International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

Improving teaching self-efficacy for teachers in

inclusive classrooms in Hong Kong
Chih Nuo Grace Chao, Chris Forlin & Fuk Chuen Ho
To cite this article: Chih Nuo Grace Chao, Chris Forlin & Fuk Chuen Ho (2016) Improving
teaching self-efficacy for teachers in inclusive classrooms in Hong Kong, International Journal
of Inclusive Education, 20:11, 1142-1154, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2016.1155663
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1155663

Published online: 16 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 311

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20
Download by: [Universidad De Concepcion]

Date: 27 November 2016, At: 16:31

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION, 2016

VOL. 20, NO. 11, 11421154
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1155663

Improving teaching self-efcacy for teachers in inclusive

classrooms in Hong Kong
Chih Nuo Grace Chaoa, Chris Forlinb and Fuk Chuen Hoa
a

Department of Special Education and Counseling, The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong, China;
International Education Consultant, Bayswater, WA, Australia

ABSTRACT

ARTICLE HISTORY

This study investigated changes in teacher self-efcacy for inclusive

practice using a mixed method research design. Participants were 417
in-service teachers in Hong Kong taking a 1-week basic teacher-training
course about inclusive education. Data were collected pre and post
participation in the course using the Teacher Efcacy for Inclusive
Practices Scale (TEIP). A series of ve in-depth focus-group interviews
provided greater clarication of the perceptions and efcacy issues of
teachers. The best predictors to participants teaching self-efcacy were
condence in teaching students with special education needs (SEN) and
knowledge of legislation and policies for inclusive practice. From the
focus-groups, results demonstrated a more positive attitude change
towards students with SEN with a number of essential factors emerging
as highly benecial for inclusive teaching in Hong Kong (i.e. caring and
love, school environment and curriculum adaption). The discussion
considers the role of short training programmes as an appropriate
means to improving self-efcacy for teaching within inclusive classrooms
in Hong Kong.

Received 3 June 2015

Accepted 15 January 2016
KEYWORDS

Teacher self-efcacy;
teacher-training programme;
in-service teachers; inclusive
education; Hong Kong

Introduction
The inclusion of students with different needs into ordinary schools education is a signicant education issue in Hong Kong (Forlin and Sin 2010) as the government has implemented pro-inclusive
policies since 1997 (Chong, Forlin, and Au 2007). Hong Kong government policy promotes a whole
school approach (WSA) to including learners with mild support needs in regular government
schools (Forlin 2007), which is dened as providing opportunities to persons [with special educational needs] for them to fully participate in the community, including education, work, consume,
recreate, and other community and home activities (Education Department 2000, 1). The WSA aims
to provide a vision of how schools can become more diverse and cater for the varying needs of their
student population (Forlin 2007). In Hong Kong, the WSA to integrated education (Education and
Manpower Bureau [EMB], 2005b) continues to be offered to students with mild intellectual disability, hearing or visual impairment, physical disability or Autistic Spectrum Disorder (within average
intelligence). Within the WSA the school head needs to establish a school integration policy, create
an inclusive environment and mobilise school personnel to support students with special education
needs in ordinary schools (Education Department 2001). The school head and administrative staff
are considered to be the leading personnel to promote this. The Education Bureau (Education
Department 2002) denes a WSA to mean that:
CONTACT Chih Nuo Grace Chao
2016 Taylor & Francis

cnchao@ied.edu.hk

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

1143

All school personnel, including the school head, teachers, student guidance teacher/ofcer, non-teaching staff,
students and parents, are willing to accept students with special needs. Hence, a harmonious environment with
a caring, supportive and inclusive school culture can be established. (Education Department 2002, 7)

Recent studies have reported that teachers sense of teaching efcacy is one of the strongest predictors of their attitudes towards inclusion (Weisel and Dror 2006). Researchers also report that high
teacher self-efcacy is a key ingredient in creating successful inclusive classroom environments
(Sharma, Loreman, and Forlin 2012; Forlin, Sharma, and Loreman, 2013). This study, thus, investigated the perceived self-efcacy of Hong Kong teachers for implementing inclusive practices after
participating in a short training programme designed to improve knowledge, attitudes and self-efcacy for working in inclusive classrooms. Of particular interest were predictors of teachers sense of
self-efcacy in an Asian context as much of the research in this area has been carried out in nonAsian cultures (Cheung 2006), using international scales without further clarication through individual interrogation. This research employed the Teacher Efcacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP)
Scale (Sharma, Loreman, and Forlin 2012) to measure teachers changes in self-efcacy following
training. In addition to previous research that has relied on survey data only, a range of ve in-depth
focus-group sessions were also undertaken to tease out the more hidden perceptions of teachers
related to their sensitivity of worth, value and ability in regard to inclusive practices within the
specic Hong Kong context. The mixed method approach, thus, provided a greater in-depth understanding of teacher efcacy (Milner and Woolfolk Hoy 2003) and the factors that may contribute to
sustaining higher level of efcacy amongst teachers in Hong Kong.

