The study is an intervention study with a pre-post-follow-up-design (Error! Reference source not found.). Moreover, the analysis of a comparison group shall ensure that some of the measured effects can be traced back to the seminar and not to other factors, such as the test rerun.
During the first two sessions of the intervention group, the first measurement takes place. The future teachers’ attitudes, willingness, and self-efficacy concerning inclusion are tested by paper-and-pencil-tests (6-point Likert-scale from 1 = I completely agree to 6 = I completely disagree; αAttitudes = .900, αWillingness = .904, αSelf-efficacy =.894). Moreover, to measure their skills in designing lesson plans according to the UDL, the future teachers must plan lessons for inclusive chemistry classrooms. This analysis is made by using an encoding manual (4-point Likert-scale from 1 = no to 4 = yes; ICCunjust = .857). After that, the intervention with eleven sessions follows. During the intervention, a survey (5-point Likert scale from 1 = I completely agree to 6 = I completely disagree; α = .879) measures the quality of four thematic blocks. The future teachers’ work behaviour during two working phases is filmed and assessed by an encoding manual (κ between .709 and .851).
During the last two seminar sessions, the second measurement takes place. Besides the attitudes, willingness, and self-efficacy tests as well as the lesson plans, this time of measurement includes a survey to measure the seminar’s overall assessment (5-point Likert-scale from 1 = I completely agree to 6 = I completely disagree; α = .837), focused on the quality of the working phases and lecturers’ delivery. After the seminar, the future teachers can implement what they have learnt in the subsequent internship semester. During this internship semester, the future teachers have an accompanying seminar for three days at university.
1713
Figure 1. Study Design
1714
In the first session of this seminar, the future teachers can ask questions and develop lesson plans for their inclusive classrooms with their fellows. Then, the future teachers have to implement their developed lesson plans at school. To evaluate the implementation at school, three aspects are analyzed: One of these is the future teachers’ written lesson plans. These are analyzed by the same encoding manual which is used to assess the future teachers’ skills in designing lesson plans according to the UDL during the seminar (ICCunjust = .840). The second aspect of this evaluation is their developed work sheets, analyzed by assessment criteria (4-point Likert-scale from 1 = not met to 4 = met; ICCunjust = .923). Thirdly, the videos of the implementation at school are analyzed by using an encoding manual (κ between .764 and .980) as well. Additionally, guided interviews with the future teachers survey their subjective assessment of their implemented inclusive lessons after the implementation. These interviews are analyzed by the means of an encoding manual (4-point Likert-scale from 1 = incorrect to 4 = correct; ICCunjust = .959). Furthermore, guided interviews with three students per class – preferably students with different performance levels – are used to measure the effects on the students regarding the lessons’ universal access experienced by the students. For this, encoding rules (4-point Likert-scale from 1 = incorrect to 4 = correct; ICCunjust = .959) are used as well.
In the last session of the accompanying seminar, there is the third time of measurement to evaluate the seminars’ long-term impact on the future teachers’ attitudes, willingness, and self-efficacy.
Overall, this process has already been completely conducted two times in the past while a third seminar turn was analyzed without the implementation at school in the internship semester.
Figure 1 shows the study’s time-course.
Figure 1. Study's time-course
The comparison group consists of future teachers from a different, but comparable university, which participate in their preparation seminar for their internship semester. Their seminar is a subject-related teaching methodology seminar with no focus on inclusive education. In the second and penultimate session, the survey measures attitudes, willingness and self-efficacy as well as the future teachers’ previous experiences concerning inclusion of the future teachers in the comparison group.
RESULTS
This chapter will present the study’s results, following the four evaluation steps. Overall, 39 future teachers participated in the developed seminar and 18 future teachers completed the internship semester. Eleven future teachers formed the comparison group. Therefore, it is a small sample size, which is why the results should be treated carefully.
1715 Attractiveness
The future teachers’ perception of the quality of the thematic blocks and of the working phases as well as lectures served to assess the seminar’ attractiveness.
Table 2 lists the results of the seminar quality questionnaire. As the means show, the future students feel very positive about the quality of all thematic blocks.
