International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 10, Issue 7 (July 2023), Pages: 99-108

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Professionalism and the challenges of inclusion: An evaluation of special education teachers' practice

 Author(s): 

 Hatim Hamdi Algraigray *

 Affiliation(s):

 Department of Special Educational Needs, College of Education, University of Ha’il, Ha’il, Saudi Arabia

  Full Text - PDF          XML

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4200-6868

 Digital Object Identifier: 

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2023.07.012

 Abstract:

This research paper critically examines the role of professionalism in shaping the practice of special education (SE) teachers. Working with students with diverse needs, SE teachers face complexities and contradictions in their profession. Despite the initiation of inclusive education in 1994 as a promising concept to support students with disabilities, its effective implementation remains elusive. Therefore, this study delves into the educational system and regulatory frameworks that govern teacher work to identify areas of improvement. Qualitative methods were employed to explore the impact of accountability activities, particularly standards-based tests, on SE teachers' professionalism. The findings reveal a negative influence of such activities on their professional autonomy and well-being. The prevailing nature of educational systems that restrict teachers' authority and collaborative opportunities appears to contribute to stress and ethical dilemmas. Interestingly, the study contradicts prior research by indicating that SE teachers' professionalism is not necessarily linked to the successful implementation of inclusion. The research underscores the significance of autonomy and flexibility for SE teachers, allowing them to tailor their approaches to meet the needs of students with disabilities effectively. This autonomy contributes significantly to the successful integration of inclusion practices. Moreover, the study emphasizes the crucial role of autonomous education systems in fostering teacher practices in inclusive classrooms and facilitating the development of knowledge and skills among students with disabilities. Overall, this research enhances our understanding of how empowering education systems can foster a conducive environment for SE teachers, consequently benefiting students with disabilities in inclusive settings.

 © 2023 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords: Professionalism in special education, Inclusive education implementation, Accountability activities, Autonomy and flexibility in teaching, Education systems, Inclusive classrooms

 Article History: Received 7 January 2023, Received in revised form 14 May 2023, Accepted 18 May 2023

 Acknowledgment 

No Acknowledgment.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Algraigray HH (2023). Professionalism and the challenges of inclusion: An evaluation of special education teachers' practice. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(7): 99-108

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 No Figure

 Tables

 Table 1 

----------------------------------------------   

 References (50)

