EBDs (Subban & Sharma, 2005) than toward inclusion of students with IDs (Hastings &
Oakford, 2003). Teachers’ concerns revolved around perceived negative effects of inclusive
35
education on both students with and without disabilities (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Alghzo and Gaad (2004) indicated that the teachers with less favorable attitudes toward inclusion were concerned about their ability to maintain control in a classroom that included students with behavioral problems. Other teachers expressed their lack of knowledge and background regarding severe disabilities and specific types of disabilities, such as hearing impairment
(Alghzo & Gaad, 2004)
Class size. Class sizes associated with a lack of classroom support and limited resources can be a problem for teachers in inclusive classrooms (Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen, Cabello, &
Spagna, 2004). A large class size involving a number of students with disabilities can limit and disperse the efforts of teachers and affect the quality of education, especially if there is a lack of qualified teachers (Burstein et al., 2004). Teachers with previous experience teaching large classes reported less positive attitudes than did teachers without this experience, such as pre- service teachers or special education teachers in special education classrooms (Alquraini, 2012).
Reducing class size seemed to have a major impact on both general and special education teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion (Smith & Smith, 2000).
Cultural Aspects of Inclusion Across Countries
Internationally, a trend toward inclusive education can be seen. The policy of inclusive education calls for respecting the right of all students, regardless of their strengths or weaknesses, in order to support them as they become part of mainstream school and society
(Anati, 2012). This review of literature explores current practices shaping the movement toward inclusive education in countries of the Middle East, including Jordan and the United Arab
Emirates (UAE), compared to those practices of countries in the European Union (EU), such as
England and Turkey. Salend (2005) mentioned that numerous countries across the world have
36
issued new laws or replaced earlier laws in order to address the participation of students with disabilities in general education schools. Researchers have investigated the debate among stakeholders regarding the challenges, the advantages, and the practices of inclusive education systems in their countries (Friend & Bursuck, 2002). The discussion of inclusion often considers to what extent it would be possible to include students with disabilities in the regular education classroom (Amr, 2011). However, in Middle Eastern countries, of which Jordan and UAE are just an example, there was semi-consensus among educators that inclusive education was not a priority due to challenges and the absence of fundamental educational system services (Al
Zyoudi et al., 2011; Amr, 2011; Anati, 2012).
Inclusion in the Middle East. This section includes a discussion of the policies and practices that play a central role in determining whether or not inclusive education is implemented in some countries in the Middle East region. A series of challenges, however, are facing these countries toward fulfilling their commitment toward implementing inclusion.
Policies. With respect to disability rights, educational policies in many Middle Eastern countries were encouraged to align with the United Nations Convention; that is, according to the
United Nations Convention (UNC 2006), students with disabilities are part of the school community and have the right to education regardless of their type of disability. Inclusive education, therefore, became an international project, albeit one that is currently optional for
United Nation members (Al Zyoudi et al., 2011; Amr, 2011; Anati, 2012). The UAE is one of the
Middle Eastern counties that recently established laws for people with disabilities that are in line with the United Nations Convention. As of 2005, the UAE did not have any federal law in place to protect the rights of people with disabilities. The new law of UAE 2006 guarantees the right to education in an inclusive manner for people with disabilities (Anati, 2012).
37
Jordan is another Middle Eastern country that replaced its earlier law with a new law of
2007 in order to correspond to educational trends outlined by the United Nations. Remarkably,
Jordan’s earlier “Handicapped Law of 1993” (Hamaidi et al., 2012, p. 1), called for the civil rights of individuals with disabilities. However, the 2007 amendments to the law made Jordan harmonious with the international education movement. Since that time, the educational system in Jordan has paid attention to the issues related to inclusion of students with disabilities in the general classroom. Currently, Jordan is one of the leaders among Arab countries in the fields of special education and inclusive education (Al Zyoudi et al., 2011; Amr, 2011; Hamaidi et al.,
2012).
Practices. Educational practices in Middle Eastern countries must contend with many restrictions at educational, social, financial, and logistical levels (Al Zyoudi et al., 2011; Amr,
2011; Anati, 2012; Hamaidi et al., 2012). A study by Anati (2012) concluded that UAE’s schools are not prepared for inclusion. Although teachers in this study appreciated the principles of inclusive education, they presented a lack of confidence, training, and preparation necessary for practicing inclusion in their schools. The teachers were also concerned about their ability to and the realities of including students with disabilities in the general classroom. Among general education teachers, there was a great concern about teaching students with disabilities. General education teachers consider students with disabilities to be a heavy burden on their shoulders.
However, in Jordan, there was a significant positive relationship between offering resources and teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Teachers expressed positive attitudes if they had appropriate resources (Al Zyoudi et al., 2011). At the same time, there was evidence across educational communities of a general belief that teaching students with disabilities was the responsibility of special education teachers (Amr, 2011). In light of the aforementioned concerns, Jordan and
38
UAE face significant challenges to the fulfillment of their commitment to uphold UNC policies regarding the rights of persons with disabilities; further, this makes these countries dubious role models for other, similarly-structured and equipped countries in the region (Al Zyoudi et al.,
2011; Amr, 2011; Anati, 2012; Hamaidi et al., 2012).
Challenges. The implementation of inclusion is clearly a challenge for developing countries. Educational systems, culture, and the degree of awareness about the principle of education for all students in these countries has contributed to shaping the protocols of educational practice (Al Zyoudi et al., 2011; Amr, 2011; Anati, 2012; Hamaidi et al., 2012).
Difficulties in the educational system have influenced the journey toward inclusive education in many ways. In most developing countries, for example, the educational system lacks essential educational services in both quantity and quality.
The lack of equal educational opportunity for all students provides another challenge to achieving inclusive education (Amr, 2011). Amr (2011) argued that under such conditions, achieving inclusive education is not yet seen as a priority goal for the educational systems in developing countries. Amr (2011) concluded that there was lack of funding for resources, a lack of preparation for special and general education teachers, and a lack of teacher training for in- service teachers; these conditions were consequences of the lack of understanding among decision-makers about inclusion (Al Zyoudi et al., 2011; Anati, 2012; Amr, 2011). In addition, most of programs offered for pre-service in both general and special education teachers, are focused on theory rather than actual practice (Amr, 2011, Hamaidi et al., 2012).
Studies conducted in Jordan and the UAE reported obvious challenges in awareness among teachers, parents, and students regarding the advantages of inclusive education. A lack of basic understanding of inclusion was prevalent among workers in the educational fields (Al
39
Zyoudi et al., 2011; Anati, 2012; Gaad, 2004). Many educators in the Middle Eastern region believed that inclusive education was created for students with disabilities and no one else (Amr,
2011). Other teachers “accepted the idea of inclusion in general, but not for those with intellectual disabilities,” which “makes the concept of inclusion meaningless” (Gaad, 2004, p.
320). Parents are not excluded from this misunderstanding of the core tenets of inclusive education. A significant number of parents wrongly thought that including their children in special classrooms in the mainstream school was inclusion (Gaad, 2004). To complicate matters further, the limited financial resources offered from the ministries of education in Middle Eastern countries also hold back the movement toward inclusive education. It is noteworthy that the limited research and literature on inclusion in Middle Eastern countries, and especially Arab countries, as compared to other regions, such as Europe and United States, continues to act as a barrier to the pursuit of inclusive education for all citizens (Amr, 2011).
Inclusion in the European Union. In this section, the experience of implementing inclusive education in the European Union is discussed based on the policy aspects and the educational practices in some of the countries in the region. Countries like Turkey and England have many challenges in their journey toward inclusive education.
Policies. Turkey, as a relatively newly developed country, is considered a central link between European and Asian countries (Melekoglu, Cakiroglu, & Malmgren, 2009). Educational concerns have gained the attention of the Turkish government (Melekoglu et al., 2009). The
Ministry of National Education and The Higher Education Council are the two educational institutions that control the educational system in Turkey. Private and public schools, from pre- schools to high schools, are under the control of the Ministry of National Education. Special
40
education programs are also one of the responsibilities of the Ministry of National Education in
Turkey (Melekoglu et al., 2009).
The Turkish Civil Law (No. 743) of 1926 addressed the special education rights of people with disabilities. Since that time, regulations regarding the provision of special education services have been added in the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey. The law of special education insisted it was the parents’ role to obtain appropriate education for their children with disabilities. In contrast, the Education Law (No. 222) of 1962 required schools to make accommodations and to provide special education services for students with disabilities. Then, the Special Education Needs Legislation (No. 2916) of 1983 stated that all children have the right to be educated and promoted inclusive education at all levels of schooling in Turkey.
Special Education Regulation (No. 573) of 1997 outlined the principles of special education and highlighted the importance of inclusion for students with disabilities in ordinary classrooms.
More recently, the definitions of special education categories and terms have been updated after the Special Education Services Regulation was enacted in 2006 (Cakiroglu & Melekoglu, 2013;
Melekoglu et al., 2009; Sakiz & Woods, 2014). As a consequence of promoting inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms, the number of students with disabilities in mainstream education settings has increased (Melekoglu et al., 2009). The Turkish government has made wide-ranging reforms in its educational system and enacted new regulations for its special education services (Cakiroglu & Melekoglu, 2013).
The philosophy of inclusion in England, however, has its roots in the early 1900s when there was an initial call for a non-segregated educational system (Hodkinson, 2012). Inclusion in its current form complements the new ideology of the civil rights movement that began in the
1960s in England. Consequently, this trend was followed by a rapid development in the
41
following years for the fields of special education and inclusive education (Hodkinson, 2010;
Hodkinson & Devarakonda, 2011) England’s reform legislations of 1978 and the 1981 Education
Act formalized the newly-integrated educational system in England. The Special Educational
Needs and Disability Act (SENDA, 2001), which was the revised form of the Education Act of
1996, supported the rights of children to be educated in mainstream settings. Curriculum 2000, the revised curriculum, was one of England’s governmental efforts toward developing an inclusion policy (Hodkinson, 2010). The principles of Curriculum 2000 emphasized the importance of “setting suitable learning challenges, responding to pupils’ diverse learning needs and overcoming potential barriers to learning and assessment for individuals and groups of pupils” (p. 62). According to the inclusion strategy adopted by the government, teachers are responsible for identifying and meeting the needs of students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms alongside students without disabilities (Hodkinson & Devarakonda, 2011).
Practices. Although the Turkish government would seem to believe in the principle of inclusive education; that is, including students with disabilities in general education classrooms, most of the special education services are provided in special education classrooms (Melekoglu et al., 2009). And even though the population of students with disabilities in general education classroom has increased, it still represents less than 3% of the overall population of students with disabilities in the country. Nevertheless, the past twenty years witnessed a rapid increase in respect for people with disabilities, as they are now seen as valued members of society.
Additionally, great efforts have been made by the Ministry of Education to disseminate awareness about people with disabilities among workers in schools across the country (Cakiroglu
& Melekoglu, 2013; Melekoglu et al., 2009).
42
Remarkably, even with all the government’s efforts to provide inclusive education services for students with disabilities side-by-side with their peers without disabilities, many students either do not have the appropriate services they need, or they are excluded (Sakiz &
Woods, 2014). One of the main reasons for excluding some students from the mainstream option of inclusion is mainstream schools’ inability to meet students’ needs (Sakiz & Woods, 2014). As a result, students with relatively mild disabilities are seen to be more acceptable candidates for inclusive schools (Sakiz & Woods, 2014). Students with moderate to severe disabilities are therefore less acceptable for inclusion in general education (Sakiz & Woods, 2014). Therefore, in
Turkey’s educational system, ensuring inclusive educational access for all students regardless of the type and severity of their disabilities has not been accomplished (Melekoglu et al., 2014;
Sakiz & Woods, 2014).
In England, is rare to find schools that include students with a large range of categorical disabilities. In fact, students with Down’s Syndrome are the most likely to be accepted for inclusive education. Examining further distinctions, students with intellectual disabilities such as
Down’s Syndrome are more likely to be included in general education primary schools than in general education secondary schools. Although teachers are aware of the importance of inclusive education, the majority of educators are suspect about the possibility of integrating all students, regardless of type and intensity of disability, in general education classrooms. The practical implementation of inclusive education in England shows that to achieve successful inclusive education, the process requires radical reform in the educational system, with teachers as the primary focus (Gaad, 2004).
Although legislation in England made it the duty of adults to ensure that children are involved in the process, most inclusion policies lack children’s input (Hodkinson, 2010).
43
Hodkinson’s (2010) study indicated that the majority of students in inclusive settings had no conception of the intent or process of inclusion. Students in Hodkinson’s study also held negative attitudes toward disability and people with disabilities. The practice has shown that sustained communication between those who are involved in orchestrating this process (adults) and those who experience this process (children) can insure the success of inclusion (Hodkinson,
2010). Studies on barriers to effective inclusion suggested two loci: the locus of the government, and the locus of schools (Hodkinson, 2010; Hodkinson & Devarakonda, 2011). In practice, most barriers are located within the locus of schools (Hodkinson, 2010). The responsibility is on teachers’ shoulders to cope with and to overcome these barriers (Hodkinson, 2010). A lack of specialist training is a key stumbling block in the application of inclusive education in England
(Hodkinson, 2010). Regrettably, Hodkinson and Devarakonda’s (2011) study indicated that 80% of teachers showed unclear understanding about the definition of an inclusive environment, approximately 50% of teachers believed they were unprepared for the experience of teaching students with disabilities, and 90% of teachers did not feel confident enough to teach students with disabilities.
Challenges. One of the critical barriers to implementation of inclusion in Turkey’s educational system is the lack of program planning (Melekoglu, Cakiroglu, & Malmgren, 2009).
Special education and general education teachers lacked understanding and knowledge about students with disabilities (Melekoglu et al., 2009; Sakiz & Woods, 2014). Negative attitudes toward inclusion among school workers also resulted from the lack of professional training programs (Sakiz & Woods, 2014). And although there has been an increase in the recent years in the number of teachers majoring in special education in Turkey, the numbers are not sufficient when compared with the needs expressed by the Ministry of Education (Melekoglu et al., 2009).
44
Scarcity of resources is another challenge that prevents classroom teachers from getting the necessary information required in inclusive settings. Both general and special education teachers felt frustration in managing the inclusive classrooms (Cakiroglu & Melekoglu, 2013;
Melekoglu et al., 2009; Sakiz & Woods, 2014). Despite the Turkish Ministry of Education’s efforts toward reform of the educational system to meet the needs of all students, there remained a lack of appropriate curricula, issues with class sizes, and a lack of effective assessment techniques (Melekoglu et al., 2009; Sakiz & Woods, 2014). Involving parents in the inclusive education framework, such that there was substantial collaboration between schools and families of students with disabilities, was desirable; however, Turkish’s schools have experienced lack of parental participation and collaboration, which negatively affected the journey toward inclusion
(Sakiz & Woods, 2014).
In developed countries such as in England, a great deal of attention is given to philosophical understandings of and political proceedings regarding the definition and the language of inclusion (Hodkinson, 2010). Research showed misunderstandings about the definition of inclusion among legislators, decision makers, and stakeholders (Hodkinson, 2010).
Inclusion, therefore, was formed within multiple perspectives and opinions. Because of this, teachers experienced difficulties understanding the concept of inclusion, both theoretically and practically (Hodkinson & Devarakonda, 2011). “Whilst 80% of teachers defined inclusion as
‘including all children’ in the learning environment’ the transcripts revealed they did not actually mean ‘all children’” (Hodkinson & Devarakonda, 2011, p. 58). England also had the problem of untrained teachers who were not prepared to work with students with disabilities (Hodkinson,
2010; Gaad, 2004). There was a common belief among educators that programs of training were
“woefully inadequate” (Hodkinson, 2010, p.65). A lack of available funding directed to inclusive
45
education was another practical challenge toward successful inclusion in England (Hodkinson,
2010). Finally, concerns about appropriate class-size and adequate curricula were also barriers that hindered teachers’ efforts to meet the needs of students with disabilities side-by-side students without disabilities in inclusive classrooms (Gaad, 2004).
Inclusion Across Countries
Themes. After reviewing the research, themes playing a vital role on shaping the present journey of inclusive education in European and Middle Eastern countries began to emerge.
Teachers’ attitudes, education and teacher preparation programs, collaboration, communication, teachers’ responsibilities, parental involvement, and curriculum and resources emerged and can be seen as the foundation to successful implementation of inclusive education in a range of regions and countries around the world (Al Zyoudi et al., 2011; Anati, 2012; Hamaidi et al.,
2012; Gaad, 2004; Hodkinson, 2010; Hodkinson & Devarakonda, 2011; Sakiz & Woods, 2014).
Teachers’ attitudes. Teachers’ attitudes on the subject of inclusive education were of obvious importance (Amr, 2011). Both negative and positive attitudes on the part of pre-service and in-service teachers had a great impact on the application of inclusion (Amr, 2011). Although teachers with positive attitudes gave the initial impression of success, research pointed out that even positive teachers were not often willing to apply their convictions if they did not understand the philosophy of inclusive education or lacked training (Hodkinson, 2010; Sakiz & Woods,
2014). Positive attitudes needed to be supported by training programs and successful practice opportunities for teachers (Melekoglu, 2009).
Across countries, negative attitudes were prevalent among pre-service and in-service teachers (Amr, 2011; Gaad, 2004). Research connected the negative attitudes toward inclusion to teachers’ lack of awareness and training, as well as several practical difficulties (Amr, 2001). For
46
example, several studies concluded that class size (Sakiz & Woods, 2014) and severity of disability (Hodkinson & Devarakonda, 2011; Gaad, 2004) were two other factors that impacted teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion.
Education and teacher preparation programs. Studies showed deficits in both specialized teaching preparation programs and knowledge of inclusion among school personnel
(Hodkinson & Devarakonda, 2011). The general lack of pre-service and in-service training programs for teachers explained the level of educators’ knowledge about inclusive education
(Amr, 2011). Studies have also shown that the focus of teacher preparation programs was more on the topic of special education rather than inclusion (Amr, 2011). Because of this, researchers recommended that education programs provide teachers with the necessary information about inclusion and the essential skills to work in inclusive environments (Melekoglu, 2009). To achieve successful inclusion, studies have indicated a need for revisions of current educational programs (Sakiz & Woods, 2014).
Collaboration, communication, and teachers’ responsibilities. Collaboration, communication, and teachers’ responsibilities were important topics each time inclusion was discussed (Amr, 2011; Sakiz & Woods, 2014). Collaboration and communication between general and special education classroom teachers and/or other service personnel were essential for effective inclusion (Sakiz & Woods, 2014). Research indicated that the success of collaboration and communication were based on teachers’ awareness and knowledge of their responsibilities in the inclusive environment (Sakiz & Woods, 2014). Collaboration and communication between schools and parents were also critical to successful inclusion
(Hodkinson, 2010; Hodkinson; Sakiz & Woods, 2014).
47
Parental involvement. Parental involvement, one of the foundations of successful implementation of inclusive education, has been difficult for most of the countries reviewed
(Hamaidi et al., 2012). Studies have often shown parents being excluded from the process of their children’s education (Hodkinson, 2010). At the same time, classroom teachers expressed dissatisfaction regarding low parental engagement in the education process (Hamaidi, Homidi, &
Reyes, 2012). Research also indicated a lack of parental understanding of inclusive education (Al
Zyoudi et al., 2011; Gaad, 2004). Whatever the reason, the parent’s seat was often vacant when it came to educational involvement (Sakiz & Woods, 2014). This situation negatively impacted the practical experience of inclusion for most of the countries examined (Sakiz & Woods, 2014).
Curricula and resources. Curricula and resources for inclusion were two important topics discussed in many studies and represented a big concern of classroom teachers. Teachers expressed concerns about their ability to adapt the ordinary curriculum (Gaad, 2004) and the availability of resources needed for students with different disabilities in the inclusive classroom
(Melekoglu, Cakiroglu, & Malmgren, 2009). Research pointed to significant relationships between appropriate resources and successful inclusion (Al Zyoudi Al Sartwai, & Dodin, 2011).
Differences and similarities among countries. Research has shown similar international trends toward the fulfillment of commitments to inclusion (Amr, 2011). Both developed and developing countries experienced issues with the practice and implementation of inclusive education in their schools (Sakiz & Woods, 2014). Although the cultural differences between counties were vast, all countries were subjected to many of the same relevant challenges and barriers in their journey toward inclusion (Sakiz & Woods, 2014). Insufficient funding and financial support adversely affected the success of inclusive education and slowed down the implementation progress (Anati, 2012; Hodkinson, 2010). A dearth of teachers qualified to work
48
in the inclusive setting was a dominant disadvantage in educational systems all over the world
(Anati, 2012). Additionally, in these countries, inclusion often failed to “include” all students regardless of the type and the severity of their disabilities (Melekoglu, Cakiroglu, & Malmgren,
2009).
The gap between the theory and practice of inclusion was an obvious issue in developing countries (Hamaidi, Homidi, & Reyes, 2012), and scarcity of field research was observed in
Middle Eastern countries (Amr, 2011). Most of research was more focused on the theoretical aspects than on the statistical processes necessary to measure the success of implementation
(Cakiroglu & Melekoglu, 2013). In addition to the scarcity of research on special education topics in the Middle East, researchers primarily used quantitative rather than qualitative methods
(Cakiroglu & Melekoglu, 2013). Their use of quantitative methods often obscured more in-depth information (Cakiroglu & Melekoglu, 2013).
Cultural factors across countries. Cultural factors affected the success of inclusive classrooms. Studies pointed to similar factors in societal awareness, teachers’ attitudes, and schools’ cultural systems across countries (Gaad, 2004). Cultural beliefs and societal values contributed to shaping the understanding of inclusive education in most of the countries (Gaad,
2004). The principles of inclusion in Islamic countries such as Turkey, UAE, and Jordan were derived from religious beliefs calling for equality between people regardless of their differences
(Weber, 2012). In contrast, the basis for inclusion in England was derived from political ideals and demands for human rights (Hodkinson, 2010; Hodkinson, 2012). Remarkably, in both religious and political contexts, there existed a majority of negative attitudes toward people with disabilities in general and toward inclusion in particular (Gaad, 2004). Ignorance about inclusion was prevalent among senior-level administrators in United Arab Emirates (Anati, 2012). This
49
impeded the development toward inclusive education. Studies have shown a correlation between teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and years of experience in the field (Gaad, 2004). School culture shaped relationships between classroom teachers and other personnel in inclusive environments. School culture also influenced how administrators organized duties assigned to each of general and special education teachers and other specialists (Gaad, 2004)
The Special Education System in Kuwait
Kuwait has three separate educational structures: general education public schools, special education schools, and religious education schools. Special education programs were established in 1967 to include students with different disabilities. Students, however, are separated by disability. Teaching students with disabilities was the responsibility of general education teachers. Research has shown that general education teachers who have the responsibility of teaching in special education settings often lack preparation (Al-Shammari,
2005; Almoosa et al., 2012). In response to the need to prepare qualified teachers to work with students with different types of disabilities, a special education major was established in the
College of Education at the two main higher educational institutions in Kuwait, Kuwait
University (KU) and Public Authority of Applied Education and Training (PAAET). After completing four years of the required course work including one session of practical training,
SPEDPS teachers receive a bachelor's degree in special education to teach in four subjects:
Arabic, Religion, Math, and Science at special education schools that are run in a separate system from the general education schools. However, in-service teachers remain without specialized training (Ministry of Education in the State of Kuwait, 2004-2008; United Nations
Development Programme in the Arab States, 2008).
Inclusive Education in Kuwait
50
Policies. The State of Kuwait is a member of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). The
GCC also includes UAE, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Kuwait was the first country in the GCC to introduce inclusion in public education (Aldaihani, 2010). The adapted policy of inclusion in Kuwait, law No.13 of 1996 emphasized the rights of individuals with disabilities to be integrated in the society. The inclusion policy gave students with disabilities the right to learn beside students without disabilities (Al-Kandari & Salih, 2008). However, Kuwait does not yet have clear strategies for the implementation of inclusion (Al-Kandari & Salih, 2008; Aldaihani,
2010).
Like other countries all over the world, Kuwait witnessed historical practices of separation of people with disabilities at the level of education and society (Salih & Al-Kandari,
2007; Weber, 2012). Although Kuwait signed the Salamanca Statement in 1994 (Aldaihani,
2010) and concluded an agreement in 2013 with United Nations Educational Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on inclusive education for persons with disabilities
(http://en.unesco.org/) students with disabilities remained disadvantaged (Almoosa et al., 2012;
Salih & Al-Kandari, 2007). This indicates that the application of special education policy in the
State of Kuwait shows a discrepancy between what is desired and what is current practice (Al-
Kandari & Salih, 2008; Almoosa et al., 2012).
Practices. Recently, Kuwait modestly experimented in a limited number of selected schools with the integration with students with particular disabilities, such as learning disabilities, hearing and visual impairments, and Down Syndrome, into general education classrooms (Al-Kandari & Salih, 2008; Almoosa et al., 2012; Weber, 2012). Studies of these experimental schools showed negative attitudes among general education teachers toward including students with disabilities in their classrooms. Additionally, pre-service teachers had
51
concerns about their ability to teach students with disabilities (Almoosa et al., 2012; Crabtree &
Williams, 2011).
Challenges. Kuwait faces similar challenges and barriers toward inclusive education as the other developing countries. At the top of the list of difficulties in the state of Kuwait is the lack of preparation programs, specialized training, qualified teachers, and various resources
(Almoosa et al., 2012; Salih & Al-Kandari, 2007; Weber, 2012). For example, research has indicated a lack of effective special education course offerings for pre-service social workers.
Salih and Al-Kandari (2007) found that candidates who attended a course in special education did not have less negative attitudes than other candidates in the control group. The researchers determined that theoretical courses are inadequate when it comes to improving attitudes about students with disabilities (Salih & Al-Kandari, 2007).
Cultural beliefs were influential factors in the process of implementing inclusive education in Kuwait (Weber, 2012). Al-Kandari and Salih (2008) indicated that Kuwait’s legacy of cultural beliefs considers disability to be a shameful matter. They also indicated that these beliefs often cause families to try to hide their family members with disabilities from the public.
It follows that negative attitudes toward inclusion are a reflection of the society’s perspective on people with disabilities. Pre-service and in-service teachers held negative attitudes toward inclusive education and people with disabilities (Al-Kandari & Salih, 2008).
Another challenge to inclusive education in Kuwait relates to the need for converting educational policies into actions. The lack of research about the benefits of inclusion and the scarcity of research investigating the practices of inclusive education in the Arab Gulf region are associated with other cultural factors impeding the inclusive education movement in state of
52
Kuwait as well as other countries in the GCC (Almoosa et al., 2012; Crabtree & Williams, 2011;
Salih & Al-Kandari, 2007; Weber, 2012).
Factors Impacting Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion
In reviewing the literature in the previous sections, research shows that a number of foundational factors have an impact on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of students with disabilities (Emam & Mohamed, 2011). These factors include those related to teachers, students, and the environment. (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Emam & Mohamed, 2011; Smith & Smith,
2000). A collection of teacher variables have been shown to have an impact upon teacher acceptance of the inclusion of students with disabilities (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). A great deal of research regarding teacher characteristics (e.g., gender, age, teaching experience, training, grade level, contact with persons with a disability, and other personality factors), beliefs
(Bandura 1986; Carrington, 1999; Fazio, 1986), and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977; Emam &
Mohamed, 2011; Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2013; Rosenzweing, 2009; Woolfson & Brady, 2009) has been conducted to determine the relationship between those variables and attitudes toward inclusion and students with disabilities (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Wide differences of teacher attitudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities were discussed in the literature
(Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Teachers’ attitudes were found to be significantly impacted by the nature and severity of the disability (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Concerning the factors related to students, “teachers’ perceptions could be differentiated on the basis of three dimensions: physical and sensory, cognitive and behavioral emotional” (Avramidis & Norwich,
2002, p.135). The educational environment includes human and physical support (Avramidis &
Norwich, 2002). These include, for instance, the availability of personnel, the availability of resources, time, class size, and financial support. The availability of learning support assistants,
53
special teachers, speech therapists were seen as important variables in generating positive attitudes among teachers toward the inclusion of students with disabilities (Avramidis &
Norwich, 2002). For instance, making schools accessible to students with disabilities, modifying classroom layout, and providing adequate curriculum materials and other classroom equipment were found to be associated with positive attitudes toward inclusion (Avramidis & Norwich,
2002; Avramidis et al., 2000).
