Factors Influencing Chinese Teachers’ Perceptions of Students with Special Education Needs: A Structural Equation Modeling

Abstract

This study examined teachers’ perceptions and attitudes toward students with special education needs (SEN) in primary and secondary schools in Foshan city located in the Guangdong province. The factors affecting teachers’ perceptions were investigated through a survey with 1,424 participants. The results indicated that the teachers’ perceptions of students with SEN were influenced by gender, age, class teacher role, administrator role, subject taught, type of disability of students, school support resources, and job demands. The findings extended current understanding of the influential factors on teacher’s perception. Moreover, it raised a concern for school level support that will contribute to the building of inclusive environment. Re-examination of the inclusive policy from the perspective of a whole school support approach is recommended.

Keywords

inclusive education teachers’ perception special educational needs student China

Introduction

Inclusive education is encouraged in China as a positive means of including students with SEN (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, 2020), it is necessary to explore the current state of the perceptions and attitudes of Chinese teachers toward students with SEN. Government policies support the implementation of inclusive education, for example, Outline of China’s Plan for Medium- and Long-term Education Reform and Development (2010–2020) (The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China, 2019). Students with disabilities have been protected with the right to receive education under the Compulsory Education Law (Deng & Harris, 2008). In addition, the National Institute of Education Science (2012) has recommended various supportive measures for teachers such as providing supervision and training to teachers and involving professional therapists in a supportive working team.

Although inclusive education is encouraged and promoted by government, local studies reveal that Chinese teachers have a negative attitude toward inclusive education (Yao et al., 2021; Y. X. Zhang, 2016; Y. H. Zhang & Gao, 2014). The negative attitude is caused by the difficulties they experienced in inclusive education, for example, teachers need to teach many students in a class and they feel difficult to take care of diverse learners (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2012; Hu et al., 2017). Moreover, teachers feel that they are fighting alone in inclusive classroom with a low sense of self-efficacy (Yao et al., 2021). In addition, some Chinese teachers reported that they are being forced to practice inclusive education from school leaders (L. Wang et al., 2015).

International literature suggests that teachers with positive attitudes and perceptions of students with special education needs (SEN) are fundamental for effective inclusive education (Seçer, 2010). The teachers’ perceptions and beliefs toward the students, ultimately affects teacher-student relationship (Loreman et al., 2013; Tieman, 2013) and academic performance of students (Hornstra et al., 2010). Moreover, if teachers have negative perceptions toward students with SEN, they will have serious reservations about inclusive education (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). In general, teachers’ perceptions and beliefs are influenced by multiple factors, including (a) training received by teachers, for example, training in the use of recent technological resources and interventions such as augmented reality, virtual reality, and mobile application (Carmona-Serrano, López-Belmonte et al., 2020); (b) teacher’s age or education level (Varcoe & Boyle, 2014); (c) gender differences, for example, female teachers have more positive views toward inclusion (Boyle et al., 2013); (d) the availability of resources including teaching aids or supportive resources such as gamified learning environments and digital resources (Boyle et al., 2012; Carmona-Serrano, López-Belmonte et al., 2020) and (e) class size and educational system (Goldan & Schwab, 2018).

In particular, teacher’s perception of available resources is important since the job demands-resources model (JD-R) highlights that job resources act as a buffering role on the impact of various job demands on teachers who are working in inclusive education (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Goldan & Schwab, 2018). Factors such as teacher’s training and the availability of teaching resources can be considered as valuable job resources (Goldan & Schwab, 2018). The JD-R model states that even if teachers work in a demanding inclusive education environment, they can experience less strain if they perceive enough available resources to meet their needs (Chiner & Cardona, 2013; Goldan et al., 2018).

Meanwhile, few local studies have investigated Chinese teachers’ perception of students with SEN using JD-R model (Yan & Deng, 2019; Yao et al., 2021). A local study conducted by Sun (2013) reveal the importance of manpower and financial support for teachers to launch inclusive education activities. Another study conducted by J. Wang et al. (2022) explore the role of teaching assistants in inclusive education. The results indicate that the provision of teaching assistants alone does not contribute to the successful practice of inclusive education. There is a need for providing other resources such as resource classrooms, inclusive curriculum and inclusive school culture. Hence, there is a need to systematically explore the type of resources that are needed by inclusive teachers and the interactive effect of job demands and resources on teacher’s perception of children with SEN. The primary objectives of the present are to explore (a) Chinese teacher’s perception of students with SEN; and (b) the relationship between job demand, school job resources and teachers’ perceptions of students with SEN.

Literature Review

Job Demands-Resources Model (JD-R)

Teachers’ perceptions of students with SEN can be explained by job demands-resources model (JD-R). The JD-R model states that even if teachers work in a demanding inclusive education role, they can experience less strain if the schools provide them with enough resources to support them (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Demerouti et al., 2001). The model has been used in educational research studies, for example, studies about job stress, school culture and support (Björk et al., 2019), job training in supporting teachers to perform inclusive education (Perera et al., 2019); and team work as supportive resources for teachers (De Neve et al., 2015).