  1. Al-Ahmadi NA (2009). Teachers' perspectives and attitudes towards integrating students with learning disabilities in regular Saudi public schools. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio University, Athens, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  2. Aldabas R (2020). Special education teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness to teach students with severe disabilities in inclusive classrooms: A Saudi Arabian perspective. SAGE Open, 10(3): 2158244020950657. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020950657   [Google Scholar]
  3. Aldabas RA (2015). Special education in Saudi Arabia: History and areas for reform. Creative Education, 6: 1158-1167. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.611114   [Google Scholar]
  4. Algraigray H and Boyle C (2017). The SEN label and its effect on special education. Educational and Child Psychology, 34(4): 70–79. https://doi.org/10.53841/bpsecp.2017.34.4.70   [Google Scholar]
  5. Alquraini T (2011). Special education in Saudi Arabia: Challenges, perspectives, future possibilities. International Journal of Special Education, 26(2): 149-159.   [Google Scholar]
  6. Alquraini TAS and Rao SM (2018). A study examining the extent of including competencies of inclusive education in the preparation of special education teachers in Saudi universities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 65(1): 108-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2017.1327651   [Google Scholar]
  7. Alsalahi SM (2015). Stages of teacher's professionalism: How are English language teachers engaged? Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(4): 671-678. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0504.01   [Google Scholar]
  8. Alshenqeeti H (2014). Interviewing as a data collection method: A critical review. English Linguistics Research, 3(1): 39-45. https://doi.org/10.5430/elr.v3n1p39   [Google Scholar]
  9. Baidoo-Anu D and Ennu Baidoo I (2022). Performance-based accountability: Exploring Ghanaian teachers perception of the influence of large-scale testing on teaching and learning. Education Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2022.2110673   [Google Scholar]
  10. Binammar S (2020). Toward a new professionalism in Saudi Arabia: Could council for exceptional children standards be a catalyst for change in special education? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(6): 655-670. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1503814   [Google Scholar]
  11. Braun V and Clarke V (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa   [Google Scholar]
  12. CEC (2015). What every special educator must know: Professional ethics and standards. Council for Exceptional Children, Arlington, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  13. Cheon SH, Reeve J, and Vansteenkiste M (2020). When teachers learn how to provide classroom structure in an autonomy-supportive way: Benefits to teachers and their students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 90: 103004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.103004   [Google Scholar]
  14. Chong PW (2018). The Finnish “recipe” towards inclusion: Concocting educational equity, policy rigour, and proactive support structures. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(4): 501-518. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2016.1258668   [Google Scholar]
  15. Chung H and Kim H (2010). Implementing professional standards in teacher preparation programs in the United States: Preservice teachers' understanding of teaching standards. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 7(2): 355-377.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Day C and Sachs J (2005). International handbook on the continuing professional development of teachers. Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK..   [Google Scholar]
  17. Day C and Smethem L (2009). The effects of reform: Have teachers really lost their sense of professionalism? Journal of Educational Change, 10: 141-157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9110-5   [Google Scholar]
  18. Denzin NK and Lincoln YS (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  19. Donitsa-Schmidt S and Topaz B (2018). Massive open online courses as a knowledge base for teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(5): 608-620. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1516350   [Google Scholar]
  20. Eyles A, Hupkau C, and Machin S (2016). Academies, charter and free schools: Do new school types deliver better outcomes? Economic Policy, 31(87): 453-501. https://doi.org/10.1093/epolic/eiw006   [Google Scholar]
  21. Fan W and Liang Y (2020). The impact of school autonomy and education marketization in the United Kingdom. Journal of Policy Modeling, 42(5): 1038-1048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2020.04.007   [Google Scholar]
  22. Fiedler CR and Van Haren B (2009). A comparison of special education administrators’ and teachers’ knowledge and application of ethics and professional standards. The Journal of Special Education, 43(3): 160-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466908319395   [Google Scholar]
  23. Figlio D and Loeb S (2011). School accountability. In: Hanushek EA, Machin S, and Woessmann L (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education: 383-421. Volume 3, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53429-3.00008-9   [Google Scholar]
  24. Fullan M (2015). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  25. Gajendran N (2020). The leadership roles of Saudi special education teachers from their own perspectives. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 13(25): 2520-2528. https://doi.org/10.17485/IJST/v13i25.110   [Google Scholar]
  26. Green J and Thorogood N (2014). Qualitative methods for health research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  27. Grupe DW and Nitschke JB (2013). Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: An integrated neurobiological and psychological perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(7): 488-501. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3524   [Google Scholar] PMid:23783199 PMCid:PMC4276319
  28. Hanushek EA and Raymond ME (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2): 297-327. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20091   [Google Scholar]
  29. Harmsen R, Helms-Lorenz M, Maulana R, and Van Veen K (2018). The relationship between beginning teachers’ stress causes, stress responses, teaching behaviour and attrition. Teachers and Teaching, 24(6): 626-643. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1465404   [Google Scholar]
  30. Hellawell B (2015). Ethical accountability and routine moral stress in special educational needs professionals. Management in Education, 29(3): 119-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020615584106   [Google Scholar]
  31. Hodge K and Gucciardi DF (2015). Antisocial and prosocial behavior in sport: The role of motivational climate, basic psychological needs, and moral disengagement. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 37(3): 257-273. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2014-0225   [Google Scholar] PMid:26265339
  32. Ismail A, Muhammed H, and Mohd N (2021). Auditee satisfaction impact on compliance and corporate image concerning Malaysian SMEs. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(10): 3436-3452.   [Google Scholar]
  33. Kelchtermans G (2017). ‘Should I stay or should I go?’: Unpacking teacher attrition/retention as an educational issue. Teachers and Teaching, 23(8): 961-977. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2017.1379793   [Google Scholar]
  34. Lincoln Y and Guba E (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, USA. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8   [Google Scholar]
  35. Liu Y, Bessudnov A, Black A, and Norwich B (2020). School autonomy and educational inclusion of children with special needs: Evidence from England. British Educational Research Journal, 46(3): 532-552. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3593   [Google Scholar]
  36. Lusk ME and Bullock LM (2013). Teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders’ perceptions of the importance of selected professional standards of practice. The Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship, 2(1): 5.   [Google Scholar]
  37. Mahmoud S and Alaraj M (2018). The discrepancy between high school GPA and Qiyas results among Saudi high school students. IOSR Journal of Research and Method in Education, 8: 34-41.   [Google Scholar]
  38. Morley G, Ives J, Bradbury-Jones C, and Irvine F (2019). What is ‘moral distress’? A narrative synthesis of the literature. Nursing Ethics, 26(3): 646-662. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733017724354   [Google Scholar] PMid:28990446 PMCid:PMC6506903
  39. Norazmi N (2020). Factors for the task load of special education integration program (PPKI) teachers in Johor. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 9(3): 2413-2416. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.B7273.019320   [Google Scholar]
  40. Owens J, Singh G, and Cribb A (2019). Austerity and professionalism: Being a good healthcare professional in bad conditions. Health Care Analysis, 27: 157-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-019-00372-y   [Google Scholar] PMid:31165964
  41. Passanisi A, Buzzai C, and Pace U (2022). Special education teachers: The role of autonomous motivation in the relationship between teachers’ efficacy for inclusive practice and teaching styles. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17): 10921. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710921   [Google Scholar] PMid:36078634 PMCid:PMC9518013
  42. Reeve J and Cheon SH (2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 56(1): 54-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657   [Google Scholar]
  43. Samaden I, Najihah I, Alwi S, Munirah R, bin Mohd Y, and bin Nordin M (2021). Time element in the construct of special education teacher workload in Malaysia. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 12(11): 5141-5145.   [Google Scholar]
  44. Skedsmo G and Huber SG (2019). Forms and practices of accountability in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 31: 251-255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-019-09305-8   [Google Scholar]
  45. Smith A (2020). Special educational needs/disabilities and the evolution of the primary school special educational needs co-ordinator (SENCO) in England. Journal of Exceptional People, 1(17): 75-93.   [Google Scholar]
  46. Smith E and Douglas G (2014). Special educational needs, disability and school accountability: An international perspective. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(5): 443-458. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.788222   [Google Scholar]
  47. Tatto MT (2021). Professionalism in teaching and the role of teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1): 20-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1849130   [Google Scholar]
  48. Toropova A, Myrberg E, and Johansson S (2021). Teacher job satisfaction: The importance of school working conditions and teacher characteristics. Educational Review, 73(1): 71-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1705247   [Google Scholar]
  49. Verger A, Fontdevila C, and Parcerisa L (2019). Reforming governance through policy instruments: How and to what extent standards, tests and accountability in education spread worldwide. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(2): 248-270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2019.1569882   [Google Scholar]
  50. Weiner JM (2020). From new to nuanced: (Re) Considering educator professionalism and its impacts. Journal of Educational Change, 21(3): 443-454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09371-6   [Google Scholar]