A Dialogical Inquiry of Elementary School Teachers’ Perspectives on Inclusive Education of Students With Special Education Needs and Disability (SEND)

Abstract

Internationally, many countries have developed inclusive education policies to offer quality education opportunities to all students. However, many teachers are still grappling with how to facilitate inclusive education in their general education schools. Challenges to inclusive education have pointed to teacher perspectives and beliefs about the practicability of inclusive education in general education classroom. This paper explored and discussed the perspectives of 70 Saudi comprehensive elementary school teachers who participated in a group online dialogical interview about their understanding of disability, inclusive education, and considers how inclusion might work in their comprehensive schools. The findings revealed mixed understandings of disability and inclusive education, and challenges that must be mitigated through dialogic professional learning to improve their practice.

Keywords

dialogical inquiry inclusive education epistemologies special needs comprehensive schools

Introduction

The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994) recommends inclusive education as one of the best educational practices to respond to the diversity of needs of special needs student populations. Since 1994, many countries have developed inclusive education policies to offer quality educational opportunities to all students irrespective of their birth circumstances and learning dispositions (Alnahdi & Schwab, 2020; Faura-Martínez & Cifuentes-Faura, 2022; Felder, 2021). The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia developed a Vision 2030 framework in 2017 to promote the equitable development of human and material resources across the country. This vision includes provisions for persons with special education needs and disabilities to receive full support to live a quality life. According to the document, persons with disabilities will “receive the education and job opportunities to ensure their independence and integration as effective members of society. They will be provided with all the facilities and tools required to put them on the path to commercial success” (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 2017, p. 37).

The motivation for this study stemmed from the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education and the Saudi Vision 2030 document. Access to quality education is the foundation for building an inclusive society and quality of life. Secondly, teachers are the frontline runners in implementing any international or local policy on inclusive education. Therefore, their voices are essential to ascertain the effectiveness and challenges to their practice. In light of this, we focused our research on teachers’ perspectives.

Inclusive education has generated many controversies. For example, many people think of inclusive education as the movement of all students with SEND into regular schools (Opertti et al., 2014). SEND is an acronym for students with Special Education Needs and Disabilities, a term popularly used in the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Despite the overlap between special education needs and disability, students with special educational needs (SEN) do not necessarily have a disability. Special Educational Needs is a term used to define students with a learning difficulty that is significantly higher than most students of the same age or disability and require special educational provisions to attain their learning goals (Törmänen & Roebers, 2018). On the other hand, disability describes a physical or mental impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person’s ability to perform daily everyday activities. Special needs education is aimed at using evidence-based information to implement effective pedagogy to benefit students who require them.

The philosophical assumption underlying special needs education is that “human differences are normal, and that learning must accordingly be adapted to the needs of the child rather than the child fitted to pre-ordained assumptions regarding the pace and nature of the learning process” (UNESCO, 1994, p. 7). On the other hand, inclusive education removes barriers to access and full participation of all students in education (Törmänen & Roebers, 2018). This follows the fundamental principle that schools must allow all students with disability, special education needs and those without disabilities, wherever possible, to learn together with ongoing support (Farias et al., 2019; Rood & Ashby, 2017). According to Törmänen and Roebers (2018), “inclusive settings offer diverse education, taking into account every child’s unique developmental and educational challenges. However, inclusion does not only refer to providing an educational support system for children with SEN; it is increasingly seen more broadly as a reform that supports and welcomes diversity amongst all learners” and celebrates their rights (p. 83). It can be argued that the fundamental principle underlying inclusive education is to innovate school practices to meet the needs of all learners.

Consequently, this universalist approach has meant that many schools accept students with SEND without providing the necessary resources and qualified teachers to support them, leading to further exclusion (Munchan & Agbenyega, 2020). It also draws profound implications for inclusion as only suitable for a particular place.

Internationally, a deeper understanding of inclusive education as the process of removing barriers to quality participation to enhance the educational achievement of all students is emerging (UNESCO, 2017). Rood and Ashby (2017) argue that in removing barriers to participation for all students, increased attention must be paid to the rights of all students to dismantle “traditional models of special education where the focus is on identification and remediation of difference” (p. 276). Indeed, inclusive education is not about a physical place or isolated service delivery to students who are considered different but a philosophical idea that underpins innovation in pedagogical practices within relevant contexts (Rood & Ashby, 2017).

Calls for adopting inclusive education and educators taking professional responsibility to address barriers to inclusive education have increased in the literature (Agbenyega & Sharma, 2014; DeVries et al., 2018; Faura-Martínez & Cifuentes-Faura, 2022). However, understanding educators’ fears, frustrations, and challenges to implementing inclusion requires using methodologies that support equity and social justice goals (Felder, 2021; Zurbriggen et al., 2018). Education focused on equity and social justice, in which inclusion is defined, requires using epistemologies that support a collective reimagining of inclusive education (Farias et al., 2019; Galheigo, 2011).

The socio-political nature of inclusive education and social justice principles require critical reflection through dialog (Felder, 2021). When we engage truthfully, trustfully, and respectfully in dialog, we can stimulate the development and discovery of new knowledge to address complex problems that we face as social and political beings (Gómez et al., 2011). The multiplicity of thoughts offered through dialog enables individuals to develop shared solutions to inclusive education challenges (Farias et al., 2019).