Table 2. Seminar quality of the four thematic blocks and the aggregated data of all blocks (Total). The descriptive statistics of the seminar quality survey from 1 = very incorrect (negative) to 5 = very correct (positive) are shown.
Thematic block n M SD
Block I 37 4.09 0.46
Block II 36 3.72 0.74
Block III 32 4.24 0.41
Block IV 33 4.27 0.38
Total 138 4.07 0.56
However, there are also some differences in the future teachers’ assessment noticeable. The second block exhibits a lower mean than the others. A univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures confirms this difference (F = 8.56, p < .001, η² = .290, n = 22). Applying the post hoc test demonstrates that Block II is rated significantly worse than Block III and IV (Table 3).
Table 3. Seminar quality of the thematic blocks: Pair-wise comparison by post hoc test.
Variable Block n Average difference
Standard
error p
Seminar quality
I 22 .317 .122 .103
II Seminar
quality
I 22 -.095 .083 1.000
III Seminar
quality
I 22 -.186 .117 .770
IV Seminar
quality
II 22 -.412 .086 .001
III Seminar
quality
II 22 -.502 .117 .002
IV Seminar
quality
III 22 -.091 .102 1.000
IV
At the seminar’s end, a survey measures the quality of the working phases and the performance of the two lecturers. The means in Table 4 show that the future teachers assess the working phases and both lecturers as positive.
Overall, concerning the first research question the results indicate that the future teachers assess the seminar very positively.
1716
Table 4 Assessment of the working phases and lecturers' performances (Lecturer CE = Lecture from chemical education department; Lecturer SN = Lecture from special needs department). The descriptive statistics of the seminar overall assessment survey from1 = very incorrect (negative) to 5 = very correct (positive are shown.
Variable n M SD
Delivery Lecturer CE 37 4.78 0.34
Delivery Lecturer SN 37 4.55 0.51
Working phases 37 4.51 0.51
Cognitive Changes
The future teachers’ attitudes, willingness and self-efficacy expectations concerning inclusion serve as the first parameters to analyze cognitive changes. For that, a survey measures these three parameters at the beginning (pre) and at the end (post) of the seminar as well as at the end of the internship semester (follow-up). A graphical overview of the results serves Figure 2. An immediate and a long-term increase is visible.
Figure 2. Presentation of the means of the attitudes, willingness and self-efficacy before (pre) and after (post) the seminar as well as at the end of the internship semester (follow-up) of the intervention group (n
= 18). p < .05: *; p < .01: **; p < .001: ***.
A paired t test confirms this observation (Table 5). The seminar was able to achieve a significant positive change in the three parameters both immediately and in the long term.
In addition, a comparison group shall ensure that no other factors, for example the test rerun, cause the measured effects regarding these changes. Figure 3 serves as a graphical overview of the means of the attitudes, willingness and self-efficacy before and after the seminar of the intervention and comparison group. It shows a slight decrease of the three parameters in the comparison group. This suggests that the three parameters increase in the intervention group more than in the comparison group.
An unpaired t test of the residuals confirms that other factors do not cause the measured significant changes (Table 6).
3.2 3.6 4 4.4
pre post follow-up
Mean
Attitudes Willingness Self-efficacy
***
*
**
1717
Table 5. Immediate (Pre-Post) and long-term (Pre-Follow-up) changes of the attitudes, willingness and self-efficacy from 1 = very incorrect (negative or small) to 6= very correct (positive or high). Comparison by paired t test.
Variable Time of
measurement n M SD
t Test
t p δ
Attitudes
Pre 37 4.28 0.63
-2.92 .006 0.48
Post 4.52 0.62
Pre 18 4.19 0.62
-3.64 .002 0.86
Follow-up 4.59 0.73
Willingness
Pre 37 4.06 1.25
-2.90 .006 0.48
Post 4.46 1.10
Pre 18 3.94 1.10
-2.38 .029 0.56
Follow-up 4.44 0.93
Self-efficacy
Pre 37 3.64 0.81
-7.06 < .001 1.16
Post 4.59 0.49
Pre 18 3.26 .074
-6.78 < .001 1.59
Follow-up 4.59 0.51
Figure 3. Presentation of the means of the attitudes, willingness and self-efficacy before (pre) and after (post) the seminar of the intervention group (IG, n = 37) and the comparison group (CG, n = 11). p < .05:
*; p < .01: **; p < .001: ***.
