Presented at ISEC 2000

Identifying Stressors For South African Teachers In The Implementation Of Inclusive Education

Abstract

Inclusive education compels the development of a single, inclusive system of education which has the capacity to provide for appropriate ways and means to facilitate learning and meet the needs of all learners. Inclusion therefore implies both societal and educational change - a process particularly evident in the South Africa of recent years, where teachers are now including learners with disabilities in mainstream classes for the first time. In this research study we identified some of the stressors related to the inclusion of learners with physical and cognitive disabilities in mainstream classrooms. The research was done by means of a specific questionnaire, as adapted for the South African context. Analysis of the data was done quantitatively. Results indicate that the most stressful issues for teachers during inclusion related to some administrative issues, particular behaviours of the learner, perceived self-competence and the parents of the learner with a disability. The least stressful issues however, related to the other behaviours of the learner and health and safety issues. Teachers including a learner with a cognitive disability also experienced significantly more stress than teachers including a learner with physical disabilities.

Introduction

Over the last 20 years a wealth of research was published on the phenomenon of teacher stress - focussing on various subgroups of teachers (Kyriacou,1998:5). However, the body of research on teacher stress in the context of inclusive education is still growing - particularly in a transformational society such as South Africa.

Work involving responsibility for other people creates potential for stress as it may heighten expectations for job performance and emotional availability (Smylie,1999:63). Further factors include the number of individuals for whom one has responsibility, long hours spent working with clients (or learners), diversity in the people with whom one works and resistance and lack of motivation of co-workers (Smylie,1999:63). In a school stressful situations may occur because of the organisation's culture, function, structure, the nature of the management procedures, insufficient training of teachers, time pressure, poor working conditions and poor consultation and communication (Brown & Ralph,1998:41; Kyriacou,1998:7).

Another condition of work that is associated with stress is role ambiguity (Smylie,1999:62). Ambiguity often involves a lack of clear and consistent information about duties, tasks, responsibilities and rights. Constraints on individual autonomy and control over the working environment is another source of workplace stress. Stress is also generally associated with work overload, poor learner behaviour and a lack of resources (Kyriacou,1998:7). Vlachou (1997:97) mentions the enormous amount of stress that teachers came under during the past 20 years, due to their efforts to fulfil their increasing obligations. It is evident that various sources of stress are prevalent in the teaching environment of today.

Even though teaching is reported to be a very stressful occupation (Woods,1999:115; Tyler,1998:160), it is also important to consider that the roles and responsibilities of teachers are changing even more, as schools attempt to create inclusive school communities (Sands, Kozleski & French,2000:26). Many mainstream education teachers feel unprepared and fearful of work with learners with disabilities in mainstream classes (Kochhar, West & Taymans,2000:19), and general education teachers do not always feel confident in their ability to fulfil the tasks that are needed to support inclusive education (Buell, Hallam & Gamel-McCormick,1999:143).

There has been a strong movement towards inclusive education in South Africa during the past five years. The National Commission on Special Education Needs and Training (NCSNET) and the National Committee for Education Support Services (NCESS) completed a document in 1997 that was based on the principles of democracy, participation and the need to find indigenous responses to South Africa's needs. The NCSNET/NCESS report recommended that the separate systems of education need to be integrated to provide one system of education, which is able to recognise and respond to the diverse needs of the learner population in South Africa (DNE,1997:55).

The Ministry subsequently released the Education White paper 5 on Special Needs Education Building An Inclusive Education And Training System, in June 2000. This White paper indicates that policy will move away from using segregation, according to the various categories of disabilities, as an organising principle for schools and institutions, and there is a strong emphasis on supporting learners through full service schools (DNE, 2000:5).

Inclusion is a reality in South Africa. Teachers are already dealing with more learners with special needs in their classrooms and the need for effective support is evident. However before we plunge in to provide the support, we need to come to a more thorough understanding of the areas where teachers are in need of support and where and how they are experiencing stress. The following research study aims to identify some of the stressors related to the specific situation of including a learner with a physical or a cognitive disability in South African classrooms.