This article emerged from online dialogic interviews with comprehensive elementary school educators in the Qassim region of Saudi Arabia to share their views about students with disabilities and their access and participation in comprehensive schools. The term comprehensive schools mean mainstream or general education schools. This approach is innovative and transformative because it departs from traditional workshops where experts deliver information to teachers (Farias, 2017).

Inclusive Education in Saudi Arabia

The provision of educational services and social support for students with special needs has seen tremendous growth in the last 20 years (Alnahdi et al., 2019; Gibbs & Bozaid, 2022). Coupled with increased support is the promotion of inclusive education for students with SEND by the Ministry of Education. For example, reports from the Saudi Ministry of Education indicate that students with intellectual disabilities, hearing and visual impairments, and those with Autism within the mild to moderate groups who are in regular schools outnumber those receiving education in special institutions (Ministry of Education, 2012). On the contrary, Aldabas (2015) identified that despite policies promoting inclusive education in Saudi Arabia, most students with SEND are receiving their education in segregated institutions and classrooms.

The Saudi 2016 Regulatory Guide for Special Education (RGSE) developed by the Ministry of Education described a few educational placement options for students with SEND, which include: “regular classrooms with counselling teacher services, regular classrooms with itinerant teacher services, regular classrooms with resources room services, special classes in general regular schools, or special education institutes (internal – day)” (Alnahdi & Schwab, 2020, p. 3). Recent research indicated that most students with Autism and severe disabilities are not accepted into comprehensive schools; instead, they are educated in special schools or institutions (Alnahdi & Schwab, 2020). However, some students with learning disabilities (LD) receive their education with typically developing peers (Alnahdi et al., 2019) in mainstream schools, while other students with special needs are educated in segregated special schools.

Challenges of Inclusive Education

Internationally, challenges to inclusive education are many and varied. Some notable challenges consistently mentioned in previous research include the use of discriminatory terminologies (Muzata, 2019), the lack of professional knowledge of inclusive education (Duncan et al., 2021; Klibthong & Agbenyega, 2018; Makoelle, 2014), workload (Gunnþórsdóttir & Jóhannesson, 2014), leadership (Agbenyega & Sharma, 2014), teacher attitudes (Cardona Moltó et al., 2010), and large class sizes (Bhatnagar & Das, 2014) to mention a few.

In Saudi Arabia, where this study was conducted, fixed weekly schedules under which schools work to educate students and inflexible curriculum which does not provide options for a variety of activities have been identified as critical barriers to inclusive practice (Almalki & Abaoud, 2015; Alssissi, 2017). In addition, large class sizes inhibit timely and adequate support from teachers to students (Alrayss & Algmeay, 2016; Alssissi, 2017; Maghrabi, 2013). Besides, teachers have limited opportunity to innovate their teaching practices as they are required by policy to stick to regimented teaching based on assigned textbooks, chapter-by-chapter (Alnahdi & Schwab, 2020). Another author identified that inclusive education in Saudi Arabia is challenged by inadequate physical and human support coupled with poorly organized school structure and culture (Alruwaili, 2018). A recent Saudi study described the Saudi Arabia education system as gender-segregated (Gibbs & Bozaid, 2022). These authors concluded that “for many students with a disability, participation in Saudi mainstream classrooms remains allusive” (Gibbs & Bozaid, 2022, p. 4).

Considering these barriers, which continue to inhibit access and effective implementation of inclusive practice, it is essential to conduct this study to offer an opportunity for participants to enter a dialog about inclusive education and access to comprehensive schools. In doing so, we can understand their perspectives and address issues of concern regarding students with special needs accessing comprehensive schools in Saudi Arabia.

Conceptual Framework

This paper is conceptualized through dialogic talk to create a flexible and inclusive space for participants to talk and listen to enhance their understanding of inclusive education issues within their context. Conceptualizing research in the epistemology of dialogic talk involves more than interviewees responding to interview questions posed by researchers (Dyer & Löytönen, 2012; Sullivan, 2012; Sullivan & McCarthy, 2005). Instead, it involves stimulating, extending understanding and deepening knowledge on specific issues (Alexander, 2008). Shor and Freire (1987), explain dialog further as,

a moment where humans meet to reflect on their reality as they make and remake it. Something else: To the extent that we are communicative beings who communicate with each other as we become more able to transform our reality, we are able to know that we know, which is something more than just knowing. […] Through dialogue, reflecting together on what we know and don’t know, we can then act critically to transform reality (p. 13).

Studies have shown that critical dialogue gives confidence to people to engage in knowledge-sharing activities to unpack complex educational challenges and develop alternative solutions to advance the field of practice (Dyer & Löytönen, 2012; Shor & Freire, 1987). Dialogue is also seen as a tool for raising awareness on issues people generally find difficult to talk about or change (Freire, 1970). Using dialogue to research perspectives and practices regarding students with SEND and inclusion require researchers and participants to participate in talk interactions and generate questions, ideas and innovative ideas to improve practice (Farias et al., 2019). Using dialogue in research provides an opportunity for cumulative learning; it is an epistemology or theory of knowledge grounded in subjectivity (Holquist, 2002), where those who engage in it have unrestricted opportunities to deepen their understanding of research issues (Rowlands, 2018).

