Pre-service education and attitudes towards inclusion: the role of the teacher educator within a permeated teaching model.

Abstract

This study examines the role teacher educators working within a permeated teaching model in Northern Ireland, and student teachers’ attitudes towards SEN and Inclusion.

A cohort of 125 student teachers representing eight subject areas responded to a survey exploring attitudes towards issues relating to inclusive education. Interviews conducted with the subject teacher educators examined their beliefs about inclusion, personal efficacy and the extent to which the outworking of a permeated model was an effective method of programme delivery.

The findings indicate that while student attitudes towards the philosophy of inclusion were generally positive, those of the teacher educators were not necessarily reflected in the views of their subject group.

The research evidenced a lack of uniformity in approach in promoting inclusion and inclusive practices across subjects, suggesting that the use of a permeated model did not always provide equity of student experience when selection of course content was the choice of the individual subject tutor. Teacher educators identified lack of personal knowledge, time restrictions within the pre-service programme and lack of resources as the main barriers to effective practice in supporting student teachers’ learning in SEN and Inclusion.

Keywords: teacher educator: pre-service education; SEN and Inclusion; permeated teaching model

Background

During the past decade policy and legislation have provided the vision and the legal framework that has raised the profile of inclusion, making it difficult not to concur with Booth et al., (2000, p.15) that it has become the ‘keystone’ of United Kingdom (UK) government policy on education. Where possible, schools in the UK have now a ‘…duty to educate children with special educational needs in ordinary schools’ (Special Educational Needs and Disability Act (SENDA), 2002, Chapter 10, section 316).

International responses to inclusive education while using similar language have tended to develop structures within the context of the individual country or more accurately, continent. While the terms ‘inclusion’ and ‘integration’ can still be presented as having the same meaning and are often used interchangeably, it is not always clear that they have a common meaning that spans international boundaries (Avradmidis & Norwich, 2002).

Defining inclusion therefore remains complicated, is often contentious and can still give rise to dissent and disagreement amongst policy-makers and educational practitioners (Lunt, 2002; Norwich, 2002; Lindsay, 2003; Leyser Kirk, 2004). Carrier (1990) suggests that our understanding of ability and disability is a cultural construction where those who are the dominant group in the society define people as ‘those who can’ and ‘those who can’t’. The use of the expression ‘needs’ can also suggest dependency and inadequacy (Corbett, 1996) and the separation of mainstream and special education perpetuates difference promoting the medical view of disability with attention placed on the learners’ perceived disability. This is the model that continues to permeate teacher education and the beliefs, attitudes and practices throughout education.

Inclusion, whether in the social or educational sense sits within a framework of social justice and human rights is a broad socio-political concept (Mittler, 2000; Avramidis Norwich, 2002) reflecting a shift in the debate from concerns about supporting the rights of learners with impairments (the context of disability) to a focus on all learners who are vulnerable to exclusion and to exclusionary pressures within society. It stresses a shift of emphasis away from the assessment, categorisation and educational placement of learners according to their disabilities, towards engagement by a system that is fully responsive to educational difficulties (Ainscow, 1999).

Potential barriers to inclusive practice have been identified as both pedagogical, and attitudinal (Corbett, 1997; Ainscow, 2000) and yet, despite continuing challenges, Kluth et al., (2003, p, 13) suggest that in the context of contemporary educational practice the notion of the average learner is now increasingly perceived as a myth by teachers who ‘…are recognising the need to individualise and honour the unique profiles of all students’.

Teachers and attitudes towards inclusion

Research suggests that attitudes, beliefs and behaviour are all linked and that attitudes are essentially about the nature of likes and dislikes (Droba, 1933). Bem (1970) asserts that liking or disliking identifiable aspects of an environment, have foundations in emotions, behaviour and the social influences placed upon the individual. The application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) considers the antecedents of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control which will determine an individual’s intentions and actions. When applied to inclusive education the theory of planned behaviour would suggest that a teacher’s engagement and commitment to inclusive practices is likely to be influenced by three things: 1. attitudes towards the concept of inclusion; 2. perceptions of social pressure to support it, and; 3. perceptions of control and efficacy.