Method

Participants

Teachers from the Gauteng and Western Cape Provinces in South Africa participated in this study. The data of teachers obtained at the respective Education departments served as a basis for purposeful selection of participants.

The aim was to select equal proportions of teachers in each of the two categories -teachers who are including learners with physical disabilities and teachers who are including learners with cognitive disabilities. The teachers were selected from schools that were purported to be representative of the whole spectrum of schools currently found in South Africa.

A questionnaire focussing on the effect of potential stressors on teachers, related to the specific situation of including a learner with a cognitive or physical disability in a mainstream classroom, was completed by 107 teachers. Fifty-two teachers were including a learner with a physical disability and fifty-five teachers were including a learner/learners with cognitive disabilities in their classrooms.

Participants in this study included grade 0 to grade 12 teachers. Their ages ranged from 26 years to above 55 years, with most being between the ages of 26 and 45 years. Most of the participants were South African women, but 15 South African men also participated. The total number of years teaching experience of the participants ranged from one to 36 years. Most of the teachers were class teachers and six were teaching deputy principals. In terms of qualifications, most (74) of the participants completed a teachers diploma, sixteen completed a bachelor's degree along with a teachers diploma, five completed a B Ed degree, one completed a M Ed degree and nine teachers also completed some form of additional qualification.

The number of learners in the various classes ranged from 14 to 67. The number of learners in the schools ranged between 300 and 1500 learners. The ages of the learners with cognitive and physical disabilities the teachers were including were between five and 18 years for learners with physical disabilities and six and 23 years for learners with cognitive disabilities.

The number of years teaching experience the teachers had with learners with any disability in their mainstream classes ranged between naught and 36 years. A significant number of participants (32) indicated that they only had between naught and three years experience with learners with disabilities in their mainstream classes.

Instrument

A measuring instrument (The Teacher Stress questionnaire) as developed by Forlin (1998) relates specifically to stress in inclusive education. The relevant versions (Physical disability and Cognitive disability) of the Teacher's Stress questionnaire was adapted for the South African context on the basis of a pilot study (Engelbrecht, Swart, Eloff & Newmark,2000).

The questionnaire as based on Forlin (1998), consists of:

Part A requests demographic information. Information focuses on gender, age, experience, location and training of teachers.

Part B considers the class structure and is used to rate each teacher on the potential difficulties of the class based on the number of learners with special needs included in it.

Part C elicits perceptives on the severity of stress for mainstream class teachers who are involved with including a learner with either cognitive or physical disability in their mainstream classroom. This part contains eight sections that relate to different issues associated with inclusive educational practices.

Responses are recorded on a four-point Likert scale. The degree of stressfulness is scored from one (not stressful) to four (extremely stressful). A separate score is allowed if the stress factor does not apply to the particular participant (does not apply).

Procedure

Permission to do the research was obtained from the relevant Education departments. A search was conducted with the help of the two Education departments to establish the number of learners with physical and cognitive disabilities in inclusive classrooms.

As indicated earlier, the schools were purposefully selected in order to obtain information from a variety of schools - from highly resourced schools, to schools from traditionally black communities. Subsequently, the principals of the particular schools were contacted in order to establish contact with the teachers. Appointments were made to provide a synopsis of the research project, the questionnaire involved and to deliver the questionnaires to the various schools. The participants were assured of anonymity of participation. Collection dates for the completed questionnaires were mutually agreed upon. In some instances the collection of the questionnaire also encompassed further explanations on some aspects of the questionnaires, before it was completed by the teachers.

For the purposes of clarity and analysis the group of teachers including learners with physical disabilities were allocated as Group 1 and the teachers who were including learners with cognitive disabilities were allocated as Group 2.

Analysis of data

The 52 questionnaires completed by the teachers who were including learners with physical disabilities, and the 55 questionnaires that were completed by the teachers who were including learners with cognitive abilities (107 questionnaires in total) were analysed.