The concept of inclusive education is not simply a social justice issue; it is ideological, political, and critical (Harðardóttir et al., 2021; Haug, 2017). Our politics are arrived at and informed by our experiences and identities. Therefore, it requires a democratic approach where multiple voices must be given the opportunity to be heard. Indeed, the intersubjective accounts that emerge from critical dialogs enable us to better understand one another’s views on inclusive education (Farias et al., 2019). Such emerging knowledge is valuable and fulfilling because the sharing and discussive pronouncements are valued irrespective of who speaks. We investigated the following research questions:

What are teachers’ conceptualizations of disability and inclusive education?

What are the views of teachers regarding educating students with SEND in comprehensive schools?

What challenges to inclusive education are important to the teachers?

Method

In this study, we employed a qualitative method of dialogic interviews to enable us to engage in deeper and collective conversations about inclusive education concerning students with SEN (Farias et al., 2019). The process we adopted allowed for multiple voices to be heard and validated by shifting our authoritative positions as researchers to the state of power-sharing with our participants as co-constructors of knowledge (Alexander, 2008). Dialogical interviews are subject to multiple interpretations; hence, researchers in this tradition do not perceive data as absolute truth; instead, data is seen as multiple representations of knowledge (Namdar & Shen, 2018; Van Someren et al., 1998). In this intersubjective account, the truth which fits the solution at the moment is extracted, explored further, and applied to specific issues (Collins, 2016). Dialogical interviews created the opportunity for participants and us to deepen our understanding of inclusive issues by sharing our collective but different experiences.

Participants

Seventy participants (27 Males and 43 females) from 25 different comprehensive elementary schools in the Qassim region of Saudi Arabia were involved in the study. The average age of the participants was 37.5 years, with teaching experiences ranging from 2 to 10 years. A criterion purposive sampling technique was used to select participants for the study. This sampling technique was adopted to identify individuals with knowledge and experience about the study’s focus who were available and willing to participate and capable of communicating experiences and opinions to help us gain a sense of the phenomenon of the study (Palinkas et al., 2015). To recruit participants, we contacted comprehensive elementary schools through email. The contact details of the schools were publicly available in the Ministry of Education register. The initial contact included attached permission application letters and explanatory statements seeking permission from the principals to recruit teachers who have teaching experience with students with special needs and disabilities as participants. Following approval from principals, we sent a poster containing detailed information about the project and our contact details to be placed on their schools’ websites for 1 month for potential participants to contact us. All the 70 participants who volunteered signed online consent forms prior to the online forum for the dialogical interviews.

Procedure

The online forum was organized into seven different sessions with 10 participants in each session. This was to offer an opportunity for every participant to speak. The dialogical interviewing approach allowed the researchers and participants to shift from a stimulus-response approach, which often dominates the traditional interviewing approach. Dialogical interviewing, as a two-way approach, led to gaining more insight into the participants’ perspectives and those of the interviewers. This is particularly important in inclusive education research because it allows for intellectual and personal exchanges and mutual reflection on the nature of the complex structures, policies and practices in inclusive education. Inclusive education requires an open dialogical space where professionals and researchers together search for proper understanding and knowledge of what conceptual, methodological and practical foundations may be most generative for the effective implementation of inclusive education (Danforth & Naraian, 2015). Through dialogue, participants in this research brought to the fore their understandings, challenges and the resources that best support inclusive education improvements. The researchers informed the participants ahead of the interview sessions by providing them with the interview prompts

All the dialogical interview sessions lasted for 9 h and 10 min, with each session averaging 80 min. The dialogical interview sessions started with the lead researcher welcoming the participants and other research team members. After introducing ourselves, the participants also had the opportunity to introduce themselves before the interviews began. Following the introduction, the principal investigator explained the purpose of the online sharing session and the rules of interaction, for example, respect for others’ points of view, then asked the participants to share their personal stories and experiences regarding teaching students with SEND. This was followed by a set of semi-structured questions for the participants to express their views on specific items. These include the concept of inclusion, the differences between disability, impairment, and handicap, why teachers need to have adequate knowledge about students with SEND, words often used to describe students with SEND in Saudi Arabia, prominent people with disabilities in Saudi Arabia and whether it is a good idea to educate students with SEND in comprehensive schools.

While the participants were speaking, we were mindful not to interrupt our views on the matter; instead, we became active listeners. After 50 min, we switched roles so that participants could ask the other participants and the research team questions based on the research problems. The sessions were recorded on the zoom platform, downloaded, and later transcribed for analysis. All sessions were organized in Arabic and translated into English language for analysis. Some specific questions were: What were your experiences with students with special education needs? How would you define disability? What does inclusion mean to you, and why is it important to you? Can you tell us more about how you feel about including students with SEND in comprehensive schools? What makes you accept or not accept students with SEND into comprehensive schools? These questions instigated deep reflection and critique of practices and their support systems, including students with disabilities. Dialogic talk enabled the participants and us to attain a mutual understanding of the research objectives (Alexander, 2008). Research has demonstrated that the use of dialogue in interviews develops individual and collective reasoning directed toward problem-solving (Littleton & Mercer, 2013).

