Greek mainstream secondary school teachers’ perceptions of inclusive education and of having pupils with complex learning disabilities in the classroom/school

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 24 November 2014, At: 07:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Journal of Special NeedsEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20

Greek mainstream secondary schoolteachers’ perceptions of inclusiveeducation and of having pupils withcomplex learning disabilities in theclassroom/schoolGeorgia‐Gloria Coutsocostas a & Alison Alborz b

a Vocational State School for Individuals with SEN, Alexandreia(Imathia) , Greeceb School of Education , University of Manchester , Manchester, UKPublished online: 03 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Georgia‐Gloria Coutsocostas & Alison Alborz (2010) Greek mainstreamsecondary school teachers’ perceptions of inclusive education and of having pupils with complexlearning disabilities in the classroom/school, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25:2,149-164, DOI: 10.1080/08856251003658686

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856251003658686

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/08856251003658686

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856251003658686

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

European Journal of Special Needs EducationVol. 25, No. 2, May 2010, 149–164

ISSN 0885-6257 print/ISSN 1469-591X online© 2010 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/08856251003658686http://www.informaworld.com

Greek mainstream secondary school teachers’ perceptions of inclusive education and of having pupils with complex learning disabilities in the classroom/school

Georgia-Gloria Coutsocostasa* and Alison Alborzb

aVocational State School for Individuals with SEN, Alexandreia (Imathia), Greece; bSchool of Education, University of Manchester, Manchester, UKTaylor and Francis LtdREJS_A_466377.sgm(Received 22 April 2009; final version received 11 September 2009)10.1080/08856251003658686European Journal of Special Needs Education0885-6257 (print)/1469-591X (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis252000000May [email protected]

The purpose of this study was to examine Greek mainstream secondary schoolteachers’ perceptions of inclusive education and of having pupils with complexlearning disabilities (cLD) in the classroom or school. Participants included 138Greek mainstream secondary school teachers working in inclusive state schools innorthern Greece. Findings indicated that 47.5% of the participants were against theinclusion of all pupils with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream secondaryschools. Three variables were found to be associated with teachers’ attitudes aboutthe inclusion of pupils with cLD: age, years of teaching experience and SEN training.Overall, it is suggested that training, as well as perceived competence and sense ofsupport, were important in influencing teachers’ attitudes about including pupils withcLD in mainstream classrooms. It is proposed that the recent implementation ofinclusive education in Greece and the prevailing rudimentary conditions for itsimplementation might also have had an impact on teachers’ attitudes.

Keywords: teacher attitudes; inclusive education; inclusion; Greek secondaryschool; special educational needs

Introduction

It has often been stated that teachers’ attitudes have an impact on the successful imple-mentation of inclusion (e.g., Avramidis et al. 2000; Avramidis and Norwich 2002;Moberg 2003). Here, ‘inclusion’ or ‘inclusive education’ is defined as the alterationof the educational environment so that all children can participate and reach full poten-tial; accordingly, all children are valued equally and provided with equal opportunitiesat school (Barton 1995; Thomas 1997). Thus, inclusion is more than ‘integration’:inclusion means being a part of the academic and social school environment, ratherthan simply being present in it (Thomas 1997).

In Greece, the recent 3699/2008 Act (Greek Government Official Gazette 2008)emphasises inclusion, stating free compulsory state education should be provided forall children with SEN at every educational level. In mainstream schools, pupils withSEN can attend:

(1) a regular classroom with the support of the classroom teacher,(2) a regular classroom with the support of a specialist teacher, or

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

150 G.G. Coutsocostas and A. Alborz

(3) an ‘integration unit’.1

A recent document indicated that the district of Thessaloniki – Greece’s second larg-est city after Athens – had 37 secondary mainstream schools operating integration units(Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs 2007). According to the local educationauthority for secondary education, the first integration unit in Thessaloniki was foundedin 2002 (Greek Government Official Gazette 2002). Vlachou (2006) describes the Greekintegration unit as similar to the British system of part-time withdrawal in a learningsupport base, or the American equivalent of a resource or pull-out programme.

Pupils with SEN in Greece represent approximately 10% of the student population(Greek Government Official Gazette 1994) and pupils with learning disabilities (LD)are the second largest category of pupils with SEN (Pedagogical Institute 2004).Pupils with LD have: ‘a significantly reduced ability to understand new or complexinformation, to learn new skills (impaired intelligence) [and]…to cope independently(impaired social functioning); [all have] started before adulthood, with a lasting effecton development’ (Department of Health 2001, 14). Pupils with complex learningdisabilities (cLD) also have additional disabilities, such as physical and/or sensoryimpairments and/or epilepsy. Increasingly, pupils with cLD now continue from main-stream elementary schools into mainstream junior high schools. The abbreviation cLDwill be used in this article when referring to such pupils.

Literature review

Attitudes of mainstream teachers towards inclusion of pupils with SEN in mainstreamschools and classrooms have been found to vary. Some studies (Bender et al. 1995;Avramidis et al. 2000; Kuyini and Desai 2006) revealed positive attitudes towardsinclusive education. For example, the majority of teachers in Opdal et al.’s (2001)study thought that pupils with SEN should have an opportunity to attend mainstreamschools and according to Heiman’s (2001) sample, 82% of middle school teachersfavoured inclusion. However, two studies demonstrated that, although inclusion wasaccepted in principle, there were concerns with regard to its practice (Moberg 2003;Anderson et al. 2007).

Two literature reviews examined regular teachers’ beliefs on inclusion. BothScruggs and Mastropieri (1996) and Avramidis and Norwich (2002) concluded thatmainstream teachers supported the concept of inclusion. However, their willingness toapply inclusion depended on the nature of the disability and other educational envi-ronment-related variables (e.g., other teacher obligations or availability of supportservices).

