ISSN 0798 1015
ISSN 0798 1015
Vol. 38 (Nº 40) Año 2017. Pág. 9
V.I. DOLGOVA 1; N.G. KUTEPOVA 2; E.G. KAPITANETS 3; N.V. KRYZHANOVSKAYA 4; E.V. MELNIK 5
Received: 12/07/2017 • Approved: 30/08/2017
ABSTRACT: The purpose of the study is to reveal the level of motivational readiness of teachers to implement inclusive education for children with disabilities. This paper critically discusses the results of the diagnostic assessment of the teacher's readiness to participate in innovation. These results are described according to the four parameters (N = 535): the motivational and creative orientation of the individual, the creativity of the teacher, professional ability of the teacher to implement innovative development, individual features of teacher's personality. The paper assesses the significance of the diagnostic map “the assessment of the teacher's readiness for participation in innovative activities” arranged by Т.S. Solovyova. The assessment of the diagnostic map results suggested much evidence that the absolute majority of teachers (75%) are ready for innovative development. The study set out the results of the susceptibility to the new study, based on the help of the questionnaire “The Susceptibility of Educators to Innovations” (constructed by T.S. Solovyova). Interestingly, it was revealed that 95% of teachers are susceptive to the new. There is a striking outcome that motivational readiness is acceptable for a smaller number of respondents (85%). However, a bigger number of teachers exposed a noted susceptibility to innovations in 95% of cases. The integrative readiness of teachers for innovation is significantly reduced to 74.2%. This decline can be explained by the existing numerous barriers to the development of integrative readiness for innovative development. Among the barriers for innovation the most notable ones are large workload (25%), insufficient work experience (17) and personal circumstances (14%). |
RESUMEN: El propósito del estudio es revelar el nivel de preparación motivacional de los maestros para implementar la educación inclusiva para niños con discapacidades. Este artículo analiza críticamente los resultados de la evaluación diagnóstica de la disposición del profesor a participar en la innovación. Estos resultados se describen según los cuatro parámetros (N = 535): la orientación motivacional y creativa del individuo, la creatividad del profesor, la capacidad profesional del profesor para implementar el desarrollo innovador, las características individuales de la personalidad del profesor. El documento evalúa la importancia del mapa de diagnóstico "la evaluación de la preparación del profesor para la participación en actividades innovadoras" organizado por los Estados Unidos. Solovyova. La evaluación de los resultados del mapa de diagnóstico sugirió que había mucha evidencia de que la mayoría absoluta de profesores (75%) están preparados para un desarrollo innovador. El estudio estableció los resultados de la susceptibilidad al nuevo estudio, basado en la ayuda del cuestionario "La susceptibilidad de los educadores a las innovaciones" (construido por T.S. Solovyova). Curiosamente, se reveló que el 95% de los profesores son susceptibles a lo nuevo. Hay un resultado sorprendente de que la preparación motivacional es aceptable para un número menor de encuestados (85%). Sin embargo, en un 95% de los casos, un mayor número de maestros expusieron una notable susceptibilidad a innovaciones. La preparación integradora de los profesores para la innovación se reduce significativamente al 74,2%. Esta disminución puede explicarse por las numerosas barreras existentes para el desarrollo de una preparación integradora para el desarrollo innovador. Entre las barreras para la innovación destacan la gran carga de trabajo (25%), la insuficiencia de la experiencia laboral (17) y las circunstancias personales (14%). |
There is evidence that teachers’ motivational readiness for the inclusive education plays a crucial role in regulating educational process. The readiness among educational experts for the introduction of inclusive education of children with disabilities in educational organizations is a problem that is of much importance, however, it is insufficiently studied. A considerable amount of literature has been published on studying this problem (Bayat, 2011, Block, 1996, Brown, 1999; Forlin, 1998; Gettinger, 2001, Holahan, 2000, Kasari, 1999, Kirschbaum, 1995, Miller, 1994, Odom, 2001, Pavri, 2000, Peter, 2003, Soto, 2001, Urwick, 2010, Wiener, 2004, Wilczenski, 1995.