Inclusive education in Hong Kong

Inclusive education is about schools nurturing and educating all students in spite of their differences
in ability, culture, gender, language, class and ethnicity (Kozleski et al. 2007). Inclusive education has
been found to be an effective means of educating all children in a variety of domains, including academic and social (Loreman 2007). Inclusive education for all is now the standard in Hong Kongs
education system (Forlin and Lian 2008) and since 1997 the guidelines for inclusive education
have been outlined in the Disability Discrimination Ordinance (DDO) (Equal Opportunities Commission 2007).
Hong Kong offers a range of schooling options, which include 526 local and 43 international primary schools; 542 local and 29 international secondary schools; and 60 local and one international
special school (Hong Kong Annual of Statistics 2014). In 20112012, the number of students identied with special education needs (SEN) markedly increased from 18,000 in 2009 to 28,630 students
(Leung and Tse 2009). Approximately 80% of these students with different types of SEN were studying in ordinary schools (ordinary is the term used in Hong Kong for regular schools). Conversely,
the number of special schools has decreased from a high of 73 in 2003 to a stable 60 since 2008. Of
these, 41 cater for students with intellectual disabilities. A further seven schools are for children with
physical disabilities and two for children with vision and two for hearing disabilities. There are an
additional 7 schools for social development, of which 6 are residential, catering for 744 students.
There is one hospital school. In total these catered for 7904 students in 2013 (7834 in local special
schools and 70 in the international one); being a noticeable reduction from 10,082 students in 2003.
Furthermore, only 4 schools were operating special classes for students with moderate learning difculties, but only 61 primary or secondary school students were enrolled in these in 20132014 (EDB
2013). The vast majority of the students in the special schools are identied with an intellectual disability (n = 5624). All practical schools and skills opportunity schools were ordinary schools in 2004
and 2005 respectively.
Since the rst pilot scheme on integrated education was launched in 1997, Hong Kong has witnessed a number of positive moves towards improved opportunities for inclusion with a range of
support models offered over the past three decades (Forlin 2010; Forlin and Sin 2010; Forlin, Sin,

1144

C. N. G. CHAO ET AL.

and Maclean 2013). Nonetheless, there are many areas that still require further enhancement to
facilitate successful inclusive schooling practices (Poon-McBrayer 2012).
Teachers play a critical role in the implementation of inclusive education (Forlin 2010), and there
has been found a positive relationship between teacher self-efcacy and attitudes towards inclusive
education (Weisel and Dror 2006). The signicance of teacher self-efcacy for inclusion has been
reported in several studies (Malinen, Savolainen, and Xu 2012; Savolainen et al. 2012). Pre-service
teachers in Hong Kong, however, reported signicantly lower levels of teaching self-efcacy with
respect to inclusion than their counterparts in all other countries (Loreman, Sharma, and Forlin
2013). Further, teachers with substantial training have been found to be more positive to inclusion
and condent in meeting IEP requirements (Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden 2000).

The signicance of teacher education for inclusion

Hong Kong has been promoting inclusive education since 1997. Similar to ndings elsewhere (e.g.
Anderson, Klassen, and Georgiou 2007), teachers in Hong Kong continually express that they feel
under-trained and under-skilled to cater to the diversity of student needs in their classrooms (Forlin
2010). Lack of knowledge and training in special education has been identied by the Hong Kong
government as a main focus in the move towards inclusion and, therefore, in 2007 an innovative
strategic plan was initiated to provide training for approximately 10% of all teachers in government
schools (Sin et al. 2010). Thus, in Hong Kong, in-service teaching training is seen as critical in preparing teachers to meet the challenges of the inclusive classroom.
Forlin, Sharma, and Loreman (2013) previously investigated teaching efcacy for inclusive
practice in a pre and post matched sample of 737 in-service teachers in Hong Kong undertaking
a university-level course in inclusive education. The results demonstrated that increased knowledge of legislation and policy were found to be the major predictors of improved teaching efcacy
for inclusive practice. In the original basic teacher-training course that these teachers had completed on inclusive education, the traditional elements of local law and policy were given prominence. Helping Hong Kong teachers to situate their own skills and what they are learning with
respect to inclusive teaching in a wider context consistent with local policy was clearly evident
as being of greater impact rather than learning teaching skills which was only minimally covered
in the course.
Further, Forlin, Loreman, and Sharma (2014) examined the changes in teaching efcacy, attitudes
and concerns about inclusive education in a sample of 2361 in-service teachers in Hong Kong,
who took a range of professional learning courses about inclusive education. Results indicated
that self-efcacy, acceptance and concern were signicant factors regarding perceptions of inclusive
education, with positive improvements being made as a result of training.

Teacher-training course in inclusion

The training course under examination in the present study is the 1-week 30-hour basic course on
the education of students with SEN, with a focus on how specic education strategies and skills will
benet these students and other students within the school. It provides an introduction to inclusive
education and how teachers can cater to learners with SEN. The course was redesigned following the
results of the previous study (Forlin, Sharma, and Loreman 2013) to better help teachers to understand the policy and principles of integrated education in Hong Kong, such as the WSA, early identication, the three-tier intervention model and the DDO and its application to educational practices.
This course also provides a more in-depth understanding of the learning needs of students with SEN
and the important role of their parents in supporting them; introduces effective interventions and
support strategies for SEN students; and helps educators develop a positive attitude about cultivating
a better environment for students with SEN. Two questions framed the present study:

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

1145

Q1: Do perceptions of teaching efcacy improve signicantly after participating in a 30-hour one-week course
designed to increase efcacy for managing behaviour, collaboration and inclusive instruction?
Q2: What is the best predictor of the participants teaching self-efcacy for inclusive education in Hong Kong?

