who is responsible for vulnerable pupils? the attitudes of teacher candidates in serbia and slovenia
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [Universite De Paris 1]On: 29 August 2013, At: 01:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20
Who is responsible for vulnerablepupils? The attitudes of teachercandidates in Serbia and SloveniaMojca Peček a & Sunčica Macura-Milovanović ba Faculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana,Sloveniab Faculty of Education in Jagodina, University of Kragujevac,Jagodina, SerbiaPublished online: 16 May 2012.
To cite this article: Mojca Peek & Sunica Macura-Milovanovi (2012) Who is responsible forvulnerable pupils? The attitudes of teacher candidates in Serbia and Slovenia, European Journal ofTeacher Education, 35:3, 327-346, DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2012.686105
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2012.686105
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Who is responsible for vulnerable pupils? The attitudes of teachercandidates in Serbia and Slovenia
Mojca Pečeka* and Sunčica Macura-Milovanovićb
aFaculty of Education, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; bFaculty of Educationin Jagodina, University of Kragujevac, Jagodina, Serbia
In the ongoing trend towards inclusive education, initial teacher education pro-grammes must ensure that prospective teachers are prepared to teach all pupilseffectively. The study presented in this paper aimed to explore the attitudes ofteacher candidates in Serbia and Slovenia towards responsibility for the teachingand learning of vulnerable pupils in mainstream elementary schools. Using aquantitative approach, the study sought to elicit teacher candidates’ views aboutdivision of responsibility for the academic achievement and additional supportof vulnerable pupils and their views on the factors that most affect learning dif-ficulties in those pupils. Our findings indicate that teacher candidates’ feelingsof responsibility are unlikely to help when instructing vulnerable pupils. Theimplications of these findings are discussed and we suggest several ways toimprove teacher education programmes to promote inclusive education based onthe concept of quality education for all.
Keywords: teacher candidates; attitudes; responsibility; inclusive education; ini-tial teacher education
Introduction
In the last two decades, many countries have introduced inclusion as a model for edu-cation. However, the definition of inclusion is highly contestable and involves variedconceptualisations (Armstrong, Armstrong, and Spandagou 2011). In this paper,inclusion is defined as a process in which schools attempt to respond to all pupils asindividuals by reconsidering and restructuring the curriculum to allocate resources ina way that enhances the equality of opportunity. This process aims to reduce all formsof exclusion and discrimination toward pupils on the basis of disability, ethnicity orother factors that may make school life unnecessarily difficult (Booth and Ainscow1998; Ouane 2008; Arnesen, Allen, and Simonsen 2009; Florian and Rouse 2009).Therefore, this paper is not limited to a discussion of pupils with special educationalneeds (SEN), as is often the case in research that adopts a narrow concept of inclu-sive education (Michailakis and Reich 2009; de Boera, Pijl, and Minnaert 2011).Rather, it considers all children who experience exclusion and barriers to learningand social participation. We refer to these children as ‘vulnerable’.
As teacher educators, we are aware of the challenges that inclusive educationissues pose for teachers in their new roles and responsibilities. Teachers areexpected to work effectively with pupils’ different languages and backgrounds, to
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
European Journal of Teacher EducationVol. 35, No. 3, August 2012, 327–346
ISSN 0261-9768 print/ISSN 1469-5928 online� 2012 Association for Teacher Education in Europehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2012.686105http://www.tandfonline.com
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
be sensitive to gender and cultural issues, to promote tolerance and social cohesion,to respond effectively to vulnerable pupils and pupils with learning or behaviouraldifficulties and to keep pace with rapidly developing fields of knowledge andapproaches to teaching, learning and assessment (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2005). At the same time, we are aware that teachersbring their own attitudes and beliefs about pupils who are perceived to be differentinto the profession, and these attitudes contribute to the way that teachers respondto pupils’ differences. The same is true for teacher candidates (TCs). Research find-ings from Lambe and Bones (2006) reveal that although TCs generally support thephilosophy of inclusion, they are at the beginning of their training and are unsure,at best, or uncomfortable, at worst, about the prospect of teaching in an inclusiveenvironment. Taylor and Sobel’s (2001) research findings demonstrate the tendencyamong TCs, most of whom are members of a privileged society, to see pupils’‘diverse’ backgrounds and abilities as problems rather than as resources. Further-more, many TCs have been educated in a system that uses the two-track approachto provide for pupils with SEN. Therefore, these TCs have little or no personalexperience interacting with these pupils within mainstream schools. We can posethe question: What can be done to change the negative attitudes of these TCs? AsAtkinson (2004) and Forlin et al. (2009) note, if the negative attitudes of TCs arenot addressed during their initial teacher education, these attitudes may continue tohinder the progress of inclusive education efforts in schools. The main focus in thispaper will therefore be on TCs perspectives, more specifically, on how TCs under-stand who has primary responsibility for the teaching and learning of vulnerablepupils.
Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education and teachers’ classroombehaviour
Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education appear to be determined by a varietyof factors, including the availability of resources and the type of difficulties pupilsexperience (Scruggs and Mastropieri 1996; Kniveton 2004), teachers’ workingexperience with vulnerable pupils, teacher training, available support, class size andteachers’ workload (Meijer, Soriano, and Watkins 2003) and the involvement of theparents of pupils with and without disabilities in the inclusion process (Brown andShearer 1999; Garrick, Duhaney, and Salend 2000). Arguments in these studies forand against inclusion focus on the child, the school’s economic status and thechild’s parents. Although these are all important factors in inclusion, research showsthat the key actors that can promote, hinder or implement inclusive education arethe teachers themselves, their values, their orientation, their level of self-confidenceand their ability to accept responsibility for inclusion (UNESCO 2003; Dyson,Howes, and Roberts 2004; Florian 2008). According to Villages (2007), the mostcritical element of teacher competence for inclusive education is the teacher’s dispo-sition, defined as the tendency of an individual to act in a particular manner underparticular circumstances based on his or her beliefs. Dispositions include teachers’beliefs on the purposes of education, knowledge, learning and the educability oftheir pupils. Teachers’ beliefs form the basis of teachers’ expectations of theirpupils, which may lead them to treat pupils differently, affecting the pupils’ perfor-mance, aspirations and self-image, depending on the teacher’s original assessments.The importance of teachers’ positive attitudes in inclusive settings has been well
328 M. Peček and S. Macura-Milovanović
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
documented (Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden 2000; Avramidis and Norwich 2002;Hadadian and Chiang 2007; Elik, Wiener, and Corkum 2010).
However, the relationship between teachers’ attitudes and their behaviour in theclassroom is not linear or straightforward. Several studies suggest that attitudes andbeliefs show little relation to practices actually used in the classroom (Simmonset al. 1999; Wilcox-Herzog 2003). According to Rimm-Kaufman et al. (2006), justbecause teachers hold certain beliefs does not mean that they transfer them intoconcrete practices in the classroom. Rather, teachers’ beliefs represent a frameworkthat organises meaning and informs practices. Research studies have applied varioustheories to investigate the practicing teachers’ attitudes. Several theories are relevantto our research.