Data Analysis

Data were transcribed from Arabic to English by the researchers. To minimize this limitation, we adopted back translation techniques by looking for equivalents by translating items from the source language to the target language and independently translating these back into the source language (Ercikan, 1998). This allowed us to compare and verify the discrepancies in meaning, revise the transcripts and include important points that were missed. According to Sullivan (2012, p. 8), “qualitative data analysis is broadly concerned with systematically interpreting what people say and do.” We used a Dialogical Narrative Analysis (DNA) approach to analyze the data. According to Bakhtin (1984) in DNA, “the author speaks not about a character, but with him” (p. 63). Thus, our analysis began with a standpoint on participants’ troubles with inclusion, enabling us to speak with the research participants’ data rather than about them (Frank, 2012). This form of analysis is grounded in the proposition that “The truth about a man in the mouths of others, not directed to him dialogically and therefore a secondhand truth, becomes a lie degrading and demeaning him” (Bakhtin, 1984, p. 59). In order not to degrade what the participants said during the dialogical interviews, we committed ourselves to recognizing that any individual voice is a dialogue between voices. In the analysis, we were mindful that dialogue is not simply two or more participants talking during the interviews; instead, a single voice is always constitutive of multiple voices (Frank, 2012). Therefore, we developed our analytic framework primarily to tell how the story of disability and inclusion were built up in the interview conversations. In the process of the analysis, the transcribed data were coded for employability, rhetorical structure, and coherence (Sullivan, 2012). In so doing, we focused mainly on the structure of the participant’s statements or stories, the kinds of the genre they conveyed and the style of the text (Sullivan & McCarthy, 2005). Sullivan (2012) describes these as the style of whether they are dramatic or poignant and how they fit a wider plot. Taking a critical stance, we considered the data sets as an opening of possibilities for us to enter different understandings about issues concerning disability and inclusion.

Findings

Defining Disability

When asked to define disability and associated terms, the participants provided different terms which reflected social and political meanings within their context. Some of the definitions signify medical interpretations that consider disability a disease, saying, “disability refers to the inability to walk. A person’s inability to walk is a disability because of a disease in the person.” Others noted that “disabilities are the functional consequence of impairment. A Person has a functional limitation due to his or her impairment.” Some other participants look at disability from a handicapping point of view. For example, participants defined disability as “impairment, and loss of body part or abnormality from the norm.” They stressed that persons with disability have an “inability to move their legs easily at the joints and unable to bear weight on the feet” or “abnormalities of body structure and appearance or of organ and system functioning, resulting from many causes.”

In another group, disability was defined as “being handicapped that this person faces disadvantages that prevent him or her from performing a normal role in life, such as not being able to climb stairs anymore… The person cannot perform a normal role at home, school, and in the community.” Conversely, one participant argued that “basically society and the physical environment are what make people handicapped.” This definition reflected the social model of disability which has an implication for removing barriers to the participation of all learners. Indeed, the multiple definitions obtained through dialogic talk point to critical issues associated with inclusion because an inadequate understanding of the concepts of disability can lead to negative attitudes and a lack of acceptance of persons with disability into comprehensive schools.

Defining Inclusive Education

When asked to define inclusive education, various definitions emerged. Some participants define it as “placement of students in special education classes located on integrated school sites”; “placement of a student with disabilities into ongoing activities of regular classrooms so that the child receives education with nondisabled peers even if special education staff must provide supplementary resource services”, and “total integration of a student with disabilities into the regular education program with special support” and “inclusion explains how students with disabilities are served and treated in the school.”

The Power of Words

Participants were asked to talk about words often used in the Saudi context to describe students with SEN and if these words have any implications for students’ access to comprehensive schools. Many of the participants included words like “students with disabilities,’” “disabled students,” “Autistic boy/girl,” “handicapped student,” “student suffering from disability” and “special needs student.” Most participants agreed that each of these words affects how other people relate to students with SEN.

Words have very large affect. Words affect people who do not suffer from any disabilities and people with disabilities. Words affect them and affect the way others see them, especially the family is affected, and some families believe in those words especially if you say something like handicapped, people tend to focus on what is wrong with the student.

Others noted that saying words like, “suffering from disability makes people to focus on the person as a sick person experiencing pain from an illness or disease.” Similarly, some participants noted:

because of the use of words like disabled, handicapped, and Autistic child some families refuse to have their children with disability assessed. They fear the diagnosis because of those words because they will affect the students negatively, it is like sarcasm or stigmatisation.

Others reiterated that the “choice of words can mean a lot of different things for people with disabilities or for other people around them” and that when “we choose the right words, they will have a positive effect” on students with SEN. Conversely, a participant noted, “I do not think the words I chose affect other people; they must learn to live with society.”

The Importance of Learning About Disabilities/Students With SEN

Participants discussed the importance of having adequate knowledge of students with disabilities. Some participants explained that it is essential “to know the characteristics and how to work with them,” Others believed that “if you want to integrate them into the education process, you need to discover them early, especially in the kindergarten stage.” Interestingly, some participants were of the view that studying students with disabilities should not only be,

about the teacher having knowledge of the characteristics of the student, but also the student’s abilities and individual differences, knowing what their different disabilities are and their classification and how they learn.

Other participants described the importance of school principals’ knowledge of disability by saying:

School principals and teachers play an important role in the special education process, so they must learn about disabilities and guide their teachers. If the principal and teacher are familiar with the concept and practice of special education needs, they can work together to provide services to different types of students.

