Ethical Issues and Needs of Students With Disabilities

Introduction

The institution of education is the foundational cornerstone of our society. Education is a conscious effort to improve oneself, and the school remains the primary shaping force for the learners to develop their full potential (Sudarsana, 2016). Educational ethics constitute a framework of standards for judging conduct and ensuring the protection of freedom to learn (Litwack, 2003). The two primary principles of educational ethics for teachers include commitment to the students and commitment to the profession. Each student has the potential of becoming a valuable, useful, and respected member of society. The purpose of the code of ethics is to help every student to achieve that goal (Litwack, 2003).

In some educational institutions, students with disabilities are being neglected. Some teachers fail to provide the appropriate accommodations and modifications to assist these students. While the reasons for such negligence differ, these actions compromise fairness and undermine the integrity of the profession.

Discretion of Ethical Issue

The essential aspects of modern-day education are based on the concepts of equity and equality. Education evolved from an elitist and segregated institution reserved only for the rich, able, and powerful, towards an inclusive and integrated model. Inclusion and the introduction of students with disabilities into public schools is a worldwide phenomenon as the rights and contributions of disabled individuals become more recognized by society (Felder, 2018). This trend became prominent with the adoption of a landmark federal legislation called the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1975, which entitled individuals with various physical and mental disabilities to the use of public classrooms (Yell, Rogers, & Lodge-Rogers, 1998). Ever since, schools and teachers were required to provide special accommodations for students with various disabilities to help them fulfill their educational needs (Yell et al., 1998).

Due to the IDEA act, there is a great number of students with disabilities receiving their education in general learning classrooms. Although they receive special services from school authorities and education facilities, they spend the majority of their time alongside non-impaired individuals. According to Ruijs and Peetsma (2009), the introduction of the least restrictive environment (LRE) greatly improved the autonomy of students and helped them increase their academic performance, participate in classroom and community activities, while also reducing the stigmatizing effects of special education (Salend & Duhaney, 1999; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009). Nevertheless, research shows the existence of restrictive stressors associated with educators’ stereotyped perception, fit of advisors, low quality of support services, and lack of knowledge (Hong, 2015).

The ethical issue of teachers being unable or unwilling to accommodate students with disabilities was brought to the forefront of public discussions (Dowrick, Anderson, Heyer, & Acosta, 2005). In particular, persistent concerns remain that teachers too often neglect to provide students with disabilities the level of instruction necessary (Damianidou & Phtiaka, 2018). This means schools are not doing enough to assist learners with disabilities in reaching academic success. In the majority of these cases, generalist teachers are assigned a leading role: “inclusive education requires generalist teachers to be able to cater for the needs of the most diverse student populations academically, socially and culturally” (Forlin & Chambers, 2017, p. 563). Therefore, when teachers do not engage in their respective duties, for whatever reasons, it presents an ethical issue.

The major problem is that teachers ignore the needs of students with disabilities in the classroom as the former has low expectations from them, ignore modification, and do not employ inclusive teaching practice. More precisely, this issue compromises ethics of care and justice on several parameters, which also violates the ethics of teaching. In this case, teachers prevent students from accessing the material in equal measure with other students. Consequently, the quality of education for students with disabilities without special modifications and accommodations drops dramatically.

Education is supposed to recognize every student’s learning, academic, personal, and social needs as well as their values (Litwack, 2003). In the failure to provide proper instructions and adjustments, teachers do not recognize the specific needs of a student, failing to take personal responsibility for the quality of their work. In this case, teachers do not respect students’ dignity, worth, and uniqueness, which is their right, according to the code of teaching ethics (Litwack, 2003). As a result, the students do not learn following their educational ability and potential.

The Assumptions at the Heart of the Dilemma

The major assumptions behind the issue of the failure to accommodate students with disabilities in the classroom can be classified into some major groups: the lack of training and knowledge; the lack of experience; the lack of support, time, and resources to meet the needs of students with disabilities; conscientious objections to the practice (Leatherman, 2007; O’Gorman & Drudy, 2010; Hong, 2015; Hernandez, Hueck, & Charley, 2016).

The lack of training and knowledge comes at the forefront of most researches that is dedicated to the subject of decreased academic performance in students with disabilities.