According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975, 1980 as cited in Ule 2009; Elik,Wiener, and Corkum 2010), an individual’s intention to perform a particular behav-iour is the most immediate predictor of that behaviour. The stronger the intention,the more likely a person is to engage in the behaviour. Intention depends on a per-son’s attitudes and norms. An additional factor that influences behavioural responsesis an individual’s perception of how difficult it is to perform the desired behaviour.According to the attribution model (Weiner 1986, 1995), people attempt to under-stand themselves and their environment, and act based on this knowledge. The endof this process is a behavioural reaction. What comes between is the motivationalprocess, guided by attribution inferences that fill the gap between the stimulus andthe response (Weiner 2000). Jordan, Glenn and McGhie-Richmond (2010) and Jor-dan, Schwartz and McGhie-Richmond (2009) used the term ‘interventionist’ todescribe teachers who believe that they should engage in interventions with pupilsand who assume responsibility for their pupils’ learning difficulties because theyare aware that pupils experience difficulties as a result of their interactions with theinstructional environment.
Several researchers have considered the cyclical and dynamic nature of the rela-tionship between teachers’ attitudes and behaviours and the feedback that theyreceive from their pupils. Teachers often filter their perceptions of pupils to matchtheir own expectations, and pupils, likewise, react in accordance with and fulfil teach-ers’ expectations (Rosenthal and Jacobson 1968; Ule 2009). A self-fulfilling proph-ecy is a prediction that directly or indirectly becomes true by the terms of theprophecy itself due to the positive feedback between the belief and the behaviour.The transactional model confirms this view (Stangvik 1998; Sameroff and Mackenzie2003; Sutherland and Oswald 2005): teachers’ perceptions, pupils’ classroombehaviours and teachers’ responses to those behaviours interact dynamically,producing a cycle that confirms and strengthens perceptions.
Based on the aforementioned theories and research, teachers’ beliefs influencepupils’ behaviour and predict teachers’ intentions to engage in the kind of plannedbehaviours that are effective for inclusion. Thus, exploring TCs’ attitudes andbeliefs is an important field of research in teacher education. The first step inaddressing TCs’ attitudes towards inclusive education is understanding the nature ofthese attitudes.
Teachers’ responsibility for teaching and learning of vulnerable pupils
Studies suggest that teachers tend to attribute responsibility for vulnerable pupils’academic achievements to others, including parents, the pupils themselves and other
European Journal of Teacher Education 329
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
professionals. In one Hungarian study (Hegedűs and Forrai 1999), teachers mostfrequently ascribed Roma pupils’ poor academic achievements to their families’ cir-cumstances and lifestyle. Only a small number of teachers perceived the school asresponsible for these pupils’ lack of progress. The authors suggest that mostteachers see the school as powerless to deal with pupils from disadvantageoussocio-cultural backgrounds. Slovenian studies found that teachers considered pupils’abilities and activities the most important factors in Roma and immigrant pupils’academic achievements, whereas factors related to teaching, such as the teacher’seffort, were considered to contribute to these achievements to a much smaller extent(Lesar, Čuk, and Peček 2006; Peček and Lesar 2006). Similarly, the majority ofSlovenian teachers attributed the primary responsibility for achieving curriculumobjectives for pupils with SEN to SEN professionals than to teachers (Lesar, Čuk,and Peček 2005; Peček and Lesar 2006). According to one study in Serbia, teachersbelieved that Roma pupils’ low academic achievements were due to the pupils’ lackof motivation and Roma parents’ lack of support for their children’s education, dueto different lifestyles or generally negative views of education. However, teachersdid not question their own instructional practices and did not realise that these prac-tices may also contribute to pupils’ failure (Macura-Milovanović 2006).
These studies show that teachers ascribe the academic achievements of vulnera-ble pupils to the efforts of the pupils and their parents. According to attribution the-ory (Weiner 1986, 1995), effort is subject to volitional control and is regarded as acontrollable cause. If the cause is controllable by the parents and the pupils, theyare perceived as responsible for the outcome (Weiner 1995, 2000). These interpreta-tions explain why some teachers are unwilling to put effort into teaching vulnerablepupils. Research also indicates the division of responsibilities (Ule 2009). Teachersmay feel that their responsibility for the academic achievements of vulnerablepupils, particularly SEN pupils, is reduced because it is shared with the parents andwith SEN professionals. Teachers often feel that SEN professionals are moreresponsible because they have more knowledge and experience in working withvulnerable pupils (Peček and Lesar 2006).
Studies that have explored teachers’ behaviours and their attitudes toward theresponsibility for vulnerable pupils suggest that teachers who accept responsibilityare more efficient than those who do not accept responsibility. Rix et al. (2006)showed that teachers who felt responsible for the inclusion of vulnerable pupilswere more likely to have effective, high-quality and task-oriented interactions withall pupils. Jordan, Schwartz and McGhie-Richmond (2009) demonstrated a linkbetween teachers’ beliefs about their responsibility for instructing pupils with SENand the overall quality of their teaching practices. Teachers who believed that itwas their responsibility to instruct pupils with SEN in inclusive classes were moreeffective for all of their pupils and when working individually with pupils withSEN. These authors concluded that the school’s standards of inclusion, individualteachers’ beliefs about their roles and responsibilities with respect to inclusion andteachers’ self-perceived efficacy determined teaching practices, which, in turn, deter-mined pupils’ outcomes. Gore, Griffiths and Ladwig (2002) showed that teacherswith high teaching ratings had a much stronger sense of responsibility for efficacyin relation to pupils’ learning. Teachers with low ratings were much more inclinedto believe that factors beyond their control determined pupils’ outcomes. The afore-mentioned studies suggest that the difference between effective and ineffectiveinclusion may lie in teachers’ beliefs about who is primarily responsible for
330 M. Peček and S. Macura-Milovanović
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
vulnerable pupils. The belief that the locus of responsibility lies with them may beone of the prerequisites for teachers to develop effective instructional techniques forall pupils. Thus, exploring the attitudes of TCs about who has primary responsibil-ity for vulnerable pupils is an important issue. We are aware that there is no guaran-tee that those TCs who ascribe greater responsibility to the teacher will be moreeffective with all of their pupils. However, keeping in mind that teachers’ behaviourdepends on many other factors, we believe that data on TCs’ attitudes towardresponsibility may have important implications in teacher education programmes.We agree with Florian and Rouse (2009) that ‘the task of initial teacher educationis to prepare people to enter a profession which accepts individual and collectiveresponsibility for improving the learning and participation of all children’ (596).
Teacher candidates’ attitudes towards responsibility: the present study
In this paper we are presenting a part of a longitudinal study of the attitudes of TCsfrom Slovenia and Serbia, that is, the part of the study that relates to initial evalua-tion of TCs’ atitudes. We conducted this exploratory study at two universities: theFaculty of Education of the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia and the TeacherTraining Faculty of the University of Belgrade in Serbia. We were interested in dis-cerning the differences and similarities between the attitudes of participants fromSlovenia, a country that has been reforming its education system towards inclusionsince the 1990s, and the attitudes of participants from Serbia, a country that beganeducational reforms 10 years later. Exploring these attitudes is particularly interest-ing because both countries were part of the common state of Yugoslavia until 1991,when Slovenia gained independence. Therefore, the countries share, inter alia, acommon history in the field of education and initial teacher education. According tostudies, the success of inclusion and TCs’ attitudes towards inclusive education arestrongly affected by the broader societal context (Fraser 2000; Dyson, Howes, andRoberts 2004; Barton 2004). Therefore, we were interested in determining how dif-ferences in Slovenian and Serbian contexts reflect the differences in TCs’ initial atti-tudes and perceptions of responsibility.
