International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

The impact of teacher training in special education

on the implementation of inclusion in mainstream
classrooms

Orly Crispel & Ronen Kasperski

To cite this article: Orly Crispel & Ronen Kasperski (2019): The impact of teacher training in
special education on the implementation of inclusion in mainstream classrooms, International
Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1600590

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1600590

Published online: 03 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 39

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1600590

The impact of teacher training in special education on the

implementation of inclusion in mainstream classrooms
Orly Crispela and Ronen Kasperski a,b

a
Shaanan Academic Religious Teachers’ College, Haifa, Israel; bGordon College of Education, Haifa, Israel

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

One of the most controversial problems regarding educational Received 24 January 2019
inclusion is the inherent contradiction between high demands Accepted 25 March 2019
and special needs. Faced with this challenge, many general
education teachers turn to training programmes to compensate
for special education knowledge they lack and to acquire special
education teaching techniques. In this study conducted in Israel,
10 teachers who recently participated in a special education
training programme were interviewed. The interviews revealed
their frustration, in view of the absence of any preparation that
would enable teachers in mainstream classes to accommodate
students with learning disabilities. Importantly, the interviewees
reported that after completing their coursework in special
education, they experienced a change in their attitudes as well as
in their ability to effectively implement inclusion in their
classrooms. These findings add to the growing body of research
[(Sokal and Sharma 2014. “In-service Teachers’ Concerns, Efficacy,
and Attitudes About Inclusive Teaching and its Relationship with
Teacher Training.” Exceptionality Education International 23 (1): 59–
71; 2017. “Do I Really Need a Course to Learn to Teach Students
with Disabilities? I’ve Been Doing It for Years.” Canadian Journal of
Education/Revue Ccanadienne de Ll’éducation 40 (4): 739–760; Van
Mieghem, Verschueren, Petry and Struyf, 2018. “An Analysis of
Research on Inclusive Education: A Systematic Search and Meta
Review.” International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1–15] that
emphasises the importance of training teachers in mainstream
frameworks to effectively address the special needs of their
students. Thus, the current study concludes that not only special-
education teachers should be privy to this knowledge, as is the
current practice; rather, all teacher-education programmes should
incorporate courses aimed at facilitating inclusive education.

Introduction
In the last two decades, there has been a growing effort to implement inclusive education
around the globe. However, although most teachers tend to approve of inclusion, imple-
menting inclusion in mainstream classrooms poses considerable challenges for general
education teachers, who are required not only to modify their teaching methods according
to the special needs of their students, but at the same time also to maintain a high standard

CONTACT Ronen Kasperski ronenk1@gmail.com

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 O. CRISPEL AND R. KASPERSKI