Summary
Students with IDs, just like students with other disabilities, have the right to receive appropriate, high-quality educational experiences. Even though their disability limits intellectual capacity and affects behavior and social skills, they are still members of society who can contribute in meaningful ways if supported appropriately.
Research has provided strong evidence for the usefulness of inclusion. Over 30 years of research, the evidence has continuously affirmed that the practice of inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms has positive consequences (McLeskey et al., 2013).
Through inclusive education, students with disabilities benefit from adapted classroom activities, increased opportunities for risk-taking, and improved social status. Studies report that students with disabilities make academic progress in inclusive classrooms compared to their peers in segregated settings. In addition to the academic benefits, students in inclusive classrooms have been found to be more on-task, show more self-confidence and self-esteem, and have great interaction with teachers and peers. Students’ school attendance improves as a consequence of their academic, behavioral, and social gains. “Students without disabilities do at least as well, and often better, academically when educated in well-designed inclusive classroom” (McLeskey et al., 2013, p.18). Students without disabilities also benefit socially and emotionally from
54
inclusion. Interactions between students without disabilities and their peers with disabilities provide good opportunities to increase personal development and understanding of students with disabilities. When students in general education assist their peers with disabilities, they feel confident. Finally, inclusive school settings provide a great chance for school personnel and students to improve their awareness and knowledge of issues related to different types of disabilities (Carter & Hughes, 2006; Dessemontet et al., 2012; Dore et al., 2002; Freeman &
Alkin, 2000; Foreman et al., 2004; Idol, 2006; Peck et al., 2004; Rea et al., 2002; Ryndak et al.,
1999; Salend & Duhaney, 1999; Waldron et al., 1999).
Because classroom teachers are tasked with the responsibility of helping students with disabilities develop their abilities to the highest possible extent and become more involved in society, teachers’ beliefs and attitudes are critical factors impacting the successful inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classrooms. The lack of training, collaboration skills, and availability of proper resources negatively influences teachers’ abilities and attitudes toward the idea of inclusion. Students’ characteristics and the severity of their disabilities are also important factors impacting teachers’ preferences to teach in inclusive classrooms. Research shows that from the teachers’ view, class size is another obstacle to putting inclusion into practice. General education classroom teachers appear more concerned about skills obtained from professional programs than do special education teachers. However, both general and special education teachers expressed their need for more professional training, pre-service and in-service, in order to apply effective, evidence-based inclusive educational practices.
While educational policy for inclusion values the right of all students to be educated in general education schools, regardless of their strengths or weaknesses, the practices are uneven among countries and do not reflect the trend toward inclusive education. The current practices of
55
inclusive education in Middle Eastern and European Union countries present numerous challenges for the application of the existing education laws. Inclusion is not a priority in developing countries due to a variety of challenges and the absence of fundamental services.
Regarding attitudes toward the inclusion of the students with disabilities, the research appears to be divided into three main areas: variables about teachers, students with disabilities, and the educational environment (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Although there is disagreement among teachers about inclusive education in Arab countries, research reflects that an increase in supportive resources would lead to acceptance of the practice. Requiring special education courses for pre-service teachers in universities is seen as an essential step on the road toward improving teacher attitudes and successful inclusion. Training programs for in-service teachers are also important in this regard. Reducing class-size, increasing the availability of resources, and revising curricula are critical in order to facilitate the process of inclusive education in school settings. To sum up, teacher, student, and educational environment variables were consistently found to be linked with teachers’ attitudes toward students with disabilities and inclusive education (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).
Ultimately, research shows that attitudes and self-efficacy of pre-service teachers are critical components of the inclusion of students with disabilities (Brownlee & Carrington, 2000;
Forlin, et al, 2009). Thus, the main purpose of this study is to investigate SPEDPS teachers’ preparedness for IE in Kuwait. It is important to explore the perceptions of SPEDPS teachers including their attitudes toward students with IDs and toward IE, and their confidence to teach in inclusive settings, as they are teacher candidates and as such will be teaching students with disabilities in the future.
56
CHAPTER THREE
METHOD
Purpose of Research
The aim of this study was to investigate special education pre-service (SPEDPS) teachers’ preparedness for inclusive education (IE). This study was conducted within the State of
Kuwait. The research question was explored through the administration of a survey and interviews and the analysis of responses for both explanatory and confirmatory purposes. The data were collected from the SPEDPS teachers attending the College of Basic Education (CBE) in the State of Kuwait who are specializing in Intellectual Disabilities (IDs). One hundred and ten SPEDPS teachers completed the survey and ten were interviewed in order to explore the research question: What are Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers’ perceptions about the inclusion of students with IDs. The study also included several sub-questions to further explore the participants’: a) attitudes toward students with IDs, b) attitudes toward inclusive education, c) level of confidence in teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings, and, d) desired type of training about inclusive education. The sub-questions were further explored by examining the variables that contributed to participant demographics/characteristics. The associated factors
(teacher, student, and environment factors) to the successful inclusion for students with IDs were examined.
Research Design
A mixed method design was the most appropriate research methodology for this study because it allowed for gathering a breadth and depth of data in order to examine my research questions. An explanatory mixed method design was the design that best fit the purpose of my study. The explanatory MM design is “used when a researcher needs qualitative data to explain
57
or expand on quantitative results” (Cresswell & Plano-Clark, 2007, p. 72). This multi-phase study used two instruments for data collection: a) a self-report survey (quantitative phase), and, b) an interview protocol (qualitative phase). The two phases, quantitative and qualitative, occurred sequentially; with the quantitative phase implemented first followed by the qualitative phase (Figure 1). The results from the quantitative phase drove the questions used in the interviews. The data collected in both phases were used to counterbalance the weaknesses in each method (Creswell, 1994, 2003; Greene et al., 1989; Morgan, 1998; Steckler et al., 1992).
The sequential explanatory mixed methods design attempted to support, validate, and confirm findings within this single study. The analyses from the two phases are related to one another and linked together by the research questions. The quantitative and qualitative phases of the survey were independent on one level (data collection) but they were interdependent on another level
(data analysis and drawing conclusions). Results from the quantitative phase guided the qualitative interviews. Specifically, the quantitative data analysis (outliers, significant/ non- significant findings, demographics, and comparisons) was used to inform the qualitative data collection.
The dominant phase of this study was the quantitative phase, with the survey results serving as the driver for the qualitative phase (Creswell, 1994; Morse, 2003; Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 2003). Interpretations were based on both the quantitative and qualitative analyses.
Quantitative → qualitative →Interpretation based on quantitative + qualitative results
58
Figure 1. Sequential explanatory mixed methods design (Creswell, 2003).
Sampling design. The relationship of the qualitative and quantitative samples for this study was nested. “A nested relationship implies that the sample members selected for one phase of the study represent a subset of those participants chosen for the other facet of the investigation” (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007, p. 292). Conducting in-depth interviews for the qualitative phase (second phase) with the same participants in the quantitative phase (first phase) enabled the researcher to explain and expand the findings from the quantitative phase (Creswell
& Plano Clark, 2011).
The objective of the analyses was to generalize the quantitative and qualitative findings to the population from which the sample was drawn. To select a sample representative of the population, the researcher chose a purposive sampling approach. The purposive sampling technique helps the researcher to select cases from the population that she is interested in studying based on the purpose of the study (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003).
Research questions. As stated previously, the quantitative and the qualitative phases occurred in chronological order. The purpose of this study was to investigate SPEDPS teachers’ preparedness for IE. The research question was: What are Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of the students with IDs?, which was explored through the
59
administration of a survey and interviews and the analysis of the responses (Table 1).
Demographic information on the participants was collected through the survey and served as predictor variables in the study.
Table 1
Research Questions
1. What are Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of the students with
IDs?
What are the attitudes of Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers toward students with IDs?
What are the attitudes of Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers toward IE?
What is level of confidence of Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers toward teaching students
with IDs in inclusive settings?
Do demographic variables have an effect on teachers’ attitudes toward students with
IDs, inclusion, and confidence?
Theoretical Framework
This study began with a quantitative survey phase which reflected a post-positivist paradigm, while the second qualitative phase of interviews reflected a constructivist paradigm
(Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; 2011). The researcher used the pragmatism paradigm as a framework for this sequential mixed method design study (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010).
The pragmatism paradigm helps researchers in examining problems and determining what works in particular situations. The combination between both approaches, quantitative and qualitative, is appropriate for extending our knowledge about preservice teachers’ perceptions and attitudes.
The use of quantitative and qualitative data was appropriate as the goal was to gather breadth and
60
depth of information and to validate the results. Pragmatists insist that a good theory is one that reduces our doubt about the outcome of given action (Lodico et al., 2010). Attitudinal theory
(Fazio, 1986) and the theory of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977) are two theories that also informed the theoretical framework for this study.
Study Setting
Permission to conduct this research was granted by the Research Dissertation Committee and Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Washington State University. A permission letter for access to the survey participants, the SPEDPS teachers specializing in IDs, at the CBE were also secured from the Public Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET) in the state of
Kuwait.
Participants
The target population was pre-service teachers specializing in IDs at the CBE in the State of Kuwait and permission was sought to survey a sample from this population. The Department of Special Education at CBE under the umbrella of the PAAET consists of four areas of specialties: IDs, giftedness and intelligent, hearing impairments, and learning disabilities. There were 760, 994, 37 and 621 pre-service teachers enrolled at CBE in the spring of 2015 in these four specialization areas, respectively (Table 2). Pooled across all four specializations, there were 2412 pre-service teachers, with approximately equal proportion among males and females.
Of these, 32% (760) were pre-service teachers who undertook special education in IDs at CBE.
Table 2
Number of Students Distributed Over the Areas of Specialization at CBE in the Spring of 2015
Area of study Male Female Total/per area of study
Intellectual Disabilities 403 357 760
61
Giftedness & Intelligent 455 539 994
Hearing Impairment 37 0 37
Learning Disabilities 280 341 621
Total 1175 1237 2412
However, only 195 of those pre-service teachers (120 males and 75 females) specializing in IDs were registered for classes in the summer of 2015 at CBE, in Kuwait, at the time of the incipience of the study (Appendix A). The one hundred ninety five were asked to complete the survey, as the purposive sample. One hundred and ten (110) out of 195 SPEDPS teachers in the field of IDs completed the survey instrument (Table 3). The response rate was 56%.
Table 3
Number of Students Registered for Summer Session Courses 2015
Major Male Female Total
Intellectual Disabilities 120 75 195
Giftedness & Intelligent 144 63 207
Hearing Impairment 6 6
Learning Disabilities 30 30 60
Total 468
A power analysis was conducted to determine the ideal sample size. At an alpha of .05, and for a sample with a standard deviation of 1, detecting a mean difference of at least 0.5 with a small effect size d=.75 requires a sample of 100 participants. For a larger effect size and
62
detecting a mean difference of .9, a minimum of 107 subjects with a standard deviation of 1 was needed.
The final sample used in the quantitative phase was then used as the sampling frame for the second phase (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Twelve out of the 110 respondents showed a desire to participate in the qualitative phase (e.g., interviews) and left their contact numbers/ addresses at the bottom of the survey. Ten follow-up interviews took place in the qualitative phase of the study with 5 males and 5 females.
Instrumentation
Two instruments were used to collect data for this study, a survey and an interview protocol. The survey instrument covered four main thematic areas and the priori interview questions covered five thematic areas. The thematic areas are discussed under the quantitative phase and qualitative phase in the following sections.
Quantitative phase – survey. The survey was developed by the researcher using the research literature on inclusive education, intellectual disabilities, teachers’ attitudes, and self- efficacy. The sub-questions of the study represent the main categories/themes of the survey. The survey addressed four major categories/themes: pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs, preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education, their level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings, and the type of training they desired related to inclusive education. The survey was administered online using Qualtrics survey software.
The survey consisted of five sections: a) demographic information (Section I), b) attitudes toward students with IDs (section II), c) attitudes toward IE (section III), d) level of confidence about teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings (section IV), and e) type of
63
desired training (section V). The researcher used surveys developed by various researchers (Al-
Kandari & Salih, 2008; Alrubaian, 2014; Barrio & Combes, 2014; Fekete, 2013; Horn &
Timmons, 2009; Kern, 2006; Walker, 2012; Rademacher et al., 1998; Wilkerson, 2012) to form the basic foundation for Sections II, III, IV, and V of the survey. The final survey items were a mix of adapted items from the surveys, original items taken from the literature, and modified items to fit the culture and context of the State of Kuwait.
SPEDPS teachers were asked to provide basic demographic information. Specifically, they reported their gender, age, citizenship, city, educational attainment, previous training about students with disabilities, course work about IDs, course work about inclusion, and previous experience with a child/children with ID/IDs. Section II included items that required the participants to indicate their agreement or disagreement with 10 statements about attitudes toward people with IDs. Section III included items asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with 20 statements about attitudes toward inclusion. Section IV included items asked teachers to indicate their level of confidence by indicating their agreement or disagreement with 20 statements about teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings. Section V had a list of types of training that the teachers ranked according to their top choices.
Items among the five sections of the survey were adapted and modified from the work of previous researchers for the purpose of the study. In all the items, the terms such as “special needs students”, “students with disabilities”, “students with learning disabilities”, “students with autism”, and “ autistic children” were replaced with the terms “students with intellectual disabilities”. Also the terms “mental retardation”, “learning disabilities and “Autism” were replaced with the terms “intellectual disabilities” in all the survey’s items to match the purpose of this study . The items were presented in the form of statements. Sections II, III, IV and V of
64
the survey together consisted of 50 items. Following each statement in the survey a four-point forced-choice response (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree) were presented in a Likert-type scale that allowed the participants to select the degree of intensity that best described their opinions about the statement. The 50 items in the survey in section II, III, and IV fell into three major factors. Specifically, 14 items pertained to teacher-related factors, 18 items were student-related factors, and the remaining 18 items applied to environment-related factors. The researcher identified eight factors within the teacher-related factors, six factors within the student-related factors, and 13 factors within the environment-related factors (Table 4) to come up with final items for the survey.
Table 4
Factors and Themes Used in Developing The Survey to Examine Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers’ perceptions of The Inclusion of The Students with Intellectual Disabilities
Factors Themes
Teachers-Related Factor (TRF):
1 Relationship & contact
2 Teacher’s belief
3 Teacher responsibility
4 Efficacy for teaching
5 Efficacy for instructional strategies
6 Efficacy for collaboration
7 Efficacy of preparedness for teaching
8 Efficacy for students engagement
Student-Related Factor (SRF):
65
1 Students’ rights
2 Nature of disability
3 Discipline issues
4 Disability vs. ability
5 Perceived ability and inclusion
6 Severity of disability
Environment-Related Factor (ERF):
1 Diversity acceptance
2 Priorities of society
3 Inclusive Education
4 General education
5 Class-size
6 Academic impact
7 Educational legislation
8 General education & curriculum
9 Efficacy for collaboration in inclusion setting
10 Efficacy for time management
11 Efficacy for curriculum adjustment
12 Efficacy for class management
13 Efficacy for teaching & availability of resources
Validity and reliability. Two fundamental elements in the evaluation of a measurement instrument are validity and reliability. Validity refers to the degree to which the instrument
66
measures what it claimed to measure (Drost, 2011). In contrast, reliability refers to whether or not an instrument measures a construct consistently (Desimone & Floch, 2004; Suter, 2012). A survey instrument cannot be valid unless it is reliable. However, the converse is not true; the reliability of an instrument does not depend on its validity.
Validity. The researcher used various ways to measure validity of the survey used in this study. The content validity was supported by a literature review. The substantive validity was provided by expert review by native language speakers in Arabic and English. Rasch’s model was used to examine the validity of the items. Prior to the study three faculty members from
Washington State University who hold Ph.D. degrees in special education reviewed the English version of the instrument. In the summer of 2015 four faculty members from the CBE in Kuwait who hold Ph.D. degrees in special education or curriculum and instruction reviewed the instrument. The faculty members checked the content of survey as well as survey’s wording and the Arabic translation and provided their feedback. The survey items were then revised by the researcher based on the professionals’ suggestions.
Construct validity. Four reviewers in the Department of Teaching and Learning at
Washington State University read the survey and agreed on the relevance of the survey topics and measurement procedures. The reviewers had Ph.D. degrees and extensive backgrounds in the special education field. Analysis of reviewer agreement of relevance was calculated using a
measure of construct validity as follows . The analyses of agreement was implemented for all sections of the survey with consideration for each item. Survey instruments with a construct validity coefficient score of.70 or above are considered to be adequate (Lamb et
67
al., 2012). The estimated coefficient for construct validity for this survey was .97, which indicates an adequate value. Table 5 includes the relevance rating for each item on the survey.
Table 5
Relevance Rating for Each Item on The SPEDPS Teacher Survey
Reviewer 1 Reviewer 2 Reviewer 3 Reviewer 4
Weakly 6, 12, 13,16, 6, 12, 16,17, 6, 12, 13,16, 6,12, 13, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22,
Relevant 17, 20, 21, 22, 20, 22, 24, 33, 20, 22, 24, 30, 28, 32, 33, 37, 39, 45, 46,
25, 52, 54 39, 52, 54, 55, 37, 39, 43, 45, 47, 48, 52, 54, 55, 57
57 48, 52, 54
Strongly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
Relevant 8, 9, 10,11,14, 8, 9, 10, 11, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25,
15, 18, 19, 23, 13, 14, 15, 18, 14, 15, 17, 18, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34,
24, 26, 27, 28, 19, 21, 23, 25, 19, 21, 23, 25, 35, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43,
29, 30, 31, 32, 26, 27, 28, 29, 26, 27, 28, 29, 44, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56,
33, 34, 35, 36, 30, 31, 32, 34, 31, 32, 33, 34, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,
37, 38, 39, 40, 35, 36, 37, 38, 35, 36, 38, 40, 65, 66
41, 42, 43, 44, 40, 41, 42, 43, 41, 42, 44, 46,
45, 46, 47, 48, 44, 45, 46, 47, 47, 49, 50, 51,
49, 50, 51, 53, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57,
55, 56, 57, 58, 53, 56, 58, 59, 58, 59, 60, 61,
68
59, 60, 61, 62, 60, 61, 62, 63, 62, 63, 64, 65,
63, 64, 65, 66 64, 65, 66 66
Validity evidence. The Messick (1998) framework was used to demonstrate evidence for the survey titled: SPEDPS Teachers’ Survey: Attitudes and confidence toward students with IDs and inclusive education in Kuwait (Table 7) ((Lamb, Vallett, & Annetta, 2014; Lamb, Annetta,
Meldrum, & Vallett, 2012).
Table 6
Summary of Validity Evidence
Type of Validity Sources of Evidence
Content Literature review, examination and rating by
expert reviewers of the item-construct
appropriateness.
Substantive Examination and rating by expert reviewers
of the item-construct appropriateness, Rasch
analysis.
Structure Fit to the Rasch model, internal consistency
reliability.
External Factors Rasch item functioning.
Consequential Differential item functioning.
69
Reliability. The reliability estimate for the constructs was .91 using the Rasch Reliability procedure. Questions with low reliability in the survey were revised based on the pilot study results. The reliability analysis helped ascertain whether the set of items in the survey all reliably reflected the same underlying dimensions or the same latent variables.
Cronbach’s alpha was used to estimate the reliability of the survey and it is a function of number of test items and the average inter-correlation among items in the item set. Its value can range from 0 to 1(Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). While the acceptable value for Cronbach’s alpha ranges from 0.70 to 0.95, alpha values above 0.90 suggests that some items in the item set repeatedly test the same question and are redundant. On the contrary, lower alpha suggests poor correlation between items or a low number of items in the test; the former suggests revision or rejection of particular item, while the latter suggests addition of more items. If the questions in the item set reflect different underlying dimensions, Cronbach's alpha will not be able to distinguish between different underlying dimensions. Assumption of dimensionality thus ensures that all items measure a single latent trait or construct and if violated, will cause severe underestimation of reliability.
Prior to estimating Cronbach’s alpha to ensure reliability of the survey instrument, the researcher applied factor analysis on an initial set of 66 questions to categorize them into three dimensions teacher, student, and environment-related factors. Of these, 42 questions pertained to pre-service teacher’s attitude toward IDs and toward inclusive education; and the remaining 24 questions pertained to their confidence toward teaching in inclusive setting.
Factor analysis, to identify the three factors (teacher, student, and environment-related factors); were applied separately on these two categories of questions. After the factor analysis was completed, in order to understand whether the items under each dimension in the survey all
70
reliably measured the same latent variable, the researcher ran Cronbach's alpha on a sample size of 16 pre-service teachers from pilot survey. Within each dimension, the researcher deleted, modified, and added some survey items to ensure an acceptable level of reliability. For the questions pertaining to pre-service teachers’ attitude toward IDs and toward IE, the final value of
Cronbach's alpha for teacher, student, and environment-related factors were 0.73, 0.81, and 0.68.
The researcher deleted, modified or added questions to measurement scale used in the pilot survey to have an acceptable value of Cronbach’s alpha in the range of 0.70-0.90 such that the measurement scale has a high level of internal consistency. The researcher then classified these items into section II and section III of the survey. Scales that represented items pertaining to pre- service teachers’ attitude toward IDs were organized under section II of the survey and those items pertaining to pre-service teachers’ attitude toward IE were organized under section III of the survey. Accordingly, guided by the inferences from Cronbach’s alpha analysis and experts’ suggestions, section II of the survey was constructed after deletion of three questions and modification of two existing questions.
Similarly, section III of the survey was compiled after deletion of ten items, modification of two existing items, and addition of one question. For the items pertaining to pre-service teachers’ confidence toward teaching in inclusive settings (section IV), the corresponding final value of Cronbach's alpha for teacher, student, and environment-related factors were 0.80, 0. 74, and 0.72, that also indicated a high level of internal consistency for the scale pertaining to each dimension. In section IV, nine items were deleted, seven were modified, and five were added by the researcher to arrive at the final measurement scale. The modifications in section II, III, and IV were made to adequately fit with the participants’ understanding. The researcher also added a new section, section V; which was not originally included in the pilot survey, in order to
71
explore the types of training desired by participants at the level of in in-service and in pre- service. These changes were reflected in the final version of survey administered (Appendix B).
It should be noted that the terms pre-service and in-service “training” are used extensively in the survey, as well as in the results and discussion chapters. The more current terminology would be teacher education, or teacher preparation, or professional development.
However, the pre-service teachers in this study would not have a full understanding of the more current terms, but were assumed to understand the term “training” as that term is used extensively in Kuwait. The researcher decided to stay consistent with the term “training” throughout the study, in the survey as well as the results and discussion chapters, so as not to be confusing.
Qualitative phase – interview. The interview questions were structured to encourage a discussion of participants’ perspectives and concerns about inclusion and students with IDs. The structured interview (Table 6) contained 14 a priori questions on different aspects of teachers’ attitudes and IDs, teachers’ attitudes and IE, self-efficacy, and facilitation and training of inclusion. The following questions were used to explore the research question, “What are
Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of the students with IDs?”:
Table 7
A Priori Interview Questions
Questions
1. What is your overall feeling toward students with IDs?
2. What do you think affects your attitude toward students with IDs?
3. What problems/difficulties do you think students with IDs have?
4. What strengths and talents do you think students with IDs have?
72
5. What do you understand about the concept of inclusion?
6. What is your attitude toward inclusive education?
7. What is your attitude about including students with IDs in general classroom?
8. How much confidence do you feel about teaching students with IDs in inclusive
sittings? Why?
9. Do you see yourself as an inclusive educator? Why?
10. How do you rate your level of knowledge regarding inclusion?
11. How you rate your level of knowledge regarding students with IDs?
12. How can we facilitate the inclusion of students with IDs in general education in the
state of Kuwait?
13. What methods of training delivery regarding inclusion and students with IDs do you
think are the most effective/ beneficial? Why?
14. What skills do you think general education and special education teachers need in order
to work with students with IDs?
Validity is a readily recognizable component of the qualitative method. Because validity is perceived as a strength of qualitative research (Creswell, 2003), it determines the credibility of the accounts in the interview process. Credibility in this study was established through the use of the member checking strategy (Lodico et al. 2006). With member checking, the researcher checked for confirmation of perceived meanings from the interviewee’s spoken words during the interview process. This strategy was used during the interview for verification of topics and ideas as they arose. Continual checks for accurate understandings of the participants’ meanings occurred. As a result, the researcher returned to the interviewee for clarification of
73
interpretations. Another strategy used to establish credibility was rich descriptions (Sinkfield,
2006). The TapeACall App on the iPhone device and handwritten notes of the interviews contained verbatim accounts of conversations with the interviewees. The meanings extracted from the interviews are illustrated through the use of direct quotes in the study.
Procedures
Quantitative phase – survey. The survey instrument was modified after expert suggestions and then was pilot-tested with 16 SPEDPS teachers who were volunteers from the same target population in this study and who were studying special education in the CBE in the
State of Kuwait. The purpose of the pilot study was to ascertain the validity and reliability of the survey before it was sent to the sample population. Data from the pilot study were analyzed to make inferences about the reliability of survey instrument. Based on the pilot-test outcomes, changes were made to the survey items in order to increase the reliability, and make each item in the survey more understandable and easier to read. English and Arabic versions of the edited survey were presented to the IRB at Washington State University (WSU) for approval. To ensure that the research was conducted ethically (Fowler, 2009), permission to conduct this research was granted by the Research Dissertation Committee and IRB of Washington State University.
The IRB approval and the instruments were presented to the Department of Special Education in the CBE in the State of Kuwait for permission to begin data collection. The Arabic version of the survey was used for data collection in State of Kuwait.
After the approval to undertake the study was obtained from the WSU Internal Review
Board and also from the PAAET in the State of Kuwait, the survey was uploaded in the Qualtrics software. The link to survey was then shared with key persons (professors at CBE in the Special
Education Department) so that they could invite students to participate in the study. To
74
administer the survey, an invitation letter was emailed to potential participants via key persons with in the Special Education Department at the CBE. Specifically, invitations were sent to 195 of the pre-service teachers in the Department of Special Education to complete the survey.
Participants were given the web-page address to complete the survey within four weeks. Multiple reminders were sent by the key persons. The participants were informed by the key persons at the beginning of the survey that participation in the survey was voluntary and that they could quit at any time. Participants were also informed that all data collected would be kept confidential, and their identities would not be revealed. As part of the consent script at the beginning of the survey (Appendix C), they were also informed that there were no correct responses to the survey items and that the survey should be completed in four weeks from the date the web link was sent to them. After the survey was completed, data were compiled and downloaded in Excel format for further analysis.
Qualitative phase – interviews. During this study, after the survey was completed, the quantitative data were analyzed, and inferences were drawn from the quantitative data, so that the researcher could develop the interview protocol by refining, revising, and modifying the a priori interview protocol questions (Cresswell and Plano-Clark, 2007). The interview questions that were developed a priori were developed to explore the research questions. The semi- structured interview approach was used to provide some organization to the process but also to give the researcher flexibility to ask clarifying and enhancing questions (Freebody, 2003). The process also helped the participants by giving them the flexibility to comment on a range of feelings, perceptions, and ideas.
The respondents who were interested in participating in an individual interview related to this topic were asked to leave their email addresses/ or phone numbers in a space, prepared
75
specifically for this purpose, at the end of the survey. Ten participants (5 male and 5 female) were randomly chosen from those who volunteered to be interviewed.
