Inclusive Education: Facilitating the Education of All Children

This article explores the concept of inclusive education and how it facilitates the education of all children. It discusses the importance of acknowledging diversities and providing appropriate support for learning. It also delves into the history and development of inclusive education at the international and national level, as well as the challenges and issues related to inclusive education in Bhutan.

2.1 Inclusive education
The definition of inclusive education provided in Chapter 1, section 1.5 provides a clear
understanding of the difference between inclusive education and special education. Booth and
Ainscow's (2011) argument states that inclusive education works towards accepting and
placing children with disabilities in regular classrooms with non-disabled peers when
necessary adjustments and appropriate modifications support learning in all students. The
following section will now examine closely how inclusive education facilitates the education
of all children harmoniously.
The basic premise of inclusive education is for all children to learn together. The focus
is on acknowledging the diversities that exist in ability, culture, gender, language, class and
ethnicity (Carrington, MacArthur, Kearney, Kimber, Mercer & Morton, 2012; UNESCO,
1994, 2016). With Article 24, Comment 4 of the CRPD providing the most authoritative
articulation of the human right of persons with disabilities to inclusive education, it is widely
accepted that inclusive education now encompasses the delivery of a quality education to all
students; not only to students with a disability but focusing on barriers to student access and
participation, and not just physical barriers (Anderson & Boyle, 2015; Graham, 2013,
Graham &Jahnukainen, 2011). Further, inclusion, in the Index of Inclusion by Ainscow, is a
principled approach to developing education, as it focuses on cultures, policies and practices
that affect everyone: children and adults, schools, families and communities (Booth,
Ainscow& Kingston, 2006). Therefore, apart from including children from all races,
disadvantaged groups and all cultures, inclusive education also recognizes that learning
occurs both at home and in the community and hence the support of parents, family and the
community is important.
The inclusive education approach began in the United States in the late 1980s and “was
started principally by advocates for learners with severe disabilities, who were not an
essential part of the regular education initiative” (Power-Defur&Orelove, 1997, p.3). In this
approach the focus was mainly placed on moving students with severe disabilities from
segregated schools to integrated environments. As the approach gained significant
momentum, the efforts became increasingly focused on educating children with disabilities in
mainstream classrooms — eventually known as inclusive education.
Inclusive education is where all students learn together irrespective of any difficulties
or differences they may have.Ainscow and Miles (2009, p.2) argued that inclusive education
1

is a process and that “inclusion has to be seen as a never-ending search to find better ways of
responding to diversity”. In their framework (prepared for the UNESCO International
Conference on Education in 2008) developed for inclusion, Ainscow and Miles identified
four themes that are simple and easy to understand. This framework is presented in figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1Framework of major themes explaining inclusive education structure
(Source: Ainscow& Miles, 2009).
The framework above is very relevant and can be applied to countries like Bhutan where
inclusive education has recently been established. According to Ainscow and Miles (2009,
p.6), the framework “can be used to review the stage of development within a national or
district education system” bearing in mind the involvement with statistical and qualitative
data including “student and their family views”. This framework will also enable the
2
Inclusive
Education
Process

development of plans for inclusive education to follow a process in moving policy and
practice forward. Inclusive schools will therefore be recognized and prioritized. As a result,
this will allow them to respond to the diverse needs of their students (Carrington & Elkins,
2002), accommodate different learning styles (Broderick, Mehta-Parekh & Reid, 2005; Duke,
2014), and ensure quality education for everyone through proper support such as:
appropriate/adapted curricula (Ainscow, Mara & Mara, 2012), organizational arrangements
and teaching strategies (Mills, 2013), use of teaching and learning resources and partnerships
with their parents and communities (Ainscow, 2005; Ballard, 2011; Loreman, Deppeler&
Harvey, 2011).
When discussing inclusive education in the Bhutanese context, it may be reiterated that
inclusive education means the inclusion of children with SEN and disabilities with their peers
without SEN in regular classrooms except for teaching children with visual impairment and
hearing impairment that are done in special schools (Dorji, 2015; MOE, 2011-2018; P.
Chhogyel1, personal communication, March 22, 2019). The Bhutan MOE has successfully
established 18 inclusive schools across the country, considering the benefits of inclusive
education, such as improved learning, better academic achievement, improved social and
communication through student involvement, and its cost-effectiveness in the long run
(Loreman, 2010). There are ongoing efforts to make the education system more inclusive,
based on the principles of GNH philosophy (Dorji, 2015). However, there are issues related
to inclusive education in Bhutan that are widely viewed as 1) barriers-lack of human resource
and infrastructure resources, lack of budget, 2) teacher preparation 3) inclusive attitudes and
4) lack of coordination in the implementation of inclusive education (Dorji, 2015; Dukpa,
2014; Jigyel, Miller, Mavropoulou& Berman, 2018; Kamenopoulou&Dukpa, 2018; MOE,
2016; Subba, Yangzom, Dorji, Choden, Namgay, Carrington & Nickerson, 2018). This study
has therefore closely examined data related to these issues and these are discussed and
explained in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 respectively.
2.1.1 The advent of inclusive education
The special education model moved towards the end of the twentieth century to the
concept of inclusive education that parallels the emergence of social models of disability. The
inclusive education model aimed at addressing oppression and discrimination of people with
disabilities resulting from institutional forms of “exclusion and cultural attitudes” embodied
1P. Chhogyel is the Deputy Chief Program Officer of the Special Education Section at the Ministry of Education
in Bhutan who provided ‘special education and inclusive education’ information to the researcher.
3

in social practices (Dorji, 2015, p.4). Inclusive education came for everyone (all) worldwide
due to numerous social movements and international conventions and statements about
education. In section 2.2.4 – History and development of special education, these movements,
conventions and statements were discussed. Therefore, to respond appropriately to the
challenges in an inclusive system, understanding the historical development of inclusive
education at the international and national level is important. Table 2.2 presents a timeline of
important international conventions and statements leading to the paradigm shift from special
education to inclusive education worldwide.
Table 2.1International conventions and declarations leading to inclusive education
worldwide.
Year Conventions/Declarations
1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1959 Declaration of Rights of the Child
1975
1989
Declaration of Rights of Disabled Persons
Declaration of Rights of Disabled persons
1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child
1990 World Declaration on Education for All
1994 UNESCO’s Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on
Special Needs Education
2000 World Education Forum: The Dakar Framework for Action
(UNESCO)
2000 Millennium Declaration
2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
At that time when inclusive education was laying its foundation in the 20th century, a
concern arose globally that it should be a basic right of all children to have access to
essential, relevant and free education. Through its broad definition, UNESCO articulated:
Schools should accommodate all children regardless of their physical, intellectual, social,
emotional, linguistic or other conditions. This should include disabled and gifted children,
street and working children, children from remote or nomadic populations, children from
4

linguistic, ethnic or cultural minorities and children from other disadvantaged or marginalised
areas or groups (UNESCO, 1994, p. 3).
It is important to note that the education of all children has been greatly shaped by
social movements. For instance, within the global arena, UNESCO was created by the United
Nations (UN) and instructed to make sure that all adults, youngsters and children could
access basic and quality education. In broader terms, UNESCO stated that there was a need
for accommodation of all children in schools irrespective of their emotional, physical,
linguistic, social or intellectual conditions. Such children include street children, gifted
children, working children, children from remote areas, children belonging to underprivileged
groups, and children from different social, racial or dialectal minorities (Ainscow, Farrell, &
Tweddle, 2000).
One of the most important international policy documents about inclusive education is
The 1994 Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education:
We call upon all governments and urge them to adopt as a matter of law or policy the principle
of inclusive education, enrolling all children in regular schools, unless there are compelling
reasons for doing otherwise. (UNESCO 1994, p. ix).
The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education
stressed the importance of inclusion. As per the Salamanca Statement of 1994, in which 25
global firms and 92 countries participated, it was specified that all students must be educated
within inclusive classrooms. The statement highlighted, urged and required governments to
adopt and implement a legal policy based on inclusive education. It espoused the principle of
enrolling all children in regular schools until and unless there were existing convincing
motives for not doing so (Liasidou, 2016).
Following this, in 2000, when 164 governments met in Dakar, Senegal, at the World
Education Forum, they re-affirmed their commitment to achieving basic education to all
children, youth and adults as reflected in the Dakar Framework for Action. The forum
reviewed progress towards EFA and identified the following key challenge:
… to ensure that the broad vision of Education for All as an inclusive concept is reflected in national
government and funding agency policies. Education for All… must take account of the need of the poor
and the most disadvantaged, including working children, remote rural dwellers and nomads, and ethnic
and linguistic minorities, children, young people and adults affected by conflict, HIV/AIDS, hunger and
poor health; and those with special learning needs…’ (UNESCO, 2000).
5

Inclusion was the main component used with EFA, and the Dakar Framework for
Action recognized the urgency of addressing these learners’ needs.It identified and stressed
the need for inclusive education systems, actively seeking out children who are not enrolled
and responding flexibly to the circumstances and needs of all learners (UNESC), 2000).
In 2000, eight different Millennium Development Goals were set by the UN
Millennium Summit, one of which was to achieve universal primary education by 2015.
Through this objective, the UN reiterated its commitment to EFA as stated earlier through the
1990 World Declaration on Education for All, reinforced subsequently by the Salamanca
Declaration of 1994.
Another powerful influence that further promoted and ensured the educational aspects
of children with disabilities was the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (CRPD) and that came in 2006. CRPD had the highest number of signatories in
the UN history on the first day - 30 March, 2007 of its convention marking the official
paradigm shift in attitudes towards individuals with disability (Márton, Polk &Fiala, 2013).
The Convention aimed to protect the human rights of all persons with disabilities and to
promote respect for their inherent dignity by covering a broad range of areas including
discrimination, health, education, employment, justice and access to information. Article 24
of the Convention recognizes the right of persons with disabilities to education and it
specifically posits that;
States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to education. With a view to realizing this
right without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity, States Parties shall ensure an inclusive
education system at all levels and lifelong learning. (UN, 2006, p.14)
To achieve this right, the UN proposed an inclusive education system at all learning
levels. Inclusive education here entails taking appropriate measures to hire teachers,
including teachers with disabilities, qualified in sign language and/or braille, and to train
professionals and staff who work at all levels of education (Márton, 2013). Such training is
supposed to include disability awareness and the utilization of appropriate augmentative and
alternative modes, means and forms of communication, educational techniques and materials
to support people with disabilities. The CRC therefore played an important role in the
development of inclusive education as it reinforced the principles, goals and concepts and
clarified various practices - issues in the development of inclusive schools.
6