In China, some of the factors influencing teacher’s perceptions and beliefs of students with SEN have been investigated in local studies including (a) class size, workload, and training received by teachers (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2012; Hu et al., 2017; K. Y. H. Mo & Chan, 2021a; Su et al., 2020; (b) the education system such as examination being the only way to evaluate academic performance of students and teachers, which tend to give up the low-performing students because they cannot survive in an exam-elitism system (Xu et al., 2018); (c) child-related factors such as types of disability (Deng & Harris, 2008; Goldan & Schwab, 2020; Hu et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2018); and (d) cultural factors such as stigma and the labeling effect, and the public attitude toward students with SEN (Y. H. Mo & Chan, 2021b).

On the level of local educational research, so far Local Chinese studies reveal that teachers do not have the resources they need to do their inclusive tasks effectively; for example, if they need to teach many students in a class and they feel difficult to take care of diverse learners (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2012; Hu et al., 2017). Chinese teachers feel that they are fighting alone in inclusive classroom with a low sense of self-efficacy (Yao et al., 2021). Moreover, some Chinese teachers reported that they are being forced to practice inclusive education from school leaders (L. Wang et al., 2015). Thus, negative perception toward students with SEN can be viewed as a response to the imbalance between job demands and job resources teachers receive to deal with inclusive education (K. Y. H. Mo & Chan, 2021a).

A teacher’s perception of students with special education needs is also affected by child-related factors (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). In inclusive education context, teacher stress is associated with increased workload and the need to teach diverse learners (L. Wang et al., 2015). For example, children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) exhibit impulsive and distractive behaviors in a classroom (Daley & Birchwood, 2010). Local Chinese studies reveal that teachers have negative perceptions toward students with ADHD because most schools adopt a culture which emphasizes compliance and obedience (Xu et al., 2018). Moreover, students with dyslexia receive less attention or individualized learning support from teachers (Xia, 2016). In addition, most Chinese teachers express that children with mild-grade disabilities can learn and participate in a normal classroom to a greater degree than children with more serious disabilities (Yao et al., 2021). Indeed, the severity of the children’s disabilities influence the teachers’ attempts toward inclusivity in the classroom (Hersman & Hodge, 2010). Teachers tend to support the inclusion of children with mild disabilities (Moberg, 2003). Thus, the perceptions of teachers toward students with SEN emerges as a significant factor influencing their intentions to practice inclusive education (Song et al., 2019).

Among the various types of school support resources, teacher’s training is considered as one of the important job resources (Su et al., 2020). Teachers who are well-prepared to teach students with SEN will have a more positive perception of the students (Seçer, 2010). If the job training opportunities are sufficiently available, teachers will tend to develop a positive attitude toward inclusive education (Ahsan et al., 2012). Another type of important school resource is the support offered by school leaders and colleagues since their support will help reduce teachers’ job stress (Y. Wang, 2021; L. Wang et al., 2015). Moreover, the availability of special education teachers and professionals will help teachers face challenging situations during the teaching process (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Additionally, school authorities managing teacher workloads will eliminate teacher’s work stress (Gunnþórsdóttir & Jóhannesson, 2014). Finally, class size and the development of a specialized inclusive curriculum emerged as important factors influencing teacher’s perception of students with SEN and their self-efficacy to teach these students (Young et al., 2017).

While existing local literature reveal the situation of job demands and job resources in Chinese inclusive school environments (Y. H. Mo & Chan, 2021b; Xu et al., 2018), research into the relationship between job resources and teachers’ perceptions of students with SEN in the local Chinese context is limited. According to Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2018), job demands and job resources can be used as important predictors of teachers’ engagement with inclusive education and their motivation to leave the profession. Therefore, job demands and job resources are used in this study to predict the perception of teachers toward students with SEN. Although the implementation of inclusive education may be considered quite demanding for the professionals, school authorities can pay particular attention to reducing job demands and increasing job resources, ultimately enhancing the positive perception of teachers toward students with SEN (Young et al., 2017). The purpose of the present study is to answer three research questions: (a) Does a teacher’s perception of students with SEN differ based on their gender, age, teaching experiences, education level, special education roles, and subjects taught? (b) Do teachers’ perceptions of students with SEN differ based on the types of disabilities the students have? and (c) Do teacher’s perception of students with SEN positively associates with school support resources and negatively associates with job demands?

Conceptual Framework

In this study, job demands are defined as the workload and teaching tasks faced by teachers in inclusive education environment. Job demands can also be defined as the problems faced by teachers such as child discipline problems, the diversity in the rate of learning among students, lack of school support or role ambiguity (Collie et al., 2012). School job resources are defined as the support provided by schools for teachers to practice inclusive education. The JD-R model explains job demands as the workload, time pressures, and difficulties faced by employees, while job resources as the facilitating resources such as working relationship, mentoring or training which help teachers to achieve their teaching goals and reduce job stress (Salanova et al., 2006; Xanthopoulou et al., 2009). Therefore, this study hypothesizes that if job demands are high and school job resources are low, teachers are more likely to have a negative perception toward students with SEN. The hypotheses of this study are set as the following:

H1: A teacher’s perception of students with SEN differs based on their gender, age, teaching experiences, education level, teachers’ roles, and subjects taught.

H2: A teacher’s perception of a student with SEN differs based on the type of disability the student has.

H3: A teacher’s perception of students with SEN is positively associated with school job resources and negatively associated with job demands.

Methods

A survey was distributed to the primary and secondary school teachers in the schools of Foshan in Guangdong province. Foshan is an economically developed region with rich educational resources in the Pearl River Delta. Since 2016, the Education Bureau has provided integrated education support for primary and secondary schools through the method of studying in regular classes. The second author of the current study has participated in the inclusive education project in Foshan. Thus, the Education Bureau of Foshan supported the current study and helped distribute questionnaires to primary and secondary school.

