Practice and attitudes within special education. Discrepancies between primary school teachers and teachers in lower secondary school
Author(s):
Per Frostad (submitting) Per Egil Mjaavatn (presenting)
Conference:
ECER 2014
Format:
Paper

Session Information

04 SES 10 A, Relationship of Teacher Personality and Attitudes to Inclusive Education (Part 1)

Paper Session: to be continued in 04 SES 11 A

Time:
2014-09-04
15:30-17:00
Room:
B013 Anfiteatro
Chair:
Sip Jan Pijl

Contribution

The national curriculum in Norway emphasize that education should be adapted to the individual students’ needs (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2006). In White paper 18:2010-2011 (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2010) the ministry says that all students should be part of the regular schools and that schools should endeavor to keep the use of special education at a minimum. This has been an official policy in Norway during the last decade. In sharp contrast to this, the percentage of students being granted the right to special education based on formal individual assessment increase year by year. In the academic year 2013-2014, 8,3% of all students receive special education, compared to 6,2% in 2006-2007 (Utdanningsdirektoratet, 2013). The number also increases through the school years from grade 1 to grade 10, from 3,8% to 11,2%, a fact that can be regarded to be in conflict with the principle of “early intervention” (Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2010).

The class teachers most often initiate the use of special education. Some of the explanation to the increased use of special education can therefore lie in the practice and attitudes of the teachers. In the current project we were interested in testing the hypothesis that teachers in lower schools differ from teachers in primary school in this respect. Teachers in primary and lower secondary schools may also experience external pressure from parents regarding their children’s right to special education differently (Mathiesen og Vedøy, 2012). Our main variables were teachers’ negative attitudes towards inclusive schooling, teacher self-efficacy towards adapting education to individual students’ needs, teachers conceptions of the effect of special education and teachers’ experience of pressure from parents.

Research question: Are there differences between teachers in primary school and teachers in lower secondary schools regarding the way the look upon teaching of students with special educational needs?

Method

The sample consists of teachers from 11 different schools in a Norwegian community, 3 of them were lower secondary schools, 8 were primary schools. 107 teachers in primary school (grade 4-7 ) and 38 teachers in lower secondary school (grade 8-10) answered a online questionnaire about their practice and attitudes regarding the education of students with special needs. Negative attitudes toward inclusive education (i.e. being negative to the idea of educating all students regardless of individual needs within regular classes) were measured with a three items scale (α = .76). An example of an item is “Some students will benefit from attending a special class rather than a regular class”. Teachers self-efficacy towards adapting education to individual students’ needs were measured by a four items scale (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), with a reliability of α =.88 in the current project. An example of an item is “How certain are you that you can provide realistic challenge for all students even in mixed ability classes?”. Teachers conceptions of the effect of special education were measured with a six items scale of their judgement of individual subject curriculum (example item: “Individual subject curriculum have clear goals that are easy to evaluate”, α = .76) and one single item regarding the effect of special education: “Special education has a positive effect”. Teachers’ experience of pressure from parents was measured with a single item: Pressure from parents regarding students’ rights lead to increased use of special education”. T-test is used to analyse statistical differences between the two groups of teachers.

Expected Outcomes

Statistical differences and notable effect sizes were found for all the dependent variables but the general attitude to inclusive education. Possible implications of the finding will be discussed.

References

Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2006. Læreplanverket for kunnskapsløftet. Oslo: Kunnskapsdepartementet. Kunnskapsdepartementet, 2010. Meld. St. 18 (2010-2011) Læring og fellesskap. Oslo: Kunnskapsdepartementet. Mathiesen, I. H. & Vedøy, G. (2012) Spesialundervisning – driver og dilemma. Rapport IRIS – 2012/017. Skaalvik, E. & Skaalvik, S. (2007) Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relation with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611-625. Utdanningsdirektoratet (2013) Tall fra grunnskolens informasjonssysten (GSI) 2013/14. Oslo: Utdanningsdirektoratet.

Author Information

Per Frostad (submitting)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Department go Education
Trondheim
Per Egil Mjaavatn (presenting)
Norwegian university of science and technology
Department of education
Trondheim

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • 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, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.