Arguably, some participants perceived their role as a lesser position to those of their principals hence suggested that “to ensure schools work efficiently, then it is necessary to mandate principals to have a deeper knowledge of special education and inclusive services so that they can verify that they are appropriately implementing services for students with disabilities.” Indeed, this knowledge is seen by participants as a prerequisite for the effective implementation of inclusion.

Access to Inclusion in Comprehensive Schools

Generally, participants discussed that in the current century, good care and positive attention are being given to people with disabilities and that Islam has been concerned with the care and rights of people with disabilities for more than 1440 years. They emphasized that Islam guaranteed their rights and ways to treat persons with disabilities with respect, and since the 1970s, positive attitudes to persons with disabilities have increased. They argued that these positive attitudes have led to supporting and recognizing the achievements of persons with disabilities. Participants named prominent people with disabilities within Saudi Arabia who distinguished themselves in various fields to support their argument. For example, Abdul-Aziz bin Baz held the post of a judge of Al Kharj, Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia President and member of the Constituent Assembly of the Muslim World League and was awarded the King Faisal International Prize for Service to Islam. Muhannad Aboudia’s (an inventor) and Sultan Al-athel owned several companies with nearly 10,000 employees.

However, when participants were asked if students with disabilities/special education needs should be included and educated in comprehensive schools, this question generated conflicting perspectives. Some participants agreed that inclusive education can benefit “every child because each child can learn if the learning method is provided differently.” Another participant reiterates that “the benefits of being in comprehensive schools can challenge teachers to improve teaching to help them…I am ready for the challenge.” This position is supported by another participant, “yes, a good idea to include them, but before that, general education teachers must have intensive workshops or training courses to learn how to teach them.” Others argued that “all students, irrespective of their nature of disability should be included, it is one of their rights.”

In contrast, one participant reacted by saying:

Despite the positive impact of inclusion, which appears to be an educational system worth striving for, I think you don’t know what you are talking about; it is not easy to let every child with a disability attend comprehensive schools…I have seen some children with disabilities in my school, but not all were learning, some were isolated, and nobody was able to teach them anything.

Supporting these statements, other participants rejected the idea of including all students with disabilities in comprehensive schools arguing:

Creating a suitable learning environment for them is very difficult in comprehensive schools, and this may have a negative impact on their learning. Although it is possible to integrate some categories of people with disabilities, full inclusion might not provide the best learning experience for the special-needs child (children with disabilities) or the other children in the class.

Similarly, others said, “not all students can attend comprehensive schools…those who can learn with little support, yes, they should be included, but severe ones are better to go to special education school.”

Facilitating Inclusive Education in Saudi Arabia

Participants discussed the future of inclusive education and its implementation in Saudi comprehensive schools. In general, they mentioned creating awareness in the community, training teachers, providing adequate support for students and families, and preparation of schools prior to accepting students with SEND. They argued that inclusion is a right; therefore, it is the responsibility of ALL community members to support transformative attitudes toward students with disabilities. For example, some participants stated that “removing barriers to full participation and making learning meaningful must start with the school management…then to teachers.” In addition, participants called for rethinking and restructuring school cultures, structures, and practices. One participant echoed that “our school practices lacked flexibility…we need to follow the textbook as prescribed by authorities.” Besides these, the participants mentioned safe and responsive learning environments, equity, and social justice as the panacea for successfully including students with SEND in comprehensive schools.

Regarding educational policies, participants were interested in seeing more emphasis placed on “the rights of students with SEND and in ensuring these rights are translated into providing appropriate services and care for people with disabilities.” Another participant opined, “I want to see that soon the rights of all students with SEND are guaranteed by providing free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment, such as inclusive education.” They believed that inclusion in comprehensive schools would work only if teachers had in-depth knowledge of inclusive practice and ongoing professional support. For example, a participant claimed: “it is not because teachers don’t like students with disabilities that is why they don’t want them in the comprehensive schools. It is all about fear…that you will be criticise for poor performance…that your students are not making progress.” Another participant indicated that “if we protect the legal rights and interests of teachers by giving the adequate support that they need, they will feel relax and willingly accept and teach students with disabilities.” These perspectives demonstrate that there is potential for successfully implementing inclusive education in Saudi Arabia if the voices of teachers regarding their concerns and fears are listened to and adequately addressed.

Discussion

This study sought to explore comprehensive elementary school teachers’ perspectives regarding inclusive education. Through dialogical interviews, 70 teachers in seven groups shared their understandings of disability and inclusive education and their perspectives on students with disabilities studying in comprehensive schools. Through these discussions, teachers told stories about perceived challenges to inclusive education and identified ways to promote the implementation of inclusive education in Saudi elementary comprehensive schools. As the Saudi Ministry of Education is pushing toward inclusive education with increased policies in this area (Alruwaili, 2018), this has a flow-on effect on teachers who are then required to translate these policies into practice (Duncan et al., 2021).

The findings from the different stories indicate that the participants have different understandings of disability. While some participants associated disability with disease and incapability, others view disability as a consequence of social and cultural barriers. The view that disability is a disease has a medical connotation or terminology (Muzata, 2019). According to Goering (2015), “a standard medical approach, indeed a common lay-person’s approach, to thinking about disability involves viewing it as a problem that exists in a person’s body” (p. 134).