The context
Serbia is a country in transition, burdened by the conflicts of the recent past. Serbiahas a large number of refugees and internally displaced persons, a high rate ofunemployment and major poverty issues, mainly among the Roma national minor-ity. As one of the essential requirements of the EU accession process, Serbia hasundertaken a process of social inclusion, which implies the development andimprovement of policies, institutional frameworks and methodologies for supervis-ing the social inclusion of individuals and social groups. Since 2009, Serbia hasbeen in the process of implementing new education legislation (National Assemblyof the Republic of Serbia 2009), which includes a number of provisions supportinginclusive education. The new law promotes equal rights and access to all levels ofeducation without discrimination or segregation of pupils from vulnerable socialgroups and those with developmental difficulties and disabilities.
The environment of the new education strategies and legislation is burdened bysignificant obstacles to their implementation, including teachers’ lack of preparationfor inclusive education during their initial studies and lack of motivation to teach in
European Journal of Teacher Education 331
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
diverse classrooms (Macura-Milovanović, Gera, and Kovačević 2010). Teachers’resistance to inclusive education is partly reinforced by the separate preparation ofprofessionals to teach pupils with SEN. Because of the assumed expertise of specialeducators, many mainstream teachers genuinely believe that they cannot work withpupils with SEN and that a special provision is the best option for these pupils(Pantić, Closs, and Ivošević 2010). Furthermore, some teachers are not willing toaccept responsibility for teaching all pupils in ethnically heterogeneous classes.There is a tendency for teachers to delegate responsibility for teaching Roma pupilsto teaching assistants (Institute for the Evaluation of Education Quality 2009). Ithas been documented that teachers have lower educational expectations for Romapupils, which is related to lower school achievement among these pupils (Baucalet al. 2005).
Slovenia, as part of Yugoslavia, succeeded in maintaining close relations with theCentral and Western European countries. After independence, Slovenia was facedwith numerous problems caused by rapid and fundamental political and economicchanges related to its proximity to the EU, which was aggravated by the burden ofSlovenia’s socialist past. Slovenia has been developing its own comprehensive sys-tem of education. One of its aims is quality education and inclusive education for allas the basis for becoming a knowledge-based society. According to educational laws,pupils with SEN may be included in mainstream schools if they are capable ofachieving the educational standards established by regular school curricula (Ministryof Education, Science, and Sport 2000). Immigrant children have the right to addi-tional support in the Slovene language, but only during the first year of schooling.They also have the right to mother-tongue instruction and education about theirculture (Ministry of Education and Sport 1996), although this instruction is rarelyorganised in schools.
The education system in Slovenia is geared toward productivity. Both the aca-demic achievements of pupils and the efficacy of teachers are measured in terms ofthe knowledge retained by pupils, which highlights the cognitive dimension ofpupils’ development and dismisses other dimensions as insignificant (Peček et al.2008). This system is one of the reasons why teachers seem to assume that the onusis on vulnerable pupils to adjust to the school system rather than vice versa and thatparents are required to help their children do their homework and learn. Teachersoften do not see themselves as responsible for either the pupils’ academic achieve-ment or their social inclusion and do not seek constructive solutions to help pupilsovercome serious obstacles in knowledge acquisition (Novljan et al. 2004; Peček,Čuk, and Lesar 2008). Teachers also do not feel adequately trained to instruct vul-nerable pupils (Novljan et al. 2004; Magajna et al. 2005; Peček and Lesar 2006).
Methodology
Sample
The sample consisted of TCs enrolled at the Faculty of Education (FE) Ljubljanaand Teacher-Training Faculty (TTF) Belgrade in the school year 2009/2010. Allparticipants were preparing to be primary school teachers. At the time of the survey,participants were at the beginning of their first year in a full-time teacher educationprogramme. At FE Ljubljana, the questionnaire was completed by 109 females and4 males, representing 91.9% of the enrolled TCs. At TTF Belgrade, the question-naire was completed by 135 females and 9 males, representing 92.5% of the
332 M. Peček and S. Macura-Milovanović
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
enrolled TCs. Because these programmes are strongly dominated by femalestudents, gender differences in attitudes could not be analysed.
Settings
In both countries, TCs preparing to be primary school teachers undertake their ini-tial education at a university that offers four years of basic studies, ending with adiploma, followed by one year of postgraduate studies for a Master’s in the frame-work of Bologna programmes (BA 240 ECTS plus MA 60 ECTS).
Programmes at FE Ljubljana and TTF Belgrade include one compulsory courseintended for working with vulnerable pupils, but the courses at these two facultieshave completely different discourses and theoretical backgrounds. The course atTTF Belgrade is intended for TCs working with pupils with SEN and is based onthe medical discourse of teaching these pupils, whereas the course at FE Ljubljanais intended for TCs working with all pupils who require support in learning and isbased on pedagogic discourse (Fulcher 1989). At TTF Belgrade there is no cross-curricula approach towards inclusive education and no inclusion issues in subjectdidactics. In contrast, at FE Ljubljana cross-curricula approach and inclusion issuescan be found in a few courses.
A common issue for both faculties is an insufficient and inadequate school-based internship. After their internship, Slovenian TCs often feel that an inclusiveeducation of vulnerable pupils is even more difficult than they thought, if notimpossible. Practical experiences often strengthen TCs’ stereotypes about pupils’abilities to learn as well as their beliefs that the parents and children themselves areresponsible for learning. In Serbia, the internship takes place at schools whereteaching staff are not trained in inclusive practices, which intensifies TCs’prejudices and results in adverse attitudes toward inclusion because TCs absorb theprejudices of the teachers whose classes they attend during internship (Macura-Milovanović, Gera, and Kovačević 2010).
Data collection
We prepared a pilot version of the questionnaire and tested it on a sample of TCsfrom both universities. Based on their responses and comments, we prepared thefinalised version of the questionnaire. The questionnaire was filled out at the startof the study year, before TCs had been formally introduced to issues related toinclusion. Therefore, their responses reflect a stage not influenced by discussion,knowledge or experiences gained in the teacher education programme or school-based internship. Colleagues at TTF Belgrade and FE Ljubljana were asked for per-mission to administer the questionnaire to the TCs.
The data were collected within the first month of the teacher education pro-gramme during class sessions. The purpose of the study was described for the TCs.They were also informed that they would be asked to fill out the same questionnaireat the end of their studies with the aim of discerning possible changes over the per-iod of initial education in respect of their attitudes; therefore, the information wasnot anonymous. The TCs were provided with verbal and written assurance that thecollected data would not be used for any purposes other than scientific research, inaccordance with research ethics and to ensure confidentiality. The questionnaireswere then distributed to the TCs who agreed to participate. All included TCscompleted and returned the questionnaire.
European Journal of Teacher Education 333
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
Instrument
The questionnaire included a working definition of vulnerable pupils: ‘in this ques-tionnaire, we will use the term “vulnerable pupils” to describe pupils who due totheir specific needs, require additional support in learning and social participation’.Vulnerable pupils were specifically defined as including children with SEN, childrenof immigrants, children belonging to various minority groups, children from disad-vantaged families, refugees and internally displaced children. These children repre-sent the most vulnerable groups of children in the educational systems of bothcountries.
The part of the questionnaire presented below asked TCs to specify:
(1) Who is the most responsible for vulnerable pupils’ academic achievements?(2) Who should provide additional learning support for vulnerable pupils in
school?(3) Which factors most affect the learning difficulties of vulnerable pupils?