On the other hand, some research has demonstrated mainstream teachers’ negativeattitudes towards inclusion. In Hudson, Graham and Warner’s (1979) study, teachersdemonstrated unfavourable attitudes towards inclusion linked to perceived lack oftime, support or training in SEN. In another study (Knoff 1985), all teachers consid-ered special education classrooms to be more effective and preferable to mainstreamclassrooms. However, this again related to the teachers’ perceived lack of skills forhelping pupils with SEN. These findings suggest that the underlying reasons for theseteachers’ negative feelings were connected to either environmental (lack of support)or personal (lack of time or training) factors.

Barnartt and Kabzems (1992) reported that Zimbabwean teachers had a lowlevel of acceptance of pupils with SEN. The researchers attributed this to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

European Journal of Special Needs Education 151

negative concept of disability in that country. While Vaughn et al. (1996) found thatthe majority of the teachers they studied had strong negative views on inclusion, andfelt that decision-makers were out of touch with classroom reality. The educators wereconcerned with the implications and demands that the inclusion of pupils with SENwould have on them and the academic success of all pupils. Although deBettencourt’s(1999) study focused on pupils with mild disabilities, she also demonstrated that overhalf of the participating teachers either disagreed with inclusion, or lacked strong feel-ings about it. Van Reusen et al. (2000) found that over half of the high school teachersin their US survey reported negative attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils withSEN. The reasons provided were that pupils with SEN would have a negative impacton the learning environment, quality of learning and instruction delivery.

Greek studies include two comparative studies of teachers’ attitudes towards theinclusion of pupils with SEN, the first between specialist teachers and regular teachers(Padeliadu and Lampropoulou 1997) and the second between specialist teachers regu-lar teachers and teachers of the deaf (Lampropoulou and Padeliadu 1997). In bothstudies, regular teachers demonstrated more positive views than their colleagues.Koutrouba et al. (2008) found slightly over half of their secondary mainstream schoolteachers favoured inclusion of pupils with SEN. In all three studies, authorscommented on humanistic ideals having influenced their subjects’ partiality. On theother hand, Padeliadu (1995) found that Greek regular teachers felt inadequatelyqualified to teach pupils with SEN, while Bardis (1993) stated that Greek teachersgenerally exhibited negative attitudes towards inclusion.

While the studies above referred to teachers’ attitudes about inclusion of pupilswith SEN, other studies have focused solely on the inclusion of pupils with LD. InThomas’ (1985) comparative study between England and the US, the researcherreported the balance of opinion was against the inclusion of pupils with LD. However,regular teachers’ attitudes were more positive when they perceived themselves ascompetent and when the contact special education support proved ‘very helpful’.Gilmore et al. (2003) compared Australian teachers’ and community members’ atti-tudes on the inclusion of pupils with Down’s syndrome. They reported that althoughteachers acknowledged educational, social and emotional benefits for all pupils,approximately one third felt that pupils with Down’s syndrome should be educated inspecial schools. This inconsistency was thought to have occurred due to the perceivedlack of support and resources in regular classrooms. Thus, the literature on teachers’views on the inclusion of pupils with LD in mainstream schools (Thomas 1985;Gilmore et al. 2003), suggests the factors linked with negative attitudes are aperceived lack of competence and/or support/resources.

Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion were also considered to be affected by theseverity of the disability. The majority of high school teachers in a Cypriot studyreported that both type and severity of disability influenced the process of inclusion(Koutrouba et al. 2006). Forlin (1995) also suggested the acceptance of pupils withSEN declined as the severity increased. In addition, literature reviews (Scruggs andMastropieri 1996; Avramidis and Norwich 2002) have concluded that teachers weremore willing to include pupils with mild disabilities than pupils with severe orcomplex needs. Similarly, inclusion of pupils with multiple disabilities or severe LDwas not favoured by most teachers in two studies (Center and Ward 1987; York andTundidor 1995), while segregated placement was preferred by the majority of teach-ers in other studies (Jahnukainen and Korhonen 2003; Moberg 2003; Koutroubaet al. 2006).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


Purpose of the study

The main objective of the present study was to examine Greek mainstream secondaryschool teachers’ perceptions about both inclusive education in general and their exper-tise in and experience of having pupils with cLD in the classroom or school. Severalteacher-related variables (gender, age, years of general teaching experience, level ofeducation, SEN/cLD training, classroom experience with pupils with cLD and teach-ing specialty) were included to examine their influence on teachers’ perceptions.

Methodology

Sample

The sample consisted of 138 secondary school teachers from 17 schools registered ashaving integration units (15 junior high schools and two high schools) in the prefec-ture of central Macedonia. Fourteen of the selected schools were located in the urbanareas of Thessaloniki and the remaining three in the rural areas of Veroia, Katerini andPella. Teachers from these schools were selected as the sample for this study becausethey were considered likely to have had experience with the inclusion of pupils withSEN. All 695 teachers in the participating schools were invited to take part in thestudy. The return rate of the questionnaires was 20.4% of those teachers.

Two thirds of the participants were female, and were quite equally distributed intothree age groups (thirties, forties and fifties). Teaching experience was separated intofive-year groupings, each with approximately the same number of teachers. The high-est percentage of teachers (23.4%) had six–10 years of experience. Nearly half theparticipants had a degree in the social sciences (48.9%), while the vast majority helda bachelor’s degree (86.2%). Seven out of 10 participants claimed previous experiencewith pupils with cLD; of these, 41.3% currently had a pupil with cLD in their class-room. Approximately eight out of 10 of these teachers had worked with pupils withcLD for fewer than three years. This was not surprising, since the oldest integrationunits in the surveyed schools were founded in 2002 (two schools), and the most recentin 2007 (two schools).