With the assistance of the Education Bureau, the questionnaires were distributed to 101 schools, including 24 middle schools, 76 primary schools, and one special school. A total of 69 schools responded that they were willing to assist in filling out the questionnaire, including 53 primary schools and 16 secondary schools, yielding a response rate of 68%. In total, 1,423 completed online surveys were returned. Teachers completed an online structured questionnaire over the internet. According to a meta-analysis study conducted by Wu et al. (2022), the average response rates of online surveys in published research is 44.1%. In general, online survey often yield lower response rates than phone surveys or mail surveys because it is difficult to contact potential participants or remind them about the online survey (Wu et al., 2022). The response rate in the current study is moderate and it is uncommon to see a low to moderate survey response rates bias survey results (Rindfuss et al., 2015).

Following the approval from the research ethics committee of a university, the researchers sent a letter to the Education Department of the city, seeking the approval to conduct the survey in schools. The Education Department approved the survey and then sent research information to the school principals. In addition, a letter of invitation and the questionnaire were sent by the Education Department to the school principals. The school principals agreed to participate in the study voluntarily. School teachers could assess the invitation letter and questionnaire only if they agreed to participate in the survey. The letter of invitation explained the objectives of the study, emphasized anonymity and confidentiality, and requested the teachers to return the survey to the researchers directly through email.

Measurement

The questionnaire was comprised of four sections. The total number of questions was 39 and it took around 8 to 10 minutes to finish the questions. Part A covered demographic variables, including teacher’s gender, age, years of teaching experiences, education level, special education roles, and subjects taught.

Part B was a dependent variable measuring teachers’ perception of students with SEN by Hornstra’s scale which was developed by Hornstra et al. (2010). The 10 items were measured on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.” Sample items included “Students often make unnecessary mistakes,” and “Students exhibit more disruptive than other children in the classroom.” A higher score of teacher attitudes indicated a more positive attitude toward SEN. The reliability of the scale with a Cronbach’s alpha of .72.

Part C and D were self-designed measurement scale. Following the scale construction steps suggested by Boateng et al. (2018), first, the items were developed through literature review. Past studies suggested that the job demands faced by teachers, for example, lack of school support or role ambiguity (Collie et al., 2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2015). School job resources, for example, in-service training, colleague relationship or supervision (Su et al., 2020; Y. Wang, 2021; L. Wang et al., 2015). Based on literature review, an initial set of questions were generated, and the assessment of content validity was done through a meeting between two authors. Then, the questions were pre-tested by seeking the opinions of the frontline inclusive education teachers and the number of items were revised and reduced.

Part C was an independent variable measuring job demands. Based on literature review, a self-design scale with 11 items measuring job demands. The scale was measured on a five-point Likert scale from 1 “totally disagree” to 5 “totally agree.” Sample items included “teachers do not have enough time to help students with special education needs,” and “Teachers lack experience in implementing inclusive education.”

Part D was an independent variable measuring school job resources for inclusive education. A self-design scale with 10 items was developed by the researchers. The scale was measured on a five-point Likert scale from 1 “not important” to 5 “very important.” Sample items included “Support from school principal,” and “Support from colleagues.”

Statistical Analysis

First, frequency statistics indicated the participants’ demographic information and characteristics. Second, exploratory factor analysis and internal consistency were performed to explore the factor structure of the questionnaire measuring teachers’ perceptions of students with SEN, job demand and school support resources. Third, the one-way between-subjects ANOVA was employed to understand whether teacher’s perception of students with SEN differed by their gender, age, years of teaching experiences, education level, teachers’ roles, subjects taught, and the types of children disability. Fourth, structural equation modeling was done to investigate the relationship between job demands, school job resources, and perception.

Results

Demographic Statistics

The sample consisted of 1,423 regular primary school (68.2%) and secondary school teachers (31.8%%) of Foshan city in Guangdong Province. A total of male (23.8%) and female (76.2%). Their age ranged between 23 and 55. Demographic data showed that 71.5% of participants had 6 years or more teaching experiences. Only 14.3% of participants had 5 or less than 5 years of teaching experiences. Among the respondents, 85.2% of participants had degree education level. Regarding special education roles, 33.5% of participants needed to perform the role of class teachers, and 25.8% of them perform additional duties of learning in regular class resource support teachers. Besides, the results indicated that male teachers (23%) and female teachers (26%) performed additional duties of learning in regular class resource support. The subjects taught by teachers were mainly Chinese language (38.4%), English language (12.9%), mathematics (18.4%), science (1.8%), and other subjects (28.5%). Regarding the types of disability among the student with special education needs, the respondents indicated that the classes they taught had students with hearing impairment (n = 56), intellectual disability (n = 248), speech impairment (n = 167), physical disability (n = 50), autistic (n = 188), hyperactivity and attention deficit (n = 590), learning difficulty (n = 578), and mental illness (n = 88).

Exploratory Factor Analysis and Internal Consistency

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with a principal component and with Varimax Normalization was performed (Table 1). Inspection of the scree plot and the eigenvalues suggested five factors with eigenvalues greater than one that explained 29.2%, 21.7%, 10.7%, 3.8%, and 3.3% of the total variance. Visual inspection of the scree plot revealed that four components could be used. Factor 1 contained 10 variables and was labeled as “school support resources.” Factor 2 contained 11 variables and was labeled as “job demands.” Factor 3 contained 7 variables and was labeled as “teacher’s perception of students with SEN.” Factor 4 had only one variable with loadings >0.5 and was deleted. Factor 5 did not have any one variable with loadings >0.5 and was also deleted.