In the qualitative interview, the researcher used strategies that consisted of telephone interviews with a structured interview guide. To this end, the researcher prepared a list of contact numbers of the respondents from the completed surveys and sent a text message to all those who indicated their willingness to be interviewed. Then the volunteers were asked to provide times they could participate in the interview Next, the researcher organized a list for each interviewee in advance with the interview questions and spaces below each question to make notes when it needed. Phone calls were made to interview each of the ten participants for the qualitative interview. Each interview was recorded using the TapeACall App on the iPhone device and handwritten notes were also taken. Each interview lasted approximately 30 to 45 minutes.
Participants were asked to share their personal perspectives and opinions about the inclusion of students with IDs and level of preparedness related to inclusive education in Kuwait.
Interviewees were encouraged with active feedback and corroborated interpretations of the data throughout the interviews. After collecting the data, the researcher kept all files/data (the records for the interviews) on a laptop in a password protected folder such that the access was restricted to the researcher alone. Interviewees received transcripts of the interview and were asked to contact the researcher if they had any questions, concerns, or additional feedback.
Data Analysis
Survey data. The survey data were analyzed using SPSS 16. To explore the research questions, the researcher used descriptive statistics followed by linear regression analysis.
Descriptive statistics (frequency and percent) were used to analyze the demographic responses
76
and all other items on the survey. Linear regression was carried out to assess the effect of demographic predictor variables on the response variables (i.e., items on the survey).
As a way of exploring the main research question as well as the sub-questions, the effect of the demographic variables on SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs, inclusive education, and level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings were examined. The responses to survey items are an ordinal scale, and do not meet the assumption of being on continuous scale for linear regression. To begin analyzing the data, the researcher averaged the responses to the 10 items on SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward students with IDs, the 20 items on SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward inclusive education, and the 20 items on the
SPEDPS teachers’ level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings.
The averaged responses were on a continuous scale and hence the researcher used linear regression to assess the effect of the demographic variables on averaged responses.
The items under each of the three measurement scales (Teachers attitude toward students with IDs, teachers attitude toward inclusive education, and level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings) fell under three factors (teacher, student, and environment-related factors). With three factors under each of the three measurement scales, the researcher thus created nine new averaged response variables and used linear regression to assess the effect of the demographic predictor variables on these averaged responses.
For the linear regressions, a backward elimination procedure was followed to ensure that the final selected model for each response variable retained only the most influential predictor variable(s). For all statistical tests, a confidence level of 95% was assumed and a p value of <=
0.05 indicated a strong influence of a demographic predictor variable on the response variable of interest. More specifically, in the linear regression, the predictor variables with a significant
77
effect (p ≤ .05) or marginal effect (0.05< p ≤ .10) on the response variable were retained in the final selected model.
Interview data. Qualitative data were transcribed and analyzed following the guidelines established by Strauss & Corbin 1990 for the analysis of qualitative data. Thematic analysis was used for this study (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Interview data were transcribed by the researcher using a word processing tool. Codes replaced participant names in the transcripts. The notes taken during the phone interviews were added where appropriate. By using the thematic analysis method, the responses to the interview questions were transcribed and coded for themes. The researcher used the themes that emerged from the quantitative analysis as fundamental guidelines for the data collection in the qualitative phase and added new themes whenever needed.
Responses from the interviewees were grouped together into abstract concepts and collapsed into categories (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Thus, interview data were analyzed using traditional methods of transcribing the results, coding, categorizing, labeling, and descriptive analysis.
Then, the qualitative data were explained via charts, codes, visuals, and narratives.
78
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to investigate special education pre-service (SPEDPS) teachers’ preparedness for inclusive education (IE). The data were collected from the SPEDPS teachers attending the College of Basic Education (CBE) in the State of Kuwait who are specializing in Intellectual Disabilities (IDs). The overarching question that guided this study was: What are Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of the students with IDs?
The question was explored through the administration of a survey and interviews. The survey was divided into five sections. The first section was designed to gather demographic information.
In the second, third, and fourth sections the SPEDPS teachers rated their attitudes and level of confidence using Likert-type scales (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=agree, 4=strongly agree). The fifth section included lists of types of training for which the SPEDPS teachers
ranked desired training for themselves for in pre-service and in-service training. Sections II, III,
IV, and V of my survey were adapted from the literature (Al-Kandari & Salih, 2008; Alrubaian,
2014; Barrio & Combes, 2014; Fekete, 2013; Horn & Timmons, 2009; Kern, 2006; Walker,
2012; Rademacher et al., 1998; Wilkerson, 2012) to fit the objectives of my study and the culture and context of the State of Kuwait. The results of the sequential mixed methods research study, quantitative and qualitative, were reported respectively. The survey results are reported first, followed by the interview results. The findings from the survey are presented in four sections.
Demographic data are presented first. Next, an item analysis of responses for each statement on the four agreement scales and the ranking of the desired training related to IE are presented using tables and narrative. The third part of this chapter contains results from the multiple linear regression analysis conducted to determine the effect of demographic predictor variables
79
(gender, age, citizenship, city where they live, educational attainment, previous training about students with disabilities, previous course work about IDs, previous course work about inclusion, and previous experience with a child/ children with ID/ IDs) on the SPEDPS teachers’ attitude and level of confidence toward IE. This part of the chapter also includes results from the multiple linear regression analysis conducted to determine the effect of demographic predictor variables on SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes and confidence as well as their perceptions on the survey dimensions (teacher- related factor, student -related factor, and environment- related factor). The data collected during the survey were analyzed using the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS version 16) for Windows computer software. The results from the survey informed and shaped the final interview questions used. Thus, several questions were deleted, and some were added to the interview. The interviews were used to further explore SPEDPS teachers’ perceptions toward students with IDs and toward inclusive education. By using the
thematic analysis method, the responses to the interview questions were transcribed and coded for themes. Interview data were analyzed using traditional methods of transcribing the results and descriptive analysis.
Response Rate
The survey was administered to pre-service teachers in the College of Basic Education
(CBE) in the state of Kuwait via the Qualtrics online survey management system. From the total targeted population of 195 SPEDPS teachers available, 110 participants completed and returned the survey for a response rate of 56%. This is close to what others have considered an acceptable rate for online surveys (Nulty, 2008).
Quantitative Survey Results: Descriptive Statistics
Demographic information. Results from the descriptive analysis carried out to examine
80
the demographic context of the SPEDPS teachers are presented in this section. Table 8 shows the percent of participants’ categorized by gender, age, and citizen.
Of those SPEDPS teachers who responded, 33.6% were males, 43.6 % were females, and
22.7% did not reveal their gender. Of the respondents, 73.6 % and 13.6 % fell into the age group of 18-23 and 24- 29, respectively. Of the 99.9% of the sample participants who responded to this item, 6.4% represented the age group of 30-35 and 3.6 % were in the age group of 36-41. The remaining 2 participants (1.8%) were from a range of age groups. Eighty-five (77%) of the
SPEDPS teacher who participated in this study were Kuwaiti citizens, while twenty-four of them
(22 %) were from other nationalities.
Table 8
Frequency and Percent of Pre-service Teacher Participants by Gender, Age, and Citizenship
Demographic Characteristic Frequency Percent
Gender
Male 37 33.60
Female 48 43.60
No Response 25 22.70
Age
18-23 81 73.60
24-29 15 13.60
30-35 7 6.40
36-41 4 3.60
Other 2 1.80
81
No Response 1 .90
Citizenship
Kuwait 85 77.30
Other 24 21.80
No Response 1 .90
Table 9 shows the percent of participants’ city where they live, educational attainment, and previous training about students with disabilities. Of the 88.1% of the sample SPEDPS teacher who responded to this question, sixteen of the participants (14.5%) were living in the capital city. Fifteen (13.6%) were from Hawalli governorate, seventeen (15.5%) were from Al-
Farwaniya governorate, twenty nine (26.4%) were from Al-Jahra governorate, eighteen (16.4%)
were from Al-Ahmadi governorate, and eight (7.3%) were from Mubarak Al-kabeer governorate.
Of those SPEDPS teachers who responded to this item, seven participants (6.4%) did not reveal their city. Eight (7.3%) of the SPEDPS teachers who participated in this study were freshmen, twenty-nine (26.4%) were sophomores, forty- three (39.1%) were juniors, and twenty- seven
(24.5%) were seniors. Three participants did not provide their education attainment. Of the participants in the study, 45 (40.9%) had previous training about students with disabilities, sixty three (57.3%) had not, and two of them did not respond.
Table 9
Frequency and Percent of Pre-service Teachers for City, Educational Attainment, and Previous training about Students with Disabilities
Demographic Characteristic Frequency Percent
82
City
Al-Asimah Governorate (Capital) 16 14.50
Hawalli governorate 15 13.60
Al-Farwaniya governorate 17 15.50
Al-Jahra governorate 29 26.40
Al-Ahmadi governorate 18 16.40
Mubarak Al-kabeer governorate 8 7.30
No Response 7 6.40
Education Attainment
Freshmen 8 7.30
Sophomore 29 26.40
Junior 43 39.10
Senior 27 24.50
No Response 3 2.70
Previous training about students with disabilities
Yes 45 40.90
No 63 57.30
No Response 2 1.80
Table 10 shows the percent of participants’ previous course work about IDs, previous course work about inclusion, and previous experience with a child/ children with ID/ IDs.
Ninety-six (87.3%) of the SPEDPS teachers had previous course work about IDs. Ten (9.1%) did not have any course work about IDs and 4 (3.6%) of the participants did not respond on this 83
question. Eighty-four (76.4%) of the SPEDPS teachers had previous course work about inclusion. Twenty-two (20%) had not have any course work about inclusion and four (3.6%) of the participants did not respond on this question. Forty-six (41.8%) of the participants in this study had previous experience with a child or children with ID/ IDs. Fifty-eight (52.7%) of the
SPEDPS teachers did not have any previous experience and six (5.5%) did not respond on this question (Table 10).
Table 10
Frequency and Percent of Pre-service Teachers’ by Previous Course Work about IDs, Course
Work about Inclusion, and Experience with a Child/Children with ID/ IDs
Demographic Characteristic Frequency Percent
Previous course work about IDs
Yes 96 87.30
No 10 9.10
No Response 4 3.60
Previous course work about inclusion
Yes 84 76.40
No 22 20.00
No Response 4 3.60
Previous experience with a child/children with ID/ IDs
Yes 46 41.80
No 58 52.70
No Response 6 5.50
84
Teachers’ attitudes toward students with intellectual disabilities. Table 11 shows the percent of participants’ responses on each of the four agreement scales related to their attitudes toward students with IDs. On statements regarding the relationship and contact and teachers’ beliefs; response to the item I am willing to have close friends who have intellectual disabilities,
93.7% of the SPEDPS teachers expressed their agreement and 6.4% exhibited their disagreement. Responding to the item I would not feel embarrassed to introduce a person with intellectual disability to my friends and neighbors, 95.5% of the participants expressed their agreement and 4.5% displayed their disagreement. When responding to I expect students with intellectual disabilities will gain much from school, 98.2% of the participants stated their agreement and 1.8% indicated their disagreement. On statements regarding the characteristic of disability, the SPEDPS teachers stated their attitudes as following: When responding to People who have intellectual disabilities do not have adequate self-control to make them socially equal
with people who do not have intellectual disabilities, fifty percent of the participants expressed their agreement versus 50% of them expressed their disagreement. In response to the item People with intellectual disabilities do not gain much from engaging in social situations with people without intellectual disabilities, 22.8% of SPEDPS teachers stated their agreement, and 77.2 % displayed their disagreement. When responding to Many students with intellectual disabilities can be economically independent throughout their lives, 56.3% of the participants stated their agreement, and 43.7% expressed their disagreement. In responding to the item A person with an intellectual disability can be a contributing member of society, 95.4% of the SPEDPS teachers displayed their agreement versus only 4.5% who expressed their disagreement. On statements regarding the diversity acceptance and the priority of the society; when surveyed on Receiving a guest who is accompanied with an individual who has an intellectual disability could be
85
embarrassing, 21 % of the participants demonstrated their agreement and 39.1% displayed their disagreement on this survey item.
When responding to It is a good idea to have separate swimming pools for people who have intellectual disabilities and people
who do not have intellectual disabilities, 42.7% of the participants stated their agreement and 56.4% displayed their disagreement.
In response to the item The government faces many problems that deserve attention before starting to deal with problems of people
with intellectual disabilities, 71.8% of the SPEDPS teachers stated their agreement and 27.3% exhibited disagreements.
Table 11
Teachers’ Attitudes toward Students with Intellectual Disabilities
Survey Item Percent
86
SD D A SA
I am willing to have close friends who have intellectual disabilities. 0 6.40 57.30 36.40
I would not feel embarrassed to introduce a person with intellectual disability to my friends .90 3.60 36.40 59.10 and neighbors.
I expect students with intellectual disabilities will gain much from school. 0 1.80 39.10 59.10
People who have intellectual disabilities do not have adequate self-control to make them 11.80 38.20 41.80 8.20 socially equal with people who do not have intellectual disabilities.
People with intellectual disabilities do not gain much from engaging in social situations with 34.50 42.70 17.30 5.50
people without intellectual disabilities.
Many students with intellectual disabilities can be economically independent throughout 8.20 35.50 43.60 12.70 their lives.
A person with an intellectual disability can be a contributing member of society. 0 4.50 50.90 44.50
Receiving a guest who is accompanied with an individual who has an intellectual disability 40.00 39.10 15.50 5.50 could be embarrassing.
It is a good idea to have separate swimming pools for people who have intellectual 20.90 35.50 28.20 14.50 disabilities and people who do not have intellectual disabilities.
87 The government faces many problems that deserve attention before starting to deal with
9.10 18.20 50.90 20.90 problems of people with intellectual disabilities.
Note. SD= Strongly Disagree; D= Disagree; A= Agree; SA= Strongly Agree.
Out of all participants, 95.8% of the SPEDPS teachers held a positive attitude toward students with IDs on statements
regarding the relationship and contact and teachers’ beliefs (teacher-related factors). Whereas, only 69.7% and 40.9% of the
SPEDPS teachers, respectively, held a positive attitude toward students with IDs on statements regarding the characteristic of
disability (student-related factors) and on statements regarding diversity acceptance and the priority of the society (environment-
related factors). Average across the teacher, student and environment-related factors, the percent of SPEDPS teachers who held a
positive attitude toward students with IDs was 68.8% in the sample (Table 12)
Table 12
Percent of the Teachers’ Negative and Positive Attitudes toward Students with Intellectual Disabilities
Survey Items Negative Attitudes Positive Attitudes
Teacher-Related Factors
I am willing to have close friends who
have intellectual disabilities. 6.40 93.70
I would not feel embarrassed to
introduce a person with intellectual
88
disability to my friends and neighbors. 4.50 95.50
I expect students with intellectual
disabilities will gain much from school. 1.80 98.20
Average of Responses 4.20 95.80
Student-Related Factors
People who have intellectual disabilities
do not have adequate self-control to
make them socially equal with people 50.00 50.00
who do not have intellectual disabilities.
People with intellectual disabilities do
not gain much from engaging in social
situations with people without
intellectual disabilities. 22.80 77.20
Many students with intellectual
disabilities can be economically
independent throughout their lives. 43.70 56.30
89 A person with an intellectual disability
can be a contributing member of society. 4.50 95.40
Average of Responses 30.20 69.70
Environment-Related Factors
Receiving a guest who is accompanied with
an individual who has an intellectual
disability could be embarrassing. 21.00 39.10
It is a good idea to have separate swimming 42.70 56.40
pools for people who have intellectual
disabilities and people who do not have
intellectual disabilities.
The government faces many problems that
deserve attention before starting to deal with
problems of people with intellectual
disabilities. 71.80 27.30
Average of Responses 45.10 40.90
90
Total Average of SPEDPS Teacher Attitudes 26.50 68.80
Note. If the participants agreed on the positive statements, this meant they had a positive attitude toward students with IDs. If the participants agreed on the negative statements, this meant they had a negative attitude toward students with IDs. Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education. Table 13 shows the percent of participants’ responses on each of the
four agreement scales related to SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education. On statements regarding teacher
responsibility; in response to the item Inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities creates additional work for the staff, 49.1
% of the participants stated their agreement, and 50.9% stated additional work for the staff, 49.1 % of the participants
stated their agreement, and 50.9% stated their disagreement. When surveyed on Teachers might be concerned about instructing students with a wide range of needs in one class, 76.3% of the
SPEDPS teachers demonstrated their agreement, and 23.6 % displayed their disagreement on this survey item. In response to the item It will be difficult for general education teachers to make instructional modifications for students with intellectual disabilities in their classrooms, 70.9% of the participants stated their agreement, and 29% displayed their disagreement. On statements regarding students’ rights, discipline issues, disability versus ability, perceived ability and inclusion, and peers’ acceptance; In response to the item All students with intellectual disabilities should be included in general education classrooms, no matter what intensity of disability they might have, 28.2% of the SPEDPS teachers exhibited their agreement, and 71.9 % displayed their disagreement. When responding to Students who have intellectual disabilities waste time playing in class instead of trying to learn, 30.9% of the participants stated their agreement, and
66.4% displayed their disagreement on this statement. Responding to the item A student with a mild to moderate intellectual disability can succeed in general education classes, 88.2% of the participants stated their agreement, and 10% displayed their disagreement. When responding to
Student with multiple intellectual disabilities can benefit from participating in general education classes, 61.8% of the SPEDPS teachers displayed their agreement and 38.2% exhibited their disagreement.
When surveyed on I have doubts about the effectiveness of including students with intellectual disabilities in general classrooms because they often lack the academic skills necessary for success, 60.9 % demonstrated their agreement and 39.1% displayed their disagreement on this survey item.
Responding to the item Statement students with intellectual disabilities have higher
91
achievement when included in the general education classroom, 71.9% of SPEDPS teachers stated their agreement and 27.3% exhibited their disagreement. In response to the item Self- esteem of students with intellectual disabilities is increased when included in the general education classroom, 91.8% of the participants stated their agreement, and 8.2% displayed their disagreement. When surveyed on Students in their schools accept students with intellectual disabilities in their classrooms, 62.7% of the SPEDPS teachers displayed their agreement, and
37.2% of the participants displayed their disagreement on this statement.
On statements regarding general education, inclusive education, class-size, academic impact, educational legislation, and curriculum; on an item states inclusion is a positive concept,
92.8% of the participants stated their agreement and 7.3% displayed their disagreement.
Responding to the item inclusion causes more problems, 32.7% of the SPEDPS teachers expressed their agreement, and 67.3% exhibited their disagreement. When responding to General
education classroom is an appropriate placement for students with intellectual disabilities,
56.4% of the participants stated their agreement, and 43.6% displayed their disagreement.
Responding to the statement Most or all regular classrooms can be modified to meet the needs of students with intellectual disabilities, 92.7% of the SPEDPS teachers exhibited their agreement, and 6.4% displayed their disagreement. When surveyed on The number of students with intellectual disabilities in a particular class affects the teacher’s effectiveness in teaching that class, 59.1% of the participants stated their agreement, and 40.9% displayed disagreement on this statement. When responding to Students with intellectual disabilities in the regular education classroom will hinder the academic progress of the students without disabilities,
59.1% of the participants demonstrated their agreement and 40.9% displayed their disagreement.
In response to the item The Kuwaiti law should be more clear and specific regarding to the
92
inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities in general classroom, 91.8% of SPEDPS teachers stated their agreement and
6.4% displayed their disagreement. When responding to General education curriculum content is appropriate for students with
intellectual disabilities, 27.2% of the participants stated their agreement and 71.9% displayed their disagreement. When
responding to Inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities will create a positive learning environment for all students, 80.9%
of the SPEDPS teachers displayed their agreement and 19.1% displayed their disagreement on this statement.
Table 13
Teachers’ Attitudes toward Inclusive Education
Survey Item Percent
93 SD D A SA
Inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities creates additional work for the 12.70 38.20 36.40 12.70 staff.
Teachers might be concerned about instructing students with a wide range of needs 4.50 19.10 61.80 14.50 in one class.
It will be difficult for general education teachers to make instructional modifications 4.50 24.50 51.80 19.10 for students with intellectual disabilities in their classrooms.
All students with intellectual disabilities should be included in general education 36.40 35.50 20.90 7.30
classrooms, no matter what intensity of disability they might have.
Students who have intellectual disabilities waste time playing in class instead of 10.00 56.40 27.30 3.60 trying to learn.
A student with a mild to moderate intellectual disability can succeed in general .90 10.00 60.90 27.30 education classes.
A student with multiple intellectual disabilities can benefit from participating in 9.10 29.10 47.30 14.50 general education classes.
I have doubts about the effectiveness of including students with intellectual
94 disabilities in general classrooms because they often lack the academic skills 6.40 32.70 47.30 13.60
necessary for success.
Students with intellectual disabilities have higher academic achievements when .90 26.40 55.50 16.40 included in the general education classroom.
Self-esteem of students with intellectual disabilities is increased when included in 0 8.20 59.10 32.70 the general education classroom.
Students in their schools accept students with intellectual disabilities in their 2.70 34.50 52.70 10.00 classrooms.
Inclusion is a positive concept. 7.30 45.50 47.30
Inclusion causes more problems. 15.50 51.80 24.50 8.20
General education classroom is an appropriate placement for students with 10.00 33.60 35.50 20.90 intellectual disabilities.
Most or all regular classrooms can be modified to meet the needs of students with .90 5.50 62.70 30.00 intellectual disabilities.
The number of students with intellectual disabilities in a particular class affects the 7.30 33.60 47.30 11.80 teacher’s effectiveness in teaching that class.
95 Students with intellectual disabilities in the regular education classroom will hinder
7.30 33.60 47.30 11.80 the academic progress of the students without disabilities.
The Kuwaiti law should be more clear and specific regarding to the inclusion of 0 6.40 49.10 42.70 students with intellectual disabilities in general classroom.
General education curriculum content is appropriate for students with intellectual 25.50 46.40 23.60 3.60 disabilities.
Inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities will create a positive learning .90 18.20 50.90 30.00 environment for all students.
Note. SD= Strongly Disagree; D= Disagree; A= Agree; SA= Strongly Agree.
When the SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward IE was considered (Table 14), only 34.5% of the SPEDPS teachers held a
positive attitude on statements regarding teachers’ responsibility (teacher-related factors); the remaining 65.4% held a negative
attitude. In contrast, a considerable portion of the SPEDPS teachers (63.7%) held a positive attitude toward IE regarding students’
rights, discipline issues, disability versus ability, perceived ability and inclusion, and peers’ acceptance (student-related factors).
Also 65.6% of them held a positive attitude toward IE on statements regarding general education, inclusive education, class-size,
academic impact, educational legislation, and curriculum (environment-related factors). Pooled average across teacher, student and
environment-related factors, for the percentage of SPEDPS teachers’ who expressed a positive attitude toward IE was only 54.6%.
Table 14
96 Percent of the Teachers’ Negative and Positive Attitudes toward Inclusive Education
Survey Items Negative Attitudes Positive Attitudes
Teacher-Related Factors
Inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities
creates additional work for the staff. 49.10 50.90
Teachers might be concerned about instructing
students with a wide range of needs in one class. 76.30 23.60
It will be difficult for general education teachers to 70.90 29.00
make instructional modifications for students with
intellectual disabilities in their classrooms.
Average of Responses 65.40 34.50
Student-Related Factors
All students with intellectual disabilities should be
included in general education classrooms, no matter
what intensity of disability they might have. 71.90 28.20
Students who have intellectual disabilities waste
97
time playing in class instead of trying to learn. 30.90 66.40
A student with a mild to moderate intellectual
disability can succeed in general education classes. 10.90 88.20
A student with multiple intellectual disabilities can
benefit from participating in general education
classes. 38.20 61.80
I have doubts about the effectiveness of including
students with intellectual disabilities in general 60.90 39.10
classrooms because they often lack the academic
skills necessary for success.
Students with intellectual disabilities have higher
academic achievements when included in the general
education classroom. 27.30 71.90
Self-esteem of students with intellectual disabilities
is increased when included in the general education
classroom. 8.20 91.80
98 Students in their schools accept students with
intellectual disabilities in their classrooms. 37.20 62.70
Average of Responses 35.60 63.70
Environment-Related Factors
Inclusion is a positive concept. 7.30 92.80
Inclusion causes more problems. 32.70 67.30
General education classroom is an appropriate
placement for students with intellectual disabilities. 43.60 56.40
Most or all regular classrooms can be modified to
meet the needs of students with intellectual
disabilities. 6.40 92.70
The number of students with intellectual disabilities
in a particular class affects the teacher’s
effectiveness in teaching that class. 59.10 40.90
Students with intellectual disabilities in the regular
education classroom will hinder the academic
99 progress of the students without disabilities. 59.10 40.90
The Kuwaiti law should be more clear and specific
regarding to the inclusion of students with
intellectual disabilities in general classroom. 6.40 91.80
General education curriculum content is appropriate
for students with intellectual disabilities. 71.90 27.20
Inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities
will create a positive learning environment for all 19.10 80.90
students.
Average of Responses 33.90 65.60
Total Average of SPEDPS Teacher Attitudes 44.90 54.60
Note. If the participants agreed on the positive statements, this meant they had a positive attitude toward inclusive education. If the participants agreed on the negative statements, this meant they had a negative attitude toward inclusive education. Level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings. Table 15 shows the percent of participants’
responses on each of the four agreement scales related to their level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive
settings. On statements regarding the efficacy for teaching, instructional strategies, collaboration, preparedness for teaching, and
100 for students’ engagement, when surveyed on I am confident in my ability to teach students with intellectual disabilities, 93.6% of
the SPEDPS teachers exhibited their agreement and only 6.4% displayed their disagreement on this statement. When responding to
I feel confident in designing lesson plans to meet the students learning goals, 90.9% of the participants exhibited their agreement,
and only8, 2% displayed their disagreement on this item. Responding to the statement I feel comfortable in working
collaboratively with general education teachers, 95.5% of the participants displayed their agreement, and only 4.5% expressed
their disagreement. A total of 80.8% of the SPEDPS teachers exhibited their agreement versus only 6.4% of displayed their
disagreement on the statement I need more training in order to appropriately teach students with intellectual disabilities with
learning problems. Responding to the statement I feel confident in developing learning goals and objectives for students with
intellectual disabilities, 85.4% of the participants displayed their agreement, and only 14.5% displayed disagreement.
On the statement My major in special education program has prepared me adequately for teaching students with intellectual disabilities, 81.8% of the participants demonstrated their agreement, and 17.3% expressed their disagreement. When responding to If I become a teacher in an inclusive classroom, I am willing to make reasonable accommodations for all students,
90% of the participants displayed their agreement, and 10% displayed their disagreement on this statement. When SPEDPS teachers were asked about the statement I have the instructional background to teach students with intellectual disabilities effectively, 79.1% of the participants stated their agreement, and 19.1% stated their disagreement.
On statements regarding severity of disability, 46.3% of the SPEDPS teachers stated their agreement on the statement I should only be responsible for teaching students without behavior problems, however, 53.7% of the participants stated their disagreement on the same survey item.
When surveyed on I am comfortable teaching a student that has a mild intellectual disability,
96.4% of the participants stated agreement, and remaining of 3.6% displayed their disagreement on this survey item. On the statement I am comfortable teaching a student that has a severe intellectual disability, 47.3% of the participants presented their agreement, and 52.8% exhibited their disagreement. A total of 58.2% of the SPEDPS teachers stated their agreement, and the remaining of 12.7 % stated their disagreement on the statement I am comfortable teaching a student that has a moderate intellectual disability. When responding to the survey item, I should only be responsible for teaching students with intellectual disabilities who do not have physical disabilities, 43.6% of the SPEDPS teachers expressed their agreement, and 55.5% displayed their disagreement on this statement. On the statement I am comfortable teaching a student who has a multiple disabilities, 62.7% of the participants displayed their agreement, and 36.4% expressed their disagreement.