Method
Participants
The participants were teachers from Hong Kong government primary and secondary schools. A total
of 417 questionnaires were collected that included matched data for the participants to both pre- and
post-course administrations during eight cohorts of teachers undertaking the one-week basic course
over a period of six months. Of the total number, 24% were primary school teachers, 70.5% were
secondary teachers, and 5% were from special schools. Thirty-nine per cent were male and 64.2%
were female teachers. Their mean of age range was 2630 years old (23.2%). Twenty-three per
cent of them had 5 years or below general teaching experience, 24% had 610 years, 34% had
1120 years and 19% had 21 years or above teaching experience. In regard to their existing level
of training on teaching students with disabilities, 66% of teachers indicated that they had no previous
training; 25% had 40 hours or below of training and approximately 5.3% of teaches had more than 40
hours of training.
The participants indicated the type of special educational needs that their students exhibited that
they had interacted with (Table 1). These were mainly students with attention decit hyperactive
disorder (AD/H-D) 73%; specic learning difculties (Dyslexia) 70%; Autism Spectrum Disorder
(ASD) 65% and students with emotional and behavioural disorder 63%.
Research design
The present study adopted a mixed method design (Greene, Caracelli, and Graham 1989) to address
the research questions. The quantitative study used the TEIP Scale (Sharma, Loreman, and Forlin,
2012), which included three domains (inclusive instructions, collaboration and managing behaviour). Validation of the scale by Sharma et al. indicated strong reliabilities ranging from 0.85 to
0.93 and its suitability for international use. Teachers responding to this scale provided a general
overview of their teaching efcacy in relation to teaching students with SEN in their classes.
Further information was sought, including level of training experience (none, 30 h or below,
above 30 h), knowledge of legislation and policies (none, not much, some, advanced, very advanced)
and condence in teaching students with SEN (very low, low, average, high, very high). Demographic
data related to age, gender, school type (primary, secondary, special), general teaching experience
(less than 5 years, 610 years, 1120 years, 21 years or above) and teaching experience with students
with SEN (none, some [3years or below], high [above 3years]) were also collected.
In addition, a series of ve focus-group interviews were conducted with teachers from each of
the ve cohorts. This qualitative aspect offered the advantage of an insiders perspective and more
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of participants previous interactions with students with SEN.
Hearing/visual impairment
Speech and language impairment
Intellectual disabilities
Physical disabilities
Specic learning difculties (Dyslexia)
ASD
Emotional and behavioural disorder
Attention decit hyperactive disorder (ADHD)
Gifted
Never interact with students with SEN

Frequency

Percentage (%) of teachers having interacted

394
394
394
394
394
394
394
394
394
394

199
159
128
78
276
255
247
288
135
8

51
40
32
20
70
65
63
73
35
2

1146

C. N. G. CHAO ET AL.

in-depth context knowledge and multiple perspectives to more accurately represent the multidimensional context (Mertens 2005). The data helped make sense of the teacher efcacy construct in different cross-cultural contexts (Milner and Woolfolk Hoy 2003) and contributed to the construct
validity of the TEIP scores.
Scale validation
The factorial structure of the three constructs of the TEIP Scale was established by conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) using Mplus 7.11. CFA was used for testing whether the expected three-factor
model of the TEIP Scale tted the data of this study. As initial goodness of t was poor, an examination was made of the modication indices. It became apparent that there was one pair of items
that were highly correlated, according to the Modication Indices (U8 = 79.96 with U10 = 92.11).
Hence, two items (Item 8: I can control disruptive behaviour in the classroom and Item 10: I am
condent in designing learning tasks so that the individual needs of special educational needs students are accommodated) were left out of the model. Based on the results of the CFA, 16 items
were, therefore, retained in the present study. The revised CFA model showed substantially
improved goodness of t 2(100, N = 375) = 363.276, p < .001, root mean square error of approximation = 0.08, comparative x index = 0.90, Tucker-Lewis index = 0.88 and standardized root
mean square residual = 0.06. The three teaching efcacy factors (managing behaviour, collaboration
and inclusive instructions) are well dened in the factor structures with loadings from 0.48 to 0.77.
The reliability coefcients of the three TEIP factors (managing behaviour, collaboration and inclusive instructions) are high with the range of alpha values between 0.78 and 0.82; these results indicate
that all scales had adequate internal reliabilities.
Procedure
Prior to commencing and immediately following each course, participants were asked to complete
the questionnaire. The scale was administered using a Chinese version that had previously been validated for use in Hong Kong (Sharma et al., 2012). Participants were also invited to engage in a focusgroup interview following the last course sessions. The interviews took approximately 4560 min
with 36 participants from each cohort. All of the participants were from Cantonese-speaking backgrounds and the interviews were done in the Chinese Medium of Instruction (CMI) on the last day of
the course. A semi-structured script of questions was asked to the participants during the interview
related to the research questions under investigation. Twenty-three participants (5 primary and 18
secondary school teachers) participated in the 5 focus-group sessions. This included 5 female and 17
male teachers with a mean of 610 years of working experience. Three teachers had more than 21
years working experience. Three were guidance and discipline teachers or SEN coordinators or support group teachers.
Data analysis and coding processes
Preliminary analyses provided descriptive details using SPSS 22.0 to investigate the reliability of the
TEIP and the three factors. CFA was applied to examine the construct validity of the measurements.
Univariate repeated-measures MANOVA was used to measure the teacher self-efcacy variables
repeatedly at pre- and post-test. Regression models were used to examine the relationships among
the variables and teaching self-efcacy.
The focus-group interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim, memos and reective notes
were taken while reading and rereading all of the transcripts (Creswell 2008). The data were initially
organised into a large number of codes, then into a smaller number of categories and nally into
themes related to the three research questions. We began with eight a priori codes based on the
research questions of the study and then expended the code list to open codes (Trainor 2005).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

1147

The data were further analysed using sequential analysis as proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994)
and Creswell in which the coded data were sorted, sifted and graphically displayed to identify
relationships, patterns, themes and differences between groups.