Table 1.

Exploratory Factor Analysis.

		Factor
		School job resources	Job demands	Teacher perception	4	5
SR5	Leader support	0.952	−0.039	0.053	0.053	0.007
SR6	Colleague support	0.950	−0.016	0.046	0.056	−0.002
SR7	Parent support	0.936	−0.032	0.041	0.069	0.011
SR3	Professional support	0.926	−0.048	0.076	0.060	0.045
SR4	School culture	0.922	−0.063	0.086	0.056	0.055
SR9	Training	0.916	−0.014	0.024	0.068	−0.018
SR2	Education equipment or facilities	0.884	−0.018	−0.015	0.061	−0.053
SR8	Adjustment of workload	0.864	−0.093	0.132	0.005	0.078
SR10	Classroom environment	0.844	−0.005	0.000	0.057	−0.071
SR1	Adjustment of salary	0.803	−0.088	0.168	−0.028	0.060
JD5	Lack of inclusive knowledge	−0.078	0.860	−0.013	−0.045	−0.073
JD4	Lack of inclusive education experience	−0.059	0.851	−0.001	−0.069	−0.082
JD9	Insufficient equipment or facilities	−0.068	0.847	−0.076	0.041	−0.107
JD8	Large class size	−0.102	0.828	−0.113	−0.005	−0.260
JD7	Insufficient teacher-parent cooperation	−0.064	0.814	−0.075	−0.005	0.150
JD1	Lack of time	−0.053	0.799	−0.124	0.029	−0.229
JD6	Insufficient professional support	0.032	0.788	−0.101	0.029	0.275
JD11	Unacceptance school culture	−0.033	0.779	−0.106	0.027	0.329
JD2	Insufficient colleague cooperation	−0.012	0.751	−0.072	0.009	0.010
JD10	Other students discrimination	0.000	0.750	−0.074	0.013	0.387
JD3	Teacher discrimination	0.041	0.584	0.042	−0.033	0.572
P8	Give up easily	0.092	−0.082	0.725	0.189	0.042
P9	Often make mistakes	0.110	−0.081	0.720	0.252	0.027
P7	Need long time to learn	0.091	−0.080	0.715	−0.141	−0.015
P3	Often has disruptive behavior	0.054	−0.091	0.712	0.167	0.036
P1	Need extra time to take care	0.076	−0.120	0.695	−0.107	0.048
P2	Government lack of support	0.041	−0.108	0.655	−0.206	0.029
P6	Negative expectation of student future	−0.070	0.070	0.571	−0.324	−0.300
P4	Often create extra money burden	0.013	0.029	0.435	0.166	−0.314
P10	Positive expectation of student future	0.109	0.067	−0.051	0.802	−0.122
P5	Positive understanding of student need	0.320	−0.111	0.302	0.481	0.214

Note. Extraction method: Principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization.

Rotation converged in five iterations.

All variables in factor 1 are with loadings from 0.803 to 0.952, factor 2 with loadings from 0.584 to 0.86, and factor 3 with loadings from 0.571 to 0.725. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.927, indicating sufficient items for each factor. Cronbach’s alpha measured internal consistency for factor 1 (α = .975), factor 2 (α = .941), and factor 3 (α = .782), demonstrating good scale reliability. The probability associated with the Bartlett test was p < .001. All diagonals of the anti-image correlation matrix exceeded .5.

Correlation and ANOVA

Correlation analysis indicated that teacher’s perception was significantly correlated (p < .01) with gender (r = .156), subjects taught (r = −.145), class teacher role (r = −.081), administrator role (r = .08). Moreover, teacher’s perception was significantly correlated (p < .01) with all types of children disability namely hearing impaired (r = .092), intellectual disability (r = .258), speech impairment (r = .209), physical disability (r = .104), autistic (r = .223), attention deficit and hyperactivity (ADHD) (r = .291), learning disability (r = .323), mental illness (r = .149). Results revealed that female teachers hold more positive perception than male teachers. Teachers taught language subjects and mathematics hold more positive perception than teachers taught science subjects or other subjects. Teachers performed class teacher role hold more positive perception than teachers who were not class teachers. Teachers performed administrator role hold more negative perception than teachers who were not administrators. Concerning the types of children disability, children with learning disability and ADHD had the highest correlation with teacher’s perception than other types of disability.

Table 2 presented the results of the one-way between-subjects ANOVA to understand whether teachers’ perceptions of students with SEN differed based on their gender, age, teaching experiences, education level, teachers’ roles, subjects taught, and the types of children disability. The results indicated that “gender” [F(1, 1,421) = 35.258, p = .000] “age” [F(5, 1,417) = 3.237, p = .007], “years of teaching experience” [F(4, 1,418) = 1.572, p = .179], “education level” [F(3, 1,419) = 1.635, p = .179], “class teacher role” [F(1, 1,421) = 9.387, p = .002], “resource teacher role” [F(1, 1,421) = 0.111, p = .739], “administrator role” [F(1, 1,421) = 9.066, p = .003], “subject taught” [F(4, 1,418) = 8.364, p = .000] and “type of children disability” [F(4, 1,418) = 5.809, p = .000]. The results demonstrated that gender, age, class teacher role, administrator role, subject taught, and type of disability of students (p < .05) had a significant effect on the teacher’s perceptions of students with SEN. Thus, hypothesis 1, that is, “a teacher’s perception of students with SEN differs based on their gender, age, teaching experiences, education level, teachers’ roles, and subjects taught” was partially supported.