2.3.2 The (contested) concept of inclusive education
Initially inclusive education was advocated for children with disabilities where students
with disabilities were included in mainstream schools (Bunch &Valeo, 1997; Hunt & Goetz,
1997). Their learning in inclusive classrooms was supported with appropriate teaching aids
and additional support. However, due to the lack of clarity about its meaning, inclusive
education means ‘different things to different people’ and the risk could be ‘that inclusion
may end up meaning everything and nothing at the same time’ (Armstrong, Armstrong
&Spandagou, 2010, p.29). Therefore, the right to inclusive education that applies to all
children with disabilities is authoritatively articulated in Article 24, Comment 4 of the CRPD
which the UN has urged all its signatories to comply. () has stated that inclusive education
will be successful only when the Government is able to appoint some special investigation
and implementation team. () has suggested in the similar context that no policy is successful
unless and until there is a proper feedback and evaluation undertaken. Though Government
and the other educational organizations are doing a good job by formulation new policies for
inclusion of the disabled students they gave to focus over the proper implementation as well.
Ainscow and Sandhill (2010); Graham and Jahnukainen, (2011) contest that inclusive
education is not exclusively for students with SEN, but rather encompasses the education of
all students. Countries like Australia, the UK and the US have implemented inclusive
education where students from all backgrounds, including children with SEN, are enrolled in
mainstream schools (Anderson & Boyle, 2015; Forlin, 2012; Gerber, 2012). However many
developing countries, such as Bangladesh, Bhutan, Ghana, India, Malaysia and Thailand,
focus their inclusive education efforts toward children with SEN (Chhetri, 2015), 2015; Deku
and Ackah-Jnr, 2012; Ibrahim, 2012; Sharma, Shaukat &Furlonger, 2015; Srivastava, Boer
&Pijl, 2015). Barro et al. (2017) stated that some reasons for this include constraints in
resource allocation, including inadequate budgets for implementing inclusive education,
poorly equipped teachers in terms of knowledge and skills about inclusive education, poor
government support towards inclusive education, and the absence of consistent government
policy on inclusive education. Hence Waitoller and Artiles’s (2013) observation that
inclusive education has different meanings in different countries is justified by how
differently inclusion is being implemented as educational reform.
In the past, inclusion has been a complex and contested concept. A very common
misunderstanding is that inclusion is a synonym for integration in which inclusion is simply
the presence of a child with SEN in a mainstream school (Cologon, 2015). Such a
7

misunderstanding contributes to a notion that inclusion is for some students only (instead of
everyone) where inclusion is viewed as a process of adjustment — mere placing of students
in classrooms instead of academic achievement. Carrington and MacArthur (2012)
highlighted four issues when considering education reform towards inclusive schooling. First,
there is a need for teachers to have a broad and deep understanding of what inclusion means.
Unless teachers are guided to become more aware of their assumptions and beliefs and the
implications for inclusion, they will find it difficult to think of alternative teaching practices
to support inclusive education (Whittaker, 2017). Second, the models for teacher education
need to be considered as teachers have a critical role to play in progressing inclusive
education. Many teachers are not informed about inclusive education policy and practice
(Graham &Spandagou, 2011). Teachers’ lack of knowledge can become a barrier to inclusion
education.
The third issue to be considered is the organization and resourcing of schools. As per
the opinion of Howell, McKenzie and Chataika, T. (2018) inclusive practices in schools can
be strengthened by expanding broader educational reform agendas that take care of the lack
of attention to students with disabilities and also promote deficit thinking models around the
disability of students (Williams, Shealey, & Blanchett, 2009). More and better support
towards inclusive practices can be provided by educational leaders who have greater
knowledge about resources to support inclusive education, knowledge of legal dimensions of
inclusive practice and in educating students with disabilities (Birnbaum, 2006), knowledge of
collaborative teaching and support arrangements (Carrington & MacArthur, 2012; Sailor,
2009; Zeretsky, 2005), and skills in professional development initiatives that support
inclusive practices (Hochberg & Desimone, 2010; USDOE, 2002) Finally, the social
implications of inclusion are another issue. Social and cultural contexts are fundamental for
the success of inclusion. Whittaker (2017) has argued it makes children suffer the same
context that the help and support systems must be developed in a proper way so that the issue
of stigmatization can be removed. Kruijsen-Terpstr et al. (2016) has agreed to the same
saying that the very method of segregation itself makes the disabled children suffer from a
feeling of isolation. Thus proper counselling sessions have to be arranged so that the children
do not suffer from any kinds of ill feelings or feelings of stigmatization. Barro et al. (2017)
has also stated that occupational therapists or the mental health social workers must be used
in this aspect. This will help in engaging these children into the different kinds of social
activities.
8

It is argued that segregation because of exclusion from society has a negative impact on
children who experience disability resulting in marginalization, stigmatisation, bullying and
abuse (Biklen & Burke, 2006). This calls for policies that respect the diversity of individuals
and families and acknowledge the rights of children to inclusive schooling. It is through such
policies and attention to inclusive practice that education leaders, teachers and school
administrators can understand the difference between the two paradigms of inclusive
education and special education.
Inclusive education may be understood differently especially when viewed from
different perspectives(Slee, 2001, 2008; Sharma &Sokal, 2015). In general, education is
framed by cultural and social contexts. Therefore, viewing inclusive education from cultural
and social perspectives is key to successful inclusion (Ainscow, Booth & Dyson, 2006).
When a culturally inclusive learning environment is created, it helps to develop personal
contacts which is important for individuals with disabilities. It also helps to develop effective
intercultural skills. This means all individuals – regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, religious
affiliation, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation or political beliefs are encouraged to
foster cultural inclusivity, mutual respect and genuine appreciation of diversity (Graham
&Spandagou, 2011). This in turn builds a harmonious society. Thus, considering culture as
an intrinsic part of each student’s life, schools play a crucial role in creating a culturally
inclusive classroom through which all children learn from each other and respect the culture
of each other (Howell, McKenzie & Chataika, 2018). The four strategies identified by
Barker, Frederiks and Farrelly to create a culturally inclusive classroom environment will
now be discussed in the following section.
Barker, Frederiks and Farrelly (u.d) recommended four important strategies to creating
a culturally inclusive classroom environment as discussed below.
9

Figure 2.2Recommended strategies to assist with creating a culturally inclusive classroom
(Source: Barker, Frederiks&Farrelly, n.d, p.1).
Positive interactions with students: In a culturally inclusive classroom both students
and teachers have the prospect of recognising and appreciating diversity, which in turn
develops the overall learning experience. According to Carrington, MacArthur, Kearney,
Kimber, Mercer and Morton’s (2012), teachers are agents of change who ‘can model
inclusion and social justice in schools’ (2012, p. 79). Therefore, teachers must engage
themselves in positive interactions with students to gain information, for example something
unique about students’ cultural backgrounds. Lately, ‘social inclusion’ has come to be
considered highly important, focusing attention on the interactions of teachers and students
within the classroom (Foreman, 2008). Social inclusion is the act of making all students in a
classroom feel valued and important which can be achieved through ‘peer acceptance,
friendships and participation in groups’ (Foreman, 2008, p. 207). Therefore, it is important
for teachers to display positive nonverbal cues like eye contact and inviting facial expressions
to make themselves approachable to students, which will allow students to participate in
classroom activities more inclusively. Since inclusion is based on justice and rights, teachers
working for inclusion also work for democratic education (Slee, 2011). Therefore, if teachers
do not facilitate or encourage students’ participation, ‘then this is exclusion and is against
democratic practice’ (Carrington, MacArthur, Kearney, Kimber, Mercer & Morton, 2012, p.
80).
Use inclusive language and appropriate modes of address: Social interactions are vital
for successful and productive participations in society (Loreman, Deppeler& Harvey, 2005).
Similarly, students should be motivated to participate in classroom discussions through
communication. The need to communicate effectively for students in an inclusive setting
includes the need to be accepted — to fit in, make friends and be liked (Shultz, 1988). Some
10

strategies that teachers can adopt to motivate communication among students are: 1) through
the use of ‘inclusive language that avoids ethnocentric tones – for example ‘family name’
rather than last name and ‘given name’ rather than ‘Christian name’ (Barker,
Frederiks&Farrelly, n.d); 2) referring to students by their names as much as possible and by
asking to address them in the way they prefer; and 3) correct pronunciation of names as it
demonstrates cultural awareness and respect. To enable teachers to apply these strategies,
Florian (2012) acclaims the need for teacher education to consider students’ increasing
cultural and linguistic diversity in classrooms. () is of the opinon that children from the non
native English speaking background are ofren then victims of bullying. Thus they often feel
neglected in their schools and their classroom set ups. They suffer from the feeling that they
are di8fferent and do not belong to the general accepted crowd of their classes. Good and
Lavigne (2017) has stated that school bullying and harassments are also due to the lack of
proper awareness among the students and also the class teachers. Thus efforts have to be
made to interact with the children freely and supporting them to overcome their problem.
Cross cultural competency developments must be initiated right from an early stage so that
students realize about the importance of embracing the cross cultural differences. Language
translators and interpreters are to be appointed in schools so that they can act as a bridge
between the native and the non native English speaking students. Horizontal communication
and interaction sessions must be developed so that students can understand each other and
help each other with proper cooperation and support.
Actively discourage classroom incivilities: Students are very sensitive to teacher’s
actions and teacher’s treatment of them. Teachers should be careful not to ignore or neglect
the needs of their students. For example, when answering questions, teachers should ensure
that every student’s response is considered and that teachers do not favour one group over
another. Priority should be given to protect against cultural exclusion and insensitivity
through effective communication to display mutual respect and support student diversity. An
effective way of providing support is ‘when practitioners (teachers) plan activities with all
children in mind, recognizing their different starting points, experiences, interests and
learning styles, or when children help each other’ (Booth, Ainscow& Kingston, 2006, p. 7).
One benefit of planning activities to support the participation of all children is to reduce the
need for individual support. Hence, when mass participation is encouraged, inclusion
becomes effective.
11