of academic achievements (Abegglen and Hessels 2018; Almog and Shechtman 2007;
Einat 2006; Shechtman and Gilat 2005; Van Mieghem et al. 2018; Vaughn and Schumn
1994).
Studies have demonstrated that the success of inclusion programmes depends mostly
on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion and professional special education knowledge
(Sokal and Sharma 2017). Regrettably, even teachers who profess a positive attitude
towards inclusion cannot overcome the problems related to its implementation, due to
a lack of understanding of the issues involved and a lack of relevant teaching method-
ologies (Reiter 1999). Consequently, the research shows that teachers in inclusive class-
rooms often express dissatisfaction with the manner in which the educational system
addresses their lack of special education knowledge and teaching techniques. The
feeling that they are left to deal with inclusion on their own with no proper preparation
is shared by many teachers from different countries, such as Hong Kong (Lee et al.
2015), Spain (Chiner and Cardona 2013), Japan (Yada and Savolainen 2017), Croatia
and Poland (Ćwirynkało et al. 2017) and Israel (Einat and Sharon 2015).
In Israel, publication of the Margalit Committee (2001) report led to a substantial
increase in the number of students with learning disabilities who are included in main-
stream classrooms. However, in contrast to the inclusion efforts, policymakers in
various divisions of the Israeli Ministry of Education have repeatedly stated that
teacher-education programmes are already overloaded, and therefore additional training
on the subject of students’ special needs can be acquired later, in the course of the teachers’
professional development (Avissar, Moshe, and Licht 2013). Unfortunately, this approach
is inconsistent with the opinion of many Israeli teachers who feel that despite their will-
ingness to teach in inclusive classrooms, they report that they have not been properly pre-
pared (Einat and Sharon 2015).
The accumulating research suggests that inadequate preparation of preservice teachers
is still common in many teacher colleges and universities worldwide (Sokal and Sharma
2017; Van Mieghem et al. 2018) and that general and special education programmes con-
tinue to operate under a dual system that separates regular and special education teacher
trainees (Carroll, Forlin, and Jobling 2003). In these settings, many preservice mainstream
teachers rarely experience special education and, in turn, encounter difficulties in teaching
students with special needs when they begin teaching. For instance, in Hong Kong a recent
study conducted by Lee et al. (2015) showed that mainstream preschool teachers tend to
develop less favorable attitudes towards inclusion than special education teachers, because
their training lacks practical pedagogy and does not increase teachers’ self-efficacy for
teaching students with special needs.
The current study was set to examine the impact of such a professional development
course on the perceptions and practices of Israeli teachers regarding the teaching of chil-
dren with learning disabilities. Evidence of the importance of ongoing professional devel-
opment can be found in the study conducted by Sokal and Sharma (2017), who
demonstrated its effectiveness even for experienced teachers. In their study on a Canadian
sample of pre-service teachers and experienced in-service teachers, they found significant
differences in attitudes, concerns and efficacy for the inclusive teaching of teachers after
participating in an inclusive education course. Their findings correspond with a recent
meta-review of research on inclusive education (Van Mieghem et al., 2018), which con-
cluded that these professional development courses are vital for the successful
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 3

implementation of inclusion education because they provide effective pedagogical strat-

egies and focus on changing attitudes and increasing teachers’ self-efficacy and motivation
to educate students with special needs.

Challenges in implementing inclusion in mainstream classrooms

Several challenges are common to all those who practice inclusion. The first stems from the
perception of inclusion as a problem, one that can be solved by introducing technical adap-
tations to the instructional programme. Such an approach leads to a struggle for material
resources, instead of viewing inclusion as a broader social reform based on respect and tol-
erance for people with differences (Hegarty and Aspinall 2006). Another challenge is related
to the conflicting demands of the educational system (Einat 2006). The inherent contradic-
tion between maintaining the school’s high academic achievement levels and treating each
student according to his or her unique needs, guarantees that some students will fail. More-
over, the research suggests that, driven by the pressure to comply with the existing curricu-
lum, teachers who wish to perform instructional adjustments to accommodate students
with special needs are unable to do so because of the load they are experiencing (Almog
and Shechtman 2007). Thus, in a vicious cycle, teachers are constantly reproached for
these failures, becoming defensive, angry and frustrated (Einat 2006).

Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion

Research has shown that teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are essential for successful
inclusive teaching (Carroll, Forlin, and Jobling 2003; Sokal and Sharma 2014), whereas
concerns about inclusion are associated with negative outcomes (Vashishtha and Priya
2013). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion appear to be influenced by teacher-,
student- and school-related variables (Abegglen and Hessels 2018). Focusing on
teacher-related variables, Vaz et al. (2015) found that age, gender, teaching self-efficacy
and training collectively explained 42% of the variance in teachers’ attitude towards
inclusion.
Evidence from multiple countries suggests that while most teachers approve of
inclusion and show a high willingness to teach in inclusive classrooms, many of them
still question their ability to teach students with special needs (Chiner and Cardona
2013). In Israel, the research has shown that while 77.6% of Israeli teachers in regular edu-
cation were found to hold positive attitudes towards inclusion, less than 20% of them
expressed satisfaction with the amount of time available to them to implement inclusion,
the relevant professional training given them for this purpose, the relevant pedagogical
resources that were available to them and the professional support they received (Einat
and Sharon 2015).
In addition, Vaughn and Schumn (1994) warned that large class size, lack of resources
for effective teaching, absence of parental involvement, lack of funding, excessive work-
loads and lack of teaching aids and facilities, may impede teachers’ attitudes towards
inclusion. Almog and Shechtman (2007) found that teachers’ lack of involvement in
decisions concerning their students, lack of information regarding students’ difficulties
and lack of knowledge about ways to cope with these difficulties, led to the formation
of negative attitudes towards inclusion.
4 O. CRISPEL AND R. KASPERSKI