Noteworthy, in the history of development of motivation, readiness for innovative development has been thought of as a key factor. Individual aspects of readiness for innovative development were investigated by us in several working teams of experts (Dolgova, Baryshnikova, 2016; Dolgova, Mamylina, 2016; Dolgova, Rokickaya, 2016; Dolgova, Salamatov, 2016; Dudina, Dolgova, 2016).
In this paper, the study of the teacher's readiness for participation in innovative development is described, according to the four parameters: I. Motivational and creative orientation of the individual. II. Creativity of the teacher. III. Professional abilities of the teacher to carry out innovative activities. IV. Individual features of the teacher's personality.
One of the most well-known tools for assessing motivational readiness is an experiment. The benefit of this approach is representativeness. In our experiment we invited pedagogical workers of 13 educational organizations of the city of Chelyabinsk to take part in our study. The total number of the participants were 535 persons, including 13 educational corporate leaders, 40 deputy heads, 22 speech therapists, 13 pedagogical psychologists, 25 teachers of defectology and 422 instructors and teachers .
The sample was representative with respect to age, gender and the length of teaching work experience. The predominant age of the study participants ranged from 30 to 51, which amounted to 81.7% (437 persons). The number of teachers older than 51 years was about 11.7% (63 persons), the number of young professionals was also insignificant - 35 persons or 6.7%.
The gender analysis of the teaching professionals showed that the majority of teachers – 83.3% (446 persons) – were women, men amounted only to 16.7% (89 persons).
Another focal point of the study is the length of the teaching work experience of the participants. In our study group, there were 153 persons (28%) with more than 20 years of work experience; 221 persons were with shorter work experience, ranging from 10 to 20 years (41%); 34 teachers with the working experience, ranging from 5 to 10 years (6%); 99 teachers - with the working experience from 1 year to 5 years (18%); 28 teachers (5%) - with the working experience up to a year.
Evidently, based on the results of the analysis of the study group of educators, one can observe the representativeness of the sample.
Another important instrument for measuring the motivational readiness was introduced by the Russian scientist T.S. Solovyova. Three methods by T.S. Solovyova were used in the study - diagnostic card “Assessment of the teacher's readiness to participate in innovation activities”, the questionnaire “Susceptibility of teachers to innovations”, as well as the questionnaire “Motivational readiness of teaching staff for mastering innovations”.
The results of the diagnostic assessment of the teacher's readiness for participation in innovative development (by T.S. Solovyova) are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Mean mark of self-assessment of pedagogical workers of their readiness for innovative development
Parameter |
The mean score of the group |
Maximum possible points |
The highest possible percentage |
I. The motivational and creative focus of a teacher’s personality |
15,4 |
30,0 |
51,3 |
II. The creativity of a teacher |
9,6 |
20,0 |
48,0 |
III. The professional abilities of a teacher to perform innovative development |
32,4 |
40,0 |
81,0 |
IV. The individual features of the teacher's personality |
12,0 |
15,0 |
80,0 |
According to the diagnostic map “Assessment of the teacher's readiness to participate in innovative activities” (by T.S. Solovyova), the participant teachers on the whole are characterized by an average level of readiness for innovative development, amounting to 58.3% of the total number of the participants. A relatively small number of participants indicated low level of readiness for innovative development - 25 % of the total number of participants. 16.7% of teachers indicated a very high level of readiness.
Noteworthy, low average scores were obtained by teachers’ self-evaluation of creativity (48% of the maximum possible) and motivational and creative orientation to the implementation of professional activities (51.3%).
The highest average scores were obtained in the following fields: professional abilities (81% of the maximum possible) and individual features of the teacher's personality (80% of the maximum possible).
The questionnaire "The Susceptibility of teachers to innovative development" by T.S. Solovyova provided the following results, which are indicative of the susceptibility to the new by educational experts: 58.3% of the total number of respondents have an optimal level of susceptibility to the new, an acceptable level of susceptibility is 36.7%. Teachers with low level of susceptibility amounted only to 5% of the total number of respondents.