Figure 1 presents a conceptual framework for TPB based on the work of Fishbein & Ajzen (1975) and adapted within the context of teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education.

Research around issues relating to inclusion has long recognised that positive teacher attitudes as important to the successful implementation of inclusive practices (Scruggs and Mastropieri, 1996; Carrington, 1999; Norwich, 2002; Avradamis & Norwich 2002).

One of the premises of this research study is that pre-service education may be the most effective time to develop positive attitudes (Harvey, 1985; Forlin et al., 1996; Cook, 2002; Shippen, et al., 2005; Lambe Bones, 2006; 2006a;2006b;2007) and as such the factors that influence these attitudes should be identified and actively promoted (Ford et al., 2001; Martinez, 2003; Romi Leyser, 2006; Lambe, 2007; Lambe & Bones, 2008). Positive attitudes however, cannot automatically be legislated for. Studies have shown that in addition to the approach used in structuring the processes to implement inclusion (Slee, 2001), teachers and training teachers attitudes are influenced by the amount and type of education and academic preparation received (Wilczenski,1993; Avramidis et al., 2000; Martinez, 2003; Lambe, 2007).

If the active promotion of inclusion and inclusive practices within pre-service education is key to increasing student teachers positive perceptions of personal efficacy and confidence, then it is essential that ‘…teacher educators must believe in the importance of inclusive practices’ (Kurz Paul, 2005). While there has been considerable research around student teachers’ attitudes and the factors influencing these, there has been little around the role of teacher educators who must also be considered key personnel in the progression of the inclusion agenda.

Research aim

This paper reports on part of a longitudinal research study exploring the factors of influence on NI student teachers attitudes towards inclusion. This aspect of the research examines the role of the teacher educator and student teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion within a pre-service programme that employs a permeated teaching model.

Inclusive education: The Northern Ireland context

Throughout the past decade Northern Ireland (NI), a region of the UK has been emerging from a long and violent history of internal religious and political conflict. While significant advances continue to be made towards transforming NI into a more peaceful and increasingly inclusive society, tradition, religion and social politics have continued to hold sway over important aspects of the education system. The model for pre-service education is based on a generalist approach and special education is not a separate branch of teacher education as it is for example in the USA ( Pugach, 2005). There is no currently, no requirement for additional qualifications made on those teaching learners with SEN in special or mainstream schools, while across Ireland (North and South) there is a lack of common approach as to how student teachers are prepared for inclusive schooling (Kearns and Shevlin, 2006). In contrast to much of the rest of the UK and Europe, a system of academic selection at age eleven has been retained in NI as the means of placing pupils in post-primary schools (Hyland et al., 1995; Gallagher and Smith, 2000; Carlin, 2003).

The language of inclusion, though routinely used within policy documents and Department of Education (NI) reports, does not translate easily into a reality of inclusive education in NI, and while academic selection remains may not fully extend to all schools there. It might be concluded that while there is some inclusion, it is generally to be found in the non selective schools attended by those who have already been excluded by a system that to date favours academic elitism (Lambe Bones, 2006) .

Current Developments

Recently, Northern Ireland has sought to bring some of the issues relating to SEN and inclusion within educational and social reform (NI Executive, 2001; Equality Commission, 2004). For schools, policy and legislative developments have also brought new statutory arrangements for special education and a revision of the terms that identify and deal with disability discrimination. The Special Education Needs and Disability (NI) Order (SENDO, 2005) should have effectively removed any caveats for education that existed in the earlier Disability Discrimination Act (1995). The adoption of a revised curriculum (DE, 2007) aspires to bring about new expectations and accountability for all pupils through school development plans and new self evaluation strategies including individual Education Plans and the introduction of Pupils Profiles (CCEA, 2004).

Within this revision of the curriculum there is now a statutory requirement that all pupils including those with SEN should have the same access to all the learning pathways available to their peers (DE, 2004; 2007). Embedded in this, is the belief that equitable provision should provide the underlying principle of education and that the rights and interests of the individual child should be foremost in decision making.