More than half (n=74) said they had no training in SEN. Out of those who had(n=64), most (66.7%) had received only one kind, namely a few hours of seminars(n=40). The results were similar when all participants were asked to identify theirtraining in cLD. However, the number of teachers who had no training was higher(n=98). Most of those with training in cLD received only one kind (73.7%); again, afew hours of seminars was indicated (n=30).

Instrument

The questionnaire, based on an extensive literature review, consisted of three parts.Part 1 (9 items) referred to participants’ qualifications. Part 2 (24 items) covered theissue of knowledge about cLD and required a definition of inclusion, perceived capa-bilities and support for inclusive education, satisfaction and comfort with includingpupils with cLD, and attitudes to the inclusion of pupils with SEN and cLD. The thirdpart (one closed and three open-ended questions) enquired about teachers’ thoughts onsuccessful implementation of inclusion in Greece and invited teachers to suggest themain benefit, drawbacks and recommendation for inclusive education. All questionswere answered by every participant (n=138), except for two questions on support for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


teaching pupils with cLD, which were aimed only at participants with classroom expe-rience of pupils with cLD (n=96). The questionnaire targeted a group that is rarelyasked about their perceptions, especially regarding the inclusion of pupils with cLD.

Data collection and data analysis

A questionnaire survey was chosen because it has many advantages, especially whenseeking participants’ attitudes (Robson 2002). Besides answering closed questions,the participants in this study were also given the opportunity to elaborate on theirpersonal views in several open-ended questions. Two groups of teachers were askedto pilot the questionnaire at two different time periods (March and October 2007).Responses and comments from the teachers were taken into account when forming thefinal version of the questionnaire, which was distributed to the selected schoolsbetween December 2007 and February 2008.

Each school was visited during a break between classes, and the head teachers andteachers were informed about the aim of the survey by the first author; some question-naires were given to those present. The participants could leave their completedanonymised questionnaires in sealed envelopes in a closed receptacle. Two weekslater – an adequate time for questionnaire completion (Bell 2005) – the receptacleswere collected.

The data was analysed using the SPSS 15.0 program. In addition to descriptivestatistics, correlations of variables to the teachers’ perceptions were analysed using thechi-square (p < 0.05). When analysing the open-ended questions, categories werecreated deriving from the data. The coding of comments from all participants who hadanswered individual open-ended questions generated a number of themes for eachitem. These were then refined into a smaller set of categories (Robson 2002). Thismethod has the advantage of not imposing the researcher’s interests on data and ofincorporating the diversity of participant responses (Munn and Drever 1999).

Results

Questions aimed at all participants (n=138)

Knowledge and abilities regarding inclusive education and teaching pupils with cLD

Teachers were asked to define the term ‘inclusive education’ in an open-ended ques-tion. One third of the participants did not give a definition, were uncertain of the termor misinterpreted the meaning. The remaining answers (n=84) to this question weregrouped into three categories. More than half of the teachers offering an opinion(58.3%) defined inclusive education as ‘integration’:

In a general, ‘normal’ classroom, there are also pupils with cLD. They are taught theclassroom lessons in the same way (Teacher 87).

Furthermore, 21% of these teachers (n=84) provided a definition of ‘inclusion’commensurate with that given in this study (see above), while the remaining 20.3%gave descriptions of teaching strategies for the education of children with cLD inmainstream classrooms. These descriptions suggested both ‘full inclusion’ and‘integration unit’ models.

Moreover, most teachers (77.5%) did not feel confident describing what ‘complexlearning disabilities’ meant. Not surprisingly, those with training in SEN felt more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


confident than those without (χ2 = 18.390, p = 0.001). While the difference betweenthose with and without cLD training was not statistically significant, those withtraining tended to feel somewhat more confident (χ2 tending towards significance;χ2 = 9.332, p = 0.053).

Seven out of 10 participants did not feel capable of teaching a class includingpupils with cLD. Six in 10 felt SEN training was more important than general teachingexperience in enabling them to teach these children. Training in SEN (χ2 = 11.965,p < 0.05) and specific training in cLD (χ2 = 28.071, p < 0.001) enabled teachers to feelmore capable of teaching pupils with cLD. Additionally, teachers who had experienceof pupils with cLD in the classroom considered themselves more capable than thosewithout (χ2 = 15.975, p < 0.01).

Attitudes towards inclusive education and having pupils with cLD in theclassroom/school

Approximately half (47.5%) of the participants were against the inclusion of all pupilswith SEN in mainstream schools, while almost one in three indicated they did not havea clear opinion about this issue. When asked if inclusive education was successfullyimplemented in Greece, a large majority (79.5%) thought that it was not. Additionally,40.8% thought inclusive education for all pupils with SEN was not an achievable goalwith, again, one in three remaining undecided.

Responses to the open-ended questions on the main benefit and drawback of inclu-sive education and recommendations were influenced by several survey questionsreferring to pupils with cLD. The number of respondents varied per question becauseof missing responses; in each case the percentage was calculated according to thenumber of replies.

For most teachers (66.3%), inclusive education entailed benefits for the pupilswith cLD (see Table 1 below). The quotation below was typical of many writtencomments:

Their contact with children who don’t face the same kind of problems and their accep-tance by them [typically developing children], which results in their socialisation(Teacher 79).

Fewer than one in five teachers (17.8%) denoted benefits for everyone involved:

The social inclusion of these pupils and the ‘social education’ of the other children(Teacher 38).

Regarding the drawbacks of inclusive education, nearly half (48.5%) appeared tothink that either the pupil with SEN/cLD was the problem, because s/he made theeducational procedure difficult or lacked the competence to follow the lesson, orsimply that there were no benefits (see Table 1):

He cannot follow and understand the curriculum; sometimes his attention is distractedand he imposes on or bothers the others. (Teacher 116).

