A solution with six factors, each with eigenvalues > 1 was extracted, explaining 68.36% of the variance (Table 7.1). An inspection of the factor loadings led to the conclusion that, because of the low loading (.448) of the “P2_1” item on Factor 3, it would be best to drop this item when calculating the respective factor score. Additionally, it was decided not to use Factor 6 as it comprised items measuring attitude and knowledge regarding inclusive education, and it was explaining a very small proportion of variance in the factor analysis. Finally, it was decided to calculate five factor scores corresponding to Factors 1 to 5 extracted from the exploratory factor analysis.
131
The results of the exploratory factor analysis are set out in Table 7.1.
Table 7.1:
Results of the exploratory factor analysis
Loadings from the Rotated Component Matrix
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Percentage of Variance Explained by
Each Factor 34.01 10.47 8.97 6.25 5.41 3.25
Cumulative Percentage 34.01 44.48 53.45 59.70 65.11 68.36
Eigenvalues 13.60 4.19 3.59 2.50 2.16 1.30
Policy
P2_1 - My school still requires more support from the government and legislation makers for successful inclusion.
.448
P2_2 - The enrolment of students with disabilities in my school always follows the inclusion policy.
.786
P2_3 - All staff in my school take account of the inclusion policy when writing lesson plans.
.794
P2_4 - The inclusion policy provides easy access to inclusive programs for all students with disabilities.
.704
P2_5 - Our school principal and other senior staff always ensure that we are following the inclusion policy.
.770
P2_6 - Ongoing professional
development around supporting students with disabilities is available.
.521
P2_7 - We have regular discussions at our school about how to implement the inclusion policy.
.762
P2_8 - Information about disabilities and
related services is readily available. .528 P2_9 - The inclusion policy is always
followed in my school when designing assessment tasks
132
Loadings from the Rotated Component Matrix
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 P2_10 - The inclusion policy provides all
the guidelines necessary to ensure inclusive education is achieved
.759
Teacher Preparation
TP4_1 - My teacher education course prepared me to: Teach students with a range of learning abilities together in a general classroom
.681
TP4_2 - My teacher education course prepared me to: Adjust lesson content to make it appropriate for students with disabilities
.800
TP4_3 - My teacher education course prepared me to: Use a variety of
teaching strategies to meet the needs of all students
.746
TP4_4 - My teacher education course prepared me to: Develop individual education plans for students with disabilities
.776
TP4_5 - My teacher education course prepared me to: Manage the behaviour of students with disabilities
.793
TP4_6 - My teacher education course prepared me to: Collaborate with other professionals to support students with disabilities
.796
TP4_7 - My teacher education course prepared me to: Assess the learning needs of students with disabilities
.810
TP4_8 - My teacher education course prepared me to: Partner with families to support students with disabilities
.806
Resources
R1_1 - My school has all the resources needed to include students with disabilities, including technology and equipment.
133
Loadings from the Rotated Component Matrix
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 R1_2 - My school has trained special
education teachers who are able to work with the students with disabilities and support other teachers.
.786
R1_3 - Special education professionals visit our school regularly to support the inclusion of students with disabilities.
.830
R1_4 - My school has a sufficient number of teachers’ aides to support teachers and students with disabilities.
.836
R1_5 - My school receives financial support from the government to support the inclusion of students with disabilities.
.813
R1_6 - My school is supported by consultants such as psychologists and therapists to help me as a teacher include students with disabilities.
.840
R1_7 - The principal and staff in my school collaborate to provide support for the inclusion of students with disabilities.
.714
Teacher Attitudes
A1_1 - I believe that all students with disabilities should be included in the general classroom.
.653
A1_2 - I believe only teachers with a special education background should work with students with disabilities in the general classroom.
.623
A1_3 - I believe students with disabilities
are better placed in a special classroom. .811 A1_4 - I believe the level and type of the
student’s disability will affect the success of inclusion.
.802
A1_5 - I believe students with disabilities demand extra time and attention from the teacher.
.750
A1_6 - I believe the extra attention I give
134
Loadings from the Rotated Component Matrix
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 negative impact on the learning of
students without disabilities.
A1_7 - I believe it is the role of every teacher to support every child,
regardless of their level of educational needs.
.632
Teacher Knowledge
K3_1 - I have the necessary knowledge and skill to: Teach students with a range of learning abilities together in a general classroom
.595
K3_2 - I have the necessary knowledge and skill to: Adjust lesson content to make it appropriate for students with disabilities
.580
K3_3 - I have the necessary knowledge and skill to: Use a variety of teaching strategies to meet the needs of all students
.651
K3_4 - I have the necessary knowledge and skill to: Develop individual education plans for students with disabilities
.776
K3_5 - I have the necessary knowledge and skill to: Manage the behaviour of students with disabilities
.814
K3_6 - I have the necessary knowledge and skill to: Collaborate with other professionals to support students with disabilities
.825
K3_7 - I have the necessary knowledge and skill to: Assess the learning needs of students with disabilities
.827
K3_8 - I have the necessary knowledge and skill to: Partner with families to support students with disabilities
135
Variable Scoring and Operationalisation of the Constructs
The conceptual and operational definitions of the five factor scores that were derived from the results of the factor analysis are summarised in Table 7.2. The scores for the individual items relating to policy, teacher preparation, resources, teacher attitudes, and teacher knowledge were used to calculate a representative score for each of these constructs, and as per the definitions given in the table below. These scores have been utilised in
subsequent analyses (e.g., regression analysis). These derived scores allow for easier
interpretation of findings compared to dealing with a large number of individual items from the constructs. Details of how these scores can be interpreted are also provided in the table below.
Table 7.2:
Conceptual and Operational Definitions of the Five Factor Scores
Operational Definition
Variable Conceptual definition
Items
(n) Computation
Interpretation of scores Policy score Polices for inclusive
education
9 Average
score for all items 1=Low level 5=High level Teacher Preparation score
Teacher preparedness for inclusive education
8 Average
score for all items
1=Low level 5=High level
Resources score
Providing resources for inclusive education
7 Average
score for all items
1=Low level 5=High level
Attitude score Attitudes towards inclusive education
6 Average
score for all items 1=Low level 5=High level Knowledge score Knowledge of inclusive education 7 Average
score for all items
1=Low level 5=High level
136
Examining Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) of the Survey
Reliability is the degree to which research instruments produce consistent results in a scale in a single construct (Cronbach, 1951). In social-science research, the benchmark for good reliability is usually considered to be > 0.70. The coefficient alpha is based on the average of all the items in the scale in one construct. If all the items in one construct are related to each other and measure the same construct, this means the scale is reliable. The closer the coefficient alpha is to 1.00, the greater the internal constancy of the items in the scale (Gliem & Gliem, 2003). Items with an alpha > 0.70 are considered to be good and any items > 0.80 are considered to be optimal.