The evaluation of secondary school teachers' competency regarding program preparation and implementation processes for inclusive education and individualized education

This research investigates the level of competency held by secondary school teachers who are employed in the Alteylül District concerning inclusive education and the processes involved in the development and execution of individualized education programs. The participants were secondary school teachers working in the Altıeylül District of the Balıkesir for the academic year 2021-2022. During the study, one of the mixed research designs known as the Exploratory Sequential Design was applied. Quantitative data were derived from the "Teacher Competence in Inclusion" scale created by Hollender (2011) and adapted to Turkish by Meral and Bilgic, whilst qualitative data were derived from the researcher's semi-structured interview form. While 280 secondary school teachers from 10 different branches were questioned for quantitative data, 17 teachers from 10 different branches were interviewed for qualitative data. Quantitative data analysis comprised descriptive statistics, t-Tests, and variance analysis, while the qualitative data analysis comprised content analysis. As the quantitative data showed, Visual Arts branch had the highest score in inclusive education competence, there was not a statistically significant difference in teacher competencies based on branch, gender, seniority year, class sizes, availability of inclusive students in the class, in-service training, or taking special education courses in university, yet, there was a significant difference for having a school counselor. During preparing the IEP, teachers considered the students' readiness levels and the CRS report, benefitted from in-class observations and the readiness test, and consulted with the school counselor, group teachers, other branch teachers and parents when we look at the qualitative data. Most teachers asserted they used pre made programs on the online platform or prepared IEPs by simplifying the learning outcomes in the current curriculum, whereas few teachers mentioned they utilized IEPs developed for students in previous years, with relevant regulations, and other sourcebooks, and they didn't encounter difficulties during the IEP preparation. Here, the additional qualitative data results. Teachers reported having trouble in estimating the readiness of students, detecting varying levels of literacy, and choosing relevant materials and activities throughout the IEP planning process and also parents' attitude was making the process more difficult. While teachers were implementing IEP, they could not make physical adjustments in their classrooms beyond the seating arrangement, spent little time on the inclusive student during the lesson, and incorporated game based activities, puzzles, and concept maps into the learning experience while employing induction, direct instruction, show-and-tell techniques and question-and-answer. In terms of measurement and evaluation, the majority asked fewer questions in examinations, and they preferred questions based on filling in the blanks, multiple-choice, drawing, and puzzles. Teachers offered the students extra points and time not to give poor grades in compliance with the regulations in place. Teachers also encountered challenges like having to adapt the lesson to the inclusive student's level, not being able to devote enough time to the inclusive student, classroom management difficulties, low motivation of inclusive students and their aggressive behaviors, and incapability of finding the right materials for the student.