Teacher candidates provided their responses to the first and third questionsusing a ranking scale (where rank 1 was ascribed to the most responsible person,rank 2 to the second most responsible person and so on) and answered the secondquestion using a five-point Likert scale (‘strongly disagree’, ‘mostly disagree’, ‘Icannot decide’ ‘mostly agree’ and ‘strongly agree’).
As possible responses to the first and second questions, we provided a list ofindividuals who are seen as responsible for academic achievements of pupils and/orare expected to help pupils in both education systems: teacher, teacher’s assistant(TA), SEN professional, parents, school counselling department (SCD), pupil, withan option for TCs to add other individual(s). Question three lists factors (Wang,Haertel, and Geneva 1993; Hegedűs and Forrai 1999; Peček and Lesar 2006) thatmay directly affect pupil’s academic achievements, that is, factors related to theindividual pupil, the school environment and teaching practices and the pupil’ssocial environment.
Data processing
Statistical analysis was conducted in SPSS 18.0. The frequencies of each responsewere calculated, and differences between groups were analysed with the χ² test.Differences with p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.
Results
Responsibility for vulnerable pupils’ academic achievements
Most participants from both countries felt that either the parents or the teacher aremost responsible for the academic achievements of a vulnerable pupil (Table 1).Most participants ranked the pupil as the second most responsible individual. Whenwe combined the first and second rankings of responsibility into one number, partic-ipants perceived parents as the most responsible people (60.5%), followed by teach-ers (54.5%), pupils (53.9%), SEN professionals (17.6%), TAs (11.8%) and SCDs(6.3%). Furthermore, 38 TCs, 14 from TTF Belgrade and 24 from FE Ljubljana,specified other individuals who should be responsible for the academic achieve-
334 M. Peček and S. Macura-Milovanović
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
Table1.
Responsibility
foracadem
icachievem
entsof
vulnerable
pupils.
Rank
Group
ofstudents
12
34
56
7χ²
Sig.
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Pupil
TTF
21.7
25.9
17.5
12.6
9.7
12.6
0.0
FE
30.6
31.5
12.6
9.9
6.4
9.0
0.0
Total
25.6
28.3
15.4
11.4
8.3
11.0
0.0
5.664
.340
Teacher
TTF
43.4
20.3
22.4
10.5
2.8
0.6
0.0
FE
13.4
29.5
39.3
9.8
7.1
0.9
0.0
Total
30.2
24.3
29.8
10.2
4.7
0.8
0.0
29.457
.000
Teacher’sassistant
TTF
0.0
9.7
5.6
24.5
26.6
33.6
0.0
FE
3.6
10.7
15.2
24.1
21.4
24.1
0.9
Total
1.6
10.2
9.8
24.3
24.3
29.4
0.4
14.919
.021
Specialised
SEN
TTF
8.3
7.7
18.9
19.6
30.1
12.6
2.8
professional,speech
FE
9.8
9.8
9.8
28.6
29.5
10.7
1.8
therapist,social
pedagogue
Total
9.0
8.6
14.9
23.5
29.8
11.8
2.4
6.558
.364
Parents
TTF
25.9
30.8
24.5
11.2
6.3
1.3
0.0
FE
48.2
17.0
15.2
8.9
6.3
4.4
0.0
Total
35.7
24.7
20.4
10.2
6.3
2.7
0.0
18.756
.002
Schoolcounselling
TTF
0.0
3.4
9.8
22.4
24.5
38.5
1.4
department:
FE
1.8
8.0
7.1
16.1
23.2
43.8
0.0
psychologist,pedagogue,
social
worker
Total
0.8
5.5
8.6
19.6
23.9
40.8
0.8
8.734
.189
Other
individual(s),
TTF
7.1
0.0
7.1
0.0
7.1
7.1
71.6
please
specify:___________
FE
8.3
12.5
0.0
8.3
4.2
0.0
66.7
Total
7.9
7.9
2.6
5.3
5.3
2.6
68.4
6.539
.366
Note:
FE=Faculty
ofEdu
catio
n,Ljubljana;TTF=TeacherTrainingFaculty,Belgrade.
European Journal of Teacher Education 335
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
ments of vulnerable pupils, including friends, peers, schoolmates, relatives oranother vulnerable pupils.
Statistically significant differences between Serbian and Slovenian participants’answers were evident in relation to the rank of the teacher, parents and TA. Asignificantly larger proportion of Serbian participants felt that the teacher was theindividual most responsible for vulnerable pupils’ academic achievements andranked parents in the second or third place. In contrast, Slovenian participants feltthat parents were the individuals most responsible for vulnerable pupils’ academicachievements and ranked the teacher in second or third place. Serbian participantsmore frequently ranked the TA in fifth or sixth place, whereas Slovenian partici-pants more often ranked the TA in one of the first three places. Results show thatTCs from FE Ljubljana more often diffuse the responsibility to parents and TA andperceive them as responsible for academic achievement of vulnerable pupils.
Responsibility for vulnerable pupils’ additional learning support
Most participants from both countries agreed that all of the individuals listed shouldprovide additional learning support to vulnerable pupils (Table 2). The highest levelof agreement was associated with the statement that the teacher should provideassistance, with a slightly lower level of agreement that the parents should providethis assistance. A significantly lower proportion of participants strongly agreed thatlearning support should be provided mainly by SEN professionals, a TA and SCDor other pupils.
Statistically significant differences between participants in Ljubljana and Bel-grade were found for four responses. More Serbian participants ‘strongly agreed’that the teacher, TA, SCD and other pupils should provide additional learning sup-port to vulnerable pupils, whereas more Slovenian participants ‘mostly agreed’ withthese statements.
Only 16 TCs responded by specifying other individuals who should provideadditional assistance, namely a friend or peer, a relative, a child’s companion, pupilswith similar difficulties, volunteers, school workers and society. Statistically signifi-cant differences were found in the TCs responses: five TCs from Belgrade whospecified this response strongly agreed with their choice, whereas in Ljubljana themajority of respondents could not decide how strongly they agreed or disagreed.
These data suggest that participants from both groups agreed that the teacherand parents are the individuals most responsible for providing additional learningsupport to vulnerable pupils. The main difference between the two groups of TCswas in the intensity of their agreement with these statements. The intensity wasgreater in Belgrade than in Ljubljana.
Factors contributing to vulnerable pupils’ learning difficulties
Almost two-thirds of all participants ranked the pupil’s disability as the factor withthe greatest impact on his/her learning difficulties (Table 3). Beyond this result,there was little consensus. Most participants ranked peer relationships or the scopeand complexity of the curriculum in second place, school culture in third place,relationships with teachers in fifth place and teaching methods and techniques insixth place. Participants generally ranked family and the environment last. Thisquestion also gave the respondents the option to specify other factors. Only nine
336 M. Peček and S. Macura-Milovanović
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
Table2.
Individualswho
should
provideadditio
nallearning
supportto
vulnerable
pupils.
Group
ofstudents
Strongly
disagree
(%)
Mostly
disagree
(%)
Cannotdecide
(%)
Mostly
agree
Strongly
agree
χ²Sig.