However, approximately one third (36%) of the participants noted the lack ofprovision for pupils with SEN/cLD as a major drawback (i.e., lack of available time,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


individualisation, modifications, training, support and collaboration; see Table 1). Thecomment below was typical of this group:

Lack of teacher training. Lack of help in special education ‘issues’ (Teacher 13).

In relation to recommendations, although one in four teachers made a detrimentalcomment about inclusive education (i.e., gave negative remarks or envisaged inclu-sion only for some), nearly half (46%) suggested recommendations, such as training,collaboration/support or changes in the educational system, could improve implemen-tation of inclusive education (see Table 2):

I would like more collaboration with specialist teachers and others who are trained insuch problems (Teacher 35).

Approximately one third of the teachers agreed that pupils with cLD should go tospecial schools, but the highest percentage (39.4%) neither agreed/nor disagreed. The

Table 1. The main benefits and drawbacks of inclusive education.

Benefits (N=95) n %

The socialisation of pupils with cLD 37 38.9The inclusion (instead of marginalisation) of pupils with cLD in the school

and/or community26 27.4

Social benefits for both pupils with cLD as well as typically developing peers

17 17.8

The understanding and acceptance of diversity 6 6.4Negative comments/no advantages 5 5.3Humanitarian gains 4 4.2

Drawbacks (N=103)The lack of provision for pupils with SEN/cLD (i.e., lack of available time,

individualisation, modifications, training, support and collaboration)37 36

The actual pupil with SEN/cLD, either because s/he made the educational procedure difficult or lacked the competence to follow the lesson

32 31

No benefits for pupils with cLD or their typically developing peers (or both)

18 17.5

The lack of sensitivity and acceptance from the social environment 14 13.6No drawbacks 2 1.9

Table 2. The main recommendations for inclusive education.

Recommendations (N=98) n %

Negative comments/inclusion for some depending on the severity of the disability 26 26.5More implementation of inclusion, continuation of the integration unit model, or

use of the full inclusion model24 24.5

Training of mainstream teachers 19 19.4More collaboration and support (with and from specialists) 13 13.3Changes in the educational system (i.e., infrastructure, curriculum, organisation) 13 13.3A more humanitarian stance 3 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


younger teachers (χ2 = 31.992, p = 0.001), those with fewer than 15 years of teachingexperience (χ2 = 38.356, p < 0.05) and those with SEN training (χ2 = 9.490, p = 0.05),were more in favour of inclusion of pupils with cLD.

When asked specifically about pupils with cLD, only 30.6% of teachers felt‘very’ or ‘quite’ satisfied about having pupils with cLD in the school or classroom.However, 57.5% said that the presence of pupils with cLD in the school or class-room did not make them feel uncomfortable (‘no, not really’ or ‘no, not at all’).Teachers without training in cLD felt more uncomfortable than those with training(χ2 = 28.606, p < 0.001).

Participants were asked to describe why they felt comfortable or uncomfortableabout the presence of pupils with cLD in the school or classroom. In summation, ofthose who felt uncomfortable, most (67.3%) believed it was due to their own lack oftraining or competence. For example:

Due to the lack of any training in this field, many times I don’t feel prepared to handleproblems that may derive from ‘inclusive education’ (Teacher 52).

Of those who felt comfortable, 40% felt that the pupils with cLD had a right to aneducation:

Every child/pupil is worthy and has the right to knowledge/education (Teacher 33).

Regarding the educational placement of pupils with cLD and profound intellectualimpairment, the vast majority (89.9%) thought they should go to special schools.Teachers holding a master’s degree agreed less with this concept than teachers with abachelor’s degree (χ2 = 11.682, p < 0.05). Furthermore, the majority (67.9%) statedthat the severity of the disability affected the implementation of inclusive educationfor pupils with cLD.

Questions aimed only at participants with classroom experience of pupilswith cLD (n=96)

Support for teaching pupils with cLD

Three-quarters of the teachers felt they did not receive support for teaching pupils withcLD, with almost half saying ‘no, not at all’. Teachers without SEN training weremore likely to feel this way (χ2 = 11.017, p < 0.05). By the same token, almost twiceas many teachers without—as opposed to with—training in, cLD believed no supportwas provided (χ2 = 20.795, p < 0.001). Most of those who stated they had receivedsupport indicated it had come from specialist teachers (47.1%).

Discussion

Knowledge, abilities and support regarding inclusive education andteaching pupils with cLD

Definition of inclusive education

As reflected elsewhere in the literature (York and Tundidor 1995; Vaughn et al.1996), approximately one third of all participants appeared relatively unfamiliar withthe actual term ‘inclusive education’, while more than half of the remaining teachers(58.3%) defined inclusive education as ‘integration’. The teachers’ unfamiliarity with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


the term and imprecise definition may have been due to the rudimentary provisionand support in inclusive education in Greece; that is, the findings of this research mayreflect the participants’ lack of SEN training and the early stage of development ofinclusive education in Greece. Under these circumstances, many teachers may nothave been capable of envisaging true inclusion (and many did not foresee it happen-ing).

Ability to teach and confidence describing cLD

Two types of teacher efficacy have been identified (Moeller and Ishii-Jordan 1996):personal teaching efficacy (teachers’ beliefs in their own individual abilities and skillsto positively affect pupils’ learning), and general teaching efficacy (teachers’ beliefsin their professional role as teachers to constructively affect pupils’ learning).

This study focused on personal teaching efficacy and revealed that seven in 10teachers did not feel capable of teaching pupils with cLD. This was a high percentageand a significant finding in relation to the promotion of inclusive education in Greece,because it has been shown that teachers who perceived themselves competent inteaching pupils with SEN appeared to have positive attitudes towards inclusion(Avramidis et al. 2000). This perceived lack of ability may be one reason for manyteachers’ negativity towards the inclusion of pupils with cLD.