Results
Do perceptions of teaching efcacy improve signicantly after participating in a 30-hour
one-week course?
Following involvement in the course, teachers knowledge of legislation and policies were increased signicantly (Pre: M = 1.36, SD = 0.58; Post: M = 2.10, SD = 0.70), F (1, 408) = 411.48, p < .001), indicating a
very strong effect size of d = 1.15. Similar signicant results were found for levels of condence in teaching students with SEN (Pre: M = 2.68, SD = 0.67; Post: M = 3.02, SD = 0.55), F (1, 408) = 122.17, p < .001),
with a strong effect size of d = 0.55. Table 2 presents the descriptive analysis including mean and standard
deviation prior to and after participating in the training course on the three factors of the TEIP Scale. The
effect sizes for improvement in teachers perceptions about their efcacy to manage behaviours d = 0.37;
collaborate with parents and colleagues d = 0.52; and provide effective inclusive instruction was d = 0.28,
indicating small to medium changes according to Cohens d (Cohen 1988).
The teaching efcacy scores at pre- and post-levels showed all three factors of managing behaviour, collaboration and inclusive instructions improved signicantly after the teacher-training
programme. Univariate repeated-measures MANOVA was signicant with Wilks Lambda =
0.68, F (3, 347) = 54.06, p < .001 with the Partial Eta Square range from h2p = 0.1 0.29 (Table 3).
Analysis of the focus-group interview data regarding this question highlighted in greater detail
attitude change towards students with SEN following participation in the course. It was evident
that teachers had more empathy and acceptance about the behaviour of students with SEN after
training. In addition, teachers had a greater understanding that student behaviour was not related
to their abilities but to their disabilities. The teachers acknowledged that the training was very benecial to them although proposed that it should be provided earlier and available to all teachers:
This course (teacher training program) is more practical and obtained some useful skills to teach students with
special education needs and this course brings some technical insight to me, it makes a different outcome if I
can join this class earlier.

The course also impacted on their understanding about the behavioural needs of students with
SEN. According to one participant who spoke on behalf of her colleagues: After the program, we
have more understanding about the reasons of students misbehaviour and the follow-up or course
adjustment would be more accurate to their learning. Similarly, another participant agreed and
Table 2. Three-factor statistics for the TEIP pre-test and post-test.
Pre-test data
No. of items

Post-test data

SD

TEIP factors
Managing behaviour
5
412
4.36
0.59
0.78
Collaboration
6
409
4.05
0.62
0.80
Inclusive Instructions
5
408
4.42
0.56
0.78
Note: Mean responses range from 1(strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).

SD

372
372
373

4.56
4.35
4.57

0.49
0.52
0.51

0.81
0.81
0.82

0.37
0.52
0.28

Table 3. Univariate repeated-measures MANOVA for the three constructs of TEIP pre- and post-test.
TEIP Scale

Variables
Managing behaviour
Collaboration
Inclusive instructions

SS
7.26
18.84
4.99

df
1
1
1

MS
7.26
18.84
4.99

F value
85.80
143.13
40.44

Sig.
.000
.000
.000

Partial Eta square

0.20
0.29
0.10

1148

C. N. G. CHAO ET AL.

mentioned: We need to understand the reasons of some students are not willing to make the effort
and it is totally not related to their ability. By gaining more understanding about the behaviour of
students with SEN, they were more prepared to make appropriate adjustments to t in their needs.
In addition to a better understanding of the aetiology of the students behaviours, teachers were
also more empathetic towards them: We have empathy to their disabilities and use other method or
adjust the learning objectives to help their students. Participants mentioned that empathy is very
important in teaching students with SEN in Hong Kong citing an old Chinese saying: ,
which means from empathy bring to love is applied to them. By gaining a better understanding
of students with SEN during the course the teachers considered that their acceptance and self-efcacy was enhanced.
Teachers, moreover, proposed that following the course they had gained greater condence about
their ability to include students with SEN into their classes. For example,
I never interacted with students with SEN before, this course provide some useful guidelines and concrete
instructions that make me feel more condent in what to do and how to interact with them such as students
emotional problem, classroom management and interact with their parents

said a freshly graduated student. An experienced teacher from a more academically focused
school with 10 years teaching experience indicated that SEN is just like a white paper to him, because
SEN is a very secret issue in his school and there is a lack of student information with SEN. However, this course
brings some essential knowledge, such as policy, knowing some resources and support provided by EDB and
curriculum adaptation is also signicant to teach students with SEN.

The course was considered of benet to teachers with less experience as well as more experienced
teachers who wanted greater support in their teaching to help the students with SEN.

What is the best predictor of participants teaching self-efcacy for inclusive education in
Hong Kong?
To examine the relationships between knowledge of legislation and policy, condence in teaching
students with SEN and prior teaching experience with students with SEN and these relationships
to predicting self-efcacy following training, we conducted a series of linear multiple regression analyses. Three analyses were undertaken to predict teachers self-efcacy for the factors of managing
behaviour, collaboration and inclusive instruction following participation in the training course.
For the dependent variable of managing behaviour, the four independent variables of pre-managing behaviour, post-knowledge of legislation and policies, post-condence in teaching students with
SEN, and teaching experience with students with SEN, all emerged as major predictors of participants teaching efcacy scores and accounted for 52% of the variance. Overall, the regression was
signicant, F (4, 274) = 73.26, (p < .05), Adjusted R 2 = 0.51 (p < .001). In the model, pre-managing
behaviour ( = 0.64, p < .001) and post-condence in teaching students with SEN ( = 0.15, p < .01)
were two strong signicant predictors to post-managing students with SENs behaviour, while postknowledge of legislation and policies ( = 0.11, p < .05) and teaching experience with students with
SEN ( = 0.09, p < .05) also signicantly predicted efcacy in post-managing students with SENs
behaviour (Table 4). Of particular note is that teaching experience was negatively correlated indicating that the more experience teachers had in working with students with SEN the less efcacious they
perceived they were in managing student behaviour following training.
Overall, for the dependent variable of collaboration, the regression was signicant, F (4, 274) =
54.14 (p < .05), Adjusted R 2 = 0.43 (p < .001). Of the predictors (pre-collaboration, post-knowledge
of legislation and policies, post-condence in teaching students with SEN and teaching experience
with students with SEN) investigated, pre-collaboration, ( = 0.55, p < .001), post-condence in
teaching students with SEN ( = 0.17, p < .001) were highly signicant in predicting participants
efcacy in post-collaboration, and post-knowledge of legislation and policies ( = 0.16, p < .01)

