Teacher's Perception of Special Education Inclusion (Research Paper Sample)

Teacher's Perception of Special Education Inclusion Name Institution Inclusive Education in Research and Practice Inclusive education has been a subject of controversy in both research and practice. The issues of contention are related to a number of factors including the scope of individuals that need to receive special education. For instance, there are immigrants, children with disabilities, refugees and others that may be classified as “different”. Another sphere is related to the perceptions of teachers towards strategies aimed at meeting the minimum requirements of inclusive education. Notably, the above-identified issues are related to practice. In research, conflicts arise especially with respect to the definition of inclusive education and how it differs from integration. The ongoing review focuses on teachers’ perceptions of special education as there is evidence that there exist conflicting views especially with regard to inclusion, integration and segregation. Inclusive education entails providing a just education regardless of socioeconomic status, ethnicity, race, gender, disability, language, sexual orientation and any other identity that may be perceived as different CITATION Abe17 \l 1033 (Abery, Tichá, & Kincade, 2017). Even so inclusivity can be interpreted in diverse ways and is often confused with integration. For instance, placing students with disabilities together with those without is often referred to as inclusivity yet it is only integration CITATION Abe17 \l 1033 (Abery, Tichá, & Kincade, 2017). The above-described view motivated the shift towards equipping general education teachers with the necessary skills and knowledge to address students with disabilities instead of sending them to special schools. Even so, a gap still exists on the definition and scope of inclusivity. Moreover, it is not known whether inclusivity is appropriate for all groups of students with special needs CITATION Abe17 \l 1033 (Abery, Tichá, & Kincade, 2017). There is still inadequate information in research on the most efficient strategies to effectively implement inclusive education. Moreover, Stites, et al.(2018) points out that the definition of inclusive education has not been fully comprehended by educators; thus, there is a need to streamline the how inclusive education is defined and the ways to implement it into practice. Ultimately, Abery, Tichá, and Kincade (2017) acknowledged that even though students with disabilities are seen to perform better in integrated settings, other researchers have reported neutral or negative outcomes such as exclusion. They pointed out that this fact is because the effects of inclusivity vary for different groups of students with disabilities CITATION Abe17 \l 1033 (Abery, Tichá, & Kincade, 2017). For instance, students with vision impairment may fare badly in an integrated setting. Inclusivity can be interpreted diversely at different levels CITATION Abe17 \l 1033 (Abery, Tichá, & Kincade, 2017). For instance, the interpretation of inclusive education at the administrative level is different from that of the general classroom setting. Students with special needs may require additional lessons to learn thus, critics of the classroom integration approach doubt the aptitude of the approach to effectively meet such need CITATION Abe17 \l 1033 (Abery, Tichá, & Kincade, 2017). Clearly, the comprehension of inclusivity varies depending on the target group of students. For instance, Messiou and Azaola (2018) who focused on immigrants did not face the challenge of addressing whether to integrate them into classrooms or not. From research, most of the studies on inclusive education focus on learners with disabilities. There is little focus on other groups of learners encompassed under the umbrella term inclusive education. Messiou and Azaola (2018) investigated inclusive education with respect to multicultural education that accommodates and supports immigrants. They examined the effectiveness of peer mentoring programs as a support mechanism for immigrant students. According to the authors, the program was beneficial for both the immigrants and their mentors as they indicated improved confidence CITATION Mes18 \l 1033 (Messiou & Azaola, 2018). However, the initiative not meet its desired potential as it focused on individual students rather than the entire institution CITATION Mes18 \l 1033 (Messiou & Azaola, 2018). Despite the latter fact, the authors blamed social perception associated with “deficit thinking” towards individuals that require special education as a barrier to achieving true institutional transformation. Notably, the mentors aiding immigrant students in Messiou and Azaola’s (2018) study are not teachers; they are students from the same school as their mentees. According to the authors, the approach was meant to fill a gap in research as most studies on mentoring