Table 6. Differences between the future teachers of the intervention (IG) and comparison (CG) group in the changes of attitudes, willingness and self-efficacy (residuals). Comparison by unpaired t test.
Variable Sample n M SD t test
t p δ
Attitudes (residuals)
IG 37 0.26 0.87
3.73 .001 1.27
CG 11 -0.86 0.89
Willingness (residuals)
IG 37 0.26 0.78
3.784 < .001 1.16
CG 11 -0.87 1.15
Self-efficacy (residuals)
IG 37 0.40 0.62
7.89 < .001 2.55
CG 11 -1.36 0.76
3 3.4 3.8 4.2 4.6
pre post
Mean
attitudes IG attitudes CG
willingness IG willingness CG
self-efficacy IG self-efficacy CG
***
**
*
1718
Concerning the second research question, the results indicate that the seminar has a positive impact on the future teachers’ attitudes, willingness, and self-efficacy.
As a second parameter to analyze the cognitive changes, the future teachers’ skills in designing lesson plans according to the UDL before and after the seminar are analyzed. For this, the future teachers had to develop lesson plans before and after the seminar. These lesson plans are evaluated based on the implementation of UDL-elements. The comparison of the future teachers’ skills before and after the seminar shows a significant improvement (t = -12.20, p < .001, δ = 2.01, n = 37).
Implementation at school
There is a big difference between knowing principles as well as techniques and using them.
Therefore, the implementation of the seminar’s contents at school in the subsequent internship semester is also measured.
The future teachers had to plan inclusive lessons using what they have learnt in the seminar. In this context, they developed lesson plans as well as work sheets and they tried to implement their lesson plans. Their efforts were videotaped. By analyzing these three aspects according to the elements of the UDL, the results show that the future teachers implemented what they have learnt to some extent. For example, the analysis of the lesson plans happens by using the same encoding manual that was already used to analyze the lesson plans before and after the seminar. With a maximal value of four, the future teachers achieve an average of M = 2.44 (SD = 0.32, n = 17). This shows they can still enhance the quality of the implementation. In addition, the analysis of the videos reveals great differences among the future teachers regarding the quality of their implementation at school.
Immediately after the implementation, interviews with the future teachers indicate that they rate their gained experiences at school as positive and the UDL was helpful for the development and implementation of inclusive lessons.
According to the fourth research question, the data show that the future teachers are able to put into practice what they have learnt but the quality of the implementation can be enhanced.
Effects on the students
Interviews with three students per class detect the effects on the students. These interviews are conducted immediately after the future teachers’ inclusive lessons. In these interviews, the students assess how accessible the future teachers’ classroom was for them. With a maximal value of four, the students assess the accessibility with an average of M = 3.33 (SD = 0.37, n = 50). This result indicates that the inclusive classrooms implemented by the future teachers are accessible to the students.
DISCUSSION
This study identifies some possibilities to prepare future chemistry teachers for teaching in inclusive classrooms. The results show that the future teachers improve their attitudes, willingness and self-efficacy concerning inclusion as well as their skills in designing lesson plans according to the UDL. In addition, the future teachers are able to implement what they
1719
have learnt and the students assess these implemented classrooms as accessible for them.
Nevertheless, the transfer of knowledge into practice seems to cause some problems for the future teachers since the implementation in school can still be improved. However, this is not surprising, as their teacher training is not completed yet. The future teachers have to take their exams at university and after that finish a traineeship, which takes one and a half year.
These results reveal possible improvements. To improve the transfer from theory into practice video vignettes showing critical situations in inclusive chemistry classrooms could be implemented into the seminar. In doing so, the future teachers could gain some realistic insights in the inclusive classrooms. They could discuss it and work out some alternative behaviours.