Results

The first research aim was to consider each of the 75 items of the questionnaire in order to determine the specific issues that cause teachers most stress and those that are the least stressful for them during inclusion. The number of teachers responding to degree of stress varied considerably between the items, depending on whether the stressor actually applied to them or not. To ensure that a maximum number of responses were employed in the analysis, data were recoded to combine responses recorded as "non stressful" with responses recorded as "does not apply."

Most Stressful Issues for Teachers during Inclusion

Six items were identified that teachers reported to be most stressful (M > 2.10). These items related closely to four areas, namely administrative issues, the behaviour of the learner, the teacher's perceived self-competence and the parents of the learners with disabilities. (see Table 1)

Table I: The most stressful issues for teachers during inclusion

Note: Mean Range = 1 (not stressful or does not apply); 2 (somewhat stressful); 3 (quite stressful); to 4 (extremely stressful).

Administrative issues would include teachers' concerns for being personally held accountable for the learners' educational outcomes. Seventy six percent of the teachers found this stressful. In addition, adapting the curriculum to meet the learners' needs, adjusting unit plans and obtaining funding to support the learner were all stressful.

Competence issues would include teachers' concerns for their inability to provide an appropriate educational programme for the learner. In almost every instance teachers considered that they were personally responsible for sustaining an active learning environment for the learner. Teachers were also concerned about their ability to teach other learners in the class while they were focusing on the learner with the disability. Difficulty in monitoring other learners when attending to the learner with the disability was also stressful for the teachers. Approximately 67% of teachers were highly experienced having been teaching for at least 10 years whereas a significant number of participants (32) indicated that they had only been involved with inclusive education for three years or less.

Fifty nine percent of the teachers were concerned about their perceived lack of appropriate training to meet the needs of a learner with a disability. Fifty nine percent of the teachers perceived their pre-service training as inadequate and their in-service training as either non-existent or at the least inadequate. They especially indicated the absence of adequate in-service training regarding meeting the needs of the learner with barriers to learning and development as stressful. The majority of teachers were initially only trained to teach mainstream class learners.

The third area of greater stress to teachers during inclusion was the actual behaviour of the learner with the disability. Over 70% of teachers reported the learner's short attention span as a stressor while 58% indicated the learner's poor communication as a stressor. The use of inappropriate social behaviour, being attention seeking and disturbing others were also stressful behaviour exhibited by learners with disabilities.

One of the main stressors for teachers was the limited contact with parents of a learner with a disability together with parents' perceived lack of understanding of the learners' capabilities and long-term prognosis. The socio-economic disadvantage of the majority of families of learners with a disability included in this study was also considered a stressor for teachers and are of the main contributors to parents' lack of involvement with their children's academic progress.

Least stressful issues for teachers during inclusion

The least stressful issues for teachers (M < 1,48) during inclusion are included in Table 2. The majority of the issues least stressful to teachers relates to the behaviour of the learner with a disability. Health, safety and hygiene issues of learners with a disability do not really cause stress to the majority of teachers.

Table II: The least stressful issues for teachers during inclusion

Note: Mean Range = 1 (not stressful or does not apply); 2 (somewhat stressful; 3 (quite stressful); to 4 (extremely stressful).

As indicated earlier teachers find the lack of contact with parent(s) stressful. In light of this it could be expected that parent(s) in the classroom would be the least stressful issue for teachers during inclusion. Teachers indicated a real need to work as partners with parents to the best interest of the learner.

The ten issues related to support for the teacher with a learner with a disability in the classroom indicated only a relative small degree of stress. Teachers, however, did indicate stress locating age - appropriate educational resources for the learner's ability level and securing suitable resources for the classroom. The rest of the issues pertaining to the services of an occupational therapist, physiotherapist, speech therapist and the support teacher and issues dealing with a teacher aide were not stressful to teachers. The danger exists of presenting a distorted picture of the realities of support services in South Africa due to the absence of effective support services in the majority of schools in South Africa (DNE, 1997).

Comparing stress levels of teachers from group 1 with those from group 2

When comparing stress levels of teachers with a learner with a physical disability to those with a learner with a cognitive disability there were in all instances significant differences (p <.001) between stress reported by the two groups. In each case teachers with a learner with a cognitive disability reported significantly greater stress (see Table 3).