According to Moriarty (2007), inclusive pedagogy presents various barriers that impede teachers’ creation of an encouraging learning environment for all students. In particular, the lack of an inclusive mindset and insufficient knowledge of pedagogic principles, which reflect the low willingness of educators to assist students with disabilities. Many teachers cannot comprehend that such students have special needs and require an individual approach that can be accomplished via modifications and accommodations (Moriarty, 2007). In addition, the assumption is associated with limited time and high teaching loads, which lead to the inability of educators to develop and introduce new methods of teaching. In the instances when they do apply certain techniques and programs to try to help students with disabilities, these tools are often used improperly. These research findings demonstrate that even though inclusive pedagogy is regarded as the key strategy across countries to involve students with disabilities in a general learning environment, educators’ beliefs, knowledge, and accessibility of multimodal teaching tools identify inclusivity.

Leatherman (2007) found that even though teachers reported positive feelings about inclusion, they also expressed a need for training, support from administrators, and collaboration. As such, teachers expressed a need for training on curriculum, instructional modifications, supportive services, and managing behavior. So, they lack confidence and self-efficiency in teaching special education students. The root of the issue, according to O’Gorman and Drudy (2010) and Goddard and Evans (2018), lies in the limited professional pre-service training. Future teachers do not have access to professional development opportunities on types of learning disabilities and recommended instructional strategies.

Among the teachers who do have some sort of specialized training in educating disabled individuals, many of them lack practical experience in the classroom. The number of students with various disabilities is increasingly enrolling in schools, colleges, and universities. Avramidis and Kalyva (2007) state that little experience in applying the learned tools and strategies to real people and situations requires a degree of flexibility and adjustment. In addition, various physical and mental disabilities create a discrepancy in knowledge and experience in dealing with certain types of teaching tools. In other words, the lack of training and experience makes it difficult to accommodate different kinds of disabilities. An individual with a physical disability would not necessarily have issues understanding the material, whereas students with mental disorders or learning inefficiencies would require a different approach. As a result, many teachers are not prepared to deal with all different types of disabilities, which results in exclusion and a lack of equity in studying (Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007).

The lack of time and resources play an important part in causing the object of the ethical dilemma. Westwood and Graham (2003) report that generalist teachers are concerned with balancing teaching to the whole class, providing additional supervision for special students, and curriculum progression. According to Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2010), the correlation between burnout and overworked schedules contributes to high turnover rates among generalist educators. In comparison, Hernandez et al. (2016) claim that self-efficacy levels among special education teachers are higher than those of generalist teachers. It must be noted that special education teachers usually have smaller classes and more personalized schedules, which could be the contributing factor to their higher self-efficacy levels.

Another issue is a lack of inter-professional collaboration promotion between generalist and special education teachers. Fuchs (2010) claims that despite the availability of resources, generalist teachers prefer not to refer to the administration or their colleagues as this is considered undermining their authority. Therefore, educators tend to encounter loneliness due to a lack of support from the administration and perceived unproductivity of resources (Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995). In addition, seeking assistance from colleagues who may know more about inclusive pedagogy is also regarded as time-consuming.

The last assumption revolves around conscious opposition to inclusivity and the focus on disabled individuals during classroom studies. Historically, the teaching community was not positive about working with students with special needs (Crowson & Brandes, 2014). Some teachers find the concept of inclusion to be flawed since the purpose of a teacher is to ensure the success of the best students rather than assisting the alternatively capable ones. Others state that an unreasonable amount of time is needed to make modifications for special education needs (SEN) students (Crowson & Brandes, 2014). In particular, attending educational meetings, creating alternative learning programs, and spending time with other specialists seem to be inappropriate to them. Such educators believe that an unfair amount of time, attention, and resources are required for students with disabilities compared to the other learners in the class.

As it is possible to see, the majority of assumptions behind the topic of teachers’ exclusion of students with disabilities and their failure to provide an encouraging learning environment and meet their need lies in the dimensions of time, experiences, knowledge, and support. All of these issues must be addressed to facilitate a better environment and meet the needs of all students.

Potential Solutions

The proposed solutions will be based on some theories that help to make sense of this issue. According to Ainscow (1999), the active participation of principals is the main factor ensuring the effective inclusion of students with special needs in educational activities. Their responsibilities include the promotion of inclusive school cultures and instructional programs that address the needs of students. Therefore, the first proposed solution is based on the transformational leadership theory. Transformational leadership is an approach to management and organization, in which leaders seek to create positive changes in their followers (Al-Husseini & Elbeltagi, 2014). It works by demonstrating four factors such as individual consideration, intellectual stimulation, charismatic leadership, and idealized influence upon the subordinates (Al-Husseini & Elbeltagi, 2014). As the main figure in the hierarchical structure, it falls upon the principal to influence teachers and allow them to affect students similarly. The role of the principal is key to improving the educational environment for students with disabilities, teachers, and within educational institutions in general. The research indicates that transformational leadership is useful in facilitating training programs, which teachers may further employ (Al-Husseini & Elbeltagi, 2014).