Table 2.

One-Way Between-Subjects ANOVA.

	df1	df2	F	Sig.
Gender	1	1,421	35.258	0.000
Age	5	1,417	3.237	0.007
Teaching experiences	4	1,418	1.572	0.179
Education level	3	1,419	1.635	0.179
Class teacher role	1	1,421	9.387	0.002
Resource teacher role	1	1,421	0.111	0.739
Administrator role	1	1,421	9.066	0.003
Subjects taught	4	1,418	8.364	0.000
Type of children disability	4	1,418	5.809	0.000
Hearing impaired	4	1,418	5.284	0.000
Intellectual disability	4	1,418	33.277	0.000
Speech impairment	4	1,418	21.252	0.000
Physical disability	4	1,418	5.444	0.000
Autistic	4	1,418	21.273	0.000
ADHD	4	1,418	38.873	0.000
Learning disability	4	1,418	46.083	0.000
Mental illness	4	1,418	17.892	0.000

According to the different type of children disability, the results indicated that “hearing impaired” [F(4, 1,418) = 5.284, p = .000]; “intellectual disability” [F(4, 1,418) = 33.277, p = .000]; “speech impairment” [F(4, 1,418) = 21.252, p = .000]; “physical disability” [F(4, 1,418) = 5.444, p = .000]; “autistic” [F(4, 1,418) = 21.273, p = .000]; “attention deficit and hyperactivity (ADHD)” [F(4, 1,418) = 38.873, p = .000]; “learning disability” [F(4, 1,418) = 46.083, p = .000]; “mental illness” [F(4, 1,418) = 17.892, p = .000]. Thus, the results indicated that hypothesis 2, that is, “a teacher’s perception of a student with SEN differs based on the type of disability the student has,” is fully supported.

Structural Equation Modelling

A structural equation modeling was used to examine the H3: A teacher’s perception of students with SEN is positively associated with school job resources and negatively associated with job demands (Figure 1). The results indicated that the model fitted the data well with x/df = 5.91, CFI = 0.959, TLI = 0.952, GFI = 0.904, NFI = 0.951, RMSEA = 0.059, PCLOSE = 0.00. The CR value is 5.833 for school job resources in the prediction of perception is significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed). The CR value is 5.184 for job demand in the prediction of perception is significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed). Inspection of path coefficients revealed that when school job resources go up by 1 standard deviation, perception goes up by 0.176 standard deviations. Besides, when job demand goes up by 1 standard deviation, perception goes down by 0.159 standard deviations. The results supported H3: A teacher’s perception of students with SEN is positively associated with school job resources and negatively associated with job demands.

Figure 1.

A structural equation modeling.

Discussion

The current study aims to identify the factors affecting teacher’s perception of students with SEN. Moreover, it aims to investigate if teacher’s perception of students with SEN positively associates with school job resources and negatively associates with job demands. The results indicate that teacher’s perceptions differ significantly according to the value of gender, age, class teacher role, administrator role, subject taught, and type of disability of students. Furthermore, a teacher’s perception differs significantly based on the type of disability the student has including hearing impaired, intellectual disability, speech impairment, physical disability, autistic, ADHD, learning disability, and mental illness. Thus, H1 teacher’s perception of students with SEN differs based on their gender, age, teaching experiences, education level, teachers’ roles and subjects taught was partially supported, and H2 a teacher’s perception of a student with SEN differs based on the type of disability the student has was fully supported. The results are consistent with past studies that female teachers have more positive views toward inclusion (Boyle et al., 2013) and the roles that they performed such as the class teachers will tend to be more positive in perception (Saloviita, 2022). Moreover, past studies indicate that teachers perform resource teachers role or with experiences of inclusive education will have more positive perception toward students with SEN (Saloviita, 2022), however, the current study yielded different results that teacher’s perceptions did not differ significantly according to the value of resource teacher role. Furthermore, the results indicated that teacher’s perceptions did not differ significantly according to the value of years of teaching experience and education level. The results are consistent with past studies that length of teaching experiences or teacher’s education background are not significant factors in affecting teacher’s perception (Boyle et al., 2013).

A structural equation model was tested to investigate the hypothesis 3 that a teacher’s perception of students with SEN is positively associated with school job resources and negatively associated with job demands. Both school job resources and job demands were latent variables in this model. The model specified two direct paths from school support resources to perception and from job demands to perception. Results indicated that job demand in the prediction of perception is significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed). When school job resources go up by 1 standard deviation, perception goes up by 0.176 standard deviations. Similarly, job demand in the prediction of perception is significant at the 0.001 level (two-tailed). When job demand goes up by 1 standard deviation, perception goes down by 0.159 standard deviations. Thus, H3 is fully supported by the SEM results. The results are consistent with other international studies that JD-R model can be used to explain the relationship between teacher’s perceptions of students with SEN, job demands and school job resources (Björk et al., 2019; Collie et al., 2018). Besides, it confirms with the results of a local study that teachers’ perceptions toward students with SEN is a response to the imbalance between the difficulties they encountered in inclusive education and the availability of job resources (K. Y. H. Mo & Chan, 2021a).

