A Research on Primary School Teachers’ Proficiencies on Inclusive Education and Teaching Mathematics for Inclusion Students

Öz

This study was aimed to examine primary teachers’ proficiencies on inclusion and teaching mathematics to inclusive students within the scope of some variables. Survey design was adopted in the research. The study group consists of 324 primary teachers. The data were collected through the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusion Scale and Teaching Mathematics in Inclusive Settings Scale. The Mann-Whitney U test, and the Kruskal-Wallis H test was used. As a result of the current study, it was determined that female teachers have more proficiencies on maths teaching in inclusion in terms of the gender variable. It was determined that primary teachers with a master's degree have more proficiencies in terms of proficiencies on inclusion and mathematics teaching in inclusion. It was determined that primary teachers who has fewer inclusive students in their class has higher proficiencies on inclusion and maths teaching in inclusion. It was determined that more experienced primary teachers have higher proficiencies on inclusion and maths teaching in inclusion. It was determined that the inclusion proficiencies of primary teachers teaching in the second, third and fourth grades and the proficiencies of teaching mathematics in inclusion were higher than those teaching in the first grade. It was determined that proficiencies of primary teachers who teach in less crowded classrooms on inclusion and maths teaching in inclusion.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Inclusive student
• primary teacher
• teaching mathematics

Sınıf Öğretmenlerinin Kaynaştırma ve Kaynaştırma Öğrencilerine Matematik Öğretimi Yeterlikleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma

Öz

Bu araştırmada sınıf öğretmenlerinin kaynaştırma yeterliklerinin ve kaynaştırma öğrencilerine matematik öğretimi yeterliklerinin bazı değişkenlere göre incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmada tarama modeli benimsenmiştir. Çalışma grubu uygun örneklemeye göre belirlenmiştir. Çalışma grubunu 324 sınıf öğretmeni oluşturmaktadır. Veriler, Kaynaştırmada Öğretmen Yeterliği Ölçeği ve Kaynaştırma Uygulamalarında Matematik Öğretimi Ölçeği aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizinde Mann-Whitney U testi ve Kruskal-Wallis H testi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma sonucunda sınıf öğretmenlerinin cinsiyet değişkenine göre kaynaştırmada matematik öğretimi yeterlikleri bakımından kadın öğretmenlerin daha yeterli oldukları belirlenmiştir. Eğitim düzeyi değişkenine göre, kaynaştırma yeterlikleri ve kaynaştırmada matematik öğretimi yeterlikleri bakımından yüksek lisans yapmış olan sınıf öğretmenlerin daha yeterli oldukları belirlenmiştir. Öğretim yaptığı sınıfta bulunan kaynaştırma öğrencisi sayısı değişkenine göre, sınıfında daha az kaynaştırma öğrencisi bulunan sınıf öğretmenlerinin kaynaştırma yeterlikleri ve kaynaştırmada matematik öğretimi yeterliklerinin daha yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Mesleki kıdem değişkenine göre, daha kıdemli olan sınıf öğretmenlerinin kaynaştırma yeterlikleri ve kaynaştırmada matematik öğretimi yeterliklerinin daha yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Öğretim yaptığı sınıf düzeyi değişkenine göre, ikinci, üçüncü ve dördüncü sınıflarda öğretim yapan sınıf öğretmenlerinin birinci sınıfta öğretim yapanlara göre kaynaştırma yeterliklerinin ve kaynaştırmada matematik öğretimi yeterliklerinin daha yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir. Öğretim yaptığı sınıf mevcudu değişkenine göre, daha az mevcutlu sınıflarda öğretim yapan sınıf öğretmenlerinin kaynaştırma yeterliklerinin ve kaynaştırmada matematik öğretimi yeterliklerinin daha yüksek olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kaynaştırma öğrencisi
• sınıf öğretmeni
• matematik öğretimi