Teacher self-efficacy for inclusive teaching

Teachers’ self-efficacy to promote students with special needs is also given considerable
weight in the research (Abegglen and Hessels 2018; Sokal and Sharma 2014). Bandura
(1997), defined self-efficacy as the extent to which the individual believes that he or she
has the necessary resources to perform a task or to produce a specific outcome. Self-
efficacy affects actions, efforts and perseverance. The self-efficacy of a teacher is
defined as believing in his or her professional ability to influence the student’s learning
behaviour and performance, to cause changes and to control educational processes
(Guskey and Passaro 1994). Studies have shown that high levels of teacher self-
efficacy are positively correlated with successful implementation of inclusion (Sharma
and George 2016).
Teachers’ self-efficacy influences the extent to which the teacher persists in his or her
efforts to cope with difficulties, obstacles and negative experiences in implementing
inclusion. Providing support for students with disabilities within a general education class-
room requires tremendous investment of time and effort by teachers. It can be assumed
that teachers who believe that learning is influenced by effective teaching and who feel
confident about their teaching ability will be confident in their ability to teach a wide
range of students and will be prepared to deal with a variety of student behaviour problems
in a consistent and supportive way and with a sense of responsibility and personal com-
mitment. Soodak and Podell (1993) found that teachers with high perceived self-efficacy
frequently adopted supportive approaches, such as praise and reinforcement, and tended
to attribute the child’s problem to the interaction between the child and the environment.
In contrast, teachers with low self-efficacy were more likely to attribute the problem to the
student himself and to adopt a more restrictive approach, such as referring the student for
treatment outside the regular classroom.

Collaborative and environmental characteristics

Teaching students with special needs in mainstream classrooms requires interdisciplin-
ary collaboration and shared responsibility among school staff. Through collaboration,
experienced teachers can support their colleagues by providing pedagogic guidance and
empowerment that may encourage their colleagues to overcome the challenges of
teaching students with special needs and contribute to higher levels of attitudes
towards inclusion and self-efficacy (Abegglen and Hessels 2018; Schwab, Hellmich,
and Görel 2017).
Skidmore (2004) examined the contribution of teachers’ discourse to the effective
implementation of inclusion. The author analysed the language used by teachers to
discuss their students’ difficulties and the school’s responses to this language. Skidmore
found that certain conditions, identified in one of the schools, created an atmosphere of
collaboration, proactivity (an initiative to prevent future problems) and inspiration. In
contrast, teachers from another school were characterized by a different type of discourse
that was more rigid and less in favour of inclusion. Exploring the contribution of school-
related variables, Abegglen and Hessels (2018) found that school-environment, interdisci-
plinary team-teaching, teacher’s self-efficacy and practical experiences accounted for 34%
of the variance in attitudes towards inclusion.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 5

Methodology
Participants
A total of 10 Israeli mainstream teachers who recently participated in a special education
training programme were interviewed for the current study. Among them were two kin-
dergarten teachers, three high school teachers and five elementary and middle school tea-
chers. The interviewees’ ages ranged from 35 to 55. Some had young children and others
had children in their twenties who had learning disabilities. The extent of their teaching
experience ranged from two years to more than 20 years of teaching, either in schools
or kindergartens. The members of this cohort represented a broad range of educational
approaches and attitudes. They also varied in terms of their personal backgrounds, resi-
dential areas (urban or rural) and types of religious beliefs (religious or secular), as well
as in their ethnic and cultural backgrounds.

Research procedure
Interviewees were recruited using a written request distributed in teacher education col-
leges that offer professional development for teachers, particularly programmes for
retraining in special education. The average duration of each interview was 2.5 hours.
After an interpretive analysis of the transcripts, the interviewees were asked to provide
feedback as an integral part of the research procedure.

