La gestión exitosa de proyectos

This section reviews studies of teachers’ attitudes to SEN inclusion, with the specific aim of identifying factors tending to influence these attitudes. Unlike the earlier sections, there is no geographical division into subsections, as very little work was identified as having been done on this topic in the Middle East.

Numerous factors have been found to influence teachers’ attitudes to SEN inclusion in general and DHH inclusion in particular. Salvia and Munson (1986) categorise these as school-related, teacher-related and child-related factors. School-related factors are concerned with all environmental variables relevant to physical resources and teaching aids. They are considered first, as they are most consistent in their impact on teachers’ attitudes. In a review of the literature, Avramidis (2001) indicates that according to teachers’ beliefs, there should be substantial restructuring of mainstream schools’ resources and facilities prior to inclusion. Secondly, teacher-related factors are demographic variables such as teaching experience, training, gender, school stage, teachers’ beliefs and qualification type. Unlike school-related factors, there is inconsistency in their impact; Avramidis (2001) asserts that no particular teacher-related variable can be perceived as a reliable predictor of teachers’ attitudes. Finally, child- related factors include the special needs condition, severity, educational needs, age, gender, prevalence of D/deafness and other person-related factors (Clough and Lindsay, 1991). The nature and severity of a disability influences the attitudes of teachers. Some teachers prefer to include children with visual and hearing needs, rather than those with learning difficulties (ibid). Forlin (1995) found that while teachers were accepting of including children with intellectual impairments, they were more accepting of those with physical impairments. To conclude, child-related factors matter in the acceptance of special needs students and most teachers support the inclusion of children with mild-to-

101

moderate rather than severe disabilities. The child-related factors relevant to DHH students might include type of HL based on severity (mild, moderate, severe, profound), on location (conductive, sensorineural, mixed) or on time of onset (pre-lingual, post- lingual) and language preference at home (spoken, sign, bilingual).

To focus the discussion on teacher-related variables, multiple factors have been found to be associated with teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Several studies have reported that the practice of inclusion has an influence on teachers’ attitudes. According to the British research discussed by Avramidis et al. (2000), the study of 81 primary and secondary teachers in one LEA in the southwest of England found that teachers who had implemented inclusive practices and had more experience of inclusion had attitudes that were significantly more positive than those of teachers from another school which had not implemented inclusion. This indicates that long-term practice of inclusion, positive experience of inclusion and appropriate training programmes can produce positive attitudes. Age and teaching experience are also related to teachers’ perceptions of inclusion, based on the findings of several studies.

Florian (1998) found that the approval of including a child with a physical disability in mainstream school was highest among teachers with less than six years of teaching experience, while Alsaratawi (1995) found that those with 6-10 years’ experience tended to reject inclusion. Other researchers have found that younger teachers and those with less teaching experience were more likely to support inclusion (Berryman, 1989; Center and Ward, 1987; Clough and Lindsay, 1991). Conversely, teachers with greater teaching experience were more likely to have negative attitudes towards inclusion, partially because this is a relatively new movement and they have not experienced it before (Forlin, 1995; Leyser et al., 1994; Soodak et al., 1998; Harvey, 1985). However, other researchers have reported that the length of teaching experience did not significantly correlate with teachers’ attitude towards inclusion (Avramidis et al., 2001; Kalyva et al., 2007; Leyser, et al., 1989; Rogers, 1987; Reynolds et al., 1982; Stephens and Braun, 1980; Al-Ahmadi, 2009). Thus, it seems that there is inconsistency in this factor’s relationship to inclusion attitudes, as some researchers see no significant relationship, while others have reported significant relationships between age or experience and teachers’ attitudes, particularly among those at the beginning of their teaching careers (Berryman, 1989; Center and

102

Ward, 1987; Clough and Lindsay, 1991; Forlin, 1995; Leyser et al., 1994; Harvey, 1985; LeRoy and Simpson, 1996; Koutrouba, 2008).

Another important factor in shaping teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion is the experience of contact and relationship with special needs children. Further to this, the results of the studies of El-Ashry (2009) and Subban and Sharma (2006) reveal more positive attitudes towards inclusion among participants with a friend or a family member with SEN, while Cook (2001) reports that children with specific learning disabilities, ADHD or behavioural disorders were nominated significantly more often by teachers in the attitudinal category ‘rejection’ than those with DHH.