Kaynakça

1. Aerni, P. W. (2008). Teacher self-efficacy and beliefs for teaching mathematics in inclusion settings (Publication No. 3353198) [Doctoral dissertation, The College of William and Mary in Virginia]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
2. Akman, B., Uzun, E. M., & Yazıcı, D. N. (2018). Okul öncesi öğretmen ve öğretmen adaylarının kaynaştırmaya yönelik görüşlerinin karşılaştırılması [Comparison of pre-school teachers’ and preservice teachers’ views on inclusion]. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 14(1), 96-114. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.305108
3. Almog, O., & Shechtman, Z. (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(2), 115-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250701267774
4. Arico, A. (2011). The effect of class size on inclusion student academic success (Publication No. 3473576) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
5. Avramidis, E., & Kalyva, E. (2007). The influence of teaching experience and professional development on Greek teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(4), 367-389. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250701649989
6. Banks, F. (2008). Learning in DEPTH: Developing a graphical tool for professional thinking for technology teachers. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18, 221-229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-008-9050-z.
7. Batu, E. S. (2000). Kaynaştırma, destek hizmetleri ve kaynaştırmaya hazırlık etkinlikleri. Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 2(4), 35-45. https://doi.org/10.1501/Ozlegt_0000000050
8. Bauer, A. M., & Kroeger, S. (2004). The inclusive classroom strategies for effective instruction (2nd ed.). Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.