101
On statements regarding efficacy for collaboration in inclusive setting, time management, curriculum adjustment, class management, and the availability of resource, a total of 51.8% of the SPEDPS teachers indicated their agreement on the statement I have concerns about my ability to collaborate with general education teachers in inclusive settings. However, 47.3% of the participants stated their disagreement in their responses to the same item. Responding to the statement In an inclusive general education classroom, I will have enough time to teach my classes, 80.9% of the SPEDPS teachers stated their agreement, and the remaining of 17.2 % displayed their disagreement. The SPEDPS teachers were asked about their agreement about the statement If I become a teacher in an inclusive classroom; it is too difficult to adjust the curriculum for a student with intellectual disability. Out of the total responses on this statement,
37.3% of the SPEDPS teachers demonstrated their agreement, and 52.7% displayed their disagreement. When surveyed on I can effectively teach students across a wide range of abilities,
72.7% of the participants exhibited their agreement, and 24.5% exhibited their disagreement on the same statement. On the statement I have concerns about my ability to manage large classes in inclusive schools, 66.4% of SPEDPS teachers displayed their agreement, and 32.8% stated their disagreement on this statement. In response to the item Lack of resources will affect my ability to teach students with intellectual disabilities in inclusive classrooms, 88.2% of the
SPEDPS teachers displayed their agreement, and only 11.8% displayed their disagreement.
Table 15
Level of Confidence toward Teaching Students with IDs in Inclusive Settings
102
Percent
SD D A SA
I am confident in my ability to teach students with intellectual disabilities. 0 6.40 49.10 44.50
I feel confident in designing lesson plans to meet the students learning goals. .90 7.30 49.10 41.80
I feel comfortable in working collaboratively with general education teachers. 0 4.50 56.40 39.10
I need more training in order to appropriately teach students with intellectual disabilities with .90 5.50 40.90 50.90 learning problems.
103
I feel confident in developing learning goals and objectives for students with intellectual 0 14.50 40.90 44.50 disabilities.
My major in special education program has prepared me adequately for teaching students with 1.80 15.50 43.60 38.20 intellectual disabilities.
If I become a teacher in an inclusive classroom, I am willing to make reasonable 1.80 8.20 46.40 43.60 accommodations for all students.
I have the instructional background to teach students with intellectual disabilities effectively. .90 18.20 42.70 36.40
I should only be responsible for teaching students without behavior problems. 17.30 36.40 34.50 11.80
I am comfortable teaching a student who has a mild intellectual disability. 0 3.60 48.20 48.20
I am comfortable teaching a student who has a severe intellectual disability. 15.50 37.30 36.40 10.90
I am comfortable teaching a student who has a moderate intellectual disability. 3.60 9.10 58.20 29.10
I should only be responsible for teaching students with intellectual disabilities who do not 17.30 38.20 34.50 9.10 have physical disabilities.
I am comfortable teaching a student who has a multiple disabilities. 9.10 27.30 41.80 20.90
I have concerns about my ability to collaborate with general education teachers in inclusive 10.90 36.40 41.80 10.00 settings.
104 In an inclusive general education classroom, I will have enough time to teach my classes. 2.70 14.50 56.40 24.50
If I become a teacher in an inclusive classroom, it is too difficult to adjust the curriculum for a 11.80 40.90 32.70 13.60 student with intellectual disability.
I can effectively teach students across a wide range of abilities. 3.60 20.90 50.00 22.70
I have concerns about my ability to manage large classes in inclusive schools. 5.50 27.30 47.30 19.10
Lack of resources will affect my ability to teach students with intellectual disabilities in .90 10.90 55.50 32.70 inclusive classrooms.
Note. SD= Strongly Disagree; D= Disagree; A= Agree; SA= Strongly Agree.
Of the 110 SPEDPS teachers, 77.8% expressed a high level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive
settings on statements regarding the efficacy for teaching, instructional strategies, collaboration, preparedness for teaching, and for
students’ engagement (teacher-related factors) (Table 16). A smaller number of the SPEDPS teachers; 62.3 %, held higher level of
confidence on statements regarding severity of disability (student-related factors) and 49.7% held higher level of confidence on
statements regarding efficacy for collaboration in inclusive setting, time management, curriculum adjustment, class management,
and the availability of resource (environment-related factors). The average of the participants who expressed high level of
confidence averaged across the teacher, student and environment-related factors were 63.2%.
Table 16
105 Percent of the Lower and Higher Level of Confidence toward Teaching Students with IDs in Inclusive Settings
Survey items Lower confidence Higher confidence
Teacher-Related Factors
I am confident in my ability to teach students with
intellectual disabilities. 6.40 93.60
I feel confident in designing lesson plans to meet the
students learning goals. 8. 20 90.90
I feel comfortable in working collaboratively with 4.50 95.50
general education teachers.
I need more training in order to appropriately teach
students with intellectual disabilities with learning
problems. 80.80 6.40
I feel confident in developing learning goals and
objectives for students with intellectual disabilities. 14.50 85.40
My major in special education program has prepared
me adequately for teaching students with intellectual
106 disabilities. 17.30 81.80
If I become a teacher in an inclusive classroom, I am
willing to make reasonable accommodations for all
students. 10.00 90.00
I have the instructional background to teach students
with intellectual disabilities effectively. 19.10 79.10
Average of responses 20.10 77.80
Student-Related Factors
I should only be responsible for teaching students
without behavior problems. 46.30 53.70
I am comfortable teaching a student that has a mild
intellectual disability. 3.60 96.40
I am comfortable teaching a student that has a severe
intellectual disability. 52.80 47.30
I am comfortable teaching a student that has a moderate
intellectual disability. 12.70 58.20
107 I should only be responsible for teaching students with
intellectual disabilities who do not have physical
disabilities. 43.60 55.50
I am comfortable teaching a student who has a multiple
disabilities. 36.40 62.70
Average of responses 32.50 62.30
Environment-Related Factors
I have concerns about my ability to collaborate with 51.80 47.30
general education teachers in inclusive settings.
In an inclusive general education classroom, I will have
enough time to teach my classes. 17.20 80.90
If I become a teacher in an inclusive classroom, it is too
difficult to adjust the curriculum for a student with
intellectual disability. 37.30 52.70
I can effectively teach students across a wide range of
abilities. 24.50 72.70
108 I have concerns about my ability to manage large
classes in inclusive schools. 66.40 32.80
Lack of resources will affect my ability to teach
students with intellectual disabilities in inclusive
classrooms. 88.20 11.80
Average of responses 47.50 49.70
Total Average of SPEDPS Teacher Levels of 33.30 63.20 Confidence
Note. If the participants agreed on the positive statements, this meant they had a higher confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings. If the participants agreed on the negative statements, this meant they had a lower confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings. Desired training. Of the entire sample (n =110), 109 of SPEDPS teachers ranked items in section 5 of the survey (Table
17). Using the ranked items, the researcher wanted to gain knowledge about the type of training that SPEDPS teachers desired in
their present time (pre-service) as well as when they become classroom teachers (in-service). Of the 110 SPEDPS teachers, 109
(99.1%) responded to the first question, “What type of training would you like to receive in your pre-service training regarding
including students with intellectual disabilities?” Fifty-one (46.4%) of the SPEDPS teachers perceived receiving practical training
in schools as their first desired training choice as pre-service teachers. Forty-four (40 %) of the SPEDPS teachers had their second
109 choice of training as attending conferences about inclusion. Thirty-two (29.1%) of the SPEDPS teachers considered their third
choice as to take coursework at college/university. Forty-one (37.3%) of the SPEDPS teachers had their fourth training choice as
to go on field visits to inclusive schools in other countries. Forty-two (38.2 %) of the SPEDPS teachers preferred their fifth choice
as to attend workshops about the application of inclusion. Forty-seven (42.7 %) of the SPEDPS teachers had their sixth training
choice as to read article(s) provided to them. Thirty-nine (35.5 %) of the SPEDPS teachers viewed their seventh choice of pre-
service training as voluntarily working for students with disabilities.
Table 17
Pre-Service Training Desired by Special Educating Pre-Service Teachers
Percent
First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh No
Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Response
1. Receive practical training in 46.40 20.00 9.10 6.40 10.90 2.70 3.60 .90 schools
2. Attend conferences about 8.20 40.00 15.50 10.00 13.60 5.50 6.40 .90 inclusion
3. Take coursework at
110 20.90 10.00 29.10 17.30 6.40 8.20 7.30 .90 college/university
4. Go on field visits to inclusive 11.80 12.70 15.50 37.30 9.10 7.30 5.50 .90 schools in other countries
5. Attend workshops about the 3.60 2.70 20.00 12.70 38.20 16.40 5.50 .90 application of inclusion
6. Read article(s) provided to you 1.80 5.50 5.50 1.80 6.40 42.70 35.50 .90
7. Volunteer work with students 6.40 8.20 4.50 13.60 14.50 16.40 35.50 .90 with disabilities
Of the 110 SPEDPS teachers, 108 (98.2%) responded to the second question, “What type of training do you believe would
benefit you most in in-service training regarding including students with intellectual disabilities in your classroom?” (Table 18).
Sixty-eight (61.8 %) of the SPEDPS teachers desired for district level in-service training as their first choice. Fifty (45.5 %) of the
SPEDPS teachers had their second choice as out of district training. Forty-three (39.1 %) of the SPEDPS teachers had as their third
choice, in-service training with visits to inclusive schools in other countries. Fifty-one (46.4 %) of the SPEDPS teachers
considered their fourth choice as school building level training. Forty-three (39.1 %) of the SPEDPS teachers had as their fifth
choice to read articles provided to them. Forty-four (40 %) and 55 (50.9 %) of the SPEDPS teachers perceived time for
consultation with the school psychologist and with other special education teachers, respectively, as the sixth and seventh choice
111 of training in their in-service career.
Table 18
In-Service Training Desired by Special Educating Pre-Service Teachers
Percent
First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh No
Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Choice Response
1. District level in-service 61.80 16.40 6.40 5.50 4.50 3.60 98.20 1.80 training
2. Out of district training 4.50 45.50 24.50 6.40 3.60 10.90 2.70 1.80
3. Field visits to inclusive 20.90 14.50 39.10 11.80 7.30 1.80 2.70 1.80 schools in other countries
4. School building level 4.50 4.50 8.20 46.40 19.10 10.00 5.50 1.80 training
5. Article(s) provided to you 3.60 3.60 1.80 10.00 39.10 13.60 26.40 1.80
6. Time for consultation with .90 8.20 9.10 13.60 16.40 40.00 10.00 1.80 the school psychologist
112 7. Time for consultation with
other special education 1.80 5.50 9.10 4.50 8.20 18.20 50.90 1.80
teachers
Quantitative Survey Results: Linear Regression
Influence of demographic variables on teachers’ attitudes and confidence. A multiple linear regression was calculated
to predict the overall attitudes and level of confidence based on SPEDPS teachers’ gender, age, citizenship, residency (city where
they live), education attainment, previous training about students with disabilities, previous course work about IDs, previous
course work about inclusion, and previous experience with a child/ children with
ID(s) (Table 19). The demographic factors influencing the SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward students with IDs, toward IE, and their level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in
IE settings were explored using regression analyses of the survey data. First, a multiple linear regression was undertaken to explore if different demographic variables (gender, age, citizenship, residency (city where they live), education attainment, previous training about students with disabilities, previous course work about IDs, previous course work about inclusion, and previous experience with a child/ children with ID/ IDs) were influential enough to cause significant differences in the SPEDP teachers’ attitudes and levels of confidence across different demographic variables. The regression model fit of the backward elimination started with the full set of variables and greedily removed the one that most improved the model. Adding one of the deleted variables (if any) was taken in consideration to improve the model. The variables entered and removed from the model were listed, and the following goodness-of-fit statistics are displayed: multiple R, R2 and adjusted R2, standard error of the estimate (Appendix 4).
For each of the sections of the survey, the responses of each of the SPEDPS teachers averaged over all items were regressed against the demographic variables to identify the most influential variable among them that predicted the averaged response. The average of SPEDPS teachers’ of SPEDPS teacher’s attitude toward students with IDs was affected by the main effect of gender only. Specifically, the attitude of the SPEDPS teachers’ teachers toward students with
IDs averaged over all items in section II of the survey in the study was negatively affected by gender. A significant regression equation was found (F(1, 46)= 4.321, p< .043), with an 푅2 of
0.07. A lower R2 for this model suggests that the gender variable captured only 7% of the variance in the average of SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward students with IDs. A model with only gender as the predictor variable would be a poor predictor of the SPEDPS teacher’s attitude
113
toward students with IDs, but the model clearly demonstrated that male and female teachers significantly differed in their attitude toward students with IDs. More specifically, a one unit increase in the gender (i.e., going from 0 to 1) decreased the average attitude of teachers by 0.29 unit (i.e., average of male SPEDPS teachers attitude toward students with IDs was 0.29 unit less than that for the female teachers). The female SPEDPS teachers had more positive attitudes toward students IDs than the male SPEDPS teachers. Gender was a significant predictor of
SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs.
The experience working with children with IDs tended to have a marginal positive influence SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward IE. A significant regression equation was found
(F(2, 45)= 6.043, p< .005), with an 푅2 of 0.18. Together, these two predictor variables, course work on IE and experience, explained 18% of the variance in the average of SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward IE. When all other predictor variables in the model are held constant, completion of additional course work on IE by SPEDPS teachers resulted in a 0.35 unit decrease in the average of SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward IE. In contrast, having experience with a student with IDs resulted in a 0.23 unit increase in the average of SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward IE.
Both course work on IE and previous experience with a child with IDs were significant predictors of SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes toward IE
The response variable of the average of SPEDPS teachers’ level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings was influenced positively by training and negatively by the number of courses completed in IDs as well as completion of coursework on IE (Table 19). A significant regression equation was found (F(3, 44)= 5.031, p< .004), with an 푅2 of 0.21. The three predictor variables collectively explained 21% of the variance in this response variable.
114
SPEDPS teachers who previously completed a training program on students with disabilities had a 0.38 unit increase in
their level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings. One unit increase in the number of courses completed on
IDs led SPEDPS teachers to demonstrate a 0. 37 unit reduction in their confidence level toward teaching students with IDs in IE
setting. SPEDPS teachers who completed a course work on IE had a 0.36 unit lower confidence level in teaching students with
IDs in IE settings. Both previous training about students with disabilities, course work completed about IDs, and course work on
IE were significant predictors of SPEDPS teachers’ confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings.
Table 19
Estimates from Linear Regression on the Average of the SPEDPS teachers’ Responses to the Survey
115 Standardized Demographic Dependent Variable Coefficients t Sig. R2 Predictor Variables Beta Std. Error
Average of SPEDPS teachers attitude toward
students with IDs Gender -0.29 0.08 -2.08 0.04 0.07
Average of SPEDPS teachers attitude toward IE CourseWorkIE -0.35 0.08 -2.58 0.01 0.18 Experience 0.23 0.06 1.68 0.10
Average of SPEDPS teachers LoC toward Teaching Training 0.38 0.09 2.51 0.02
Students with IDs in IE settings NumCourseWorkIDs -0.37 0.01 -2.56 0.01 0.21
CourseWorkIE -0.36 0.11 -2.65 0.01
Note. IDs = intellectual disabilities; IE = inclusive education; LoC =level of confidence; CourseWorkIE = course work about inclusive education; Experience = previous experience with a child with intellectual disabilities; Training = previous training about students with disabilities; NumCourseWorkIDs = number of course work about intellectual disabilities.
Teacher, student, and the environment variables. A multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the extent
to which gender, age, citizen, residency (city where they live), education attainment, previous training about students with
116 disabilities, previous courses about IDs, previous course work about inclusion, and previous experience with a child/ children with
ID/ IDs predicted SPEDPS teachers’ perceptions on the survey items. Specifically, the different items in the survey categorized as
teacher-related, student-related, and environment-related factors were averaged within each section of survey and these averaged
responses were regressed against the predictor demographic variables (Appendix 4).
Teachers-related factor. When the participants’ responses to teacher-related factors were averaged, none of the
demographic predictor variables could explain the variation in the average of SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward students with IDs
(Table 20). The average of the participant responses to teacher-related factors toward students with IDs was not influenced by any
of the demographic predictor variables. The average of SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward IE regarding teacher-related factors was
influenced negatively by the completion of course work on IE. A significant regression equation was found (F(1, 46)= 4.192, p<
.046), with an 푅2 of 0.06. The predictor variable “course work on IE” explained 6% of the variance on their attitude toward IE averaged over the teacher-related factors. The average of
SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward IE was 0.29 units lower if they had completed course work on
IE. Coursework on IE was a significant predictor of SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes toward IE regarding teacher-related factors.
The average of SPEDPS teachers’ level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings regarding teacher-related factors was positively influenced by training and negatively influenced by completion of course work on IE as well as course work completed on
IDs. A significant regression equation was found (F(3, 44)= 4.486, p< .008), with an 푅2 of 0.18.
More specifically, the SPEDPS teachers who had previous training about students with disabilities had 0.29 units higher confidence level in teaching students with IDs in IE settings.
When averaged responses to teacher-related factors were only accounted, a one unit increase in the number of course work completed on IDs led to 0.28 unit lower level of confidence in
SPEDPS teachers toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings. The SPEDPS teachers who completed a course work about IE had 0.42 unit lower confidence level in teaching students with
IDs in IE settings. Eighteen percent of the total variance in the participants’ response on their level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings averaged over the teacher- related factors was explained by previous training about students with disabilities, number of course work about intellectual disabilities, and course work about inclusive education. Both previous training about students with disabilities, number of course work about IDs, and coursework in IE were significant predictors of SPEDPS teachers’ confidence to teach students with disabilities in inclusive settings regarding teacher-related factors.
117
Table 20
Estimates from Linear Regression on the Average of the SPEDPS Teachers’ Responses to the Teacher-Related Factors
Standardized
Demographic Coefficients Dependent Variable t Sig. R2 Predictor Variables Std. Beta Error
Average of SPEDPS teachers attitude toward students with
IDs regarding TRF
118
Average of SPEDPS teachers attitude toward IE regarding CourseWorkIE -0.29 0.21 2.05 0.05 0.06 TRF
Training 0.29 0.13 1.89 0.06 Average of SPEDPS teachers LoC toward Teaching Students NumCourseIDs -0.28 0.01 1.89 0.07 0.18 with IDs in IE settings regarding TRF CourseWorkIE -0.42 0.15 3.01 0.00
Note. IDs = intellectual disabilities; IE = inclusive education; LoC =level of confidence; TRF = teacher-related factors; CourseWorkIE = course work about inclusive education; Training = previous training about students with disabilities; NumCourseWorkIDs = number of course work about intellectual disabilities.
Student-related factor. The average of SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward students with
IDs regarding student-related factors was negatively influenced by completion of course work on
IE (Table 21). The predictor variable “course work on IE” explained 10% of the variance on their attitude toward students with IDs averaged over the student-related factors. A significant regression equation was found (F(1, 46)= 6.398, p< .015), with an 푅2 of 0.10. The average of
SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward students with IDs was 0.35 units lower for SPEDPS teachers who completed a course work on IE. . Coursework on IE was a significant predictor of SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs regarding student-related factors.
The average of the participant responses to student-related factors toward IE was not influenced by any of the demographic predictor variables. The average of SPEDPS teachers’ level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings regarding student-related factors were positively influenced by their citizenship status and prior completion of a training program about students with disabilities. A significant regression equation was found (F(2, 45)=
5.247, p< .009), with an 푅2 of 0.15. Specifically, SPEDPS teachers’ who held Kuwaiti citizenship had 0.31 unit increase and those who has a previous training program about students with IDs had 0.33 unit increase in their level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in
IE settings. The demographic variables on citizenship status and training status of the SPEDPS teachers explained 15% of the variance on their level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings averaged over the student-related factors. Both citizenship and previous training about students with disabilities were significant predictors of SPEDPS teachers’ confidence to teach students with disabilities in inclusive settings regarding student-related factors.
119
Table 21
Estimates from Linear Regression on the Average of the SPEDPS Teachers’ Responses to the Student-Related Factors
Standardized Demographic Dependent Variable Coefficients t Sig. R2 Predictor Variables Beta Std. Error
Average of SPEDPS teachers attitude toward students CourseWorkIE -0.35 0.14 -2.53 0.02 0.10 with IDs regarding SRF
Average of SPEDPS teachers attitude toward IE
120
regarding SRF
Average of SPEDPS teachers LoC toward Teaching Citizenship 0.31 0.12 2.27 0.03 Students with IDs in IE settings regarding SRF 0.15
Training 0.33 0.11 2.43 0.02
Note. IDs) = intellectual disabilities; IE = inclusive education; LoC =level of confidence; SRT = student-related factors; CourseWorkIE = course work about inclusive education; Training = previous training about students with disabilities. Environment-related factor. When environment-related factors were considered, the average of SPEDPS teachers’ attitude
toward students with IDs was positively influenced by teachers’ experience working with students with IDs. The predictor
variable, experience working with children with IDs explained 6% of the variance on their attitude toward students with IDs
averaged over the environment-related factors. A significant regression equation was found (F(1,
46)= 3.765, p< .058), with an 푅2 of 0.06. The average of SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward students with IDs was 0.28 units higher for SPEDPS teachers who had experience working with students with IDs (Table 22). Experience working with children with IDs was a significant predictor of SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs regarding environment-related factors.
The average of the participant responses to environment-related factors toward IE was negatively influenced by completion of coursework on IE, which explained 7% of the variance in their attitude toward IE averaged over the environment-related factors. A significant regression equation was found (F(1, 46)= 4.332, p< .043), with an 푅2 of 0.07. Completion of a coursework on IE resulted in decline in the teachers’ attitude toward IE by 0.29 units, as opposed to those who had not completed corresponding course work. Coursework on IE was a significant predictor of SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes toward IE regarding environment-related factors.
The average of the SPEDPS teachers’ level of confidence toward teaching students with
IDs in IE settings regarding environment-related factors was negatively influenced by the number of courses completed on IDs and positively influenced by their prior experience working with students with IDs. A significant regression equation was found (F(2, 45)= 4.976, p< .011), with an 푅2 of 0.15. Pre-service teachers’ level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings decreased by 0.37 units with each one unit increase in the number of courses completed on IDs. Experience working with students with IDs increased their level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings by 0.30 units. These two demographic variables explained 15% of the variance on their level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in
IE settings averaged over the environment-related factors. Both number of courses completed on
121
IDs and previous experience working with students with IDs were significant predictors of SPEDPS teachers’ confidence to teach
students with disabilities in inclusive settings regarding environment-related factors.
Table 22
Estimates from Linear Regression on the Average of the SPEDPS Teachers’ Responses to the Environment-Related Factors
Standardized Demographic Dependent Variable Coefficients t Sig. R2 Predictor Variables Beta Std. Error
Average of SPEDPS teachers attitude toward
122 Experience 0.28 0.15 1.94 0.06 0.06
students with IDs regarding ERF
Average of SPEDPS teachers attitude toward CourseWorkIE -0.29 0.11 -2.08 0.04 0.07 IE regarding ERF
Average of SPEDPS teachers LoC toward
Teaching Students with IDs in IE settings NumCourseIDs -0.37 0.01 -2.68 0.01
regarding ERF 0.15
Experience 0.30 0.11 2.18 0.04
Note. IDs = intellectual disabilities; IE = inclusive education; LoC =level of confidence; ERF = environment-related factors; Experience = previous experience with a child with intellectual disabilities; CourseWorkIE = course work about inclusive education; NumCourseWorkIDs = number of course work about intellectual disabilities. Qualitative Interview Results
The interview questions were based on a review of the literature and aligned to the research questions. The results from the
quantitative phase of the study informed and shaped the final interview questions used. After analyzing the survey data, the results
indicated a negative impact of the completion of the coursework about IE as well as coursework completed about IDs, the severity
of disability, human and physical support, and society awareness on the SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes and confidence toward
inclusion and students with IDs. The researcher wanted to investigate and understand the reasons behind these outcomes from the
123
survey. Thus, several questions were deleted, and some were added. Table 23 contains the original interview questions and the
final questions used in the study.
Table 23
Original and Final Interview Questions
Original Interview Questions Final Interview Questions
Attitudes and IDs: Teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs:
1. What is your overall feeling toward 1. What is your overall feeling toward students
students with IDs? with IDs?
2. What do you think affects your attitude 2. Have you ever had contact or experience with
toward students with IDs? students with IDs? If yes, based on your
3. What problems/difficulties do you experience, do you think people with IDs can
think students with IDs have? have an independent life?
4. What strengths and talents do you 3. If no, what do you think affects your attitude
think students with IDs have? toward students with IDs?
4. What problems/difficulties do you think
124 students with IDs have?
5. What strengths and talents do you think
students with IDs have?
Attitudes & IE: Teachers’ attitudes toward IE:
5. What do you understand about the 6. What do you understand about the concept of
concept of inclusion? inclusion?
6. What is your attitude IE? 7. How do you feel about IE?
7. What is your attitude about including 8. Do you agree with the idea of including
students with IDs in general students with IDs in the general education
classroom? classroom? Why or why not?
Level of confidence: Teachers’ self-efficacy:
8. How much confidence do you feel 9. Tell me about your confidence level as it
about teaching students with IDs in relates to teaching students with IDs in the
inclusive sittings? Why? general education environment (in inclusive
125 9. Do you see yourself as an inclusive settings).
educator? Why?
10. How do you rate your level of
knowledge regarding inclusion?
11. How you rate your level of knowledge
regarding students with IDs?
Facilitation & training: Teachers’ preparation program:
12. How can we facilitate the inclusion of 10. What did you learn about IDs in your courses?
students with IDs in general education What did you learn about inclusion in your
in the state of Kuwait? courses?
13. What methods of training delivery 11. If programs want to increase preservice
regarding inclusion and students with teachers’ confidence in teaching students with
IDs do you think are the most IDs and also teach in inclusive settings, what
effective/ beneficial? Why? types of courses and experiences should those
14. What skills do you think general programs include?
126 education and special education
teachers need in order to work with
students with IDs?
Challenges and obstacles of inclusion:
12. If you get a teaching position in an inclusive
school, and you are working with/teaching
students with IDs what types of challenges (if
any) do you think you will encounter with
general education teachers, with the
curriculum, with the setting, with parents,
etc.?
13. In your opinion, what are the obstacles that
the application of inclusion faces in Kuwait?
Facilitation of inclusion:
127 14. How can we facilitate the inclusion of
students with IDs in general education
classrooms in the state of Kuwait?
Training:
15. What methods of training delivery regarding
inclusion and students with IDs do you think
are the most effective/ beneficial? Why?
The qualitative data were generated from phone-interviews with ten SPEDPS teachers (5 male and 5 female). Table 24 shows the demographics of the participants. Four of the SPEDPS teachers were in the first year of their program. Two of the interviewees were in the last year of their program, one of them was taking the practical training course at the time of the interview and another four of the participants were in the third year of their program.
Table 24
Interview Participant Demographics
Interview Gender Education Attainment
Participants
P1 F Junior
P2 F Freshmen
P3 F Junior
P4 F Senior
P5 F Junior
P6 M Senior
P7 M Freshmen
P8 M Freshmen
P9 M Junior
P10 M Freshmen
Note. P= Participant, F= Female, M= Male
The participants were asked to respond to open-ended interview questions related to the research question: What are Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of the students with IDs? For the qualitative data from the interviews, lasted approximate of 30 to 45
128
minutes each, the analysis of the open-ended questions included the key words and the phrase responses/ narratives. The researcher organized the data, coded the data, assigned labels to the codes, grouped codes into themes and categories, identified relationships among/ between themes, and presented these results in visual tables. Seven themes emerged from the interviews and are listed in order of frequency of the participants’ comments: (a) teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs, (b) teachers’ attitudes toward IE, (c) teachers’ self-efficacy, (d) teachers’ preparation program, (e) challenges and obstacles of inclusion, (g) facilitation of inclusion, and
(h) training. Eleven sub-themes were nested within the seven thematic categories. Some of the sub-themes such as previous experience, human and physical support, field visit, and awareness of society were evident across multiple themes (Table 25).