Encourage open, honest and respectful inclusive class discussion: Teachers can create
an inclusive atmosphere in the classroom by letting students take turns when expressing their
own opinions and also by encouraging them to consider listening to the views of others.
Another way to encourage class discussion is by inviting students to respond using open-
ended statements such as, would anyone like to give a different answer or opinion?
The above discussions make it clear how inclusive education can be influenced by
cultural perspectives. Research has shown that culture, specific to a place or a region has
always played a larger role in the conceptualization and implementation of inclusive
education (Booth and Ainscow, 2016; Webber and Lupart, 2011). Accepting children with
disabilities particularly in schools has never been an issue in Bhutan. A study on Bhutanese
teachers’ perception on inclusion and disability by Drukpa and Kamenopoulou (2017, p.10)
ascertained that Bhutanese teachers’ ‘understanding of inclusion was compatible with the
broader view of inclusion as the elimination of all forms of discrimination and with the
rights-based/social model approach’. Nevertheless, it needs to be pointed out that inclusion in
schools in Bhutan still focuses mainly on children with disabilities (Chhetri, 2015; Dorji,
2015) which is aligned with the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994).
Within every school there exists a culture that includes beliefs, values and the school’s
own ways of doing things within its community (Carrington, MacArthur, Kearney, Kimber,
Mercer & Morton, 2012). When such perspectives are respected, there is more support
towards inclusion and when inclusion becomes a practice, it encourages higher levels of
interaction than segregated settings (Cologon, 2013). For many countries in South Asia like
India (Antil, 2014; Sanjeev & Kumar, 2007; Singal, 2005) Nepal (Khamal, 2018; Regmi,
2017), Srilanka (Wijesekera, Alford &Guanglun Mu, 2018) Bangladesh (Ahsan, Sharma
&Deppeler, 2012) and Bhutan (Dorji, 2015; Kamenopoulou&Dukpa, 2018) where the
concept of inclusive education is still new, consideration of socio-cultural contexts remains a
challenge in the successful implementation of inclusive education.
To some extent, the term ‘inclusive education’ has been plagued by conceptual
confusion, ideological struggles, and a lack of national and local policies (Slee, 2008).
Despite the emphasis laid by Article 24 of CRPD in promoting education of children with
disabilities through inclusion, there are some draw backs and many countries continue to face
the challenges of defining the meaning, purpose and content of inclusive education. As
discussed, despite several international assertions that promote equal educational
opportunities, research has found that “the levels at which inclusive education is practised are
12

still far from acceptable” (Hunt, 2011. p, 461). As a consequence, not many systems or
schools are implementing inclusive education effectively, despite having adopted the
philosophy of inclusive education in policy documents decades ago (Allan, 2011). Some
researchers, including Deku and Ackah-Jnr (2012) and Vlachou (2004) have claimed that
many researchers have failed to recognize the broader contexts of inclusion and more
emphasis is placed on describing the paradigm of special education rather than
inclusion.Given the above argument, it becomes increasingly important to identify and
describe the essential components of inclusive education, particularly in specific culturally-
diverse contexts.
2.4 Components of inclusive education
Despite the confusion around inclusive education, several authors have presented their
views on the definition and the concept of inclusion in their work and called for a
commitment to inclusive education. To determine the quality and the success of inclusion
within schools, various components of inclusive education are recommended (Anderson &
Boyle, 2015). These include: adequate funding; inclusive attitudes of school administrators,
teachers, staff, and parents; physically accessible infrastructure for wheelchairs and walkers;
assistive technology devices; and adaptation of the curriculum to meet the needs and
limitations of a diverse group of children. The following section provides discussion on
components of inclusive education that have been grouped under two broad categories:
supports to inclusive education and the attitude of stakeholders.
2.4.1 Supports to inclusive education: Policy for inclusion, resource allocation, teacher
knowledge, curriculum for inclusion
Policy for inclusion
For inclusive education to be successful, policy and government support is pivotal.
Policy and guidelines for inclusive education are components without which the planning and
implementation of inclusive education is challenged. Countries where inclusive education is
effectively implemented are guided by well-developed policy on inclusive education. In
Australia, there are policies and legislation that state that the country is an ‘inclusive society
having inclusive systems and schools’ (Pearce, 2009, p. 101), and all States in Australia have
their own policies and related guidelines, which are reviewed on a timely basis to ensure
consistency in implementing inclusive education practices (Anderson & Boyle, 2015). For
instance, the Queensland government’s policy statement for inclusive education states that:
13

“All students benefit, academically and socially, when provided with a high-quality inclusive
education” (Department of Education, 2018, p.5). Through this policy, the commitment of the
Queensland government to inclusive education means that children and youth across
Queensland, from all social, cultural, community and family backgrounds, and from all
identities and abilities can: “attend their local state school; learn in a safe and supportive
environment; access and participate in high - quality education; and achieve academically and
socially with reasonable adjustments and supports tailored to meet their learning needs”
(Department of Education, 2018, p.4). Similarly, the New South Wales government in 2018,
provided support for more support classes in mainstream schools, however the policy and
practice may not always be described as inclusive in New South Wales:
Support class establishments will increase in 2018 at a greater rate than general enrolment growth,
consistent with trends in recent years. The trend since 2012 is for the majority of new support classes to
be established in mainstream schools. (All Means All, 2018).
It is, however, important to note that despite many countries having legal systems in
place, the provision for inclusion of students, in particular those students with a disability is
often challenging. For example, Forlin's (2001) argument about notable differences between
inclusive education policies across Australia is supported by Cologon (2013), which found
that access to an inclusive form of education was denied to many students with a disability.
Hence, this requires a comprehensive and coordinated legislative and inclusive education
policy. UN CRPD - Article 24 General comment No. 4, emphasized the development of an
inclusive education policy framework that would enable “address issues of flexibility,
diversity and equality in all educational institutions for all learners and identify
responsibilities at all levels of government” (UN, 2006, p.16).
Further, Dixon and Verenikina (2007) found that there are lapses in policies within
Australia that hindered good inclusive practice. Also, in China, the inclusive education policy
is not well formed due to constraints in resource allocation and poorly equipped in-service
teachers in mainstream schools (Deng & Poon-MacBrayer, 2012). Similarly, the absence of
consistent government policy in South Korea makes the school administrators and teachers
incapable of effectively supporting students with disabilities in their classrooms. In the case
of Hong Kong, inclusive education is relatively weak because of poor government support.
Interestingly, inclusive education in Hong Kong has been the result of public pressure for
improvement rather than government policy directives (Poon-McBrayer, 2014).
14

While Bhutan has yet to develop an inclusive education policy, the government's draft
National Policy on Special Educational Needs (NPSEN) (MOE, 2012) is still awaiting
approval. Because of its unrealistic and ambitious plans (Schuelka, 2014), the NPSEN has
already captured some criticisms leaving enough room for careful review (Dorji, 2017). Once
the NPSEN has been approved and implemented, things can be expected to fall in place and
some of the concerns that currently prevail, such as barriers, teacher education, and resources
to name a few, will be addressed.
Hence, for an all-inclusive education system to be realized, appropriate policies must be
supported by competent staff who have the knowledge and skills, to ensure that education
supports the needs of all students.
Resource allocation
One of the greatest concerns in realizing inclusive education is the deficiency of
resources to effect inclusion. Access to resources in the form of funding is a key component
of inclusive education. In terms of funding, support for inclusive education should be
allocated on a needs basis rather than based on the labelling and categorization of certain
individuals (Ainscow, Booth & Dyson, 2006). For example, in Australia, the government
allocates a sizeable amount of its budget to support disability-friendly public transport,
opportunities for employment and the implementation of inclusive education for greater
inclusion in mainstream society (Bualar, 2013; Graham & Phelps, 2003; Hofer, 2001;
Stancliffe, 2014). Another example is seen in the provision of teacher aides as a form of
support where more of these positions have been funded within schools across the country
(Boyle et al., 2011; Westwood, 2018). On the other hand, South Korea’s efforts in
implementing inclusive education have been hindered because the government does not
provide either an adequate budget or extensive teacher education programs on inclusive
education (McLeskey et al., 2012; Wook Kim, 2014). Likewise, in Malaysia inclusive
education has been slow-moving where “current resources and structure in the MOE is still
not adequate to provide education for all students with disabilities in the mainstream ... it
might be a while before inclusive education is a mainstay of education in Malaysia” (Wah
2010, p. 106).
Teachers’ knowledge about inclusive education
Teachers’ knowledge about inclusion is equally important. Support in the form of
teacher expertise to teach in inclusive classroom (Forlin, 2012), (Bechham& Rouse, 2012;
15