Table III: Comparing stress levels of Group 1 with Group 2 teachers

Note: Mean range = 1 (not stressful or does not apply); 2 (Somewhat stressful); 3 (quite stressful); to 4 (extremely stressful)
p < .05; p < .01

Relationship between Stress and Independent Variables

The third research aim concerns the investigation between degree of stress and six independent variables, namely age, gender, total number of years teaching, highest qualification held, number of learners in the class and number of years involved with inclusive education.

To obtain a suitable measure for stress each of the eight categories or scales are treated as separate factors that address different types of potential stressors. These factors relate to the following scales; administrative issues (e.g. "record keeping", questions 1 to 11); support issues (e.g., "employing a teacher aide", questions 12 to 22); Health, safely and hygiene concerns (e.g. "administering medication", questions 23 to 30); learner behaviour (e.g. "has a short attention span", questions 31 to 50); classroom management (e.g. , "time available for other learners", questions 51 to 57); parents (e.g., "unwillingness of the parents to come to terms with the child's impairment", questions 58 to 66); professional competency (e.g., "insufficient pre-service training", questions 67 to 75); and personal competency (e.g., "responding to the child's personality", questions 76 to 83).

Each teacher's factor scores were determined by calculating the mean level of stress across all items included in the respective factors. Higher scores are related to greater levels of stress. As there were a very limited number of responses to questions relating to health, safety and hygiene, this scale was deleted from further analysis. The means of every individual item relating to a specific factor was compared to the mean score for that factor. If the mean of the individual item was well below the average mean for that particular factor, the item was deleted. On this basis, eighteen items were deleted including one item (M = 1.42) relating to administrative issues, six items (M = 1.61, 1.54, 1.58, 1.42, 1.50 and 1.60) relating to support, seven items (M = 1.19, 1.35, 1.38, 1.51, 1.48, 1.41 and 1.50) relating to learner behaviour, two items (M = 1.26 and 1.45) to parents and two items (M = 1.50 and 1.23) relating to personal competency.

In addition a further eight items have been deleted as they request information on "other" issues to be identified by teachers and therefore, report inconsistent responses. A total of 50 items are included in the final analysis, forming seven factors (Administration, nine items; Support, seven items; Learner Behaviour, twelve items; the classroom, six items; Professional Competency, eight items; Personal Competency five items, and Parents, six items). Reliability of these factors was measured using Cronbach's alpha coefficient. All factors possessed high reliability with alpha coefficients ranging from .81 to .94.

With the exception of the two independent variables of gender and involvement in special needs training, all variables involved at least ordinal level of measurement. Correlations were used to analyse the relations between the seven factors and the six independent variables. Levels of significance of correlations (Anovas) between the stress related factors and the independent variables are reported in the matrix in Table 4.

Table IV: Descriptive Statistics for Seven Factors and Levels of significance of correlations with Independent Variables (N = 107)

Note: AI = Age; A2 = Gender; A3 = Years Teaching; A8 = Qualifications; A9 = Number of Learners in Class; A12 = Years involved with inclusive education Mean range = 1 (not stressful or does not apply); 2 (Somewhat stressful); 3 (quite stressful); to 4 (extremely stressful)
p < .05; p < .01

Based on the average responses to all of the 4-point Likert items, the results indicate that teachers are not overly stressed (M = 1.87) by the experience of including a learner with a physical or cognitive disability in their class. The means for the factors indicate that the most stressful scales for mainstream class teachers during inclusion are those that are associated with their perceived professional competence (M = 2.00) administrative issues (M = 1.96) issues dealing with the parents of learners with a disability (M = 2.01) and the behaviour of the learner (M = 1.84)

The independent variables of gender, number of years teaching and qualifications do not significantly correlate with any of the seven stress level factors. However, although the correlation between gender and the different stress level factors was not significant, the means for all the factors indicated a higher level of stress for female teachers than for male teachers.