It was also found that training in SEN/cLD and classroom experience with pupilswith cLD increased teachers’ confidence in teaching pupils with cLD. Personal teach-ing efficacy can be influenced by additional training (Moeller and Ishii-Jordan 1996),but as the majority of participants in this study had not received any training in SENor cLD, it appears reasonable that they did not feel adept at teaching pupils with cLD.

The participants’ perceived lack of capability was consistent with two studies inwhich the majority of regular school teachers did not feel adequately skilled (Knoff1985) or qualified (Padeliadu 1995) to teach pupils with SEN. However, neither studyreferred to the teachers’ level of SEN training, so a broad conclusion could not bedrawn that general teachers felt this way due to insufficient SEN training. Similarly,when reviewing relevant studies, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) found that onlyapproximately one third of the participants agreed mainstream teachers had sufficientexpertise or training for mainstreaming.

Support for teaching pupils with cLD

Two types of support services have been described: material and personnel (McNallyet al. 2001; Vanderpuye et al. 2006). Three-quarters of the teachers in this study feltthey did not have adequate support for teaching pupils with cLD, nearly halfindicating absolutely no support. Similarly, most Greek mainstream secondary schoolteachers in Koutrouba et al.’s study (2008) also stated that both the existing infrastruc-tural equipment and the financial resources relevant to inclusion were highly insuffi-cient. Furthermore, Lampropoulou and Padeliadu (1995) draw attention to thecomplete lack of support services within the structure of the Greek mainstreamschools. These findings are important given that support services have been found tobe vital for influencing teachers’ attitudes (Vanderpuye et al. 2006).

Analogous findings have been reported in other countries including the unavail-ability of support services for teaching children with SEN (Hudson et al. 1979;Prochnow et al. 2000); dissatisfaction with the support services (Center and Ward

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


1987); and unavailability of personnel services and inadequate material support(Vanderpuye et al. 2006).

Others have determined mainstream teachers perceived additional personnelsupport important for the successful inclusion of pupils with different levels of LD(McNally et al. 2001). The majority of the participants in this Greek research studywho stated they had support teaching pupils with cLD indicated that the personnelproviding support were specialist teachers. Likewise, Schumm and Vaughn (1992)concluded that mainstream teachers were most likely to ask the specialist teacher forhelp with meeting the needs of pupils with SEN.

Feelings about inclusive education and having pupils with cLD in theclassroom/school

Attitudes towards pupils with SEN. This study found that almost one in two Greeksecondary school teachers working in inclusive mainstream schools was against inclu-sion of all children with SEN. Other studies have also demonstrated regular teachers’unfavourable attitudes towards inclusion (e.g., Vaughn et al. 1996; deBettencourt1999; Van Reusen et al. 2000). These findings, however, contradicted other Greekfindings where: (a) the majority of Greek mainstream secondary school teachers werepositive about the inclusion of pupils with SEN (Koutrouba et al. 2008), and (b) Greekmainstream primary school teachers appeared to hold more favourable views towardsinclusion than their specialist colleagues (Lampropoulou and Padeliadu 1997;Padeliadu and Lampropoulou 1997). A possible reason for the contradiction betweenthis research study and these three Greek studies could be that in the latter, the main-stream teachers had no professional experience of inclusion2 and thus may haveexpressed views from a more theoretical or humanitarian perspective.

Additionally, eight in 10 participants in this research study did not think inclusiveeducation was being successfully implemented in Greece, nor did many believe theinclusion of all pupils with SEN was an achievable goal. Lack of provision for pupilswith SEN in mainstream schools (suggested by several teachers in this study as adrawback to inclusion), limited experience of SEN and lack of training could all havehad an impact on attitudes regarding both the present successful implementation ofinclusion as well as future efforts. Greek mainstream secondary school teachers in thisstudy were rather negative regarding inclusion, indicating pessimism both at practicaland theoretical levels. This study contradicts the conclusion drawn by Anderson et al.(2007) that teachers felt inclusion was ‘acceptable in principle’, but confirms thatGreek teachers felt it was ‘doubtable in practice’.

Attitudes towards pupils with cLD

Approximately one third of the teachers agreed that pupils with cLD should go tospecial schools. Similarly, Gilmore et al. (2003) found about one in three regularteachers thought that pupils with Down’s syndrome should be educated in specialschools.

Positive feelings towards the inclusion of pupils with cLD were found to be linkedto teachers’ younger age, fewer years of general teaching experience and receipt ofSEN training. Correspondingly, other studies have demonstrated that more positiveattitudes were found among younger teachers (Leyser et al. 1994; Padeliadu andLampropoulou 1997; Balboni and Pedrabissi 2000), and teachers with the fewest

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


years of teaching experience (Center and Ward 1987; Leyser et al. 1994; Forlin 1995;Padeliadu and Lampropoulou 1997). Research has also confirmed the positive influ-ence of training on teachers’ perceptions (Avramidis et al. 2000; Heiman 2001;Kuyini and Desai 2006). Perhaps this study’s younger teachers were influenced by amore modern concept of disability and were better prepared to teach such pupils.

Only one third of teachers felt satisfied about having pupils with cLD in theclass or school. However, over half of the participants responded affirmatively thatthey felt comfortable having pupils with cLD in the classroom or school, with thehighest percentage saying that pupils with cLD had a right to education and/or bepart of the class. The difference between level of satisfaction and comfort could beinterpreted to mean that although personally the teachers did not feel uncomfortablehaving pupils with cLD in the classroom or school, professionally they were notsatisfied with the available provision, support or their own perceived competence.The teachers’ low rate of satisfaction could also be linked with the majority ofteachers stating inclusive education was not being implemented successfully inGreece. Both seemed to confirm that optimal conditions for inclusive education donot yet exist in Greece.