Different types of school job resources have been examined in the current study namely leader support, colleague support, parent support, professional support, school culture, training, education equipment or facilities, adjustment of workload, classroom environment, and adjustment of salary. The results indicated that all of them have positive influence on teacher’s perception of students with SEN and will bring positive influences on teacher’s perception. The results also confirm previous study that team work, in-service training, leader support, colleague support, adjustment of workload, and classroom environment will help teachers develop a more positive perception of the students with SEN (Ahsan et al., 2012; Gunnþórsdóttir & Jóhannesson, 2014; Seçer, 2010; Su et al., 2020; Y. Wang, 2021; L. Wang et al., 2015; Young et al., 2017). The results of the current study further confirms a fact that the provision of school support resources as a facilitator to inclusion (Saloviita, 2022). The findings give rise to an idea that teachers will become more positive toward inclusion if they are provided with sufficient school support resources.

Implications

The implications of the current study are threefold. First, the results of this study help explain the complexities of inclusive education and draw attention to the interactive effect of job demands and problems encountered by teachers in imparting inclusive education and the availability of school support resources. A lack of sufficient school support resources and the high job demands reinforce the negative perception of teachers toward students with SEN. Consistent with international literature, school support resources such as team support, job training, teaching aids, supportive school leaders and positive school culture influence a teacher’s perceptions and beliefs (Boyle et al., 2012; Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2012; K. Y. H. Mo & Chan, 2021a). A study conducted by Malinen et al. (2012) discovered that in-service training increases Chinese teachers’ self-efficacy in inclusive instruction, collaboration with other teachers, and in managing student’s behavior. Ultimately, teachers develop positive attitudes toward inclusive education and students with SEN. Further research studies are needed to explore whether school support resources can help reduce the stress or burnout experienced by Chinese teachers while attempting to impart inclusive education (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, 2008).

Second, school leaders are suggested to make substantive changes in providing school support resources to teachers. This recommendation comes from the assumption that perception of teachers will be changed if they get sufficient and appropriate support resources from schools. Agran et al. (2020) have identified six important conditions of successful inclusion of students with SEN and one of the important conditions is the perception of student’s competency. Thus, positive perception of teachers toward students with SEN can help reduce stigmatization and the labeling effect (Shifrer, 2013). Labeling causes teachers to only see negative sides of students and their disability. The current study echoes local Chinese studies which discover that Chinese teachers face large class size, lack of support from school authorities, and low sense of self-efficacy (Deng & Poon-McBrayer, 2012; Hu et al., 2017), therefore, the school leaders should be responsible for providing enough support for teachers and this will affect their teaching practices, attitudes and behaviors toward the students (Loreman et al., 2013; Tieman, 2013). In addition, policy makers need to pay attention to the support

Third, the result of this study demonstrates that gender, age, class teacher role, administrator role of the teachers, subject taught by them, and type of disability the student has, have a significant impact on the teacher’s perception of a student with SEN. The results are consistent with international literature that suggesting that the teacher’s age, gender and role have a significant effect on their perception toward students with SEN (Varcoe & Boyle, 2014). However, the results indicate that teaching experiences and education level of Chinese teachers do not have a significant effect on the teacher’s perception of students with SEN. But if the teachers are provided with further training on special education in the form of school support resources, it will bring positive influence on their perceptions. This is consistent with the previous empirical findings that experimentation and reflection on teaching through in-service training or mentoring can help teachers develop positive beliefs and actions (Bakkenes et al., 2010; Heikonen et al., 2017). In addition, the findings of this study reveal that the severity of disability influences the teacher’s perception. This is consistent with other local studies that Chinese teachers develop a more positive perception of students with mild-grade disabilities than of children with more severe disabilities (Yao et al., 2021). This confirms that the severity of children’s disabilities influence the teacher’s perceptions (Hersman & Hodge, 2010). Therefore, further research study is needed to answer the question on how to prepare teachers to teach students with severe disabilities in inclusive education and how to support them to teach more difficult students. International studies have explored this question, for example, Aldabas (2020) expresses that preparation programs which aim at enhancing teacher’s collaboration and teamwork skills will increase their self-confidence of teaching students with more severe disabilities, but such research is required in the Chinese context as well.

Conclusion

To conclude, the main contribution of the present study is to outline the current state of the teachers’ perceptions of students with SEN and the factors influencing the same. In China, the development of inclusive education has been promoted by the government and “sui ban jiu du” (learning in regular classroom) has been formed across the country. However, the inclusive education policy brings great challenges to teachers and the school culture is not supportive enough of inclusivity, as indicated in previous empirical studies. The findings of the present study extend our understanding of the influential factors including job demands and school support resources. Inclusive education demands extra time, cooperation between parents and teachers, colleague support, leader support, and extra workload. The inadequacy of school support resources will further increase burden on teachers. Thus, this study raises a concern for school level support that will contribute to the building of inclusive environment. Besides, the need to strengthen the collaboration between parent and teachers, teachers and professionals, teachers, and leaders will help to face the inclusive challenges at all levels. Re-examination of the inclusive policy from the perspective of a whole school support approach is recommended. The results of the current study also suggest two avenues for future research. First, further research studies are needed to investigate the relationship between school support resources and the stress and burnout faced by Chinese teachers while attempting to provide inclusive education. Second, further study is recommended to investigate ways to prepare teachers to teach students with severe disabilities.