Approach to analysis
This study used in-depth interviews that focused on the life story of the women educators (see
the Appendix). Some presented their entire life stories, which were then reviewed using
models intended for the analysis of complete stories (Clandinin and Connelly 2000;
Seidman 2006). The remaining stories, which were only partially presented, were analysed
for content and form. Content analysis was based on grounded theory, which served as
the underlying framework for axial coding, intentional coding and forming of hierarchies
among the categories identified (Shkedi 2011). Linguistic elements, such as the repetition
of words or syntactic structures, which emphasised the intensity of the interviewees’ emotions
(Kupferberg, Green, and Gilat 2002), received attention in the analyses. Pronouns often indi-
cate social belonging, thus special attention was drawn to the interviewees’ use of the pro-
nouns they/them to refer to the school’s educational staff, versus use of the pronouns we/
us to refer to the family. Metaphorical language is used to express abstract complex concepts,
when one is unable to find another suitable expression (Taylor 1995). The role of metaphors is
to convey cognitive content, so they are considered an important rhetorical device that is
accorded a great deal of consideration in the social sciences (Richardson 2000).

Findings
Changes in the professional functioning of interviewees following the
acquisition of professional knowledge
Two themes emerged from the analysis of the transcripts. The first theme was related to
the acquisition of professional knowledge about learning disabilities and its contribution
6 O. CRISPEL AND R. KASPERSKI

to the quality of teaching. The second theme was expressed in the cultivation of a teaching
style that was more caring and sensitive to the needs of students in general and to the
needs of students with learning disabilities in particular.

Changes on the professional level

The interviewees conveyed a didactic shift in the sense of adopting teaching method-
ologies, instruments and strategies that were more appropriate for the special needs of
the students in their classrooms.
Previously, I would insist: ‘come on, let’s organize your notebooks’. I would relate to messy
presentation and handwriting as if it were a sign of disrespect or carelessness. I could not
discern which students were actually experiencing difficulties. Now, I am more aware, and
more able to see it … So now, I sit down and help them organize their folders and I am
much more patient. (P.)

A. P. described the change in her functioning as a teacher in the classroom using expressions
that compared her performance before and after the acquisition of professional knowledge.
Several times she used the word now, in contrast to the expression would.
After completing my studies, I feel that the children in the classroom are more visible to me
… A student can be seated next to me and I will immediately be able to tell whether he has
learning difficulties … suddenly I can understand what it means to have a reading disability
and why a student dislikes reading … I prepare students to integrate into the workforce … so
we sat down to write a resume … I was able to help two students, who had been invited for a
job interview and I helped them prepare for that too. Nothing could be more fun than that. I
find it invigorating. (A.)

A. used metaphorical language (‘students become more visible’) to convey her ability to
identify the students’ disability based on their unconscious behaviours. She emphasises
the contribution of her knowledge acquisition to the development of didactic measures,
instruments and methods for teaching students with learning disabilities. She described
her work using numerous verbs, indicating a great deal of activity: ‘prepare, created, we
sat down to write, interviewed for a job, helped’. In the final sentence in the excerpt,
the interviewee conveyed her worldview, according to which the development of her pro-
fessional knowledge has a direct effect on her professional success, and it appears that this
success is a great motivational force in her life.
To be a good teacher in mainstream education, you need to study special education. There’s
no doubt about it! Every single teacher should learn this – everyone! Everything I know how
to do today is based on what I learned here at the college … We learn to use tools that
members of my staff at school are unaware of … (Y.)

1. Y. proclaimed her worldview with a great sense of determination and expressed her
understanding of the essential need of all teachers to acquire knowledge in the field of
special education. She emphasised this point in a decisive tone, using short, clear sen-
tences, studded with expressions such as ‘no doubt about it, everyone’, which she repeated
several times. She also repeated the word study/studies several times and explained that
only by being exposed to practical studies and referring to actual cases and occurrences
in the field and in the classroom, can teachers advance professionally and become
‘good’ teachers.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 7

My studies had a very strong effect … First of all the knowledge [I acquired – understanding]
what is actually the source of difficulty – this is very very important to me as a teacher in
middle school. There are so many students … time flies … And this knowledge is very impor-
tant to me, as it taught me how to apportion the right amount of time and attention at each
point of difficulty … There is no doubt that I acquired a great deal of knowledge and that
knowledge is power. (N.)