Age, as independent variable, is related to three stress factors, namely, administrative and classroom issues and support. Administrative issues include being held accountable for the learners' educational outcomes, obtaining relevant information about the learner, record keeping, adjusting the curriculum and unit plans and obtaining the necessary funding. Classroom issues include management of interpersonal relationships between peers, time available for, and the monitoring of, other learners when attending to the learner with the disability, and whole class teaching being disrupted by the learner with the disability. Support include locating age - appropriate educational resources for the learner's ability level, securing available resources for the classroom, and issues dealing with the support teacher. For both classroom issues and support it is especially the age group 26 - 35 that indicate a higher level of stress than the other age groups. This is also the tendency for all the other dependent variable factors although not significantly so.

Years of teaching in an inclusive environment, as independent variable, correlates significantly with administrative issues (p < .01), learner behaviour (p < .05); the classroom (p < .05) and with professional competency (p < .05). Those with naught to two years teaching experience in an inclusive environment experience less stress on all the above-mentioned stress factors than those with longer experience in such an environment. Learner behaviour would include such issues as the learner's short attention span, poor communication, inappropriate social behaviour like attention seeking and disturbing the other learners. Professional competency issues relate to the appropriateness of teachers' own training for inclusion, their ability to meet the specific needs of the learner and their reduced ability to teach other learners as effectively as they would like.

The independent variable that indicates the most significant correlation with five of the seven stress factors, namely, administrative issues (p < .01), support (p < .01), personal competency (p , <.01), professional competency (p , <.05) and the classroom (p, <.05) is the number of learners in the class. Personal competency would include the following issues, namely, meeting the learner's needs and responding to the learner's personality and meeting the expectations of parents. The higher the number of learners in the class the greater the stress that the teachers experience. This should, however, be interpreted in the context of the other stressors identified.

Discussion

Previous research has found that inclusion makes additional demands on teachers and that teachers' sense of efficacy in including learners with disabilities in mainstream classrooms play a defining role in the success of an inclusive educational policy ( Forlin, Hattie & Douglas, 1996; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2000; Soto & Goetz, 1998). The issues surrounding inclusion, as discussed in this study, although specific to the situation of including learners with specific disabilities, shed important light on the issues that should be taken into account in the implementation of inclusive education in South Africa.

The four areas identified as the most stressful, namely administrative issues, the behaviour of the learner, the teacher's perceived self competence and the parent of the learner with a disability all point to the lack of effective teacher preparation to meet the needs of diverse learners in an inclusive educational approach. Teacher education in South Africa has been characterised until recently by fragmentation and deep disparities in both duration and quality with the result that South African teachers are disadvantaged by the poor quality of their training (Forlin & Engelbrecht,1998). Furthermore, education of preservice teachers at some training institutions still tend to reflect a focus on separate service delivery for learners with special educational needs with the result that training in the administrative issues involved in inclusive education as well as exposure to best practices in inclusive schools and collaboration with parents and support structures is not generally viewed as an integral and important part of teacher education (Engelbrecht, 2000). There is a positive move towards including these aspects in teacher education with the result that newly qualified teachers are expected to cope better. The importance of creating effective inservice programmes and support structures that foster mainstream teachers efficacy beliefs and success in including learners with special needs can not be overemphasised. According to Brownell and Pajares (1999) mainstream teachers perceive their effort to include learners with disabilities as more successful when they have participated in pre- and inservice programmes that included information about the needs of learners with specific disabilities, curricular and instructional adaptations as well as behaviour management strategies for learners with disabilities.

The results of the research also indicated that teachers with a learner with a cognitive disability reported significantly greater stress than teachers with a learner with a physical disability. This finding is consistent with research in other contexts that found that teachers hold more positive attitudes toward the inclusion of learners with social and physical disabilities than academic or behaviour disorders. It is especially the acceptance of learners with cognitive disabilities that seems to raise the most sensitive issues for teachers in inclusive classrooms and provokes the most disagreement about the wisdom of inclusive education (Scruggs & Mastropieri; 1996; 62 and 72; Soodak, Podell & Lehman, 1998:491; Wilczenski, 1993: 13). This issue can and should be addressed in inservice workshops.