Finally, the limitations of the study need to be acknowledged. First, the main aim of the study is to examine the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of students with SEN, job demands and school support resources, and thus, other factors that may impact Chinese teachers’ perceptions may have been overlooked. Second, due to sampling limitations, the results reflect the situation of Chinese teachers in Foshan of Guangdong province only. The results cannot represent the inclusive education status of the whole country. Future research should be extended to investigate the situation of teachers in other provinces.

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: Publication was made possible in part by support from the HKU Libraries Open Access Author Fund sponsored by the HKU Libraries.

Ethical Approval

The first author confirms that the study was approved by the research ethics committee of Department of Social Work, School of Philosophy and Social Development, South China Normal University and certify that the study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Individual participant in the study has been explained the research purpose through the survey invitation letter. Information is anonymized and the submission does not include images that may identify the person.

ORCID iD

Johnson Chun-Sing Cheung

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the first author upon reasonable request.

References

Agran

Jackson

Kurth

J. A.

Ryndak

Burnette

Jameson

Zagona

Fitzpatrick

Wehmeyer

(2020). Why aren’t students with severe disabilities being placed in general education classrooms: Examining the relations among classroom placement, learner outcomes, and other factors. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 45(1), 4–13.

Ahsan

M. T.

Sharma

Deppeler

J. M.

(2012). Exploring pre-service teachers’ perceived teaching-efficacy, attitudes and concerns about inclusive education in Bangladesh. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 8, 1–20.

Aldabas

(2020). Special education teachers’ perceptions of their preparedness to teach students with severe disabilities in inclusive classrooms: A Saudi Arabian perspective. Sage Open, 10(3), 1–14.

Avramidis

Norwich

(2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147.

Bakkenes

Vermunt

J. D.

Wubbels

(2010). Teacher learning in the context of educational innovation: Learning activities and learning outcomes of experienced teachers. Learning and Instruction, 20(6), 533–548.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2017). Job demands-resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 273–285.

Björk

Stengård

Söderberg

Andersson

Wastensson

(2019). Beginning teachers’ work satisfaction, self-efficacy and willingness to stay in the profession: A question of job demands-resources balance? Teachers and Teaching, 25(8), 955–971.

10.

Boateng

G. O.

Neilands

T. B.

Frongillo

E. A.

Melgar-Quiñonez

H. R.

Young

S. L.

(2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6(149), 149–218.

11.

Boyle

Topping

Jindal-Snape

(2013). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in high schools. Teachers and Teaching, 19(5), 527–542.

12.

Boyle

Topping

Jindal-Snape

Norwich

(2012). The importance of peer-support for teaching staff when including children with special educational needs. School Psychology International, 33, 167–184.

13.

Carmona-Serrano

López-Belmonte

Cuesta-Gómez

J. L.

Moreno-Guerrero

A. J.

(2020). Documentary analysis of the scientific literature on autism and technology in web of science. Brain Sciences, 10(12), 985. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10120985

14.

Carmona-Serrano

López-Belmonte

López-Núñez

J. A.

Moreno-Guerrero

A. J.

(2020). Trends in autism research in the field of education in web of science: A bibliometric study. Brain Sciences, 10(12), 1018. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10121018

15.

Chiner

Cardona

M. C.

(2013). Inclusive education in Spain: How do skills, resources, and supports affect regular education teachers’ perceptions of inclusion? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(5), 526–541.

16.

Collie

R. J.

Shapka

J. D.

Perry

N. E.

(2012). School climate and social–emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Education & Psychology, 104, 1189–1204.

17.

Daley

Birchwood

(2010). ADHD and academic performance: why does ADHD impact on academic performance and what can be done to support ADHD children in the classroom? Child Care Health and Development, 36(4), 455–464.

18.

Demerouti

Bakker

A. B.

Nachreiner

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499–512.

19.

De Neve

Devos

Tuytens

(2015). The importance of job resources and self-efficacy for beginning teachers’ professional learning in differentiated instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 47, 30–41.

20.

Deng

Harris

(2008). Meeting the needs of students with disabilities in general education classrooms in China. Teacher and Special Education, 31(3), 195–207.

21.

Deng

Poon-McBrayer

K. F.

(2012). Reforms and challenges in the era of inclusive education: The case of China. British Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 117–122.

22.

Goldan

Schwab

(2020). Measuring students’ and teachers’ perceptions of resources in inclusive education – Validation of a newly developed instrument. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(12), 1326–1339.

23.

Goldan

Schwab

(2018). Measuring Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions of Resources in Inclusive Education Validation of a Newly Developed Instrument, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24, 1326–1339.

24.

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.

25.

Heikonen

Pietarinen

Pyhältö

Toom

Soini

(2017). Early career teachers’ sense of professional agency in the classroom: Associations with turnover intentions and perceived inadequacy in teacher–student interaction. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 45(3), 250–266.

26.

Hersman

B. L.

Hodge

S. R.

(2010). High school physical educators’ beliefs about teaching differently abled students in an Urban Public School District. Education and Urban Society, 42(6), 730–757.

27.

Hornstra

Denessen

Bakker

van Den Bergh

Voeten

(2010). Teacher attitudes toward dyslexia: Effects on teacher expectations and the academic achievement of students with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 515–529.

