Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Special Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Preparedness to Teach Students With Severe Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms: A Saudi Arabian Perspective

Special Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Preparedness to Teach Students With Severe... Successful inclusive education for students with severe disabilities (SD) relies on the preparedness of their teachers. This descriptive study investigated special education teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness to teach students with SD in inclusive educational settings. A survey was sent to 382 teachers of such students. In general, findings indicate that participants were confident that they were prepared to teach students with SD in inclusive education. Findings also show that the lowest levels of confidence were reported by participants with the shortest working experience, participants who have taught students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities and those with multiple disabilities, participants who have taught in the lower grades, and those who have already taught in general classrooms. The practical implications of the findings are discussed for supporting successful implementation of inclusive education for students with SD in terms of improving special education teachers’ preparedness. Keywords inclusive education, teacher education, teachers’ preparedness, severe disabilities socialize and avoid being discriminated against or limited Introduction because of their unique needs (Rogers & Johnson, 2018; Inclusive education is a topical issue in modern society, and Ruppar et al., 2016). Research shows that inclusive educa- it is focused because it is on access to quality education for tion offers more positive results compared to other educa- all students while considering their diverse needs. The term tional placements (Alquraini & Gut, 2012; Ayres et al., 1994; inclusive education defines when students with or without Ballard & Dymond, 2017; Boyd et al., 2005). Activating the disabilities attend the same classes, learning together to benefits of inclusive education provides new opportunities achieve appropriate results and integration with society (Ali for this group to become successful in the future. & Jelas, 2006; Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003; Kurth et al., The category of SD considered in this discussion includes 2015). This perspective on education is preconditioned by individuals with severe intellectual disabilities (ID), multiple the latest research which indicates that individuals with dis- disabilities (MD), or autism spectrum disorder (ASD), who abilities might significantly benefit from attending classes need specific and extensive support to participate in social with their typically developing peers (Calculator, 2009; Leko functioning (Alquraini & Gut, 2012; Benitez et al., 2009; et al., 2012; Rogers & Johnson, 2018; Ruppar et al., 2016). Collins, 2007; Ruppar et al., 2016). This category is charac- Thus, it is essential to introduce this model in educational terized by significant behavior and communication chal- establishments globally. lenges (Collins, 2007). In the most complex cases, individuals Inclusive education rests on the idea that every student is with SD have difficulties in communicating and engaging in unique and should be valued regardless of his or her existing problems, disabilities, or disorders (Calculator, 2009). Therefore, impaired students deserve equal opportunities for Department of Special Education, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia development and self-realization (Benitez et al., 2009; Corresponding Author: Ruppar et al., 2015). This approach requires increased Rashed Aldabas, Department of Special Education, College of Education, emphasis on the paradigm for students with severe disabili- King Saud University, P.O. Box 2458, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia. ties (SD). Inclusive education enables students with SD to Email: raldabas@ksu.edu.sa Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open relations with others, two basic elements of successful devel- 2007; Bouck, 2005; Calculator, 2009; Whitten & Westling, opment (Collins, 2007; Zagona et al., 2017). It is critical that 1985). Certification of having completed such training results they have an environment that promotes their social growth in improved outcomes and increased effectiveness of the and provides them with a chance to master these skills. inclusive education approach (Rainforth, 2000). Because of the special needs of students with SD, their In Saudi Arabia, special education services have been pro- teachers need specific skills and knowledge geared to aiding vided for students with various disabilities since 1960 them in achieving appropriate results. Several research (Aldabas, 2015). Students with mild and moderate disabilities devoted to the issue emphasizes that teachers should be com- were educated in special education classrooms in public mitted to educational innovation. They need flexibility to schools, while those with SD were educated in special educa- adapt to diverse requirements and alter existing styles to work tion institutes (Aldabas, 2015). Inclusive education has individually with students (Smith, 2007; Whitten & Westling, become a major concern of contemporary society globally 1985; Zagona et al., 2017). They should collaborate with because it meets demands for tolerance, a humanistic approach, other professionals in the educational process to align the and values (Petersen, 2016; Ruppar et al., 2017; Smith, 2007). continuity of teaching, assess all existing needs, and provide In Saudi Arabia, a bachelor’s degree (BA) in special education the most appropriate help to students (Theeb et al., 2013). is required to be an SET. If the teacher holds a BA in another Special education teachers (SETs) bear responsibility for their major, an associate degree (AD) in special education is students, which means they need increased understanding of required to become a qualified SET (Ministry of Education, the nature of SD, ways to mitigate SD’s negative impact, and 2015). Although the Saudi SET-preparation programs cover know how to navigate complex cases (Da Fonte & Barton- most of the competencies related to inclusive education Arwood, 2017; Eichinger & Downing, 2000; Mock & (Alquraini & Rao, 2017), little information is available about Kauffman, 2002; Ruppar et al., 2015). Finally, there is a fun- what professional training in-service SETs need regarding damental need to establish a new culture and identity of what inclusive education for students with SD. Hence, it is impor- SD are so all students can work together, share the same tant to analyze the current practices of SETs in Saudi Arabia to goals, and benefit from collaboration (Badri et al., 2016). determine gaps and flaws in teacher education (e.g., Alquraini There are specific professional qualities that should be & Rao, 2017; Florian et al., 2010; Ruppar et al., 2016; Walker required of teachers in this category to ensure their ability to et al., 2018). This study differs by not focusing solely on needs work with students and help them improve. First, teachers of students with SD. It also deeply explored the preparedness should have additional and continuous training on how to level of the teachers in terms of how ready they felt to teach assess the needs of students with SD in order to create an those students within inclusive education. appropriate learning environment (Rakap et al., 2017; Reese The literature also has addressed some socio-demographic et al., 2018). Teachers might also request special classrooms factors which might affect the teachers’ perceptions of their that have been adapted to the existing problems to minimize preparedness to teach students with SD. The factors included risks traditionally associated with this field of education educational degree, years of teaching experience, disability (Florian, 2012). An inclusive classroom presupposes coop- type of students, grade level taught, and type of classroom. eration among all students regardless of their ability status For example, Ruppar et al. (2016) found that teachers with (Downing, 2005; Florian, 2012; Gable et al., 2012). For higher educational degrees felt more confident about teaching this reason, teachers might need support from other school students with SD than others with lower degrees. Furthermore, professionals (Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2014; Johnson & Bannister-Tyrrell et al. (2018) and Ruppar et al. (2016) Semmelroth, 2014; Jones & Brownell, 2014). pointed out that teaching experience might influence teach- Because of the difficulties and specific demands of this ers’ perceptions regarding their preparedness to teach the stu- field, SETs are still in short supply despite the growing need dents in inclusive education. Teachers with longer experience for them. Unfortunately, many teachers have had little training in teaching students with disabilities showed a higher degree in inclusive or special education, which means they would of confidence regarding teaching in inclusive classrooms. have to master their skills during the teaching process Another factor is the disability type of students whom teach- (Brownell et al., 2005, 2010; Nagro & deBettencourt, 2017; ers taught. For example, Ruppar et al. (2016) indicated that Ruppar et al., 2016). Attempts to improve the situation have teachers of students with cognitive disabilities had greater evolved through introducing special courses to enable teachers confidence in teaching students with SD than did other teach- to work with students with SD (Ruppar et al., 2018; Ryndak ers. This would suggest that characteristics and needs of each et al., 2001). These classes are designed for traditional teach- type of disability might impact teachers’ confidence in their ers who want to acquire the knowledge needed to expand into preparedness regarding teaching in inclusive education. working with students with SD (Alquraini & Rao, 2017; Furthermore, previous studies (e.g., Ruppar et al., 2016, Ballard & Dymond, 2017; Fox & Williams, 1992). In such 2018; Sucuoğlu et al., 2013) suggested that the grade level courses, emphasis is on the extra needs these students might taught might affect teachers’ perceptions about teaching in have, provision of new methods to work in inclusive class- inclusive education. The type of classroom might also be an rooms and creation of appropriate environments (Boe & Shin, influence in teachers’ perceptions about their role in inclusive Aldabas 3 Table 1. Participant Demographics. Variable Category Frequency Percentage (%) Gender Female 203 53.1 Male 179 46.9 Degree Associate 59 15.4 Baccalaureate 214 56 Master’s or higher 109 28.5 Student disability ASD 128 33.5 MSID 153 40.1 MD 101 26.4 Years of teaching experience Less than 5 117 28.7 5–10 163 40.0 More than 10 128 31.4 Grade Preschool 75 19.6 Elementary school 139 36.4 Middle school 90 23.6 High school 78 20.4 Type of classroom General classroom 50 13.1 Special education classroom 208 54.5 Special education school/institute 124 32.5 Note. ASD = autism spectrum disorder; MSID = moderate/severe intellectual disabilities; MD = multiple disabilities. education. Past research (e.g., Ruppar et al., 2018) indicated Method that teachers who had taught in special education classrooms Participants and Setting had low confidence in their knowledge and skills to teach in inclusive education. Moreover, as male teachers teach schools A nonprobability convenience sampling was used to select for boys and females teach in schools for girls (Aldabas, the potential participants who were SETs (Creswell, 2009). 2015), gender might impact teachers’ perceptions about teach- To recruit participants, a total of 700 invitations, including ing in inclusive education. Therefore, this study attempted to copies of the questionnaire, were distributed among 100 investigate how teachers perceived their preparedness to teach institutions, schools, and centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, students with SD in inclusive education and to examine how that offer educational services for students with SD, includ- those factors would impact the teachers’ perceptions. ing moderate/severe intellectual disabilities (MSID), ASD, Accordingly, it was essential to investigate the views of SETs and MD. Of the 700 questionnaires, 382 were completed and about their current knowledge and skills for teaching students returned for a 54.7% response rate. with SD to outline existing gaps in inclusive education and As Table 1 shows, there were 203 (53.1%) females and teacher preparation. These steps need to be taken to meet the 179 (46.9%) males. The majority of the participants (56%) diverse needs of students with SD and to guarantee their learn- held BA degrees while 28.5% held master’s degrees (MA) or ing. Thus, this study had two distinctive aims. The first was to higher. One-hundred fifty-three participants had taught stu- determine SETs’ perceptions regarding their preparedness to dents with MSID, and 128 had taught students with ASD. Of teach students with SD in inclusive education. The second aim the participants, 40% had more than 5 years and less than 10 was to investigate the potential influence of socio-demographic years of teaching experience, while 31.4% of the participants factors (i.e., gender, educational degree, disability type of stu- had more than 10 years. Moreover, 36.4% of the participants dents taught, years of teaching experience, grade taught, and had taught in elementary schools, and only 20.4% had taught type of classroom) on SETs’ perceptions of their preparedness to in high school. Of the participants, only 13% had taught in teach students with SD in inclusive education. general classrooms, while 54.5% had taught in special educa- Specifically, this study attempted to answer the following tion classrooms. questions: Research Design 1. What is the current level of SETs’ perceptions of their This study was primarily a quantitative, descriptive, survey preparedness to teach students with SD to meet exist- research method. The quantitative descriptive survey ing demands for inclusive education? research design gives explicatory data purposed to under- 2. What socio-demographic factors influence the teach- standing an issue under investigation and testing hypotheses ers’ perceptions of their preparedness to teach stu- proposed (Creswell, 2009). Thus, a cross-sectional survey dents with SD in inclusive education? 4 SAGE Open was used to collect descriptive data for obtaining a clear pic- education reviewed the questionnaire. They suggested delet- ture of the current situation and, then, answering the research ing some items and rewording others, with a 92% agreement questions. rate. Based on their suggestions, the first draft of the ques- tionnaire (34 items) was revised, and the final draft with 31 items was finalized. In addition, 15 SETs (eight females and Hypotheses seven males) who did not participate in this study were This study proposed the following hypotheses: invited to complete the questionnaire for piloting the instru- ment. They completed the questionnaire successfully with- 1. There are significant differences in teachers’ percep- out misunderstanding any of the items. tions of their preparedness to teach students with SD based on teachers’ gender. Reliability of instrument. To assess the internal consistency of 2. There are significant differences in teachers’ percep- the questionnaire, a series of correlations was performed for tions of their preparedness to teach students with SD each of the six subscales and the total questionnaire score. As based on previous teaching experience. Table 2 shows, the correlations between the six subscales and 3. There are significant differences in teachers’ percep- the total score were statistically significant (p < .01). There- tions of their preparedness to teach students with SD fore, the six subscales were positively related to the total based on teachers’ educational degree. scale, indicating that the questionnaire demonstrates internal 4. There are significant differences in teachers’ percep- consistency. The results also indicated high reliability for the tions of their preparedness to teach students with SD six subscales (ranging between 0.90 and 0.96). Moreover, based on disability type of students taught. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the whole questionnaire 5. There are significant differences in teachers’ percep- was 0.99, indicating high reliability (Creswell, 2009). tions of their preparedness to teach students with SD based on grade schooling level taught. Procedures 6. There are significant differences in teachers’ percep- tions of their preparedness to teach students with SD Data collection and analysis. After obtaining approval from based on type of classroom taught. the University Institutional Review Board and the General Administration of Public Education in Riyadh, an invita- tion to participate in the study was sent to all the institu- Instrument tions and schools where students with SD are educated in Based on a review of the literature (e.g., Alquraini & Rao, Riyadh. The invitation, including objectives of the study, 2017; Ruppar et al., 2016), a questionnaire, titled “Teachers’ instructions on how to participate, and an Informed Con- Perceptions of Preparedness for Teaching Students with sent form, was enclosed with the questionnaire for the Severe Disabilities in Inclusive Education,” was developed potential participants (i.e., SETs). The potential partici- to address skills and knowledge needed by SETs to teach stu- pants were also provided with information on how to return dents with SD in inclusive educational settings. The ques- the invitation envelope. tionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section After the completed questionnaires were received, asked for demographic information about the participants responses were entered into the SPSS (version 24) data anal- (i.e., gender, level of education, disability type of students ysis program for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics, taught, previous teaching experience, school grade level including frequencies, means, and standard deviations, were taught, and type of classroom). The second section consisted determined to answer the main research question. Socio- of 31 items asking the participants about their perceptions of demographic group differences in the mean scores of the their preparedness to educate students with SD in inclusive scales used were determined to detect factors’ influence education. The 31 items were divided into six subscales: using t-tests for independent samples and a series of one-way (a) collaboration and teamwork skills, (b) using effective multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) with inter- instructional methods, (c) skills for implementation of inclu- pretation of Scheffe post hoc tests as an indicator of signifi- sion, (d) skills for planning and implementation of behav- cant mean differences. ioral interventions, (e) skills for accessing general education curriculum, and (f) skills for transition planning. The partici- Results pants answered the items using a 5-point Likert-type Scale ranging from 1 = Not confident to 5 = Very confident. The Teachers’ Perceptions About Their Preparedness questionnaire took approximately 15 minutes to complete. to Teach Students With SD in Inclusive Education Validity of instrument. An expert review was conducted to The total mean score for all the survey items indicated that determine the validity of the instrument (Lynn, 1986). Six participants were between neutral and confident in their pre- university experts in SD, inclusive education and teacher paredness to teach students with SD in inclusive education Aldabas 5 Table 2. Reliability Statistics of the Questionnaire. Cronbach’s Number Correlation with the total Subscales alpha of items questionnaire score Collaboration and teaming skills 0.94 4 0.865** Skills for using effective instructional methods 0.95 7 0.838** Skills for implementation of inclusion 0.96 7 0.854** Skills for planning and implementation of behavioral interventions 0.90 3 0.801** Skills for accessing general education curriculum 0.94 5 0.842** Skills for transition planning 0.94 5 0.828** Overall 0.99 31 – **p < .01. planning transition programs compared to other subscales. (M = 3.50, SD = 1.22). Table 3 shows that participants Item 30, which addressed the ability to teach students inde- achieved similar mean scores on all 31 items. As the results pendence skills, had the highest rating (60%) for confident suggested, the mean response for the communication and and very confident (M = 3.54, SD = 1.39). Results also teamwork skills subscale was the highest of the six subscales showed that item 31 (M = 3.38, SD = 1.38), which con- (M = 3.55, SD = 1.37), indicating higher confidence. More cerned the ability to teach students self-determination skills, than one in four teachers felt from confident to very confident was the lowest-rating item. in their ability to use communication and teamwork skills Finally, findings indicated that SETs had lower confi- (27.7% were confident and 37.4% were very confident). Most dence about their skills for the implementation of the inclu- of the highest responses concerned item 1, the ability to work sion subscale when compared to other subscales in general collaboratively with all members of the Individualized (M = 3.42, SD = 1.31). However, participants achieved the Education Program (IEP), with 67.1% indicating that they highest mean score on item 12, which dealt with teachers’ were confident or very confident about that skill, and item 4, ability to communicate with school professionals (M = 3.63, the ability to train school staff to work with the students, with SD = 1.33), while lowest-rated item 15 concerned develop- 66.7% indicating that they were confident to very confident ing children’s independence within inclusive schools about these skills. Responses to items 2 and 3 showed that (M = 3.35, SD = 1.32). teachers had lower confidence compared to the other items within the subscale (M = 3.47, SD = 1.34 and M = 3.53, SD = 1.37, respectively). The Influence of Socio-Demographic Factors on Participants expressed higher confidence about their skills SETs’ Perceptions of Their Preparedness to Teach to access the general education curriculum (M = 3.54, SD = Students With SD in Inclusive Education 1.32) compared to what they expressed on other subscales. Relying solely on the results of item-level statistics, total On items 25 and 26, 26.7% of participants reported feeling scores for each of the original subscales were calculated and very confident, while only 23.8% of them were very confi- compared on socio-demographic variables using t-tests for dent on item 24, which addressed the ability to use strategies independent samples and a one-way MANOVA. Based on of adaptation in teaching and evaluation. When it came to the the values of skewness (±1) and kurtosis (±3) in Table 4, it skills for using effective instructional methods, participants can be assumed that the distribution of subscales’ total scores expressed a high degree of confidence for this subscale (M = was close to normal. 3.51, SD = 1.33). One third of participants (30.4%) felt very confident on item 9, the ability to teach students social skills Effects of gender. The obtained results of the t-tests did not and daily life skills. The lowest ratings of this subscale were reveal any significant gender differences (p > .05), thus sug- for item 11, the ability to train students to build friendships gesting that female teachers did not significantly differ from (M = 3.40, SD = 1.39). male teachers in levels of their confidence to teach students Teachers reported lower confidence (M = 3.48, SD = with SD in inclusive education. This finding rejects the first 1.35) about their skills for planning and implementing hypothesis and indicates no gender difference was found. behavioral interventions compared to other subscales. The highest rating, very confident (29.1%), was for item 20, the ability to build behavioral intervention plans (M = 3.59, SD Effects of previous teaching experience. In Table 5, the results of a = 1.31). The lowest rating of little confidence was for item one-way MANOVA revealed significant differences among 21 (M = 3.38, SD = 1.38), which concerned the ability to SETs who had different working experiences in their percep- collect and use data for developing behavior hypotheses. In tions about preparedness to teach students with SD in inclusive addition, results suggested that the participants had lower education, F (12, 748) = 6.37, p < .001; Wilks’ Λ = .82, partial confidence (M = 3.47, SD = 1.35) about their skills for η = .09. Furthermore, SETs with the longest working 6 SAGE Open Table 3. Confidence in Item-level descriptive statistics (N = 382). Frequencies (percentages) Not Low Very Items confident confident Neutral Confident confident M SD Collaboration and teaming skills 1 Ability to work collaboratively with all members of the 60 (15.7) 36 (9.4) 30 (7.9) 132 (34.6) 124 (32.5) 3.59 1.42 IEP team 2 Ability to facilitate the participation of families in the 52 (13.6) 46 (12.0) 47 (12.3) 144 (37.7) 93 (24.3) 3.47 1.34 preparation and implementation of the IEP 3 Ability to work cooperatively with professionals within 52 (13.6) 49 (12.8) 32 (8.4) 143 (37.4) 106 (27.7) 3.53 1.37 the school to support teaching the students 4 Ability to train and provide staff within the school with 51 (13.4) 41 (10.1) 35 (9.2) 143 (37.4) 112 (29.3) 3.59 1.36 best practices in education of students with SD Total 3.55 1.37 Using effective instructional methods 5 Ability to monitor the progress of the students to 47 (12.3) 52 (13.6) 40 (10.5) 154 (40.3) 89 (23.3) 3.49 1.32 achieve their IEP goals 6 Ability to explain and analyze the progress of the 49 (12.8) 43 (11.3) 42 (11.0) 147 (38.5) 101 (26.4) 3.54 1.33 students on their IEPs 7 Ability to use methods of motivation and stimulation in 49 (12.8) 52 (13.6) 42 (11.0) 147 (38.5) 92 (24.1) 3.47 1.33 teaching skills and behaviors 8 Ability to teach and train students in communication 43 (11.3) 44 (11.5) 49 (12.8) 148 (38.7) 98 (25.7) 3.56 1.29 skills using augmentative and alternative communication methods in diverse environments 9 Ability to teach students social skills and daily life skills 50 (13.1) 39 (10.2) 45 (11.8) 132 (34.6) 116 (30.4) 3.59 1.36 10 Ability to teach students strategies and techniques to 48 (12.6) 41 (10.1) 46 (12.0) 161 (42.1) 86 (22.5) 3.51 1.29 help them generalize the skills in different situations 11 Ability to train students to build friendships using 67 (17.5) 36 (9.4) 42 (11.0) 152 (39.8) 85 (22.3) 3.40 1.39 appropriate methods and situations Total 3.51 1.33 Skills for implementation of inclusion 12 Ability to collaborate with school professionals to 50 (13.1) 29 (7.6) 46 (12.0) 146 (38.2) 111 (29.1) 3.63 1.33 support inclusion 13 Ability to plan behavioral intervention programs to 51 (13.4) 36 (9.4) 61 (16.0) 150 (39.3) 84 (22.0) 3.47 1.30 train and motivate students to stay in the inclusive classrooms 14 Ability to facilitate interaction between students and their 49 (12.8) 54 (14.1) 49 (12.8) 135 (35.3) 95 (24.9) 3.45 1.34 typically developing peers 15 Ability to support independence of students in the 53 (13.9) 51 (13.4) 65 (17.0) 136 (35.6) 77 (20.2) 3.35 1.32 inclusive classrooms based on their abilities 16 Ability to apply the principles of universal design for 47 (12.3) 43 (11.3) 63 (16.5) 159 (41.6) 70 (18.3) 3.42 1.26 learning to support the education of students in inclusive classrooms 17 Ability to modify the classroom environment to meet the 51 (13.4) 43 (11.3) 45 (11.8) 146 (38.2) 97 (25.4) 3.51 1.34 physical and educational needs of the students 18 Ability to identify the appropriate assistive technology to 54 (14.1) 44 (11.5) 50 (13.1) 155 (40.6) 79 (20.7) 3.42 1.32 enable the students to participate in all school activities Total 3.42 1.31 Skills for planning and implementation of behavioral interventions 19 Ability to monitor the progress of students toward the 56 (14.7) 43 (11.3) 46 (12.0) 141 (36.9) 96 (25.1) 3.47 1.36 achievement of behavioral goals 20 Ability to build behavioral intervention plans to control 37 (9.7) 57 (14.9) 43 (11.3) 134 (35.1) 111 (29.1) 3.59 1.31 challenging behaviors of the students 21 Ability to collect and use data before and after the 57 (14.9) 55 (14.4) 49 (12.8) 128 (33.5) 93 (24.3) 3.38 1.38 occurrence of challenging behaviors of students to develop hypotheses Total 3.48 1.35 (continued) Aldabas 7 Table 3. (continued) Frequencies (percentages) Not Low Very Items confident confident Neutral Confident confident M SD Skills for access to the general education curriculum 22 Ability to identify the possible use of the contents of 49 (12.8) 47 (12.3) 40 (10.5) 144 (37.7) 102 (26.7) 3.53 1.34 GEC using adaptation or modification techniques 23 Ability to adapt GEC objectives with the objectives of the 56 (14.7) 40 (10.5) 53 (13.9) 132 (34.6) 101(26.4) 3.48 1.37 IEP for the students 24 Ability to use strategies of adaptation in teaching and 46 (12.0) 48 (12.6) 33 (8.6) 164 (42.9) 91 (23.8) 3.54 1.31 evaluation to facilitate learning of the students 25 Ability to describe and analyze the performance of 45 (11.8) 38 (9.9) 46 (12.0) 155 (40.6) 98 (25.7) 3.58 1.29 students toward achieving their IEP goals applying GEC 26 Ability to teach the students skills to help them in 42 (11.0) 51 (13.4) 33 (8.6) 157 (41.1) 99 (25.9) 3.58 1.30 ongoing participation in noneducational activities Total 3.54 1.32 Skills for planning transition programs 27 Ability to discuss planning transitional goals (postschool) 53 (13.9) 41 (10.7) 48 (12.6) 152 (39.8) 88 (23.0) 3.47 1.33 with the students themselves (if possible) in additional to the IEP team 28 Ability to teach the students skills that help them 54 (14.1) 44 (11.5) 36 (9.4) 160 (41.9) 88 (23.0) 3.48 1.34 participate in recreational activities in the community 29 Ability to use appropriate assessment and measurement 56 (14.7) 42 (11.0) 51 (13.4) 134 (35.1) 99 (25.9) 3.47 1.37 tools for long-term planning and to establish long-term goals 30 Ability to teach students with disabilities independence 54 (14.1) 41 (10.7) 35 (9.2) 150 (39.3) 102 (26.7) 3.54 1.36 skills to help them to integrate into the community 31 Ability to teach the students self-determination skills 56 (14.7) 56 (14.7) 52 (13.6) 124 (32.5) 94 (24.6) 3.38 1.38 Total 3.47 1.35 Overall score 3.50 1.22 Table 4. Mean, Standard Deviation, and Normality of Used Scores. Subscales M SD Mode Skewness Kurtosis Minimum Maximum Collaboration and teaming skills 14.17 5.09 16 −.74 −.60 4 20 Using effective instructional methods 24.57 8.24 28 −.71 −.46 7 35 Skills for implementation of inclusion 24.25 8.19 28 −.73 −.39 7 35 Skills for planning and implementation of behavioral interventions 10.43 3.70 12 −.66 −.68 3 15 Skills for access to the general education curriculum 17.71 5.94 20 −.82 −.42 5 25 Skills for planning transition programs 17.34 6.04 20 −.70 −.59 5 25 Total 108.48 34.71 124 −.81 −.27 31 155 experience (more than 10 years) showed higher confidence in with SD in inclusive education based on their educational their preparedness on all subscales concerning their teaching degrees, F (12, 748) = 5.45, p < .001; Wilks’ Λ = .84, partial skills in inclusive education than did those with shorter working η = .08. Furthermore, the results of Scheffe tests suggested experience (less than 10 or 5 years), according to the Scheffe that SETs with ADs showed lower confidence in their pre- post hoc test. Thus, this finding supports the second hypothesis paredness to teach such students in inclusive education than did that significant differences existed among teachers’ perceptions those with BA or MA/higher degrees. This finding confirms regarding their preparedness to teach students with SD in inclu- the third hypothesis that teachers with higher degrees felt more sive education based on years of teaching experience. confident in their preparedness to teach students with SD in inclusive education compared to teachers with lower degrees. Effects of teachers’ educational degree. Table 6 indicates a statis- tically significant difference in total scores of SETs’ percep- Effects of disability type. Table 7 shows a significant differ- tions about confidence in their preparedness to teach students ence in mean scores between SETs who worked with 8 SAGE Open Table 5. F-Tests and Mean Differences Among Teachers With Different Previous Teaching Experiences. M (SD) Subscales F df partial η Less than 5 years 6 to 10 years More than 10 years a,b b Collaboration and teaming skills 35.34* 2,379 .16 12.03 (4.82) 13.50 (5.37) 17.05 (3.41) a,c Using effective instructional methods 26.02* 2,379 .12 21.75 (7.74) 23.39 (8.95) 28.72 (5.77) a,c Skills for implementation of inclusion 17.06* 2,379 .08 21.99 (7.86) 23.24 (8.84) 27.69 (6.36) a,c Skills for planning and implementation of 16.15* 2,379 .08 9.30 (3.80) 10.12 (3.92) 11.90 (2.73) behavioral interventions a,c Skills for access to the general education 15.28* 2,379 .08 16.19 (6.16) 16.97 (6.34) 20.08 (4.27) curriculum a,c Skills for planning transition programs 15.86* 2,379 .08 15.91 (6.28) 16.45 (6.50) 19.82 (4.18) a,c Total 23.62* 2,379 .11 97.17 (33.19) 103.67 (38.17) 125.26 (23.58) a b Note. N = 382. Superscripts represent differences between group means as suggested by Scheffe post hoc test, 6 to 10 years, more than 10 years, less than 5 years. *p < .001. Table 6. F-Tests and Mean Difference Among Teachers With Different Educational Degrees. M (SD) Subscales F df partial η AD BA MA and higher a,b Collaboration and teaming skills 24.71* 2,379 .12 10.20 (4.77) 14.64 (5.03) 15.39 (4.31) a,b Using effective instructional methods 22.17* 2,379 .11 18.69 (6.84) 24.95 (8.47) 26.99 (6.88) a,b Skills for implementation of inclusion 61.30* 2,379 .10 18.78 (6.68) 24.63 (8.40) 26.49 (7.19) a,b Skills for planning and implementation of 12.10* 2,379 .06 8.32 (3.47) 10.77 (3.73) 10.92 (3.38) behavioral interventions a,b Skills for access to the general education 18.37* 2,379 .10 13.80 (5.54) 17.98 (6.02) 19.28 (5.04) curriculum a,b Skills for planning transition programs 17.51* 2,379 .10 13.46 (5.45) 17.59 (6.21) 18.93 (5.09) a,b Total 22.31* 2,379 .11 83.25 (29.79) 11.56 (36.30) 118 (26.96) a b c Note. N =382. Superscripts represent differences between group means as suggested by Scheffe post hoc test, BA, MA and higher degree, AD. AD = associate degree; BA = bachelor’s degree; MA = master’s degrees. *p < .001. different types of students’ disabilities in their perceptions revealed that SETs who had taught in pre-school grades about their preparedness to teach students with SD in inclu- showed a lower level of confidence in their preparedness sive education, F (12, 748) = 3.47, p < .001; Wilks’ Λ = to teach students with SD in inclusive education on most .89, partial η = .05. Further post hoc tests showed that those of the subscales compared to others who taught in middle SETs who had taught students with ASD felt higher confi- schools and high schools, while SETs from elementary dence in their preparedness to teach students with SD in schools generally showed lower confidence than did oth- inclusive education given their responses on all subscales ers who had taught in high schools (and middle schools on when compared to others who had taught students with some subscales). This finding supports the fifth hypothe- MSID, and/or MD. Therefore, this finding supports the sis that there were significant differences in teachers’ per- fourth hypothesis that significant differences found in teach- ceptions regarding their preparedness to teach students ers’ perceptions regarding their preparedness to teach stu- with SD in inclusive education based on grade schooling dents with SD in inclusive education based on disability type level taught. of students taught. Effects of classroom type. Table 9 shows that working in differ- Effects of grade schooling level. Table 8 indicates a statisti- ent classroom types affected SETs’ perception about their pre- cally significant difference in total scores of SETs’ per- paredness to teach students with SD in inclusive education on ceptions about their preparedness to teach students with all measures of the subscales, F (12, 748) = 5.91, p < .001; SD in inclusive education among those who had taught Wilks’ Λ = .83, partial η = .09. SETs who had taught in gen- different grades, F (18, 1,055) = 3.98, p < .001; Wilks’ eral classrooms showed the lowest confidence in their pre- Λ = .83, partial η = .06. The results of post hoc tests paredness to teach in inclusive education when compared to Aldabas 9 Table 7. F-Tests and Mean Difference Between Teachers Who Work With Students by Disability Type. M (SD) Subscales F df partial η MSID MD ASD a,b Collaboration and teaming skills 16.35* 2,379 .08 12.76 (5.83) 13.87 (4.82) 16.09 (3.53) a,b Using effective instructional methods 9.63* 2,379 .05 22.91 (9.39) 23.93 (8.41) 27.05 (5.67) a,b Skills for implementation of inclusion 8.07* 2,379 .04 22.74 (9.26) 23.67 (7.94) 26.52 (6.37) a,b Skills for planning and implementation of behavioral 8.18* 2,379 .04 9.78 (4.28) 10.11 (3.46) 11.48 (2.81) interventions a,b Skills for access to the general education curriculum 9.03* 2,379 .05 16.50 (6.85) 17.37 (5.84) 19.42 (4.23) a,b Skills for planning transition programs 10.95* 2,379 .06 16.20 (6.98) 16.55 (5.87) 19.31 (4.24) a,b Total 11.54* 2,379 .06 10.88 (41.23) 105.50 (34.28) 119.87 (21.39) a b c Note. N = 382. Superscripts represent differences between group means as suggested by Scheffe post hoc test, MDS, MD, ASD. MSID = moderate/ severe intellectual disabilities; MD = multiple disabilities; ASD = autism spectrum disorder. *p < .001. Table 8. F-Tests and Mean Difference Among Teachers by Grade Schooling Level. M (SD) Subscales F df partial η Preschool Elementary Middle school High school a,b a,b Collaboration and teaming skills 15.77* 3,378 .11 11.64 (4.85) 13.47 (5.51) 15.32 (4.75) 16.53 (3.26) a,b b Using effective instructional methods 9.91* 3,378 .07 11.64 (7.62) 13.47 (9.41) 15.32 (7.89) 16.53 (4.92) a,b b Skills for implementation of inclusion 8.98* 3,378 .07 21.08 (6.74) 23.31 (9.26) 26.23 (7.86) 26.71 (6.39) a,b a,b Skills for planning and implementation of 7.11* 3,378 .05 9.40 (3.64) 9.85 (4.12) 11.40 (3.01) 11.36 (3.09) behavioral interventions b b Skills for access to the general education 8.16* 3,378 .06 16.01 (6) 16.85 (6.81) 18.32 (5.37) 20.15 (3.47) curriculum a,b b Skills for planning transition programs 8.13* 3,378 .06 15.21 (5.50) 16.62 (7) 18.44 (5.40) 19.37 (4.35) a,b b Total 10.76* 3,378 .08 94.73 (31.48) 103.66 (4 .69) 115.7 (31.26) 121.89 (21.03) a b c Note. N = 382. Superscripts represent differences between group means as suggested by Scheffe post hoc test, middle school, high school, preschool, elementary. *p < .001. Table 9. F-Tests and Mean Difference Among Teachers by Classroom Type. M (SD) General Special ed Special ed Subscales F df partial η classroom classroom school-institute a,b Collaboration and teaming skills 25.11* 2,379 .12 9.74 (4.38) 14.63 (4.97) 15.20 (4.64) a,b Using effective instructional methods 13.04* 2,379 .06 19.24 (6.85) 25.13 (8.59) 25.77 (7.32) a,b Skills for implementation of inclusion 7.98* 2,379 .04 20.16 (7.25) 24.52 (8.76) 25.46 (7.02) a,b Skills for planning and implementation of behavioral 12.14* 2,379 .06 8.10 (3.48) 10.76 (3.74) 10.82 (3.36) interventions a,b Skills for access to the general education curriculum 13.85* 2,379 .07 13.72 (5.20) 18.37 (6.06) 18.21 (5.40) a,b Skills for planning transition programs 11.47* 2,379 .06 13.64 (5.26) 18.02 (6.21) 17.68 (5.53) a,b Total 14.68* 2,379 .07 84.6 (29.97) 111.42 (35.8) 113.14 (30.81) a b Note. N =382. Superscripts represent differences between group means as suggested by Scheffe post hoc test. special education classroom, special education school-institute, inclusive classroom. *p < .001. others who had taught in other different types of classrooms significant differences found in teachers’ perceptions regarding (i.e., special education classrooms and special education their preparedness to teach students with SD in inclusive teach- schools). This finding confirms the sixth hypothesis that ers based on type of classroom taught. 10 SAGE Open in Riyadh (Aldabas, 2015), there is no difference between Discussion and Implication for Practice their teachers’ preparedness to teach students with SD in Preparing educators to teach students in inclusive education inclusive education. has not drawn enough attention from researchers and, conse- The socio-demographic factors and differences between quentially, there has been little systematic investigation of SETs have clearly implied that some features should be con- their self-confidence in their ability to perform different sidered when developing trainings to help the teachers meet inclusive practices (Florian et al., 2010). This study’s find- new and difficult challenges in work within inclusive educa- ings indicate that most of the participants felt a level of con- tion. To teach students with SD in inclusive education, well- fidence in their preparedness for teaching students with SD prepared teachers should be able to plan, fully control, and in inclusive education. The findings also highlight that the facilitate interaction in the classroom, while always consid- majority of participants showed a higher level of confidence ering the appropriateness of the planned activities and differ- in the collaboration and teamwork skills dimension while ent needs and abilities of their students (Rabi & Zulkefli, they had lower confidence in skills for the implementation of 2018). This study’s finding is consistent with the finding of an inclusion dimension. This indicates that participants’ Ruppar et al. (2016) in which teachers who had ADs reported preparation programs may have covered more about the col- lower confidence in their preparedness compared to those laborative approaches than content on how to implement who had BA or MA degrees. It suggests that the content of inclusion. courses in the BA and MA programs had provided more Particularly, SETs’ responses showed that they needed knowledge and skills concerning inclusive education in gen- more knowledge and skills in different areas, such as devel- eral compared to AD programs. oping IEPs, assessing the progression of their students, and Furthermore, past research has showed that SETs who had adapting and modifying the curriculum to meet their stu- longer experience teaching students with disabilities had dents’ needs, which has also been reported by past studies increased confidence in teaching in inclusive classrooms (e.g., Ruppar et al., 2016; Sucuoğlu et al., 2013). These con- (Bannister-Tyrrell et al., 2018; Ruppar et al., 2016), which is cerns and potential preoccupation with them could influence in compliance with the results obtained in this study. This teachers’ confidence and make their teaching practices confirms that SETs obtain more knowledge and skills while fraught with difficulties and unpleasant experiences (Crane- teaching and practicing. Since it was previously reported that Mitchell & Hedge, 2007). It also reaffirmed the conclusion providing teachers with real-life experiences positively of past studies that there is a need for more in-service train- influenced their attitudes toward inclusion (Rakap et al., ing in inclusive education for teachers of students with SD. 2017), those teachers with no or low experience should be In addition, more content and knowledge related to inclusive provided with a tool for extending their existing theoretical education should be offered for SETs through professional and practical knowledge. This could be achieved with devel- training programs. Such programs should be more concen- opment and delivery of different courses where teachers trated in improving SETs’ preparedness to meet existing would be able to acquire new pedagogical strategies and demands for inclusive education. techniques for supporting the learning of all students This study provided new insights about relationships (Alquraini & Rao, 2017; Ballard & Dymond, 2017). between SETs’ socio-demographic characteristics and their Previous studies have also emphasized that preschool and perception of readiness for teaching students with SD in elementary school teachers do not feel prepared to teach stu- inclusive education. It was found that SETs with shorter dents with disabilities. They reported there was a lack of spe- working experience had lower confidence in their prepared- cific knowledge and skills to teach in inclusive classrooms ness, while those with the longest experience showed higher (e.g., Ruppar et al., 2016, 2018; Sucuoğlu et al., 2013), which confidence in their preparedness to teach students with SD in is indirectly confirmed in this study. A common reasoning inclusive education. Teachers with ADs also showed lower suggested for this difference is that teaching young children confidence in their preparedness, followed by those who with SD tends to be more difficult than teaching similarly worked with younger students (i.e., preschool and elemen- challenged older children. Furthermore, linking to findings tary school) and even those who taught in inclusive class- of Brownell et al. (2005, 2010) that teachers showed a lack of rooms. Finally, SETs who worked with children with ASD specific training in specificities of inclusive and special edu- felt more prepared for teaching such students in inclusive cation, it is possible that those SETs who taught lower grades education when compared to others who taught students with did not have an opportunity to attend specialized courses or MSID or MD. However, no gender difference was revealed training, during which they could learn how to accommodate in this study, suggesting no differences exist between female the needs of students with SD in different schooling grades and male teachers in their preparedness to teach students and ages. This suggests that SETs’ preservice and in-service with SD in inclusive education. This could imply that SETs training programs should be designed in terms of covering have received the same type of training for teaching those essential knowledge and skills in teaching students with SD students in inclusive education, regardless of their gender. in inclusive schools regardless of the students’ ages and Although boys are educated separately from girls in schools grade levels. Aldabas 11 Students with disabilities frequently feel segregated and would support placing such students in general classrooms their teachers might feel the same due to the lack of under- along with providing appropriate education to the students. standing by their school principals and general education teachers, or even due to physical segregation of their class- Limitations and Future Directions rooms or desks (Ruppar et al., 2018). Interestingly, this study might confirm this finding due to the result that SETs who This study had several limitations that require further reported to work in general classrooms had lower confidence research. First, this survey was distributed to SETs who teach in their preparedness for teaching such students. This would in one city in Saudi Arabia, which significantly lowered the be linked to past findings indicating that, although these generalizability of the obtained findings. Thus, future SETs have taught within a general context, they might have research should consider replicating this study with a larger felt misunderstood and separated from their colleagues and sample of participants from across Saudi Arabia as well as other school professionals (Greenway et al., 2013; Ruppar from across the world. Future research may examine if there et al., 2018). These findings may be explained by the possi- are significant differences among teachers’ preparedness bility that school principals and other professionals might from different cities and countries to obtain more reliable tend to underestimate the struggles and concerns of SETs results. As only SETs participated in the study, future research because of the primary concern of the school professionals is might include general education teachers for greater under- directed to typically developing students (Greenway et al., standing about all teachers’ preparedness to teach students 2013). This could lead to tensions between the professionals with SD in inclusive education. Moreover, since the study and SETs who sense devaluation of their work in addition to used a questionnaire that only asked teachers to rate their facing difficulties in teaching students with SD in inclusive perceptions of preparedness to teach students with SD in education. Minimizing this gap between SETs’ needs and inclusive education, the current findings would reflect self- concerns that their problems are overlooked in the focus on reported perceptions rather than the real level of prepared- the majority of students could help SETs feel more confident ness. Consequently, self-reported quantitative data should be in their preparedness for teaching students with SD in inclu- supported by data from other sources (e.g., data qualitative in sive education. Accordingly, special training programs con- nature, such as structured interviews and observations) to cerning inclusive education should be provided to help all increase the generalizability of the obtained findings. Using school professionals to succeed at teaching students with SD mixed-design methods would provide more accurate data in inclusive education environments. and deep understanding of teachers’ preparedness, and not Finally, the findings showed that teachers of students with only about their self-perceptions. Future research should ASD expressed more confidence to teach students with SD validate more specific surveys that operationalize teachers’ in inclusive education than teachers of MSID and MD. This preparedness to teach regardless of the setting (e.g., inclusive is inconsistent with the finding of Ruppar et al. (2016) that or general education), and they need to be correlated with teachers with cognitive disabilities licensure (i.e., teaching some personal features, among which personality traits first students with MSID) reported higher self-confidence in come in mind. For example, measuring “Big Five” personal- teaching students with SD compared to teachers with gener- ity traits in SETs (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, conscien- alist licensure (i.e., teaching students with varying disabili- tiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience; ties). This finding casts new light on the impact of type and Costa & McCrae, 1992) could suggest possible effects on nature of disability on how teachers perceive their prepared- their readiness to teach in inclusive education. ness to teach such students in inclusive classrooms. This A closer examination of individual differences among finding also may be explained by how teachers perceive the SETs could emphasize some of the potential sources of their characteristics and needs of their students with SD. For confidence levels when working with students with SD and, example, teachers of students with ASD would view inclu- in general, their expertise in teaching. If such measures are sive classrooms as meeting the specific characteristics and validated using techniques other than surveys (e.g., in-depth needs of their students. This educational placement would interviews, observations of lessons), research could provide thus be viewed by the teachers as more appropriate for stu- more insights about how different experiences during their dents with ASD compared to other students. professional careers could influence teachers’ readiness to Furthermore, this suggests that teachers of students with teach in inclusive education. Methods of structured lesson ASD have received adequate knowledge and skills covering observation have been recommended to become the standard the main competencies for teaching the students in inclusive of teaching and improving teachers’ classroom management education. This is indicative also of a lack of SET-preparation and other necessary instructional skills (Jones & Brownell, programs addressing inclusive education provided for teach- 2014). Observational data could provide additional and more ers of students with MSID and MD. Therefore, SET- objective evaluations of teachers’ practices in classrooms. preparation programs and/or professional training covering Hence, future research might use observation protocols to essential knowledge and skills related to teaching in inclu- understand the relationship between teachers’ individual dif- sive classrooms should be provided for the teachers. This ferences and teaching quality. This could lead to development 12 SAGE Open of specific guidelines for teachers to help them improve their Declaration of Helsinki. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical preparedness (Holdheide, 2013). standards of the institutional and/or national research committee Finally, parental involvement and the relationship that and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or could be established between parents and teachers should also comparable ethical standards. be carefully investigated in future research. This relationship might be essential when attempting to understand what spe- ORCID iD cific skills related to parents and teachers’ collaboration are missing during student teaching and should not be neglected. Rashed Aldabas https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3566-4777 References Conclusion Aldabas, R. (2015). Special education in Saudi Arabia: History This study adds to the research on teachers’ individual differ- and areas for reform. Creative Education, 6(11), 1158–1167. ences in their perceptions of confidence in teaching in inclu- https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.611114 sive education. Results suggested that teachers with ADs; Ali, M., & Jelas, Z. (2006). An empirical study on teachers’ percep- those teaching in preschool, elementary, and general class- tions towards inclusive education in Malaysia. International rooms; as well as those who teach students with MSID or Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 36–44. MD report lower confidence in their preparedness to teach Alquraini, T., & Gut, D. (2012). Critical components of successful students with SD in inclusive education. Yet, although SETs’ inclusion of students with severe disabilities: Literature review. International Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 42–59. preparedness to teach in inclusive education is a significant Alquraini, T., & Rao, R. (2017). A study examining the extent precursor to students’ academic success, the base of this of including competencies of inclusive education in the research is quite limited (Morningstar et al., 2016). Teacher preparation of special education teachers in Saudi universi- education programs for SETs should respond to the chal- ties. International Journal of Disability, Development and lenges encountered within the classrooms by adapting and Education, 65(1), 108–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349 improving pedagogies and practices. This could be achieved 12X.2017.1327651 by providing SETs with meaningful learning opportunities Ayres, B., Meyer, L., Erevelles, N., & Park-Lee, S. (1994). Easy during which they would cover a range of possible SD. for you to say: Teacher perspectives on implementing most Moreover, ensuring internship placements that include stu- promising practices. Research and Practice for Persons With dents with SD could help inexperienced teachers gain neces- Severe Disabilities, 19(2), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/ sary practical experience and knowledge about efficient and 154079699401900202 Badri, M., Alnuaimi, A., Mohaidat, J., Yang, G., & Al Rashedi, effective practices in inclusive education. Hence, by adding A. (2016). Perception of teachers’ professional develop- qualitative data obtained from teachers to the development of ment needs, impacts, and barriers: The Abu Dhabi case. specialized training, hidden factors influencing preparedness SAGE Open, 6(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F21582 may be revealed which could result in better understanding of teachers’ expertise development. Finally, additional Ballard, S., & Dymond, S. (2017). Addressing the general educa- research is essential to establish a set of recommended prac- tion curriculum in general education settings with students with tices in inclusive education, and to enact a series of SET severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With competencies needed to work with students with SD. Severe Disabilities, 42(3), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Acknowledgments Bannister-Tyrrell, M., Mavropoulou, S., Jones, M., Bailey, J., O’Donnell-Ostini, A., & Dorji, R. (2018). Initial teacher prepa- The author would like to extend his sincere appreciation to the ration for teaching students with exceptionalities: Pre-service Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for fund- teachers’ knowledge and perceived competence. Australian ing this research. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(6), 19–34. https://doi.org/ 10.14221/ajte.2018v43n6.2 Declaration of Conflicting Interests Benitez, D., Morningstar, M., & Frey, B. (2009). A multistate sur- The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect vey of special education teachers’ perceptions of their transition to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. competencies. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728808323945 Funding Boe, E., & Shin, S. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in either special or general education? The The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- Journal of Special Education, 41(3), 158–170. https://doi.org/1 ship, and/or publication of this article. 0.1177/00224669070410030201 Bouck, E. (2005). Secondary special educators: Perspectives of Ethical Approval preservice preparation and satisfaction. Teacher Education Informed consent was obtained from participants included in the and Special Education, 28(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/ study. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the 088840640502800206 Aldabas 13 Boyd, B., Seo, S., Ryndak, D., & Fisher, D. (2005, August 1–4). Gable, R., Tonelson, S., Sheth, M., Wilson, C., & Park, C. (2012). Inclusive education for students with severe disabilities in the Importance, usage, and preparedness to implement evidence- United States: Effects on selected areas of outcomes. Paper based practices for students with emotional disabilities: A com- presented at the ISEC 2005 Conference, Glasgow, Scotland. parison of knowledge and skills of special education and general Browder, D., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based prac- education teachers. Education and Treatment of Children, tices for students with severe disabilities and the requirement 35(4), 499–519. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42900173 for accountability in “No Child Left Behind.” The Journal of Greenway, R., McCollow, M., Hudson, R. F., & Peck, C. (2013). Special Education, 37(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/00 Autonomy and accountability: Teacher perspectives on evi- 224669030370030501 dence-based practice and decision-making for students with Brownell, M., Ross, D., Colon, E., & McCallum, C. (2005). Critical intellectual and developmental disabilities. Education and features of special education teacher preparation: A compari- Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 456– son with general teacher education. The Journal of Special 468. http://daddcec.org/Publications/ETADDJournal.aspx Education, 38(4), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669 Hamilton-Jones, B., & Vail, C. (2014). Preparing special educators 050380040601 for collaboration in the classroom: Preservice teachers’ beliefs Brownell, M., Sindlear, P., Kiely, M., & Danielson, L. (2010). and perspectives. International Journal of Special Education, Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing 29(1), 76–86. foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, Holdheide, L. (2013). Inclusive design: Building educator evalu- 76(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600307 ation systems that support students with disabilities. www. Calculator, S. (2009). Augmentative and alternative communica- gtlcenter.org tion (AAC) and inclusive education for students with the most Johnson, E., & Semmelroth, C. (2014). Special education teacher severe disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, evaluation: Why it matters, what makes it challenging, and how to 13(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701284656 address these challenges. Assessment for Effective Intervention, Collins, B. C. (2007). Moderate and severe disabilities: A founda- 39(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508413513315 tional approach. Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Jones, N., & Brownell, M. (2014). Examining the use of classroom Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors observations in the evaluation of special education teachers. are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653–665. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39(2), 112–124. https:// https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I doi.org/10.1177/1534508413514103 Crane-Mitchell, L., & Hedge, A. V. (2007). Beliefs and prac- Kurth, J., Lyon, K., & Shogren, K. (2015). Supporting students with tices of in-service preschool teachers in inclusive settings: severe disabilities in inclusive schools: A descriptive account Implications for personnel preparation. Journal of Early from schools implementing inclusive practices. Research and Childhood Teacher Education, 28, 353–366. https://doi.org/ Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 40(4), 261–274. 10.1080/10901020701686617 https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915594160 Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, Leko, M., Brownell, M., Sindelar, P., & Murphy, K. (2012). and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage. Promoting special education preservice teacher expertise. Da Fonte, A., & Barton-Arwood, S. (2017). Collaboration of gen- Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(7), 1–16. https://doi.org/ eral and special education teachers: Perspectives and strategies. 10.17161/foec.v44i7.6684 Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(2), 99–106. https://doi. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content org/10.1177/1053451217693370 validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–386. Downing, J. (2005). Inclusive education for high school students Ministry of Education. (2015). Organizational and procedural with severe intellectual disabilities: Supporting communica- guide for special education institutes and programs in The tion. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(2), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1st ed.). King Abdullah Project for 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610500103582 the Development of General Education. Eichinger, J., & Downing, J. (2000). Restructuring special educa- Mock, D., & Kauffman, J. (2002). Preparing teachers for full inclu- tion certification: What should be done? Research and Practice sion: Is it possible? The Teacher Educator, 37(3), 202–215. for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 25(2), 109–112. https:// https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730209555294 doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.25.2.109 Morningstar, M. M., Allcock, H. C., White, J. M., Taub, D., Kurth, Florian, L. (2012). Preparing teachers to work in inclusive class- J. A., Gonsier-Gerndin, J., . . .Jorgensen, C. (2016). Inclusive rooms: Key lessons for the professional development of education national research advocacy agenda: A call to action. teacher educators from Scotland’s inclusive practice project. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 275–285. https://doi. 41, 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1540796916650975 org/10.1177/0022487112447112 Nagro, S., & deBettencourt, L. (2017). Reviewing special educa- Florian, L., Young, K., & Rouse, M. (2010). Preparing teachers tion teacher preparation field experience placements, activi- for inclusive and diverse educational environments: Studying ties, and research. Do we know the difference maker? Teacher curricular reform in an initial teacher education course. Education Quarterly, 44, 7–33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/ International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), 709–722. 90010901 https://doi.org/10.1080/13603111003778536 Petersen, A. (2016). Perspectives of special education teachers Fox, L., & Williams, D. (1992). Preparing teachers of students with on general education curriculum access: Preliminary results. severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 15(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649201500205 41(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915604835 14 SAGE Open Rabi, N. M., & Zulkefli, M. Y. (2018). Mainstream teachers’ with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons competency requirement for inclusive education program. With Severe Disabilities, 41(4), 273–286. https://doi.org/ International Journal of Academic Research in Business and 10.1177/1540796916672843 Social Sciences, 8(11), 1779–1791. https://doi.org/10.6007/ Ryndak, D., Clark, D., Conroy, M., & Hothaus, C. (2001). Preparing IJARBSS/v8-i11/4824 teachers to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities: Rainforth, B. (2000). Preparing teachers to educate students with Program configuration and expertise. Research and Practice severe disabilities in inclusive settings despite contextual for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 26(2), 96–105. https:// constraints. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.26.2.96 Disabilities, 25(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.25.2.83 Smith, P. (2007). Have we made any progress? Including students Rakap, S., Cig, O., & Parlak-Rakap, A. (2017). Preparing pre- with intellectual disabilities in regular education classrooms. school teacher candidates for inclusion: Impact of two special Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45(5), 297–309. education courses on their perspectives. Journal of Research https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(2007)45[297:HWMAPI]2. in Special Educational Needs, 17(2), 98–109. https://doi. 0.CO;2 org/10.1111/1471-3802.12116 Sucuoğlu, B., Bakkaloğlu, H., Karasu, F. İ., Demir, Ş., & Akalın, Reese, L., Richards-Tutor, C., Hansuvadha, N., Pavri, S., & Xu, S. S. (2013). Inclusive preschool teachers: Their attitudes and (2018). Teachers for inclusive, diverse urban settings. Issues in knowledge about inclusion. International Journal of Early Teacher Education, 27(1), 17–27. Childhood Special Education, 5(2), 107–128. Rogers, W., & Johnson, N. (2018). Strategies to include students with Theeb, R., Muhaidat, M., & Al-Zboon, E. (2013). Professional severe/multiple disabilities within the general education class- competencies among pre-service teachers in special educa- room. Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, tion from their perspectives. Education, 134(3), 195–205. 37(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.14434/pders.v37i2.24881 https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(2007)45[297:HWMAPI] Ruppar, A., Roberts, C., & Olson, A. (2015). Faculty perceptions of 2.0.CO;2 expertise among teachers of students with severe disabilities. Walker, V., Loman, S., Hara, M., Park, K., & Strickland-Cohen, Teacher Education and Special Education, 38(3), 240–253. K. (2018). Examining the inclusion of students with severe https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406414552331 disabilities in school-wide positive behavioral interven- Ruppar, A., Roberts, C., & Olson, A. (2017). Perceptions about tions and supports. Research and Practice for Persons With expert teaching for students with severe disabilities among Severe Disabilities, 43(4), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/ teachers identified as experts. Research and Practice for 1540796918779370 Persons With Severe Disabilities, 42(2), 121–135. https://doi. Whitten, T., & Westling, D. (1985). Competencies for teach- org/10.1177/1540796917697311 ers of the severely and profoundly handicapped. Teacher Ruppar, A., Roberts, C., & Olson, A. (2018). Is it all about lov- Education and Special Education, 8(2), 104–111. https://doi. ing the kids? Perceptions about expertise in special education. org/10.1177/088840648500800207 Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 319–328. https://doi. Zagona, A., Kurth, J., & Macfarland, S. (2017). Teachers’ views org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.02.001 of their preparation for inclusive education and collaboration. Ruppar, A. L., Neeper, L. S., & Dalsen, J. (2016). Special educa- Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(3), 163–178. tion teachers’ perceptions of preparedness to teach students https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417692969 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png SAGE Open SAGE

Special Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Their Preparedness to Teach Students With Severe Disabilities in Inclusive Classrooms: A Saudi Arabian Perspective