(%)
(%)
Parents
TTF
2.8
2.1
1.4
18.0
75.7
FE
0.0
1.8
1.8
28.3
68.1
Total
1.6
1.9
1.6
22.5
72.4
6.684
.154
Teacher
TTF
0.7
0.7
0.7
9.1
88.8
FE
0.0
0.0
2.6
42.5
54.9
Total
0.4
0.4
1.6
23.8
73.8
42.505
.000
Teacher’sassistant
TTF
0.7
2.8
4.9
32.2
59.4
FE
0.0
5.3
7.1
47.8
39.8
Total
0.4
3.9
5.8
39.1
50.8
11.050
.026
Specialised
SEN
TTF
0.7
2.1
2.8
34.3
60.1
professional,speech
FE
0.0
0.9
5.3
40.7
53.1
therapist,social
workspecialist
Total
0.4
1.6
3.9
37.1
57.0
3.660
.454
Schoolcounselling
TTF
2.1
3.5
3.5
30.1
60.8
department:
FE
0.0
5.3
9.8
40.7
44.2
psychologist,SEN
professional,social
workspecialist
Total
1.2
4.3
6.2
34.8
53.5
12.085
.017
Other
pupils
TTF
3.5
5.6
5.6
30.1
55.2
FE
1.7
8.0
19.5
40.7
30.1
Total
2.7
6.6
11.8
34.8
44.1
22.695
.000
Other
individual(s),
TTF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
please
specify:
FE
0.0
9.1
54.5
18.2
18.2
Total
0.0
6.3
37.5
12.4
43.8
9.351
.025
Note:
FE=Faculty
ofEdu
catio
n,Ljubljana;TTF=Teacher
TrainingFaculty,Belgrade.
European Journal of Teacher Education 337
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
Table3.
Factors
that
have
thegreatestim
pact
onthelearning
difficulties
ofvulnerable
pupils.
Rank
Group
ofstudents
12
34
56
78
9χ²
Sig.
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
Schoolcultu
reTTF
4.3
11.3
14.2
11.3
11.3
16.3
19.2
12.1
0.0
FE
6.2
17.7
17.7
19.5
14.2
10.6
7.1
7.0
0.0
Total
5.1
14.2
15.7
15.0
12.6
13.8
13.8
9.8
0.0
15.583
.029
Pupil’s
TTF
61.3
9.9
7.0
7.7
5.6
1.4
1.4
5.7
0.0
disability
FE
65.5
7.1
4.4
5.3
3.5
8.0
2.7
3.5
0.0
Total
63.1
8.6
5.9
6.7
4.7
4.3
2.0
4.7
0.0
9.975
.190
Fam
ilyTTF
4.9
7.0
5.6
7.0
13.4
7.8
11.3
43.0
0.0
FE
8.8
27.4
15.0
10.6
14.2
3.5
8.0
12.5
0.0
Total
6.7
16.1
9.8
8.6
13.7
5.9
9.8
29.4
0.0
49.671
.000
Wider
social
TTF
7.7
9.9
8.5
16.9
12.0
12.7
19.7
12.6
0.0
environm
ent
FE
6.2
4.4
9.7
11.5
7.1
13.3
12.4
35.4
0.0
Total
7.1
7.5
9.0
14.5
9.8
12.9
16.5
22.7
0.0
21.976
.003
Relations
with
TTF
9.2
26.1
21.8
17.6
10.6
10.6
3.5
.60.0
peers
FE
8.0
15.9
19.5
18.6
14.2
8.8
10.6
4.4
0.0
Total
8.6
21.6
20.8
18.0
12.2
9.8
6.7
2.4
0.0
12.613
.082
Relations
with
TTF
2.8
10.6
16.9
14.1
16.9
17.6
16.9
4.2
0.0
teachers
FE
3.5
4.4
14.2
15.9
22.1
15.9
18.6
5.4
0.0
Total
3.1
7.8
15.7
14.9
19.2
16.9
17.6
4.7
0.0
4.830
.681
Scope
and
TTF
3.5
19.0
15.5
12.0
18.3
12.0
15.5
4.2
0.0
complexity
ofFE
8.0
19.5
15.9
8.8
13.3
13.3
14.2
7.0
0.0
thecurriculum
Total
5.5
19.2
15.7
10.6
16.1
12.5
14.9
5.5
0.0
4.943
.667
Teaching
TTF
6.4
6.4
11.3
13.5
12.8
21.3
12.8
15.5
0.0
methods
FE
4.4
8.0
12.4
8.8
6.2
20.4
20.4
19.4
0.0
andtechniques
Total
5.5
7.1
11.8
11.4
9.8
20.9
16.1
17.3
0.0
7.447
.384
Som
ething
else.
TTF
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pleasespecify:
FE
0.0
22.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
77.8
Total
0.0
22.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
77.8
Note:
FE=Faculty
ofEdu
catio
n,Ljubljana;TTF=Teacher
TrainingFaculty,Belgrade.
338 M. Peček and S. Macura-Milovanović
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
students in Ljubljana opted to do so. These other factors included friends, depres-sion and the pupil’s personality.
Differences in the responses between the TCs in Ljubljana and Belgrade werealso observed. The Serbian participants ranked school culture in the sixth, seventhor eighth place, whereas the Slovenian participants ranked school culture in the topfive places. Most of the Slovenian participants ranked family in second place, fol-lowed by third place and fifth place. In contrast, most of the Serbian participantsranked family in the fifth or eighth place. Most of the Slovenian participants rankedthe social environment in the eighth place, whereas most of the Serbian participantsranked the social environment in the seventh or fourth place.
Participants’ responses were skewed towards the pupil’s disability as the factorwith the greatest impact. Again, the Slovenian participants ranked the importance ofthe family higher than did Serbian participants. Factors related to the teacher, suchas the pupil’s relationships with teachers and teaching methods and techniques,were perceived as less important.
Discussion
The data suggest that participants from both faculties perceive the teacher and theparents as very important, in terms of responsibility for academic achievements andin terms of providing learning support to the pupil. Parents and teachers are alsodescribed as factors that affect a pupil’s learning difficulties, but the pupil’s disabil-ity is seen as more important. However, the participants’ attitudes differed on thequestion of responsibility for vulnerable pupils’ academic achievements. The Ser-bian participants perceived the teacher as the most responsible party, whereas theSlovenian participants perceived the parents as the most responsible parties. The lat-ter attitude may not facilitate inclusiveness. Several studies have suggested thatteachers who feel responsible for marginalised pupils tend to be more effective forall pupils (Jordan, Schwartz, and McGhie-Richmond 2009).
Why do Slovenian participants feel that parents have more responsibility forvulnerable pupils’ learning compared with the Serbian participants? The Slovenianparticipants’ attitudes reflect their own school experiences. They are aware thatteachers generally expect parents to help children with their homework and learn-ing, as shown in studies by Lesar, Čuk and Peček (2005) and Peček and Lesar(2006). According to these studies, teachers feel that the school curriculum is sobroad that it is not possible for pupils to achieve academically unless they workhard at home. In the light of attribution theory (Weiner 1995, 2000), we can inter-pret Slovenian participants’ responses as having an external locus of causality. Slo-venian participants ascribe the academic achievements of vulnerable pupils to theefforts of their parents. And if the cause is controllable by the parents, they are per-ceived as responsible for the outcome. Slovenian participants are aware that theeducation system is very demanding and that they, as teachers, will be supervisedand evaluated on the results of their work (e.g. their pupils’ knowledge). We canassume that the idea of working with vulnerable pupils may provoke feelings offear or uncertainty for Slovenian participants because they perceive the interactionas an unknown, difficult task and do not feel sufficiently competent to perform thetask. These interpretations are supported by studies on TCs’ attitudes towardinclusive education in other countries (Taylor and Sobel 2001; Lambe and Bones2006). Slovenian participants’ responses can be also interpreted as suggesting that
European Journal of Teacher Education 339
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
vulnerable pupils cannot achieve the general education standards established for allpupils in Slovenian schools. Therefore, these TCs are not willing to takeresponsibility for the pupils’ achievements.