28.

B. Y.

H. P.

X. Y.

Roberts

S. K.

(2017). An examination of Chinese preservice and inservice early childhood teachers’ perspectives on the importance and feasibility of the implementation of key characteristics of quality inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(2), 187–204.

29.

Loreman

Sharma

Forlin

(2013). Do pre-service teachers feel ready to teach in inclusive classrooms? A four country study of teaching self-efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(1), 27–44.

30.

Malinen

O. P.

Savolainen

(2012). Beijing in-service teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes towards inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 526–534.

31.

Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2020). Ministry of education on strengthening the compulsory education stage of disabled children and adolescents guidance for working in regular classes. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A06/s3331/202006/t20200628_468736.html

32.

Moberg

(2003). Education for all in the north and the South: Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education in Finland and Zambia. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38(4), 417–428.

33.

K. Y. H.

Chan

S. T. M.

(2021a). Critical realist discourse analysis of Chinese parents of children with dyslexia. International Social Work, 66, 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872820972470

34.

Y. H.

Chan

T. M. S.

(2021b). The barriers of the involvement of parents of children with ADHD in schools: The implications for school social work practice in China. Journal of Social Work, 22(4), 915–930. https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2021.1928587

35.

National Institute of Education Science. (2012). Research report on the development of special education schools and the development of Sui Ban Jiu Du classes. Save the Children http://www.savethechildren.org.cn/ie/images/stories/Recource_Center/publication/report_on_learning_in_regular-class.pdf

36.

Perera

H. N.

Calkins

Part

(2019). Teacher self-efficacy profiles: Determinants, outcomes, and generalizability across teaching level. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 58, 186–203.

37.

Rindfuss

R. R.

Choe

M. K.

Tsuya

N. O.

Bumpass

L. L.

Tamaki

(2015). Do low survey response rates bias results? Evidence from Japan. Demographic Research, 32, 797–828.

38.

Salanova

Bakker

A. B.

Llorens

(2006). Flow at work: Evidence for an upward spiral of personal and organizational resources. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 1–22.

39.

Saloviita

(2022). Teachers’ changing attitudes and preferences around inclusive education. International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 69(6), 1841–1858.

40.

Seçer

(2010). An analysis of the effects of in-service teacher training on Turkish preschool teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. International Journal of Early Years Education, 18(1), 43–53.

41.

Shifrer

(2013). Stigma of a label: Educational expectations for high school students labeled with learning disabilities. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54, 462–480.

42.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2018). Job demands and job resources as predictors of teacher motivation and well-being. Social Psychology of Education, 21(5), 1251–1275.

43.

Song

Sharma

Choi

(2019). Impact of teacher education on pre-service regular school teachers’ attitudes, intentions, concerns and self-efficacy about inclusive education in South Korea. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 1–9.

44.

Sun

(2013). A survey of special school teachers’ attitudes to inclusive education. Theory and Practice of Contemporary Education, 5(2), 14–16.

45.

Guo

Wang

(2020). Different stakeholders’ perspectives on inclusive education in China: Parents of children with ASD, parents of typically developing children, and classroom teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(9), 948–963.

46.

The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China. (2019). Equality, participation and sharing: 70 years of protecting the rights and interests of persons with disabilities in the PRC. SCIO. http://www.scio.gov.cn/ztk/dtzt/39912/41159/41170/Document/1660548/1660548.htm

47.

Tieman

J. S.

(2013). Miss Freud returns to the classroom. Schools, 10(1), 91–110.

48.

Varcoe

Boyle

(2014). Pre-service primary teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 323–337.

49.

Wang

H. X.

(2022). An analysis of the function and dilemma of teaching assistants under the background of inclusive education. Journal of Suihua University, 42(4), 115–119.

50.

Wang

Wen

(2015). Teaching practice of physical education teachers for students with special needs: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 62(6), 590–607.

51.

Wang

(2021). Research on inclusive education competence and improvement model of inclusive education teachers. Educational Sciences and Research, 8, 91–96.

52.

M. J.

Zhao

Fils-Aime

(2022). Response rates of online surveys in published research: A meta-analysis. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 7, 100206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2022.100206

53.

Xanthopoulou

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2009). Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources and work engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 235–244.

54.

Xia

(2016). Individualized supporting strategy for students with dyslexia. Mental Health Education in Primary and Secondary School, 24(311), 52–53.

55.

S. Q.

Cooper

Sin

(2018). The ‘Learning in Regular Classrooms’ initiative for inclusive education in China. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(1), 54–73.

56.

Yan

Deng

(2019). Regular education teachers’ concerns on inclusive education in China from the perspective of concerns-based adoption model. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(4), 384–404.

57.

Yao

Liu

Wang

Xin

(2021). Chinese class teachers’ views of the effects of inclusive education for children with developmental disabilities: A qualitative study. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(4), 429–444.

58.

Young

Mannix McNamara

Coughlan

(2017). Authentic inclusion-utopian thinking? – Irish post-primary teachers’ perspectives of inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, 1–11.

59.

Zhang

Y. H.

Gao

Y. X.

(2014). Survey on the acceptance attitudes of teachers, students and parents towards inclusive education in Xinjiang ordinary schools. Chinese Journal of Special Education, 8, 14–20.

60.

Zhang

Y. X.

(2016). Study on the attitude of general primary school teachers towards disabled children attending classes. Journal of Education, 3, 104–113.