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

1149

Table 4. Multiple regression analysis for predicting teachers self-efcacy in managing behaviour.
Post-managing behaviour
Predictors
Pre-managing behaviour
Post-knowledge of legislation and policies
Post-condence in teaching SS with SEN
Teaching experience in SS with SEN
Total R 2
Adjusted R 2

B
0.55
0.08
0.13
0.08

SE B
0.04
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.517***
0.510***

0.64***
0.11*
0.15**
0.09*

p
.000
.022
.002
.041

Notes: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 5. Multiple regression analysis for predicting teachers self-efcacy in collaboration.

Post-collaboration
Predictors
Pre-collaboration
Post-knowledge of legislation and policies
Post-condence in teaching SS with SEN
Teaching experience in SS with SEN
Total R 2
Adjusted R 2

SE B

0.47
0.11
0.16
0.05

0.04
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.44***
0.43***

0.55***
0.16**
0.17***
0.06

.000
.002
.001
.270

Notes: **p < .01; ***p < .001.

(Table 5). These accounted for 44% of the variance. Prior teaching experience with students with
SEN, although negatively correlated, was not signicant ( = 0.06, p > .05).
For the dependent variable of inclusive instruction, the overall regression was also signicant, F
(4, 274) = 45.43 (p < .05), Adjusted R 2 = 0.39 (p < .001). Of the predictors (pre-inclusive instruction,
post-knowledge of legislation and policies, post-condence in teaching students with SEN and teaching experience with students with SEN), again, pre-inclusive instructions ( = 0.50, p < .001) and
condence in teaching students with SEN ( = 0.23, p < .001) were two strong predictors to postinclusive instruction, and knowledge of legislation and policies ( = 0.13, p < .05). Teaching
experience with students with SEN was an insignicant negative predictor ( = 0.10, p > .05) to
post-inclusive instructions in the regression model (Table 6).
Based upon the ranked order of standardised beta weights, levels of efcacy prior to undertaking
the course in the three areas of investigation of pre-managing behaviour ( = 0.64, p < .001), pre-collaboration ( = 0.55, p < .001), and pre-inclusive instructions ( = 0.50, p < .001) were the strongest
predictors of teaching efcacy for all three factors. In addition, condence and knowledge about
legislation and policies were also predictors of improved efcacy for all three constructs of managing
behaviour, collaboration and inclusive instruction. Further, prior teaching experience with students
with SEN was a weak negative predictor of teaching efcacy across all three factors.
Data from the focus-group interviews conducted to explore in greater depth teachers perceptions
of best predictors of teacher self-efcacy for inclusive education in Hong Kong identied three
categories related to caring and love, school environment and curriculum adaptation.
Table 6. Multiple regression analysis for predicting teachers self-efcacy in inclusive instruction.
Post-inclusive instruction
Predictors
Pre-inclusive instruction
Post-knowledge of legislation and policies
Post-condence in teaching SS with SEN
Teaching experience in SS with SEN
Total R 2
Adjusted R 2
Notes: *p < .05; ***p < .001.

SE B

0.46
0.10
0.22
0.09

0.05
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.40***
0.39***

0.50***
0.13*
0.23***
0.10

.000
.013
.000
.054

1150

C. N. G. CHAO ET AL.

Caring and love

Eight of twenty-three participants stated that possessing a caring and loving relationship to students
was a key factor to teaching students with SEN, especially those from a Christianity school background. Establishing a caring school environment and loving the students with SEN were believed
to be very important aspects for improving teacher efcacy in Hong Kong. Having patience, love,
school and parent cooperation were considered essential to helping students with SEN. As suggested
by one participant: If a student with special education needs won a competition or activity, he/she
will be praised in my school morning ceremony, he/she will be very happy. It was acknowledged that
some students need more care and consideration and also suggested by one participant that students
with SEN should be treated as your own son or daughter. It was proposed that teachers needed to
give more encouragement, praise and use a positive attitude towards students with SEN to discover
their potential to enhance students condence.
School environment
A friendly school environment with good school and parent cooperation was also raised as signicant for inclusive education. As proposed by one female teacher, Administrative support is essential
to us, we need more support and back up from other teaches, especially the main support from
school principals. Teachers comments showed that a WSA is signicant to establishing a positive
and supportive Hong Kong school environment supported by appropriate additional support.
Curriculum adaptation
Support from school principals and assistance in curriculum adaptation were also posited as
necessary:
Curriculum adaptation is needed not only for the students with SEN but also the normal school students; it
improves students with AD/H-D academic motivation and establishes their learning habit. To establish a set
of learning aid in different subjects is signicant in teaching students with SEN.

Peer group support was perceived as benecial for inclusion and the need for different teaching
strategies was highlighted to enable all students to access the curriculum.