Table 25
Themes and Sub-Theme That Emerged From the Interviews
Theme Sub-Theme
Teachers’ beliefs Teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs Previous experience
Teachers’ knowledge
Severity of disability Teachers’ attitudes toward IE Negative effect of IE
Human and physical support
Human and physical support Teachers’ self-efficacy Previous experience
Theoretical coursework Teachers’ preparation program Inclusion coursework
129
Field visit
Human and physical support Challenges and obstacles of inclusion Awareness of society
Awareness of society Facilitation of inclusion Human and physical support
Field visit Training Workshops and conferences
Teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs. When asked to describe their attitudes toward students with disabilities, two sub themes emerged from the participants’ responses: (a) teachers’ beliefs and (b) previous experience. As the SPEDPS teachers were asked about their overall feeling toward students with IDs, there was a mixture of responses; however their responses centered around two key factors: (a) sympathy/empathy, and (b) fear.
Teachers’ beliefs. Seven of the respondents had positive attitudes toward students with
IDs while five of the participants held beliefs that were sympathy/empathy oriented. One interviewee said, “I have sympathy for this group of people” (P4). Another interviewee said,
“Sympathy, but I don't show how I feel about them; I do not want to hurt their feelings” (P2).
One interviewee mentioned that his positive attitude inspired from the Islamic religion. He said,
“My feelings toward them are mercy, and that is from the essence of our religion that requests we treat the weak with mercy” (P9).
Three of the interviewees mentioned that their feeling toward students with disabilities has been qualitatively changed after they specialized in special education. A male interviewee reported, “Before I specialized in the field of IDs, my attitude toward them was mere sympathy.
130
Later, my feeling toward them became deeper. Since I learned about their characteristics and abilities, my perception changed to feeling responsible toward them” (P6).
One interviewee had conflicted feelings toward students with IDs. She indicated her fear of dealing with students with IDs; however, she believes that they have the right to be integrated in the society. Her fear was due the lack of experience with people with IDs. She said:
I am not familiar with dealing with them. Sometimes, I feel scared of dealing with them… perhaps because I am not familiar with them or do not see them very often. However, I still believe that they have the same rights as any other group in society. My brain thinks in a way different from how my heart feels. (P1) The SPEDPS teachers were asked what problems/difficulties they think students with IDs have. Six of the participants believed that students with IDs lack social interaction and have low levels of confidence. One female participant said, “Difficulties in interaction, limited response, how to know what they want, and how to do what makes them happy” (P4). She added, “… they are afraid of facing society and they might trust only the people close to them” (P4). Another female participant said, “Lack of confidence, feeling of inferiority” (P5).
Four of the participants agreed that some of the students with IDs can develop vocational skills during their lives. A female SPEDPS teacher said, “From my observations and my experience dealing with a person with an ID, I can tell that some people with IDs have artistic or vocational talents or even athletic talents, which can be developed and refined” (P2). A male
SPEDPS teacher said, “The skills that the person with ID is trained on may achieve perfection, and they can be a strength he/she has” (P7). Another male interviewee said, “They have good vocational skills, which can be utilized and developed to become a future occupation or employment for them” (P10).
131
Previous experience. The SPEDPS teachers responded to the question: Have you ever had contact or experience with students with intellectual disabilities? If yes, based on your experience, do you think people with IDs can have an independent life? Five of the participants indicated that they had a previous experience with a person(s) with disability. Three of those who had a previous experience thought that students with disabilities cannot have an independent life.
A male participant said, “Yes, I once saw a person with a severe disability. Then I started thinking that people with disabilities cannot be independent, never. I still have this impression in my mind (P3). Another male interviewee said, “Yes, my brother and my cousin have IDs. From personal experience, they have limited ability to be independent in their lives” (P10). For those who did not have any experience with a person with ID, the researcher asked them: What do you think affects your attitude toward students with IDs? Four of them indicated that their specialization in Special Education has had a major effect on their attitudes. A female interviewee stated, “I think what influenced my opinion toward them in the first place is the major courses I studied in college, the courses, the forums that I participated in and the extensive reading about disabilities and associated topics” (P5). Another male interviewee said, “The specialty in Special Education has a major role in my current perception of students with IDs”
(P6).
Teachers’ attitudes toward IE. Four sub-themes emerged in this thematic category: (a) teachers’ knowledge, (b) severity of disability, (c) negative effect of IE, and (d) human and physical support. According to the interview data, SPEDPS teachers had differing personal perceptions toward IE. Teachers fell into two groups with five being proponents of and five against inclusion of students with IDs in the general education classroom. Four of the interviewees, who were supportive of the idea of inclusion of students with IDs, insisted on the
132
right of these students to learn. A female interviewee said, “I support the idea of inclusion. I also support the inclusion of students with IDs in the general classroom. I am with inclusive education, because when we isolate them, we deprive them of their right” (P1). A male interviewee said, “I support the idea of educational inclusion of students with IDs. They have the right to learn with their peers. Not to be isolated” (P7). However, the interviewees who are against inclusion of students with IDs in general education classroom had different opinions. A female interviewee said, “In my opinion, students with IDs will get their right in care more in special education classes and in schools specific to them” (P3). Another male interviewee said, “I am against the inclusion of students with IDs in general schools because regular schools are unsuited for the presence of students with IDs” (P6).
Teachers’ knowledge. In response to the question regarding the understanding about the concept of inclusion in general, two of the interviewees considered inclusion as a life style. A female interviewee reported, “I think sometimes we need to call for the inclusion of the child even in family surroundings since some students with IDs suffer being isolated even from their family” (P3). Another female interviewee said, “Inclusion is a life. They are not aliens coming from another planet. Inclusion is the foundation and all the other terms are as typical. The best saying is going back to normality in life” (P4). Eight of the interviewees mentioned that inclusion means the existence of the students with IDs in society and classrooms with their regular peers. A male participant said, “Academic inclusion is the inclusion of students with IDs with their regular peers. While inclusion, in general, is the presence of students with IDs in all social aspects as they are persons in society and a part of it” (P7). However, one male interviewee stated that inclusion means the existence of separate classrooms for students with
IDs inside the regular schools. He said, “Inclusion; as far as I know and according to my
133
understanding, is the presence of students with IDs in special classrooms inside general schools”
(P6). A junior interviewee responded that the idea of IE was not clear for him yet. His hope was to change his views toward the inclusion of students with IDs and to be more confident after he finishes his program. He said:
Although I am a student in the third year of college, I still don't feel much confidence in my ability in teaching students with IDs. That is due to my personal belief that it is difficult to deal with them. I am not contradicting myself here when I said they are friendly and nice, but that is an inside belief that I have; besides I still need to take some courses in teaching strategies. I hope I change my mind and get more confidence in
myself after I finish my college studies and start fieldwork…The image of inclusive education and its application is not obvious enough to me. (P9)
Severity of disability. Three of the interviewees had concerns about the inclusion of the students with IDs. Their concerns were regarding the severity of disability of the students with
IDs. The most frequently mentioned concern was about the inclusion of students with severe disabilities. However, they were more accepting of the idea of inclusion of students with mild to moderate disabilities. One female interviewee reported, “Yes, I support the inclusion of students with IDs, but that depends on the severity of the disability” (P4). Another interviewee was more specific and said, “I am for the inclusion of students with mild to moderate IDs” (P10). A female interviewee who was a proponent of the idea of inclusion in general said, “I might contradict myself here and say that I am somewhat against the inclusion of students with IDs… Especially considering that students with severe disabilities are not receptive to learning” (P5).
Negative effects of IE. The negative effects of IE were another concern about the inclusion of the students with IDs. Three out of both those who were for inclusion and those against had some worries about the inclusion of students with IDs regarding the negative effects of the IE. According to the interview data, the behavioral, the academic, and the negative
134
reaction of the peers without disabilities and their parents were the main concerns about the inclusion of the students with IDs from the point of view of SPEDPS teachers.
I am against the inclusion of students with IDs in general schools…They will be psychologically affected and feel that they are inferior to the other students, which might cause them absence from school, have behavior problem, or even disinterest in learning, due to the big difference between him/her and the other students. (P6) A male interviewee said, “I have worries about the negative reaction of their peers in the classroom, and also from the parents of the regular students, who might be displeased with the presence of students with IDs in the classroom with their regular kids” (P8). Another male interviewee said, “The “full" inclusion of students with IDs might affect the academic performance of the students with IDs and of their regular peers” (P9).
Human and physical support. Four of the interviewees had concerns about the application of IE in Kuwait due to the lack of the foundations for the inclusion of students with
IDs, such as the proper environment (building and classroom), the availability of resources, and qualified teachers in special education. One female SPEDPS teacher who was against inclusion of students with IDs said, “As I said, no. But I would agree with the conditions of the availability of the proper environment and the factors for a successful inclusion” (P2). Another participant against inclusion said:
In my opinion, students with IDs will get their right in care more in special education classes and in schools specific to them. There is contradiction in my sayings here…We don’t have the foundations for inclusion; how would we accept the application of inclusion? But if all the requirements needed for academic inclusion was available, as is the case in developed countries, such as the proper buildings, the availability of resource, the specialized teachers…etc., then we can say “Yes”. (P3) Another interviewee shared the same concern said, “Since not everyone in general schools has the knowledge and the preparation to deal with students with IDs, there will be a
135
burden on the teacher in managing the classroom and providing attention and care to all the students” (P5). Another participant who supported the inclusion of the students with IDs stated his worries about applying IE in Kuwait because of the lack of foundation for successful inclusion, saying, “I am with the inclusion of students with IDs in general classes, but I worry about the lack of readiness in the classroom environment to receive them one by one next to their regular peers” (P8). One interviewee indicated the importance of the time in case we want to apply the IE in Kuwait. She was for the idea of the inclusion, however, she insisted on considering the time as a critical factor in order to achieve successful in this experience.
I am for educational inclusion with the condition that the experience starts gradually. I just want to remind you about the situation in Kuwait 5 years ago. Now, the term inclusion obviously began being used between specialists. Thus, time is a significant factor. I confirm not hurrying the application to secure the success of the attempt. (P4) Another female interviewee who supported the idea of the inclusion of students with IDs thought that Kuwait needed a period of time to arrive to the point that society accepts their presence. She said, “I think that we will face problems at first. Then, over time, the people will get used to their presence, and when they become familiar with their presence, they will accept them” (P1).
Teacher self-efficacy. The two sub-themes that emerged from the teacher self-efficacy theme included: (a) human and physical support and (b) previous experience. Findings indicated that six of the SPEDPS teachers had a high confidence to teach in inclusive settings. One interviewee stated his love of his job as a teacher and indicated a high level of confidence in teaching in inclusive settings although he did not support the idea of inclusion.
Despite my doubts about the idea of inclusion, I love teaching and I think any teacher who is interested in his job would be ready to do his best to help his students. I trust my ability, although I am not satisfied with the idea, basically. (P6)
136
Human and physical support. Although the six of SPEDPS teachers indicated that they were confident about teaching in inclusive settings, three of them did not express confidence about teaching in inclusive settings without assistant teacher. One female interviewee said:
If the idea of inclusion was inevitably assigned, I think I am currently 85% capable of teaching in an inclusive environment, and my confidence might increase to 100% when I finish my degree. Also under the condition that my main responsibility is to take care of students with IDs in the classroom in the presence of the class teacher for the rest of the students, I would say yes. I can do that. (P3) Another female interviewee said:
I have no fear of the idea. Everything is possible through practice. However, I don’t see myself as a teacher in inclusion classes without help. It will be a great responsibility and many duties. There should be cooperation with another teacher in the classroom. The process requires collaboration between us to do the duties in the best way. (P4) Another female interviewee stated:
Without the presence of an assistant in the class, my confidence in teaching in an environment of inclusion won’t be high. I give myself 6 out of 10 on the measurement of self confidence in the absence of an assistant teacher in the classroom. And this is the case in the schools of Kuwait, to my knowledge, unless the situation changes later. (P5) Previous experience. Two of the participants related their feelings of confidence to their previous experience. One interviewee talked about his observations in some schools that were implementing partial inclusion of students with learning disabilities (LD) in Kuwait.
I have great confidence in my ability in teaching in inclusion classes, and that is based on my observations of the experiences of partial inclusion in some schools. Thus, it will not be very difficult if we apply inclusive education. (P7) Another interviewee talked about his experience with his brother and how it reflected on his confidence to teach the students with IDs in inclusive setting, positively.
My familial experience, with my passion for my major, gave me high confidence in my ability to teach inclusion classes. I also have high confidence in my knowledge with
137
students with IDs. I am the only person who can deal with my brother at home. Yes, I can see myself as a teacher in inclusion classes due to my previous experiences. (P10) Teacher preparation programs. The three sub-themes that emerged from the theme of teacher preparation programs were: (a) theoretical coursework, (b) inclusion coursework, and (c) field visits. Answering the questions: What did you learn about intellectual disabilities in your courses?, What did you learn about inclusion in your courses? and If programs want to increase pre-service teachers’ confidence in teaching students with intellectual disabilities and also teach in inclusive settings, what types of courses and experiences should those programs include? Two of the participants said that the students with severe disabilities cannot be taught in general
classroom.
About inclusion, thanks to the teacher who taught the inclusion class in college. The teacher was very interested in inclusion as a topic and gave us comprehensive explanation to its advantages and disadvantages…Some students with severe IDs cannot be included in general education due to big differences in their abilities compared to their regular peers’ abilities…The inclusion of students with severe IDs could be partially successful in school activities. However, they progress academically and may hinder the educational progress of their normal peers. (P1) Another female interviewee said, “I learned that “mental retardation” (intellectual disabilities) has levels, moderate to severe and severely profound. Persons with severe disabilities can be given life skills rather than academic study” (P4).
Theoretical coursework. Eight of the SPEDPS teachers stated that their coursework was mostly built based on a theoretical basis. A one male interviewee who was taking the practical training at the time of the interview said:
I learned the levels of intelligence and their meanings, which are very important things in my view, to determine the needs of each student with a disability. By the way, 90%, most of the materials we studied in college, they are not implemented in real life. This is what I
138
realized in the practical training I am taking right now…The practical world is different from the academic world. They are absolutely different. (P6) Another male interviewee stated:
I still need a lot of information about inclusion in the classroom. The course work I had in college was more theoretically focused than it was practical and it was not adequate. However, I learned that I have to be patient. (P10) Five of the SPEDPS teachers insisted on the importance of having practical courses during their program. A female interviewee insisted and said, “Practice, practice, and practice.
This is how I gain knowledge. Of course we still need to study topics about disabilities;
however, we need to practice what we studied in real life” (P2). Another female interviewee said,
“Practical courses rather than just theoretical courses, also programs to deal directly with students with disabilities would be a good thing” (P5).
Inclusion coursework. Six of the interviewees reported that one course about inclusion, during the whole of their program, was not adequate to have good knowledge and understanding of inclusion of the students with IDs. A female interviewee reported:
I am not well versed in the idea of inclusive education. As I said, I haven’t taken the inclusion course so far. I am only relying on some information I get from here and there about inclusion; either in other courses or from general information. There is just one course about inclusion in whole my program and I did not take it yet. Also, I want to add that only one course in inclusion is not enough to give enough information about inclusion to pre-service teachers of special education. (P5) A male interviewee said, “I still need a lot of information about the inclusion process.
One course about inclusion is not adequate” (P7).
Field visits. Six of the interviewees said that field visits are important to increase their confidence in teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings. One female interviewee said,
“Field visits are important during teacher preparation programs” (P2). Another female
139
interviewee said, “… we need to see what we had studied through field visits, for instance”
(P4). A male interviewee who had an experience with a relative with disability in his family said:
Yes, I know how to deal with a student with IDs at home from my personal experience. But I think the situation will be a little different in the classroom in the presence of many students with different abilities and disabilities. I think I need a field experience in the classroom to see the situation in reality. (P10) Challenges and obstacles. The researcher asked SPEDPS teachers: If you get a teaching position in an inclusive school, and you are working with/teaching students with intellectual disabilities what types of challenges (if any) do you think you will encounter ?
The two sub-themes that came up in the challenges and obstacles theme were: (a) human and physical support and (b) awareness of society.
Human and physical support. Four of the participants thought that the general curriculum is not appropriate for the students with IDs. One female interviewee said,
“Most challenges would be related to the curriculum. The general education curriculum is not adequate for students with IDs. It would be hard for classroom teachers to adapt the curriculum for students with disabilities” (P2). Another female interviewee was concerned about the general curriculum said, “The curriculum in general education schools is not suitable for students with “mental retardation” (IDs), whatever their level of disability. It does not take into account individual differences between regular students and students with disabilities” (P4). A male interviewee confirmed, “The curriculum is not appropriate for students with disabilities” (P8).
According to the findings, six of the interviewees reported that general education teachers do not have the background to understand the needs of the students with IDs in
140
their classrooms. A female interviewee confirmed that general education teachers do not have knowledge about students with IDs. She said:
General education teachers have no background on how to deal with students with special needs as well as students with “mental retardation” (IDs). What I hope is that I would work with a teacher who has enough background on the topics of special education. This would be wonderful if that happened. (P4) Another female interviewee said, “I think it will not be easy for general education teachers to understand how they should deal with our students (students with IDs) and our work, if it is necessary to deal with us” (P5). A male senior SPEDPS teacher spoke out of his personal experience in his practical course and said:
In short, they do not understand me and will not understand me (the administrators, teachers, and other personnel in the school during the practical course he takes). These people (he met) do not have any idea about students with disabilities; they even did not have any basic or fundamental courses about inclusion or about students with disabilities, no workshops... nothing… Sad thing, he said. (P6) One female interviewee thought that the dealing with parents would be even easier than dealing with general education teachers who not have any idea about students with IDs and IE.
She said:
General education teachers, oh yes, we will face dozens of challenges. Actually even dealing with parents may be easier than dealing with a teacher who does not have any idea why you do this or why you do not do that. I would meet with the parents less frequently than the teacher who would work with me in the same school. I should say for sure, she added. This will cause more and more conflicts. I suppose, she said. (P3) Five of the interviewees said that they will face challenges at the level of the school environment. Lack of assistant teachers, lack of resource rooms, and big class sizes were the most frequently mentioned challenges that the interviewees reported about the school environment. One female interviewee listed a number of challenges related to the school
141
environment and said, “Shortage of time, the lack of resources, the lack of assistant teachers… will be some challenges we will meet” (P1). Another female interviewee focused more on class size as a one challenge facing the inclusion of students with IDs in Kuwait. She said, “…We will face some challenges for sure; especially with the existence of the big class sizes in general classrooms” (P3). A male interviewee stated, “The school environment is not completely appropriate to receive the student with disabilities, the buildings, the classrooms, the resource rooms… etc.” (P7). Another female interviewee responded with wondering:
The school environment is not prepared to receive both regular students as well as
students with disabilities. We still lack the ability to offer a good environment to regular students such as reducing the number of students in the classroom, providing assistant teachers, and the existence of resource room so I suppose we will have some challenges if we decide to apply inclusion. (P5) Awareness of society. Concerning the challenges that the SPEDPS teachers stated, and to probe more deeply into their responses, the researcher asked: In your opinion, what are the obstacles that the application of inclusion faces in Kuwait? The following comments reflected the SPEDPS teachers’ views regarding the obstacles of applying the inclusion in Kuwait.
Seven percent of the interviewees insisted on the lack of society awareness as the most obvious obstacle toward applying IE in Kuwait. One female interviewee said in short, “Society is not well prepared” (P2). Another female interviewee said, “The awareness of the individuals of society, from the youngest to the parents” (P3). A male interviewee talked about the negative perception of the society toward people with disabilities and how this society’s perception reflected on the parents’ views toward inclusion. He said:
142
The negative perception of society to the presence of students with IDs in the general class… This perception can be noticed in the perception of parents toward the inclusion of their children with IDs and their fear of the idea of educational inclusion. Also, it can be noticed in the parents of the regular students and their fear of the presence of students with IDs with their children in the classroom. (P7) Another male interviewee gave examples for the reactions of a large segment of society in the public. He said:
The negative perception of society on people with IDs is considered one of the main obstacles to the application of educational inclusion in the State of Kuwait. There are some people, not a small number of them, who still have an inferior or sarcastic
perception toward students with IDs. You can notice that for example in malls, bus stations, and clinics…etc. (P10) Parents’ opposition to the idea of inclusion was another obstacle, from the SPEDPS teachers’ point of view, toward IE in Kuwait. Four of the participants thought that they will encounter challenges with parents of both the students with and without disabilities in terms of their understanding of inclusion and their possible dissatisfaction with inclusion. A female interviewee who thought the parents would not be satisfied with the idea of the inclusion of the students with IDs said, “… dissatisfaction from parents of regular students and students with disabilities about what they think is negative effects of inclusive education” (P1). Another female interviewee related the expected challenge with the parents to the lack of knowledge about IE among them. She said, “… When discussing parents, I suppose the majority of them do not have knowledge about inclusive education” (P3). A female interviewee also reported that the expected challenges will be with parents of both students with and without disabilities and said,
“All parents, whether of the regular students or of the students with disabilities, will be concerned about the impact of inclusion on the performance of their children” (P4).
143
Two of the interviewees considered the big obstacle toward the inclusion of the students with IDs in Kuwait are the policy makers. One female interviewee asserted and said, “The authorities, the authorities, the authorities…the presence of a lot of obstacles and protocols that restrict facilitating and providing the services” (P4).
Another male participant was skeptical about the seriousness of the government on the application of the inclusion of students with ID in Kuwait. He said:
In my opinion, the law related to the people with IDs is not rigorous and effective enough. The government contradicts itself when it calls for the application of inclusion and ignoring the financial resources and providing clear plans to apply inclusion in reality. (P8) One interviewee insisted on time as one of the obstacles toward improving the society awareness and toward the complete application of the idea of IE in Kuwait.
She said:
The most important obstacle in the inclusion process is time. Because inclusion is a new experience, I think, we will need not fewer than five years to determine whether there is success or failure in the process. A lot of drawbacks might happen in the first stage of its application. For example, resources may be available, but the question is whether they were the exact resources needed to suit every child, or will these resources be just accumulated and used in an unplanned way. (P1) Facilitation of inclusion. The two sub-themes that that came up under the facilitation of inclusion theme were: (a) awareness of society and (b) human and physical support. In light of the challenges and the obstacles that the SPEDPS teachers discussed, the researcher asked the interviewees: How can we facilitate the inclusion of students with IDs in general education classrooms in the state of Kuwait? The following comments reflect the SPEDPS teachers’ views regarding the facilitation of inclusion of students with IDs in general education classrooms in the state of Kuwait.
144
Awareness of society. Six of the interviewees insisted on society awareness as a first thing to consider in order facilitating IE in Kuwait. A female interviewee said, “First of all, awareness of the society” (P2). Another female interviewee insisted on the important of spreading the awareness in the society through different channels, she said:
Spreading awareness in society, not only through holding forums for people interested in this aspect, but through getting to different categories of society, wherever they are. Placing posters, announcements, TV programs that get to the public, banners, and stages in malls so we don’t invite people to attend but we go to them instead. (P3) Another female interviewee said, “Encourage societal awareness about inclusion. I want people to see posters everywhere, educating society, and publishing legal information about the rights of the people with IDs” (P4). A male interviewee suggested providing society with some information about people with disabilities and starting with teaching students in schools and spreading the knowledge to the public and society. He said:
Societal awareness, including teachers and parents, through TV programs or an awareness campaign in malls and public places. Successful inclusion can never occur unless awareness of society and peers at school takes place. I am not exaggerating when I say we should teach our children in different stages of school some information about disabilities and the people with disabilities, not to impose optional isolation on ourselves and not knowing about an important part of society that is people with disabilities. (P7) Human and physical support. Four of the interviewees reported that financial and human resources are very important for facilitating the inclusion of the students with IDs in
Kuwait. One male interviewee said:
The first matter, which might open the doors to the application of inclusion in Kuwait, is financial support. I would say unfortunately financial resources are available and exist, but they need responsible leaders who are aware enough to place the money needed in the correct place. (P6)
145
Another male interviewee said, “The first decision to be taken in this aspect is to assign a budget that covers all the costs and requirements needed to make this inclusion idea successful and then academic qualifications, psychiatrists, social workers, and other staff in the education sector” (P9). Another participants said, “Providing human resources qualified and specialized in special education is an urgent issue if we are really thinking of applying the inclusive education”
(P10).
Four of the SPEDPS interviewees suggested modifying the general curriculum so that it is appropriate for students with IDs. A female interviewee said:
Adapt the curriculum to suit their abilities. We don’t want to lie to ourselves; the students with IDs have their abilities. Yes, we aim to treat them equally like their peers in humanitarian treatment, but they are not equal to their peers in the curriculum given to them. (P2) Another female said, “Adapting the curriculum, the use of the educational means that suits the situation and abilities of each student” (P5). Four of the SPEDPS interviewees recommended providing the appropriate school environment to receive the students with IDs. A female interviewee said:
Preparing buildings, classrooms, facilities, and considering the size of the classroom and the number of students. Classifying students with IDs based on studying the condition of each student individually and distributing them in the classes. (P5) Another female interviewee expressed the importance of the healthy school environment and said:
The availability of an educational environment that is suitable to ensure the success of educational inclusion such as convenient buildings, suitable educational tools, and the presence of a special education teacher in the inclusion classroom… Providing healthy school environment…what I mean by “healthy” is that it has all the conditions needed for a successful education. (P6)
146
Three of the SPEDPS interviewees stated the importance of having administrators who are knowledgeable and enthusiastic about students with disabilities and inclusion. A female interviewee said, “We need an administration that is aware of the needs of academic inclusion to allow all the means and capabilities to make the idea a success” (P5). A male interviewee said, “The existence of an administration that is understanding and knowledgeable about the basics of inclusion” (P9).
Training. The two sub-themes that came up from the theme of training were: (a) field visits and (b) workshops and conferences. The researcher wanted to explore the SPEDPS teachers’ perception about the most effective training regarding inclusion and students with
IDs. The following comments reflect the SPEDPS teachers’ views regarding the most beneficial methods of training about inclusion and students with IDs.
Field visits. Six of the interviewees suggested field visits as an effective method providing training to SPEDPS teachers. A male interviewee suggested
“Paying attention to field visits and including them in the curriculum taught to the special education pre-service teachers” (P6). Another interviewee said, “I suggest more field visits during the school years in college” (P9). One interviewee insisted that “One of the more efficient ways of training the teachers is the fieldwork course and the field visits to schools that have experiences in inclusive education” (P10). Six of SPEDPS teacher who participated in the interview preferred practical experience as a beneficial method of training for pre-service teachers toward teaching the students with IDs and inclusion. A female interviewee said:
… It is not logical or useful that a pre-service teacher spends 4 years studying theories
and only one practical course, to finally decide that he/she is able to field work. All
147
theoretical courses should contain practical activities and in the field to enhance the
firsthand experience and close observation of the actual field and in real life. (P5)
A male interviewee said, “I think that the practical aspect is not less important than the theoretical aspect of preparing the teachers to deal with students with IDs” (P9).
Workshops and conferences. Four of the interviewees suggested workshops and conferences to benefit from others’ experiences. A female interviewee said, “ …attending meetings and conferences that involve educators in the field to discuss their ideas and the challenges they face and to work on finding suggestions and solutions to these challenges that might be held in professional workshops” (P1). Another female SPEDPS teacher suggested
“Workshops during coursework and the actual job for all teachers, not only the special education teachers. Providing financial promotions or certificates to attend the workshops or conferences would help in this regard” (P4). The SPEDPS teachers suggested interacting with experts in the field as effective method of training about students with IDs and inclusion. One interviewee said, “Interacting with people who are skillful in this field” (P1). A female interviewee suggested the “Availability of trained faculties who are professional in the field of inclusion in order to teach pre-service teachers” (P3). Another male interviewee recommended
“Providing professors who worked in this field and close to the students with IDs to utilize their experiences” (P6).