Why do the Serbian participants feel that the teacher is most responsible for a vul-nerable pupil’s achievements? First, it is important to note that Serbian TCs partici-pating in the present study were educated in a system with separate mainstreameducation and special education. In their schooling experience, pupils with intellec-tual and sensory disabilities were educated in special schools. Therefore, teachersworking in mainstream schools had no professional obligations or responsibilitiestowards SEN pupils. When answering questions regarding ‘vulnerable’ pupils, theseTCs were most likely to refer to various groups of socially and culturally disadvan-taged children in Serbia (Roma, internally displaced persons and refugees and otherpoverty-stricken families) rather than pupils with SEN. Serbian participants’ greaterwillingness to accept responsibility for vulnerable pupils might stem from an insuffi-cient understanding of the complexities of teaching heterogeneous classes and a lackof information about the radical changes in the Serbian educational system, whichintroduced inclusion in 2009, the same year the TCs completed the questionnaire.
Furthermore, the teaching process and classrooms in Serbia are infrequentlyobserved and largely unmonitored. Teachers have little incentive to achieve high-quality results in their teaching practice, making their professional duties lessdemanding (Pantić, Closs, and Ivošević 2010). In light of attribution theory, we caninterpret Serbian participants’ responses as having an internal locus of causality(Weiner 1995, 2000). Serbian participants ascribe the academic achievements ofvulnerable pupils to the efforts of teachers. And if the cause is controllable by theteachers, they are perceived as responsible for the outcome. Our assumption is thatthis desirable result emerges from the Serbian participants’ lack of knowledge andexperience in instructing vulnerable pupils – they do not perceive working in heter-ogeneous classes as difficult and demanding. It is interesting to note that in Slove-nia, a country with stronger regulations in education, TCs tend to diffuseresponsibility, whereas in Serbia, a country with less control and supervision, TCstend to accept responsibility.
Another important issue in this discussion is related to the question of why mostparticipants from both countries believe that a vulnerable pupil’s disabilities havethe greatest influence on his/her learning difficulties. First, both countries maintainspecial schools for pupils with SEN. Second, both countries provide separate studiesfor SEN professionals with expertise in teaching SEN pupils. These circumstancesexplain why vulnerable pupils are perceived in the context of their disabilities –pupils who require specialised teaching methods are the responsibility only of thosewho have undertaken specialised courses (Florian and Rouse 2009). The term ‘dis-ability’ is closely linked to the concepts of ‘special’ or ‘medical’ and requiring spe-cial treatment. Teacher candidates do not focus on how to teach vulnerable pupils,they think of the pupil as a problem, which is why they do not perceive factorsrelated to the teacher as important. In both countries, teachers strongly believe inthe expertise of SEN professionals (until recently, known as ‘defectologists’) andthey are not willing to accept the mandated responsibility for inclusion, asillustrated by the following teacher’s statement:
Inclusion must be based on the voluntary principle, it is not right that someone simply‘gives you’ a child with special needs and expect you to work with him, if it were so
340 M. Peček and S. Macura-Milovanović
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
simple, studies at the Faculty of Defectology would not take 4 years … (Macura-Milovanović, Gera, and Kovačević 2010, 39)
These opinions are widely held and it is highly unlikely that first-year TCs wouldhave opinions that were significantly different from the opinions of their oldercolleagues.
Although we know that the actual behaviours of TCs are influenced by variousfactors, and not only by attitudes, we believe that our findings have implications forteacher education programmes. Considering the studies conducted by Jordan,Schwartz and McGhie-Richmond (2009) and Jordan, Glenn and McGhie-Richmond(2010), which concluded that participants’ attitudes might point to pathognomonicbeliefs about disability as an internal, fixed or pathological condition that is not ame-nable to instruction. As a result, teachers emphasise the label of disability as anexplanation for underachievement and consider pupils with disabilities and under-achieving pupils the sources of their own learning difficulties. Teachers who sharethese beliefs tend to blame pupils and/or their families for the pupils’ poor progress,to prefer delivery models that remove these pupils from their classes and to favourinstructional concepts that require large amounts of homework to be completed bythe pupils, usually with assistance from their parents.
According to Weiner’s (2000) attribution theory, a pupil’s disability is an uncon-trollable cause that cannot be volitionally altered. In this case, the pupil is not heldpersonally responsible for learning difficulties, which could elicit sympathy andteachers’ interventionist behaviour. However, considering TCs’ answers to all threequestions, we can hardly believe that the TCs’ attitudes suggest interventionistbehaviours.
Implications for teacher education programmes
The vulnerable pupils described in this study include very different groups and con-stitute a significant limitation in terms of drawing conclusions. Although it is notentirely clear which of the groups the TCs referenced in their answers, the resultsof this study may present the first step in understanding and addressing TCs’ atti-tudes toward inclusive education. To gain further insight into TCs’ attitudes towarddifferent groups of vulnerable pupils, teacher educators could utilise in-depth inter-viewing and classroom observation techniques in practical settings. Despite this lim-itation of the study, we can suggest several implications for teacher educationprogrammes.
Based on the above analysis, teacher education programmes should place moreemphasis on issues related to teachers’ responsibility for the academic achievementsof vulnerable pupils. Teacher education programmes should focus on TCs’ tacitbeliefs related to inclusion. Tacit beliefs can become explicit when TCs have theopportunity to reflect on and discuss them and to be challenged by feedback fromcolleagues and peers (Jordan, Schwartz, and McGhie-Richmond 2009). These issuescan be implemented through courses that provide TCs with opportunities to analysetheir attitudes through peer discussion and to receive exposure to positive attitudestoward inclusion. It is especially important during the initial stages of education tofocus attention on the belief that developmental difficulties are strictly medicalissues. This belief might diminish teachers’ sense of responsibility for all pupils. Asnoted by Jordan, Schwartz, and McGhie-Richmond (2009), teachers’ beliefs about
European Journal of Teacher Education 341
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
the nature of disability and their responsibilities for inclusion may be part of abroader set of assumptions, attitudes and beliefs about the nature of ability andknowledge. It is important to challenge students’ beliefs that disability meansimmunity to learning and to challenge their resulting beliefs about their roles andresponsibilities as well as their epistemological beliefs about the nature of knowing,knowledge and the process of acquiring knowledge. It is also necessary for teachereducation programmes to be based on research demonstrating that teachingapproaches and strategies for vulnerable pupils are not significantly different fromthe approaches used to teach all pupils (Davis and Florian 2004).