9. Beacham, N., & Trott, C. (2005). Screening for dyscalculia within higher education. MSOR Connections, 5(1), 1-4.
10. Bek, H., Gülveren, H., & Başer, A. (2009). Sınıf öğretmeni adaylarının kaynaştırma eğitimine yönelik tutumlarının incelenmesi [The analysis of prospective primary education teachers attitudes towards ınclusive education]. Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2(2), 160-168.
11. Betts, P., & Frost, L. (2000). Subject knowledge and teacher preparation. Education Canada, 40(1), 38-39.
12. Bley, N. S. & Thornton, C. A. (2001). Teaching mathematics to student with learning disabilities. Pro-Ed.
13. Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Pfannenstiel, K. H., Porterfield, J., & Gersten, R. (2011). Early numeracy intervention program for firstgrade students with mathematics difficulties. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291107800101
14. Buddin, R., & Zamarro, G. (2009). Teacher qualifications and student achievement in urban elementary schools. Journal of Urban Economics 66(2), 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2009.05.001
15. Camadan, F. (2012). Sınıf öğretmenleri ve sınıf öğretmenliği bölümü öğretmen adaylarının kaynaştırma eğitimine ve BEP hazırlamaya ilişkin öz yeterliklerinin belirlenmesi [Determining primary school teachers’ and primary school pre-servıce teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs towards integrated education and IEP preparation]. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(39), 128-138.
16. Campbell, J. (1996). A comparison of teacher efficacy for pre and in- service teachers in Scotland and America. Education, 117(1), 2-11.
17. Can, A. (2013). SPSS ile bilimsel araştırma sürecinde nicel veri analizi [Quantitative data analysis in scientific research process with SPSS]. Pegem Akademi.
18. Causton-Theoharis, J., Theoharis, G., Bull, T., Cosier, M., & Dempf-Aldrich, K. (2011). Schools of promise: A school district-university partnership centered on inclusive school reform. Remedial and Special Education, 32(3), 192-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510366163
19. Chingos, M. M., Peterson, P. E. (2011). It’s easier to pick a good teacher than to train one: Familiar and new results on the correlates of teacher effectiveness. Economics of Education Review, 30(3), 449-465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.12.010
20. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 673-682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.10.002
21. Connor, C. M., Son, S. H., Hindman, A. H., & Morrison, F. J. (2005). Teacher qualifications, classroom practices, family characteristics, and preschool experience: Complex effects on first graders’ vocabulary and early reading outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 43(4), 343-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.06.001
22. Cortiella, C., & Horowitz, S. H. (2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends, and emerging issues. National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from https://www.ncld.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/2014-State-of-LD.pdf
23. Daugherty, S. G. (2005). Teacher efficacy and its relation to teachers' behaviors in the classroom (Publication No. 3164986) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
24. DeSimone, J. R. (2004). Middle school mathematics teachers’ beliefs and knowledge about inclusion of students with learning disabilities (Publication No. 3135785) [Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
25. Diken, İ. H. (2006). Preservice teachers’ efficacyan dopinion stoward inclusion of students with mental retardation. Eurasian Journal Of Educational Research, 23, 72-81.
26. Dolapçı, S., & Yıldız Demirtaş, V. (2016). Öğretmen adaylarının öz-yeterlilik algıları ve kaynaştırma eğitimine bakış açıları [Prospective teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions and perspectives on inclusive education]. Batı Anadolu Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 13(7), 141-160.
27. Fakolade, O. A., Adeniyi, S. O., & Tella, A. (2009). Attitude of teachers towards the inclusion of special needs children in general education classroom: the case of teachers in some selected schools in Nigeria. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1(3), 155-169.
28. Feng, L., & Sass, T. R. (2018). The impact of incentives to recruit and retain teachers in “hardto-staff” subjects. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 37(1), 112-135. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22037
29. Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Earle, C. (2009). Demographic differences in changing pre-service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(2), 195-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701365356
30. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. McGraw-Hill.
31. Friend, M. (2006). Contemporary perspectives for school professionals. Pearson Education.
32. Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. D. (2006). Including students with special needs. Allyn & Bacon.
33. Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 4-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194040370010201
34. Gençtürk, A., & Memiş, A. (2010). İlköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin öz-yeterlik algıları ve iş doyumlarının demografik faktörler açısından incelenmesi [An investigation of primary school teachers’ teacher efficacy and job satisfaction in terms of demographic factors]. İlköğretim Online, 9(3), 1037-1054.
35. Goe, L. (2007). The link between teacher quality and student outcomes: A research synthesis. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED521219.pdf
36. Goldhaber, D. (2007). Everyone's doing it, but what does teacher testing tell us about teacher effectiveness? The Journal of Human Resources, 42(4),765-794. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XLII.4.765
37. Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1997). Why don’t schools and teachers seem to matter? Assessing the impact of unobservables on educational productivity. The Journal of Human Resources, 32(3), 505-523. https://doi.org/10.2307/146181
38. Harris, D. N., & Sass, T. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7-8), 798-812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.11.009
39. Hofman, R. H., & Kilimo, J. S. (2014). Teachers' attitudes and self-efficacy towards inclusion of pupils with disabilities in Tanzanian schools. Journal of Education and Training, 1(2), 177-198. https://doi.org/10.5296/jet.v1i2.5760
40. Hollender, I. (2011). The development and validation of a teacher efficacy for inclusion scale (Publication No. 3443933) [Doctoral dissertation, The City University of New York]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
41. Hudson, P., & Miller, S. P. (2006). Designing and implementing mathematics instruction for students with diverse learning need. Allyn and Bacon.
42. Jarvis J., & Iantaffi, A. (2006). ‘Deaf people don’t dance’: Challenging student teachers’ perspectives of pupils and inclusion. Deafness and Education International 8(2), 75-87. https://doi.org/10.1179/146431506790560184
43. Katsiyannis, A., & Prillaman, D. (1990). Teaching math using regular curricula. Exceptional Children, 23(1), 26-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005999002300108