Mixed Data Results
Teachers’ attitudes and confidence. The survey results showed that 68.8% of the
SPEDPS teachers held a positive attitude toward students with IDs. The results from the interview showed that 70% of the respondents had positive attitudes toward students with IDs while 50% percent of the participants held beliefs that were sympathy/empathy oriented. The
148
survey results showed that 54.6% of the SPEDPS teachers expressed a positive attitude toward inclusive education. The interviews, however, indicated that half of the SPEDPS teachers were proponents of and half were against inclusion of students with IDs in the general education classroom. The survey results indicated that 63.2% of the SPEDPS teachers exhibited a level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings. The interview findings indicated that six out of the 10 of the SPEDPS teachers had a high confidence to teach in inclusive settings. They further indicated that they were fearful of being teaching students with
IDs without support from an assistant teacher. It is, therefore, clear that SPEDPS teachers’ attitude were reformed providing more of a deep insight in the interview phase.
Demographic variables influencing teachers’ attitudes and confidence. This study investigated the possible impact of demographic variables including gender, age, citizenship, city, educational attainment, previous training about students with disabilities, previous course work about IDs, previous course work about inclusion, and previous experience with a child/ children with ID/ IDs, on the SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward students with IDs and toward IE and level of confidence. The survey findings indicated a number of variables that had either a positive or negative impact on the SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes and confidence. The six variables that emerged from data analyses of both the survey and the interview results are discussed in this section.
Gender. The survey findings indicated that the SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs were affected by gender. There was a marginal difference between male and female SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs. The female SPEDPS teachers had more positive attitudes toward students with IDs than the male SPEDPS teachers as shown in the
149
survey. However, in the interviews there was no thematic difference across gender related to participants’ attitudes toward students with IDs.
Citizenship. Regarding severity of the disability, the survey findings indicated that the
SPEDPS teachers’ level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings was positively influenced by their citizenship status. Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers had higher confidence toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings than other SPEDPS teachers from different nationalities. In the interview, eight of the participants were Kuwaitis and two of them were from other nationalities. However, the interview results did not show any differences in the participants’ attitudes and confidence concerning to their citizenship.
Previous training about students with disabilities. The outcomes from the surveys indicated that the SPEDPS teachers who previously completed training about students with disabilities exhibited a higher level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings. Their level of confidence was positively influenced by the previous training about students with disabilities on statements regarding the efficacy for teaching, instructional strategies, collaboration, preparedness for teaching, and for students’ engagement. Regarding the severity of the disability, the SPEDPS teachers’ level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings was also positively influenced by their previous training about students with disabilities. In the interview, four of the SPEDPS teachers indicated that their specialization in Special Education has had a major effect on their attitudes. Their perception of the disability issues and people with disabilities has been changed. They reported sort of more sense of responsibility toward students with IDs.
Coursework about IDs. The survey results showed that number of courses about completed about IDs had a negative influence on the confidence of the SPEDPS teachers
150
teaching students with IDs in IE settings. Their confidence was negatively influenced by coursework completed on IDs on statements regarding the efficacy for teaching, instructional strategies, collaboration, preparedness for teaching, and for students’ engagement. The level of confidence of the SPEDPS toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings was also negatively influenced by the number of courses completed on IDs on statements regarding efficacy for collaboration in inclusive setting, time management, curriculum adjustment, class management, and the availability of resource. Eight of the SPEDPS teachers in the interview stated that their coursework was mostly built based on a theoretical basis and that would not assist them in “real” teaching. Most of those interviewed felt they wanted more practical training such as field visits, practical personal experience, conferences and workshops, and training from experts.
Coursework about IE. Regarding the characteristic of a disability, the survey results showed that the SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs were negatively influenced by the completion of one course on IE. The outcomes from the survey indicated that the completion of the one course about inclusion during their program in the college had a negative influence on SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward IE. On statements related to general education, inclusive education, class-size, academic impact, educational legislation, and curriculum, the completion of the one course on IE had a negative influence on the SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward IE. The survey results showed that the one course on IE had a negative influence on the confidence of the SPEDPS teachers to teach students with IDs in inclusive settings. Their confidence was negatively influenced by completion of the one course on IE on statements regarding the efficacy for teaching, instructional strategies, collaboration, preparedness for teaching, and for students’ engagement. The results indicated that six of the SPEDPS teachers who participated in the interview reported that one course about inclusion, during the whole of
151
their program, was not adequate enough if they were to develop knowledge and understanding of inclusion of the students with IDs.
Previous experience with a child with ID. The survey findings showed that the attitudes of the SPEDPS teachers toward students with IDs were positively influenced by previous experience with a child with ID. The level of confidence of the SPEDPS toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings was positively influenced by their previous experience with a child with ID on statements regarding efficacy for collaboration in inclusive setting, time management, curriculum adjustment, class management, and the availability of resource. The interview findings showed that five of the participants indicated that they had a previous experience with a person(s) with disability and two of them related their feelings of confidence to their previous experience. Therefore, pervious experience seems to be a significant factor impacting SPEDPS teachers’ attitude and confidence level toward students with IDs.
Desired training. About the type of training that the SPEDPS teachers might desire to receive in pre-service as well as in-service, the survey and the interview results indicated that
SPEDPS teachers exhibited an agreement about a number of types of training. The survey results indicated that practical training in schools, attending conferences about inclusion, taking coursework at college/university, field visits, and attending workshops were the most desired choices to Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers in terms of the pre-service training. At the level of in- service training, the survey results showed that the district level in-service training, out of district training, visits to inclusive schools in other countries, and the school building level training were the top choices of the SPEDPS teachers. During the interview six out of the 10 of the participants suggested that field visits and practical experiences would be beneficial methods of training for pre-service teachers toward teaching the students with IDs and inclusion. However, four of the
152
participants said that they would prefer to interact with experts in the field and saw that as an effective method of training about students with IDs and inclusion. Three of the interviewees preferred workshops and conferences as ways to achieve more training.
153
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to investigate special education pre-service (SPEDPS) teachers’ preparedness for inclusive education (IE). The current study sought to answer the question: What are Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of the students with intellectual disabilities (IDs)? Previous research has indicated that attitudes and self-efficacy of pre-service teachers are critical components of the inclusion of students with disabilities
(Brownlee & Carrington, 2000; Forlin, Douglas, & Hattie, 1996). Kowalski and Rizzo (1996) mentioned that “[A]ttitudes are the starting point for success” (p. 181).
Research suggests that there are numbers of factors that have a significant impact on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of students with disabilities (Emam & Mohamed, 2011).
These factors include those related to teachers, students, and the environment (Avramidis &
Norwich, 2002; Emam & Mohamed, 2011; Smith & Smith, 2000). The attitudes, self-efficacy, and perceptions of Kuwait teachers related to students with IDs and IE has not been examined until now (Al-Kandari & Salih, 2008).
The current study is the first of its kind in Kuwait to investigate the Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs, toward IE, their level of confidence in teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings, as well as the type of training that the SPEDPS teachers desire to increase their skills for IE. The study also focused on other factors associated with successful IE (i.e., teacher, student, and environment). The researcher investigated the predictor variables (gender, age, citizenship, city where they live, educational attainment, previous training on students with disabilities, previous course work on IDs, previous course work on IE, and previous experience with a child/ children with ID/ IDs) that contributed to SPEDPS teachers’
154
perceptions. The dominant phase of this study was the quantitative phase, with the survey results serving as the driver for the qualitative phase (Morse, 2003; Creswell, 1994; Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 2003).
The findings from surveys administered in this current study indicate the preservice teachers had a positive attitude toward students with IDs, and confidence about teaching students with disabilities in inclusive settings. The interview findings from this study suggest that the pre- service teachers’ positive attitudes and confidence were somewhat conditional in that they had concerns about the resources and supports they would get in inclusive settings and the severity of the disabilities that students might have. Research suggests that there are numbers of factors that have a significant impact on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of students with disabilities
(Emam & Mohamed, 2011). These factors include those related to teachers, students, and the environment (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Emam & Mohamed, 2011; Smith & Smith, 2000).
In the current study, teacher, student, and environment-related factors were the three main factors associated with holding both positive and negative attitudes toward IDs, IE, and level of confidence among the SPEDPS teachers.
This section will address the attitudes and confidence of the SPEDPS teachers about students with IDs, IE, and teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings, then discuss these aspects in light of the survey predictors and interview comments. The associated factors of teacher, student, and environment will also be discussed in detail following the same pattern (i.e., effects of predictors and interview reflections).
Teachers’ Attitudes toward Students with Intellectual Disabilities
Based on the theoretical framework that was developed by Fazio (1986), attitudes have an evaluative component (Emam & Mohamed, 2011) and therefore teachers’ attitudes toward
155
students with disabilities are a critical factor in successful IE (Carrington, 1999). Teachers’ attitudes toward students with disabilities, either positive or negative, affect their behavior with their students in the classroom (Rosenzweig, 2009). The society’s acceptance of any new educational movement or change is impacted by teachers’ attitudes toward students with disabilities (Gaad, 2004).
For the purpose of this study, one of the questions that the researcher sought to answer was: What are the attitudes of Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers toward students with IDs? The survey findings of this study indicate that most of SPEDPS teachers (69%) held a positive attitude toward students with IDs. In contrast to the findings of this study, Al-Kandari and Salih, (2008) indicated that pre-service and in-service Kuwaiti social workers who worked in the field of special education held negative attitudes toward people with disabilities. Of course one of the differences between the current study findings and the findings Al-Kandari and Salih, (2008) is that the populations surveyed were very different. The sample for the Al-Kandari and Salih study consisted of only social workers whereas the present study sample consisted of SPEDPS teachers in the Department of Special Education in the College of Basic Education (CBE), the Public
Authority for Applied Education and Training (PAAET). The goal of the SPEDPS teachers, who were recruited in this study, was to become special education teachers and therefore they may join the program with a more positive attitude toward students with disabilities than would the participants in the social work programs. Moreover, the current study is the first of its kind in
Kuwait and the only other investigation identified the attitudes of social workers toward students with IDs as opposed to SPEDPS teachers’.
SPEDPS teachers’ responses on the survey, concerning their attitudes toward students with IDs, mostly showed positive attitudes, however these results were tempered by the
156
interview results. The responses teachers gave during the interview showed their attitudes toward students with IDs were based more on sympathy and empathy, rather than potential or accomplishments. Whereas the SPEDPS teachers in the interview supported the rights of students with IDs to learn like their peers, they also talked about their fears and anxieties about teaching these students in the future. This fear and anxiety may be due to the lack of contact with people with disabilities and the lack of knowledge about the needs of students with IDs.
The survey analyses also indicated that the SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward students with IDs was affected by gender. There was a significant different between the male and female
SPEDPS teachers in their attitude toward students with IDs. The female SPEDPS teachers had more positive attitudes toward students with IDs than the male SPEDPS teachers. However, although the survey provided evidence that gender was a factor that affected SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes, this finding was not supported by the interview comments in which both the male and female participants expressed similar positive perspectives. In other words, teachers’ remarks during the interview did not reflect any gender differences. The overall attitude of both male and female SPEDPS teachers, during the interviews, was mostly positive toward students with IDs.
With regard to gender, past research reports of attitudes toward people with disabilities are inconsistent. The findings of this study are consistent with results of studies conducted in the
United States (Yuker & Block, 1986) reporting that females expressed more positive attitudes toward people with disabilities than males. In contrast, a study conducted in Australia by
Yazbeck, McVilly, and Parmenter (2004) did not find any significant relationship between gender and attitudes.
In the Department of Special Education in the College of Basic Education (CBE), in
Kuwait, from where the participants were recruited, the female enrollment is higher than the
157
male enrollment. It could be that females are more interested in helping students with disabilities as a cultural orientation (Subban & Sharma, 2005) and thus have a more positive attitude about students with IDs to begin with. In Middle Eastern countries, such as Kuwait, the responsibility and support of an individual with disability rests on female family members more than males as they are generally seen as having more patience and tolerance in the care of a person with disability. Coming from that cultural expectation, it is not surprising that the females who took the survey in this study had more positive attitudes than did the males similar to the findings of
Alghazo and Gaad (2004). From both the survey and the interview responses the participants’ attitudes were affected by multiple factors that fell into three categories of teacher-related, student-related, and environment-related factors.
Teacher-related factors. From the survey results, the majority of the SPEDPS teachers
(96%) held a positive attitude toward students with IDs on statements regarding teacher-related factors (i.e., relationship and contact with individuals with disabilities and teachers’ beliefs).
SPEDPS teachers indicated their willingness to have close friends with IDs and to introduce them to their other friends and neighbors. They also seemed to hold expectations that students with IDs would benefit from attending school. However, the outcomes from the survey of the current study did not indicate any impact of the predictor variables such as gender, age, citizenship, city, educational attainment, previous training on students with disabilities, previous coursework on IDs, previous coursework on IE, and previous experience with a child with an intellectual disability on the SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward students with IDs regarding teacher-related factors. So, although the SPEDPS teachers had positive attitudes about students with IDs, this study did not identify any relationship between attitudes and predictor variables.
158
In further exploration of the SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs, the interview results did show that one demographic variable (experience with a person with a disability) affected the SPEDPS teachers’ attitude. The nature of the SPEDPS teachers’ experiences (i.e., positive or negative with a person with disability) affected their attitudes toward students with IDs. Some of the SPEDPS teachers who had an unpleasant experience with a person with disability believed that students with IDs lack the social skills that are essential to interact in the society. Other SPEDPS teachers believed that students with IDs could not have independent lives, as they need constant support from their families and teachers. However, the
SPEDPS teachers who had a positive experience with either a relative or a student with ID expressed more optimistic opinions toward students with IDs. Based on their positive experiences, they indicated that students with IDs can develop vocational skills during their lives which can become a future occupation for them and that they can then eventually live independent lives. These findings are consistent with the Praisner (2003) study in which the findings indicated that the nature of the experience, not the number of experiences was connected to the attitudes toward students with disabilities. Praisner pointed out that better experiences with students with disabilities create positive attitudes. SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes seemed to be based on the experiences they had had, and also on their personal beliefs.
In the interview, the SPEDPS teachers’ beliefs seemed to have a major impact on their attitudes toward the students with IDs. Based on the interviewees’ reflections, these beliefs may have been derived from the values of their religion, the personal experience with people with disabilities, the specialization in the field of special education, or the internal feeling of responsibility toward people with disabilities. These findings are in line with Bandura’s theory
(1986) that people’s thoughts, beliefs, and feelings influence their behavior. Although behaviors
159
were not measured in this study, if one follows Bandura’s theory, these teachers’ beliefs would influence how they “act” toward students with IDs and how they would implement IE.
Consequently, the impression that emerged from the participants’ responses is that what
SPEDPS teachers believe does not reflect their negative attitudes toward students with disabilities; instead, they are expressing their perceptions of the realities of people with IDs.
Student-related factors. Most of the SPEDPS teachers (70%) in this study held, in general and from the survey, a positive attitude toward students with IDs (e.g., the majority of the SPEDPS teachers agreed that people with IDs can be contributing members of society) on statements regarding student-related factors (i.e., the characteristic of disability). However, the findings from the survey also indicate that the completion of one course on IE that the SPEDPS teachers had in their program actually seemed to have a negative impact on their attitude toward students with IDs regarding the characteristic of students’ disabilities. From the perspective of two-thirds of those who were interviewed, the one course on IE and the theoretical coursework on students with IDs did not seem to be enough to sufficiently prepare SPEDPS teachers for IE, although most felt their program was preparing them for the profession. It may be that one course opened up the complexities of IE and working with students with IDs. As a result,
SPEDPS teachers became aware of possible challenges they might encounter in the field.
Research aligned with the results from this study shows that preliminary courses for pre- service teachers may be inadequate to prepare them for successful IE (Beattie, Anderson, &
Antonak, 1997). Similarly, Leatherman and Niemeyer (2005) suggested in their study that the pre-service teachers appeared to have the theoretical knowledge, but they may have needed more practice toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Research has also shown that teachers with less favorable attitudes toward IE stated that they lacked knowledge of and a background in
160
severe disabilities, as well as other types of disabilities (Alghzo & Gaad, 2004). The findings of this study support the previous research call for a revision of current educational preparation programs in order to include different types of disability conditions with strategies to foster successful IE (Sakiz & Woods, 2014).
Environment-related factors. While half of the participants in the interview held beliefs that were sympathy/empathy-oriented toward students with IDs in general, the findings from the survey indicated that almost half of the SPEDPS teachers (45%) held negative attitude toward students with IDs on statements regarding environment-related factors (i.e., the society awareness such as diversity acceptance and the priority of the society). However, the survey findings also specified that SPEDPS teachers’ previous experience with a child with ID had a positive impact on their attitudes toward students with IDs regarding society awareness. The survey findings from this study are consistent with Allenby’s (2009) findings that pre-service teachers who participate in activities that allow direct contact with individuals with disabilities have more accepting attitudes toward diversity than who have not had direct contact. The differences between these results can be further explained by the interview data. In the interviews, SPEDPS teachers apprehensively acknowledged the lack of society awareness regarding the presence of students with IDs. From the perspective of the SPEDPS teachers, the lack of society awareness may have an influence on parents’ perceptions, views, and fears about the presence of students with IDs with their children in the classroom. The SPEDPS teachers stated that society awareness is the most obvious obstacle in regard to disability issues. These findings are consistent with the Ouellette-Kuntz, Burge, Brown, and Arsenault (2010) study reporting that the negative attitudes held by the society toward people with disabilities can be a barrier in achieving successful IE.
161
Regardless of the general positive attitudes of SPEDPS teachers toward student with disabilities, serious concerns related to the lack of experience, the severity of students’ disabilities, the lack of informative structured courses on the characteristic of students’ disabilities, and the lack of society awareness and acceptance of IDs, created a level of anxiety among the SPEDPS that especially emerged from the interview results, but was evident in the survey results as well.
Teachers’ Attitudes toward Inclusive Education
Another question that this study sought to answer was: What are the attitudes of Kuwaiti
SPEDPS teachers toward IE? Almost half of the SPEDPS teachers (55%) expressed a positive attitude toward IE in the survey results. These findings were validated by the interview results and supported by some of the interviewees’ positive comments, but some of the interviewees were also skeptical and fearful of IE. The supportive participants were insistent that students with IDs had the right to learn alongside their peers without disabilities. However, the SPEDPS teachers who were against IE confirmed that students with IDs would get better care in special education classes. Another perspective from the interviewees was that general education classrooms are not prepared to receive students with IDs. Both the SPEDPS teachers who were proponents of the core idea of inclusion of students with IDs and those who seemed to be against
IE shared some similar worries about issues concerning the severity of disability, the negative effects of IE, and the lack of human and physical support available (e.g., the time required for
IE). This finding of anxiety among teachers about IE is supported by previous studies indicating that teachers’ concerns revolve around perceived negative effects of IE on both students with and without disabilities (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996).
162
Similar to findings reported on teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs, the teachers’ attitudes toward IE were affected by previous experience with children with IDs. Having experience with a student with an ID tended to have a positive influence on the SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward IE. Although it is well supported in the literature that having experience with a person with a disability will positively impact attitudes toward those with disabilities
(Alquraini, 2012; LeRoy & Simpson, 1996; Sebastian & Mathot-Buckner’s, 1998; Subban &
Sharma, 2005; Villa, Thousand, Meyers, & Nevin, 1996; Waldron, McLeskey, & Pacchiano,
1999), Memisevic and Hodzic (2011) found that experiences had no significant impact on attitudes. The type of experiences needs to be considered when the impact on attitudes is of focus. The interview findings confirmed that the experience with a person with a disability is different from the situation of teaching in inclusive settings. The SPEDPS teachers who had an experience with a relative with a disability indicated that teaching in inclusive settings was different from dealing with one person with IDs. One interviewee confirmed that the situation will be a little different in the classroom in the presence of many students with different abilities and disabilities.
It appears that the SPEDPS teachers’ perspectives toward IE included some concerns and doubts. These SPEDPS teachers emphasized that even though having an experience with a person with a disability can be a positive factor, including this person in a general classroom is a completely different situation. Inclusion requires reparation, which current general education institutions in Kuwait lack, to ensure the success of IE. The lack of the aforementioned preparations is categorized as teacher-related, student-related, and environment-related factors.
Teacher-related factors. About two-thirds of the SPEDPS teachers held a negative attitude toward IE on statements regarding teacher-related factors (i.e., teachers’ responsibility).
163
The survey data showed that the SPEDPS teachers thought that inclusion of students with IDs would require additional efforts. They were also concerned about teaching students with wide range of needs in the same class. Instructional modifications and adaptation were another concern of the SPEDPS teachers. Most thought that it would be difficult to make instructional modifications for students with IDs in the general education classroom. Although they expressed their positive attitude toward students with IDs in general, it was obvious that most of the
SPEDPS teachers were hesitant regarding the practicality of including students with IDs in general education classrooms. It was somewhat surprising to find that the SPEDPS teachers’ negative attitudes were associated with taking one course on IE. Cook (2001) confirmed that teachers’ attitudes on IE arose from their lack of confidence and the proper training in that field.
As mentioned previously, perhaps taking only one course on IE exposed the pre-service teachers to more of the challenges of IE that then affected their confidence as well.
Some previous research has shown that teachers can express positive attitudes but lack adequate knowledge of and skills necessary for IE (Alghzo & Gaad, 2004; Anati, 2012;
Carrington, 1999; Rosenzweig; 2009). While teachers’ beliefs certainly influence their attitudes, their professional skills can impact the overall success or failure of the entire educational practice
(Carrington, 1999). Although the SPEDPS teachers in this study, on one item on the survey about their preparation program, indicated that they were being well-prepared, on several of the items and in the interviews, the SPEDPS teachers indicated that they were not prepared well
(e.g., only one course), similar to the Buford and Casey (2012) study. Although some of the
SPEDPS teachers in the interview stated that their specialization in special education had a major effect on their attitudes, the majority of SPEDPS teachers concurred that the one IE course in their special education program in Kuwait seemed inadequate for developing the skills needed
164
for the inclusion of students with IDs. Subban and Sharma (2005), however, stress that special education teachers tend to show more positive attitudes toward IE when they completed some training on the subject. One might argue that the difference in both research findings might be more related to the limited coursework on IE as opposed to more in-depth courses of study. The
SPEDPS teachers who completed only one course on IE may have gained an understanding of the complexity of IE, and the challenges that may arise. If their education program on IE stopped with that one course, they may leave with a more negative attitude toward IE as opposed to those who continue to study IE in depth and obtain a solid understanding of the subjects of special education. With more coursework on IE, pre-service and in-services teachers can perhaps become more positive toward IE. Teacher training and the depth of preparation are important in order to foster confidence and positive attitudes toward IE (Amr, 2011).
Student-related factors. A good number of the SPEDPS teachers (64%) held a positive attitude toward IE on statements regarding student-related factors such as students’ rights, discipline issues, disability versus ability, perceived ability and inclusion, and peer acceptance.
The SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward IE, however, was not influenced by any of the demographic predictor variables on student-related factors. In the survey, when the SPEDPS teachers were asked if they agreed that all students with IDs should be included in general education classrooms, no matter what intensity of the disability they might have, most of them
(72%) disagreed. For further investigation on their attitudes toward including students with IDs regardless of the intensity of disability, the interviews brought up a new cog related to student- related factors that enhanced and deepened the survey findings and provided possible negative side-effects of IE related to the severity of the disability. SPEDPS teachers who were for and against IE had concerns regarding the severity the ID and these findings are supported by other
165
studies as well (Forlin, 1998; Forlin, Douglas, & Hattie, 1996; Westwood & Graham, 2003). The factors that the SPEDPS teachers were concerned about related to behavioral issues, academic achievement factors, and the possible negative reaction of peers without disabilities and their parents. Thus, from these findings, it is clear that the severity of the disability can directly influence SPEDPS teacher’s attitude toward the practicality of IE, but did not affect the attitudes toward inclusion itself.
Environment-related factors. In the survey, many of the SPEDPS teachers (65%) held positive attitudes toward IE on environmental factors that included: general education, inclusive education, class-size, academic impact, educational legislation, and curriculum. As established earlier, the completion of the one course on IE had a negative impact on SPEDPS teachers’ attitude toward IE on environment-related factors. Even though some research has shown that completing only one introductory course in special education can have a positive impact toward changing the attitudes of pre-service teachers toward the inclusion of students with disabilities
(Shade & Stewart, 2001), the current study provides evidence that one course is not enough. The interview results indicated that beside the limited coursework on IE in the special education program in Kuwait, about one-third of SPEDPS teachers had concerns about the application of
IE due to the lack of the human and physical support of the inclusion of the students with IDs, such as the school buildings and classrooms, the availability of resources, and qualified teachers in special education. The current study supports the importance of environmental variables in generating positive attitudes among teachers toward the inclusion of students with disabilities
(Avramidis & Norwich (2002). These findings indicate that the SPEDPS teachers’ perceptions about IE were highly dependent on adequate coursework as well as the proper implementation strategies of IE, including needed physical and human support.
166
Teachers’ Level of Confidence toward Teaching Students with Intellectual Disabilities in
Inclusive Education Settings
Numerous studies have addressed the topic of teachers’ self-efficacy in the investigation of teachers’ perceptions toward inclusion (Costello & Boyle, 2013; Emam & Mohamed, 2011;
Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2013; Taylor & Ringlaben, 2012). Teachers’ self-efficacy is an important factor due to its impact on teachers’ attitudes toward IE (Emam & Mohamed, 2011).
Al Zyoudi, Al Sartwai, and Dodin (2011) asserted that “[t]eacher efficacy in implementing inclusion directly affects their practices and attitudes toward including students with disabilities in general education” (p. 1075). In this regard, the question that this study sought to explore was:
What is the level of confidence of Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings? Nearly two-thirds of SPEDPS teachers (63%) exhibited a high level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings. After further discussion during the interviews, SPEDPS teachers who indicated high confidence related to teaching in inclusive settings did not seem willing to teach students with IDs unless they obtained some kind of support. This support can be categorized under the main factors that affect SPEDPS teachers’ level of confidence toward students with IDs and IE: teacher-related, student-related, and environment-related factors.
Teacher-related factors. Although most of the SPEDPS teachers expressed a high level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings in response to statements regarding teacher-related factors (i.e., the efficacy for teaching, instructional strategies, collaboration, preparedness for teaching, and for students’ engagement), similar to the previous findings reported here, their confidence was negatively influenced by the completion of just one course on IE and other course work on IDs. Regarding teacher-related factors, most of the
167
respondents on the survey pointed out that they needed more training in order to appropriately teach students with IDs. The SPEDPS teachers’ level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings was positively influenced by previous training about students with disabilities. Participants who had previous training seemed to have higher levels of confidence than those who had not had any program training other than the course work in their program of study. These findings were further explored in the interviews during which the interviewees’ responses showed a relationship between the number of courses completed in IDs and on IE and the lower confidence that SPEDPS teachers had. Most of SPEDPS teachers in the interview indicated that most of the coursework that they had was built based on a theoretical basis, and most of them reported that only one course on IE offered in their whole program is not enough to have reliable knowledge and understanding of inclusion of the students with IDs. These findings illustrate a similar pattern from the findings on teachers’ attitude toward IDs and IE; that is, the lack of practical courses or only one course on IE is not sufficient to prepare teachers for IE.
Supporting research indicates that the lack of adequate preparation programs for teachers of students with disabilities (and the decreased levels of confidence that result) can have a direct impact on teachers’ attitude toward IE (Rosenzweig, 2009). The interviewees related their feelings of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings to their previous experience with a child with ID. This could be addressed by including more practical course work and ongoing training both at the pre-service and in-service levels.
