Introduction

Well-designed professional development programs are critical for teachers to successfully cope with the requirements of educational growth and improve their instructional practices. Professional development (PD) in the workplace can take different forms to improve teachers’ professional skills. Teachers can attend workshops and seminars, review relevant research and journals, collaborate with colleagues and experts, and observe classes to improve their pedagogical skills and perceived ability to teach (Buford & Casey, 2012). However, it is complicated to design sustainable PD programs due to the interaction of a variety of factors such as learning objectives, trainees’ attitudes and age, the scope of desired change, learning context, available facilities, and trainees’ professional needs (Oyedele & Chikwature, 2016).

Several factors that contribute to the creation of effective PD programs in inclusive education. First, teacher-related factors consist of their training needs, attitudes, and practices. Allison (2012) claims that general education teachers, who are teaching school subjects, in inclusive settings put teaching pedagogies as the top priority of PD programs to improve their instruction in inclusive classrooms. Teachers should be trained in creating objectives, strategies, materials, and assessment tools to be useful to students with special education needs (SEN). Amr (2011) believes that best practices in inclusion include: a) mastering the subject matter, child development, and instructional approaches; b) supporting and reinforcing students development; c) encouraging positive learning environment; d) providing further instruction to SEN students; e) offering support from administration and school community; f) providing cooperative co-teaching and communication, and g) equipping schools with adequate facilities and resources.

Nevertheless, most general education teachers and special education teachers fail to meet the needs of SEN students in mixed-ability classes because they have insufficient communication skills and negative attitudes towards teaching in inclusive classrooms (Ghoneim, 2014; El-Zouhairy, 2016). Smith et al (2016) argue that there are institutional, attitudinal and knowledge barriers to the implementation of inclusion since attitudinal challenges lie in the negative perceptions of school staff about SEN students. The lack of sufficient knowledge about dealing with SEN students is considered a barrier to the successful application of inclusive pedagogy. These barriers cause low enrollment of SEN students in general schools, lack of awareness of inclusion, inadequate preparation and training, along with a lack of comprehensive laws and policy framework to confirm adherence.

Second, institutional and ecological factors play a critical role in designing PD programs. These factors include physical arrangement of classrooms, schedules, and assigning teachers to classes. Udoba (2014) mentions that large class sizes, poor learning environment, and limited additional support services from authorities are barriers to provide effective instruction to SEN students. He recommended the availability of specialized training facilities, adequate resources (human and materials), and training of special education teachers for successful inclusion.

Therefore, policy makers and program designers should consider a number of factors that contribute to the development of effective PD programs. These factors include-but not limited to- the individualization of the educational programs to the needs of learning disabled students, utilization of effective management skills, adoption of inclusion policy by school staff, maintenance of a positive attitude towards inclusion and SEN students, offer of adequate knowledge and skills about inclusion, and provision of effective in-service training and pre-service education programs (Awad, 2016; Seçer, 2010).

To identify the professional needs of in-service teachers in relation to inclusion, the researcher created and administered a need assessment questionnaire and interviews with 218 English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers who work in public primary schools in Gharbia, Egypt. She reported the findings in her study (Ali, 2018) and recommended the creation of contextual PD programs concerning inclusive education. In this paper, the researcher offers a framework for designing a PD program based on the findings of this previous study.

PD Programs of Inclusive Education in Egypt

There are two kinds of teacher education programs in Egypt: pre-service and in-service. Universities usually provide pre-service programs, while PD programs are delivered to in-service teachers by the Ministry of Education (MoE) or academic institutions. Therefore, the researcher conducted a content analysis of the courses taught at Egyptian universities about special education and found that only a few courses were offered and they were based on the medical model of disability and the psychology of exceptional children. The result of this analysis was supported by Awad’s (2016) findings that pre-service teachers in Egypt did not get adequate information or skills about inclusive education to teach in inclusive contexts.

Analysis of the PD programs including inclusive education indicated the existence of some programs provided by the General Director of Special Education Office (GDSEO) in the MoE in partnership with other organizations regarding inclusion. These programs included Makaton Dictionary for Verbal Communication, Training Of Trainers (TOT) in Inclusive Education and Special Education, Teacher Preparation Program to Deal with SEN Students, PD Program for Developing Teachers’ Skills of Special Education, Integrating Technology in Education, Inclusive Education Caravan, Ministry of Communications and Information Technology Training, Training in Inclusive Pre- and Primary Schools to Teach Blind Students, and Refresher Course of Readability (Ministry of Education, 2015-2016).

