In study II, the aim was to measure the effects of an intervention for teachers’ learning. The research questions were: To what extent does a short PD program enhance teachers’ general readiness to create an inclusive learning environment for students with NDC? and What changes in differences of perceived self-efficacy can be found after the intervention?
Examining at pre-intervention whether participants felt educated enough to teach students with NDC, similar to the large-scale investigation (Bölte et al., 2021a), teachers’ years of experience were not correlated to the statement I have enough competence to teach students with NDC (r = .452, p = .021).
The results show that teachers were more capable of teaching students with NDC after the intervention by having more knowledge about how to both properly prepare and adjust the learning environment and teach for diverse needs. The result showed changes in teachers’
self-efficacy, readiness to prepare the learning environment for students with NDC, enhanced awareness of NDC and how to more sufficiently support these students in the classroom.
Teachers reported enhanced self-efficacy and competence in teaching children with NDC after the intervention. Figures 9 and 10 contain an example of one of the variables for measuring teacher efficacy. In the item I have enough competence to teach children with NDC, 19 % of the participants had disagree, 54 % had agree a little and 27 % had agree before the intervention, where the same item at post-intervention had 42 % of the participants answering agree a little, 50 % agree and 8 % agree a lot.
Figure 9. Pre-intervention responses for enough competence.
Figure 10. Post-intervention responses for enough competence.
Teachers showed more competence in how to adjust all areas of the learning environment (pedagogical, physical and psychosocial), where the largest increase was found in the psychosocial domain, where the number of accommodations was doubled. The difference between pre- and post-intervention was 24 accommodations in the physical domain (mean 8), 42 in the psychosocial domain (mean 14.33) and 49 in the pedagogical domain (mean 18.7).
The psychosocial domain was described by teachers as an area of failure in providing support in the learning environment. There was a case student in the survey, and the number of accommodations that teachers described rose from its initial value of 23 out of 26 teachers.
To summarize, a short professional development program is effective and has the potential to enhance teachers’ inclusion skills. Teachers expressed high satisfaction with the program, for example, with having time together to discuss common values for inclusion, time to learn more about accommodations with distinct focus on what is beneficial for students with NDC, time to evaluate and discuss the classroom climate and the need of improvements and time to implement adjustments in the learning environment.
The content in the sessions/cycles was to a large degree on practical dimensions of inclusion, and the facilitator demonstrated concrete strategies and evidence-based methods. The
teachers implemented support in the classroom based on the content from the professional development. In between sessions there were chances to have collaborative discussions and reflections. The item I know many concrete and valuable modifications for children with NDC had at pre-intervention 15 % of responses disagree, 46 % agree a little, 38 % agree and no agree a lot, and at post-intervention the responses were no disagree, 27 % agree a little, 62 % agree and 12 % agree a lot.
Figure 11. Pre-intervention responses for knowing how to adjust the environment.
Figure 12. Post-intervention responses for knowing how to adjust the environment.
One of the measures in the intervention was based on a student-case. There was a description of a fictive student in need of support, where the impairments and description are associated with difficulties one can have when one has an NDC. The student’s age and difficulties were modified according to the teachers and the age/level of students they taught. The total number of modifications/accommodations for the student increased by 23 out of 26 participants (88 %).
Figure 13. Pre-intervention number of accommodations for the student-case.
Figure 14. Post-intervention number of accommodations for the student-case.
The measure of teachers’ responses in how to adjust the learning environment according to a student with special education needs and in the three domains from Küller (1991)
demonstrated changes. All areas were improved, i.e., the number of accommodations rose from their initial values. In Table 7–9, the results from pre- and post-intervention are presented.
Table. 7. Number of accommodations in teachers’ responses in the physical domain of the learning environment, pre- and post-intervention (Leifler, 2020).
Outcome variable Preintervention Postintervention Difference
Classroom organization 9 10 +1
Placement 7 15 +8
Stimuli sanitizing 15 20 +5
Prepared facilities 5 7 +2
Small group arrangement 8 11 +3
Multi sensorial tools 2 3 +1
Retreat room – 3 +3
Cantina support – 1 +1
Total 46 70 +24
Table 8. Number of accommodations in teachers’ responses in the pedagogical domain of the learning environment, pre- and post-intervention (Leifler, 2020).
Outcome variable Preintervention Postintervention Difference
Individual schedule 12 12 –
Placement 7 8 +1
Clear instructions 12 14 +2
Structure 10 13 +3 Compensatory aids
(computer, time help aids, audiobooks)
15 21 +6
Routines 7 9 +2
Visual support 15 18 +3
Break possibilities 8 15 +7
Concrete material 2 2 –
Visual learning 3 3 –
Adjustments in tasks 12 17 +5
Preparation/transitions 5 13 +8
Repetition for working memory 1 7 +6
Reward system – 4 +4
Classroom organization 1 2 +1
Positive reinforcement 1 +1
Total 110 159 +49
Table 9. Number of accommodations in teachers’ responses in the psychosocial domain of the learning environment, pre- and post-intervention (Leifler, 2020).
Outcome variable Preintervention Postintervention Difference
Friendship support 9 11 +2
Encouragement 2 2 –
Recess activities 6 8 +2
The whole class values 5 6 +1
Support peer – group
(Teacher makes careful decisions)
4 12 +8
Relation teacher–student 3 12 +9
Social codes instruction 1 3 +2
Social stories 7 7 –
Transition support 4 7 +3
Greetings – confirmation – 2 +2
Positive reinforcement 1 9 +8
The students’ interest – 2 +2
Diversion – prevent outbreaks – 3 +3
Total 42 84 +42
The NDC AI (study II), the intervention towards teacher knowledge and self-efficacy are opportunities in the learning environment (research questions for this study). The professional development program is a way for general teachers to gain broader competence and can therefore be seen as also answering the overall research question about effective inclusive interventions for the Swedish school context. Regarding obstacles, the results show that school managements seldom provide their general teachers with special needs professional development and time and resources are deficient. In addition, the poor general knowledge of NDC is a considerable obstacle and hinders inclusive education.