Student-related factors. Almost two-thirds of the SPEDPS teachers held high levels of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings on statements regarding student-related factors (i.e., severity of a disability). SPEDPS teacher’s level of confidence was positively affected by previous training on students with disabilities regarding severity of
168
disability. Similar to the findings obtained on attitudes toward IE, when it came to the severity of the disability, the SPEDPS teachers seemed more comfortable teaching students who have more mild IDs than students with moderate, multiple or severe IDs. These findings are consistent with a previous study in United Arab Emirates (UAE) that conveyed a considerable concern among teachers about the inclusion of students with severe disabilities, especially when associated with high-enrolled classrooms (Gaad, 2004).
The SPEDPS teachers’ level of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings was also positively influenced by their citizenship status. The survey findings indicated that Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers were more likely to hold higher levels of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings than SPEDPS teachers of other nationalities who participated in the current study. The number of respondents in the survey, who were mostly
Kuwaitis (77%), might have led to higher mean scores regarding the level of confidence of this group of pre-service teachers. However, the interview results did not show any differences in the participants’ attitudes and confidence. It is possible that teachers’ citizenship does not have an effect on SPEDPS teachers’ attitude and confidence toward teaching students with IDs. What can be concluded is that the SPEDPS Kuwaiti teachers in this study seemed to feel more confident when it comes to teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings.
Environment-related factors. About half of the SPEDPS teachers held higher levels of confidence on statements regarding environment-related factors such as efficacy for collaboration in inclusive setting, time management, curriculum adjustment, class management, and the availability of resources. Two main themes emerged from the survey findings.
First, the SPEDPS teachers who expressed their concerns about teaching students with
IDs justified their anxiety by the number of courses completed on IDs. What is surprising is that
169
the regression analysis showed that the higher the number of courses completed, the lower the confidence level of these SPEDPS teachers. During the interviews, the SPEDPS teachers insisted that their special education program was inadequate and mostly limited to theoretical coursework which was not preparing them for the practical application of IE. The SPEDPS teachers also felt that field visits were important to provide the practical application needed to increase their confidence in teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings. These findings are supported by the Brownlee and Carrington (2000) study that reported that “pre-service teachers believed that the teacher education course needed to include more practical experience and practical knowledge about inclusive schooling” (p.104). Similarly, Kowalski and Rizzo (1996) demonstrated that academic preparation programs were associated with attitudes in a similar manner.
Second, the other SPEDPS teachers who were more positive about teaching students with
IDs communicated that their confidence was based on their previous experience with a child with
ID. They also clarified that they were mostly confident about teaching in inclusive settings if they had an assistant teacher with them in the classroom. These SPEDPS teachers expressed concerns about the level of support as well as the amount of resources they would receive in IE.
Brackenreed and Barnett (2006) found similar claims in which most pre-service teachers exhibited cautious confidence about their abilities to deal with IE situations. Human support is an important factor in developing positive attitudes among teachers toward the inclusion of students with disabilities (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Similarly, Anati’s (2012) study findings indicated that the teachers expressed their need for extra support and assistance in order to teach in inclusive settings. It can be concluded that with the availability of one or more of these factors
(i.e., previous personal experience with individuals with ID, assistant teachers, and adequate
170
special education preparation programs with practical applications), these SPEDPS teachers would likely hold high levels of confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings.
Desired Training
“Training plays a critical role in the effective implementation of inclusive education”
(Cambridge-Johnson, Hunter-Johnson, & Newton, 2014, p. 12). Research also suggests that training in teaching students with disabilities has an impact on teachers’ attitude toward IE so it is important to investigate what training teachers desire (Buford & Casey, 2012). Training of teachers is essential at the pre-service and in-service levels so that teachers can gain knowledge of and experience in teaching students with disabilities, in making individual adaptations to meet students’ needs, and in applying these skills in the field (Shade & Stewart, 2001).
The two types of training that the SPEDPS teachers desired included pre-service training
(during their special education program), and in-service training (when they become classroom teachers). The training that the SPEDPS teachers desired included practical training in schools, attending conferences on IE, taking coursework at college/university, field visits, and attending workshops. At the level of in-service training, the district level in-service training and the out of district training were at the top of the SPEDPS teachers’ choices followed by their choices of visits to inclusive schools in other countries and school building level training. Some of these findings are consistent with the Buford and Casey (2012) study that investigated the preparedness of general and special education teachers to teach students with disabilities in an inclusive setting in the United States. The researchers looked at the most beneficial methods to provide training at the preservice and in-service levels. Similar to the participants’ selections of aforementioned training choices in the current study, the participants in Buford and Casey (2012)
171
study indicated that district level and out of district level were seen as the most beneficial training for SPEDPS teachers.
The participants in the interviews recommended similar desired training as was indicated from the survey results. Field visits, practical personal experience, conferences and workshops, and training from experts were at the top of the SPEDPS teachers’ preferences at the level of pre- service and in-service training methods. About two-thirds of the participants in the interview preferred field visits and practical experiences as optimal choices for training whereas one-third of SPEDPS teachers confirmed that workshops, conferences, and experts would be effective methods of training teachers in learning how to teach students with IDs in IE settings. Other research supports these findings. “First increasing the knowledge base of educators about students with disabilities and methods to meet their specific learning needs and use of successful inclusive teachers as guest speakers could be a good strategy to promote positive attitudes toward inclusion” (Al Zyoudi, Al Sartwai, & Dodin, 2011, p.1077).
Research in in-service training has provided new options for the effective enhancement of teachers’ skills and knowledge. For example, research shows us that professional learning communities, as opposed to training developed and delivered by an expert, is more effective in improving teachers’ knowledge and skills (McLesky, 2011). The SPEDPS teachers in this study requested training from/with experts as one of their desires for training because that is what they
“know” about training. They also chose conferences as a training method, which usually entails listening to presentations or panels. Research has shown that the “one-shot” type of training, or professional development, does not yield effective results, and that training needs to be ongoing, collaborative, and sustained (Benedict et al. , 2014; Boardman et al., 2005). So in essence, some of the training options that these preservice teachers requested are not currently thought to be
172
effective. The policy-makers, school administrators, and the higher education personnel would need to research effective training and professional development models, if they are to respond to these types of requests in order to provide the most beneficial training and development possible.
The findings from this study put forward a call for increasing training programs for
SPEDPS teachers in Kuwait about inclusion in general, and specifically inclusion of students with IDs. Related to the participants’ desires, the research shows that the lack of proper training was linked to the teachers’ negative attitudes toward IE. Thus, research shows that teachers will be more responsive and make more progress when engaging in training programs that they perceive as most beneficial (Buford & Casey, 2012). The findings from the interviews in the current study show that pre-service education and training programs are limited in focus. Above all, the program training does not sufficiently address the experiences required to teach in inclusive settings.
Conclusion
Teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy toward the inclusion of the students with IDs in
Kuwait. The main purpose of this study was to investigate SPEDPS teachers’ preparedness for
IE in Kuwait. It was important to explore these SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes and perceptions.
These pre-service teachers are teacher candidates and as such will be teaching students with disabilities in the future. If IE is to become a reality, we need to know how prepared these future teachers are for the inclusion of students with IDs in the general education classroom. Studies such as this current study can also inform teacher preparation programs. Thus, these pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward students with IDs and toward IE as well as their confidence to teach in inclusive settings were seen as important aspects for successful IE in Kuwait. “Since teachers set
173
the tone of classrooms, the success of inclusion programs may very well depend upon the attitudes of teachers as they interact with
students who have disabilities” (Buford & Casey, 2012, p.28).
Meta-inferences. The meta-inferences drawn from both the survey and the interviews (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003)
indicate that the attitude and self-efficacy of the SPEDPS teachers were influenced by a number of positive and negative variables
(Table 26). The findings from this study show that most of the SPEDPS teachers had positive attitudes toward students with IDs;
some of the SPEDPS teachers had a positive attitude toward IE, and nearly two-third of SPEDPS teachers displayed a level of
confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings. The positive attitudes and confidence of the SPEDPS teachers
however, was conditional. Other previous studies have shown that teachers support the idea of IE, but they do not believe that they
174 have sufficient time, training, or resources to implement it (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000; Chung, 1998; Scruggs
Mastropieri, 1996). Similarly, Anati (2012) confirmed that teachers might have positive attitudes toward IE; however, many of
them may not feel prepared to teach in inclusive settings. Thus, the attempt here was to identify factors associated with SPEDPS
teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy toward IE and students with IDs. Identifying the associated factors aided in understanding of
the Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of the students with IDs and hence evaluated the preparedness for IE in
Kuwait.
Table 26
Meta-Inferences for the Influential Factors of Special Education Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes and Confidence
Teachers’ Attitudes
and Confidence Positive Influential Factors Negative Influential Factors
Survey Interview Survey Interview Previous Previous Completion of the Previous experience experience with experience with a one course about with a child with ID a child with ID child with ID IE
Teachers’ Attitudes Gender Teachers’ beliefs Teachers’ beliefs toward Students with Intellectual Disabilities The theoretical coursework
Lack of society awareness 175 Previous Field visits Completion of the The scarcity of the IE
experience with one course about coursework a child with ID IE Workshops and Severity of disability Teachers’ Attitudes conferences toward Inclusive Negative effect of IE Education Lack of human and physical support Lack of society awareness Previous Previous Completion of the The scarcity of the IE Teachers’ Level of experience with experience with a one course about coursework Confidence toward a child with ID child with ID IE Teaching Students with Previous training Field visits Coursework The theoretical Intellectual Disabilities about students completed about coursework in Inclusive Settings with disabilities IDs
Citizenship Severity of Lack of human and disability physical support
This study reveals that SPEDPS teachers’ gender, citizenship, previous training about students with disabilities, and
previous experience with a child with ID may influence attitudes toward students with IDs and toward IE. In the survey, the
female SPEDPS teachers seemed to have more positive attitudes toward students with IDs than males; however this difference was
not apparent in the interviews. The Kuwaiti SPEDPS teachers tended to have higher confidence about teaching students with IDs
in inclusive settings than other nationalities, but again this difference was not apparent in the interviews. The SPEDPS teachers’
previous training about students with disabilities, besides their special education program, had an impact on their confidence to
176
teach students with IDs in inclusive settings. Similarly, the SPEDPS teachers’ previous experiences with a child with ID impacted
both positive and negative attitudes toward students with IDs, toward IE, as well as their level of confidence. Praisner (2003)
suggests that attitude toward students with disabilities is heavily affected by the nature of teachers’ experiences.
Proposed program training. Program training appears to be an important factor that is related to teachers’ attitudes
and confidence toward implementing IE. This study supports the call for establishing, organizing, and providing on-going
opportunities for SPEDPS teachers in training programs on the topic of inclusion of students with IDs. “[T]eachers, in general,
are concerned about teaching in inclusive settings for the lack of professional development training to teach in inclusive
environments” (Anati, 2012, p. 9). It seems that SPEDPS teachers can greatly benefit from on-going professional development
opportunities such as practical training in schools, taking coursework at college/university, and attending workshops and
conferences. Accordingly, teachers’ desires, opinions about, and the selection of training types should be taken into consideration (Buford & Casey, 2012).
Challenges and obstacles toward inclusion of the students with IDs in Kuwait. From the SPEDPS teachers’ perceptions, the State of Kuwait has number of challenges and obstacles toward the application of the inclusion of students with IDs. These challenges and obstacles affected the SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes and confidence toward teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings. The two main obstacles in including students with IDs in Kuwait appear to be related to the teachers (i.e., negative teacher beliefs, inadequate education preparation, and training programs) and the environmental factors (i.e., lack of awareness of society and lack of human and physical support) rather than student-related factors. There is not much that can be done with the nature or characteristics of the disability; however, teacher education preparation and training programs, for instance, are factors that can be revised and improved. To facilitate the inclusion of students with IDs, the aforementioned challenges can be overcome by enlightening teachers’ beliefs, improving and developing teacher preparation and training programs, raising the awareness of the society, and increasing human and physical support.
Since many “teachers struggled to understand both at the level of theory and in its practical application” (Hodkinson & Devarakonda, 2011, p. 62), this struggle may be caused by their fears and misconceptions of knowledge related to students with IDs and IE. Fear and misconception of certain knowledge, which can influence the teachers’ attitudes and behaviors
(Bandura, 1986), are derived from lack of experience, inadequate education programs, and the lack of supportive training. “Consequently, positive attitudes can and need to be fostered through both training and positive experiences with students with disabilities” (Al Zyoudi, Al Sartwai, &
Dodin, 2011, p. 1065). Redesigning and revising the current curriculum of the teacher special
177
education preparation program to promote positive attitudes of pre-service teachers toward IE
(Al Zyoudi, Al Sartwai, & Dodin, 2011) in the state of Kuwait are necessities for moving toward successful IE. Including innovative strategies regarding teaching skills, and practical training and application to complement the theoretical coursework are other important components of a strong program.
Redesigning the program to facilitate IE in Kuwait and building confident teachers are not enough. It is very essential to take a further step to raise the awareness of the society where the program is located. Teachers enrolled in special education programs are the first brick in establishing a pathway for changing the society’s perspectives toward students with IDs and IE.
School personnel are also critical components toward including students with disabilities.
General education teachers, administrators, peers, parents of students with and without disabilities, and policy makers are unaware of IE. “If the country is in agreement with the values and merits of inclusion, then it will facilitate the process of implementing it across its schools by providing the necessary support needed for the establishment of efficient inclusion” (Anati,
2012, p.2).
The successful implementation process requires further consideration of both human and physical support across schools (Cambridge-Johnson & Hunter-Johnson, 2014). Human support involves the availability of qualified personnel such as administrators, special education teachers, teacher assistants, and other learning support assistants to facilitate the inclusion of the students with disabilities. Modifying the general curriculum to be tailored for students with IDs as well as providing the appropriate school environment (e.g., reducing class sizes, preparing resource rooms, redesigning assessable classrooms and school buildings) are all considered to be among the physical and financial resources that need to be undertaken for IE to be successful.
178
In conclusion, it is important at this stage that the department of Special Education in the College of Basic Education in Kuwait ensures that the teacher special education program better corresponds to the needs of the inclusion of students with disabilities in general and students with IDs in particular. SPEDPS teachers in Kuwait need more training in order to be prepared for the IE experience and improve their attitude and confidence toward teaching students with IDs in IE settings. Above all, the current study highlighted the importance of revising and reexamining the special education program offered for these SPEDPS teachers.
Without such actions, it is unlikely for the IE experience to succeed in Kuwait.
Limitations
This study can be considered as the first step toward establishing a passage to guide future research. The findings shed light on issues related to the challenges of the implementation of IE. This study was not designed to provide specific and detailed recommendations or solutions for the issues raised. The outcomes of this study provide broad directions for teacher preparation programs and policy makers. Further research into specifically what pre-service teachers need and what in-service teachers would benefit from will need to be conducted. For example, this study does not provide information on the relationship of the predictor variables
(e.g., gender, previous experience) with the types of training the SPEDPS teachers desired.
Future research should be conducted to focus on the effects of different types of training on
SPEDPS teachers’ attitude and level of confidence toward students with IDs and IE.
There are some limitations that should be taken into consideration when examining the results of this study. One limitation was that the 10 SPEDPS teachers, who voluntarily participated in the interview phase, may have been at a higher level of personal knowledge and confidence, had the ability to criticize the current program, and personally made themselves
179
available to be interviewed with the goal of eventually improving their teacher preparation program. Obviously these factors could have influenced their interview responses. However, these factors also enriched the data that resulted, as the researcher gathered more in-depth information about these preservice teachers’ attitudes and preparedness.
Another limitation of this study is that it gathered data on opinions, beliefs, and perspectives. These data do not tell us whether or not these preservice teachers are truly knowledgeable or have the skills to teach students with IDs in inclusive settings. Follow-up studies in which teachers are observed would provide more information about their actual skills for inclusion and their ability to teach students with IDs in inclusive settings. For example, teachers may not feel confident about teaching students with IDs in inclusive settings, but they may actually be very good in this skill. Conversely, some teachers may feel very confident, but in the field be implementing inclusion poorly. Recognizing these limitations offers important implications for future researchers.
Implications and Suggestions for Future Research
Most of the research that has been conducted to investigate teachers’ attitudes and self- efficacy toward IE has examined different variables that are either related to teachers, students with different types and intensity of disabilities, or school and society environments. To classify these variable under three sections of factors such as teacher-related factors, student-related factors, and environment-related factors would give researchers and the policy makers a framework to address teacher preparation and IE. By having a framework that clearly identifies the factors associated with teachers, students, and environment, research studies and policies could be specifically focused on clear factors associated with IE. Clearly delineating these
180
categories of factors would allow researchers and policy makers to explore these sets of factors, which would lead to more targeted interventions and training programs.
The findings of this study provide baseline data from a Middle Eastern country, Kuwait, that can perhaps form a foundation for further discussion about SPEDPS teachers’ attitudes, confidence, and training for IE. It is planned that a series of interviews with special education pre-service and in-service teachers will be carried out with the aim of gaining more understanding about their perceptions and identifying the challenges and the obstacles of IE.
Several significant research questions that deserve examination have been raised in this study;
What are Kuwaiti special education in-service teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of the students with IDs? What are Kuwaiti general education teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of the students with IDs? What are the perceptions of the parents of students with and without disabilities about IE in Kuwait? All of these would be important studies if IE is to be a success in
Kuwait because as shown, the perceptions and beliefs of these professionals and parents impact
IE. At a later stage, the hope is to conduct a series of studies based on this study that represent areas where further development is needed and to evaluate best practices in the implementation of IE.
181
REFERENCES
Abu-Hamour, B. & Mattar, J. (2013). The applicability of curriculum-based-measurement in
math computation in Jordan. International Journal of Special Education, 28 (1), 111̶ 119.
Aldaihani, M. (2011). A comparative study of inclusive education in Kuwait and England
(Doctoral dissertation). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.
Alghazo, E. M. & Gaad, E. N. (2004). General education teachers in the United Arabic Emirates
and their acceptance of the inclusion of students with disabilities. British Journal of
Special Education, 31(2), 94̶ 99.
Al-Kandari, H. Y., & Salih, F. A. (2008). Adapting antonak and harth’s mental retardation
attitude inventory for Kuwait’s culture. Digest of Middle East Studies, 17(1), 1̶ 31.
Allington, R. L., Walmsley, S. A. (2007). No Quick Fix: Rethinking Literacy Programs in
America's Elementary Schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Almoosa, A.S., Storey, V., & Keller, C. (2012). Meeting the needs of all: Why schools in Kuwait
are failing to meet their moral obligation and what can be learned from the U.S.
education system. Journal of Alternative perspectives in the Sciences, 3(4), 997̶ 1009.
Alper, S., Agran, M., &Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students
with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37 (2), 123̶ 133.
Alquraini, T. A. (2012). Factors related to teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusive education of
students with severe intellectual disabilities in Riyadh, Saudi. Journal of Research in
Special Educational Needs, 12(3), 170̶ 182.
Alshammari, Z. & Yawkey, T., (2011). A student systematic learning theory: Initiation and
development. The International Journal of Learning, 18 (1), 277̶ 287.
182
Al-Shammari, Z. (2006). Investigation of special education teachers’ attitudes toward students
with special needs in the State of Kuwait. (Doctoral dissertation). The Pennsylvania State
University, University Park: PA.
Allenby, K. (2009). Inclusive Education and Attitudes toward Diversity. Annual Review of
Undergraduate Research. USA: School of Humanities and Social Sciences,(8), 1̶ 16.
Al Zyoudi, M., Al Sartwai, A., & Dodin, H. (2011). Attitudes of pre-service teachers toward
inclusive education in UAE and Jordan: A comparative study. International Journal of
Disability, Community & Rehabilitation, 10(1). Retrieved from
http://www.ijdcr.ca/VOL10_01/articles/alzyoudi.shtml.
Amr, M. (2011). Teacher education for inclusive education in the Arab world: The case of
Jordan. Prospects, 41, 399–413. DOI: 10.1007/s11125-011-9203-9.
Anati, N. M. (2012). Including students with disabilities in UAE schools: a descriptive study.
International Journal of Special Education, 27 (2), 75̶ 85.
Antoinette, M. L. (2002). Examining how the inclusion of disabled students into the general
classroom may affect non-disabled classmates. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30 (6),
2037̶ 2060.
Austin, V. (2001). Teachers’ believes about co-teaching. Remedial and special Education, 22(4),
245̶255.
Avramidis, E. & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes toward integration/ inclusion: a review
of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129̶ 147.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, Ph., & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudes
toward the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in
one local education authority. Educational Psychology, 20(2), 191 ̶ 211.
183
Baily, D. B., McWilliam, R. A., Buysse, V., &Wesley, P. W. (1998). Inclusion in the context of
competing values in early childhood education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13
(1), 27̶ 47.
Ballard, J., Ramirez, B., A., Weintraub, F., J. (1982). Special education in America: Its legal and
governmental foundations. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191̶ 215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-
147. DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Basham, J. D., Israel, M., Graden, J., Oth, R., & Winston, M. (2010). A comprehensive
approuvh to RTI: Embedding universal design for learning and technology. Learning
Disability Quarterly, 33, 243̶ 255.
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.
Benedict, A. E., Brownell, M. T., Park, Y., Bettini, E. A., & Lauterbach, A. A. (2014). Taking
charge of your professional learning: tips for cultivating special educator expertise.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(6), 147–157.
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education,
5(1), 7 ̶ 74.
Blanchett, W. J., Brantlinger, E., & Shealey, M. W. (2005). Brown 50 years later-exclusion,
184
segregation, and inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 26 (2), 66̶ 96.
Boardman, A. G., Argüelles, M. E., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Klingner, J. (2005). Special
education teachers’ views of research-based practices. The Journal of Special Education,
39(3), 168–180.
Bowen, S. K. & Rude, H. A. (2006). Assessment and students with disabilities: Issues and
challenges with educational reform. Rural Special education Quarterly, 25(3), 24̶ 30.
Brackenreed, D. & Barnett, J. (2006). Teacher stress and inclusion: Perceptions of pre-service
teachers. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 34(1), 156̶ 176.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolitle, J. (2005). Response to intervention. Journal of
Disabilities, 38 (6), 485 ̶ 486.
Brownlee, J. & Carrington, S. (2000). Opportunities for authentic experience and reflection: a
teaching programme designed to change attitudes toward disability for pre-service
teachers. Support for Learning, 15(3), 99–105.
Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M., & Scheer, S. (1999). A survey of general and
special education teachers’ perceptions and inservice needs concerning inclusion.
International Journal of disability, Development and Education, 46(2), 14 ̶ 156.
Buford, S. & Casey L. B. (2012) Attitudes of teachers regarding their preparedness to teach
students with special needs. Delta Journal of Education, 2(2), 16-30.
Burke, K. & Sutherland, C. (2004). Attitudes toward inclusion: Knowledge vs. experience.
Education, 125(2), 163̶ 172.
Burstein, N., Sears, S., Wilcoxen, A., Cabello, B., & Spagna, M. (2004). Moving toward
inclusive practices. Rmedial and Special Education, 25 (2), 104̶ 116.
Cakiroglu, O., & Melekoglu, M. A. (2014). Statistical trends and developments within inclusive
185
education in Turkey. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(8), 798-808. DOI:
10.1080/13603116.2013.836573.
(Cambridge-Johnson, J., Hunter-Johnson, Y. & Newton, N.G. L. (2014). Breaking the silence of
mainstream teachers’ attitude toward inclusive education in the Bahamas: high school
teachers’ perceptions. The Qualitative Report, 19(84), 1-20.
Carrington, S. (1999). Inclusion needs a different school culture. International Journal of
inclusive Education, 3 (3), 257̶ 268.
Carter, E. W., & Hughes, C. (2006) Including high school students with severe disabilities in
general education classes: Perspectives of general and special educators,
paraprofessionals, and administrators. Research & Practice for Person with Severe
Disabilities, 31 (2), 174̶ 185.
Chehab, M. (2009). Special education ‘‘or’’ special needs education: Institution in transition?
The Disability Monitor Initiative: Middle East Journal, 2, 20–22
Chung, S. (1998). The compatibility of reform initiatives in inclusion and science education:
Perceptions of science teachers. Purdue University. West Lafayette, IN.
Cook, B. G. (2002). Inclusive attitudes, strengths, and weaknesses of pre-service general
educators enrolled in a curriculum infusion teacher preparation program. Teaching
Education and Special Education, 25(3), 262̶ 277.
Cook, G. (2001). A comparison of teachers' attitudes toward their included students with mild
and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 34(4), 203̶ 214.
Crabtree, S. A. & Williams, R. (2011). Ethical implications for research into inclusive education
in Arab societies: Reflections on the politicization of the personalized research
experience. International Social Work, 56(2), 148̶ 161.
186
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Culham, A. & Nind, M. (2003). Deconstructing normalization: clearing the way for inclusion.
Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 28 (1), 65̶ 78.
Daniels, H. (1996). Back to basics: three ‘R’s for special needs education. British Journal of
Special Education, 23(4), 155̶ 161.
Desimone, L. M., & Floch, K. C. (2004). Are we asking the right questions? Using cognitive
interviews to improve surveys in education research. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 26 (1), 1̶ 22.
Dessemontet, R. S., Bless, G., & Morin, D. (2012). Effects of inclusion on the academic
achievement and adaptive behaviour of children with intellectual disabilities. Journal of
Intellectual Disability Research, 56 (6), 579̶ 587.
Dicringer, S. T. & Porretta, D. L. (2013). Using effective language regarding disability: the role
of physical educators and coaches. The Physical Educator, 70, 187̶ 194.
Dore, R., Dion, E., Wagner, S., & Brunet, J. (2002). High school inclusion of adolescents with
mental retardation: A multiple case study. Education and Training in Mental Retardation
and Developmental Disabilities, 37 (3), 253̶ 261.
Drost, E. A. (2011) Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and
Perspectives. 38(1), 105–123.
Elhoweris, H. & Alsheikh, N. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. International Journal
of Special Education, 21(1), 115̶ 118.
187
Emam, M. M. & Mohamed, A. H. (2011). Preschool and primary school teachers’ attitudes
toward inclusive education in Egypt: The role of experience and self-efficacy. Social and
Behavioral Sciences 29, 976̶ 985.
Farrell, P., Dyson. A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G. & Gallannaugh, F. (2007). Inclusion and
achievement in mainstream schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
22(2), 31̶ 145.
Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino, & E. T. Higgins
(Ed.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 204-
243). New York: Guilford Press.
Ferri, B., A. (2011). Undermining inclusion? A critical reading of response to intervention (RTI).
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 16 (8), 1̶ 18.
Foreman, Ph., Arthur-Kelly, M., Pascoe, S., & King, B. S. (2004). Evaluating the educational
experiences of students with profound and multiple disabilities in inclusive and
segregated classroom settings: An Australian perspective. Research & Practice for
Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29 (3), 183̶ 193.
Forlin, C. (1998). Inside four walls. Australian Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 96-106.
Forlin, C., Douglas, G., & Hattie, J. (1996). Inclusive practices - how accepting are teachers?
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 43(2), 119̶ 133.
Freeman, S. F. & Alkin, M. C. (2000). Academic and social attainments of children with mental
retardation in general education and special education. Remedial and Special Education,
21(1), 3̶ 18.
Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound test accommodation
decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research &
188
Practice, 16 (3), 174̶ 181.
Gaad, E. (2004). Cross-cultural perspective on the effect of cultural attitudes toward inclusion for
children with disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8 (3), 311̶ 328.
Hamaidi, D., Homidi, M., & Reyes, L. (2012). International views of inclusive education: a
comparative study of early childhood educator’s perceptions in Jordan, United Arab
Emirates, and the United States of America. International Journal of Special Education,
27 (2), 94̶ 101.
Hamilton-Jones, B. & Vail, C. O. (2013). Preparing special educators for collaboration in
classroom: Pre-service teachers’ beliefs and perspectives. International Journal of special
Education, 28(1), 1̶ 13.