As has already been mentioned, many teachers feel that the administration is not providing enough support to them. Principals should focus on creating a welcoming school culture, in which teachers can focus on improving the attitudes, believes, knowledge, personal skills, and self-efficacy (Waldron, McLeskey, & Redd, 2011). When administrators are supportive, teachers have a sense of responsibility for the teaching and learning of special education students. In the inclusive classroom, the strongest predictor of success is the principals’ beliefs about inclusion and disability. When school leaders believe special education students can be successful in the general education setting, they create an atmosphere that is reflective of their beliefs regarding inclusion. This notion is supported by Riehl (2000), who states that a new form of practice may be implemented if administrations take appropriate measures. In particular, they should encourage equity and inclusive culture and support the principles of social justice. Moreover, they need to facilitate positive relationships outside the educational environment. Under the proposed solution, principals should ensure that there are learning strategies in place to support learning for all students. The role of the principal is to serve as a guide and a supporter of quality instructional practices (Waldron et al., 2011). For that reason, the principal needs to have good relations with teachers and students with disabilities and possess the knowledge of the strategies used to help students with disabilities to study.

As noted above, many teachers do not have the required levels of self-efficiency to teach and meet the needs of students with disabilities. The theory proposed by Bandura (1977b) assists in making sense of this issue. The self-efficacy approach is part of the social cognitive theory, which attributes human behavior to a variety of personal and environmental factors (Bandura, 1997b). Self-efficacy affects human behavior by influencing their cognitive, affective, motivational, and decision-making processes. Importantly, self-efficacy has both a direct and indirect impact on the conduct of people. It determines whether a person has an optimistic or pessimistic manner of thinking and has a self-enabling or self-disabling worldview (Bandura, 1977a; Bandura 1997b).

Based on these parameters, teachers may look at particular issues positively or negatively. Self-efficacy has a large influence on the teaching process as well. Instructors, who believe they have expertise in establishing a positive learning environment, arrange their educational activities and settings differently than teachers who have low efficacy beliefs. The more self-efficient a teacher is, the more likely it is for them to use their time more effectively. This time could be spent on providing students with the appropriate instructions they need as well as on studying new information and practicing different techniques (Mojavezi & Tamiz, 2012). As a result, students with disabilities would receive the type and form of instruction that is reflective of their needs.

According to Mojavezi and Tamiz (2012), self-efficacy is an important predictor of teachers’ performance in classrooms, translating into better preparedness and teaching techniques adjusted to fit the learners’ needs. The self-efficacy of an educator indicates his or her views regarding their ability to employ effective strategies in a certain environment to achieve a specific educational goal (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). Teachers’ self-efficacy ensures the educational success of students through differentiated instruction, enthusiasm, and dedication (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). Therefore, it is important to boost teachers’ self-efficacy and self-perception as a way of encouraging them to learn and apply their knowledge and skills in differing situations.

One of the primary means of improving self-efficacy in a teacher is training. Professional development helps improve the quality of teaching and self-efficacy of educators and assists in meeting the needs of students with disabilities (Hashim, Ghani, Ibrahim, & Zain, 2014). The theory developed by Bandura (1977b) suggests that self-efficacy is a characteristic that changes continuously as the teacher becomes more experienced and receives new information. As a result, the dynamic of self-efficacy changes with experience. Short-term and long-term training would, thus, enhance the teacher’s capabilities for self-efficacy as well as their skills in dealing with children with disabilities. This confidence would also facilitate a change in attitude towards these children.

All teachers should be provided with training to equip them with the knowledge and skills necessary for meeting the instructional needs of students with disabilities successfully (Royster, Reglin, & Losike-Sedimo, 2014). According to Halvorsen and Neary (2009), some topics need to be addressed in terms of professional development. The model of professional development places a particular emphasis on such aspects as planning to meet student needs in the inclusive classroom, methodical instruction, peer relationships and support, and collaboration to provide inclusive service (Halvorsen & Neary, 2009). Professional development sessions are an effective tool that helps teachers modify their instructional strategies to the needs of students and refine the curriculum. Moreover, professional development in inclusive classes is indeed helpful in changing the perceptions of educators, which directly affects the academic achievement of learners (Royster et al., 2014). Thus, teachers always need training when dealing with students with disabilities since it helps them to employ proper accommodations for each student to respond to their needs effectively and achieve equality.