Studies of teachers’ attitudes have shown that working and interacting withpupils from various vulnerable groups increases teachers’ confidence and the beliefthat they are competent to teach all pupils. Consequently, the next important taskfor teacher education institutions is to enable TCs to gain personal experience, forexample practical teaching skills in teaching vulnerable pupils under carefullyplanned, monitored and supervised conditions. We believe that there is an urgentneed for teacher education institutions and teacher educators to build partnershipswith schools and to focus on how they can respond together to ongoing changes inteachers’ roles and responsibilities, to move away from the medical ‘deficit model’and to enable TCs to have experience of teaching vulnerable pupils on a regularbasis. In a partnership model of initial training, training for inclusive teachingshould permeate across various elements of the theoretical part of the programme(educational issues and subject teaching courses) and internship (Nash and Norwich2010). We believe that the creation of a partnership model would allow TCs toreceive the message that inclusive education is part of the mission and vision of theteacher education institution at which they are undertaking their initial professionaleducation, not just an interest of specific teacher educators.
Conclusion
This study investigated the level of responsibility that TCs feel towards vulnerablepupils. The results are not promising for the inclusion of vulnerable pupils. Teachercandidates’ responses cannot be interpreted outside of the social contexts in whichthey were obtained. It is important to understand the experiences they have had in thecourse of their education and to address their fear of tasks that they do not feel com-petent to perform. Students enter the initial period of preparation with pre-existingbeliefs about teaching and learning that are deep-seated and difficult to change, butthey should nevertheless be seen as a worthwhile challenge by all who teach. Unlessthese attitudes are properly addressed, it will not be possible to fully implementinclusive education. Only by addressing TCs’ attitudes will it be possible to developinterventionist beliefs in new teachers (Jordan, Schwartz, and McGhie-Richmond2009; Elik, Wiener, and Corkum 2010; Jordan, Glenn, and McGhie-Richmond 2010)according to which disability is in part created by a society that is made for the ableand that creates barriers for those with disabilities. ‘Disabilities may be created in theenvironment or by the interaction of discriminatory attitudes, actions, cultures, poli-cies, and institutional practices with impairments, pain or chronic illness’ (Booth andAinscow 2002, 6). We agree with these authors that there is little that schools can doto overcome impairments, nevertheless, they can considerably reduce the disabilitiesgenerated by discriminatory attitudes, actions and institutional barriers, by improvingpupils’ strengths and ensuring appropriate accommodation and support. However,
342 M. Peček and S. Macura-Milovanović
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
moving away from the ‘deficit model’ should not lead to ignoring pupils’ diagnoses,which can be useful for the design of a suitable learning environment. As a result ofunderstanding the complexity of disability, TCs may begin to see themselves as beingresponsible for facilitating access to learning by reducing barriers for vulnerablepupils.
Notes on contributorsMojca Peček is an Associate Professor of the Theory of Education at the Faculty ofEducation at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Her research interests are in educationaljustice, inclusive education, civic education and multicultural education.
Sunčica Macura-Milovanović is an assistant professor of Inclusion in Education at theFaculty of Education in Jagodina, University of Kragujevac, Serbia. Her research interestsare in inclusive education, the education of Roma pupils and intercultural education.
References
Armstrong, D., A.C. Armstrong, and I. Spandagou. 2011. Inclusion: By choice or bychance? International Journal of Inclusive Education 15, no. 1: 29–39.
Arnesen, A., J. Allen, and E. Simonsen, eds. 2009. Policies and practices for teachingsocio-cultural diversity: Concepts, principles and challenges in teacher education.Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Atkinson, D. 2004. Theorising how student teachers form their identities in initial education.British Educational Research Journal 30, no. 3: 379–94.
Avramidis, E., and B. Norwich. 2002. Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: Areview of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education 17, no. 2:129–47.
Avramidis, E., P. Bayliss, and R. Burden. 2000. A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudestowards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary class-room in one local educational authority. Educational Psychology 20, no. 2: 191–211.
Barton, L. 2004. Market ideologies, education and the challenge for inclusion. In Specialeducational needs and inclusive education: Major themes in education, Volume I, ed.D. Mitchell, 342–51. London, New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Baucal, A., D. Pavlović-Babić, D. Plut, and U. Gvozden. 2005. National assessment ofpupils of the third grade of primary school [in Serbian]. Belgrade: Institute for theEvaluation of the Quality of Education and Upbringing.
Booth, T., and M. Ainscow, eds. 1998. From them to us: An international study of inclusionin education. London: Routledge Falmer.
Booth, T., and M. Ainscow. 2002. Index for Inclusion: Developing learning and participa-tion in schools. Bristol, UK: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Brown, R.I., and J. Shearer. 1999. Challenges for inclusion within a quality of life model forthe twenty-first century. Australasian Journal of Special Education 22, no. 3: 180–94.
Davis, P., and L. Florian. 2004. Teaching strategies and approaches for pupils with specialeducational needs: A scoping study. London: DfES.
de Boera, A., S.J. Pijl, and A. Minnaert. 2011. Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudestowards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclu-sive Education 15, no. 3: 331–53.
Dyson, A., A. Howes, and B. Roberts. 2004. What do we really know about inclusiveschools? A systematic review of the research evidence. In Special educational needsand Inclusive education: Major themes in education, Vol. II, ed. D. Mitchell, 280–94.London, New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Elik, N., J. Wiener, and P. Corkum. 2010. Pre-service teachers’ open-minded thinking dispo-sitions, reacdiness to learn and attitudes about learning and behavioural difficulties instudents. European Journal of Teacher Education 33, no. 2: 127–46.
Florian, L. 2008. Special or inclusive education: future trends. British Journal of SpecialEducation 35, no. 4: 202–8.
European Journal of Teacher Education 343
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
Florian, L., and M. Rouse. 2009. The inclusive practice project in Scotland: Teacher educa-tion for inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education 25, no. 4: 594–601.
Forlin, C., T. Loreman, U. Sharma, and C. Earle. 2009. Demographic differences in chang-ing pre-service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive education.International Journal of Inclusive Education 13, no. 2: 195–209.
Fraser, N. 2000. Rethinking recognition. New Left Review 3: 107–20.Fulcher, G. 1989. Disabling policies? London, New York, Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.Garrick Duhaney, L.M., and S.J. Salend. 2000. Parental perceptions of inclusive educational
placements. Remedial and Special Education 21, no. 2: 121–8.Gore, J.M., T. Griffiths, and J.G. Ladwig. 2002. Exploring ‘productive pedagogy’ as a
framework for teacher learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Austra-lian Association for Research in Education, December 2–5, in Brisbane. http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/gor02267.htm.
Hadadian, A., and L. Chiang. 2007. Special education training and preservice teachers. Inter-national Journal of Special Education 22, no. 1: 103–6.
Hegedüs, A.T., and K. Forrai. 1999. Teachers on the Gypsy culture. In The Roma educationresource book, ed. C. Fényes, C. McDonald, and A. Mészáros, 174–8. Budapest: OpenSociety Institut.
Institute for the Evaluation of Education Quality. 2009. The role of assistants for support toRoma national minority pupils as a system measure for improvement of Roma education[in Serbian]. Belgrade: Institute for the Evaluation of Education Quality. http://www.ceo.edu.rs/images/stories/publikacije/ULOGA%20ASISTENATA%20ZA%20PODRSKU%20UCENICIMA%20ROMSKE%20NACIONALNE%20MANJINE%20KAO%20SIST-EMSKE%20MERE%20ZA%20UNAPREDJIVANJE%20OBRAZOVANJA%20ROMA.pdf
Jordan, A., C. Glenn, and D. McGhie-Richmond. 2010. The supporting effective teaching(SET) project: The relationship of inclusive teaching practices to teachers’ beliefs aboutdisability and ability, and about their roles as teachers. Teaching and TeacherEducation 26: 259–66.