Han KG, Chadsey JG (2004). The influence of gender patterns and grade level on friendship
expectations of middle school students toward peers with severe disabilities. Focus on
Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19(4), 205–214.
Harris, J. C. (2013). New terminology for mental retardation in DSM-5 and ICD-11.
Neurodevelopmental and Neurocognitive Disorders, 26(3), 260̶ 262.
Hastings, R. P. & Oakford, S. (2003). Student teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of children
with special needs. Educational Psychology, 23(1), 87̶ 94.
Hodkinson, A. & Devarakonda, Ch. (2011). Conceptions of inclusion and inclusive education: a
critical examination of the perspectives and practices of teachers in England. Inclusive
Education, 3 (1), 52̶ 65.
Hodkinson, A. (2010). Inclusive and special education in English educational system: historical
perspective, recent developments and future challenges. British Journal of Special
Education, 37 (2), 61̶ 67.
189
Hoge, R. D. & Coladarci, T. (1989) Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A
review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 59 (3), 297̶ 313.
Hossain, M. (2012). An overview of the inclusive education in the United States. In Aitken, J.,
Fairely, J. P., & Carlson, J.K. (Eds), Communication Technology for Students in Special
Education and Gifted Programs (pp. 1̶25). Hensley, PA: Information Science Reference.
Idol, L. (2006) Toward inclusion of special education students in general education. Remedial
and Special Education, 27 (2), 77̶ 94.
Johnson, E. S., Smith, L., & Harris, M. L. (2009). How RTI Works in Secondary Schools.
California: Corwin.
Kavale, K. A. & Spaulding, L. S. (2008). Is response to intervention good policy for specific
learning disability? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(4), 169̶ 179.
Kellough, R. D. & Kellought, N. G. (2007). Secondary school teaching: A guide to methods and
resources (3rd ed.) New York: Person Education.
Kern, E. (2006). Survey of Teacher Attitude Regarding Inclusive Education Within an Urban
School District. (Doctoral dissertation). PCOM Psychology Dissertations. Philadelphia
College of Osteopathic Medicine.
Kim, Y. (2014). Inclusive education in South Korea. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 18(10), 979-990. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2012.693402.
Kowalski, E. M., & Rizzo, T. L. (1996). Factors influencing preservice student attitudes toward
individuals with disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 13, 130̶ 196.
Lamb, R. L., Annetta, L., Meldrum, J., & Vallett, D. (2012). Measuring science interest: Rasch
validation of the science interest survey. International Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education, 10(3), 643̶ 668.
190
Lamb, R. L., Vallett, D., & Annetta, L. (2014). Development of a Short-Form Measure of
Science and Technology Self-efficacy Using Rasch Analysis. Journal of Science
Education and Technology, 23 (5), 641̶ 657.
Lamb, R. L., Vallett, D., & Annetta, L. (2014). Development of a short-form measure of science
and technology self-efficacy using rasch analysis. Journal of Science Education and
Technology, 23(5), 641̶ 657.
Larrivee, B., Semmel, M. I., & Gerber, M. M. (1997). Case studies of six schools varying in
effectiveness for students with learning disabilities. The Elementary School Journal, 98,
27̶ 50.
LeRoy, B. & Simpson, C. (1996). Improving student outcomes through inclusive education.
Support for Learning, 11, 32̶ 36.
Leatherman, J. M., & Niemeyer, J. A. (2005). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion: Factors
influencing classroom practice. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Educators, 26 (1),
23-36.
Lieber, J., Capbell, K., Sandall, S. R., Wolfberg, P., Horn, E., & Beckman, P. (1998). Inclusive
preschool programs: teachers’ beliefs and practices. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 13(1), 87̶ 105.
Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research:
From theory to practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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. Intentional Journal
of Inclusive Education, 6(3), 199̶ 215.
McLeskey, J. (2004). Classic articles in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 25,
191
79–87.
McLeskey, J. (2011). Supporting improved practice for special education teachers. Journal of
Special Education Leadership, 24(1), 26–35.
McLeskey, J., Rosenberg, M. S., Westling, D., L. (2013). Inclusion, effective practices for all
students. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson.
Melekoglu, M. A., Cakiroglu, O., & Malmgren, K. W. (2009). Special education in Turkey.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13 (3), 287̶ 298.
Memisevic, H. & Hodzic, S. (2011). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of students with
intellectual disability in Bosnia and Herzegovina. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 15(7), 699̶ 710.
Messick S (1998). Test validity: a matter of consequence. Soc Indic Res, 45(1–3), 35–44.
Mores, J.M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In A.
Murphy, D., M. (1996). Implications of inclusion for general and special education. The
Elementary School Journal, 96(5), 469 ̶ 493.
Nulty, D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done?
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 301–314.
Odom, S., L., Horner, R., H., Snell, M., E., & Blacher, J. (2007). Handbook of developmental
disabilities. New York & London: The Guilford Press.
Ouellette-Kuntz, H., Burge, Ph., Brown, H., & Arsenault, E. (2010). Public attitudes toward
individuals with intellectual disabilities as measured by the concept of social distance.
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 23(2), 132–142.
Peck, Ch. A., Staub, D., Gallucci, Ch., & Schwartz, I. (2004). Parent perception of the impact of
inclusion on their nondisabled child. Research & Practice for Person with Severe
192
Disabilities, 29(2), 135̶ 143.
Praisner, C. L. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students
with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 135̶ 145.
Rea, P. L., Mclaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, Ch. (2002). Outcomes for students with
learning disabilities in inclusion and pullout programs. Council of Exceptional Children,
68 (2), 203 ̶ 222.
Roos, P. (1970). Trends and isuues in special education for e mentally retarded. Education and
Training of the Mentally Retarded, 5, 51̶ 61.
Rosa's Law of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-256, § 1,124 Stat. 2643 (2010).
Rosenzweig, K. (2009, October). Are Today's General Education Teachers Prepared to Meet the
Needs of Their Inclusive Students? Paper presented at the Northeastern Educational
Research Association (NERA) Annual Conference. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.uconn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=nera_20 09.
Ryndak, D. L., Morrison, A. P., & Sommerstein, L. (1999). Literacy before and after inclusion in
general education settings: A case study. The Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 24 (1), 5̶ 22.
Sakız, H. & Woods, C. (2015). Achieving inclusion of students with disabilities in Turkey:
current challenges and future prospects. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 19(1), 21-35. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2014.902122.
Salend, S. J. & Duhaney, L. M. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and without
disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20 (2), 114̶ 126.
Salih, F. A. & Al-Kandari, H. Y. (2007). Effect of a disability course on prospective educators’
attitudes toward individuals with mental retardation. Digest of Middle East Studies, 16(1),
193
12̶ 29.
Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, S. (2010). Assessment in special and Inclusive Education.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.
Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming-inclusion,
1958̶ 1995: a research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59̶ 74.
Sebastian, J. P., & Mathot-Buckner, C. (1998). Including students with severe disabilities in
rural middle and high school: Perceptions of classroom teachers. Paper presented at
Coming Together: Preparing for Rural Special Education in the 21st Century. American
Council on Rural Special Education Conference. Charleston, SC: ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No.417911.
Semmel, M. L., Abernathy, T. V., Butera, G., & Lesar, S. (1991). Teacher perceptions of the
regular education initiative. Exceptional Children, 58, 9 ̶ 24.
Shade, R. A. & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education preservice teachers’
attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure: alternative Education for Children
and Youth, 46(1), 37̶ 41.
Sheuermann, B. K., & Hall, J. A. (2008). Positive Behavioral Supports for the Classroom. NJ:
Person.
Slayter, E. M. (2007). Substance abuse and mental retardation: Balancing risk management with
the “Dignity of Risk”. Families in Society: the Journal of Contemporary Social Services,
88 (4), 651̶ 659.
Smith, D. D. (2007). Introduction to special education making a difference. Boston, MA:
194
Pearson.
Smith, M. K., & Smith, K. E. (2000). “I believe in inclusion, but…” Regular education early
childhood teachers’ perceptions of successful inclusion. Journal of research in Childhood
Education, 14(2), 160̶ 180.
State of Kuwait, Ministry of Education. (2004-2008). The National Report: Development of
Education in the State of Kuwait. Retrieved in October 22, 2014:
http://www.ibe.unesco.org/National_Reports/ICE_2008/kuwait_NR08.pdf
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Subban, P., & Sharma, U. (2005). Understanding educator attitudes toward the implementation
of inclusive education, Disability Studies Quarterly: The First Journal in the field of
Disability Studies, 25(2), 1̶ 19.
Suter, W. N. (2012). Introduction to Educational Research. A Critical Thinking Approach.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tavakol, M. & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of
Medical Education, 2, 53̶ 55.
Taylor, K. R. (2011). Inclusion and the law, Tow laws ̶ IDEA and section 504 ̶ support inclusion
in school. Education Digest, 76 (9), 48̶ 51.
Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating
Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
195
Teddlie, C., &Yu, F (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of
Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77̶ 100.
Udvari-Solner, A. (1992). Curricular adaptations: Accommodating the instructional needs of
diverse learners in the context of general education. Topeka, KS: Kansas State Board of
Education. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 354 685).
UNESCO and Kuwait conclude agreement on inclusive education for persons with disabilities.
Retrieved in October 21, 2014:
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/mediaservices/singleview/news/unesco_and_kuwait_conc
lude_agreement_on_inclusive_education_for_persons_with_disabilities/back/9597/#.Uu
WaihDTmM8.
United Nations Development Programme in the Arab States. (2008). Disabilities & inclusion in
Kuwait. Retrieved in October 22, 2014 from:
http://arabstates.undp.org/content/rbas/en/home/presscenter/articles/2008/10/29/-
disabilities-inclusion-in-kuwait/.
Vally, S. & Spreen, C. A. (2006). Education rights, education policies and inequality in South
Africa. International Journal of Education Development, 26, 352̶ 362.
Vaughn, J. S., Schumm, J., Jallad, B., Slusher, J. & Saumell, L. (1996). Teachers’ views of
inclusion. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 96̶ 106.
Vernier, K. M. (2012). The effects of training on teachers’ perceptions of inclusion of students
with intellectual disabilities. (Master dissertation). Logan, Utah: Utah State University.
Villa, R., Thousand, J., Meyers, H. & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions
of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 63, 29 ̶ 45.
196
Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Pacchiano, D. (1999). Giving teachers a voice: Teachers’
perspectives regarding elementary inclusive school programs (ISP). Teacher Education
and Special Education, 22 (3), 140̶ 153.
Weber, A. S. (2012) Inclusive education in the gulf cooperation council. Journal of Educational
and Instructional Studies in the World, 2(2), 85̶ 97.
Wehmeyer, M., & Bolding, N. (2001). Enhanced self-determination of adults with intellectual
disability as an outcome of moving into community-based work or living environments.
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45, 371̶ 383.
Wolfensberger, W. (1970). The principle of normalization and its implications to psychiatric
services. American Journal of Psychiatry, 127, 291–297.
Westwood, P., & Graham, L. (2003). Inclusion of students with special needs: benefits and
obstacles perceived by teachers in New South Wales and South Australia. Australian
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(1), 3̶ 15.
Woolfson, L. M. & Brady, K. (2009). An investigation of factors impacting on mainstream
teachers’ beliefs about teaching students with learning difficulties. Educational
Psychology, 29(2), 221̶ 238.
Yazbeck, M., McVilly, K., & Parmenter, T. R. (2004). Attitudes toward people with intellectual
disabilities: An Australian perspective. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15(2), 97̶
111.
Yell, Mitchell L. (2012). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson.
Yuker, H. E., & Block, J. R. (1986). Research with the Attitude Toward Disabled Persons scales
(ATDP) 1960-1985.
197
APPENDIX A
APPROVAL LETTER FROM COLLEDGE OF BASIC EDUCATION IN KUWAIT FOR
NUMBER OF STUDENTS IN SUMMER 2015
199
APPENDIX B
SPECIAL EDUCATION PRE-SERVICE TEACHERS SURVEY
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
APPENDIX C
RESEARCH STUDY CONSENT FORM
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
College of Education
Research Study Consent Form
Study Title: Inclusive Education and Students with Intellectual Disabilities (IDs) in the State of Kuwait: Are we ready?
Researchers:
Professor Darcy Miller, Principal Investigator, Professor/ Chair, Department of Teaching and
Learning, Phone: 1-509-335-5027; [email protected]
Hawaa Alshemari, Co-Principal Investigator, PhD candidate, Department of Teaching and
Learning, Special Education Program, Phone (651)5008549, (965)99353536
Sponsor: NA
You are being asked to take part in a research study carried out Professor Darcy Miller and
Hawaa Alshemari. This form explains the research study and your part in it if you decide to join the study. Please read the form carefully, taking as much time as you need. Ask the researcher to explain anything you don’t understand. You can decide not to join the study. If you join the study, you can change your mind later or quit at any time. There will be no penalty or loss of services or benefits if you decide to not take part in the study or quit later. This study has been approved for human subject participation by the Washington State University Institutional
Review Board.
What is this study about?
This research study is being done to increase our knowledge about a) Kuwaiti pre-service Special
Education Teachers’ attitudes toward students with Intellectual Disabilities (IDs) and inclusive education, b) teachers' confidence about teaching students with intellectual disabilities in
212
inclusive settings, and c) pre-service teachers’ perceptions of successful inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities in the state of Kuwait.
You are being asked to take part because you are a special education pre-service teacher.
Taking part in the study will take about 10-15 minutes. You cannot take part in this study if you are not a special education pre-service teacher at the College of Basic Education.
What will I be asked to do if I am in this study?
If you take part in the study, you will be asked to you will be asked to answer questions in the survey. You can refuse to answer any question.
Are there any benefits to me if I am in this study?
There is no direct benefit to you from being in this study, other than the fact that this study will be contributing to the field of special education in the State of Kuwait. In the long run, it would improve the educational programs and services for students with intellectual disabilities. The study will provide the field, and also the Ministry of Education in Kuwait with important data about teachers' understanding of intellectual disabilities and inclusion. These data may inform future professional development for teachers. These data may also inform the Department of
Special Education at the college in terms of curriculum needs, practicum needs, and/or student experiences.
Are there any risks to me if I am in this study?
The potential risk involved in this study is minimal. The potential risks of taking part in this study may be that it is inconvenient for you to complete the survey. In the event that any of these risks occur you will not be required to complete the survey. You can withdraw at any time without penalty.
Will my information be kept private?
213
The data from this study will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by federal and state law.
No published results will identify you, and your name will not be associated with the findings.
Under certain circumstances, information that identifies you may be released for internal and external reviews of this project. All of the participants will be treated in accordance with ethical guidelines of the Washington State University Institutional Review Board. Although there is only a minimal risk identified for participating in this study, a number of considerations will be kept in mind; for example, health and safety issues. There will be adequate action to ensure safety, comfort, and the freedom to withdraw from the study if desired. All files will be protected using a password protected computer, with only the researchers having access. The data will be kept on the password protected lap top computer kept in a locked office that can only be accessed by the researchers. The results of this study may be published or presented at professional meetings, but the identities of all research participants will remain confidential.
The data for this study will be kept for three years after which time they will be destroyed.
Are there any costs or payments for being in this study?
. There will be no costs to you for taking part in this study.
You will not receive money or any other form of compensation for taking part in this study.
Who can I talk to if I have questions?
If you have questions about this study or the information in this form, please contact the researcher (Darcy Miller, Phone: (509) 335-5027, [email protected] or Hawaa Alshemari at
+1(651)5008549, + (965)99353536). If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or would like to report a concern or complaint about this study, please contact the
Washington State University Institutional Review Board at (509) 335-3668, or e-mail [email protected], or regular mail at: Albrook 205, PO Box 643005, Pullman, WA 99164-3005.
214
What are my rights as a research study volunteer?
Your participation in this research study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to be a
part of this study. There will be no penalty to you if you choose not to take part. You may
choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time.
Voluntary Participation:
Your participation in this research study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to be a
part of this study. There will be no penalty to you if you choose not to take part. You may choose
not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time.
What does my clicking the link for the survey under this consent form mean?
By clicking on the Start Survey / (“Yes” button), you are consenting to be a part of this study and
it means that:
• You understand the information given to you in this form.
• You have been able to ask the researcher questions and state any concerns.
• The researcher has responded to your questions and concerns.
• You believe you understand the research study and the potential benefits and risks that are
involved.
215
APPENDIX D
MODEL SUMMARY FROM LINEAR REGRESS
Appendix D1
Model Summary for Linear Regression on Average of Teachers’ Attitudes toward Students with Intellectual Disabilities
Model Summary
Change Statistics
Adjusted R Std. Error of R Square
Model R R Square Square the Estimate Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
a 0.44 0.20 0.06 0.25 0.20 1.39 7 40 0.24
217 b 0.44 0.19 0.07 0.25 0.00 0.18 1 40 0.68
c 0.43 0.18 0.09 0.25 -0.01 0.42 1 41 0.52
d 0.41 0.17 0.09 0.25 -0.02 0.96 1 42 0.33
e 0.40 0.16 0.10 0.25 -0.01 0.47 1 43 0.50
f 0.37 0.13 0.10 0.25 -0.02 1.16 1 44 0.29
g 0.29 0.09 0.07 0.25 -0.05 2.52 1 45 0.12
a. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE
b. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training c. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, Gender, Experience, Training d. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, Gender, Experience e. Predictors: (Constant), Citizen, Gender, Experience f. Predictors: (Constant), Gender, Experience g. Predictors: (Constant), Gender
218
Appendix D2
Model Summary for Linear Regression on Average of Teachers’ Attitudes toward Inclusive Education
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of Change Statistics Model R R Square Square the Estimate R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
a 0.51 0.26 0.13 0.21 0.26 2.04 7 40 0.07
b 0.51 0.26 0.15 0.21 0.00 0.02 1 40 0.89
219 c 0.51 0.26 0.17 0.20 -0.002 0.09 1 41 0.77
d 0.49 0.24 0.17 0.20 -0.02 1.04 1 42 0.31
e 0.47 0.22 0.17 0.20 -0.02 1.11 1 43 0.30
f 0.46 0.21 0.18 0.20 -0.01 0.64 1 44 0.43
a. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE b. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE c. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, NumCourseWorkIDs, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE d. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, NumCourseWorkIDs, Experience, Training
e. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, NumCourseWorkIDs, Experience f. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Experience
220
Appendix D3 Model Summary for Linear Regression on Average of Level of Confidence toward Teaching Students with IDs in Inclusive
Settings
Model Summary
R Std. Error of Change Statistics Model R Adjusted R Square Square the Estimate R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
a 0.55 0.30 0.18 0.28 0.30 2.50 7 40 0.03
221 b 0.55 0.30 0.20 0.27 0.00 0.24 1 40 0.63
c 0.54 0.30 0.21 0.27 -0.00 0.237 1 41 0.63
d 0.54 0.29 0.22 0.27 -0.01 0.45 1 42 0.51
e 0.51 0.26 0.21 0.27 -0.03 1.99 1 43 0.166
a. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE b. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training c. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Experience, Training d. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Training e. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, NumCourseWorkIDs, Training
Appendix D4 Model Summary for Linear Regression on Average of Teachers’ Attitudes toward Students with Intellectual Disabilities
Regarding Teacher-Related Factors
Model Summary
Std. Error of Change Statistics Model R R Square Adjusted R Square the Estimate R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
a 0.41 0.17 0.02 0.36 0.17 1.15 7 40 0.35
222 b 0.41 0.17 0.04 0.36 0.00 0.08 1 40 0.79
c 0.41 0.165 0.07 0.35 -0.00 0.065 1 41 0.80
d 0.40 0.16 0.08 0.35 -0.01 0.44 1 42 0.51
e 0.34 0.12 0.06 0.36 -0.04 2.06 1 43 0.16
f 0.29 0.09 0.05 0.36 -0.03 1.51 1 44 0.23
g 0.21 0.04 0.02 0.36 -0.04 2.10 1 45 0.15
h 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 -0.04 2.07 1 46 0.16
a. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE
b. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE c. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE d. Predictors: (Constant), Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE e. Predictors: (Constant), NumCourseWorkIDs, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE f. Predictors: (Constant), Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE g. Predictors: (Constant), Training h. Predictor: (constant)
223
Appendix D5
Model Summary for Linear Regression on Average of Teachers’ Attitudes toward Students with Intellectual Disabilities
Regarding Student-Related Factors
Model Summary
Std. Error of Change Statistics Model R R Square Adjusted R Square the Estimate R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
a 0.40 0.16 0.01 0.39 0.16 1.07 7 40 0.40
224 b 0.40 0.16 0.04 0.39 0.00 0.00 1 40 0.98
c 0.40 0.16 0.06 0.38 0.00 0.02 1 41 0.88
d 0.40 0.16 0.08 0.38 0.00 0.03 1 42 0.86
e 0.39 0.15 0.10 0.38 0.00 0.13 1 43 0.73
f 0.38 0.15 0.11 0.37 -0.01 0.43 1 44 0.51
g 0.35 0.12 0.10 0.37 -0.02 1.27 1 45 0.27
a. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE b. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE
c. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience d. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender e. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, Gender f. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Gender g. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE
225
Appendix D6
Model Summary for Linear Regression on Average of Teachers’ Attitudes toward Students with Intellectual Disabilities
Regarding Environment-Related Factors
Model Summary
Std. Error of Change Statistics Model R R Square Adjusted R Square the Estimate R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
a 0.40 0.16 0.02 0.52 0.16 1.12 7 40 0.37
226 b 0.40 0.16 0.04 0.52 0.00 0.02 1 40 0.88
c .40 0.16 0.06 0.51 -0.00 0.12 1 41 0.73
d 0.40 0.16 0.08 0.51 0.00 0.20 1 42 0.66
e 0.39 0.15 0.10 0.50 0.00 0.19 1 43 0.66
f 0.33 0.11 0.07 0.51 -0.04 2.24 1 44 0.14
g 0.28 0.08 0.06 0.51 -0.03 1.73 1 45 0.20
a. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE b. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE
c. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training d. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Gender, Experience, Training e. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Gender, Experience f. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Experience g. Predictors: (Constant), Experience
227
Appendix D7
Model Summary for Linear Regression on Average of Teachers’ Attitudes toward Inclusive Education Regarding Teacher-Related
Factors
Model Summary
Std. Error of Change Statistics Model R R Square Adjusted R Square the Estimate R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
a 0.43 0.19 0.05 0.57 0.19 1.32 7 40 0.27
228 b 0.43 0.19 0.07 0.56 0.00 0.01 1 40 0.94
c 0.43 0.181 0.08 0.56 -0.00 0.35 1 41 0.56
d 0.41 0.17 0.09 0.56 -0.01 0.55 1 42 0.46
e 0.38 0.14 0.08 0.56 -0.03 1.45 1 43 0.24
f 0.35 0.12 0.08 0.56 -0.02 1.07 1 44 0.31
g 0.29 0.08 0.06 0.56 -0.04 1.92 1 45 0.17
a. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE
b. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, Gender, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE c. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, Gender, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE d. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE e. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, Training f. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen g. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE
229
Appendix D8
Model Summary for Linear Regression on Average of Teachers’ Attitudes toward Inclusive Education Regarding Student-Related
Factors
Model Summary
Std. Error of Change Statistics Model R R Square Adjusted R Square the Estimate R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
a 0.23 0.05 -0.11 0.35 0.05 0.33 7 40 0.94
230 b 0.23 0.05 -0.08 0.34 0.00 0.00 1 40 0.97
c .23 0.05 -0.06 0.34 0.00 0.00 1 41 0.96
d 0.23 0.05 -0.04 0.34 0.00 0.07 1 42 0.80
e 0.22 0.05 -0.02 0.33 0.00 0.15 1 43 0.70
f 0.21 0.04 0.00 0.33 -0.01 0.29 1 44 0.59
g 0.18 0.03 0.01 0.33 -0.01 0.48 1 45 0.49
h 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 -0.03 1.56 1 46 0.22
a. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE b. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE c. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, Gender, Experience, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE d. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, Experience, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE e. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Experience, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE f. Predictors: (Constant), Experience, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE g. Predictors: (Constant), Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE h. Predictor: (constant)
231
Appendix D9
Model Summary for Linear Regression on Average of Teachers’ Attitudes toward Inclusive Education Regarding Environment-
Related Factors
Model Summary
Std. Error of Change Statistics Model R R Square Adjusted R Square the Estimate R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
a 0.46 0.21 0.08 0.30 0.21 1.54 7 40 0.18
232 b 0.46 0.21 0.10 0.30 0.00 0.00 1 40 0.98
c .46 0.21 0.12 0.29 0.00 0.03 1 41 0.87
d 0.44 0.19 0.11 0.29 -0.02 1.19 1 42 0.28
e 0.40 0.16 0.10 0.30 -0.03 1.51 1 43 0.23
f 0.34 0.11 0.07 0.30 -0.05 2.54 1 44 0.12
g 0.29 0.09 0.07 0.30 -0.03 1.36 1 45 0.25
a. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE b. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE
c. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Experience, Training d. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Training e. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, NumCourseWorkIDs, Training f. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Training g. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE
233
Appendix D10
Model Summary for Linear Regression on Average of Level of Confidence toward Teaching Students with IDs in Inclusive
Settings Regarding Teacher-Related Factors
Model Summary
Std. Error of Change Statistics Model R R Square Adjusted R Square the Estimate R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
a 0.51 0.26 0.13 0.40 0.26 2.03 7 40 0.08
234 b 0.51 0.26 0.15 0.39 0.00 0.04 1 40 0.84
c 0.51 0.26 0.17 0.39 -0.00 0.24 1 41 0.63
d 0.50 0.25 0.18 0.39 -0.01 0.37 1 42 0.55
e 0.48 0.23 0.18 0.39 -0.02 0.94 1 43 0.34
a. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE b. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE c. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Training d. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Training
e. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, NumCourseWorkIDs, Training
235
Appendix D11 Model Summary for Linear Regression on Average of Level of Confidence toward Teaching Students with IDs in Inclusive
Settings Regarding Student-Related Factors
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of Change Statistics Model R R Square Square the Estimate R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
a 0.51 0.26 0.12 0.38 0.26 1.95 7 40 0.09
236 b 0.50 0.25 0.14 0.37 0.00 0.05 1 40 0.82
c 0.50 0.25 0.16 0.37 -0.00 0.41 1 41 0.53
d 0.49 0.24 0.17 0.37 -0.01 0.50 1 42 0.48
e 0.47 0.22 0.17 0.37 -0.02 1.00 1 43 0.32
f 0.44 0.19 0.15 0.37 -0.03 1.71 1 44 0.20
a. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE b. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE c. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Training
d. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Training e. Predictors: (Constant), Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Training f. Predictors: (Constant), Citizen, Training
237
Appendix D12
Model Summary for Linear Regression on Average of Level of Confidence toward Teaching Students with IDs in Inclusive
Settings Regarding Environment-Related Factors
Model Summary
Std. Error of Change Statistics Model R R Square Adjusted R Square the Estimate R Square
Change F Change df1 df2 Sig. F Change
a 0.47 0.22 0.08 0.37 0.22 1.61 7 40 0.16
238
b 0.47 0.22 0.11 0.37 0.00 0.02 1 40 0.90
c 0.47 0.22 0.13 0.37 0.00 0.02 1 41 0.88
d 0.47 0.22 0.15 0.36 0.00 0.03 1 42 0.86
e 0.47 0.22 0.16 0.36 0.00 0.06 1 43 0.81
f 0.43 0.18 0.15 0.36 -0.04 2.05 1 44 0.16
a. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Training, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE b. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, Citizen, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE
c. Predictors: (Constant), CourseWorkIE, NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE d. Predictors: (Constant), NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience, Q10NumCoursesCompletedIE e. Predictors: (Constant), NumCourseWorkIDs, Gender, Experience f. Predictors: (Constant), NumCourseWorkIDs, Experience
239