Another strategy that can assist in maximizing students’ educational opportunities is differentiation instruction. This approach implies achieving equality through diversified instruction and teaching students based on their level of readiness and individual learning styles (McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993). Sociocultural theory suggests that the interaction of students with various levels of development may be particularly helpful (Gauvain & Cole, 1997). In this scenario, learners will cooperate with more skilled students and reach the Zone of Proximal Development faster. This concept implies that a student has specific functions he or she can develop if guided by adults or supported by more skilled peers (Gauvain & Cole, 1997). Thus, it is assumed that teacher-student interaction and cooperation between students, as well as flexible instruction, are central to differentiation (Subban, 2006).

It should be noted that the use of differentiated instruction is beneficial for all students. It implies that the teacher comprehends that all students learn at their pace, and a uniform approach is not applicable. Each student has his or her learning style, and differentiated instruction allows addressing the unique needs and capabilities of each student. To achieve differentiation, the instructor may adapt the curriculum so that it includes various educational forms and flexible instructional strategies (Subban, 2006). This way, all students will become part of the educational process, and learners with disabilities will not feel excluded from general-education classrooms (Broderick, Mehta-Parekh, & Reid, 2005). In that matter, instructors must develop responsive lessons that will accommodate the needs of students with different levels of development and performance. This requires teachers to abandon such activities as one-to-one skills and drills and use their creativity to make the exercises, instructions, and tasks as responsive as possible.

Moreover, this approach implies a change in instructional focus to achieve equity among learners, which is one of the requirements specified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Broderick et al., 2005). The purpose of diversified instruction is to meet the individual needs of each student and maximize their potential based on their learning capabilities and the current state of development. Teachers should strive to assist students with disabilities in achieving learning progress at their pace (Broderick et al., 2005). Therefore, differentiated instruction is a strategy that pushes teachers to abandon activities aimed at completing the curriculum and adopt a new approach that caters to students’ distinct needs (Tomlinson, 2001).

The choice and organization of content play a primary role in the effectiveness of differentiation. Educators need to select content based on the objectives they want to achieve during every lesson and activity. Moreover, they should choose instructional approaches that correlate with the learning styles of students and their levels of readiness (Subban, 2006; Tomlinson, 2001). As stated by Tomlinson (2001), instructors should pay particular attention to three areas, which are learning content, process, and product. The first domain implies specific knowledge students need to gain as a result of the teacher’s instruction (Tomlinson, 2001). Importantly, in the majority of instances, educators cannot control what content will be taught to students; however, they have the tools and instruments to modify it so that it reflects the learning style of each student.

The second domain denotes the way a student interacts with the learning content, which is often defined by their preferences. At present, learners exhibit various styles, preferences, and abilities, and the instructor has an opportunity to employ an array of different activities to accommodate those (Tomlinson, 2001). Finally, the third concept, which is a product, is as important as the two previous domains since the educator receives an opportunity to detect students who need more time and further instruction to achieve a specific learning objective or outcome (Tomlinson, 2001).

It should be stressed that the participation of school leaders and administration is an important aspect necessary for the successful introduction of differentiated instruction in the general education classroom. Leadership should provide enough support to teachers and encourage the culture of inclusion throughout the institution (Waldron et al., 2011). This way, differentiated instruction, and inclusive education will become more meaningful and will be implemented at the required level.

Notably, there is an evident need to build and facilitate cooperation and interdependence between general teachers and special education teachers in the classroom. According to Al-Natour, Amr, Al-Zboon, and Alkhamra (2015), in some cases, a collaboration between general teachers and special education teachers occurs at a low level or is limited. Educators have a very specific view of how collaboration should proceed when working with a student with special needs. Many teachers believe that they should work separately with the same student in mainstream schools. Thus, they do not see collaboration as a continuous process that involves teachers working interactively to address the needs of the student (Al-Natour et al., 2015). There is often power tension between teachers within the classroom, and the rivalry present between them results in avoidance of consultations for the sake of maintaining an image of competence (Hamilton-Jones & Vail, 2013). This issue comes from the currently upheld independence model, in which every teacher is considered a separate unit rather than a part of the whole.