Since the UDL is a framework of the general pedagogy, other departments can use this seminar conception with subject-related adaptions. This has already occurred in the subjects English, Music and Physical Education at TU Dortmund University. This constitutes one step towards the WFA (Forlin, 2010).
Overall, there are more courses and seminars necessary to prepare future (chemistry) teachers for teaching in inclusive classrooms. This requires the cooperation of the whole university in designing a common understanding of inclusion and shared concepts future teachers can work with. For that, the developed seminar can provide some indications.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I want to thank my research group at TU Dortmund for their support with my Ph.D.-project and the participating students and future teachers.
REFERENCES
Amrhein, B., & Dziak-Mahler, M. (2014). Fachdidaktik inklusiv: Eine Aufgabe für die LeherInnenbildung der Zukunft. In B. Amrhein & M. Dziak-Mahler (Eds.), Fachdidaktik inklusiv. Auf der Suche nach didaktischen Leitlinien für den Umgang mit Vielfalt in der Schule (1st ed., pp. 11–13). Münster: Waxmann.
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2016). Neue Wege in der Lehrerbildung: Die Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung. Retrieved February 14, 2017, from https://www.qualitaetsoffensive-lehrerbildung.de/files/Neue_Wege_in_der_Lehrerbildung.pdf.
CAST (2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2012). Teacher Education for Inclusion. Profile of Inclusive Teachers, from https://www.european-agency.org/sites/default/files/Profile-of-Inclusive-Teachers.pdf.
Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2009). The inclusive practice project in Scotland: Teacher education for inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 594–601.
Forlin, C. (2010). Reframing teacher education for inclusion. In C. Forlin (Ed.), Teacher education for inclusion. Changing paradigms and innovative approaches (pp. 3–12). London, New York:
Routledge.
Hall, T. E., Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2012). An Introducation to Universal Design for Learning:
Questions and Answers. In T. E. Hall, A. Meyer, & D. H. Rose (Eds.), What Works for Special-Needs Learners. Universal design for learning in the classroom. Practical applications (pp. 1–
8). New York: Guilford Press.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1979). Techniques for Evaluating Training Programs. Training and Development Journal, 33(6), 78–92.
KMK (2016a). Sonderpädagogische Förderung in allgemeinen Schulen (ohne Förderschulen):
2015/16. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from
1720
https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/Statistik/Dokumentationen/Aus_SoPae_Int_2015.p df.
KMK (2016b). Sonderpädagogische Förderung in Förderschulen (Sonderschulen): 2015/16. Retrieved March 15, 2017, from
https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/Dateien/pdf/Statistik/Dokumentationen/Aus_SoPae_2015.pdf.
Körner, I. (2010). Inclusive Education in Europe. In R. Wernstedt & M. John-Ohnesorg (Eds.), Schriftenreihe des Netzwerk Bildung: Vol. 18. Inklusive Bildung. Die UN-Konvention und ihre Folgen (1st ed., pp. 33–37). Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.
Lambe, J., & Bones, R. (2006). Student teachers' perceptions about inclusive classroom teaching in Northern Ireland prior to teaching practice experience. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(2), 167–186.
Lapinski, S., Gravel, J., & Rose, D. H. (2012). Tools for Practice: The Universal Design for Learning Guidelines. In T. E. Hall, A. Meyer, & D. H. Rose (Eds.), What Works for Special-Needs Learners. Universal design for learning in the classroom. Practical applications (pp. 9–24). New York: Guilford Press.
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice.
Wakefield, MA: CAST Professional Publishing an imprint of CAST Inc.
Monitor Lehrerbildung (2015). Inklusionsorientierte Lehrerbildung - vom Schlagwort zur Realität?
Retrieved February 12, 2017, from
http://www.monitor-lehrerbildung.de/export/sites/default/.content/Downloads/Monitor_Lehrerbildung_Inklusion_04 _2015.pdf.
Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
United Nations (2006). UN-Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Optional Protocol.
1721