In addition, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) in Egypt (United Nations Children’s Fund, 2016) called for an integrated model of inclusion that encourages the use of appropriate teaching methods, adapted curricula and material, effective school administration and leadership, ongoing supervision and follow-up, well-trained and qualified teachers, as well as flexible school polices. To that end, UNICEF started an initiative with the help of the MoE in November 2017 to prepare teachers in public schools to deal with SEN students in limited-resourced schools. About 91 school psychologists, special education coordinators in schools, special education specialists in directorates, resource room teachers, and teachers of Arabic and math took part in this four-session program. Each training day was divided into two parts; an introduction to identification and characteristics of common learning disabilities in schools, and a workshop on creating simple teaching aids for these disabilities (MoE, 2015-2016).

However, it seems from this review that these PD programs are limited in scope, time, and the number of attendees. Moreover, since most of these top-down programs are not based on participants’ needs assessment, they are generic in terms of objectives and outcomes and not specifically designed to meet the needs of participants in their local contexts. Alkhateeb et al (2016) indicate that general school teachers are required to develop an awareness of the needs of SEN students; use appropriate instructional strategies (e.g., cooperative learning, peer-mediated instruction, co-teaching, response to intervention, differentiated instruction); employ various tools of assessment, and train students on appropriate learning strategies. Consequently, in-service teachers should receive appropriate PD programs to gain the knowledge and skills to effectively play their roles in inclusive settings, which requires continuous, large-scale, and setting-based PD programs.

Findings of the Need Assessment Questionnaire and Interviews

A questionnaire of 35 items and semi-structured interviews were administered to 218 EFL teachers, as reported in Ali (2018), to identify their training needs regarding teaching in inclusive contexts. The analysis of descriptive statistics of questionnaire items showed that participants prioritized the needs to know effective instructional strategies followed by the need to make curriculum adaptations then, by developing Individual Educational Plans (IEPs). Moreover, respondents showed a high demand for knowing preventive techniques for behavioral problems of SEN students and monitoring classroom rules and routines. Ali (2018) also reported that the respondents highly needed to be trained on differentiating learning disabilities from language and communication disorders. These findings were consistent with the needs the interviewees identified in the semi-structured interviews. Moreover, regarding PD delivery, participants preferred face-to-face seminars and workshops, mentor-supported, individual as well as project-based learning, online conference/webinars, and lectures. Morning training was preferred by 68.16% of the participants compared to 24% preferred afternoon training. Additionally, a 3-hour workshop in the weekdays is preferred to a 45-minute or 90-minute workshop during the weekends. These findings aligned with Siddiqui (2006) and Moeini (2003), who found that participants preferred PD activities in the form of workshops over online sessions.

Framework for a PD Program in Inclusive Education

The framework focuses on the top five topics specified by participants from EFL teachers in Ali’s (2018) study. To design the framework, these questions were considered:

1. How is the program designed to achieve the objectives?
2. What content and materials are included?
3. How will learning outcomes will be assessed?
4. What time is best according to trainees’ preferences?
5. What are the potential challenges or problems and ways to overcome them?

The target audience for this proposed framework is EFL teachers who teach in inclusive contexts. The framework was built upon the five needs that participants perceived vital when dealing with SEN students. The framework is flexible to allow modifications to suit other teachers and grades. The overall goal of the framework is to develop in-service EFL teachers’ knowledge and skills to effectively teach SEN students and manage inclusive classes.

Objectives and outcomes:

Knowledge and understanding

Trainees will be able to develop an understanding of effective strategies to meet SEN students’ needs and manage inclusive classes through:

1. Differentiating between learning disabilities and language and communication disorders.
2. Defining speech disorders and language disorders.
3. Identifying types of language disorders.
4. Recognizing the causes and symptoms of language disorders.
5. Familiarity with the skills affected by language disorders.
6. Identifying criteria for selecting the appropriate instructional methods.
7. Familiarity with teaching methods suitable for SEN students.
8. Defining methods to accommodate instruction and EFL materials to SEN students’ needs.
9. Identifying principles of adapting curriculum and materials.
10. Recognizing types of adaptation.
11. Discussing the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) applications as a method to individualize instruction.
12. Defining an IEP and determining which students require an IEP.
13. Identifying the components of IEP.
14. Recognizing the teacher’s role in developing IEPs.
15. Familiarity with the purpose and process of creating IEPs.
16. Identifying the tools required for developing IEPs.
17. Familiarity with who attend the IEP meetings.
18. Identifying preventive techniques to control behavioral problems of SEN students.
19. Discussing behavioral problems in inclusive classes.
20. Familiarity with the characteristics of a supportive learning environment.
21. Identifying some techniques for effective classroom management.

