ERG SES D 05, Special Education
Since the 1970s many countries have implemented policies supporting integration and, more recently, inclusion of students with special educational needs (SEN) into mainstream schools (UNESCO, 2009). Regular school teachers have been identified as key persons influencing students’ academic performance and development and are responsible for the implementation of inclusive education (Meijer, 2003). However, studies show that many in-service teachers feel insufficiently trained and lack support to effectively accommodate all students within heterogeneous classrooms (Blanton, Pugach, Florian, 2011). While many pre- and in-service teachers claim to support inclusive practices (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000), managing challenging academic or social-emotional student behaviors is a main concern (Killu, 2008; Lambe & Bones, 2006). Research findings show that attitudes and fears concerning inclusive education might vary as a function of different teacher-dependent variables e.g. years of professional experience; students-related aspects, e.g. type of special education problem; or environment-based factors, e.g. school recourses, support for inclusive practices (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). One of the most important factors affecting teachers’ attitudes concerning inclusive practice is the type and severity of the students’ special educational needs. Levins, Bornholt, and Lennon (2005) found that attitudes toward students with learning difficulties were more positive than attitudes toward students with behavioral problems (AD/HD). Also, preservice teachers were more willing to accept students with slight difficulties than students with behavioral and/or emotional disabilities (Ward, Center, & Bochner, 1994).
A crucial teacher variable affecting the implementation of inclusive practice may be teachers’ sense of competence and self-efficacy, i.e. teachers´ belief in their ability and effectiveness to bring about desired outcomes of student engagement and learning, even for students presenting with special educational needs or challenging behavior (Bandura, 1977). According to Bandura’s (1977) theory, self-efficacy is nurtured by perceived competence, persuasion and/or experienced accomplishments and research indicates teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are related to the effort teachers invest in teaching, the goals they set, their persistence in difficult situations and their resilience in the face of setbacks (Sosa & Gomez, 2012; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998), Similarly, Gordon and Debus (2002) reported that preservice teachers with high self-efficacy beliefs were more likely to select more efficient teaching practices. Soodak and Podell (1993) found that teachers´ self-efficacy underlies their special education referrals: regular and special educators with high personal and teaching self-efficacy were more likely to approve of inclusive practice for students with learning and/or behavioral problems compared to educators with low self-efficacy. Although such findings associate teachers’ attitudes and practices with different levels of efficacy, it remains unclear which factors can strengthen efficacy (Klassen, Tze, Betts and Gordon, 2011). Furthermore, in their review Klassen and colleagues (2011), identify measurement issues that compromise self-efficacy research and remark that as links between teacher efficacy and student outcome have not been sufficiently clarified, the implications of efficacy research for educational practice are uncertain.
Therefore, the current experimental study investigates to what extent perceived competence and self-efficacy concerning the inclusion of students with SEN influence preservice teachers’ judgments of the seriousness of students’ problems and pedagogical actions. More specifically it was expected that:
– Preservice teachers see themselves as competent and efficacious , whereby both implicit and explicit teacher self-efficacy are positively related to perceived competence
– Preservice teachers suggest different pedagogical actions in accordance to the seriousness and type of students’ problems (learning difficulty versus behavioral problems)
– Implicit and explicit self-efficacy and perceived competence are related to teachers’ suggested pedagogical actions: higher self-efficacy and higher competence lead to more targeted pedagogical actions according to SEN type
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129–147. Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). A Survey into Mainstream Teachers’ Attitudes Towards the Inclusion of Children with Special Educational Needs in the Ordinary School in one Local Education Authority. Educational Psychology, 20, 191–211. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward an unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 Gordon, C., & Debus, R. (2002). Developing deep learning approaches and personal teaching efficacy within a preservice teacher education context. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(4), 483–511. doi:10.1348/00070990260377488 Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M. C., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. a. (2010). Teacher Efficacy Research 1998–2009: Signs of Progress or Unfulfilled Promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 21–43. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9141-8 Meijer, C. J. W. (2003). Special education across Europe in 2003: Trends in provision in 18 European countries. (C. J. W. Meijer, Ed.). Middelfart: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x Soodak, L. C. & Podell, D. M. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special-education referral. Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 66-81. (n.d.). Sosa, T., & Gomez, K. (2012). Connecting Teacher Efficacy Beliefs in Promoting Resilience to Support of Latino Students. Urban Education, 47(5), 876–909. doi:10.1177/0042085912446033 Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and Measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. doi:10.3102/00346543068002202
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.