Forlin, 2010), their willingness to accept all students (Woodcock, Hemmings, & Kay, 2012)
and their ability to handle the pedagogical challenges raised by inclusive education (Crawford
2002; Slee, 2010; Westwood 2002) can make an inclusive education program successful. The
highest impact on student learning in inclusive classrooms is the quality of teaching
(Anderson & Boyle, 2015). It is therefore necessary to increase the knowledge of teachers
about educating children in inclusive classrooms to make the educational setting more
inclusive. In other words, both the why and how of inclusive education should be provided to
teachers with best practice instruction (Anderson & Boyle, 2015).
Curriculum to support inclusion and classroom management
According to UNESCO, curricula based on difficult and inflexible content resulted in
the isolation of students with disabilities (Sharma, Simi, &Forlin, 2015). Inclusive education
as a system of supports should be flexible. The flexibility of curriculum in inclusive
education must be reflected in the methods and materials used to give students access to the
regular curriculum as widely as possible (Chakraborti-Gosh, 2017). The success of inclusion
occurs when children are offered equal and accessible educational opportunities to learn in
the classroom. Therefore, it is vital that the curriculum supports inclusion based on the
consideration of the particular needs of all children besides those that require SEN (LaPierre,
2008).
A school curriculum needs to ensure it meets the needs of all learners. According to Lo
(2007), the general understanding is that the mainstream school curricula should be
appropriate for all students, but whether and how the curricula are adapted to the needs of
student’s learning needs is a matter of concern. He argues that “equity does not mean
uniformity” (p.52) in the context of inclusive education. For every individual student to
achieve successful learning outcomes, it is imperative to provide the required support to
students to enable them to fully participate and make progress within the general education
curriculum or other inclusive activities. Incidentally, Tait and Mundia (2012) reported that
one of the major features of curriculum reformation in Brunei was on improving equity in
participation and access to quality inclusive education programs in regular classrooms. To
this end, they stressed that equity in inclusive education can be achieved by providing
teachers with skills to adapt the curriculum to offer ‘positive inclusive education outcomes’
(p.68).
16

Inclusive education places both high and profound demands on teachers. However, the
way inclusive education teachers interpret the curricula must be considered. For students to
participate in and benefit from the general education curriculum, the roles and responsibilities
of teachers, paraprofessionals, and related service providers should reflect the provision of
support and services towards inclusive education (Colon, 2013). This can be achieved
through team collaboration, support from teacher aides, learning support assistants,
paraeducators, special support officers, inclusion support aides, special needs assistants,
paraprofessionals, or teacher assistants.
Teaching in inclusive classrooms is also supported through the curriculum approach of
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) which helps in reducing barriers and at the same time
increasing access for learning. Originally used by architects in developing accessible building
codes in America, ULD was gradually adopted in the field of education to better support
accessibility for all learners (Courey, Tappe, Siker& LePage, 2012). UDL is a curriculum
framework that provides multiple and flexible options for teachers to effectively teach a
diverse group of students (Samuels, 2007). It is based on three main principles described
below that was advocated by the Centre for Applied Special Technology.
Representation refers to giving learners different options of acquiring information and
knowledge. Multiple ways of representation can be deployed to design curriculum materials
so that a greater number of diverse learners have access (Courey, Tappe, Siker& LePage,
2012). For example, Ralabate (2019) suggests various options for representation such as
converting into video captioning and video description, audio text or vocal directions
matched with printed representations, images, diagrams and animations to interpret content,
colour and shading for emphasis and pre-teaching opportunities for new vocabulary and
concepts. Teachers could also use other ideas like posing questions to activate students’ prior
knowledge of the subject being taught and making interactive demonstrations.
Expression and action refer to encouraging students to use different ways of
demonstrating what they know. When teachers give options to students to communicate in
different ways, both teachers and students benefit (Courey, Tappe, Siker& LePage, 2012).
For example, in addition to the traditional practice of writing a paper or completing a written
examination, learning can be demonstrated through interviews, paired voice with visual
displays, building a model, developing a video or power point presentation (Jimenez, Graf &
Rose, 2007).
17

Engagement – involves motivating students to learn by stimulating their interest (Rose
& Meyer, 2006; Rose, Meyer & Hitchcock, 2005). These could done by providing students
with a choice of topics for projects and paired peers to share small-group activities (Ralabate,
2019). One advantage of attracting students into learning through engagement is it helps to
reduce their anxiety levels (Spencer, 2011).
Research suggests that by applying the principles of UDL ‘teachers not only make their
lessons more accessible to learners with special needs but make them more interesting for all
their students’ (Spencer, 2011, p.18). With the shifting of focus toward appropriate
instruction for ‘all’ learners rather than just for special needs, UDL as a curriculum
framework has the potential to promote inclusive education.
2.4.2 The attitude of stakeholders towards inclusive education
Attitudes are important and influence basic aspects of human life. Our attitudes are
made up of feelings, likes, dislikes, behavioural intentions, thoughts and ideas. In addition to
providing support for inclusive education, the attitudes of stakeholders, such as the
government, communities, media and professionals (school principals, policy makers,
teachers, pre-service teachers, parents and support providers) towards inclusivity have been
identified as closely tied to the success of inclusive practices (Avramidis& Norwich, 2002;
UNICEF, 2013). As much as knowledge and skills are required for the effective
implementation of inclusive education, the importance of having a positive attitude towards
inclusive education must not be undermined (Pearce, 2009).
When considering if inclusive education has been successful, Graham and Sweller
(2011) indicate that a key issue is not it has failed, but rather that ‘a narrow, instrumentalist
view as to the purposes of education in a modern society continues to prevail – preventing the
reconceptualization of schooling that a rapidly growing number of students so clearly require’
(p. 951). While discrimination and social exclusion within communities exist and will
continue to remain (Loreman, 2011; Slee, 2013), it cannot be assumed that everyone living
within a community values a just and fair society (Rawls, 2001). The risk, therefore, is that
until attitudes among stakeholders begin to change, little will change in the lives of children,
particularly those with disabilities, making it difficult for inclusion to take place (UNICEF,
2013). Accordingly, Article 24 of the UN CRPD (General Comment No. 4) clearly states that
all children have the right to inclusive education and that attitudinal barriers must be removed
(UN, 2006). The CRPD recognizes inclusion as the key to achieving the right to education,
18

which according to UNICEF (2006, p.1) is “the first legally binding instrument to contain a
reference to the concept of quality inclusive education.” In Article 24, Comment No. 4, there
is a specific reference from the international community to ensure the right to inclusive
education that involves transforming culture, policy and practice in all formal and informal
educational environments (UNICEF, 2006).This accommodates the different needs and
identities of individual students, as well as a commitment to remove the barriers that impede
this possibility and attitude.
Similarly, when cultural differences are not valued and considered, it limits the
acceptance of certain groups of children in mainstream schools. This is where the cultural
competence of stakeholders comes into play. Cultural competence refers to a personal
capability comprised of attitudes, values and beliefs (Mason, Benjamin, & Lewis, 1996;
Weaver, 1997) that helps an individual to understand and appreciate, interact and
communicate effectively with sensitivity, with individuals from different cultural
backgrounds (Martin & Vaughn, 2007). Sims (2011) states that ‘cultural competence requires
more than an awareness of Indigenous culture, but a willingness to engage with heart as well
as mind; an engagement many service providers find difficult given the mismatch between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultures on fundamental beliefs around children, child-
rearing and the roles of parents and community” (p.11).
While the road to attitudinal change is a complex and difficult one, the need to educate
all in society on the benefits of inclusive education is crucial. There is evidence to suggest
that the level of education among stakeholders influences their attitudes towards inclusion
(Stahmer, Carter, Baker & Miwa, 2003).As such, teacher attitudes towards inclusive
education are vital. One way of developing positive attitudes is through the knowledge of
policy for inclusive education.
2.4.3 Teachers’ Attitude towards Inclusive Education
The research on the value systems of teachers is interlinked with the study of attitudes
of teachers towards inclusive education. Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are often
centred on practical concerns rather than moral opinions. Their attitudes may also be driven
by their urge to implement inclusive education. According to LaPierre (2008), teachers’
attitudes towards inclusion are key variables during the implementation of effective inclusive
educational procedures. The positive perception of teachers regarding inclusive education is
far more likely to result in the fulfilment of the goals of inclusive educations. The key goal of
19

inclusive education is based on the provision of equal educational and social opportunities to
all students within a school. However, teachers’ negative perceptions regarding inclusive
education can result in the creation of gaps between students with disabilities and their
teachers. As per the findings of Liasidou (2016), a majority of teachers believe that access to
adequate knowledge and skills related to inclusive education is important and can assist them
in handling educational problems and challenges strategically. In other words, one of the
main barriers that could influence the practice of inclusive education is represented by
teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. While positive attitudes towards inclusion can influence
teachers, negative attitudes can lead to the rejection of learners in inclusive classrooms
(Avramidis& Norwich, 2002).
Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education are generally based on concerns about
how inclusive education can be implemented. Some common practical concerns raised by
teachers include: limited training and competence in supporting inclusive educational
practice; the time demands of students with disabilities (Carrington,
MacArthur,Kearney,Kimber, Mercer & Morton, 2012) concerns about the quality and
quantity of the work output of children with disabilities; and a lack of adequate support
services (Hemmings &Woodcock, 2011). In addition, teachers’ resistance to supporting
inclusive education is due to their lack of experience and appropriate skills to help students
with diverse backgrounds (Tait &Mundia, 2012).
Teacher experience is a key variable linked to teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion
(Wilkerson, 2012). Teachers with experience working with students with disabilities tend to
have more positive attitudes toward inclusion than teachers without experience (Avramidis,
Bayliss, & Burden, 2000). More specifically, teachers who have several years of experience
in inclusive practices hold more positive attitudes toward inclusion than teachers who are yet
to implement inclusionary practices. Teacher attitudes towards inclusive education are also
associated with teacher education. In order to develop positive attitudes for successful
inclusion, teacher education is vital. Hollins (2011) identified teacher education as one of the
main factors that promote positive attitudes for inclusion.Moreover,the severity of disability
is inversely related to teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. When a child with a severe
disability is in the class, teachers tend to have less positive attitudes which subsequently
affects inclusion (Forlin& Chambers, 2011). Thus, the type of disability also appears to
influence teachers’ attitudes. For example, Boer, Pijl and Minnaert (2011) found that teachers
20

