The teachers were asked to complete the following statements:
1. The parts of the inclusive education policy which are working well are… 2. These things need to be changed in the inclusive education policy…
141
The results from the open-ended questions exploring their understanding of inclusive education policy are consistent with the results from the interviews conducted in phase one.
All of the 69 teachers who answered the questions, stated that they did not know whether the policy is working well. Out of those teachers, 45 were from the general education sector and 24 from the special education sector. Thus, for example, a male special education teacher stated: “I really do not know as we have never gone in depth to know what, what the
policies are covering and not covering. All I know is students with disabilities have the right to learn in the general classroom.”
Similarly, a male general education teacher stated: “I honestly know nothing about
such policies, so how am I supposed to know which ones are working well”.
However, some teachers had suggestions for improving inclusive education policy. A male special education teacher stated that: “teachers can play a crucial role in developing
and reforming policies because they are getting more involved with students’ learning than others.” A female teacher added that “policy makers can review the effectiveness of the
inclusive education policy from time to time to make sure that inclusive education goals are reached”.
From the teachers’ answers, it seems that they do not perceive that the inclusive education policy is being implemented. Furthermore, the responses to these open-ended questions revealed teachers’ frustrations regarding the lack of funding available to implement special programs and aid inclusive education. For example, a female teacher from the special education sector asked: “how can policy makers avoid providing us with special programs?
Implementing clear inclusive education policy is the most debated factor for successful inclusive education.” Finally, general education teachers could not determine whether
inclusive education policy is being implemented, as a female teacher from the general education sector stated: “I really cannot tell what is working and what is not working from
these policies.”
Thus, the responses to the open-ended questions support the findings derived from the quantitative data. Importantly, whilst 61% of the teachers reported that they had heard about
142
inclusive education policies, the data equally suggest that teachers do not believe that they are being implemented. This is an area of concern.
Teacher Preparation
Research Question 3.1 According to Jordanian teachers, how adequate are teacher
preparation courses in preparing teachers to include students with disabilities in their classrooms?
A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted for the associations between teachers’ perceptions of whether teachers’ education preparation courses prepared them to teach students with disabilities and their age groups using the subscale that derived from the factor analysis. Significant differences were found between teachers’ age groups (χ2 = 3, 31.507, p <.001). Pairwise comparisons were then conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test and found that teachers in the less-than-29-years-of-age group reported a higher level of preparedness than did the other age groups.
Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted for the associations between teachers’ perceptions of whether their education preparation courses prepared them to teach students with disabilities and the remaining demographic variables. The following significant
associations were found: female school teachers reported a higher level of preparedness (Mdn = 2.86) than male school teachers (Mdn = 2.43), U = 11560, p = .044); primary school
teachers (Mdn = 2.86) than secondary school teachers (Mdn = 2.29), U = 11943.5, p = .022); teachers employed in the special education sector reported higher (Mdn = 3.14) than teachers in the general education sector (Mdn = 2.00), U = 5611, p <.001) and those who work in city areas (Mdn = 3) than those in rural areas (Mdn = 2), U = 8066.5, p <.001). No significant differences were found for teachers’ experience and teachers’ level of qualification.
A chi-square test of independence was conducted for the associations between
teachers’ reports of whether their teacher education course included at least one unit of study about students with disabilities (reported as categorical data) and the remaining demographic variables. The following significant associations were found: female school teachers reported at a higher level that their education course had at least one unit of study about students with disabilities than male teachers (χ2 (2, N = 341) = 16.328, p = .042); primary school teachers
143
than secondary school teachers (χ2 (2, N = 341) = 10.211, p = .006); teachers employed in the special education sector than those in the general education sector (χ2 (2, N = 338) = 77.829, p <.001) and those who work in a city area than those in rural areas (χ2 (2, N = 338) = 39.728, p <.001). No significant differences were found for age, teachers’ experience and teachers’ level of qualification.