The questionnaire "Motivational readiness of the pedagogical team for mastering innovations" by T.S. Solovyova studied the motivational readiness of teachers for innovative development. It can be seen from the questionnaire that 85% of the participants have the necessary (high and medium) motivational readiness.
Interestingly, the results of the questionnaire showed that 28% of educators are guided by their awareness of the insufficiency of the achieved results and the desire to raise their level of innovative development. The next important reasons are: a high level of professional claims, a strong need to achieve high results - 40%; need for contacts with interesting, creative people - 42%; the desire to create a good, effective school for children - 11%; the need for novelty, updating, changing the situation, overcoming routine - 34%; the need for leadership - 17%; the need for research, better understanding of objective laws - 17%; the need for self-expression, self-improvement - 8%; the sense of one’s own readiness to participate in innovation processes, self-confidence - 11%. Only a small number of participants - 2% - is guided by the desire to test in practice the knowledge gained about innovations; 5% of participants have the need for risk. It is apparent from the questionnaire that many teachers are driven to innovative development by material reasons: increased wages, the opportunity to pass attestation, etc. - 45%; the desire to be noticed and appreciated - 37%.
A correlation between the results of the analysis of the perception of innovative development by educational experts and their motivational readiness for this development is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Comparative data of components of motivational readiness of pedagogical
workers for innovative development (% of the number of respondents)
Level |
The motivational readiness of teachers to perceive innovative development |
The readiness of teachers to innovative development |
The susceptibility of teachers to innovative development |
Low level |
15,0 |
25,8 |
5,0 |
Average level |
66,7 |
58,1 |
36,7 |
High level |
18,3 |
16,1 |
58,3 |
According to the results of the analysis of Table 2, it is evident that the data on teachers' readiness for innovative development correlate with the data on the motivational readiness of teachers to perceive innovative development. However, a high level of teachers' receptivity to innovative development (58.3% of the total number of respondents) corresponds only to 16.1% of respondents who have a high level of readiness for innovative development.
The questionnaires revealed several anti-innovation barriers among the educational experts: the working team’s weak awareness of possible innovations - in 2% of teachers; the belief that it is possible to teach effectively in old way - in 8%; poor health, other personal reasons - in 14%; large training load - 25%; little work experience, in which even a traditional approach does not work - 17%; the lack of incentives - 8%; a sense of fear of negative results - 0%; disagreements, conflicts in the working team - 2%.
This paper has argued that innovative development is currently a central issue. According to the diagnostic map “Assessment of teacher readiness to participate in innovation” (by T.S. Solovyova) it is evident that the absolute majority of teachers (75%) are ready to participate in innovative development. Based on the results of studying the susceptibility to the new by educators (Questionnaire “The susceptibility of teachers to innovations” by T.S. Solovyova), it has been revealed that 95% of educators are susceptive to the new. The research has also shown that 95% of the surveyed teachers possess a noted susceptibility to innovations. However, their acceptable motivational readiness is at a lower level (85%). The integrative readiness of teachers for innovative development is completely reduced to 74.2%. This decline is probably accounted for the existing numerous barriers to the development of integrative readiness for innovation, among which there are the large workload (25%), insufficient work experience (17), personal reasons (14%). Therefore, there appeared the correlated indicators of the teachers’ readiness for innovative development and motivational readiness of teachers to perceive innovative development. A high level of teachers' susceptibility to innovations (58.3% of the total number of respondents) corresponds only to 16.1% of respondents who have a high level of readiness for innovative development.
Bayat, M., 2011. Clarifying Issues Regarding The Use Of Praise With Young Children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 2(31): 121-128.
Block M.E. and M.L. Horton, 1996. Include Safety In Physical Education: Do Not Exclude Students With Disabilities. Physical Educator, 2 (53): 58-72.
Brown, Odom W.H., 1999. Ecobehavioral Assessment In Early Childhood Programs: A Portrait Of Preschool Inclusion. Journal of Special Education, 3 (33): 138-153.