Alternatively, disability conceptualizations in the social model hold promise as the focus is not on the student with a disability as a problem or deficit to be fixed. Instead, attention is directed toward removing societal barriers that limit the participation of students with disabilities in inclusive schools (Goering, 2015). We argue that since teachers have the potential and the possibility to shape students into the future, their understanding and views about disability are critically important. Significant is also the identification of pejorative words still in use among some Saudi teachers that the participants revealed. Terms like “handicapped, epileptic child, autistic students and disabled students” have the power to damage the identity of students with SEND.

The prevailing disability discourses echoed by these participants draw attention to how teachers within the Saudi context think about disability. Negative discourses about disability have the potential to endorse the continuation of segregated or pull-out education (Muzata, 2019; Rood & Ashby, 2017). However, a real opportunity exists for teacher educators to use a dialogical approach to professional learning for teachers to gain deeper insights into the power of words and their effect on students (Van Someren et al., 1998). Dialoguing with teachers respectfully to deepen their knowledge and practice of inclusion is a social justice endeavor (Felder, 2021).

It is argued that intersubjective knowledge, that is obtained through dialog, is a powerful tool for transforming challenges into ideas that fit the solution in a context (Collins, 2016). These findings are consistent with previous studies, which highlight that the words we use to describe people with disability can inspire or demotivate those labeled with those particular words (Algraigray & Boyle, 2017; Lauchlan et al., 2017).

Also, the current climate of change in Saudi Arabia, where the rights of persons with disabilities are being enshrined in policy documents (Alruwaili, 2018), is an important time that careful attention can be paid to the use of words in policy and curriculum documents. This means, yearning for a depth of understanding of disability and inclusion (Duncan et al., 2021). Inclusion is about the present and the future of all students; thus, rethinking what students with disabilities would become should be part of the central determinant factor for developing teachers to embrace inclusive education.

The findings also indicate that the participant teachers must fully understand the concept of inclusive education. Teachers’ understanding described inclusion as integrating or moving students with disabilities into mainstream schools. Interestingly, the participants’ definition did not encompass removing barriers to participation, although some agreed that inclusive education is a right for all students. A recent paper authored by Faura-Martínez and Cifuentes-Faura (2022) in the European Journal of Special Needs Education, described inclusive education as an educational process of “meeting the common and specific needs of people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) with quality and equity, welcoming all students into the educational institution, regardless of their personal or cultural characteristics” (p. 1).

In this study, while some participants spoke positively about accepting students with disabilities into comprehensive schools, others expressed that including students with disability in comprehensive schools will jeopardize effective teaching and learning. The notion that having students with SEND in general education classrooms is a barrier to effective learning is the consequence of conceptualizing disability as within a child problem that must be fixed (Muzata, 2019). It is argued that when disability and inclusive education knowledge reside outside teachers’ experience, it is futile to expect them to accept and support students with disabilities in their schools (Rood & Ashby, 2017).

Indeed, the reservations expressed by the participants were also linked to inflexible practices and a lack of adequate support. These were pointed out in several other studies (Algraigray & Boyle, 2017; Alnahdi & Schwab, 2020; Alrayss & Algmeay, 2016; Alruwaili, 2018; Alssissi, 2017; Maghrabi, 2013). If we count the years from 1994 when UNESCO launched the Salamanca document on special needs education and inclusion, we can argue that making schools accessible to all is long overdue. We need to see inclusive education as an urgent educational matter that must be fixed now; the future of students with disabilities cannot wait any longer.

Implications for Practice

By implication, teachers who view disability as a disease may think that students with SEND require special treatment or fixing before they can function in inclusive comprehensive schools. Although not all students with disabilities will have medical issues, within the child constructed meaning of disability can predispose teachers to oppose inclusion because of their focus on functional limitations to further disadvantage students (Algraigray & Boyle, 2017). The big question is, in the absence of teachers who are willing and have the skills and knowledge to teach students in comprehensive schools, how do we go on with inclusion? Therefore, training teachers to use people-first language may convey dignity and respect to students with disability. When students feel respected, they feel a sense of belonging to the educational process. Respect can only be realized through quality education and learning support. It means transforming teacher dispositions through a deeper understanding of inclusive education (Farias et al., 2019; Galheigo, 2011; Opertti et al., 2014).

This study has demonstrated that teachers need the opportunity to frequently dialog with teacher educators, students, and policymakers as the claim to inclusive understanding can only come through such engagements (Faura-Martínez & Cifuentes-Faura, 2022; Rood & Ashby, 2017). Studies stressed that dialog gets teachers to think of a problem differently and to find solutions through multiple ideas.

Limitation

This study is limited in several ways. First, the study was conducted in one geographical region of Saudi Arabia; therefore, it is impossible to assume that this study’s findings apply to all school settings and teachers in that country. Secondly, we used a qualitative approach exclusively to generate data for this study. If we had combined surveys with qualitative dialogical interviews, different dimensions of inclusive practice perspectives would have emerged to give us an extensive understanding that could inform policy and practice in this area. This study provides insights into critical issues confronting inclusive practice in Saudi Arabia’s comprehensive schools. Future research should include many participants and utilize complementary methods to unpack inclusive practice issues to inform inclusive education policy development, teacher professional learning and practice in Saudi Arabia.