generally are more supportive of including children with physical and sensory disabilities in
their class, rather than those students with intellectual, learning and behavioural disabilities.
Teacher education within the field of inclusive education is positively related to
teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of students within their classroom settings. A study
conducted by Schuelka (2016) investigated the impact of a particular education training
setting on teachers’ attitude towards inclusion. The findings showed that positive teacher
attitudes towards inclusion are formed on the basis of the level of training provided to them.
However, in this way, newly qualified teachers may feel that their preparation as an educator
is not satisfactory. This lack of preparedness may lead to increased attrition rates among
teachers. Furthermore, Schuelka (2016) concluded that teachers who are specifically trained
in special needs are more likely to have increased confidence when including students with
SEN in their classrooms. Such teachers showed more positive attitudes towards inclusive
classroom settings generally. According to Sharma, Simi and Forlin (2015), in-service
training is the main component of the inclusive education process which can increase
development of teachers, and help them to continue to work successfully and confidently
with students. The study also revealed that there is an existing unrealised potential of teacher
preparation programs in contributing to the improvement of teacher capacity in implementing
inclusive education. That is, teachers who work in inclusive schools can also benefit from
ongoing professional development (such as workshops). This ongoing learning can assist
teachers in adjusting to working with a variety of children with SEN and disabilities in their
classrooms. It was also revealed by Lynch, McCall, Douglas, McLinden, &Bayo (2011) that
while teachers may show agreement with the basic ideals of inclusion and consider it a
standard to be sought after, they may not believe it is possible in practice. That is, teachers
may feel that they do not have required training and adequate skills, or may feel due to time
constraints and insufficient resources that they are unable to put inclusion ideals into practice
effectively.
According to Meijer, Soriano & Watkins (2007), inclusive education is based on
welcoming all students to attend regular classes in schools as appropriate for their age, and
supporting them in learning, contributing and participating in all fields of the school life.
Inclusive education also reflects development and design of classrooms, schools, activities
and programs, so that all students are able to take part in learning together. These schools
welcome all children with severe or mild, apparent or hidden disabilities. A number of studies
have shown the impact of the severity and extent of children’s disabilities on teachers’
21

attitudes towards inclusion. For instance, a study by Subban& Sharma (2005) showed that
teachers are often inclined toward preferring to work with students with particular types of
disabilities over others. Generally, teachers find it challenging to include children
experiencing behavioural or emotional disability in mainstream educational settings.
Moreover, they perceive that children with behavioural and emotional disabilities are able to
trigger greater problems for teachers compared to students who have other sorts of disability.
Rieser (2013) reports that that teachers who work with children with various behavioural
issues and disabilities argue that these children make it challenging for teachers to control
classroom behaviour.
A study conducted by Hardy (2012) examined environmental factors that impacted on
teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. The study showed that provision of various support
services for teachers resulted in more positive attitudes toward inclusion. The key support
service included particular teaching strategies and learning content for students with wide-
ranging disabilities. The study revealed that when proper teaching materials and relative
supporting services were provided to teachers, it stimulated them to adopt inclusive practices
and develop positive attitudes toward including students with disabilities in their classrooms.
In this way, it can be seen that teachers working within inclusive schools require support
from headteachers, SEN students’ parents, government, and other stakeholders in the
educational sector. According to Saqr& Tennant (2016), there is a need to motivate and
support teachers within mainstream and special education classrooms so that they can be
more reflective related to their personal practice and an expert with respect to efficient
teaching methods and modified programs. This in turn will meet the needs of wide-ranging
students within regular classroom setting. However, in order to make inclusive education
successful, the teacher must invest time in discussing with teachers and parents within and
outside the school, in preparing material and making lesson plans (Thaver& Lim, 2012).
Recent studies from some countries in South Asia have concluded that teachers’
attitude can influence the practice of inclusive education (Ashan, Deppeler& Sharma, 2013;
Sharma, Forlin, Deppeler& Yang, 2013). One major reason that concerns teachers’ attitudes
towards inclusive education is their lack of appropriate skills to help in the classrooms (Tait
&Mundia, 2012). A cross-cultural study of teachers’ attitudes in inclusive education in
Finland and South Africa by Savolainen, Engelbrecht, Nel and Malinen (2012) found that
teachers were more positive at a general level towards children with disabilities but were
more critical towards the idea of including children with disabilities in mainstream schools.
22

Based on their findings, the researchers argued that teacher education needs to be enhanced
by introducing principles and practical implementation strategies of inclusive education for
pre-service teachers. There is evidence to show that when teachers are trained appropriately,
both their attitudes and their teaching efficacy beliefs are enhanced (Brownlee & Carrington,
2000; Loreman, Sharma, Forlin& Earle, 2005; Sharma, Shakuat, &Furlonger, 2015).
According to Unianu (2011), there are several factors which influence teachers’ attitudes
towards inclusive education; these include: “the degree of children’s difficulties, the nature of
children’s disabilities, the teachers’ experience with children with SEN, the trust in their own
capabilities to implement inclusive activities, or the expectations towards the children no
matter what are the differences between them, the curricula” (p. 901).
According to Clough and Lindsay (1991), the positive effect of teacher attitudes
regarding inclusion occur as a result of the teachers’ increasing mastery of the skills
developed to teach students with a wide range of abilities and backgrounds. Therefore, there
is a positive correlation between teacher competence and more positive attitudes.
Furthermore, the authors argue that the development of positive attitudes among teachers
resulted from teachers’ developing competence. This however, meant that teachers needed to
be relatively well-supported through their career.
In summary, most research on teacher attitudes towards inclusive education has
highlighted teachers’ inadequacy of knowledge and skills to address the diverse needs
appropriately. Hence, teachers feel unprepared for inclusion. Although some studies found
that experience did not improve teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, several studies
concluded that teachers developed more positive attitudes following their experience of
working with students with disabilities. Hence, the current study sought to gain an insight
into how self-efficacy and attitudes of teachers is related to perceptions about inclusive
education for students with SEN and disabilities in Bhutan.
The next section looks at the attitudes of pre-service teachers towards inclusive
education from the point of view of their experience during pre-service training to further
inform graduate teacher attitudes.
2.4.4 Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitude towards Inclusive Education
Improving the knowledge of pre-service teachers and their confidence in inclusive
education alone is not sufficient in cultivating a positive attitude towards inclusion and
reducing related anxiety. As stated earlier, it is evident that there is a gradual decline in
23

positive attitudes towards inclusion in pre-service teachers as they advance in their training
years or after completing their pre-service course(Sharma &Nuttal, 2015). It is possible that
an increased awareness of the challenges one is likely to face when including all students
with disabilities might dampen teachers’ openness towards being inclusive.
Different factors affect the attitudes of pre-service teachers towards inclusion within
mainstream classes. According to CaustonTheoharis, Theoharisand Trezek (2008), positive
attitudes of pre-service teachers towards inclusion are based on their experience with students
who have SEN and thus pose challenges for their teachers. However, as opposed to this, a
study by Thorius (2016) showed no interlink between pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards
inclusion and their experiences with children who are disabled or have SEN. Hence, as per
the conclusion, pre-service teachers’ attitudes depend on their negative or positive experience
with disabled children.
Furthermore, it is found that pre-service teachers show positive attitudes towards
inclusion when they have a high perception of their competency, high self-efficacy, or are
highly confident in terms of teaching students with SEN. This shows that the development of
self-efficacy is based on knowledge about inclusion, which subsequently allows pre-service
teachers to adopt appropriate teaching strategies within an inclusive classroom setting. In this
way, they develop confidence, and thus, they openly accept and support inclusion.
Another key variable associated with pre-service teachers’ attitude towards inclusive
education is gender. Several researchers reported that female pre-service teachers have more
positive attitudes towards inclusive education than male pre-service teachers (Ahsan,
Deppeler& Sharma, 2013). A study in Australia by Woodcook (2008) and another study in
Israel by Romi and Leyser (2006) found that in both countries female pre-service teachers
showed more positive attitudes towards inclusive education than male pre-service teachers.
These findings were supported by another study conducted by Forlin, Loreman, Sharma and
Earle (2009) that compared pre-service teachers attitudes towards inclusive education in four
countries; Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and Singapore. In the above study, female pre-
service teachers from all four countries showed more positive attitudes towards inclusive
education when compared to their male counterparts. However, there are other studies that
provide differing and opposing research. Some studies (Carroll, Forlin& Jobling, 2003;
Haq&Mundia, 2012; Rana, 2012) concluded that there was no significant relationship
between participants’ gender and their attitudes towards inclusive education. A study of
Pakistani pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education revealed that “the pre-
24

service male teachers held more positive attitudes towards inclusive education in comparison
to their female counterparts” (Sharma, Shaukat&Furlonger, 2015, p. 102). In the same way, a
study by Engstrand and Roll-Pettersson (2012) showed that male teachers show highly
favourable attitudes towards inclusion.
Similarly, it was found that when pre-service teachers were introduced to a compulsory
module on diversity, it promoted an inclusive attitude (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma & Earle,
2009). To some extent, course length, another variable to pre-service teachers’ attitudes seem
to influence their attitudes towards inclusion. For example, Rademacher, Wilhelm, Hildereth,
Bridges and Cowart’s (1998) study in the United States found that pre-service teachers who
completed two-semester courses had positive attitudes when compared to others who
completed short courses. However, Savolainen, Engelbrecht, Nel and Malinen (2011) argue
that even short-term training for teachers can have positive effects on their attitudes. In
addition, when pedagogies that combine formal training and hands-on experience in inclusion
were put in place, it improved teachers’ preparedness and positive attitudes towards inclusion
(Forlin, 2003; Campbell, Gilmore &Cuskelly, 2003). Such strategies enabled pre-service
teachers to have a better understanding of the potential of children with disabilities with a
strong focus on inclusive education (Campbell, Gilmore &Cuskelly, 2003).
In summary, pre-service teacherattitudes are important factors that influence the
success of inclusive education. Researchers have argued that teacher education programs
must be strengthened in order to help improve pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards
inclusive education
2.5 Inclusive education in teacher education degrees
The incorporation of inclusive education in teacher education degrees is a significant
strategy in encouraging education for all populations including students with disabilities in
society. This type of program is essential since it should prepare the teacher to be a
knowledgeable and skilled educator who is able to work with people with special needs in
their line of duty. Inclusive education is a growing element and Duke (2009, p.2) has
addressed its history; this includes the phases of ‘ignoring, segregation, integration and the
current inclusion’. Pupil population in schools continues to be more diverse with children
from different backgrounds and with different needs hence the need for teachers to be
equipped with relevant knowledge and skills that will enhance inclusivity. This section
addresses the issue of inclusive education in teacher education degrees illustrating the
25