Where teachers were without training in cLD, they tended to feel more uncomfort-able with pupils with cLD. This may indicate that – besides benefiting the pupils –training also provides teachers with teaching methods and classroom strategies thatencourage expansion of their own comfort zones. Most respondents in Moberg’s study(2003) appeared to corroborate this study’s findings, indicating that inclusionenhances social justice.

There was a consensus of opinion (89.9%) that pupils with cLD – includingprofound intellectual impairment – should go to special schools. Bowman (1986) alsofound that fewer than 10% of her participants felt children with severe LD andmultiple disabilities could be managed in ordinary classes. Moreover, other studiesindicated that general education teachers were against the inclusion of pupils withsevere LD (Koutrouba et al. 2006) or pupils with multiple disabilities (Center andWard 1987). In this study, teachers with a higher level of education (a master’sdegree) were more supportive of the inclusion of pupils with cLD and profound intel-lectual impairment, confirming other research (Gilmore et al. 2003; Dupoux, Wolmanand Estrada 2005) that concluded that those with a higher educational degree hadmore favourable attitudes towards inclusion. Higher levels of education, therefore,may have provided the participants with more open-minded and progressiveeducational knowledge regarding teaching practices incorporating inclusion.

The majority stated the severity of the disability affected the implementation ofinclusive education for pupils with cLD. This finding is mirrored in the literaturewhere, as the severity of the disability increased, participants recommended moresegregated environments (Bowman 1986; Center and Ward 1987; Moberg 2003) andwere less willing to include the pupils with severe and complex disabilities (Scruggsand Mastropieri 1996; Avramidis and Norwich 2002).

Benefits, drawbacks and recommendations for inclusive education

Many teachers stated that inclusive education had social benefits for the pupils withcLD. Other studies have also reported this finding (Gilmore et al. 2003; Andersonet al. 2007). In this research, only 17.8%, and in Heiman’s study (2001) even fewer(7.8%), professed benefits for all pupils. It should be noted that fewer than one in five

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


teachers in this survey incorporated the concept of ‘inclusion’ when describing thebenefits of inclusive education.

The main drawback of inclusive education, mentioned by over a third of the teach-ers, referred to the lack of provision for pupils with SEN/cLD (i.e., lack of availabletime, individualisation, modifications, training, support and collaboration). Similarcategories were reported by others with regard to time-constraint issues (Andersonet al. 2007), support (Heiman 2001) and collaboration (York and Tundidor 1995).Another third of the teachers in this study thought that the pupils with SEN/cLD them-selves were a problem, either because they made the educational procedure difficultor lacked the competence to follow the lesson. Anderson et al. (2007) also refer tosome teachers denoting disadvantages related to learning.

When asked specifically for the advantages of inclusion, very few declared therewere none, but several (17.5%) stated there were no benefits for pupils with cLD orpeers (or both). Heiman (2001) also mentioned that 12.1% of his mainstream teachersfelt there were no advantages at all. This suggests that almost half (48.5%) of theGreek mainstream secondary school teachers in inclusive schools felt either that thepresence of the pupil with SEN/cLD was detrimental, or that there were no benefits toinclusion whatsoever. This substantiates the finding that nearly one in two of theparticipants was against inclusion.

Nearly half (46%) of the teachers gave recommendations, such as training, collab-oration/support, or changes in the educational system, that they believed wouldimprove the implementation of inclusive education. These recommendations werealso mentioned by general teachers in other studies; for example, training (e.g.,Avramidis et al. 2000), collaboration/support (e.g., York and Tundidor 1995) andchanges in the educational system (Opdal et al. 2001). However, it is interesting tonote that in other studies, many more teachers referred to the need for training(Bowman 1986; Padeliadu 1995; Avramidis et al. 2000; Koutrouba et al. 2008). Asthe majority of teachers in this survey lacked SEN/cLD training, it is surprising thatfew recommended it. This indicated they did not seem willing to learn about specialeducation issues.

Conclusions

This study found Greek mainstream secondary school teachers tended to exhibit nega-tive attitudes towards the inclusion of all pupils with SEN on both theoretical andpractical levels. Most teachers’ conceptualisations of the term reflected ‘integration’rather than ‘inclusion’, an outlook that could be construed as a barrier to the successfulimplementation of inclusive education. One third of the total number of participantswas not in favour of the inclusion of pupils with cLD, while the vast majority indi-cated pupils with cLD and profound intellectual impairments should attend specialschools; both the type and severity of the disability influenced teachers’ attitudestowards the inclusion of all pupils.

Younger teachers’ ages, fewer years of teaching experience and receipt of SENtraining were found to be associated with positive attitudes towards the inclusion ofpupils with cLD. Training was most frequently found to influence perceptions regard-ing pupils with cLD. SEN and/or cLD training was related to participants feeling:more confident about describing cLD, partial towards the inclusion of pupils withcLD, comfortable having pupils with cLD in the classroom/school, capable of teach-ing pupils with cLD and adequately supported. Thus, overall it could be suggested that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


training, as well as perceived competence and a sense of support,3 substantiallyinfluenced teachers’ attitudes about including pupils with cLD.

Another factor which may have influenced teachers’ perceptions was the recentimplementation of inclusion in mainstream and the current rudimentary level ofsupport provided for inclusive education in Greece at the secondary level. The Greekspecial education system has been said to lack support services, materials, personnel,programmes (Lampropoulou and Padeliadu 1995), infrastructural equipment andfinancial resources (Koutrouba et al. 2008).

The first author’s experience suggests that the majority of specialist secondaryschool teachers are either substitute or part-time teachers who are not often hired atthe beginning of the school year due to funding shortages. In addition, it has beensuggested that, due to the prominence of the integration unit model in Greece, mostgeneral teachers believe the actual education of pupils with SEN lies with the special-ist teacher (Padeliadu and Lampropoulou 1997; Lampropoulou and Padeliadu 1997).This combination often results in a lack of collaboration between mainstream andspecialist teachers.