Discussion
Since the Hong Kong special administrative region government initiated the rst pilot project for
integrated education in 1997, there has been a gradual but denite move towards providing increased
support for teachers in ordinary schools to accommodate the needs of learners with SEN. Most
noticeable has been the progress towards up skilling teachers with the knowledge, practical skills
and supportive attitudes needed to become inclusive practitioners. After 2007, when a strategic
plan was implemented to provide training for approximately 10% of all teachers in government
schools, a basic one-week course has been funded by the government and delivered by a local Institute of Education.
The current study reports the ndings of teacher self-efcacy following involvement in this training. A previous study (Forlin, Sharma, and Loreman 2013) investigated teaching efcacy for inclusive practice following participating in the original basic course about inclusive education. The
current study was designed to further examine the impact of training on improving teacher efcacy
for inclusive practice after reconstructing the basic programme following a review of previous
research ndings. Two questions were addressed: Do perceptions of teaching efcacy improve signicantly after participating in a 30-hour 1-week basic course? and What is the best predictor of participants teaching self-efcacy for inclusive education in Hong Kong?
Similar to the previous study (Forlin, Sharma, and Loreman 2013) on the impact of the original
basic training course on teacher self-efcacy, teachers perceived ability to manage childrens challenging behaviours, undertake inclusive instruction, and work collaboratively with peers, all

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

1151

increased post training. Although the increased effects were not as high as previously, the greatest
gain was also in the area of collaboration. It was found that knowledge of legislation and policies
in teaching students with SEN similarly increased signicantly following the training. In addition,
it was found in this study that condence in teaching students with SEN also increased signicantly
following training.
In regard to identifying the best predictors of improved teacher efcacy following the course, several signicant ndings emerged. Similar to the previous study, knowledge of legislation and policy
was again a strong predictor of improved teacher efcacy but in addition, level of condence following training also emerged as a signicant predictor for teacher efcacy. With respect to the three
aspects of perceived efcacy in managing behaviour, collaboration and inclusive instructions
while improved knowledge of legislation and condence were predictors so were participants existing levels of efcacy in these three areas.
It is posited that this different nding with level of condence being a strong predictor of perceived efcacy may be linked to the change in course structure. Following a review of the revised
programme in 2012 an array of new content was added to the course. Specically, the basic course
now includes input by a range of local practitioners including doctors, in-service teachers, school
principals and educational psychologists. Receiving st hand information from practitioners may
have impacted on the improved levels of condence of teachers evident in this research.
A concerning nding, nonetheless, was that prior teaching experience in working with students
with SEN had a signicant but small negative effect in predicting perceptions of self-efcacy in
managing behaviour, collaboration and inclusive instructions following the course. This nding is
in line with research by Savolainen et al. (2012) who, likewise, found that teaching experience
with students with SEN was a negative predictor of self-efcacy for teachers in Finland and South
Africa. Research with pre-service teachers in Australia, similarly, found that following training
about inclusive education, concerns regarding being able to become inclusive practitioners were
also increased (Forlin and Chambers 2011). It would seem that once teachers have gained more
knowledge about the expectations involved with inclusive education and have experienced working
with learners with SEN, they are perhaps more realistic about what they will be required to do to
ensure all students needs are met and are, therefore, more concerned about their own ability to
be able to do this. It is also evident from this research that gaining experience in working with students with disabilities will not by itself increase teachers perceptions of efcacy, as this has been
found to have a negative outcome.
Prior teaching experience with students with SEN is a signicant negative outcome. The revised
course has a strong focus on specic teaching strategies. Given the negative impact that prior experience working with students with SEN has had on gains in teaching efcacy in managing behaviour,
collaboration and using inclusive instructions, this poses the question as to what previous experiences have the teachers encountered for example, in school life, students personality and students
motivation, that have made this negative impact on their perceptions of being able to implement the
new strategies. This area requires considerable further investigation.
The previous research studies were conducted with participants completing the earlier course. In
addition, only quantitative data were originally collected by survey at that time which did not allow
for the uniqueness of the Hong Kong culture to be investigated in regard to perceptions of teacher
self-efcacy. In this study, data were additionally collected from a suite of focus-group interviews to
identify any specic cultural implications that might impact on teacher efcacy.
In the Confucian culture, people with disabilities have always been acknowledged and others
have been encouraged to treat them with tolerance (Pang and Richy 2006). In the Confucian
text Liji (), a book of rites, it is stated: People should respect others parents and treat others
children like their own: all those who are bachelors, widows, orphans, single, handicapped and sick
should be supported (Piao 1992, 35). Piao (1991) posits that this Confucian creed of treating
people with disabilities and other special needs in an honourable way was established at least a
thousand years before similar human rights perspectives were initiated in the West. From the

1152

C. N. G. CHAO ET AL.

focus groups it was evident that participants attitudes towards students with SEN had changed
indicating greater understanding, empathy and acceptance of the students. Key factors to teach
students with SEN in Hong Kong were deemed to be more patience, caring and love, support
by school principals and other teachers and curriculum adaption.
Following the course, the participants also expressed that they had a stronger belief in their ability
to manage the behaviour of students with SEN in their classrooms. Parents, teachers and professionals historically participate in shared responsibilities in effective inclusive classrooms and
school communities. Collaboration should, therefore, play a signicant role in teacher-training programmes, particularly as teaching in Hong Kong has tended to adopt an isolated non-collaborative
teaching approach previously.
Since its inception, the whole-school integrated approach in Hong Kong has only been offered to
students with mild grade intellectual disability, hearing or visual impairment, physical disability or
autistic spectrum disorder (with average intelligence). The EMB (2005a) indicates the aims of integrated education as:
(1) Develop the potential of students with a disability in mainstream school;
(2) Develop a caring school culture and enhance the acceptance of students with special educational
needs by school members and parents;
(3) Empower school personnel to support students with SENs; and
(4) Strengthen the cooperation between parents and teachers. (EMB 2005a, 4.14.4)
To support this approach, Hong Kong has adopted a new funding model that provides funding to
support these students. Schools are, therefore, able to make their own decisions as to how the money
will be spent (Forlin 2007). Currently, students with moderate to high support needs are still mainly
educated in the array of special schools available throughout the region.

