AD ALTA
JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH
Q2: Is there a difference in the perceived professional ability of
pedagogical staff for inclusive practice in terms of the achieved
career level of pedagogical staff?
Q3: Is there a difference in the perceived professional ability of
pedagogical staff in terms of their personal experience with SEN
students?
The research sample consisted of N=1216 pedagogic staff from
practice, working in Slovak schools. The available sample of
respondents was used and the questionnaire was administered
online. The research sample mostly consisted of pedagogical
staff and teachers (98%) working at primary schools, vocational
high schools, grammar schools, conservatories, special primary,
and high schools. Most of the teachers involved in the research
were from primary schools (primary 31% and lower secondary
level 32%) and vocational high schools (23%). State school
teachers represented the largest group in the research (79%). The
respondents from the Slovak Republic’s regions formed the
largest group, namely the Banská Bystrica region (16%), the
Prešov region (19%), and the Košice region (17%). In terms of
the length of teaching practice the teachers were in the ranges of:
17 – 20 years (15%), 21 – 23 years (9%), 24 – 26 years (11%).
The examined data was formed by pedagogic staff from all
career levels, the most numerous were respondents with a first
(40%) and a second attestation (36%). 8% of respondents were
not assigned to any career position – it is assumed that this group
mainly includes teachers with the shortest teaching experience 0
– 3 years, n=55), pedagogic staff who were categorized as
educators (n=2), teaching assistants (n=3) and primary schools’
special pedagogues (n=12).
The empirical data from pedagogical staff was collected in
September – December 2019 using a self-designed questionnaire
containing items from the „Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive
Practices“ (TEIP) Scale questionnaire (Sharma, Loreman &
Forlin, 2012) which was modified for the needs of this research.
The scale (TEIP) was developed from the original 50 items to an
18-point scale through a series of research studies. The final
scale was tested on a sample of 609 teaching students at six
universities in four countries (Canada, India, Hong Kong, and
Australia). The TEIP questionnaire items were translated from
English into Slovak by freelance translators and the TEIP scale
was modified by adding items related to demographic variables
to serve these research purposes. This created a total of 22 items
in the research instrument. Teachers had the opportunity to
indicate the degree of agreement on an ordinal scale for each
statement: 1 - strongly disagree, 2 – disagree, 3 - slightly
disagree, 4 - slightly agree, 5 – agree, 6 - strongly agree.
The exploratory factor analysis with “varimax” rotation which
showed a relatively high exhausted variability of the data was
used to verify the research tool validity, which facilitated our
interpretation. The KMO test result was 0.937 and Bartlett’s test
result was 0.000, which disprove the hypothesis that the
correlation matrix is a unit matrix.
Accordingly, thanks to the factor analysis’ results and the TEIP
questionnaire 3 factors were identified and named as follows:
perceived professional ability to use inclusive instructions,
perceived professional ability to cooperate, perceived
professional ability to manage students’ behaviour.
Table 1: Teacher's perceived professional skill (rotated factor load matrix)
Teacher's perceived professional skill
Perceived professional
ability to use inclusive
instructions
Perceived
professional ability
to cooperate
Perceived professional
ability to manage
students’ behaviour
8. I can control disturbing behaviour in the classroom.
.820
.130
.149
7. I am convinced of my ability to manage disruptive
behaviour in the classroom before it occurs.
.778
.178
.115
2. I can calm a student who is disturbing/noisy.
.769
.122
.215
11. I can guide pupils to follow classroom rules.
.670
.317
.180
5. I can conclude if the student has understood what I have
explained to him.
.605
.271
.126
1. I can express my expectations regarding pupils’
behaviour.
.570
.149
.130
3. I can induce/motivate parents to feel comfortable when
visiting the school.
.547
.320
.124
4. I can help families so that their children achieve good
school results.
.530
.310
.111
6. I can provide appropriate challenges for very capable
students.
.527
.311
.031
14. I am sure that I can induce/motivate students to work in
pairs/small groups of students.
.508
.418
.196
18. I can provide an alternative explanation/example when
students are confused.
.472
.304
.371
17. I feel confident when I am in contact with physically
aggressive students.
.412
.324
.264
12. I can cooperate with other experts (e.g. external experts,
specialized staff) to create individual educational
programmes for SEN students.
.199
.813
.106
13. I can cooperate with other experts and staff to teach SEN
students in the classroom.
.219
.773
.157
10. I am sure that I can develop an individual educational
programme to meet the needs of SEN students.
.215
.696
.219
16. I feel confident in informing others who know little
about the laws and policies regarding the inclusion of
students with disabilities and SEN students.
.260
.667
.188
15. I can use different strategies to assess students (e.g.
portfolio assessment, modified tests, performance-based
assessment, etc.)
.410
.560
.171
9. I am convinced of my ability to involve SEN children’s
parents in school activities.
.411
.497
.091
- 262 -