Throughout this excerpt, words from the root to know (in Hebrew) were mentioned a total
of six times. At the end of the excerpt, N. reaches the conclusion that ‘knowledge is power’,
in the sense that understanding the source of learning disabilities and of learning disability
and its manifestations in the classroom, allows her to devote the right amount of time and
attention to each student’s difficulty and to adapt her teaching methods in the classroom.

Changes on the emotional level

A second theme that emerged from the interviews was related to an emotional shift and
increased acceptance of the students’ difficulties.
I also think that if a child realizes that this teacher knows how to touch upon the exact point
of his/her difficulty, then he/she would be ready to open up to her, because she already gets it.
She already knows the secret. For children it is much easier in this case. (N.)

While in the previous section N. referred to the didactic shift, in this excerpt she describes
the shift that occurs on the emotional level. The professional knowledge she has acquired
enabled her to comprehend the emotional impact of the disability, and as a result, she
became more sensitive and empathetic to the students’ special needs. In this excerpt,
she shares her thoughts about how the student might feel following the change in her
approach. The metaphor ‘knows the secret’ indicates that the knowledge she has acquired
serves as a means for building relationships and mutual trust, a means that was apparently
not available to her prior to her studies.
Having completed my studies, I no longer emphasise the disability but rather what underlies
the disability. This is an enormous difference … If I see a student who needs more love, more
attention, more time spent with her, I go and do it. I give up my recess period in order to have
a heart-to-heart talk. Something in my personality has changed; I would have done the same
thing before, but much less effectively … without the conscious awareness … My studies
helped me understand what these students experience … That’s it – the story of my life
before and after; it’s as simple as that! (M.)

The words used by M. are no less powerful than those used by N.: ‘my life before and after’.
Although the changes presumably occurred in the professional realm following a pro-
fessional development course, she described them as affecting her entire life. Her words
highlight the fact that what changed most in her work with the students is the emotional
dimension, holding ‘heart-to-heart talks’. Although she presented herself as having been
sensitive even before undertaking her professional studies, she made it clear that the acqui-
sition of knowledge led her to invest more in her relationships with students, in a manner
that is more informed and aware.
Before I took the professional development course I would often have conflicts … – now less
so; I am more ready to let things slide … I use a lot of self-talk to avoid arguing … especially
after class. Yes, I feel that it has had an effect. (N.)
8 O. CRISPEL AND R. KASPERSKI

1. N. said that following her professional development course she understood that as a
teacher, the only element she can control is her own reaction to her students’ negative
behaviours. In the course of her studies, N learned to appreciate that the ability to
control her reactions and to occasionally ‘let things slide’ can often be more helpful
than conducting futile arguments with a student in front of the entire class.

Discussion and conclusion

One of the most controversial problems regarding educational inclusion is the inherent
contradiction between a school’s demands and the challenges embodied by students
with special needs. Given the minimal exposure to special education teaching techniques
in general teacher-education programmes (Carroll, Forlin, and Jobling 2003; Sokal and
Sharma 2017; Van Mieghem et al. 2018), the interviewees in the current study indicated
their ongoing frustration in trying to cope with their students’ learning difficulties and the
shortcomings of the Israeli educational system with regard to addressing teachers’ lack of
special education knowledge and teaching techniques. Similar findings were found in
Hong Kong (Lee et al. 2015), Spain (Chiner and Cardona 2013), Japan (Yada and Savo-
lainen 2017) and Croatia and Poland (Ćwirynkało et al. 2017).
However, after going through a retraining programme in special education the teachers
pointed to two major changes. The first change was related to practical issues, specifically,
the adoption of teaching methodologies and strategies based on the individual student’s
level of functional abilities. An interesting insight gleaned from this study was the uni-
formity of the interviewees’ opinions, regardless of their age, the ages of their children
or their teaching experience. This uniformity of opinion indicates that despite the
changes the Israeli educational system claims to have adopted regarding inclusion, their
effect is minimal at best. Furthermore, the participants noted that the knowledge they
had acquired about learning disabilities marks a turning point, not only in their career
but also in their lives. This corresponds with Sokal and Sharma (2017) and Van
Mieghem et al. (2018) who highlighted the importance of ongoing professional develop-
ment, even for experienced teachers.
The second change was in cultivating a teaching style that was more caring and sensi-
tive to the needs of students in general and to the needs of students with learning disabil-
ities in particular. This shift was characterized by a greater awareness and hence, the
teaching approach they developed was less intuitive and more informed. However, posi-
tive attitudes toward inclusion alone do not necessarily lead to empathy towards students
with learning disabilities. For instance, a study by Wiebe Berry (2006) showed that while
the majority of teachers held positive attitudes towards inclusion, their teaching
approaches differed. While one group of teachers adopted a pedagogical approach for
teaching learning disabled students (i.e. structure, sequence and phonetic adaptations),
the other group of teachers preferred an empathic approach for learning disabled children
in regular classrooms, creating a more empowering and protective atmosphere for stu-
dents with difficulties. This raises the question of how to develop teachers’ empathy
towards students with learning disabilities.
Kaniel (2013) emphasised that empathy involves the ability to understand and feel the
personal world of the other, not by identifying with the other but by understanding the
other’s difficulties and emotions. Zaki, Bogler, and Ochsner (2008) claimed that
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 9