Professional and practical skills

Trainees will be able to develop professional and practical skills to meet SEN students’ needs and manage inclusive classes through:

1. Diagnosing language disorders.
2. Applying effective strategies for meeting the needs of students with language disorders.
3. Using appropriate teaching methods to teach EFL to SEN students.
4. Applying criteria for selecting appropriate methods.
5. Using teaching methods suitable for SEN students.
6. Accommodating instruction and curriculum to SEN students’ needs.
7. Implementing suitable methods/techniques for adapting EFL materials.
8. Adapting lessons to reach all students.
9. Using UDL applications as a method to individualize instruction.
10. Developing IEPs to anticipate students’ needs.
11. Participating effectively in IEP meetings.
12. Collaborating with parents and special education teachers to develop IEPs.
13. Preventing and controlling behavioral problems of SEN students
14. Establishing a preventive rather than a reactive discipline
15. Using successful techniques for effective classroom management.

Content

The content is created to suit a five-day training of three hours. Sufficient time was given to practical skills and implementation. Table 1 displays the topics of the sessions and the allotted time.

Table 1. Topics and time for the proposed PD program

As shown in the table above, each training day was divided into 3 sessions. The first session (40 minutes) is an introduction to lay out the foundations and theoretical bases for the topics. This is followed by an 80-minute session on the practical steps and methods for implementation. The training day is concluded by a practicum in which participants give presentations and demonstrations, prepare lesson plans and IEPs, conduct role-plays, and discuss case studies to ensure their mastery of the materials and assess their development. This session lasts for 40 minutes and the trainees are required to work individually or in groups to finalize a project or task. A ten-minute break separates the three sessions.  

Training methods/ format

Practical workshops, mentor-supported learning and team, and project-based learning were specified to be the best methods for receiving training. Various mediums or formats should be offered so that teachers can choose between face-to-face or online workshops. In addition, journals, forums, and articles about inclusive education should be available. In the case of budgetary limits, PD events can be provided at the school levels through training units and SEN coordinators in schools. Experts and specialists in SEN can be part-time visitors to schools on regular bases to offer support and mentorship.

Time/duration

Teachers can attend a series of 3-hour sessions during weekdays over several weeks or months. More than one schedule for training can be offered for teachers to choose from. If PD activities should be provided after the school day, it is better to limit them to 90 minutes instead of 3 hours.

Evaluation methods

Both formative, as well as summative evaluation, will be used to assess trainees’ improvement. Evidence will include trainees’ interaction logs, samples of assignments and projects, observation notes, teachers’ reflections, student improvement plans, trainers’ grading sheets, achievement tests, and trainees’ portfolios, and lesson plans. Moreover, there should be follow-up and support after the training from mentors, specialists, administrators, and Special Needs Departments.

Potential challenges/solutions

The first challenge might be the difficulty in evaluating or monitoring teachers’ learning activities. To overcome this challenge, administrators or supervisors can monitor teachers while training units at schools can follow-up and provide the necessary support to overcome barriers. Special Needs Departments should provide administrators with rubrics or observation checklists for assessing teachers after receiving the necessary training to effectively use these tools.

Moreover, due to time and budgetary constraints, a small number of teachers will receive the training. This barrier can be removed if those teachers transmit the training to their colleagues as a requirement for getting their certificates with the help of training units at schools. Partnerships with universities and special education institutions to provide effective PD activities and discounted courses to in-service teachers should also be considered. As a result of inadequate training conditions and lack of resources, PD activities might be limited to theoretical rather than practical knowledge. To overcome this, more emphasis can be given to practice by scheduling systematic practical activities with SEN students and opportunities to communicate and collaborate with special education specialists, along with studying cases of SEN students.