Having reviewed the literature, de Boer et al. (2011) report that several studies have revealed that teachers are most negative about the inclusion of students with learning disabilities, behavioural problems and cognitive disabilities. In contrast, teachers are the most positive about the inclusion of students with physical and sensory disabilities (which include DHH students). This conclusion is in accordance with an earlier review by Avramidis and Norwich (2002) of teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion, which concluded that while attitudes are generally positive, the nature and severity of children’s needs are strongly related to teachers’ disposition towards inclusive practices. Teachers showed more positive attitudes towards the inclusion of students with mild disabilities or physical/sensory impairments than students with more complex needs. In particular, in the case of the more severe learning needs and behavioural difficulties, teachers held negative attitudes to the implementation of inclusion. To conclude, most teachers support the inclusion of children with mild to moderate disabilities rather than severe ones.

Lambe and Bones (2006) argue that some teachers could have a negative attitude towards the inclusion of children with SEN because of their lack of skills in dealing with different kinds of disabled children. These teachers struggle to create a balanced environment for all the students in inclusive settings. Barnett et al. (1999) found that general education teachers in the USA (including those newly transferred from general to DHH education) needed training in special education, in teaching strategies and in strategies for promoting collaboration.

103

Other researchers have found that the greatest challenge to the implementation of inclusion is the lack of time needed to consult with specialists, particularly in the case of generalist teachers, to apply effective lesson plans (AlAmri, 2009) and to teach disabled students in mainstream classrooms (Santoli et al., 2008). The barriers associated with managing time relate to a lack of preparation, which causes difficulties for untrained or less well trained teachers (Al-Hennawi, 2003), when it comes to coping with inclusive settings. Therefore, lack of preparation might have a negative effect on their attitudes towards inclusion. According to a survey of the attitudes of Greek teachers towards inclusion conducted by Avramidis and Kalyva (2007), training in special education needs and inclusion matters was positively related to teachers’ attitudes. This finding is supported by the results of other studies (Gaad, 2004; Subban and Sharma, 2006). Although these contextual factors differ from one context to another, these studies generally found that teachers who had undertaken either pre- or in-service training courses in special education had more positive attitudes and fewer concerns about the implementation of inclusive education.

Another important factor shaping teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion is the experience of contact and relationships with disabled children. Parasuram (2006) conducted a study to investigate variables affecting teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive education in Mumbai. The sample consisted of 300 teachers and covered eight background variables: a) age, b) gender, c) income level, d) education levels, e) years of teaching experience, f) acquaintance with SEN person, g) having a SEN as a family member, h) usual contact with a person having special needs. She employed two scales in order to measure attitudes, namely the Attitude toward Disability Scale (ATDP; Dalal, 1996), and the Attitudes towards Inclusive Education Scale (ATIES; Wilczenski, 1992). Parasuram (2006) concludes that the only variable influencing teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion was previous acquaintance with a disabled person. Similarly, the results of the studies by El-Ashry (2009) and Subban and Sharma (2006) reveal more positive attitudes towards inclusion among participants with a friend or a family member with SEN.

It has been argued that one way of changing policy and developing the practice of inclusive education is to identify challenges and barriers to inclusion (Buysse, Wesley, McWilliam and Bailey, 1998; Elshabrawy, 2010). The process of developing inclusive

104

educational systems requires extensive personal, policy, educational, organizational and socio-cultural changes. These are particularly vital in the context of Saudi DHH inclusion. Several studies (e.g. Forlin, 1998; Hodge, Ammah, Casebolt, Lamasterd and O’Sullivan, 2004; Vaughn et al., 1996; Elshabrawy, 2010) have argued that teachers’ negative attitudes may have weakened the progress of inclusion. Without teachers’ willingness to tolerate differences and accept special needs students, DHH in particular, in their classrooms, practice cannot successfully move forward to inclusion. Research has also indicated that absence of pre-service and in-service training and the availability of specialized courses were deterrents to inclusion (Corbett, 2001; Kristensen, Omagor- loican and Onen, 2003; Reid, 2005; Winter, 2006). Thus, mainstream teachers and administrators who do not have the essential competence to teach and effectively communicate with DHH students might feel ‘burned out’ (Crane and Iwanicki, 1983; Nichols and Sosnowsky, 2002; Embich, 2001; Wisniewski and Gargiulo, 1997; Frank and McKenzie, 1993; Weber and Toffler, 1989) and therefore unable to accommodate DHH children and others with SEN in their classrooms. Moreover, these studies have shown that specialized training, professional development and pedagogy are critical to the success of inclusion programmes.

