Inclusive education is widely framed as a rights-based and equity-oriented agenda that aims to secure every learner’s full and meaningful participation in schooling (UNESCO, 2009). Realizing this agenda at classroom level depends on teachers’ capacity to make informed, flexible instructional decisions, especially when inclusion is understood not merely as placement but as expanding learning opportunities for everyone in the classroom community (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). Professional development connected to teachers’ everyday responsibilities is therefore a key lever for strengthening inclusive pedagogy, particularly when it combines content focus, active learning, coherence with classroom realities, and opportunities for reflection (Garet et al., 2001; Korthagen et al., 2006).

Within inclusive classrooms, students with specific learning difficulties (SpLDs) represent an area where teachers’ instructional decision-making is continuously tested through differentiation, assessment adaptations, accessible materials, individualized planning, and collaboration with specialists and families. DSM-5 describes SpLDs through persistent difficulties in reading, written expression, or mathematics that continue despite appropriate interventions and affect academic functioning (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). In Türkiye, research has shown that primary school teachers may need further professional support in recognizing dyslexia and broader SpLDs profiles, developing appropriate instructional strategies, and planning classroom-based supports (Balcı, 2019; Kılıç Yılmaz & Yangın, 2020; Sümer Dodur & Altındağ Kumaş, 2021; Tosun et al., 2021).

Türkiye’s institutional pathway for inclusive education also underscores why teacher capacity matters. Educational assessment and identification processes are coordinated through Guidance and Research Centers, while placement and support decisions are structured through provincial and district special education boards. At school level, Individualized Education Programs are developed, implemented, monitored, and revised through school-based teams (Turkish Ministry of National Education [TMoNE], 2018, 2022). Recent curriculum and guidance documents also emphasize differentiated instruction, assessment adaptations, and planning processes aligned with the Türkiye Century Education Model (TMoNE, 2024, 2025a, 2025b).

This poster presents the evaluation rationale and design of Powerful Solutions on the Learning Path (PSLP; Turkish: Öğrenme Yolunda Güçlü Çözümler), a five-day, multi-component, practice-based professional development program for primary school teachers supporting students with SpLDs. Delivered at Boğaziçi University from 17 to 21 November 2025, PSLP consisted of 20 workshops addressing SpLDs awareness, early intervention, Guidance and Research Center processes, differentiation, IEP-related planning, classroom and behavior management, collaboration, and accessible material development across subject areas. The program was developed within a TÜBİTAK 4008 framework and intentionally aligned with teachers’ classroom responsibilities in inclusive education.

The study evaluated change in two teacher-level outcomes: instructional attitudes associated with teaching students with SpLDs and professional self-efficacy for inclusive education. The intervention group included 23 volunteer primary school teachers working across 15 districts of Istanbul who completed pre-test, post-test, and one-month follow-up measurements. A baseline-only reference group included 30 teachers meeting the same eligibility criteria but not participating in PSLP; this group provided contextual pre-test data for interpreting the intervention group’s starting point. Three research questions addressed immediate post-program change, maintenance of gains at follow-up, and baseline similarity between the intervention and reference group.

The study used a quasi-experimental pre-test–post-test–follow-up design with a baseline-only reference group. The intervention group was measured at pre-test, immediate post-test, and one-month follow-up. The reference group was measured at baseline only. This structure supported within-group change testing while contextualizing the intervention group’s starting point through baseline data from similar teachers. Because no post-test or follow-up data were collected from the reference group, no between-group change analysis was conducted. Participants were primary school teachers working with students aged 6–11 years across 15 districts of Istanbul. Criterion sampling was used. Eligibility criteria were volunteering, not having previously received SpLDs-focused training, teaching at least one student with SpLDs, and primary-teacher status. From 142 applications, 25 teachers were selected for the intervention; 23 completed the program and all measurements. The baseline-only reference group comprised 30 teachers meeting the same criteria but not participating in PSLP. PSLP was delivered at Boğaziçi University from 17 to 21 November 2025 as a five-day program consisting of 20 workshops. Content included SpLDs awareness, early intervention, Guidance and Research Center processes, IEP-related planning, differentiation, classroom and behavior management, reading, writing and mathematics difficulties, subject-specific material development, art and music-related activities, and collaboration with specialists. Workshops followed planned session outlines including learning objectives, conceptual input, case-based discussion, collaborative planning, hands-on material development, and reflection. Implementation was documented through the program schedule, completion records, and workshop products. Professional self-efficacy was measured with the Professional Self-Efficacy Scale for Teachers Related to Inclusive Education, which includes 38 items and seven subscales: Instructional Methods and Techniques, Individualized Education Programs, Identification and Assessment, Duties and Responsibilities, Material Development, Parent Education and Family Collaboration, and Legal Regulations (Karaca & Sarı, 2024). Instructional attitudes were measured with the Teaching Attitudes Toward Students with Dyslexia Scale, which includes 20 items and three subscales: Individualized Instruction Method, Instructional Materials and Assessment Methods, and Collaboration with Specialists (Altındağ Kumaş & Sardohan Yıldırım, 2021). A total attitude score was not calculated separately. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 30. Normality was examined with Shapiro–Wilk tests (Shapiro & Wilk, 1965). Because normality was not met for most variables and the sample size was limited, non-parametric tests were used (Pallant, 2020). Wilcoxon signed-rank, Friedman, Bonferroni-corrected pairwise, and Mann–Whitney U tests were applied. Effect sizes were reported as r and Kendall’s W. Ethics approval was obtained from the Boğaziçi University Ethics Committee. Informed consent, confidentiality, and data protection procedures were implemented throughout.

PSLP was associated with significant increases in teachers’ instructional attitudes and professional self-efficacy. In the intervention group, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests showed significant pre-test to post-test increases across all three instructional attitude subscales and the total professional self-efficacy score, as well as all seven self-efficacy subscales. All changes were significant at p < .001, with large effect sizes (Cohen, 1988) ranging from r = .73 to r = .88. Descriptively, attitude subscale medians increased from 27 to 30 for Individualized Instruction Method, from 26 to 29 for Instructional Materials and Assessment Methods, and from 35 to 40 for Collaboration with Specialists. The total self-efficacy median increased from 120 to 168. Follow-up findings suggested partial maintenance of gains. Friedman tests showed significant change across pre-test, post-test, and one-month follow-up for every outcome, with Kendall’s W values ranging from .42 to .94. Pairwise comparisons indicated that pre-test–post-test and pre-test–follow-up differences were significant for all variables. Although post-test scores were higher than follow-up scores, follow-up medians remained above pre-test levels across all indicators. This pattern suggests that teachers retained a meaningful part of their post-program gains after returning to school. Baseline comparisons using Mann–Whitney U tests showed no statistically significant differences between the intervention group and the baseline-only reference group on the measured indicators. Thus, the reference group provided a contextual baseline for interpreting the intervention group’s starting point. However, because the reference group did not provide post-test or follow-up data, the findings should not be interpreted as evidence of between-group change or causal superiority. Overall, the findings suggest a consistent pattern of strengthened teacher professional readiness after an intensive, multi-component SpLDs professional development program. The evidence is limited to teacher-level self-report outcomes. Future studies should include matched or randomized designs, longer follow-up periods, classroom observations, IEP quality indicators, teacher-produced materials, and student-level outcomes.

Altındağ Kumaş, Ö., & Sardohan Yıldırım, A. E. (2021). Validity and reliability study of the Teaching Attitudes Toward Students with Dyslexia Scale. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 18(44), 8154–8171. https://doi.org/10.26466/opus.969139 American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 Balcı, E. (2019). Teachers’ opinions about dyslexia and the challenges they face. Ege Journal of Education, 20(1), 162–179. https://doi.org/10.12984/egeefd.453922 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096 Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L. M., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915 Karaca, M. A., & Sarı, H. (2024). Professional self-efficacy scale for teachers related to inclusive education. Turkish Special Education Journal: International, 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.69485/tseji.1486116 Kılıç Yılmaz, G., & Yangın, S. (2020). The investigation of primary school teachers’ awareness of learning difficulty and common developmental disorder types. Education Sciences, 15(2), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.12739/NWSA.2020.15.2.1C0696 Korthagen, F. A. J., Loughran, J., & Russell, T. (2006). Developing fundamental principles for teacher education programs and practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1020–1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.022 Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (7th ed.). Routledge. Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality: Complete samples. Biometrika, 52(3–4), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591 Sümer Dodur, H. M., & Altındağ Kumaş, Ö. (2021). Knowledge and beliefs of classroom teachers about dyslexia: The case of teachers in Turkey. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 36(4), 593–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2020.1779980 Tosun, D., Arıkan, S., & Babür, N. (2021). Teachers’ knowledge and perception about dyslexia: Developing and validating a scale. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, 8(2), 342–356. https://doi.org/10.21449/ijate.684672 Turkish Ministry of National Education [TMoNE]. (2018). Special Education Services Regulation. https://mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/1963.pdf Turkish Ministry of National Education [TMoNE]. (2022). Individualized education program: A roadmap for all teachers. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2022_09/20140845_BYREYSELLEYTYRYLMYY_EYYTYM_PROGRAMI_TUM_OYRETMENLER_YCYN_YOL_HARITASI.pdf Turkish Ministry of National Education [TMoNE]. (2024). Procedures and actions related to the Türkiye Century Education Model for the 2024–2025 school year (Circular No. 2024/54). https://www.mevzuat.meb.gov.tr/dosyalar/2230.pdf Turkish Ministry of National Education [TMoNE]. (2025a). Common text of curricula: Türkiye Century Education Model. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/brosur/ortak_metin.pdf Turkish Ministry of National Education [TMoNE]. (2025b). Individuals with specific learning difficulties: A guide booklet for families. https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2025_01/31172148_ozelogrenmeguclugu.pdf UNESCO. (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000177849