empathy is the manner in which a person can correctly assess the feelings of the other.
They distinguished between empathic feelings and empathic behaviour, which in their
view does not necessarily occur simultaneously. They suggested that empathic reactions
towards the other depend on the manner in which the latter expresses his or her feelings.
A different study (Sharabany 1984) suggested that sensitivity and empathy could be devel-
oped and learned, because empathy derives from two elements: the inherent character-
istics with which one is born, and the experience provided through the mother’s
demonstration of affection and caregiving. Goleman (1995) supported this approach
and stated that although the basic dimension of sensitivity is inborn, it can nonetheless
be changed. He referred to basic human heartfelt emotions as the ‘ABCs of social sensi-
tivity’ and advocated the use of programmes that develop children’s essential human
skills, in addition to teaching the traditional disciplines.
The interviewees in the current study reported a change in their degree of sensitivity
and in their ability to contain others following a process of knowledge acquisition.
They claimed that they had become more accepting and understanding of, and caring
about their children, and also reported a change in their attitude towards their students
with learning disabilities. Thus, we can conclude that if empathy, sensitivity and accep-
tance are characteristics that can be honed and developed in an informed and conscious
manner, it is not only possible but also necessary to present models of empathic teaching
early on in the teacher training process.

Conclusions
In light of our discoveries, we can draw several practical conclusions. To begin with, as
found by Sokal and Sharma (2017), there is a vital need to introduce courses that
develop knowledge about learning disabilities early in the teacher training programme,
specifically for teachers in mainstream frameworks. This contradicts the common con-
ception that such courses can be studied through professional development at a later
stage (Avissar, Moshe, and Licht 2013), for two reasons: First, by the time teachers have
the opportunity to acquire this information as part of their professional development,
they have already encountered students with learning disabilities or special needs.
Given that they do not know how to instruct these students effectively, they may inadver-
tently harm their educational development. Second, the inability to teach students with
special needs may become a reason for criticizing teachers, leading to the teachers’
increased frustration with the educational system.
Furthermore, we must integrate humanistic values, such as empathy and care, into the
educational discourse, necessary to foster inclusion. This requires system-wide attention
and proper preparation on the school level. The integration of humanistic values
should address two separate dimensions. The first is that of the teacher, who in addition
to acquiring knowledge about learning disabilities needs to be exposed to teaching
methods and curricular materials that are based on the humanistic philosophy and on
values such as respect, care and empathy. The second dimension is that of the student,
who needs to encounter curricular materials that aim to inculcate the same humanistic
values. Such materials should be integrated into the curricula of elementary schools,
middle schools and high schools. Moreover, as noted by Schwab, Hellmich, and Görel
(2017), educational courses should focus on enhancing teachers’ motivation to deal
10 O. CRISPEL AND R. KASPERSKI

with inclusive education, since motivation appears to be one of the key factors for teachers’
self-efficacy.
In summary, the findings of the current study should be of interest to teachers in
general education systems who have students with special needs in their classes; those
who construct curricula for teacher-training programmes; and those who are concerned
with revitalizing the core relationship between teachers and their students. We argue
that not only special-education teachers should be privy to this information, rather all
teacher-education programmes should incorporate courses on learning disabilities. By
instructing prospective teachers early on about the issue of learning disabilities and
methods of addressing all students effectively, while emphasising the role of humanistic
values in creating a caring and successful instructional environment for all children, we
can meet the goals that inspired the inclusion movement.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Dr. Orly Crispel, Head of the Department of Special Education, pedagogic instructor and lecturer in
the field of Special Education at Shaanan Teachers’ College. She teaches qualitative research for
undergraduate and graduate students. She has published articles on the professional development
of the teacher in the field of learning disabilities and their impact on practice and attitudes towards
inclusion.
Dr. Ronen Kasperski, received his Ph.D. from the Department of Learning Disabilities at University
of Haifa. Ronen works as pedagogic instructor and lecturer in the field of special education at
Shaanan Teachers’ College and at Gordon College of Education. In recent years he has dealt exten-
sively with diagnosing children with learning disabilities and finding ways to cope with learning
disabilities through theory-based intervention programs.

ORCID
Ronen Kasperski http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4164-5249

References
Abegglen, H. J., and M. G. Hessels. 2018. “Measures of Individual, Collaborative and Environmental
Characteristics Predict Swiss School Principals’, Teachers’ and Student Teachers’ Attitudes
Towards Inclusive Education.” Psychoeducational Assessment, Intervention and Rehabilitation
1 (1): 1–24.
Almog, O., and Z. Shechtman. 2007. “Teachers’ Democratic and Efficacy Beliefs and Styles of
Coping with Behavioural Problems of Pupils with Special Needs.” European Journal of Special
Needs Education 22: 115–129.
Al-Yagon, M., and M. Margalit. 2001. “Special and Inclusive Education in Israel.” Meditirenian
Journal of Educational Studies 6 (2): 93–112.
Avissar, G., A. Moshe, and P. Licht. 2013. “These are the Basic Democratic Values: The Perceptions
of Policy Makers in the Ministry of Education with regard to Inclusion of Pupils with Special
Educational Needs.” In Inclusiveness: From Theory to Practice, edited by G. Avissar, and S.
Reiter, 48–25. Haifa: Ahva. in Hebrew).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 11

Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control (pp. 3–604). New York: wH Freeman.
Carroll, A., C. Forlin, and A. Jobling. 2003. “The Impact of Teacher Training in Special Education
on the Attitudes of Australian Preservice General Educators Towards People with Disabilities.”
Teacher Education Quarterly 30 (3): 65–79.
Chiner, E., and M. C. Cardona. 2013. “Inclusive Education in Spain: How Do Skills, Resources, and
Supports Affect Regular Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Inclusion?” International Journal of
Inclusive Education 17 (5): 526–541.
Clandinin, D. J., and F. M. Connelly. 2000. Narrative Inquiry: Experience and Story in Qualitative
Research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Einat, A. 2006. Teacher’s Reflection in the Mirror of Dyslexia. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad. (In
Hebrew).
Einat, T., and M. Sharon. 2015. “Inclusion and It’s Failure: Attitudes of Special Education Teachers
Towards the Inclusion Process of Students with Disabilities in the Regular Education System.”
Dapim 60: 198–170. (In Hebrew).
Goleman, D. 1995. Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.
Guskey, T. R., and P. D. Passaro. 1994. “Teacher Efficacy: A Study of Construct Dimensions.”
American Educational Research Journal 31 (3): 627–643.
Hegarty, J. R., and A. Aspinall. 2006. “The Use of Personal Computers with Adults who Have
Developmental Disability: Outcomes of an Organisation-Wide Initiative.” British Journal of
Developmental Disabilities 52 (2): 133–150.
Kaniel, S. 2013. Empathy in Education – Educating with Love. Tel Aviv: The Mofet Institute. (In
Hebrew).
Kupferberg, I., D. Green, and I. Gilat. 2002. “Figurative Positioning in Hotline Stories.” Narrative
Inquiry 11: 1–26.
Lee, F. L. M., A. S. Yeung, D. Tracey, and K. Barker. 2015. “Inclusion of Children With Special
Needs in Early Childhood Education.” Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 35 (2):
79–88.
Reiter, S. 1999. Society and Disability: An International Perspective on Social Policy. Haifa: Ahva.
Richardson, L. 2000. “Writing: A Method of Inquiry.” In Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited
by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, 959–978. Thousand Oaks, N.Y.: Sage Publications.
Schwab, S., F. Hellmich, and G. Görel. 2017. “Self-Efficacy of Prospective Austrian and German
Primary School Teachers Regarding the Implementation of Inclusive Education.” Journal of
Research in Special Educational Needs 17 (3): 205–217.
Seidman, I. E. 2006. Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and
the Social Sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
Sharabany, R. 1984. “The Development of Capacity for Altruism as a Function of Object Relations
Development and Cricistudes.” In Development and Maintenance of Prosocial Behavior, edited
by F. Staub, D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski, and J. Reykowski, 201–222. New York: Plenum Press.
Sharma, U., and S. George. 2016. “Understanding Teacher Self-Efficacy to Teach in Inclusive
Classrooms.” In Asia-Pacific Perspectives on Teacher Self-Efficacy, 37–51. Rotterdam: Sense.
Shechtman, Z., and I. Gilat. 2005. “The Effectiveness of Counseling Groups in Reducing Stress of
Parents of Children with Learning Disabilities.” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and
Practice 9: 275–286.
Shkedi, A. 2011. The Meaning Behind the Words: Methodologies of Qualitative Research: Theory and
Practice. Ramot: Tel Aviv University Press. (In Hebrew).
Skidmore, D. 2004. Inclusion: The Dynamic of School Development. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Sokal, L., and U. Sharma. 2014. “In-service Teachers’ Concerns, Efficacy, and Attitudes About
Inclusive Teaching and its Relationship with Teacher Training.” Exceptionality Education
International 23 (1): 59–71.
Sokal, L., and U. Sharma. 2017. “Do I Really Need a Course to Learn to Teach Students with
Disabilities? I’ve Been Doing It for Years.” Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne
de l’éducation 40 (4): 739–760.
12 O. CRISPEL AND R. KASPERSKI