It should be mentioned that Ainscow (1999) emphasized the importance of social relationships between educators to achieve the goals of inclusion. The relationship and collaboration should be built on social interdependence theory. This theory suggests that positive interdependence is a notion, which implies that individuals can achieve their aims when their partners also reach their goals. This means that instructors need to support and encourage each other to achieve educational success (Johnson, Johnson, & Anderson, 1983). Such an approach stimulates teachers to cooperate and ensures they recognize their responsibility in the success of the other instructor’s activities (Johnson et al., 1983). This approach places a particular emphasis on building effective cooperative teams. Instead of being rivals, general teachers and special needs educators should regard one another as part of the process.

As Lingo, Barton-Arwood, and Jolivette (2011) suggest, teachers may conduct classes together and cooperate to devise grading rubrics, instruction, and tasks to accommodate the needs of special learners. Each educator has a specific role to fit, with the general teacher providing field notes and on-site observations whereas the special needs educator could use their expanded knowledge on the subject to equip the general teacher with a necessary framework and a list of tools to be used for a particular student. It is important to note that neither of the educators is in a subordinate position since the theory of social interdependence relies on respect, communication, parity, and trust for relationship collaboration (Johnson et al., 1983).

The school needs to strengthen collaborative relationships between general and special education teachers to meet student needs and reduce professional knowledge deficiencies by providing teachers with effective collaboration strategies, sufficient time to work together, and appropriate training and support (Al-Natour et al., 2015; Lingo et al., 2011). As a result, the quality of education and teachers’ professional knowledge will increase and, thus, will lead to innovative and appropriate methods to be implemented in the classroom. The dilemma of professional incompetence in teaching students with disabilities would reduce as a result.

Intractable Concerns of the Dilemma

While the provided solutions deal with the organizational and knowledge aspects of the issue, the intractable concerns that remain unanswered are the economic issues most schools face as well as personal beliefs towards SEN students and inclusivity (Wang, 2009). While fostering a culture of self-improvement, endorsing collaboration between teachers, and having teachers improve their self-efficacy are all valid solutions, they do not fully make up for the lack of resources available to schools. Self-improvement cannot be achieved without access to the latest practices and studies in the research fields. The use of adaptive technologies requires a computerized classroom with various electronic elements to facilitate different kinds of learning. Having special needs educators on the roster requires funding (Wang, 2009). Establishing an LRE classroom also needs finances to accommodate students. SEN programs require additional funding and resources, a lack of which could potentially hinder the teachers’ capacity to learn, improve, and devise alternative programs to include and encompass all of the students in the classroom (Wang, 2009). As a result, teachers decide to focus on the rest of the students, who require fewer resources and attention to succeed. Thus, they do not provide students with disabilities with a proper curriculum, one that is adaptable to every child’s educational needs (Wang, 2009).

It must be noted that the older teachers who got their education and training before inclusivity was largely adopted as a universal concept are more likely to reject it in their practice. Galaterou and Antoniou (2017) report that the fewer time teachers have to dedicate to their students because of an overloaded schedule and an overabundance of duties, the more likely they are to adopt a less inclusive stance.

Conclusion

Educational norms and practices should be created to address the needs of students with disabilities. The children must play an important part in formulating and informing the existing curriculum. Therefore, paying less attention and ignoring students with disabilities by the teachers within the education system is a direct violation of the tenets of the IDEA act and the professional code of ethics. People involved in the students with disabilities’ learning environment, particularly the general and special education teachers and school administrators, should coordinate with one another towards meeting the needs of these students and providing them with equal opportunities. This paper provides a series of solutions that can be implemented in a school setting to solve the discussed ethical dilemma and improve the learning experience for everyone. The proposed solutions will help improve the skills, knowledge, and self-efficacy of educators while helping school administrations to involve students with disabilities in the inclusive classroom.