With the traditional Greek education system requiring schools to follow acommon policy implementing a set national curriculum, whole-class instruction,identical textbooks, similar timetables, a heavy secondary school syllabus and ateacher-centred didactic philosophy (Vlachou 2006), it appears to be very difficultfor mainstream teachers to individualise in a class of 25–30 pupils. As Knoff(1985) noted, secondary school teachers feel pressure to cover compulsory curricu-lum and develop the pupils’ academic skills in a given area; this accurately depictsthe Greek school milieu. Moreover, although by law (Greek Government OfficialGazette 2008) each pupil with SEN is required to have an individual education planand programme, this seldom materialises. In addition, the Pedagogical Institute’sstudy (2004) has shown that there are no separate, adequately equipped rooms toserve as integration units, with the head teacher’s office most prominently servingthat function.

Hence, one recommendation would be to offer all potential Greek mainstreamsecondary school teachers compulsory SEN courses at university as well as regularobligatory in-service training in schools. In addition, an increase in personnel andmaterial support services combined with systemic changes to offer more flexibility ininstruction and curriculum could enable more teachers to exhibit positive attitudestowards inclusive education, transforming the ‘uncertainty’ of several participantsabout inclusion into ‘certainty’.

Finally, it should be noted that research based on the results of questionnaires mustbe interpreted with caution (Munn and Drever 1999). Three limitations are acknowl-edged regarding this study:

(1) The sample size was comparatively small, rendering it difficult to generalisethe findings.

(2) The participants were employed in inclusive schools, so their perceptions werenot representative of all mainstream teachers’ stances on the issues. However,they offer a useful perspective on the perceptions of those with some practicalexperience of ‘inclusion’.

(3) The sample of teachers was derived from northern Greece – and mainly froma large urban centre (Thessaloniki) – thus, the views expressed might notexemplify the outlook of secondary mainstream school teachers nationally.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


As there already appears to be a substantial literature on the perceptions of teachersin mainstream schools in general, future comparative research on viewpoints frommainstream secondary school teachers working in inclusive schools in other regionsof the country would offer a broader understanding of general Greek secondary schoolteachers’ attitudes to inclusive education and having pupils with cLD in the classroomor school.

Notes1. It was decided to translate the Greek term into ‘integration unit’ rather than ‘inclusion unit’

because pupils with SEN do not seem to be offered the optimum educational environmentand support to warrant the term ‘inclusion’.

2. Although not stated in the published research article (Koutrouba et al. 2008), upon requestKoutrouba informed the first author that their participants worked in mainstream schoolswithout any form of support for pupils with SEN.

3. Support was considered a factor because it was found that the majority of participants hadclassroom experience of pupils with cLD and stated they felt unsupported.

ReferencesAnderson, C.J.K., R.M. Klassen, and G.K. Georgiou. 2007. Inclusion in Australia: What

teachers say they need and what school psychologists can offer. School PsychologyInternational 28, no. 2: 131–47.

Avramidis, E., P. Bayliss, and R. Burden. 2000. A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudestowards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school inone local education authority. Educational Psychology 20, no. 2: 191–211.

Avramidis, E., and B. Norwich. 2002. Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: Areview of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education 17, no. 2:129–47.

Balboni, G., and L. Pedrabissi. 2000. Attitudes of Italian teachers and parents toward schoolinclusion of students with mental retardation: The role of experience. Education &Training in Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities 35, no. 2: 148–59.

Bardis, P. 1993. Integration of children with special needs in rural Greece. In Special educa-tion integration in Europe ed. C. O’Hanlon, 66–77. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Barnartt, S.N., and V. Kabzems. 1992. Zimbabwean teachers’ attitudes toward the integrationof pupils with disabilities into regular classrooms. International Journal of Disability,Development and Education 39, no. 2: 135–46.

Barton, L. 1995. The politics of education for all. Support for Learning 10, no. 4: 156–60.Bell, J. 2005. Doing your research project: A guide for first time researchers in education,

health and social sciences. 4th ed. Glasgow: Open University Press.Bender, W.N., C.O. Vail, and K. Scott. 1995. Teachers’ attitudes toward increased main-

streaming: implementing effective instruction for students with learning disabilities. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities 28, no. 2: 87–94.

Bowman, I. 1986. Teacher–training and the integration of handicapped pupils: Some findingsfrom a fourteen nation UNESCO study. European Journal of Special Needs Education 1:29–38.

Center, Y., and J. Ward. 1987. teachers’ attitudes towards the integration of disabled childreninto regular schools. Exceptional Child 34, no. 1: 41–56.

deBettencourt, L.U. 1999. General educators’ attitudes toward students with mild disabilitiesand their use of instructional strategies: Implications for training. Remedial and SpecialEducation 20, no. 1: 27–35.

Department of Health 2001. Valuing people. A strategy for learning disability for the 21stcentury. London: The Stationery Office.

Dupoux, E., C. Wolman, and E. Estrada. 2005. Teachers’ attitudes toward integration ofstudents with disabilities in Haiti and the United States. International Journal ofDisability, Development and Education 52, no. 1: 43–58.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


Forlin, C. 1995. Educators’ beliefs about inclusive practices in Western Australia. BritishJournal of Special Education 22, no. 4: 179–85.

Gilmore, L., J. Campbell, and M. Cuskelly. 2003. Developmental expectations, personalitystereotypes, and attitudes towards inclusive education: community and teacher views ofDown’s syndrome. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 50,no. 1: 65–76.

Greek Government. 1994. Official Gazette. FEK G6/156/21–4–94. Athens: EthnikoTypographeio.

Greek Government. 2002. Official Gazette. FEK 1248/13–11–2002. Athens: EthnikoTypographeio.

