1. Classroom Support and Professional Competence of Inclusive Education Teachers: Lessons from ‘Learning in Regular Classrooms’ （随班就读） in Beijing Presented at Shaanxi Normal University, April 2015 Dr. Michael Mu (michael.mu@qut.edu.au)michael.mu@qut.edu.au Vice-Chancellor’s Research Fellow Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology Dr. Yan Wang (sdwang@bnu.edu.cn)sdwang@bnu.edu.cn Professor Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University

2. The international context The traditional medical deficit model cure the diseases, correct the abnormalities, and fix the problems associated with ‘disabled’ children The Salamanca Statement “enrolling all children in regular schools unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise” (UNESCO, 1994, p.44) The current social inclusive model Inclusive education addresses the belongingness, nurture, and education of all students across the whole education spectrum regardless of their differences in aptitude, gender, class, language, religion, culture, and race. The Chinese context Before the 1980s – segregation Since the 1980s and onwards – Learning in Regular Classrooms (LRC 随班就读 ) 83 million people with disabilities 2.5 million school-aged children with disabilities, including 1.6 million children with autism

3. Three questions: 1.What is the required professional competence of LRC teachers? 2.What is the preferred classroom support to LRC practices? 3.What is the relationship between professional competence and classroom support?

4. Professional competence of inclusive education teachers: The Western literature Teachers’ attitudes towards their colleagues, students with disabilities, the concept/practice of inclusion, and working collaboratively; as well as attitudes towards their job preparedness, their roles in inclusive education programs, and the impact of such programs on students with disabilities Skills: collaborative teaching, curricular and instructional modifications and accommodations, application and evaluation of individualised education programs (IEP), classroom management and organisation, personal support, assistive technology, positive behavioural support, and literacy instruction Knowledge: content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, knowledge of each student, specialised knowledge, and context knowledge Our approach: An exploratory sequential mixed methods design

5. The initial qualitative phase First stage: Two one-hour long focus groups with: Five teachers in a primary school in Chaoyang district Ten teachers in a junior high school in Haidian district Second stage: One-hour long individual interviews with: Two teachers in the Chaoyang school: one with considerable LRC experience and one with some LRC experience One teacher in the Haidian school – a novice teacher Two officials in the local education departments SchoolLevel Number of participants Years of teachingGender < 3 years5-10 years> 15 yearsFemaleMale ChaoyangPrimary521241 HaidianJunior high1053273

6. Findings from the initial qualitative phase Focus group data Positive attitudes, necessary knowledge, and key skills The fourth dimension of professional competence emerged. Every individual teacher will have problems and questions when practicing LRC. This pushes us to actively seek support, for example, support from professionals, leaders, and resource teachers. LRC requires various support. We have to try our best to look for support from leaders, parents, and communities. Teachers’ ability of acquiring support is fairly important.

7. Findings from the initial qualitative phase (to be continued) Individual interview data It is of particular importance for in-service teachers to ask for advice and look for resources to support their LRC practices…‘To do’ differs so much from ‘to wait’, resulting in completely different outcomes. If teachers want to achieve better outcomes, they can’t wait for help. Instead, they have to be very active at looking for support. There are different sources of support. Sometimes it (the support) comes from our school but mostly it is our personal choice…The school only offers support at the policy level so I have to look for substantial support. I have to study by myself, like look for online resources and read more documents and materials. Currently, the support system is not good enough. Few resources are ready to be used. Teachers have to be the subject and the master of this job. It’s like when you are hungry, get out of the house looking for food rather than wait to be fed. When there is short of food, nobody is going to feed you. Look for something to eat!

8. Findings from the initial qualitative phase (to be continued) Agency entails “a teacher’s commitment to governing his or her professional practice” according to deeply held epistemology of teaching and learning (Campbell, 2012, p. 184) and teachers’ capacity to “critically shape their own responsiveness to problematic situations” (Emirbayer & Mische, 1998, p. 971).

9. The subsequent quantitative phase Convenience sampling 1,761 participants 1,703 valid cases 7 districts 272 local schools 84% female 66% from primary schools 41% less than three years of LRC experience 74% no in-service training for LRC practices

10. Results of the subsequent quantitative study 820 for Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Principal Component Analysis (Hotelling, 1933; Pearson, 1901) Kaiser’s eigenvalue-above-one criterion (Kaiser, 1960) Cattell’s scree test of inflexion point (Cattell, 1966) Horn’s parallel analysis (Horn, 1965; O’Connor, 2000) 883 for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) NFI/RFI/IFI/TLI/CFI≥.90 (Bentler, 1990) RMSEA =.06 <.08 (Ho, 2006)

11. The four dimension model of professional competence Reliability of the model (Cronbach’s α) Overall (28 items) =.94 Attitude (8 items) =.89 Knowledge (6 items) =.89 Skills (8 items) =.90 Agency (6 items) =.83 Comparative analysis Agency (M = 3.10) Attitudes (M = 3.99) t = -29.51, p <.001, r =.70 Knowledge (M = 3.47) t = -13.60, p <.001, r =.42) Skills (M = 4.03) t = -33.49, p <.001, r =.75)

12. The five dimension model of classroom support Reliability of the model (Cronbach’s α) Overall (26 items) =.94 Physical support (8 items) =.90 Specialist support (4 items) =.91 Peer support (2 items) =.84 Institutional support (4 items) =.87 Cultural support (8 items) =.90

13. Comparative analysis The strength of cultural support was statistically stronger than that of all other support dimensions. The strength of specialist support was statistically weaker than that of all other support dimensions. The strength of physical support was also statistically lower than that of institutional support and peer support. There was no statistical difference between the strength of institutional support and that of peer support.

16. Model comparison Model 1: χ 2 = 10545.07, df = 1367 Model 2: χ 2 = 10265.38, df = 1366 Model change: ∆χ 2 = 279.69, ∆df = 1, p <.001

17. Our publications Mu, G. M., & Wang, Y. (2015/in press). An enquiry into the professional competence of inclusive education teachers in Beijing: Attitudes, knowledge, skills, and agency. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 62(6). Wang, Y., & Mu, G. M. (2015/in press). Multi-dimensional classroom support to inclusive education teachers in Beijing, China. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 62(6). Wang, Y., & Mu, G. M. (2014). Revisiting the trajectories of special teacher education in China through policy and practice. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 61(4), 346-361.