Jordan, A., E. Schwartz, and D. McGhie-Richmond. 2009. Preparing teachers for inclusiveclassrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education 25: 535–42.
Kniveton, B.H. 2004. A study of perceptions that significant others hold of the inclusion ofchildren with difficulties in mainstream classes. Educational Studies 30, no. 3: 331–43.
Lambe, J., and R. Bones. 2006. Student teachers’ attitudes to inclusion: Implications forinitial teacher education in Northern Ireland. International Journal of InclusiveEducation 10, no. 6: 511–27.
Lesar, I., I. Čuk, and M. Peček. 2005. Opinions of basic schoolteachers on their responsibil-ity for academic performance [in Slovene]. Sodobna pedagogika 56, no. 1: 90–107.
Lesar, I., I. Čuk, and M. Peček. 2006. How to improve the inclusive orientation of Slovenianprimary school: The case of Romani and migrant children from former Yugoslavia.European Journal of Teacher Education 29, no. 3: 387–99.
Macura-Milovanović, S. 2006. Roma children from Deponija: Pedagogical aspects of Romachildren inclusion in education system – action experiment analysis [in Slovene].Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta.
Macura-Milovanović, S., I. Gera, and M. Kovačević. 2010. Mapping policies and practicesfor the preparation of teachers for inclusive education in contexts of social and cul-tural diversity: Serbia country report. Torino, Italy: European Training Foundation.
Magajna., L., S. Pečjak, K.G. Bregar, G. Čačinovič Vogrinčič, M. Kavkler, and S. Tancig.2005. Children with learning difficulties in primary school: The development of thesupport system [in Slovene]. project no. VP-0830. Ljubljana: Razvojno-raziskovalniinštitut Svetovalnega centra. http://www.mss.gov.si/fileadmin/mss.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocje/razvoj_solstva/projekti/ucne_tezave_OS_porocilo.pdf.
Meijer, C., V. Soriano, and A. Watkins. 2003. Special needs education in Europe: Inclusivepolicies and practices. In Special needs education in Europe: Thematic publication, ed.C. Meijer, V. Soriano, and A. Watkins, 7–18. Middelfart, Denmark: European Agencyfor Development in Special Needs Education.
Michailakis, D., and W. Reich. 2009. Dilemmas of inclusive education. ALTER – EuropeanJournal of Disability Research 3, no. 1: 24–44.
344 M. Peček and S. Macura-Milovanović
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
Ministry for Education and Sport. 1996. School legislation [in Slovene]. Ljubljana: Author.Ministry of Education, Science, and Sport. 2000. Placement of children with special needs
act [in Slovene]. Ljubljana: Author.Nash, T., and B. Norwich. 2010. The initial training of teachers to teach children with
special educational needs: A national survey of English Post Graduate Certificate ofEducation programmes. Teaching and Teacher Education 26: 1471–80.
National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia. 2009. Law on the fundamentals of the educa-tion system [in Serbian]. Beograd: Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, no. 72.
Novljan, E., D. Jelenc, L. Kastelic, D. Kogovšek, M. Lipec-Stopar, S. Pulec Lah, M. Vrhov-ski-Mohorić, and I. Žolgar. 2004. Introduction of requirements for inclusive schoolingof children with special educational needs: Analysis of situation and recommendations[in Slovene]. Ljubljana: Pedagoška fakulteta.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2005. Teachers matter: Attract-ing, developing and retaining effective teachers. Paris: Author.
Ouane, A. 2008. Creating education systems which offer opportunities for lifelong learning.Paper presented at UNESCO International Conference on Education ‘Inclusiveeducation: the way of the future’ 48th session. November 25–28, in Geneva.
Pantić, N., A. Closs, and V. Ivošević. 2010. Teachers for the future: Teacher developmentfor inclusive education in the Western Balkans. Torino, Italy: European TrainingFoundation.
Peček, M., and I. Lesar. 2006. Justice of Slovene school: Myth or reality [in Slovene].Ljubljana: Sophia.
Peček, M., I. Čuk, and I. Lesar. 2008. Teachers’ perceptions of the inclusion of marginalisedgroups. Educational Studies 34, no. 3: 223–37.
Peček, M., M. Valenčič Zuljan, I. Čuk, and I. Lesar. 2008. Should assessment reflect onlypupils’ knowledge? Educational studies 34, no. 2: 73–82.
Rimm-Kaufman, S.E., M.D. Storm, B.E. Sawyer, R.C. Pianta, and K.M. LaParo. 2006. Ameasure of teachers’ priorities in relation to disciplinary practices, teaching practiceand beliefs about children. Journal of School Psychology 44: 141–65.
Rix, J., K. Hall, M. Nind, K. Sheehy, and J. Wearmouth. 2006. A systematic review ofinteractions in pedagogical approaches with reported outcomes for the academic andsocial inclusion of pupils with special educational needs. London: EPPI-Centre, SocialScience Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
Rosenthal, R., and L. Jacobson. 1968. Pygmalion in the classroom. New York, NY: Holt,Reinhart & Winston.
Sameroff, A., and M.J. Mackenzie. 2003. Research strategies for capturing transactionalmodels of development: The limits of the possible. Development and Psychopathology15: 613–40.
Scruggs, T.E., and M.A. Mastropieri. 1996. Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion,1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children 63, no. 1: 59–74.
Simmons, P.E., A. Emory, T. Carter, T. Coker, B. Finnegan, D. Crockett, L. Richardson,et al. 1999. Beginning teachers: Beliefs and classroom actions. Journal of Research inScience Teaching 36, no. 8: 930–54.
Stangvik, G. 1998. Conflicting perspectives on learning disabilities. In Theorising specialeducation, ed. C. Clark, A. Dyson, and A. Millward, 137–55. London and New York:Routledge.
Sutherland, K.S., and D.P. Oswald. 2005. The relationship between teacher and studentbehaviour in classrooms for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Transac-tional processes. Journal of Child and Family Studies 14, no. 1: 1–14.
Taylor, S.V., and D.M. Sobel. 2001. Addressing the discontinuity of students’ and teachers’diversity: A preliminary study of preservice teachers’ beliefs and perceived skills.Teaching and teacher education 17: 487–503.
Ule, M. 2009. Social psychology [in Slovene]. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede.UNESCO. 2003. Overcoming exclusion through inclusive approaches in education: A
challenge and a vision. Conceptual paper. UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001347/134785e.pdf.
Villegas, A.M. 2007. Dispositions in teacher education: A look at social justice. Journal ofTeacher Education 58: 370–80.
European Journal of Teacher Education 345
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3
Wang, M.C., G.D. Haertel, and H.J.W. Geneva. 1993. Toward a knowledge base for schoollearning. Review of Educational Research 63, no. 3: 249–94.
Weiner, B. 1986. An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Weiner, B. 1995. Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct.New York: Guilford.
Weiner, B. 2000. Intrapersonal and interpersonal theories of motivation from an attributionalperspective. Educational Psychology Review 12, no. 1: 1–14.
Wilcox-Herzog, A. 2003. Is there a link between teachers’ beliefs and behaviours? EarlyEducation and Development 13, no. 1: 81–106.
346 M. Peček and S. Macura-Milovanović
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ite D
e Pa
ris
1] a
t 01:
00 2
9 A
ugus
t 201
3