significance of teacher education, curriculum development and teaching practice in preparing
teachers to be inclusive educators.
2.5.1 Teacher education for Inclusive Education
The significance of teacher education for inclusive education has been clearly
pronounced by the United Nations (2006) and was highlighted during the World Declaration
on Education for All (1990). Teachers constitute a determining factor in the implementation
of inclusive education. However, inadequacies in teacher education, (discussed in the
following sections) particularly focused on inclusive education is becoming an obstacle to the
successful implementation of inclusive education (Brown, Packer & Passmore, 2013;
Shaddock, 2006). In addition, a teacher shortage for inclusive education also makes the
progress of inclusive education difficult. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa statistics show
that the teacher/pupil ratio in this region is increasing due to the growth in the number of
students. For example, while the regional median ratio in 2004 was 46 pupils to 1 teacher,
Ethiopia had a ratio of 70:1; and Chad, Congo, Malawi, and Mozambique had a ratio of 60:1.
Similarly, reports from developing countries suggest that there are “serious problems in
respect of teacher education and pedagogy within the schools” (Armstrong, Armstrong
&Spandagou, 2010, p.128). While it was found that some teacher colleges and universities
provided a more advanced level of educational opportunities, a majority of the institutions
need to reconsider their teaching training strategies (discussed in the following sections).
Research findings suggest that teacher education for inclusion has become an area of
international debate (Forlin, 2012). For example, Article 24, Comment No. 4 of the UN
CRPD reported that education for children with disabilities was marginalized in many
countries and the same article urged all-inclusive education providers to commit and align
their understanding of the implications of an inclusive education system to achieve an
integrated approach and work collaboratively towards a common goal (UN, 2006). One of the
measures indicated above to uphold the commitment recommended in Article 24, Comment
No. 4 was to forge partnership with teacher education colleges to train all teachers in
inclusive classrooms. Teacher education is therefore a fundamental area of development in
inclusive education that must be improved by all countries (UN, 2006; World Declaration on
Education for All, 1990).
In Australia, international declarations and statements have been localized to set
minimum requirements for teacher preparation (Berlach& Chambers, 2011; Elkins, 2009;
26

Forlin&Forlin, 1998). In Queensland and New South Wales, all teachers are mandated to
complete a module in special or inclusive education (Subban& Sharma, 2006). Nevertheless,
despite operating under the same national legislation, inclusive education in Australia has
been implemented in different ways in the States and Territories, resulting in inconsistent
levels of educational outcomes for students (Anderson & Boyle, 2015). This has also raised
concerns about the competencies of pre-service and newly qualified teachers (Hemmings &
Woodcock, 2011).
The success of an inclusive ideology in schools partly depends on the quality of teacher
preparation (Bechham& Rouse, 2012; Forlin, 2010). Woodcock, Hemmings, and Kay (2012)
observed that some teacher education courses offered too little and/or failed to address key
aspects of inclusion. Similarly, a review of inclusion advocacy work in 26 countries
conducted by Modern, Joergensen, and Daniels (2010) found that inclusive education
programs were being practiced in the absence of strong policy environments and teachers
lacked specific training in inclusive education. Teacher preparation programs that are
inadequate are also susceptible to producing graduates with a poor understanding of the skills
and capabilities for the implementation of inclusive education (Kozleski&Waitoller, 2010).
Notably, a number of studies have found that pre-service teachers were apprehensive about
their ability to teach in inclusive classrooms (Hemmings &Weaven, 2005; Loreman, 2010;
Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). For example, Winter’s (2006, p.88) study that involved new
teachers in Northern Ireland reported that “the majority of the participants (89%) said that,
overall, their initial teacher education programs did not prepare them to teach in inclusive
settings”.
Inadequate preparation can be blamed for poorly effective teachers. Forlin& Chambers
(2011, p.18) suggested that between 25% and 40% of newly graduated teachers burn out or
quit teaching within their first 3-5 years of service especially due to poor initial preparation.
According to Forlin& Chambers (2011, p.26), good training and preparation of teachers have
a strong link to increased knowledge, confidence and positive attitude towards inclusive
education. Appropriate legislation is thus a supplement to adequate teacher trainee
preparation.
Support and provision for better preparation of teachers for inclusive education have
become a major focus in education in many countries. To this effect, Laarhoven, Munk,
Lynch, Bosma, and Rouse (2007) contend that universities have placed pressure on their
faculty and course designers to prepare new teachers for teaching in inclusive classrooms. In
27

line with this, there are concerns about the competencies required by teacher educators.
Forlin (2012, p.7) argues that “to assume that teacher educators are able to provide relevant
training by using innovative and applicable approaches, without themselves having received
any such preparation, is rather unrealistic”. She contends that “those who are charged with
the business of preparing teachers for inclusion” (p.7), must be appropriately trained in the
first place. Therefore, restructuring teacher education programs both at the content and
lecturer level are widely recommended to prepare pre-service teachers for inclusive settings
(Hettiarachchi& Das, 2014; Sharma, Shaukat &Furlonger, 2015).
Conversely, many regions around the world are yet to bring changes to their system to
prepare teachers for inclusive education (Forlin, 2012). For example, Srivastava, Boer and
Pijl’s (2015, p. 221) study in India found that “available teacher education and in-service
programs do not really prepare teachers for inclusive education”. In Vietnam, “almost none
of them [teacher education colleges and universities] provide inclusive education courses
either through an infusion mode or as a separate course” (Forlin& Nguyet, 2010, p.36).
Similarly, Bhutan is yet to introduce a formal course in inclusive education in its pre-service
teacher education program (Dorji, 2015).
Teacher education for inclusive education must be comprehensive to accommodate the
changing needs of students and the education system as a whole (Forlin, 2012). The demand
for teachers to be inclusive educators will continue to increase due to growing diversity
within classrooms that can be associated with globalization. Teacher education must be
restructured to ensure that teachers are prepared for this demand for inclusivity and ensure
that the educational outcome for each child is maximized (Forlin, 2014). Sharma andSokal,
(2015, p.276) have outlined three special elements that need to be addressed to support
preparation of inclusive educators. These include teachers’ attitudes, their concerns about
inclusivity and their efficacy. Hence, teacher education must equip pre-service teachers with
positive attitudes towards inclusion, address their concerns and improve their efficacy
(Sharma &Sokal, 2015).
In Bhutan, teachers are “lacking in knowledge and competence to teach children with
disabilities in mainstream regular classrooms” (Dorji, 2017, p.11; Dukpa, 2014; UNICEF,
2014). They are not adequately prepared in their pre-service education regarding inclusive
education. Their most significant learning about inclusive-teaching strategies begins after
they start teaching in inclusive classrooms. They use a trial-and-error method for learning
through their personal experiences, which is a time-consuming approach (Chhetri, 2015). In
28

fact, teachers perceive the teacher education program in Bhutan as preparation for teaching in
inclusive classrooms in different ways (Chhetri, 2015). Teachers are aware that the teacher
education program has areas of improvements as it needs to focus on knowledge and skills
needed for inclusive education. It is important to note that teaching in inclusive classrooms is
a greater challenge than in a class with students with matched abilities. Inclusive education
emphasizes on the competence of the teachers, their social skills and their self-efficacy.
However, many teachers in Bhutan who teach in inclusive schools have limited skills on
teaching and managing children with disabilities (Sherab, Dorji, Dawa,Lhamo, Thapa and
Tshomo (2015). They are therefore required to go an extra mile as individual teachers to find
their own ways of conveying knowledge to the students in ways that they did not learn in the
teacher education program due to the diversified needs of the students (Chhetri, 2015).
The need for professional development of teachers is directly proportional to the rising
accommodation of children with SEN in inclusive schools. For example, in Australia, there is
an existing explicit demand from the professional teaching institutions regarding
compensation of apparent shortcomings in training and continual professional growth of
teacher education within special education setting. According to the Australian Association of
Special Education, training courses must offer the required competencies to beginning
teachers if they want to provide a quality educational programme to students with SEN
(Jacob, 2005). Once graduated, administrators and teachers are required to continue to
develop their values, knowledge and skills in an organised manner so that they can guarantee
that all students will benefit from instruction and curriculum practices as per the principles of
validated research.
Based on experiences in other countries and cities, Birmingham City Council in
England has supported inclusive strategies within its schools through funding in teachers’
continuing professional development courses (Wearmouth, 2001). Encouragingly,
opportunities such as these for enhancement of teaching competencies are highly sought after
by the majority of teachers in England. A study by Kim (2010) showed that a higher number
of teachers apply for such opportunities than there are available places. Furthermore, the
study also showed that job retention is higher for teachers who get to participate in these
professional development opportunities. Hence, it is fair to say that the competencies of
teachers based on their skills, knowledge and qualification must be prioritised in order to
implement successful teaching methods for children within inclusive classroom settings.
Thus, the perception of these teachers as capable educators for children with SEN gets
29