Greek Government. 2008. Official Gazette. No. 3699/2008, FEK 199/02–10–2008. Athens:Ethniko Typographeio.

Heiman, T. 2001. Inclusive schooling – middle school teachers’ perceptions. School PsychologyInternational 22, no. 4: 451–62.

Hudson, F., S. Graham, and M. Warner. 1979. Mainstreaming: an examination of the attitudesand needs of regular classroom teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly 2, no. 3: 58–62.

Jahnukainen, M., and A. Korhonen. 2003. Integration of students with severe and profoundintellectual disabilities into the comprehensive school system: Teachers’ perceptions ofthe education reform in Finland. International Journal of Disability, Development andEducation 50, no. 2: 169–80.

Knoff, H.M. 1985. Attitudes toward mainstreaming: A status report and comparison of regu-lar and special educators in New York and Massachusetts. Psychology in the Schools, 22,no. 4: 410–8.

Koutrouba, K., M. Vamvakari, and M. Steliou. 2006. Factors correlated with teachers’attitudes towards the inclusion of students with special educational needs in Cyprus.European Journal of Special Needs Education 21, no. 4: 381–94.

Koutrouba, K., M. Vamvakari, and H. Theodoropoulos. 2008. SEN students’ inclusion inGreece: Factors influencing Greek teachers’ stance. European Journal of Special NeedsEducation 23, no. 4: 413–21.

Kuyini, A.B., and I. Desai. 2006. Principals’ and teachers’ attitudes toward and knowledgeof inclusive education in Ghana. IFE Psychologia: An International Journal 14, no. 2:225–44.

Lampropoulou, V., and S. Padeliadu. 1995. Inclusive education: The Greek experience. InInclusive education in Europe ed. C. O’Hanlon and P. Daunt, 49–60. London: DavidFulton.

Lampropoulou, V., and S. Padeliadu. 1997. Teachers of the deaf as compared with othergroups of teachers on attitudes towards people with disabilities and inclusion. AmericanAnnals of the Deaf 142, no. 1: 26–33.

Leyser, Y., G. Kapperman, and R. Keller. 1994. Teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming: Across–cultural study in six nations. European Journal of Special Needs Education 9, no. 3:1–15.

McNally, R.D., P.G. Cole, and R.F. Waugh. 2001. Regular teachers’ attitudes to the need foradditional classroom support for the inclusion of students with intellectual disability.Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability 26, no. 3: 257–73.

Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs 2007. School units and integration units inSecondary Education [Greek]. http://www.specialeducation.gr/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=560&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 (18 September2007).

Moberg, S. 2003. Education for all in the North and the South: Teachers’ attitudes towardsinclusive education in Finland and Zambia. Education and Training in DevelopmentalDisabilities 38, no. 4: 417–28.

Moeller, A.J., and S. Ishii–Jordan. 1996. Teacher efficacy: A model for teacher developmentand inclusion. Journal of Behavioral Education 6, no. 3: 293–310.

Munn, P., and E. Drever. 1999. Using questionnaires in small-scale research: A teacher’sguide. Edinburgh: Scottish Council for Research in Education.

Opdal, L.R., S. Wormnaes, and A. Habayeb. 2001. Teachers’ opinions about inclusion: Apilot study in a Palestinian context. International Journal of Disability, Development andEducation 48, no. 2: 143–62.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014


Pedagogical Institute. 2004. Mapping of special education: Statistics about pupils, teachersand school units in Primary and Secondary Education [Greek]. Athens: PedagogicalInstitute.

Padeliadu, S. 1995. Where pupils with special educational needs stand in the regular class-room: A research project [Greek]. Sychrone Ekpaideuse 82–3: 90–6.

Padeliadu, S., and V. Lampropoulou. 1997. Attitudes of special and regular education teacherstowards school integration. European Journal of Special Needs Education 12, no. 3: 173–83.

Prochnow, J.E., A.C. Kearney, and J. Carroll-Lind. 2000. Successful inclusion: What doteachers say they need? New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies 35, no. 2: 157–77.

Robson, C. 2002. Real world research. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Schumm, J.S., and S. Vaughn. 1992. Reflections on ‘Planning for mainstreamed special

education students: Perceptions of general classroom teachers. Exceptionality, 3, no. 2:121–6.

Scruggs, T.E., and M.A. Mastropieri. 1996. Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion,1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children 63, no. 1: 59–74.

Thomas, D. 1985. The determinants of teachers’ attitudes to integrating the intellectuallyhandicapped. British Journal of Educational Psychology 55, no. 3: 251–63.

Thomas, G. 1997. Inclusive schools for an inclusive society. British Journal of SpecialEducation 24, no. 3: 103–7.

Van Reusen, A.K., A.R. Shoho, and K.S. Barker. 2000. High school teacher attitudes towardinclusion. The High School Journal 84, no. 2: 7–20.

Vanderpuye, I., P. Deku, and S.A. Kwarteng. 2006. The state of support services and effect ofclass size in mainstreamed schools: Implication for inclusive education in Ghana. IFEPsychologia: An International Journal 14, no. 1: 145–57.

Vaughn, S., J.S. Schumm, B. Jallad, J. Slusher, and L. Saumell. 1996. Teachers’ views ofinclusion. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice 11, no. 2: 96–106.

Vlachou, A. 2006. Role of special/support teachers in Greek primary schools: A counterpro-ductive effect of ‘inclusion’ practices. International Journal of Inclusive Education 10,no. 1: 39–58.

York, J., and M. Tundidor. 1995. Issues raised in the name of inclusion: Perspectives ofeducators, parents, and students. Journal of the Association for Persons with SevereHandicaps 20, no. 1: 31–44.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

07:

02 2

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Greek mainstream secondary school teachers’ perceptions of inclusive education and of having pupils with complex learning disabilities in the classroom/school