Conclusion

This study has used dialogical interviews through the online zoom platform with Saudi comprehensive elementary school teachers to understand their views about inclusive education of SEND. Comprehensive schools, as public institutions, “are obliged to guarantee the right to education to everyone” (Faura-Martínez & Cifuentes-Faura, 2022, p. 5). Therefore, all teachers and school leaders who work in these schools should be developed to understand the concept of inclusive education of students with SEND (Agbenyega & Sharma, 2014). This understanding would help transform their dispositions toward inclusive education of students with SEND. Without developing teachers, the strong commitment by the Saudi government to making schools inclusive through the mobilization of resources for inclusion would be challenging to achieve. To change this situation, policymakers and school leaders must dialog about policies, activities and practices of inclusion that meet students’ needs in the Saudi context. In addition to resources and policies, training of teachers must include practices that encourage contact with students with SEND. This may contribute novel ways to understanding students’ capabilities with SEND and the best ways to include and support them in comprehensive schools.

Supplemental Material

sj-docm-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440231162056 – Supplemental material for A Dialogical Inquiry of Elementary School Teachers’ Perspectives on Inclusive Education of Students With Special Education Needs and Disability (SEND)

Supplemental material, sj-docm-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440231162056 for A Dialogical Inquiry of Elementary School Teachers’ Perspectives on Inclusive Education of Students With Special Education Needs and Disability (SEND) by Norah Alkhateeb, Abdullah Alrubaian and Deborah Tamakloe in SAGE Open

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors gratefully acknowledge Qassim University, represented by the Deanship of Scientific Research, on the financial support for this research under the number (10165-coe-2020-1-3-I) during the academic year 1442AH/ 2020 AD.

ORCID iDs

Abdullah Alrubaian

Deborah Tamakloe

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Agbenyega

J. S.

Sharma

(2014). Leading inclusive education: Measuring effective leadership for inclusive education through a Bourdieuian Lens. In Measuring inclusive education (International Perspectives on Inclusive Education (Vol. 3, pp. 115–132). In Forlin

Loreman

(Eds.), Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Alexander

(2008). Culture, dialogue and learning: Notes on an emerging pedagogy. In Mercer

Hodgkinson

(Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 91–114). SAGE Publications.

Alnahdi

G. H.

Elhadi

Schwab

(2020). The positive impact of knowledge and quality of contact on university students’ attitudes towards people with intellectual disability in the Arab world. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 106, 103765.

Algraigray

Boyle

(2017). The SEN label and its effect on special education. Educational and Child Psychology, 34(4), 70–79.

Aldabas

R. A.

(2015). Special education in Saudi Arabia: History and areas for reform. Creative Education, 6(11), 1158.

Almalki

Abaoud

(2015). Response to intervention for young children with mild, moderate/severe cognitive disabilities: Literature review. Journal of International Education Research, 11(1), 63–70.

Alnahdi

G. H.

Saloviita

Elhadi

(2019). Inclusive education in Saudi Arabia and Finland: Pre-service teachers’ attitudes. Support for Learning, 34(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12239

Alruwaili

M. A.

(2018). Obstacles facing implementation of inclusion of SEN students in mainstream secondary schools in Saudi Arabia. Scientific Research Journal in Education, 19, 665–684.

Alssissi

(2017). A suggested organizational structure for general education schools applicable to the system of inclusion in the Medina city. Scientific Publishing Council, Kuwait University, 52(125), 299–341.

10.

Alrayss

Algmeay

(2016). Obstacles of the inclusion of deaf and hearing-impaired children in kindergarten from the perspective of their teachers in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation, 4, 8–38.

11.

Bakhtin

(1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Emerson

, Trans. The University of Minnesota Press.

12.

Bhatnagar

Das

(2014). Regular school teachers’ concerns and perceived barriers to implement inclusive education in New Delhi, India. International Journal of Instruction, 7(2), 89–102.

13.

Cardona Moltó

M. C.

Florian

Rouse

Stough

L. M.

(2010). Attitudes to diversity: A cross-cultural study of education students in Spain, England and the United States. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 245–264.

14.

Collins

P. H.

(2016). Shifting the center: Race, class, and feminist theorizing about motherhood. In: Nakano Glenn

Chang

Rennie Forcey

(Eds.), Mothering (pp. 45–65). Routledge.

15.

Danforth

Naraian

(2015). This new field of inclusive education: Beginning a dialogue on conceptual foundations. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 53(1), 70–85.

16.

DeVries

J. M.

Voß

Gebhardt

(2018). Do learners with special education needs really feel included? Evidence from the perception of inclusion questionnaire and strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 83, 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.07.007

17.

Duncan

Punch

Croce

(2021). Supporting primary and secondary teachers to deliver inclusive education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 46(4), 92–107. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2021v46n4.6

18.

Dyer

Löytönen

(2012). Engaging Dialogue: Cocreating communities of collaborative inquiry. Research in Dance Education, 13(1), 121–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647893.2012.640143

19.

Ercikan

(1998). Translation effects in international assessments. International Journal of Educational Research, 29, 543–553.

20.

Farias

(2017). Advancing social transformation through occupation: a critical examination of epistemological foundations, discourses and contextual factors shaping research and practice [Dissertation]. Western University at London.