44. Köse-Biber, S. (2009). Web destekli fen bilgisi öğretiminin kaynaştırma eğitimindeki ilköğretim 7. Sınıf öğrencilerinin performans düzeyi ve akademik başarılarına etkisi [The effect of web supported science education on the academic success and performance level of 7th grade elementary students in mainstreaming education] [Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Ege Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İzmir.
45. Kumar, A. (2016). Exploring the teachers’ attitudes towards İnclusive education system: A study of Indian teachers. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(34), 1-4.
46. Ladd, H. F. (2008). Teacher effects: What do we know? In Duncan, G., & Spillane, J. (Eds.), Teacher quality: Broadening and deepening the debate (pp. 3-26). Northwestern University. https://tqn.sesp.northwestern.edu/
47. Lee, S. W. (2018). Pulling back the curtain: Revealing the cumulative importance of highperforming, highly qualified teachers on students’ educational outcome. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 359-381. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718769379
48. Lee, S. W., & Lee, E. A. (2020). Teacher qualification matters: The association between cumulative teacher qualification and students’ educational attainment. International Journal of Educational Development. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.102218
49. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2004). The inclusive classroom strategies for effective instruction (2nd ed.). Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
50. Meral, B. F., & Bilgiç, E. (2012). Kaynaştırmada Öğretmen Yeterliği Ölçeği’nin Türkçe uyarlama, geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması [Turkish adaptation, validity and reliability study of the teacher efficacy for inclusion scale]. International Journal of Human Sciences (9)2, 253-263.
51. Meral, B. F., & Takunyacı, M. (2016). Turkish adaptation, validity and reliability studies of Teaching Mathematics in Inclusive Settings Survey. Sakarya University Journal of Education, 6(2), 97-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.19126/suje.05095
52. Monk, D. H., & King, J. A. (1994). Multilevel teacher resource effects in pupil performance in secondary mathematics and science. The case of teacher subject matter preparation. In R. G. Ehrenberg, (Ed.), Choices and consequences: Contemporary policy issues in education (pp. 29-58). ILR Press.
53. Montague, M. (2007). Self-regulation and mathematics instruction. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 75-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00232.x
54. Onyishi, C. N., & Sefotho, M. M. (2020). Teachers’ perspectives on the use of differentiated instruction in inclusive classrooms: Implication for teacher education. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(6), 136-150.
55. Palavan, Ö., Çiçek, V., & Yıldırım, B. A. (2018). Attitudes of primary school teachers towards inclusive education. Journal of Education and Future, 13, 49-63.
56. Parasuram, K. (2006). Variables that affect teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive education in Mumbai, India. Disability and Society, 21(3), 231-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590600617352
57. Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x
58. Robertson, H-J. (2005). Does size matter? Phi Delta Kappan, 87(3), 251-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170508700320
59. Sadioğlu, Ö., Batu, E. S., & Bilgin, A. (2012). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin özel gereksinimli öğrencilerin kaynaştırılmasına ilişkin görüşleri [Primary school teachers’ opinions related to inclusion of students with special needs]. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(2), 399-432.
60. Salend, S. J. (2005). Creating inclusive classroom (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
61. Schmidt, M., &Vrhovnik, K. (2015). Attitudes of teachers towards the inclusıon of children wıth special needs in primary an secondary schools. Hrvatska revija za rehabilitacijska istraživanja, 51(2), 16-30.
62. Sharma, U., Forlin, C. & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability and Society, 23(7), 773-785. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802469271
63. Shin, I., & Chung, J. (2009). Class size and student achievement in the United States: A meta-analysis. Korean Educational Development Institute Journal of Educational Policy, 6(2), 3-19.
64. Shuls, J. V., & Trivitt, J. R. (2015). Teacher qualifications and productivity in secondary schools. Journal of School Choice, 9(1), 49-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2015.998964
65. Smith, M. K., & Smith, K. E. (2000). “I believe in inclusion, but…”: Regular education early childhood teachers' perceptions of successful inclusion. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14(2), 161-180. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540009594761
66. Soodak, L. C., & Podell, D. M. (1993). Teacher efficacy and student problem as factors in special education referral. The Journal of Special Education, 27(1), 66-81.
67. Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student, and school attributes as predictors of teachers' responses to inclusion. The Journal of Special Education, 31(4), 480-497.
68. Şahbaz, Ü., & Kalay, G. (2010). Okulöncesi eğitimi öğretmen adaylarının kaynaştırmaya ilişkin görüşlerinin belirlenmesi [The determination of views of pre-school student teachers related with inclusion]. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19, 116-135.
69. Telef, B. B. (2011). Öğretmenlerin öz-yeterlikleri, iş doyumları, yaşam doyumları ve tükenmişliklerinin incelenmesi [The study of teachers’ self-efficacy, job satisfaction, life satisfaction and burnout]. İlköğretim Online, 10(1), 91-108.
70. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2002). The influence of resources and support on teachers’ efficacy beliefs [Paper presentation]. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. http://anitawoolfolkhoy.com/pdfs/aera-2002-megan.pdf Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944-956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003
71. Weisel, A., & Dror, O. (2006). School climate, sense of efficacy and Israeli teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of students with special needs. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1(2), 157-174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197906064677
72. Winters, M. A., Dixon, B. L., & Greene, J. P. (2012). Observed characteristics and teacher quality: Impacts of sample selection on a value-added model. Economics of Education Review, 31(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.07.014
73. Wiswall, M. (2013). The dynamics of teacher quality. Journal of Public Economics, 100, 61-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.01.006
74. Wood, J. W. (2002). Adapting instruction to accommodate students in inclusive settings. Prentice Hall.
75. Xin, T., Xu, Z., & Tatsuoka, K. K. (2004). Linkage between teacher quality, student achievement, and cognitive skills: A rule-space model. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30(3), 205-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2004.09.002
76. Yıkmış, A. (2012). Etkileşime dayalı matematik öğretimi [Interactive mathematics teaching] (4. Baskı). Kök Yayıncılık.