Conclusion

To enhance PD programs provided to in-service teachers who are teaching SEN students in inclusive context, the researcher suggests this framework to specifically provide teachers with adequate knowledge in teaching methods, individualized instruction and creating IEPs, classroom management techniques, evaluation methods, knowledge to identify and meet the needs of SEN students in EFL classes, and general knowledge and non-academic skills. Other aspects and skills can be added to expand the scope of this framework based on needs assessment of teachers’ training needs in different settings. Furthermore, factors related to teachers, administration, policies, and environment must be considered when adapting this framework to other contexts. Program designers must address the different needs of SEN students in inclusive classes and identify the challenges they encounter, and consider them in creating PD programs. Consequently, decision makers are expected to implement necessary adaptations in curriculum, teacher education programs, and classroom environment to help improve the quality of education provided to SEN students.

References

Ali, A. D. (2018). Identifying training needs of in-service EFL teachers in inclusive schools in Egypt. Arab World English Journal, 9(1). 163-183. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no1.12

Alkhateeb, J. M., Hadidi, M. S., & Alkhateeb, A. J. (2016). Inclusion of children with developmental disabilities in Arab countries: A review of the research literature from 1990 to 2014. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 49-50. 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.11.005

Allison, R. (2012). The lived experiences of general and special education teachers in inclusion classrooms: A phenomenological study. Canyon Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 1(1), 35-48.

Amr, M. (2011). Teacher education for inclusive education in the Arab world: The case of Jordan. Prospects 41, 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-011-9203-9

Awad, N. E-S.(2016). Students with disability and the quest for inclusive education: A case study of private schools in greater [Unpublished Master’s thesis, The American University ] https://www.inclusive-education-in-action.org/resources/students-disability-and-quest-inclusive-education-case-study-private-schools-greater

Buford, S., & Casey, L. B. (2012). Attitudes of teachers regarding their preparedness to teach students with special needs. Delta Journal of Education, 2(2), 16–30.

El-Zouhairy, N. (2016). Is inclusion the key to addressing the issue of marginalization of children with mental disabilities in Egypt? [Unpublished Master's thesis, The American University] Digital Archive and Research Repository. http://dar.aucegypt.edu/handle/10526/4744

Ghoneim, S. E. A. A. (2014). Requirements for inclusion of children with disabilities in public education in Egypt. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 4(4), 192-199. 10.5901/jesr.2014.v4n4p192

Ministry of Education in Egypt. (2015-2016). Khetat El-Tadreeb bi Maktab Modeer Aa’m Modereyet Al-Tarbea’a AL-Khasaa Wa Yatem Tanfezaha khlal Al-Aa’m Al-Derasey 2015/2016 Wfkan Le-Al-Khetaa Al-Estartegeeya Le Al-Wezaraa Wa Al-Ehtyagat Al-Tadreebeya Le Madarrees Al-Tarbya Al-Khasa Wa Al-Damge [Plan for special education training in the General Director of Special Education Office (GDSEO) according to the Strategic Plan of MoE to meet the professional needs of teachers in inclusive schools and special education schools] (2015-2016). http://moe.gov.eg/depertments/Unit_merger/doc/traninig2015-2016.pdf

Moeini, H. (2003). A need analysis study for faculty development programs in METU and structural equation modeling of faculty needs [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. Middle Technical East University. https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/445320/index.pdf

Oyedele, V., & Chikwature, W. (2016). Factors that affect professional development in education on teacher efficacy in Chipinge District High Schools. European Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 4(4), 56-71. http://www.idpublications.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Full-Paper-FACTORS-THAT-AFFECT-PROFESSIONAL-DEVELOPMENT-IN-EDUCATION-ON-TEACHER-EFFICACY.pdf

Seçer, Z. (2010). An analysis of the effects of in-service teacher training on Turkish Pre-school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(1), 43–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669761003693959

Siddiqui, Z. (2006, January). Professional development of academics. A needs assessment [Conference session]. Professional Development of Academics: A Needs Assessment Conference, Lahore, Pakistan. https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/publications/professional-development-of-academics-a-needs-assessment-2

Smith, T. E., Polloway, E. A., Doughty, T. T., Patton, J. R., & Dowdy, C. A. (2016). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive settings (7th ed.). Pearson Education.

Udoba. H. A. (2014). Challenges faced by teachers when teaching learners with developmental disability [Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of Oslo. https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/42438/Master-thesis-Humphrey-2-2.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

United Nations Children's Fund. (2016). Fact sheet 1. Retrieved July, 2018 from https://www.unicef.org/egypt/education_11302.html