focus on diverse arrangement involving teachers or students at higher levels of learning. During their study, Messiou and Azaola (2018) were faced with the challenge of accurately defining mentorship. Moreover, they acknowledged that even though the benefits of mentorship have been widely published there is little research that takes into account the perceptions of the mentees. Messiou and Azaola (2018) affirmed immense positive benefits especially to improving the confidence and sense of belonging for the immigrant students, however, teachers from the school felt that the program could also have detrimental effects to the selected students. Specifically, they argued that peer mentoring schemes could make the target students feel segregated and marginalized as they are visibly categorized as “different” from others CITATION Mes18 \l 1033 (Messiou & Azaola, 2018). Further, Messiou and Azaola (2018) acknowledge that the peer mentoring scheme disobeys the fundamental tenets of inclusive education. There was also a conflict on the roles of special education practitioners and teachers in perpetuating inclusive education as the former may perceive it as role outside their responsibility.Messiou and Azaola (2018) emphasized that teachers need to receive adequate preparation to handle multicultural classrooms. Ultimately, Messiou and Azaola (2018) emphasized that the peer mentoring program should be engraved within entire institutions rather than to be left to a specific set of students. Attitudes of Teachers towards Inclusive Education From research , teachers display positive attitudes towards having learners with disabilities in their classroom and there was little resistance to the inclusive policy CITATION Mac14 \l 1033 \m Sar15 \m Pit18 (Mackey, 2014; Sargeant & Berkner, 2015; Pit-ten Cate, Markova, Krischler, & Krolak-Schwerdt, 2018). Further, Mackey(2014) discerned that the teachers placed different or no expectations on the learners with disabilities in their classroom. Evidently, from the above, it is difficult to set performance expectations for learners with disabilities are it varies with the type of disability and the extent it affects learning. Even with the preceding comments, teachers handling inclusive classrooms reported using the optimal strategies to meet the academic needs of both students with disabilities and those without CITATION Mac14 \l 1033 (Mackey, 2014). Different nations have varying systems in place to handle learners with different levels of disabilities. Gregory(2018) investigated the perceptions and attitudes of different practitioners towards inclusion and integration. According to Gregory(2018) , there exists a significant difference in how different nations conduct inclusive education and how the teachers perceive it. Therefore, there is a need to incorporate the settings of educators in developing policies to propagate inclusivity. In Gregory’s(2018) study, the notable differences are classified into behavioural, affective and cognitive. The above three domains also varied depending on the setting. Specifically, Gregory(2018) points out that teachers scored highly in the cognitive domain as they were aware of the necessity and importance of inclusive education; however, the affective and behavioural domains were affected due to gaps in how practice and how it is deliberated on by policy. According to Gregory(2018), the affective domain of educators perceptions can be improved by increasing their feelings of efficiency in perpetuating inclusive education. One of the strategies proposed by Gregory(2018) is the use of experiential learning on educators. Another challenge affecting the behavioural and affective domains of perceptions is related to resources. Educators question the necessity of inclusive or integrative learning for learners with moderate levels of disability when there are experts in special education settings who can handle the scenario better. Hence educators may perceive handling learners with serious disabilities to be outside the scope of their responsibility CITATION Not18 \l 1033 \m Pit18 \m Inc17 (Gregory, 2018; Pit-ten Cate, Markova, Krischler, & Krolak-Schwerdt, 2018; Khan, Hashmi, & Khanum, 2017). Gregory(2018) highlights the importance of a positive attitude by educators towards learners; thus, understanding the perceptions of teachers from different geographical settings served to bring to light the perils of exporting inclusion systems from one nation to another as they may not yield the desired effects. Gregrory (2018) emphasized the need to incorporate educators perceptions in development of policy and training of educators. The differences in perceptions and attitudes are related to internal and external pressures that continuously been ignored by policymakers; thus leading to conflicts when implementing inclusive education. Gregory(2018) emphasizes that internal and external pressures significantly model the attitudes of perception...