strengthened when the utmost priority is given to the examination and development of
teachers’ additional pedagogical skills.
In Bhutan, there are only a few studies that explore the situation and practices of
teachers within inclusive classroom settings including their professional development. This
gap is addressed in the current research and needs to be further studied because the
enhancement of teacher’s preparation for inclusion is a key requirement, enabling them to
face challenges efficiently when teaching in inclusive schools.
2.5.2 Curriculum and pedagogy for inclusive education
The curriculum used in teacher education institutions needs to reflect the actual
meaning of inclusion. Forlin (2010, p.8) suggests that a whole faculty approach, which
encourages inter-curricular collaborations could be essential in implementing inclusive
education training. It is argued that whole faculty approach is more in-depth to allow for new
educational demands and encourage societal and political commitments in enhancing
inclusivity. Courses on inclusion must be incorporated in all education training disciplines
and not separately as special training (Forlin, 2010, p.8). All teachers will be supported to
become inclusive educators who are in demand for the current generation. Forlin (2010, p.9)
also suggests that the competency and efficacy of teachers in implementing inclusive
education can be enhanced by equipping them with appropriate skills in pedagogy. For
instance, choosing the appropriate curricular materials and incorporating teaching practice in
their curriculum. In addition, training institutions must be front-runners in advocating for
inclusive education by alleviating attitudes that support exclusion in the way they select those
who want to train as teachers.
There is a range of considerations when deciding which ways are best to educate pre-
service teachers about inclusive education. Research has found that teacher education reform
regarding inclusive education needs to move beyond embedding special education courses
into the existing programs and provide pedagogy that supports teachers (Ahsan, Deppeler&
Sharma, 2013; Slee, 2010). Furthermore, the progress towards inclusive education may have
been compromised by the structure of special schools, where inclusive and special schools
are often conflated and thought to be the same inaccurately (Slee, 2011). Therefore, as
discussed earlier, it is crucial to understand and distinguish inclusive education from special
education.
30

The above assertion is a point of interest for this research. For example, when the
inclusive education program was initially introduced in Bhutan, it was implemented without
much teacher preparation (Chhetri, 2015). This is one reason why many Bhutanese teachers
lack skills and knowledge in inclusive education (Dukpa, 2014). Another important finding in
Chhetri’s (2015) study was that many teachers in Bhutan have difficulty in comprehending
the concept and principles of inclusive education, thereby influencing their commitment
towards inclusive education. However, it should be noted that inclusive education program
was implemented as part of the special education focus. Even today, the term special
education has been used by many people in Bhutan to mean inclusive education.
There are a number of considerations when deciding which ways are best to educate
pre-service teachers about inclusive education in terms of pedagogy and curriculum of
inclusive teacher education programmes. Alicia, Heeral and Reid (2005) state that in
preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms, teaching about diversity and race, class, ethnicity
and ability should be an integral part of the curriculum. This is further supported by Watkins
and Donnelly (2012) who state that “preparation of teachers must maintain academic rigour,
‘educating’ rather than ‘training’ teachers” (p. 200). Two strategies were recommended by
the Commonwealth of Australia (2016, p.71): one was to “prioritize the development of a
national approach to curriculum modification for students with disabilities” and the other was
“professional development support for teachers to ensure that all students are supported to
learn to their full potential”.
2.5.3 Importance of Teaching (Professional) Practice in Inclusive Education
Equipping pre-service teachers with knowledge on inclusive education alone is not
an effective way of implementing the inclusive education agenda. Sessions of teaching
practice as well as continuous professional development programs are essential in the
development of inclusive educators (Sharma &Sokal, 2015). Professional development
allows teachers to collaborate, partner and connect with other stakeholders to ensure that they
become confident and competent. As illustrated by Forlin (2010), teaching practice gives an
opportunity for teachers to engage with people from different backgrounds hence a change in
attitude towards inclusion. Teaching practice and professional development also enhance
teacher efficacy in inclusive classrooms (Sharma &Sokal, 2015). Most teachers prefer direct
teaching experiences, as well as in-service training as a mechanism of equipping them with
inclusion education (Forlin, 2010, p.7). This illustrates the need for connecting teacher
education institutions with relevant schools to ensure that teachers become competent.
31

Research has queried teachers’ preparedness and their ability to handle the pedagogical
challenges raised by inclusive education (Forlin, 2012). It has been argued that many
faculties and schools of education are not preparing teachers adequately to practice inclusive
education (Hickling-Hudson, 2004). As a result, many teachers do not have the required
knowledge and skills to teach in inclusive classrooms (OFSTED, 2008). Since teachers have
a responsibility in making inclusive education a success, there is a need to find ways to
improve teachers’ pedagogical skills through pre-service teacher preparation.
Evidence suggests that for inclusive education programs to succeed, it is imperative that
teachers are appropriately trained and have adequate knowledge about principles, theories,
concepts, and practices in inclusive education (Forlin, 2012; Forlin, Cedillo, Romero-
Contreras, Fletcher & Hernandez, 2010). Today, most countries and states adopt approaches
to developing an inclusive school system that focuses on teacher education. Some systems,
especially in the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States of America (USA), require
newly-qualified teachers to learn to work in inclusive classrooms through cooperation,
partnership, and co-teaching with their colleagues (Forlin, 2012; Gerber, 2012). Similarly,
teachers in Manitoba Canada are required by the Province of Manitoba to complete a 30-hour
contract course in special education with a practicum in an inclusive classroom, while
undertaking five years of study in order to become certified teachers (Sharma &Sokal, 2015).
Likewise, countries such as China, Malaysia, Israel, Sri Lanka, and Thailand have made
adjustments in their teacher education programs so that teachers are prepared to work
confidently in a dual system of mainstream and special schools (Avissar, 2012; Forlin, 2012;
Hettiarachchi& Das, 2014). Israel, in particular, has required inclusive education in all initial
training courses following its special education legislation that mandated the inclusion of
students with disabilities in mainstream education in the mid-1990s (Al-Yagon& Margalit,
2001).
Having provided a literature review about inclusive education, the role of teachers, and
teacher preparation, the next section outlines the theoretical framework that has guided this
study of preparing teachers for inclusive schools and classrooms in Bhutan.
2.6 Theoretical framework for this study
Psychological and sociological research has informed this study with regard to the
determinants that influence pre-service and beginning teachers’ perceptions about inclusive
education. Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory (1997)has often been used, especially in
32

Mastery Experiences S
E
L
F
E
F
F
I
Vicarious Experiences
investigating the variables that influence teachers’ willingness to implement inclusive
practices. Similarly, when interpreting a learning situation, Vygotsky's Socio-Cultural Theory
attends to the broader social system in which learning occurs. The lens of sociocultural theory
is considerably wide and allows interpretations to be drawn about the thinking, development
and performance of an individual based on his or her involvement in tasks that are structured
around culture. This theory stresses the interaction between developing people and the culture
in which they live.Therefore, when discussing inclusive education, the socio-cultural theory
allows to investigate teachers’ views on their readiness to teach and their teaching
competencies.The researcher investigated the application of both the Socio-cultural theory
and Self-efficacy theory by pre-service and beginning teachers in Bhutan. The explanation of
these theories, the justification of using them in the context of Bhutan, and their role in this
research methodology is discussed in the following sections.
2.6.1 The Theory of Self Efficacy
The theory of self-efficacy was formulated by Albert Bandura who defines it as one’s
belief in one’s ability to succeed in specific situations (Bandura, 1993). Self-efficacy is an
individual’s belief when thinking about the challenges, approaching goals, and acting to
perform a task. Self-efficacy is described as part of motivation which itself can be used as a
judgement/measurement of motivation. It is associated with behavioral changes, often due
to its motivational effect. Therefore, self-efficacy beliefs stand at the core of all the thoughts
that affect human behaviour. Bandura (1997, p.3) defines self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s
capabilities to organise and execute the course of action required to produce given
attainments”. In the teaching context, self-efficacy is determined by mastery experiences
(serving as an indicator of capability), vicarious experiences (modelling and observation of
techniques), verbal persuasion (verbal influences on your perceived capability) and
physiological and emotional cues (associated with the perceived capability that influence the
process and outcomes of the task attempted) (Bandura, 1997). Figure 2.3, represents the self-
efficacy model.
33

A
C
C
YPhysiological and Emotional Cues
Mastery experiences are defined as successful tasks previously accomplished
by a learner. This source is highly important based on its validity. Mastery experiences are
considered the most powerful influence as they provide authentic evidence of one’s
performance in a teaching situation (Bandura, 1997; Mulholland & Wallace, 2001).
Successful performance by a teacher leads to increased self-efficacy, while failure creates a
decrease in self-efficacy. As teachers develop mastery experience, this leads to accumulating
increases in teacher self-efficacy, they rely on these as memories and interpretations of
similar past teaching experiences (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998). Hence,
mastery experience can be defined as how well one has done previously and provides the
most dependable information for improving self-efficacy.
Vicarious experiences are defined as role models. For example, each person cannot
directly experience for themselves all possible events. Observing someone achieve success
(who has a similar ability) increases one’s confidence of potential success, thus leading to
higher self-efficacy beliefs. Therefore, learning through vicarious experience is a technique
through which one learns by observing someone else successfully perform the desired task.
Verbal persuasion is defined as ways that lead to the modification of self-efficacy.
Bandura (1997) asserted that people can be persuaded to believe that they have the skills and
capabilities to succeed. Examples of verbal persuasion include rewards and positive
statements. Equally, constructivefeedback is important in developing and maintaining a sense
of efficacy that can help overcome self-doubt. If people are persuaded to believe in
themselves, they are determined to make extra effort to increase their chances of success.
Therefore, when other people encourage and convince you to perform a task, you tend to
believe that you are more capable of performing the task.
Physiological and emotional cues are defined as an emotion that shows a person’s
thinking about his/her performance related to a task (Staden, 2015). Moods, emotions,
physical reactions, and stress levels also determine how an individual feels about his/her
personal abilities. People judge their own self-efficacy by how they perceive their anxiety
level in different situations. For example, if someone is extremely nervous, he/she may begin
to doubt, and develop a weak sense of self-efficacy. Likewise, if someone is confident and
feels no anxiety or nervousness at all, the person experiences a greater sense of self-
efficacy. For this reason, being able to control anxiety may have positive impact on self-
efficacy beliefs.
34

The Self-efficacy Theory proposes that any learning activity is likely to occur where
there is a close identification involving the one observing and the model. This also depends
on whether the observer has significant self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Consequently, self–
efficacy here denotes the degree to which a person believes that he/she can comprehend a
specific skill (Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008). Self-efficacy beliefs act as an essential group of
proximal determinants that affect human motivation and action. Self-efficacy operates on the
action by motivation, cognitive, and intervening affective procedures (Knoblauch & Hoy,
2008).
Bandura’s (1997) theory can be suitably applied to consider how a teacher’s sense of
efficacy in pre-service teacher training develops, particularly during their practicum in
schools. The experiences that highlight the successes or failures and ones that are expected to
generate a simulated classroom tend to have a stronger effect on the teacher’s sense of
efficacy growth (Manuel & Arias, 2007). This can be attributed to the fact that such
experiences encountered in simulated classrooms offer genuine evidence that either qualifies
or disqualifies the pre-service teachers confidence that they can accomplish the tasks assigned
to them (Helms-Lorenz et al., 2012). Thus, by independently teaching within a class setting
or assisting an experienced teacher in organising relevant group work, teachers’ self-efficacy
is significantly developed. In this context, the practicum also provides the teacher with
various opportunities to implement their learning in the teacher education course and to align
this with their vicarious experiences.
Generally, by carefully observing experienced teachers in classes, pre-service teachers
get real and beneficial opportunities to model such learning activities. This is particularly
important for the development of self-efficacy whereby experienced teachers may be
observed in a real classroom setting. As a result of learning by observing (watching
experienced teachers), it helps the pre-service teachers to overcome the challenges and to
adapting to prevailing situations (Helms-Lorenz et al., 2012). Additionally, vicarious
experiences can be hypothesised as a way to attain a more significant influence on self-
efficacy. This is especially the case when the pre-service teachers have insignificant previous
experience particularly in the areas to be evaluated. Where the practicum experience is
carried out under a mentor teacher who acts as a supervisor at the placement school, the
mentor becomes instrumental in ensuring that there is verbal persuasion.
Bandura (1989) argues that human behaviour can be controlled through self-regulation,
which involves four steps: self-observation, self-evaluation, self-reaction and self-efficacy.
35

First, through self-observation, one keeps track of his own actions by looking at himself and
his behaviour. Observing can also be used to assess progress towards one’s attainment goal as
well as to motivate behavioural changes. There are two ways of performing self-observation:
regularity and proximity (Redmond, 2016). Regularity is a process through which behaviour
can be continually observed, whereas proximity means that behaviour should be observed
when it occurs, or shortly after. Second, self-evaluation is the comparison of an individual's
current performance with a desired performance, which is affected by the standards set and
the importance of the goals. Schunk and Zimmerman (1994) state that goals must be specific.
When goals are precisely set, they help to specify the amount of effort required for success
and boost self-efficacy because progress is easy to gauge. Similarly, when individuals
achieve their goals, they are encouraged to continue to exert a high level of effort, since sub-
standard performance will no longer provide satisfaction (Bandura, 1989). Redmond (2016)
identifies two types of self-evaluation standards: absolute and normative. A grading scale
would be an example of an absolute standard and a social comparison such as evaluating
one’s behaviour or performance against other individuals is an example of a normative
standard (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001). The third, factor that controls human behaviour is
self-reaction. When people achieve a goal, they are likely to re-evaluate and raise the
standard (goal); whereas, if they fail to achieve the goal, they are likely to re-evaluate and
lower the standard (goal) to an achievable goal (Bandura, 1989). Finally, self-efficacy is
another important factor related to human behaviour. Self-efficacy indicates people's
judgements about their own capability to perform particular tasks.
According to Bandura, self-efficacy defines the belief associated with a person's
capabilities to form and perform certain courses of action needed to manage likely situations
(Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008). Bandura with other researchers discovered that a person’s self-
efficacy is important because it plays an important role in determining how the person
approaches the goals, tasks, and challenges. Individuals with high self-efficacy are more
likely to believe they can master challenging problems and they can recover quickly from
setbacks and disappointments. Consequently, people who have low self-efficacy are often
seen to be less confident and mostly fail to believe that they can perform optimally.
Consequently, such people will always avoid challenging tasks because they lack the
confidence and motivation to surmount the challenge (Manuel & Arias, 2007). Therefore,
self-efficacy is central in ensuring that a person adjusts his/her behaviour performance. Those
36

observers with a high level of self-efficacy have a higher probability of adopting
observational learning behaviours.
In this context, self-efficacy is developed or increased in a number of ways by mastery
experience, denoting a process that can assist a person to accomplish simple tasks that
eventually contribute to more complex objectives. Additionally, through social modeling, the
learner has access to a recognisable model showing the processes that need to be undertaken
to achieve a desirable behaviour. These experiences must be intended at improving physical
and emotional states whereby such a person can rest and relax before attempting a new
behaviour (Friedman &Kass, 2002). In this context, the less relaxed a person, the less patient
they are, and hence most likely such a person will not be capable of attaining the goal
behaviour. Often in modeling self-efficacy, the element of verbal persuasion is also critical. It
denotes the provision of encouragement to a person to ensure that he/she completes a task or
attains a particular behaviour (Knoblauch & Hoy, 2008).
For example, using a classroom context, it can be noted that students put more effort,
are more active, pay more attention, become highly motivated and consequently better
learners if they recognise that their mastery level is attained for a particular task (Manuel &
Arias, 2007). It, therefore, becomes a critical role for the teacher to ensure that the student
can recognise in their efficacy. Providing such students with feedback that will help them to
appreciate their degree of proficiency will help to attain this. As much as teachers must
ensure that their students are gaining knowledge and strategies needed to complete their
tasks, these teachers too need self-efficacy to enhance their proficiency in working in their
classrooms (Friedman &Kass, 2002).
Bandura’s self-efficacy theory is used within this study to explore verbal persuasion
and mastery experiences within the responses of pre-service teachers regarding an inclusive
classroom setting. For example, the concept of verbal persuasion was used to show how pre-
service teachers’ beliefs and attitudes can be modelled within an inclusive classroom.
Similarly, enactive mastery experiences will be used to explain how pre-service teachers and
beginning teachers are prepared in order to teach in inclusive schools. These two areas of
verbal persuasion and mastery contribute to this study. Bandura’s self-efficacy theory is used
for this study in Bhutan because it provides a framework to address the research question, i.e.
what strengths and weaknesses do pre-service teachers feel the current teacher education
programme in Bhutan has, in relation to preparing them to teach in inclusive classrooms? By
37

using this theory, pre-service teachers’ and beginning teachers’ perceptions of their teacher
education was recorded and analysed.
Self-efficacy, derived from Bandura’s social cognitive theory, is the belief in one’s
ability to perform the behaviours required to produce a desired outcome and this is
considered to be an important determinant of behaviour change (Bandura, 1977). Mastery
experiences, persuasive types of social impacts, and social modelling strengthen and develop
self-efficacy beliefs. Self-efficacy is therefore a major consideration in the development of a
person’s attitude. In order for this change to occur, teacher preparation programs should
address the benefits to increasing pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy regarding their own
abilities to teach in inclusive classrooms. This can be done by encouraging “pre-service
teachers to co-teach with others: mentor teachers, university supervisors, or other pre-service
teachers” (Drawdy, Deng &Howerter, 2014, p.259).
Since the inclusion of children with diverse educational needs is viewed as being at
“the heart of education policy and planning throughout the world” (Savolainen, Engelbrecht,
Nel &Malinen, 2012, p. 51) the need for pre-service teachers to acquire knowledge, skills and
self-efficacy to teach in inclusive settings is necessary (Raphael & Allard, 2013). In recent
years, teacher efficacy has been shown to impact on the willingness and confidence of
teachers when working in inclusive classrooms (Woodcock, Hemmings, & Kay, 2012). Thus,
it is argued that pre-service teacher education is a key factor in preparing teachers to
overcome challenges related to an inclusive classroom environment and building higher
levels of efficacy (Hsien, 2007).
Cramer, (2014) highlighted that studies regarding pre-service teachers’ efficacy beliefs about
teaching in inclusive schools are still limited. While research on teacher efficacy has been
carried out in Western countries, such research in a non-Western context is limited (Sharma,
Loreman&Forlin, 2011). However, there is a growing body of literature from the educational
field on how beliefs, concerns, teacher efficacy, self-efficacy and attitudes influence
behaviour and teachers’ actions in classrooms
38

References
Barron, C., Beckett, A., Coussens, M., Desoete, A., Cannon Jones, N., Lynch, H., ... &
Fenney Salkeld, D. (2017). Barriers to play and recreation for children and young
people with disabilities. Exploring environmental factors. De Gruyter.
Good, T. L., & Lavigne, A. L. (2017). Looking in classrooms. Routledge.
Howell, C., McKenzie, J., & Chataika, T. (2018). Building Teachers’ Capacity for Inclusive
Education in South Africa and Zimbabwe through CPD. Continuing Professional
Teacher Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Improving Teaching and Learning,
127.
Kruijsen-Terpstra, A. J., Verschuren, O., Ketelaar, M., Riedijk, L., Gorter, J. W., Jongmans,
M. J., ... & LEARN 2 MOVE 2-3 Study Group. (2016). Parents’ experiences and
needs regarding physical and occupational therapy for their young children with
cerebral palsy. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 53, 314-322.
Whittaker, J. K. (2017). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research.
Routledge.
39