21.

Farias

Laliberte Rudman

Pollard

Schiller

Serrata Malfitano

A. P.

Thomas

van Bruggen

(2019). Critical dialogical approach: A methodological direction for occupation-based social transformative work. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 26(4), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2018.1469666

22.

Faura-Martínez

Ú.

Cifuentes-Faura

(2022). Building a dynamic indicator on inclusive education in higher education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 37, 690–697. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1929237

23.

Felder

(2021). Celebrating diversity in education and the special case of disability. Educational Review, 73, 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1576590

24.

Frank

A. W.

(Ed.) (2012). Practicing dialogical narrative analysis. SAGE Publications, Inc.

25.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. The Continuum International Publishing Group Inc.

26.

Galheigo

S. M.

(2011). Occupational therapy in the social field: Concepts and critical considerations. In Kronenberg

Pollard

Sakellariou

(Eds.), Occupational therapies without borders (Vol. 2, pp. 47–56). Elsevier Science.

27.

Gibbs

Bozaid

(2022). Conceptualising inclusive education in Saudi Arabia through conversations with special education teachers. Improving Schools, 25, 101–1. https://doi.org/10.1177/13654802211021756

28.

Goering

(2015). Rethinking disability: The social model of disability and chronic disease. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 8(2), 134–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-015-9273-z

29.

Holquist

(2002). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. Psychology Press.

30.

Gómez

Puigvert

Flecha

(2011). Critical communicative methodology: Informing real social transformation through research. Qualitative Inquiry, 17, 235–245.

31.

Gunnþórsdóttir

Jóhannesson

I. Á

. (2014). Additional workload or a part of the job? Icelandic teachers’ discourse on inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(6), 580–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.802027

32.

Harðardóttir

Magnúsdóttir

B. R.

Dillabough

J. A.

(2021). Understanding the politics of inclusion, the ‘refugee’ and nation: Analysis of public policies and teacher narratives in Iceland. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(2), 239–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1707306

33.

Haug

(2017). Understanding inclusive education: Ideals and reality. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 19(3), 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017419.2016.1224778

34.

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. (2017). Saudi Vision 2030 Document. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. https://vision2030.gov.sa/sites/default/files/report/Saudi_Vision2030_EN_2017.pdf

35.

Klibthong

Agbenyega

(2018). Exploring professional knowing, being and becoming through inclusive pedagogical approach in Action (IPAA) framework. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2018v43n3.7

36.

Lauchlan

Boyle

Gibbs

Resing

(2017). Labelling and diagnosis. Educational and Child Psychology, 34(4), 5–8.

37.

Littleton

Mercer

(2013). Interthinking: putting talk to work. Routledge.

38.

Maghrabi

I. A.

(2013). Evaluation of antihypertensive prescribing patterns in the western region of Saudi Arabia and its compliance with national guidelines. Evaluation, 2(2), 118–126.

39.

Makoelle

T. M.

(2014). Pedagogy of inclusion: A quest for inclusive teaching and learning. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(20), 1259–1267. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p1259

40.

Ministry of Education. (2012). Statistical manual of institutes and special education programs for the academic year 2012/2013. Ministry of Education.

41.

Munchan

Agbenyega

(2020). Exploring early childhood educators’ experiences of teaching young children with disability. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 45(3), 280–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1836939120944635

42.

Muzata

K. K.

(2019). Terminological abuse versus inclusion: An analysis of selected terms used to describe persons with disabilities in Luvale. Journal of Lexicography and Terminology, 3(1), 1–32.

43.

Namdar

Shen

(2018). Knowledge organization through multiple representations in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(5), 638–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2017.1376337

44.

Opertti

Walker

Zhang

(2014). L. Florian Inclusive education: From targeting groups and schools to achieving quality education as the core of EFA (2nd ed.). The SAGE Handbook of Special Education SAGE.

45.

Palinkas

L. A.

Horwitz

S. M.

Green

C. A.

Wisdom

J. P.

Duan

Hoagwood

(2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

46.

Rood

C. E.

Ashby

(2017). Developing and maintaining inclusive identities: Understanding student teaching through de Certeau’s framework of tactics and Strategies. Action in Teacher Education, 39(3), 274–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2017.1300957

47.

Rowlands

(2018). Deepening understandings of Bourdieu’s academic and intellectual capital through a study of academic voice within academic governance. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), 1823–1836.

48.

Shor

Freire

(1987). What is the “dialogical method” of teaching? Education Journal, 169(3), 11–31.

49.

Sullivan

(2012). Qualitative data analysis using a dialogical approach. SAGE.

50.

Sullivan

McCarthy

(2005). A dialogical approach to experience-based inquiry. Theory & Psychology, 15(5), 621–638.

51.

Törmänen

M. R. K.

Roebers

C. M.

(2018). Developmental outcomes of children in classes for special educational needs: Results from a longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 18(2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12395

52.

UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF

53.

UNESCO. (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. UNESCO.

54.

Van Someren

Boshuizen

Reimann

de Jong

(1998). Learning with multiple representations. Elsevier.

55.

Zurbriggen

C. L. A.

Venetz

Hinni

(2018). The quality of experience of students with and without special educational needs in everyday life and when relating to peers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(2), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2018.1424777

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB