Effects of in-service teacher training on regular primary school teachers’ knowledge, skills and attitude towards inclusive education in India

Author(s):

Meenakshi Srivastava(presenting / submitting)Anke De Boer(presenting)Sipjan Pijl

Conference:

ECER 2013

Network:

04. Inclusive Education

Format:

Paper

Session Information

04 SES 05 C, Teacher Training

Paper Session

Time:

2013-09-11

11:00-12:30

Room:

DSC02 (Smart Class II)

Chair:

Liz Todd

Contribution

In order to include children with special educational needs (SEN) in regular education, a nationwide campaign ‘education for all’ has been undertaken by the government of India. It is estimated that under this campaign around 1.5 percent children in the age group of 6-14 years have SEN. In the year 2006-07, the percentage of children with SEN in primary school is 0.79. However, the number of children with SEN is constantly increasing but not their proportion of enrolment in the elementary schools (Singal, 2009). This raises a grave concern that despite of policy development why such huge number of children with SEN are not in regular schools.

In western countries several factors have been addressed to implement inclusive education. Pijl and Meijer (1997) suggest three broad factors in implementing inclusive education: a) external: (e.g. legislation, and funding) , b) school factor: (providing special services in schools, and the support system), c) teacher: (attitude, knowledge, skills). Internationally, studies have pointed teachers as the most important factor in implementing inclusive education. More specifically, attitudes of teachers, knowledge and pedagogical skills are regarded to be important to implement inclusive education (Avramidis et. al., 2000; Bishop and Boag, 2006; Rix et. al., 2009). In Indian context teacher factor seems neglected as there is little literature available about teacher-trainings to manage SEN. There is a serious lack of empirical research evaluating the effectiveness of trainings regarding SEN (Singal, 2009).

The aim of this study is: 1) what is the impact of an in-service training on knowledge, skills about SEN and attitude of the regular school teachers of Jaipur, India? And 2) What is the effectiveness of INSET for teachers in India measured by an increase in attendance of students with SEN in their classroom?

Method

This study has a pre-post test control group design, in which both control and experimental group consist of 40 teachers (N= 80). Participants were 80 (N=80) regular primary school teachers from Jaipur. Teachers in both control (n=40) and experimental group (n=40) were selected using the criteria: i) schools did not have experience with special education or children with SEN, ii) affiliated to a common board of education, and iii) did not have students with SEN as a diagnosis in their classroom. The study has three outcomes measures, namely: knowledge about SEN, pedagogical skills and attitudes via a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of four sections. Section one had demographic information of the participants. Section two measured attitudes towards inclusive education, (adapted from Multidimensional Attitudes toward Inclusive Education Scale ((MATIES), Mahat (2008)). Section three measured pedagogical skills (Florian, 2009). Section four measured knowledge about Dyslexia, ADHD, learning, communication and social difficulties. As there is no scale available to measure this knowledge, a vignettes based scale was developed by the authors. In the Indian adaptation, reliability of the questionnaire was tested via Cronbha’s alpha. The INSET programme consisted of four days training with a total number of six sessions (30 hours).

Expected Outcomes

As the training will be given in the next two months, no results can be reported yet. The results are analysed in September, and will be presented at the ECER.

References

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(2), 191-211. Bishop, M., & Boag, E. M. (2006). Teachers' knowledge about epilepsy and attitudes toward students with epilepsy: Results of a national survey. Epilepsy & Behavior, 8(2), 397-405. Florian, L. (2009). Towards an inclusive pedagogy. In P. Hick, R. Kershner & Farrell.P. (Eds.), (pp. 38-51). London: Psychology for Inclusive Education: New Directions in Theory And Practice. Mahat, M. (2008). The development of a psychometrically-sound instrument to measure teachers' multidimensional attitudes toward inclusive education. International Journal of Special Education, 23(1), 82-92. Pijl, S. J., & Meijer, C. J. W. (1997). Factors in inclusion: A framework. In S. J. Pijl, & Meijer, C.J.W, and Hegarty. S (Eds.), Inclusive education - a global agenda (pp. 8-13). London: Routledge. Rix, J., Hall, K., Nind, M., Sheehy, K., & Wearmouth, J. (2009). What pedagogical approaches can effectively include children with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms? A systematic literature review. Support for Learning, 24(2), 86-94. Singal, N. (2009). Education of children with disabilities in India. Retrieved Jan, 23, 2013, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001866/186611e.pdf

Author Information

Meenakshi Srivastava (presenting / submitting)

University of Groningen

department of special education

Groningen

Anke De Boer (presenting)

University of Groningen, Netherlands, The

Sipjan Pijl