This research study has been conducted against a background of emerging

policy and legislation which has included a widespread administrative review extending across all aspects of the education system in Northern Ireland. Recommendations made by The Bain Report (DE, 2006) present a future vision for education in Northern Ireland that is radically different from the past. School closures and far-reaching re-organisation, the embedding of the belief in the importance of a ‘shared future’ with schools working as never before, in a formally collaborative manner that extends across all sectors.

A radically revised, skills orientated curriculum has also been introduced in 2008 after almost a decade of review and consultation with all main stakeholders including, pupils, teachers, employers and parents ((CCEA, 2004; DE, 2006; 2007). The caveat here however, is that the revised curriculum was developed in the expectation that the system of academic selection would end the year after its introduction. The removal of selection however, continues to be a hugely controversial issue and while 2008 should have been the last year of academic selection lack of political cross party support has left much uncertainty as to how this will happen. With this current political impasse, only time will show if opportunities to embrace a more generative and far reaching model of inclusive schooling will be fully realised.

In a survey on the inclusion of pupils with SEN in mainstream classrooms (DENI, 2003), the Department of Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) pointed to the need for, ‘a fundamental review of in-service and Initial Teacher Education (ITE), focusing on the extent to which the courses deal with special needs issues’ (p5).This was flagged again in recommendations made by Harland and Moor (2005) as part of longitudinal research that reviewed the extent to which the Northern Ireland Curriculum was fit for purpose. Abbott (2006, p.12) also found that some head teachers in Northern Ireland felt that those in pre-service were not fully prepared for inclusive classrooms and despite praising student teachers’ ‘motivation’ and ‘enthusiasm to learn.’’ Abbott concludes that there are implications for teacher trainers in Northern Ireland ‘in respect of inclusion within the three phases of teacher training-initial, induction and early professional development- in respect of its scope and depth’.

SEN and Inclusion Teaching Provision within ITE: A Permeated Model

At the University of Ulster as with the other ITE providers in Northern Ireland, the Post-Graduate Diploma in Education (PGCE) year is 36 weeks in length and is a combination of theory and practice, with 24 weeks spent gaining school based experience supported by twelve weeks based in a Higher Education Institution (HEI). It is a time-limited, intensive programme with the demands of the curriculum making time a precious commodity. While there are a number of short elective programmes offered to students (of which SEN and Inclusion is one) the majority of student teachers on the PGCE will only take part in a generic programme of face to face lectures, seminars and workshops designed to help inform and prepare them for the practicalities of teaching an increasingly diverse group of learners found in mainstream post-primary schools. In relation to SEN and Inclusion the PGCE programme follows a permeated model. Because of the historical make up of subject orientated Post-Primary programmes work around SEN and inclusion is the responsibility of the individual subject tutor. This may be supported with some generic lectures by guest speakers with perceived expertise in various areas relating to SEN. This should mean that work relating to learning about SEN will be supported in each subject area and by the main subject tutors therefore permeating the whole PGCE programme with the support of generic sessions, lectures and workshops.

SEN content that is diffused or permeated across taught elements of ITE have been criticised for lacking focus or for having questionable quality (Mittler, 2000; Davies and Garner, 1997). Content driven programmes have also come in for criticism for imparting facts rather than confronting attitudes and values (Hastings et al., 1996). To share the common challenges of inclusive education there may be a need to move away from what we presently see as separate but parallel training towards a more integrative and collaborative training model where educators from diverse disciplines will work closely together within the training institutions and within the schools (Muthukrishna, 2000; Blanton et al., 2001; Slee, 2001). The changing face of education in Northern Ireland will warrant new approaches, initiatives and practices within pre-service education

Method

Participants

There were two sets of research participants used in this study. The first was the cohort of 125 student teachers enrolled on a one year post-primary Post-Graduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) at the University of Ulster. Each student is training to teach one of the following eight specialist subject areas: Art and Design; English; Geography; History; Home Economics; Music; Technology and Design and Physical Education.