Conclusion
The results of the present study have implications for teachers, educators and policymakers. To
ensure that teachers are able to become highly effective inclusive practitioners, continued programmes of up skilling that address the specic aspects of working with students with SEN that
cause the greatest concerns about perceived self-efcacy need to be addressed concurrently. The teachers participating in this basic course were mainly interacting with students with AD/H-D, specic
learning difculties (Dyslexia) and ASD in their classes. An emphasis on teacher-training programmes that are designed so that teachers can be upskilled in these three specic areas would
seem to be vital, even at the introductory level. Furthermore, teachers commitment to teaching is
a key issue in Hong Kong, especially where the teaching profession, although very highly regarded
(EDB 2013), is also seen as highly stressful (Lau, Yuen, and Chan 2005) with heavy teaching workloads (Titus and Ora 2005). Yet the relationship between perceived self-efcacy in teaching students
with SEN and commitment to teaching has received almost no attention.
Recent research with Hong Kong teachers has identied that normative commitment is more prominent in collectivist cultures such as those found in Hong Kong and that in general teachers commitment to teaching is an important predictor of psychological well-being (McInerney et al. 2013). It
has also been found that this commitment may be inuenced by prior experiences (Meyer et al.
2012). Teachers in Hong Kong who consider that they owe a great deal to their school which, therefore, deserves their loyalty, have better well-being (McInerney et al. 2013). To nurture this requires
schools to foster a positive and supportive organisational climate. If teachers who have experienced
including learners with SEN in their classrooms are becoming more negative in their perceived efcacy in coping with this, as was found in this research, then inclusion may most likely impact on their
commitment to a school. Further research is needed to review teacher commitment in relation to
psychological well-being when involved with inclusive education.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION

1153

Notes on contributors
Chih Nuo Grace Chao, Grace is a post-doctoral fellow in special education. Her main research interests are inclusive
education, teaching and learning, student motivation and gifted education. She is currently working on a project about
professional development for teachers in inclusive classrooms for the Education Bureau in Hong Kong. She also teaches in gifted education for the teacher professional development programme.
Chris Forlin is an international education consultant, researcher and Independent Public School reviewer, based in
Perth, Australia. Her research and publications focus on equity and diversity with innovative research in working
with systems, governments, and schools to establish sustainable inclusive education. She is currently co-investigator
for an AusAID Development Research Awards Scheme project on developing and testing indicators for inclusive education in the Pacic Islands.
Fuk Chuen Ho is an adjunct assistant professor of special education. His main research interests are inclusive education and special education. He is now the project leader of three external funded projects in the areas of dyslexia,
theory of mind and a collaborative mode of professional development for teachers in special schools.

References
Anderson, C., R. Klassen, and G. Georgiou. 2007. Inclusion in Australia: What Teachers say They Need and What
School Psychologist Can Offer. School Psychology International 28 (2): 131147.
Avramidis, E., P. Bayliss, and R. Burden. 2000. A Survey into Mainstream Teachers Attitudes Towards the Inclusion
of Children with Special Educational Needs in the Ordinary School in one Local Education Authority. Educational
Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology 20 (2): 191211. doi:10.1080/
713663717.
Cheung, H. Y. 2006. The Measurement of Teacher Efcacy: Hong Kong Primary in-Service Teachers. Journal of
Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy 32 (4): 435451.
Chong, S., C. Forlin, and M. L. Au. 2007. The Inuence of an Inclusive Education Course on Attitude Change of PreService Secondary Teachers in Hong Kong. Asia Pacic Journal of Teacher Education 35 (2): 161179. doi:10.1080/
13598660701268585.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Creswell, J. W. 2008. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative
Research. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.
EDB (Education Bureau). 2013. The Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. [Data le]. Accessed
May 30, 2013. http://www.censtat.gov.hk/hkstat/sub/so370.jsp.
Education Department. 2000. Towards Integration [Compact disk]. Hong Kong: Curriculum Development Centre.
Education Department. 2001. Integration of Students with Special Needs in Ordinary Schools. Accessed November
10, 2015. www.edb.gov.hk/eng/service.
Education Department. 2002. Understand and Help Students with Special Education Needs. Accessed November 8,
2015. http://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/edu-system/special/support/wsa/ie%20guide_en.pdf.
EMB (Education and Manpower Bureau). 2005a. A Study of the Effectiveness of Special Schools. Hong Kong:
Government Logistics Department.
EMB (Education and Manpower Bureau). 2005b. Whole-school Approach to Integrated Education. Accessed
November 10, 2015. http://www.edb.gov.hk./www.edb.gov.hk/UtilityManager/Publication/upload/sen_guide_e.pdf.
Equal Opportunities Commission. 2007. Disability Discrimination Ordinance. http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr08-09/
english/panels/ed/ /ed0330cb2-1130-6-e.pdf.
Forlin, C. 2007. Inclusive Educational Practices: A Way Forward for Hong Kong. Chinese Education & Society 40 (4):
6375. doi:10.2753/CED1061-1932400405.
Forlin, C. 2010. Developing and Implementing Quality Inclusive Education in Hong Kong: Implications for Teacher
Education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 10 (3): 177184. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01162.x.
Forlin, C., and D. Chambers. 2011. Teacher Preparation for Inclusive Education: Increasing Knowledge but Raising
Concerns. Asia-Pacic Journal of Teacher Education 39 (1): 1732. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2010.540850.
Forlin, C., and J. Lian. 2008. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Educational Reform for Special and Inclusive
Education. In Reform, Inclusion & Teacher Education: Towards A New Era of Special Education in the AsiaPacic Region, edited by C. Forlin, and M.-G. J. Lian, 312. Abingdon: Routledge.
Forlin, C., T. Loreman, and U. Sharma. 2014. A System-Wide Professional Learning Approach About Inclusion for
Teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacic Journal of Teacher Education 42 (3): 247260. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2014.
906564.
Forlin, C., U. Sharma, and T. Loreman. 2013. Predictors of Improved Teaching Efcacy Following Basic Training for
Inclusion in Hong Kong. International Journal of Inclusive Education. doi:10.1080/13603116.2013.819941.