Conclusion

There is an important shift in professional values for the twenty first century. We need to support each other, share knowledge, seek dialogue and we need to focus on strengths. Inclusion is a process and collaborative planning is essential to achieve success. In the light of these research results it is difficult to gauge the impact of teacher stress in terms of costs, but it is easy to hypothesise the long-term effects on our schools, if it is not acknowledged, identified and pro-actively supported in the years to come. South African teachers need to deal with more diversity in their classrooms than a decade ago and we should be putting as much effort into providing caring environments for them - our teachers, as we are for our children.

REFERENCES

Brown, M. & Ralph, S. (1998) The identification of stress in teachers, in: J. Dunham & V. Varma (Eds). Stress in teachers. (London, Whurr Publishers).

Brownell, M.T. & Pajares, F. (1999) Teacher efficacy and perceived success in mainstreaming students with learning and behaviour problems, Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(3), pp. 154 - 164.

Buell, M.J., Hallam, R.A. & Gamel-McCormick, M. (1999) A survey of general and special education teachers' perceptions and inservice needs concerning inclusion, International Journal of Disability, 46(2), pp. 143-156.

Department of National Education (DNE). (1997) Quality education for all. Report of the National Commission on Special Education Needs and Training and the National Committee for Education Support Service. (Pretoria, Government Printers).

Department of National Education (DNE). (1999) Consultative paper no. 1 on Special Education: Building an inclusive education and training system. (Pretoria, Government Printers).

Department of National Education (DNE). (2000) Education white paper 5 on Special Needs Education: Building an inclusive education and training system. (Pretoria, Government Printers).

Engelbrecht, P. (2000) The implementation of inclusive education in South Africa. Phase I: The pre-service training of teachers in inclusive education, 1997-1999. Stellenbosch: unpublished research report.

Engelbrecht, P., Swart, E., Eloff, I. & Newmark, R. (2000). Stress and coping skills of teachers with a learner with Down syndrome in inclusive classrooms. Paper presented at the 7th World Congress on Down syndrome (Sydney, Australia).

Forlin, C. (1998) Inside four walls. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 22(2), pp. 96-106.

Forlin, C. & Engelbrecht, P. (1998) Pre-service teacher education for inclusive education in Australia and South Africa, South African Journal of Higher Education, 12(2), pp. 215-233.

Forlin, C., Douglas, G. & Hattie, J. (1996) Inclusive practices: How accepting are teachers?, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 43(2), pp. 119-133.

Kochhar, C.A., West, L.L., & Taymans, J.M. (2000) Successful inclusion. (Columbus, Merril)

Kyriacou, C. (1998) Teacher Stress: Past and present, in: J. Dunham & V. Varma (Eds). Stress in teachers: (London, Whurr Publishers).

Sands, D.J., Kozleski, E.B. & French, N.K. (2000) Inclusive education for the 21st century. (United States, Wadsworth Thomson Learning).

Scruggs, T.E. & Mastropieri, M.A. (1996) Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis, Exceptional Children, 63(1), pp. 59-74.

Smylie, M.A. (1999) Teacher stress in a time of reform, in: R. Vandenberghe & A.M. Huberman, Understanding and preventing teacher burnout. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

Soodak, L.C., Podell, D.M. & Lehman (1998) Teacher, student and school attributes as predictors of teachers' responses to inclusion, Journal of Special Education, 31(4), pp. 480-497.

Soto, G. & Goetz, L. (1998) Self-efficacy beliefs and the education of students with severe disabilities. JASH, 23(2), pp. 134-143.

Tyler, M. (1998) Stress-management training for teachers: A practical guide, in: J. Dunham & V. Varma (Eds). Stress in teachers. (London: Whurr Publishers).

Vlachou, A.D. (1997) Struggles for inclusive education, (Philadelphia, Open University Press).

Wilszenski, F.L. (1993) Changes in attitudes toward mainstreaming among undergraduate education students, Education Research Quarterly, 17(1), pp. 5-17.

Woods, P. (1999) Intensification and stress in teaching, in: R. Vandenberghe & A.M. Huberman Understanding and preventing teacher burnout. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press)

Index