Dolgova, V.I., E.V. Baryshnikova, E.G. Kapitanets, E.V. Popova and Y.A. Rokitskaya, 2016. Psychocorrection Of Health, Activity and Mood of Patients with Coronary Artery Disease at The Stage of Sanatorium Therapy. Research Journal of Pharmaceutical, Biological and Chemical Sciences, 7(6): 322–328.
Dolgova, V. I., N. V. Mamylina, N. A. Belousova, E. V. Melnik and N. I. Arkayeva, 2016. Problems of mental regulation of personal behavior patterns in stressful conditions. Man In India, 96 (10): 3477-3483.
Dolgova, V.I., Y.A. Rokickaya, E.Y.Volchegorskaya, E.E. Yemelyanova and N.V. Uvarina, 2016. A study of psychological readiness of parents to educate children in the foster family. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education: 8592-8598.
Dolgova, V.I., A.A. Salamatov, M.V. Potapova, N.O. Yakovleva and E.V. Yakovlev, 2016. The research of the personality qualities of future educational psychologists. International Journal Of Environmental & Science Education, 11 (16): 9530-9542.
Dudina M. N. and V. I. Dolgova, 2016. The crisis of upbringing in the contemporary chronotope: potential solutions. Man In India, 96 (10): 3495–3503.
Forlin Ch., 1998. Teachers' Personal Concerns About Including Grove K.A., Fisher D. Children With A Disability In Regular Classrooms. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 10 (1): 87-106.
Gettinger, M., 2001. Development And Implementation Of A Performance-Monitoring System For Early Childhood Education. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(1): 9-15.
Holahan A. and V. Costenbader, 2000. A Comparison Of Developmental Gains For Preschool Children With Disabilities In Inclusive And Self-Contained Classrooms. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20(4): 224-235.
Kasari, C., S.F.N. Freeman, N. Bauminger and M.C. Alkin, 1999. Parental Perspectives On Inclusion: Effects Of Autism And Down Syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29 (4): 297-305.
Kirschbaum G. and S. Flanders, 1995. Successful Inclusion Practices. Intervention in School & Clinic, 30 (5): 309-312.
Miller S.E., 1994. Inclusion Of Children With Disabilities: Can We Meet The Challenge? Physical Educator, 51 (1): 47-52.
Odom S.L., M.J. Hanson and J. Lieber, 2001. The Costs Of Preschool Inclusion. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21 (1): 46-55.
Pavri S. and R. Luftig, 2000. The Social Face Of Inclusive Education: Are Students With Learning Disabilities Really Included In The Classroom? Preventing School Failure, 45 (1): 8-14.
Peter M., 2003. Drama, Narrative And Early Learning. British Journal of Special Education, 30 (1): 21-27.
Soto G., E. Muller and P. Hunt, 2001. Critical Issues In The Inclusion Of Students Who Use Augmentative And Alternative Communication: An Educational Team Perspective. AAC: Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 17 (2): 62-72.
Urwick J. and J. Elliott, 2010. International Orthodoxy Versus National Realities: Inclusive Schooling And The Education Of Children With Disabilities In Lesotho. Comparative Education, 46 (2): 137-150.
Wiener Ju. and Ch.Y. Tardif, 2004. Social And Emotional Functioning Of Children With Learning Disabilities: Does Special Education Placement Make A Difference? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19 (1): 20-32.
Wilczenski, F.L., 1995. Development Of A Scale To Measure Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55 (2): 291-299.
1. South Ural State Humanitarian Pedagogical University, Russia, 454080, Chelyabinsk, Lenin Avenue, 69. E-mail: 23a12@list.ru
2. South Ural State Humanitarian Pedagogical University, Russia, 454080, Chelyabinsk, Lenin Avenue, 69
3. South Ural State Humanitarian Pedagogical University, Russia, 454080, Chelyabinsk, Lenin Avenue, 69
4. South Ural State Humanitarian Pedagogical University, Russia, 454080, Chelyabinsk, Lenin Avenue, 69
5. South Ural State Humanitarian Pedagogical University, Russia, 454080, Chelyabinsk, Lenin Avenue, 69