Other factors which play an active role in achieving successful inclusion for SEN students are school and classroom facilities, provision of support and resources, availability of resource rooms, auditory training laboratories and other teaching aids, and adequate governmental funding (Lewis and Doorlag, 1991; Clough and Lindsay, 1991; Forlin, 1998; Hodge et al., 2004; Macleod, 2001; Morley et al., 2005). Additional concerns have been recorded about the vital role of training in shaping positive attitudes (Beh-Pajooh, 1992; Shimman, 1990; Dickens-Smith, 1995), modification of the national curriculum to suit DHH linguistic needs (AlAmri, 2009), teaching methodologies, assessment and examinations (Kristensen et al., 2003; AlAmri, 2009).

To give an example of school-related variables, there has been a major transition in some educational research that focuses on features which would facilitate inclusive practices. Ainscow (2007) has researched the improvement of effective strategies for making inclusive policies more applicable. Much of his work has been concerned with school contextual factors in relation to school improvement and effectiveness. He initiated

105

‘Improving the Quality of Education for All’ (IQEA), which is an approach to school improvement with four features: firstly, developments in teaching and learning, through the creation of conditions among mainstream schools for managing successful change; secondly, school improvement led from within mainstream schools themselves, focusing on areas that are seen to be higher in priority; thirdly, collecting and engaging with evidence in order to move thinking and practice forward to evaluate progress; and finally, collaboration amongst colleagues in partner schools and with IQEA consultants, so that a wider range of expertise and resources is available to support improvements in all of the participating schools. These four factors are important to ensure successful inclusion for DHH students and others with SEN.

There are several contextual factors that are influential in shaping an inclusive school culture. These include embracing the value of equity for individual success and wellbeing, instilling a democratic governance ethos, establishing the value of a collaboration culture which seeks to bridge the gap between home and school, making a commitment to professional growth and establishing strong, supportive leadership (Kilgore, Griffin, Sindelar and Webb, 2002). Other relevant features include moving from teaching to learning, from offering ‘services’ to providing inclusive supports that benefit all students equitably, from individual methods to a whole-school approach, from parent involvement at some family assemblies to active family-school participation and from school reform to ongoing school improvement (Ferguson, 2008).

In Jordan, Alghazo (2002) found that special education teachers showed more positive attitudes towards SEN integration than other teachers in mainstream schools. This might be because they are more specialized in special needs or it may be explained by other contextual factors. Evidence from the literature suggests that teachers are more likely to develop positive attitudes towards inclusion when they have access to adequate and appropriate resources and materials (Avramidis, 2001), when they are able to provide a physical environment conducive to students with physical disabilities and when the class size is smaller (Clough and Lindsay, 1991; LeRoy and Simpson, 1996; Koutrouba et al., 2008; Mushoriwa, 2001).

It could be concluded that the results of studies examining teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion provide a mixed picture. Several factors have been found to affect teachers’

106

attitudes either positively or negatively. Among the factors identified as important here are active experience with inclusion, experience of contact, pre-service or in-service training in special education and inclusion matters, and the availability of relevant and modernized resources. Furthermore, most of the studies mentioned above found that teachers were more willing to accept or support the inclusion of children with sensory special needs/disability, visual disabilities or specific learning difficulties, compared to those with cognitive delay, hearing impairment, learning disabilities and behavioural or emotional disturbance (Algazo and Gaad, 2004). Most teachers were also found to advocate the inclusion of children with mild/moderate needs (Clough and Lindsay, 1991; Forlin, 1995) rather than severe/profound ones (Elshabrawy, 2010). This means that the nature and severity of disability are strongly associated with attitudes (Avramidis and Norwich, 2002). In this regard and relevant to the current research aims and questions, teachers might have positive attitudes towards hard-of-hearing students rather than Deaf ones.

It is not easy to move from partial or locational integration as a matter of presence and assimilation where special needs student had to fit into the mainstream school to a new concept of full participation for all, academic and social belonging, effective learning to accommodate all learners, school restructuring, inclusive standards and ethos. In the Saudi context, the emphasis has been on aspects of disability, rather than the potential of children with special needs. A change is needed in educators’ attitudes, otherwise there will be inadequate progress towards inclusion. This type of change in collective attitudes towards special needs inclusion might increase the formation of accommodating diversity, accessibility rights, participation, belonging, professional specialized services and better expectations: it is “society and not people with impairment that should be the target for professional intervention and practice” (Oliver, 1996: 43). Figure 3.1 depicts the basic factors for the human rights of Deaf people proposed by the World Federation of the Deaf (WFD).

107

Figure 3.1 Deaf people and human rights, adapted by H. Haualand and C. Allen for the World Federation of the Deaf and the Swedish National Association of the Deaf, 2009