SAGE Open , Volume OnlineFirst: 1 – Aug 17, 2020

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/special-education-teachers-perceptions-of-their-preparedness-to-teach-X4lY2Vwscd

References (97)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2020
ISSN
2158-2440
eISSN
2158-2440
DOI
10.1177/2158244020950657
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Successful inclusive education for students with severe disabilities (SD) relies on the preparedness of their teachers. This descriptive study investigated special education teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness to teach students with SD in inclusive educational settings. A survey was sent to 382 teachers of such students. In general, findings indicate that participants were confident that they were prepared to teach students with SD in inclusive education. Findings also show that the lowest levels of confidence were reported by participants with the shortest working experience, participants who have taught students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities and those with multiple disabilities, participants who have taught in the lower grades, and those who have already taught in general classrooms. The practical implications of the findings are discussed for supporting successful implementation of inclusive education for students with SD in terms of improving special education teachers’ preparedness. Keywords inclusive education, teacher education, teachers’ preparedness, severe disabilities socialize and avoid being discriminated against or limited Introduction because of their unique needs (Rogers & Johnson, 2018; Inclusive education is a topical issue in modern society, and Ruppar et al., 2016). Research shows that inclusive educa- it is focused because it is on access to quality education for tion offers more positive results compared to other educa- all students while considering their diverse needs. The term tional placements (Alquraini & Gut, 2012; Ayres et al., 1994; inclusive education defines when students with or without Ballard & Dymond, 2017; Boyd et al., 2005). Activating the disabilities attend the same classes, learning together to benefits of inclusive education provides new opportunities achieve appropriate results and integration with society (Ali for this group to become successful in the future. & Jelas, 2006; Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003; Kurth et al., The category of SD considered in this discussion includes 2015). This perspective on education is preconditioned by individuals with severe intellectual disabilities (ID), multiple the latest research which indicates that individuals with dis- disabilities (MD), or autism spectrum disorder (ASD), who abilities might significantly benefit from attending classes need specific and extensive support to participate in social with their typically developing peers (Calculator, 2009; Leko functioning (Alquraini & Gut, 2012; Benitez et al., 2009; et al., 2012; Rogers & Johnson, 2018; Ruppar et al., 2016). Collins, 2007; Ruppar et al., 2016). This category is charac- Thus, it is essential to introduce this model in educational terized by significant behavior and communication chal- establishments globally. lenges (Collins, 2007). In the most complex cases, individuals Inclusive education rests on the idea that every student is with SD have difficulties in communicating and engaging in unique and should be valued regardless of his or her existing problems, disabilities, or disorders (Calculator, 2009). Therefore, impaired students deserve equal opportunities for Department of Special Education, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia development and self-realization (Benitez et al., 2009; Corresponding Author: Ruppar et al., 2015). This approach requires increased Rashed Aldabas, Department of Special Education, College of Education, emphasis on the paradigm for students with severe disabili- King Saud University, P.O. Box 2458, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia. ties (SD). Inclusive education enables students with SD to Email: raldabas@ksu.edu.sa Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). 2 SAGE Open relations with others, two basic elements of successful devel- 2007; Bouck, 2005; Calculator, 2009; Whitten & Westling, opment (Collins, 2007; Zagona et al., 2017). It is critical that 1985). Certification of having completed such training results they have an environment that promotes their social growth in improved outcomes and increased effectiveness of the and provides them with a chance to master these skills. inclusive education approach (Rainforth, 2000). Because of the special needs of students with SD, their In Saudi Arabia, special education services have been pro- teachers need specific skills and knowledge geared to aiding vided for students with various disabilities since 1960 them in achieving appropriate results. Several research (Aldabas, 2015). Students with mild and moderate disabilities devoted to the issue emphasizes that teachers should be com- were educated in special education classrooms in public mitted to educational innovation. They need flexibility to schools, while those with SD were educated in special educa- adapt to diverse requirements and alter existing styles to work tion institutes (Aldabas, 2015). Inclusive education has individually with students (Smith, 2007; Whitten & Westling, become a major concern of contemporary society globally 1985; Zagona et al., 2017). They should collaborate with because it meets demands for tolerance, a humanistic approach, other professionals in the educational process to align the and values (Petersen, 2016; Ruppar et al., 2017; Smith, 2007). continuity of teaching, assess all existing needs, and provide In Saudi Arabia, a bachelor’s degree (BA) in special education the most appropriate help to students (Theeb et al., 2013). is required to be an SET. If the teacher holds a BA in another Special education teachers (SETs) bear responsibility for their major, an associate degree (AD) in special education is students, which means they need increased understanding of required to become a qualified SET (Ministry of Education, the nature of SD, ways to mitigate SD’s negative impact, and 2015). Although the Saudi SET-preparation programs cover know how to navigate complex cases (Da Fonte & Barton- most of the competencies related to inclusive education Arwood, 2017; Eichinger & Downing, 2000; Mock & (Alquraini & Rao, 2017), little information is available about Kauffman, 2002; Ruppar et al., 2015). Finally, there is a fun- what professional training in-service SETs need regarding damental need to establish a new culture and identity of what inclusive education for students with SD. Hence, it is impor- SD are so all students can work together, share the same tant to analyze the current practices of SETs in Saudi Arabia to goals, and benefit from collaboration (Badri et al., 2016). determine gaps and flaws in teacher education (e.g., Alquraini There are specific professional qualities that should be & Rao, 2017; Florian et al., 2010; Ruppar et al., 2016; Walker required of teachers in this category to ensure their ability to et al., 2018). This study differs by not focusing solely on needs work with students and help them improve. First, teachers of students with SD. It also deeply explored the preparedness should have additional and continuous training on how to level of the teachers in terms of how ready they felt to teach assess the needs of students with SD in order to create an those students within inclusive education. appropriate learning environment (Rakap et al., 2017; Reese The literature also has addressed some socio-demographic et al., 2018). Teachers might also request special classrooms factors which might affect the teachers’ perceptions of their that have been adapted to the existing problems to minimize preparedness to teach students with SD. The factors included risks traditionally associated with this field of education educational degree, years of teaching experience, disability (Florian, 2012). An inclusive classroom presupposes coop- type of students, grade level taught, and type of classroom. eration among all students regardless of their ability status For example, Ruppar et al. (2016) found that teachers with (Downing, 2005; Florian, 2012; Gable et al., 2012). For higher educational degrees felt more confident about teaching this reason, teachers might need support from other school students with SD than others with lower degrees. Furthermore, professionals (Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2014; Johnson & Bannister-Tyrrell et al. (2018) and Ruppar et al. (2016) Semmelroth, 2014; Jones & Brownell, 2014). pointed out that teaching experience might influence teach- Because of the difficulties and specific demands of this ers’ perceptions regarding their preparedness to teach the stu- field, SETs are still in short supply despite the growing need dents in inclusive education. Teachers with longer experience for them. Unfortunately, many teachers have had little training in teaching students with disabilities showed a higher degree in inclusive or special education, which means they would of confidence regarding teaching in inclusive classrooms. have to master their skills during the teaching process Another factor is the disability type of students whom teach- (Brownell et al., 2005, 2010; Nagro & deBettencourt, 2017; ers taught. For example, Ruppar et al. (2016) indicated that Ruppar et al., 2016). Attempts to improve the situation have teachers of students with cognitive disabilities had greater evolved through introducing special courses to enable teachers confidence in teaching students with SD than did other teach- to work with students with SD (Ruppar et al., 2018; Ryndak ers. This would suggest that characteristics and needs of each et al., 2001). These classes are designed for traditional teach- type of disability might impact teachers’ confidence in their ers who want to acquire the knowledge needed to expand into preparedness regarding teaching in inclusive education. working with students with SD (Alquraini & Rao, 2017; Furthermore, previous studies (e.g., Ruppar et al., 2016, Ballard & Dymond, 2017; Fox & Williams, 1992). In such 2018; Sucuoğlu et al., 2013) suggested that the grade level courses, emphasis is on the extra needs these students might taught might affect teachers’ perceptions about teaching in have, provision of new methods to work in inclusive class- inclusive education. The type of classroom might also be an rooms and creation of appropriate environments (Boe & Shin, influence in teachers’ perceptions about their role in inclusive Aldabas 3 Table 1. Participant Demographics. Variable Category Frequency Percentage (%) Gender Female 203 53.1 Male 179 46.9 Degree Associate 59 15.4 Baccalaureate 214 56 Master’s or higher 109 28.5 Student disability ASD 128 33.5 MSID 153 40.1 MD 101 26.4 Years of teaching experience Less than 5 117 28.7 5–10 163 40.0 More than 10 128 31.4 Grade Preschool 75 19.6 Elementary school 139 36.4 Middle school 90 23.6 High school 78 20.4 Type of classroom General classroom 50 13.1 Special education classroom 208 54.5 Special education school/institute 124 32.5 Note. ASD = autism spectrum disorder; MSID = moderate/severe intellectual disabilities; MD = multiple disabilities. education. Past research (e.g., Ruppar et al., 2018) indicated Method that teachers who had taught in special education classrooms Participants and Setting had low confidence in their knowledge and skills to teach in inclusive education. Moreover, as male teachers teach schools A nonprobability convenience sampling was used to select for boys and females teach in schools for girls (Aldabas, the potential participants who were SETs (Creswell, 2009). 2015), gender might impact teachers’ perceptions about teach- To recruit participants, a total of 700 invitations, including ing in inclusive education. Therefore, this study attempted to copies of the questionnaire, were distributed among 100 investigate how teachers perceived their preparedness to teach institutions, schools, and centers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, students with SD in inclusive education and to examine how that offer educational services for students with SD, includ- those factors would impact the teachers’ perceptions. ing moderate/severe intellectual disabilities (MSID), ASD, Accordingly, it was essential to investigate the views of SETs and MD. Of the 700 questionnaires, 382 were completed and about their current knowledge and skills for teaching students returned for a 54.7% response rate. with SD to outline existing gaps in inclusive education and As Table 1 shows, there were 203 (53.1%) females and teacher preparation. These steps need to be taken to meet the 179 (46.9%) males. The majority of the participants (56%) diverse needs of students with SD and to guarantee their learn- held BA degrees while 28.5% held master’s degrees (MA) or ing. Thus, this study had two distinctive aims. The first was to higher. One-hundred fifty-three participants had taught stu- determine SETs’ perceptions regarding their preparedness to dents with MSID, and 128 had taught students with ASD. Of teach students with SD in inclusive education. The second aim the participants, 40% had more than 5 years and less than 10 was to investigate the potential influence of socio-demographic years of teaching experience, while 31.4% of the participants factors (i.e., gender, educational degree, disability type of stu- had more than 10 years. Moreover, 36.4% of the participants dents taught, years of teaching experience, grade taught, and had taught in elementary schools, and only 20.4% had taught type of classroom) on SETs’ perceptions of their preparedness to in high school. Of the participants, only 13% had taught in teach students with SD in inclusive education. general classrooms, while 54.5% had taught in special educa- Specifically, this study attempted to answer the following tion classrooms. questions: Research Design 1. What is the current level of SETs’ perceptions of their This study was primarily a quantitative, descriptive, survey preparedness to teach students with SD to meet exist- research method. The quantitative descriptive survey ing demands for inclusive education? research design gives explicatory data purposed to under- 2. What socio-demographic factors influence the teach- standing an issue under investigation and testing hypotheses ers’ perceptions of their preparedness to teach stu- proposed (Creswell, 2009). Thus, a cross-sectional survey dents with SD in inclusive education? 4 SAGE Open was used to collect descriptive data for obtaining a clear pic- education reviewed the questionnaire. They suggested delet- ture of the current situation and, then, answering the research ing some items and rewording others, with a 92% agreement questions. rate. Based on their suggestions, the first draft of the ques- tionnaire (34 items) was revised, and the final draft with 31 items was finalized. In addition, 15 SETs (eight females and Hypotheses seven males) who did not participate in this study were This study proposed the following hypotheses: invited to complete the questionnaire for piloting the instru- ment. They completed the questionnaire successfully with- 1. There are significant differences in teachers’ percep- out misunderstanding any of the items. tions of their preparedness to teach students with SD based on teachers’ gender. Reliability of instrument. To assess the internal consistency of 2. There are significant differences in teachers’ percep- the questionnaire, a series of correlations was performed for tions of their preparedness to teach students with SD each of the six subscales and the total questionnaire score. As based on previous teaching experience. Table 2 shows, the correlations between the six subscales and 3. There are significant differences in teachers’ percep- the total score were statistically significant (p < .01). There- tions of their preparedness to teach students with SD fore, the six subscales were positively related to the total based on teachers’ educational degree. scale, indicating that the questionnaire demonstrates internal 4. There are significant differences in teachers’ percep- consistency. The results also indicated high reliability for the tions of their preparedness to teach students with SD six subscales (ranging between 0.90 and 0.96). Moreover, based on disability type of students taught. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the whole questionnaire 5. There are significant differences in teachers’ percep- was 0.99, indicating high reliability (Creswell, 2009). tions of their preparedness to teach students with SD based on grade schooling level taught. Procedures 6. There are significant differences in teachers’ percep- tions of their preparedness to teach students with SD Data collection and analysis. After obtaining approval from based on type of classroom taught. the University Institutional Review Board and the General Administration of Public Education in Riyadh, an invita- tion to participate in the study was sent to all the institu- Instrument tions and schools where students with SD are educated in Based on a review of the literature (e.g., Alquraini & Rao, Riyadh. The invitation, including objectives of the study, 2017; Ruppar et al., 2016), a questionnaire, titled “Teachers’ instructions on how to participate, and an Informed Con- Perceptions of Preparedness for Teaching Students with sent form, was enclosed with the questionnaire for the Severe Disabilities in Inclusive Education,” was developed potential participants (i.e., SETs). The potential partici- to address skills and knowledge needed by SETs to teach stu- pants were also provided with information on how to return dents with SD in inclusive educational settings. The ques- the invitation envelope. tionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section After the completed questionnaires were received, asked for demographic information about the participants responses were entered into the SPSS (version 24) data anal- (i.e., gender, level of education, disability type of students ysis program for statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics, taught, previous teaching experience, school grade level including frequencies, means, and standard deviations, were taught, and type of classroom). The second section consisted determined to answer the main research question. Socio- of 31 items asking the participants about their perceptions of demographic group differences in the mean scores of the their preparedness to educate students with SD in inclusive scales used were determined to detect factors’ influence education. The 31 items were divided into six subscales: using t-tests for independent samples and a series of one-way (a) collaboration and teamwork skills, (b) using effective multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) with inter- instructional methods, (c) skills for implementation of inclu- pretation of Scheffe post hoc tests as an indicator of signifi- sion, (d) skills for planning and implementation of behav- cant mean differences. ioral interventions, (e) skills for accessing general education curriculum, and (f) skills for transition planning. The partici- Results pants answered the items using a 5-point Likert-type Scale ranging from 1 = Not confident to 5 = Very confident. The Teachers’ Perceptions About Their Preparedness questionnaire took approximately 15 minutes to complete. to Teach Students With SD in Inclusive Education Validity of instrument. An expert review was conducted to The total mean score for all the survey items indicated that determine the validity of the instrument (Lynn, 1986). Six participants were between neutral and confident in their pre- university experts in SD, inclusive education and teacher paredness to teach students with SD in inclusive education Aldabas 5 Table 2. Reliability Statistics of the Questionnaire. Cronbach’s Number Correlation with the total Subscales alpha of items questionnaire score Collaboration and teaming skills 0.94 4 0.865** Skills for using effective instructional methods 0.95 7 0.838** Skills for implementation of inclusion 0.96 7 0.854** Skills for planning and implementation of behavioral interventions 0.90 3 0.801** Skills for accessing general education curriculum 0.94 5 0.842** Skills for transition planning 0.94 5 0.828** Overall 0.99 31 – **p < .01. planning transition programs compared to other subscales. (M = 3.50, SD = 1.22). Table 3 shows that participants Item 30, which addressed the ability to teach students inde- achieved similar mean scores on all 31 items. As the results pendence skills, had the highest rating (60%) for confident suggested, the mean response for the communication and and very confident (M = 3.54, SD = 1.39). Results also teamwork skills subscale was the highest of the six subscales showed that item 31 (M = 3.38, SD = 1.38), which con- (M = 3.55, SD = 1.37), indicating higher confidence. More cerned the ability to teach students self-determination skills, than one in four teachers felt from confident to very confident was the lowest-rating item. in their ability to use communication and teamwork skills Finally, findings indicated that SETs had lower confi- (27.7% were confident and 37.4% were very confident). Most dence about their skills for the implementation of the inclu- of the highest responses concerned item 1, the ability to work sion subscale when compared to other subscales in general collaboratively with all members of the Individualized (M = 3.42, SD = 1.31). However, participants achieved the Education Program (IEP), with 67.1% indicating that they highest mean score on item 12, which dealt with teachers’ were confident or very confident about that skill, and item 4, ability to communicate with school professionals (M = 3.63, the ability to train school staff to work with the students, with SD = 1.33), while lowest-rated item 15 concerned develop- 66.7% indicating that they were confident to very confident ing children’s independence within inclusive schools about these skills. Responses to items 2 and 3 showed that (M = 3.35, SD = 1.32). teachers had lower confidence compared to the other items within the subscale (M = 3.47, SD = 1.34 and M = 3.53, SD = 1.37, respectively). The Influence of Socio-Demographic Factors on Participants expressed higher confidence about their skills SETs’ Perceptions of Their Preparedness to Teach to access the general education curriculum (M = 3.54, SD = Students With SD in Inclusive Education 1.32) compared to what they expressed on other subscales. Relying solely on the results of item-level statistics, total On items 25 and 26, 26.7% of participants reported feeling scores for each of the original subscales were calculated and very confident, while only 23.8% of them were very confi- compared on socio-demographic variables using t-tests for dent on item 24, which addressed the ability to use strategies independent samples and a one-way MANOVA. Based on of adaptation in teaching and evaluation. When it came to the the values of skewness (±1) and kurtosis (±3) in Table 4, it skills for using effective instructional methods, participants can be assumed that the distribution of subscales’ total scores expressed a high degree of confidence for this subscale (M = was close to normal. 3.51, SD = 1.33). One third of participants (30.4%) felt very confident on item 9, the ability to teach students social skills Effects of gender. The obtained results of the t-tests did not and daily life skills. The lowest ratings of this subscale were reveal any significant gender differences (p > .05), thus sug- for item 11, the ability to train students to build friendships gesting that female teachers did not significantly differ from (M = 3.40, SD = 1.39). male teachers in levels of their confidence to teach students Teachers reported lower confidence (M = 3.48, SD = with SD in inclusive education. This finding rejects the first 1.35) about their skills for planning and implementing hypothesis and indicates no gender difference was found. behavioral interventions compared to other subscales. The highest rating, very confident (29.1%), was for item 20, the ability to build behavioral intervention plans (M = 3.59, SD Effects of previous teaching experience. In Table 5, the results of a = 1.31). The lowest rating of little confidence was for item one-way MANOVA revealed significant differences among 21 (M = 3.38, SD = 1.38), which concerned the ability to SETs who had different working experiences in their percep- collect and use data for developing behavior hypotheses. In tions about preparedness to teach students with SD in inclusive addition, results suggested that the participants had lower education, F (12, 748) = 6.37, p < .001; Wilks’ Λ = .82, partial confidence (M = 3.47, SD = 1.35) about their skills for η = .09. Furthermore, SETs with the longest working 6 SAGE Open Table 3. Confidence in Item-level descriptive statistics (N = 382). Frequencies (percentages) Not Low Very Items confident confident Neutral Confident confident M SD Collaboration and teaming skills 1 Ability to work collaboratively with all members of the 60 (15.7) 36 (9.4) 30 (7.9) 132 (34.6) 124 (32.5) 3.59 1.42 IEP team 2 Ability to facilitate the participation of families in the 52 (13.6) 46 (12.0) 47 (12.3) 144 (37.7) 93 (24.3) 3.47 1.34 preparation and implementation of the IEP 3 Ability to work cooperatively with professionals within 52 (13.6) 49 (12.8) 32 (8.4) 143 (37.4) 106 (27.7) 3.53 1.37 the school to support teaching the students 4 Ability to train and provide staff within the school with 51 (13.4) 41 (10.1) 35 (9.2) 143 (37.4) 112 (29.3) 3.59 1.36 best practices in education of students with SD Total 3.55 1.37 Using effective instructional methods 5 Ability to monitor the progress of the students to 47 (12.3) 52 (13.6) 40 (10.5) 154 (40.3) 89 (23.3) 3.49 1.32 achieve their IEP goals 6 Ability to explain and analyze the progress of the 49 (12.8) 43 (11.3) 42 (11.0) 147 (38.5) 101 (26.4) 3.54 1.33 students on their IEPs 7 Ability to use methods of motivation and stimulation in 49 (12.8) 52 (13.6) 42 (11.0) 147 (38.5) 92 (24.1) 3.47 1.33 teaching skills and behaviors 8 Ability to teach and train students in communication 43 (11.3) 44 (11.5) 49 (12.8) 148 (38.7) 98 (25.7) 3.56 1.29 skills using augmentative and alternative communication methods in diverse environments 9 Ability to teach students social skills and daily life skills 50 (13.1) 39 (10.2) 45 (11.8) 132 (34.6) 116 (30.4) 3.59 1.36 10 Ability to teach students strategies and techniques to 48 (12.6) 41 (10.1) 46 (12.0) 161 (42.1) 86 (22.5) 3.51 1.29 help them generalize the skills in different situations 11 Ability to train students to build friendships using 67 (17.5) 36 (9.4) 42 (11.0) 152 (39.8) 85 (22.3) 3.40 1.39 appropriate methods and situations Total 3.51 1.33 Skills for implementation of inclusion 12 Ability to collaborate with school professionals to 50 (13.1) 29 (7.6) 46 (12.0) 146 (38.2) 111 (29.1) 3.63 1.33 support inclusion 13 Ability to plan behavioral intervention programs to 51 (13.4) 36 (9.4) 61 (16.0) 150 (39.3) 84 (22.0) 3.47 1.30 train and motivate students to stay in the inclusive classrooms 14 Ability to facilitate interaction between students and their 49 (12.8) 54 (14.1) 49 (12.8) 135 (35.3) 95 (24.9) 3.45 1.34 typically developing peers 15 Ability to support independence of students in the 53 (13.9) 51 (13.4) 65 (17.0) 136 (35.6) 77 (20.2) 3.35 1.32 inclusive classrooms based on their abilities 16 Ability to apply the principles of universal design for 47 (12.3) 43 (11.3) 63 (16.5) 159 (41.6) 70 (18.3) 3.42 1.26 learning to support the education of students in inclusive classrooms 17 Ability to modify the classroom environment to meet the 51 (13.4) 43 (11.3) 45 (11.8) 146 (38.2) 97 (25.4) 3.51 1.34 physical and educational needs of the students 18 Ability to identify the appropriate assistive technology to 54 (14.1) 44 (11.5) 50 (13.1) 155 (40.6) 79 (20.7) 3.42 1.32 enable the students to participate in all school activities Total 3.42 1.31 Skills for planning and implementation of behavioral interventions 19 Ability to monitor the progress of students toward the 56 (14.7) 43 (11.3) 46 (12.0) 141 (36.9) 96 (25.1) 3.47 1.36 achievement of behavioral goals 20 Ability to build behavioral intervention plans to control 37 (9.7) 57 (14.9) 43 (11.3) 134 (35.1) 111 (29.1) 3.59 1.31 challenging behaviors of the students 21 Ability to collect and use data before and after the 57 (14.9) 55 (14.4) 49 (12.8) 128 (33.5) 93 (24.3) 3.38 1.38 occurrence of challenging behaviors of students to develop hypotheses Total 3.48 1.35 (continued) Aldabas 7 Table 3. (continued) Frequencies (percentages) Not Low Very Items confident confident Neutral Confident confident M SD Skills for access to the general education curriculum 22 Ability to identify the possible use of the contents of 49 (12.8) 47 (12.3) 40 (10.5) 144 (37.7) 102 (26.7) 3.53 1.34 GEC using adaptation or modification techniques 23 Ability to adapt GEC objectives with the objectives of the 56 (14.7) 40 (10.5) 53 (13.9) 132 (34.6) 101(26.4) 3.48 1.37 IEP for the students 24 Ability to use strategies of adaptation in teaching and 46 (12.0) 48 (12.6) 33 (8.6) 164 (42.9) 91 (23.8) 3.54 1.31 evaluation to facilitate learning of the students 25 Ability to describe and analyze the performance of 45 (11.8) 38 (9.9) 46 (12.0) 155 (40.6) 98 (25.7) 3.58 1.29 students toward achieving their IEP goals applying GEC 26 Ability to teach the students skills to help them in 42 (11.0) 51 (13.4) 33 (8.6) 157 (41.1) 99 (25.9) 3.58 1.30 ongoing participation in noneducational activities Total 3.54 1.32 Skills for planning transition programs 27 Ability to discuss planning transitional goals (postschool) 53 (13.9) 41 (10.7) 48 (12.6) 152 (39.8) 88 (23.0) 3.47 1.33 with the students themselves (if possible) in additional to the IEP team 28 Ability to teach the students skills that help them 54 (14.1) 44 (11.5) 36 (9.4) 160 (41.9) 88 (23.0) 3.48 1.34 participate in recreational activities in the community 29 Ability to use appropriate assessment and measurement 56 (14.7) 42 (11.0) 51 (13.4) 134 (35.1) 99 (25.9) 3.47 1.37 tools for long-term planning and to establish long-term goals 30 Ability to teach students with disabilities independence 54 (14.1) 41 (10.7) 35 (9.2) 150 (39.3) 102 (26.7) 3.54 1.36 skills to help them to integrate into the community 31 Ability to teach the students self-determination skills 56 (14.7) 56 (14.7) 52 (13.6) 124 (32.5) 94 (24.6) 3.38 1.38 Total 3.47 1.35 Overall score 3.50 1.22 Table 4. Mean, Standard Deviation, and Normality of Used Scores. Subscales M SD Mode Skewness Kurtosis Minimum Maximum Collaboration and teaming skills 14.17 5.09 16 −.74 −.60 4 20 Using effective instructional methods 24.57 8.24 28 −.71 −.46 7 35 Skills for implementation of inclusion 24.25 8.19 28 −.73 −.39 7 35 Skills for planning and implementation of behavioral interventions 10.43 3.70 12 −.66 −.68 3 15 Skills for access to the general education curriculum 17.71 5.94 20 −.82 −.42 5 25 Skills for planning transition programs 17.34 6.04 20 −.70 −.59 5 25 Total 108.48 34.71 124 −.81 −.27 31 155 experience (more than 10 years) showed higher confidence in with SD in inclusive education based on their educational their preparedness on all subscales concerning their teaching degrees, F (12, 748) = 5.45, p < .001; Wilks’ Λ = .84, partial skills in inclusive education than did those with shorter working η = .08. Furthermore, the results of Scheffe tests suggested experience (less than 10 or 5 years), according to the Scheffe that SETs with ADs showed lower confidence in their pre- post hoc test. Thus, this finding supports the second hypothesis paredness to teach such students in inclusive education than did that significant differences existed among teachers’ perceptions those with BA or MA/higher degrees. This finding confirms regarding their preparedness to teach students with SD in inclu- the third hypothesis that teachers with higher degrees felt more sive education based on years of teaching experience. confident in their preparedness to teach students with SD in inclusive education compared to teachers with lower degrees. Effects of teachers’ educational degree. Table 6 indicates a statis- tically significant difference in total scores of SETs’ percep- Effects of disability type. Table 7 shows a significant differ- tions about confidence in their preparedness to teach students ence in mean scores between SETs who worked with 8 SAGE Open Table 5. F-Tests and Mean Differences Among Teachers With Different Previous Teaching Experiences. M (SD) Subscales F df partial η Less than 5 years 6 to 10 years More than 10 years a,b b Collaboration and teaming skills 35.34* 2,379 .16 12.03 (4.82) 13.50 (5.37) 17.05 (3.41) a,c Using effective instructional methods 26.02* 2,379 .12 21.75 (7.74) 23.39 (8.95) 28.72 (5.77) a,c Skills for implementation of inclusion 17.06* 2,379 .08 21.99 (7.86) 23.24 (8.84) 27.69 (6.36) a,c Skills for planning and implementation of 16.15* 2,379 .08 9.30 (3.80) 10.12 (3.92) 11.90 (2.73) behavioral interventions a,c Skills for access to the general education 15.28* 2,379 .08 16.19 (6.16) 16.97 (6.34) 20.08 (4.27) curriculum a,c Skills for planning transition programs 15.86* 2,379 .08 15.91 (6.28) 16.45 (6.50) 19.82 (4.18) a,c Total 23.62* 2,379 .11 97.17 (33.19) 103.67 (38.17) 125.26 (23.58) a b Note. N = 382. Superscripts represent differences between group means as suggested by Scheffe post hoc test, 6 to 10 years, more than 10 years, less than 5 years. *p < .001. Table 6. F-Tests and Mean Difference Among Teachers With Different Educational Degrees. M (SD) Subscales F df partial η AD BA MA and higher a,b Collaboration and teaming skills 24.71* 2,379 .12 10.20 (4.77) 14.64 (5.03) 15.39 (4.31) a,b Using effective instructional methods 22.17* 2,379 .11 18.69 (6.84) 24.95 (8.47) 26.99 (6.88) a,b Skills for implementation of inclusion 61.30* 2,379 .10 18.78 (6.68) 24.63 (8.40) 26.49 (7.19) a,b Skills for planning and implementation of 12.10* 2,379 .06 8.32 (3.47) 10.77 (3.73) 10.92 (3.38) behavioral interventions a,b Skills for access to the general education 18.37* 2,379 .10 13.80 (5.54) 17.98 (6.02) 19.28 (5.04) curriculum a,b Skills for planning transition programs 17.51* 2,379 .10 13.46 (5.45) 17.59 (6.21) 18.93 (5.09) a,b Total 22.31* 2,379 .11 83.25 (29.79) 11.56 (36.30) 118 (26.96) a b c Note. N =382. Superscripts represent differences between group means as suggested by Scheffe post hoc test, BA, MA and higher degree, AD. AD = associate degree; BA = bachelor’s degree; MA = master’s degrees. *p < .001. different types of students’ disabilities in their perceptions revealed that SETs who had taught in pre-school grades about their preparedness to teach students with SD in inclu- showed a lower level of confidence in their preparedness