References

1. Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the development of inclusive schools. London: Falmer.
2. Al-Husseini, S., & Elbeltagi, I. (2014). Transformational leadership and innovation: A comparison study between Iraq’s public and private higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 41(1), 159-181.
3. Al-Natour, M., Amr, M., Al-Zboon, E., & Alkhamra, H. (2015). Examining collaboration and constrains on collaboration between special and general education teachers in mainstream schools in Jordan. International Journal of Special Education, 30(1), 64-77.
4. Avramidis, E., & Kalyva, E. (2007). The influence of teaching experience and professional development on Greek teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(4), 367-389.
5. Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
6. Bandura, A. (1997b). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman
7. Bender, W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers attitudes toward increased mainstreaming. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(2), 87-94.
8. Broderick, A., Mehta-Parekh, H., & Reed. D. K. (2005). Differentiating instruction for disabled students in inclusive classrooms. Theory and Practice, 44(3), 194-202.
9. Crowson, H. M., & Brandes, J. A. (2014). Predicting pre-service teachers’ opposition to inclusion of students with disabilities: A path analytic study. Social Psychology of Education, 17(1), 161-178.
10. Damianidou, E., & Phtiaka, H. (2018). Implementing inclusion in disabling settings: The role of teachers’ attitudes and practices. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(10), 1078-1092.
11. Dowrick, P. W., Anderson, J., Heyer, K., & Acosta, J. (2005). Postsecondary education across the USA: Experiences of adults with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 22, 41­47.
12. Felder, F. (2018). The value of inclusion. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 52(1), 54-70.
13. Forlin, C., & Chambers, D. (2017). Catering for diversity: Including learners with different abilities and needs in regular classrooms. In R. Maclean (Ed.), Life in schools and classrooms: Past, present, future (pp. 555-571). Singapore: Springer.
14. Fuchs, W. W. (2010). Examining teachers’ perceived barriers associated with inclusion. SRATE Journal, 19(1), 30-35.
15. Galaterou, J., & Antoniou, A. S. (2017). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: The role of job stressors and demographic parameters. International Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 643-658.
16. Goddard, C., & Evans, D. (2018). Primary pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion across the training years. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(6), 121-142.
17. Halvorsen, A., & Neary, T. (2009). Building inclusive schools: Tools and strategies for success. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
18. Hamilton-Jones, B., & Vail, C. O. (2013). Preparing special educators for collaboration in the classroom: pre-service teachers’ beliefs and perspectives. International Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 56-68.
19. Hashim, M., Ghani, M., Ibrahim, S., & Zain, W. (2014). The relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes towards inclusive education in Pulau Pinang. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 4(7), 24-33.
20. Hernandez, D. A., Hueck, S., & Charley, C. (2016). General education and special education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 79-93.
21. Hong, B. S. S. (2015). Qualitative analysis of the barriers college students with disabilities experience in higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 56(3), 209-226.
22. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Anderson, D. (1983). Social interdependence and classroom climate. The Journal of Psychology, 114(1), 135-142.
23. Leatherman, J. M. (2007). “I just see children as children:” Teachers’ perceptions about inclusion. The Qualitative Report, 12(4), 594-611.
24. Lingo, A. S., Barton-Arwood, S. M., & Jolivette, K. (2011). Teachers working together. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(3), 6-13.
25. Litwack, L. (2003). Ethics for educators. International Journal of Reality Therapy, 13(1), 34-37.
26. McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: Strategic opportunities for meeting the nation’s educational goals. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching.
27. Mojavezi, A., & Tamiz, M. P. (2012). The Impact of teacher self-efficacy on the students’ motivation and achievement. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 2(3), 483-491.
28. Moriarty, M. A. (2007). Inclusive pedagogy: Teaching methodologies to reach diverse learners in science instruction. Equity & Excellence in Education, 40(3), 252-265.
29. O’Gorman, E., & Drudy, S. (2010). Addressing the professional development needs of teachers working in the area of special education/inclusion in mainstream schools in Ireland. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10, 157-167.
30. Riehl, C. J. (2000). The principal’s role in creating inclusive schools for diverse students: A review of normative, empirical, and critical literature on the practice of educational administration. Review of Educational Research, 70(1), 55-81.
31. Royster, O., Reglin, G. L., & Losike-Sedimo, N. (2014). Inclusion professional development model and regular middle school educators. Journal of At-Risk Issues, 18(1), 1-10.
32. Ruijs, N. M., Peetsma, T. T. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4(2), 67-79.
33. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059-1069.
34. Subban, P. (2006). Differentiated instruction: A research basis. International Education Journal, 7(7), 935-947.
35. Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
36. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy. A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.
37. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
38. Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Redd, L. (2011). Setting the direction: The role of the principal in developing an effective, inclusive school. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24(2), 51-60.
39. Wang, H. L. (2009). Should all students with special educational needs (SEN) be included in mainstream education provision? A critical analysis. International Education Studies, 2(4), 154-161.
40. Westwood, P., & Graham, L. (2003). Inclusion of students with special needs: Benefits and obstacles perceived by teachers in New South Wales and South Australia. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8(1), 3-15.
41. Yell, M. L., Rogers, D., Lodge-Rogers, E. (1998). The legal history of special education: What a long strange trip it’s been. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 219-228.