Also, a chi-square test of independence was conducted for the associations between teachers’ reporting of whether their teacher education course included a practicum (or
professional experience) and the remaining demographic variables. The following significant associations were found: female teachers were more likely to report that their education course included a practicum (or professional experience) than male teachers (χ2 (2, N = 341) = 11.474, p = .003); primary school teachers than secondary school teachers (χ2 (2, N = 341) = 12.155, p = .002); teachers employed in the special education sector than those in the general education sector (χ2 (2, N = 338) = 114.085, p <.001) and those who work in city areas than those in rural areas (χ2 (2, N = 338) = 63.137, p <.001). No significant differences were found for age, teachers’ experience and teachers’ level of qualification.
Teachers were also asked to rate the extent to which their education courses did not prepare them to teach students with disabilities.
A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted for the associations between this question and teachers’ age groupings. Significant differences were found between teachers’ age groups (χ2 = 3, 13.794, p = .003). Pairwise comparisons were then conducted using the Mann- Whitney U test and found that teachers in the less-than-29-years-of-age group were less likely to report that their education course did not prepare them to teach students with disabilities than other age groups.
Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted for the associations between teachers’ perceptions of the extent to which their teacher preparation course did not prepare them to teach students with disabilities and the remaining demographic variables. The following significant associations were found: female teachers were less likely to report that their course did not prepare them (Mdn = 3) than male teachers (Mdn = 4), U = 10884, p = .004); teachers employed in the special education sector (Mdn = 2) than teachers in the general
144
education sector (Mdn = 4), U = 8028.5, p <.001), and for those who work in city areas lower levels were reported (Mdn = 2) than those in rural areas (Mdn = 4), U = 9435, p <.001). No significant differences were found for level of schooling (primary and secondary), teachers’ experience, and teachers’ level of qualification.
Research Question 3.2 Are teachers prepared to include students with different type
of disabilities?
Table 8.2:
The Effectiveness of Teacher Preparation Course to Teach Students with Different Types of Disabilities for Special education teachers.
My teacher education course prepared me to effectively teach
students with: Mean Median SD IQR
TP3_1 - Physical Disabilities 3.25 3.00 1.13 1.00 TP3_2 - Intellectual Disabilities 3.24 3.00 1.18 2.00 TP3_3 - Sensory Disabilities 3.51 4.00 1.02 1.00 TP3_4 - Behavioural Disabilities 3.20 3.00 1.13 2.00 TP3_5 - Emotional Disabilities 3.16 3.00 1.16 1.75 TP3_6 - Multiple Disabilities 3.11 3.00 1.19 2.00 TP3_7 - Other Disabilities (please specify) 2.86 3.00 1.20 2.00
The median rating assigned by the special education teachers when asked if “My teacher education course prepared me to effectively teach students with sensory disabilities” was 4 (which corresponds to agree). For all the other types of disabilities questions, the special education teachers were neutral (i.e. a median of three which corresponds to neither agree nor disagree).
Research Question 3.3 What are the differences between Jordanian special and
general education teachers in their perceptions of the adequacy of teacher preparation courses?
145
Given that teacher education courses for special education and general education teachers are significantly different in terms of their focus, separate analyses were conducted to identify any differences in teacher perceptions according to this factor.
Thus, Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted for the associations between special and general education teachers’ perceptions of whether their education course prepared them to teach students with disabilities. A significant difference was found between special and general education teachers as special education teachers reported higher levels of preparedness (Mdn = 3.14) than general education teachers (Mdn = 2.00, U = 6493.5, p <.001).
A chi-square test of independence was conducted for the associations between whether special and general education teachers’ perceptions of whether their teacher education course included at least one unit of study about students with disabilities. A significant difference was found between special and general education teachers as special education teachers reported higher level than general education teachers’ level (χ2 (2, N = 341) = 93.74, p <.001).
A chi-square test of independence was also conducted for the associations between special and general education teachers’ of whether their education courses included a practicum (or professional experience). A significant difference was found between special and general education teachers as special education teachers reported a higher level than general education teachers (χ2 (2, N = 341) = 120.916, p <.001).
Finally, Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted for the associations between special and general education teachers’ perceptions of whether their education courses did not prepare them to teach students with disabilities. A significant difference was found between special and general education teachers as special education teachers reported a lower level (Mdn = 2) than general education teachers (Mdn = 4), U = 8633, p <.001).
8.3.1 Teachers’ comments on the open-ended questions related to teacher preparation