Soodak, L. C., and D. M. Podell. 1993. “Teacher Efficacy and Student Problem as Factors in Special
Education Referral.” The Journal of Special Education 27 (1): 66–81.
Taylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Van Mieghem, A., K. Verschueren, K. Petry, and E. Struyf. (2018). “An Analysis of Research on
Inclusive Education: A Systematic Search and Meta Review.” International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 1–15.
Vashishtha, K. C., and K. Priya. 2013. “Attitudes, Knowledge and Concerns of Teachers Towards
Inclusion of Students with Disabilties.” Educational Quest 4 (2): 123–129.
Vaughn, S., and J. S. Schumn. 1994. “Middle School Teachers’ Planning for Students with Learning
Disabilities.” Remedial and Special Education 15 (3): 152–161.
Vaz, S., N. Wilson, M. Falkmer, A. Sim, M. Scott, R. Cordier, and T. Falkmer. 2015. “Factors
Associated with Primary School Teachers’ Attitudes Towards the Inclusion of Students with
Disabilities.” PloS one 10 (8): e0137002.
Wiebe Berry, R. A. 2006. “Beyond Strategies.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 39 (1): 11–24.
Ćwirynkało, K., T. Kisovar-Ivanda, J. L. Gregory, A. Żyta, A. Arciszewska, and S. Zrilić. 2017.
“Attitudes of Croatian and Polish Elementary School Teachers Towards Inclusive Education
of Children with Disabilities.” Hrvatska Revija za Rehabilitacijska Istrazivanja 53: 252–264.
Yada, A., and H. Savolainen. 2017. “Japanese In-Service Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusive
Education and Self-Efficacy for Inclusive Practices.” Teaching and Teacher Education 64:
222–229.
Zaki, J., N. Bogler, and K. Ochsner. 2008. “It Takes Two.” Psychological Science 19: 399–404.

Appendix. Questions from the in-depth interviews

1. What encouraged you to register for a professional development course in special education?
2. Describe a recent typical day in your life as a classroom teacher. Is it different from the period
before your studies? How?
3. What insights did you generate during your studies with regard to your ability to facilitate the
advancement of students with learning disabilities in your classroom?
4. In what ways do you implement these insights in practice?
5. Do you feel that you are contributing to a change in the perceptions and teaching methods for
students with learning disabilities in your school? How is this contribution reflected?