sive education, F (12, 748) = 3.47, p < .001; Wilks’ Λ = to teach students with SD in inclusive education on most .89, partial η = .05. Further post hoc tests showed that those of the subscales compared to others who taught in middle SETs who had taught students with ASD felt higher confi- schools and high schools, while SETs from elementary dence in their preparedness to teach students with SD in schools generally showed lower confidence than did oth- inclusive education given their responses on all subscales ers who had taught in high schools (and middle schools on when compared to others who had taught students with some subscales). This finding supports the fifth hypothe- MSID, and/or MD. Therefore, this finding supports the sis that there were significant differences in teachers’ per- fourth hypothesis that significant differences found in teach- ceptions regarding their preparedness to teach students ers’ perceptions regarding their preparedness to teach stu- with SD in inclusive education based on grade schooling dents with SD in inclusive education based on disability type level taught. of students taught. Effects of classroom type. Table 9 shows that working in differ- Effects of grade schooling level. Table 8 indicates a statisti- ent classroom types affected SETs’ perception about their pre- cally significant difference in total scores of SETs’ per- paredness to teach students with SD in inclusive education on ceptions about their preparedness to teach students with all measures of the subscales, F (12, 748) = 5.91, p < .001; SD in inclusive education among those who had taught Wilks’ Λ = .83, partial η = .09. SETs who had taught in gen- different grades, F (18, 1,055) = 3.98, p < .001; Wilks’ eral classrooms showed the lowest confidence in their pre- Λ = .83, partial η = .06. The results of post hoc tests paredness to teach in inclusive education when compared to Aldabas 9 Table 7. F-Tests and Mean Difference Between Teachers Who Work With Students by Disability Type. M (SD) Subscales F df partial η MSID MD ASD a,b Collaboration and teaming skills 16.35* 2,379 .08 12.76 (5.83) 13.87 (4.82) 16.09 (3.53) a,b Using effective instructional methods 9.63* 2,379 .05 22.91 (9.39) 23.93 (8.41) 27.05 (5.67) a,b Skills for implementation of inclusion 8.07* 2,379 .04 22.74 (9.26) 23.67 (7.94) 26.52 (6.37) a,b Skills for planning and implementation of behavioral 8.18* 2,379 .04 9.78 (4.28) 10.11 (3.46) 11.48 (2.81) interventions a,b Skills for access to the general education curriculum 9.03* 2,379 .05 16.50 (6.85) 17.37 (5.84) 19.42 (4.23) a,b Skills for planning transition programs 10.95* 2,379 .06 16.20 (6.98) 16.55 (5.87) 19.31 (4.24) a,b Total 11.54* 2,379 .06 10.88 (41.23) 105.50 (34.28) 119.87 (21.39) a b c Note. N = 382. Superscripts represent differences between group means as suggested by Scheffe post hoc test, MDS, MD, ASD. MSID = moderate/ severe intellectual disabilities; MD = multiple disabilities; ASD = autism spectrum disorder. *p < .001. Table 8. F-Tests and Mean Difference Among Teachers by Grade Schooling Level. M (SD) Subscales F df partial η Preschool Elementary Middle school High school a,b a,b Collaboration and teaming skills 15.77* 3,378 .11 11.64 (4.85) 13.47 (5.51) 15.32 (4.75) 16.53 (3.26) a,b b Using effective instructional methods 9.91* 3,378 .07 11.64 (7.62) 13.47 (9.41) 15.32 (7.89) 16.53 (4.92) a,b b Skills for implementation of inclusion 8.98* 3,378 .07 21.08 (6.74) 23.31 (9.26) 26.23 (7.86) 26.71 (6.39) a,b a,b Skills for planning and implementation of 7.11* 3,378 .05 9.40 (3.64) 9.85 (4.12) 11.40 (3.01) 11.36 (3.09) behavioral interventions b b Skills for access to the general education 8.16* 3,378 .06 16.01 (6) 16.85 (6.81) 18.32 (5.37) 20.15 (3.47) curriculum a,b b Skills for planning transition programs 8.13* 3,378 .06 15.21 (5.50) 16.62 (7) 18.44 (5.40) 19.37 (4.35) a,b b Total 10.76* 3,378 .08 94.73 (31.48) 103.66 (4 .69) 115.7 (31.26) 121.89 (21.03) a b c Note. N = 382. Superscripts represent differences between group means as suggested by Scheffe post hoc test, middle school, high school, preschool, elementary. *p < .001. Table 9. F-Tests and Mean Difference Among Teachers by Classroom Type. M (SD) General Special ed Special ed Subscales F df partial η classroom classroom school-institute a,b Collaboration and teaming skills 25.11* 2,379 .12 9.74 (4.38) 14.63 (4.97) 15.20 (4.64) a,b Using effective instructional methods 13.04* 2,379 .06 19.24 (6.85) 25.13 (8.59) 25.77 (7.32) a,b Skills for implementation of inclusion 7.98* 2,379 .04 20.16 (7.25) 24.52 (8.76) 25.46 (7.02) a,b Skills for planning and implementation of behavioral 12.14* 2,379 .06 8.10 (3.48) 10.76 (3.74) 10.82 (3.36) interventions a,b Skills for access to the general education curriculum 13.85* 2,379 .07 13.72 (5.20) 18.37 (6.06) 18.21 (5.40) a,b Skills for planning transition programs 11.47* 2,379 .06 13.64 (5.26) 18.02 (6.21) 17.68 (5.53) a,b Total 14.68* 2,379 .07 84.6 (29.97) 111.42 (35.8) 113.14 (30.81) a b Note. N =382. Superscripts represent differences between group means as suggested by Scheffe post hoc test. special education classroom, special education school-institute, inclusive classroom. *p < .001. others who had taught in other different types of classrooms significant differences found in teachers’ perceptions regarding (i.e., special education classrooms and special education their preparedness to teach students with SD in inclusive teach- schools). This finding confirms the sixth hypothesis that ers based on type of classroom taught. 10 SAGE Open in Riyadh (Aldabas, 2015), there is no difference between Discussion and Implication for Practice their teachers’ preparedness to teach students with SD in Preparing educators to teach students in inclusive education inclusive education. has not drawn enough attention from researchers and, conse- The socio-demographic factors and differences between quentially, there has been little systematic investigation of SETs have clearly implied that some features should be con- their self-confidence in their ability to perform different sidered when developing trainings to help the teachers meet inclusive practices (Florian et al., 2010). This study’s find- new and difficult challenges in work within inclusive educa- ings indicate that most of the participants felt a level of con- tion. To teach students with SD in inclusive education, well- fidence in their preparedness for teaching students with SD prepared teachers should be able to plan, fully control, and in inclusive education. The findings also highlight that the facilitate interaction in the classroom, while always consid- majority of participants showed a higher level of confidence ering the appropriateness of the planned activities and differ- in the collaboration and teamwork skills dimension while ent needs and abilities of their students (Rabi & Zulkefli, they had lower confidence in skills for the implementation of 2018). This study’s finding is consistent with the finding of an inclusion dimension. This indicates that participants’ Ruppar et al. (2016) in which teachers who had ADs reported preparation programs may have covered more about the col- lower confidence in their preparedness compared to those laborative approaches than content on how to implement who had BA or MA degrees. It suggests that the content of inclusion. courses in the BA and MA programs had provided more Particularly, SETs’ responses showed that they needed knowledge and skills concerning inclusive education in gen- more knowledge and skills in different areas, such as devel- eral compared to AD programs. oping IEPs, assessing the progression of their students, and Furthermore, past research has showed that SETs who had adapting and modifying the curriculum to meet their stu- longer experience teaching students with disabilities had dents’ needs, which has also been reported by past studies increased confidence in teaching in inclusive classrooms (e.g., Ruppar et al., 2016; Sucuoğlu et al., 2013). These con- (Bannister-Tyrrell et al., 2018; Ruppar et al., 2016), which is cerns and potential preoccupation with them could influence in compliance with the results obtained in this study. This teachers’ confidence and make their teaching practices confirms that SETs obtain more knowledge and skills while fraught with difficulties and unpleasant experiences (Crane- teaching and practicing. Since it was previously reported that Mitchell & Hedge, 2007). It also reaffirmed the conclusion providing teachers with real-life experiences positively of past studies that there is a need for more in-service train- influenced their attitudes toward inclusion (Rakap et al., ing in inclusive education for teachers of students with SD. 2017), those teachers with no or low experience should be In addition, more content and knowledge related to inclusive provided with a tool for extending their existing theoretical education should be offered for SETs through professional and practical knowledge. This could be achieved with devel- training programs. Such programs should be more concen- opment and delivery of different courses where teachers trated in improving SETs’ preparedness to meet existing would be able to acquire new pedagogical strategies and demands for inclusive education. techniques for supporting the learning of all students This study provided new insights about relationships (Alquraini & Rao, 2017; Ballard & Dymond, 2017). between SETs’ socio-demographic characteristics and their Previous studies have also emphasized that preschool and perception of readiness for teaching students with SD in elementary school teachers do not feel prepared to teach stu- inclusive education. It was found that SETs with shorter dents with disabilities. They reported there was a lack of spe- working experience had lower confidence in their prepared- cific knowledge and skills to teach in inclusive classrooms ness, while those with the longest experience showed higher (e.g., Ruppar et al., 2016, 2018; Sucuoğlu et al., 2013), which confidence in their preparedness to teach students with SD in is indirectly confirmed in this study. A common reasoning inclusive education. Teachers with ADs also showed lower suggested for this difference is that teaching young children confidence in their preparedness, followed by those who with SD tends to be more difficult than teaching similarly worked with younger students (i.e., preschool and elemen- challenged older children. Furthermore, linking to findings tary school) and even those who taught in inclusive class- of Brownell et al. (2005, 2010) that teachers showed a lack of rooms. Finally, SETs who worked with children with ASD specific training in specificities of inclusive and special edu- felt more prepared for teaching such students in inclusive cation, it is possible that those SETs who taught lower grades education when compared to others who taught students with did not have an opportunity to attend specialized courses or MSID or MD. However, no gender difference was revealed training, during which they could learn how to accommodate in this study, suggesting no differences exist between female the needs of students with SD in different schooling grades and male teachers in their preparedness to teach students and ages. This suggests that SETs’ preservice and in-service with SD in inclusive education. This could imply that SETs training programs should be designed in terms of covering have received the same type of training for teaching those essential knowledge and skills in teaching students with SD students in inclusive education, regardless of their gender. in inclusive schools regardless of the students’ ages and Although boys are educated separately from girls in schools grade levels. Aldabas 11 Students with disabilities frequently feel segregated and would support placing such students in general classrooms their teachers might feel the same due to the lack of under- along with providing appropriate education to the students. standing by their school principals and general education teachers, or even due to physical segregation of their class- Limitations and Future Directions rooms or desks (Ruppar et al., 2018). Interestingly, this study might confirm this finding due to the result that SETs who This study had several limitations that require further reported to work in general classrooms had lower confidence research. First, this survey was distributed to SETs who teach in their preparedness for teaching such students. This would in one city in Saudi Arabia, which significantly lowered the be linked to past findings indicating that, although these generalizability of the obtained findings. Thus, future SETs have taught within a general context, they might have research should consider replicating this study with a larger felt misunderstood and separated from their colleagues and sample of participants from across Saudi Arabia as well as other school professionals (Greenway et al., 2013; Ruppar from across the world. Future research may examine if there et al., 2018). These findings may be explained by the possi- are significant differences among teachers’ preparedness bility that school principals and other professionals might from different cities and countries to obtain more reliable tend to underestimate the struggles and concerns of SETs results. As only SETs participated in the study, future research because of the primary concern of the school professionals is might include general education teachers for greater under- directed to typically developing students (Greenway et al., standing about all teachers’ preparedness to teach students 2013). This could lead to tensions between the professionals with SD in inclusive education. Moreover, since the study and SETs who sense devaluation of their work in addition to used a questionnaire that only asked teachers to rate their facing difficulties in teaching students with SD in inclusive perceptions of preparedness to teach students with SD in education. Minimizing this gap between SETs’ needs and inclusive education, the current findings would reflect self- concerns that their problems are overlooked in the focus on reported perceptions rather than the real level of prepared- the majority of students could help SETs feel more confident ness. Consequently, self-reported quantitative data should be in their preparedness for teaching students with SD in inclu- supported by data from other sources (e.g., data qualitative in sive education. Accordingly, special training programs con- nature, such as structured interviews and observations) to cerning inclusive education should be provided to help all increase the generalizability of the obtained findings. Using school professionals to succeed at teaching students with SD mixed-design methods would provide more accurate data in inclusive education environments. and deep understanding of teachers’ preparedness, and not Finally, the findings showed that teachers of students with only about their self-perceptions. Future research should ASD expressed more confidence to teach students with SD validate more specific surveys that operationalize teachers’ in inclusive education than teachers of MSID and MD. This preparedness to teach regardless of the setting (e.g., inclusive is inconsistent with the finding of Ruppar et al. (2016) that or general education), and they need to be correlated with teachers with cognitive disabilities licensure (i.e., teaching some personal features, among which personality traits first students with MSID) reported higher self-confidence in come in mind. For example, measuring “Big Five” personal- teaching students with SD compared to teachers with gener- ity traits in SETs (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, conscien- alist licensure (i.e., teaching students with varying disabili- tiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience; ties). This finding casts new light on the impact of type and Costa & McCrae, 1992) could suggest possible effects on nature of disability on how teachers perceive their prepared- their readiness to teach in inclusive education. ness to teach such students in inclusive classrooms. This A closer examination of individual differences among finding also may be explained by how teachers perceive the SETs could emphasize some of the potential sources of their characteristics and needs of their students with SD. For confidence levels when working with students with SD and, example, teachers of students with ASD would view inclu- in general, their expertise in teaching. If such measures are sive classrooms as meeting the specific characteristics and validated using techniques other than surveys (e.g., in-depth needs of their students. This educational placement would interviews, observations of lessons), research could provide thus be viewed by the teachers as more appropriate for stu- more insights about how different experiences during their dents with ASD compared to other students. professional careers could influence teachers’ readiness to Furthermore, this suggests that teachers of students with teach in inclusive education. Methods of structured lesson ASD have received adequate knowledge and skills covering observation have been recommended to become the standard the main competencies for teaching the students in inclusive of teaching and improving teachers’ classroom management education. This is indicative also of a lack of SET-preparation and other necessary instructional skills (Jones & Brownell, programs addressing inclusive education provided for teach- 2014). Observational data could provide additional and more ers of students with MSID and MD. Therefore, SET- objective evaluations of teachers’ practices in classrooms. preparation programs and/or professional training covering Hence, future research might use observation protocols to essential knowledge and skills related to teaching in inclu- understand the relationship between teachers’ individual dif- sive classrooms should be provided for the teachers. This ferences and teaching quality. This could lead to development 12 SAGE Open of specific guidelines for teachers to help them improve their Declaration of Helsinki. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical preparedness (Holdheide, 2013). standards of the institutional and/or national research committee Finally, parental involvement and the relationship that and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or could be established between parents and teachers should also comparable ethical standards. be carefully investigated in future research. This relationship might be essential when attempting to understand what spe- ORCID iD cific skills related to parents and teachers’ collaboration are missing during student teaching and should not be neglected. Rashed Aldabas https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3566-4777 References Conclusion Aldabas, R. (2015). Special education in Saudi Arabia: History This study adds to the research on teachers’ individual differ- and areas for reform. Creative Education, 6(11), 1158–1167. ences in their perceptions of confidence in teaching in inclu- https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.611114 sive education. Results suggested that teachers with ADs; Ali, M., & Jelas, Z. (2006). An empirical study on teachers’ percep- those teaching in preschool, elementary, and general class- tions towards inclusive education in Malaysia. International rooms; as well as those who teach students with MSID or Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 36–44. MD report lower confidence in their preparedness to teach Alquraini, T., & Gut, D. (2012). Critical components of successful students with SD in inclusive education. Yet, although SETs’ inclusion of students with severe disabilities: Literature review. International Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 42–59. preparedness to teach in inclusive education is a significant Alquraini, T., & Rao, R. (2017). A study examining the extent precursor to students’ academic success, the base of this of including competencies of inclusive education in the research is quite limited (Morningstar et al., 2016). Teacher preparation of special education teachers in Saudi universi- education programs for SETs should respond to the chal- ties. International Journal of Disability, Development and lenges encountered within the classrooms by adapting and Education, 65(1), 108–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349 improving pedagogies and practices. This could be achieved 12X.2017.1327651 by providing SETs with meaningful learning opportunities Ayres, B., Meyer, L., Erevelles, N., & Park-Lee, S. (1994). Easy during which they would cover a range of possible SD. for you to say: Teacher perspectives on implementing most Moreover, ensuring internship placements that include stu- promising practices. Research and Practice for Persons With dents with SD could help inexperienced teachers gain neces- Severe Disabilities, 19(2), 84–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/ sary practical experience and knowledge about efficient and 154079699401900202 Badri, M., Alnuaimi, A., Mohaidat, J., Yang, G., & Al Rashedi, effective practices in inclusive education. Hence, by adding A. (2016). Perception of teachers’ professional develop- qualitative data obtained from teachers to the development of ment needs, impacts, and barriers: The Abu Dhabi case. specialized training, hidden factors influencing preparedness SAGE Open, 6(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F21582 may be revealed which could result in better understanding of teachers’ expertise development. Finally, additional Ballard, S., & Dymond, S. (2017). Addressing the general educa- research is essential to establish a set of recommended prac- tion curriculum in general education settings with students with tices in inclusive education, and to enact a series of SET severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons With competencies needed to work with students with SD. Severe Disabilities, 42(3), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Acknowledgments Bannister-Tyrrell, M., Mavropoulou, S., Jones, M., Bailey, J., O’Donnell-Ostini, A., & Dorji, R. (2018). Initial teacher prepa- The author would like to extend his sincere appreciation to the ration for teaching students with exceptionalities: Pre-service Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for fund- teachers’ knowledge and perceived competence. Australian ing this research. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(6), 19–34. https://doi.org/ 10.14221/ajte.2018v43n6.2 Declaration of Conflicting Interests Benitez, D., Morningstar, M., & Frey, B. (2009). A multistate sur- The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect vey of special education teachers’ perceptions of their transition to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. competencies. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885728808323945 Funding Boe, E., & Shin, S. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in either special or general education? The The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author- Journal of Special Education, 41(3), 158–170. https://doi.org/1 ship, and/or publication of this article. 0.1177/00224669070410030201 Bouck, E. (2005). Secondary special educators: Perspectives of Ethical Approval preservice preparation and satisfaction. Teacher Education Informed consent was obtained from participants included in the and Special Education, 28(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/ study. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the 088840640502800206 Aldabas 13 Boyd, B., Seo, S., Ryndak, D., & Fisher, D. (2005, August 1–4). Gable, R., Tonelson, S., Sheth, M., Wilson, C., & Park, C. (2012). Inclusive education for students with severe disabilities in the Importance, usage, and preparedness to implement evidence- United States: Effects on selected areas of outcomes. Paper based practices for students with emotional disabilities: A com- presented at the ISEC 2005 Conference, Glasgow, Scotland. parison of knowledge and skills of special education and general Browder, D., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based prac- education teachers. Education and Treatment of Children, tices for students with severe disabilities and the requirement 35(4), 499–519. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42900173 for accountability in “No Child Left Behind.” The Journal of Greenway, R., McCollow, M., Hudson, R. F., & Peck, C. (2013). Special Education, 37(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/00 Autonomy and accountability: Teacher perspectives on evi- 224669030370030501 dence-based practice and decision-making for students with Brownell, M., Ross, D., Colon, E., & McCallum, C. (2005). Critical intellectual and developmental disabilities. Education and features of special education teacher preparation: A compari- Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 456– son with general teacher education. The Journal of Special 468. http://daddcec.org/Publications/ETADDJournal.aspx Education, 38(4), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669 Hamilton-Jones, B., & Vail, C. (2014). Preparing special educators 050380040601 for collaboration in the classroom: Preservice teachers’ beliefs Brownell, M., Sindlear, P., Kiely, M., & Danielson, L. (2010). and perspectives. International Journal of Special Education, Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing 29(1), 76–86. foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, Holdheide, L. (2013). Inclusive design: Building educator evalu- 76(3), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600307 ation systems that support students with disabilities. www. Calculator, S. (2009). Augmentative and alternative communica- gtlcenter.org tion (AAC) and inclusive education for students with the most Johnson, E., & Semmelroth, C. (2014). Special education teacher severe disabilities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, evaluation: Why it matters, what makes it challenging, and how to 13(1), 93–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701284656 address these challenges. Assessment for Effective Intervention, Collins, B. C. (2007). Moderate and severe disabilities: A founda- 39(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508413513315 tional approach. Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Jones, N., & Brownell, M. (2014). Examining the use of classroom Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors observations in the evaluation of special education teachers. are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653–665. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39(2), 112–124. https:// https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I doi.org/10.1177/1534508413514103 Crane-Mitchell, L., & Hedge, A. V. (2007). Beliefs and prac- Kurth, J., Lyon, K., & Shogren, K. (2015). Supporting students with tices of in-service preschool teachers in inclusive settings: severe disabilities in inclusive schools: A descriptive account Implications for personnel preparation. Journal of Early from schools implementing inclusive practices. Research and Childhood Teacher Education, 28, 353–366. https://doi.org/ Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 40(4), 261–274. 10.1080/10901020701686617 https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915594160 Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, Leko, M., Brownell, M., Sindelar, P., & Murphy, K. (2012). and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage. Promoting special education preservice teacher expertise. Da Fonte, A., & Barton-Arwood, S. (2017). Collaboration of gen- Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(7), 1–16. https://doi.org/ eral and special education teachers: Perspectives and strategies. 10.17161/foec.v44i7.6684 Intervention in School and Clinic, 53(2), 99–106. https://doi. Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content org/10.1177/1053451217693370 validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–386. Downing, J. (2005). Inclusive education for high school students Ministry of Education. (2015). Organizational and procedural with severe intellectual disabilities: Supporting communica- guide for special education institutes and programs in The tion. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(2), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1st ed.). King Abdullah Project for 132–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610500103582 the Development of General Education. Eichinger, J., & Downing, J. (2000). Restructuring special educa- Mock, D., & Kauffman, J. (2002). Preparing teachers for full inclu- tion certification: What should be done? Research and Practice sion: Is it possible? The Teacher Educator, 37(3), 202–215. for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 25(2), 109–112. https:// https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730209555294 doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.25.2.109 Morningstar, M. M., Allcock, H. C., White, J. M., Taub, D., Kurth, Florian, L. (2012). Preparing teachers to work in inclusive class- J. A., Gonsier-Gerndin, J., . . .Jorgensen, C. (2016). Inclusive rooms: Key lessons for the professional development of education national research advocacy agenda: A call to action. teacher educators from Scotland’s inclusive practice project. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 275–285. https://doi. 41, 209–215. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1540796916650975 org/10.1177/0022487112447112 Nagro, S., & deBettencourt, L. (2017). Reviewing special educa- Florian, L., Young, K., & Rouse, M. (2010). Preparing teachers tion teacher preparation field experience placements, activi- for inclusive and diverse educational environments: Studying ties, and research. Do we know the difference maker? Teacher curricular reform in an initial teacher education course. Education Quarterly, 44, 7–33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/ International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(7), 709–722. 90010901 https://doi.org/10.1080/13603111003778536 Petersen, A. (2016). Perspectives of special education teachers Fox, L., & Williams, D. (1992). Preparing teachers of students with on general education curriculum access: Preliminary results. severe disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 15(2), 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840649201500205 41(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915604835 14 SAGE Open Rabi, N. M., & Zulkefli, M. Y. (2018). Mainstream teachers’ with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons competency requirement for inclusive education program. With Severe Disabilities, 41(4), 273–286. https://doi.org/ International Journal of Academic Research in Business and 10.1177/1540796916672843 Social Sciences, 8(11), 1779–1791. https://doi.org/10.6007/ Ryndak, D., Clark, D., Conroy, M., & Hothaus, C. (2001). Preparing IJARBSS/v8-i11/4824 teachers to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities: Rainforth, B. (2000). Preparing teachers to educate students with Program configuration and expertise. Research and Practice severe disabilities in inclusive settings despite contextual for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 26(2), 96–105. https:// constraints. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.26.2.96 Disabilities, 25(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.2511/rpsd.25.2.83 Smith, P. (2007). Have we made any progress? Including students Rakap, S., Cig, O., & Parlak-Rakap, A. (2017). Preparing pre- with intellectual disabilities in regular education classrooms. school teacher candidates for inclusion: Impact of two special Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45(5), 297–309. education courses on their perspectives. Journal of Research https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(2007)45[297:HWMAPI]2. in Special Educational Needs, 17(2), 98–109. https://doi. 0.CO;2 org/10.1111/1471-3802.12116 Sucuoğlu, B., Bakkaloğlu, H., Karasu, F. İ., Demir, Ş., & Akalın, Reese, L., Richards-Tutor, C., Hansuvadha, N., Pavri, S., & Xu, S. S. (2013). Inclusive preschool teachers: Their attitudes and (2018). Teachers for inclusive, diverse urban settings. Issues in knowledge about inclusion. International Journal of Early Teacher Education, 27(1), 17–27. Childhood Special Education, 5(2), 107–128. Rogers, W., & Johnson, N. (2018). Strategies to include students with Theeb, R., Muhaidat, M., & Al-Zboon, E. (2013). Professional severe/multiple disabilities within the general education class- competencies among pre-service teachers in special educa- room. Physical Disabilities: Education and Related Services, tion from their perspectives. Education, 134(3), 195–205. 37(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.14434/pders.v37i2.24881 https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(2007)45[297:HWMAPI] Ruppar, A., Roberts, C., & Olson, A. (2015). Faculty perceptions of 2.0.CO;2 expertise among teachers of students with severe disabilities. Walker, V., Loman, S., Hara, M., Park, K., & Strickland-Cohen, Teacher Education and Special Education, 38(3), 240–253. K. (2018). Examining the inclusion of students with severe https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406414552331 disabilities in school-wide positive behavioral interven- Ruppar, A., Roberts, C., & Olson, A. (2017). Perceptions about tions and supports. Research and Practice for Persons With expert teaching for students with severe disabilities among Severe Disabilities, 43(4), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/ teachers identified as experts. Research and Practice for 1540796918779370 Persons With Severe Disabilities, 42(2), 121–135. https://doi. Whitten, T., & Westling, D. (1985). Competencies for teach- org/10.1177/1540796917697311 ers of the severely and profoundly handicapped. Teacher Ruppar, A., Roberts, C., & Olson, A. (2018). Is it all about lov- Education and Special Education, 8(2), 104–111. https://doi. ing the kids? Perceptions about expertise in special education. org/10.1177/088840648500800207 Teaching and Teacher Education, 71, 319–328. https://doi. Zagona, A., Kurth, J., & Macfarland, S. (2017). Teachers’ views org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.02.001 of their preparation for inclusive education and collaboration. Ruppar, A. L., Neeper, L. S., & Dalsen, J. (2016). Special educa- Teacher Education and Special Education, 40(3), 163–178. tion teachers’ perceptions of preparedness to teach students https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406417692969

Journal

SAGE OpenSAGE

Published: Aug 17, 2020

Keywords: inclusive education; teacher education; teachers’ preparedness; severe disabilities

There are no references for this article.