1154

C. N. G. CHAO ET AL.

Forlin, C., and K. Sin. 2010. Developing Support for Inclusion: A Professional Learning Approach for Teachers in
Hong Kong. International Journal of Whole Schooling 6 (1): 726.
Forlin, C., K. Sin, and R. Maclean. 2013. Transition for A Student With Special Educational Needs From Primary to
Secondary School in Hong Kong. Australasian Journal of Special Education 37 (1): 4963. doi:10.1017/jse.2013.8.
Greene, J. C., V. J. Caracelli, and W. F. Graham. 1989. Toward A Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method
Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 11: 255274.
Hong Kong Annual of Statistics. 2014. 2014 Edition. Census and Statistics Department. Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region. www.censtatd.gov.hk.
Kozleski, E., A. Artiles, T. Fletcher, and P. Engelbrecht. 2007. Understanding the Dialectics of the Local and the Global
in Education for all: A Comparative Study. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Practice 8:
1934.
Lau, P. S. Y., M. Yuen, and R. M. C. Chan. 2005. Do Demographic Characteristics Make a Difference to Burnout
among Hong Kong Secondary School Teachers? Social Indicators Research 71: 491516. doi:10.1007/s11205004-8033-z.
Leung, L., and W. Tse. 2009. Our Community. Variety 111: 47.
Loreman, T. 2007. Seven Pillars of Support for Inclusive Education: Moving for Why? to How? International
Journal of Whole Schooling 3 (2): 2238.
Loreman, T., U. Sharma, and C. Forlin. 2013. Do pre-Service Teachers Feel Ready to Teach in Inclusive Classroom?
A Four Country Study of Teaching Self-Efcacy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 38 (1): 2744. doi:10.
14221/ajte.2013v38n1.10.
Malinen, O-P., H. Savolainen, and J. Xu. 2012. Beijing in-Service Teachers Self-Efcacy and Attitudes Towards
Inclusive Education. Teaching and Teacher Education 28: 526534. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.004.
McInerney, D. M., F. A. Ganotice, R. B. King, A. J. S. Morin, and H. W. Marsh. 2013. Teachers Commitment and
Psychological Well-Being: Implications of Self-Beliefs for Teaching in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology: An
International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology. doi:10.1080/01443410.2014.895801
Mertens, D.M. 2005. Research Methods in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity with Quantitative and
Qualitative Approaches. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., D. J. Stanley, T. A. Jackson, K. J. McInnis, E. R. Maltin, and L. Sheppard. 2012. Affective, Normative, and
Continuance Commitment Levels Across Cultures: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior 80: 225245.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.09.005.
Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Milner, H. R., and A. Woolfolk Hoy. 2003. Teacher Self-Efcacy and Retaining Talented Teachers: A Case Study of an
African American Teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education 19: 263276.
Pang, Y., and D. Richy. 2006. The Development of Special Education in China. International Journal of Special
Education 21 (1): 7786.
Piao, Y. 1991. Teshu jiaoyu gailu [Introduction to Special Education]. Beijing: Huaxia.
Piao, Y. 1992. Teshu jiaoyu gailun [Introduction to Special Education]. Beijing: Huaxia.
Poon-McBrayer, Kim Fong. 2012. The Evolution from Integration to Inclusion: The Hong Kong Tale. International
Journal of Inclusive Education 18 (10): 10041013. doi:10.1080/13603116.2012.693397.
Savolainen, H., P. Engelbrecht, M. Nel, and O.-P. Malinen. 2012. Understanding Teachers Attitudes and Self-Efcacy
in Inclusive Education: Implications for pre-Service Teacher Education. European Journal of Special Needs
Education 27 (1): 5168. doi:10.1080/08856257.2011.613603.
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efcacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of
Research in Special Educational Needs 12 (1): 1221. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x.
Sin, K. F., K. W. Tsang, C. Y. Poon, and C. L. Lai. 2010. Upskilling all Mainstream Teachers: What is Viable? In
Teacher Education for Inclusion: Changing Paradigms and Innovative Approaches, edited by C. Forlin, 236245.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Titus, L. S. P., and K. W. Y. Ora. 2005. Teacher Education. In Education and Society in Hong Kong and Macao:
Comparative Perspectives on Continuity and Change, edited by M. Bray, and R. Coo, 7385. Hong Kong:
Comparative Education Research Center, The University of Hong Kong.
Trainor, A. A. 2005. Self-determination Perceptions and Behaviours of Diverse Students with LD During the
Transition Planning Process. Journal of Learning Disabilities 38: 233249.
Weisel, A., and O. Dror. 2006. School Climate, Sense of Efcacy and Israeli Teachers Attitudes Toward Inclusion of
Students with Special Needs. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 1 (2): 157174.