This study aimed to determine the effect of disability friendly education training on teachers’ understanding by applying disability-friendly education training modules. The research design adopted the pre-posttest method given to the same group before and after training on imparting disability friendly education. Classroom teachers in inclusive schools under the Ministry of Religion in Surakarta were the subjects of this research. The validity of the instrument was tested by using content validity on the feasibility or relevance of the contents of the test instrument through rational analysis by expert judgment. The results showed that the paired sample T-Test score was -17.736 with significant level at 0.000, which means <0.05. It suggests that there is a significant difference in the score of the average teacher's understanding of disability-friendly education before and after training, and the difference is statistically significant too. It can therefore be concluded that disability friendly educational training is effective to improve teachers' understanding in public schools.
Keywords: Disability-friendly education, Public school teachers, Training modules, Teachers’ understanding, Mainstream schools.
Received: 3 May 2019 / Revised: 12 June 2019 / Accepted: 15 July 2019/ Published: 30 August 2019
The primary contribution of this research is to find out whether training modules can prove effective in developing understanding among teachers of public school about persons with disabilities. This study is unique in proving that training intervention can make schools become disability-friendly schools for persons with disabilities.
Persons with disabilities have special needs, academically, socially and emotionally. In Indonesia, persons with disabilities are categorized into having physical, mental, intellectual and sensory disabilities (Pandji and Wardani, 2013; Pratiwi and Murtaningsih, 2013; Salim, 2017). Persons with disabilities need special education services, both in special schools (special schools) and in public schools (inclusive / integrated schools).
Inclusion schools are a form of education that unites persons with disabilities with normal children in order for them to learn together (Daroni et al., 2018). Inclusion has a philosophy to bring students, families, educators and community members together to form a social institution based on acceptance, and mutual recognition (Salend, 2011; Faradina, 2016). Inclusion schools must accommodate all children regardless of their physical, intellectual, social emotional, linguistic or other conditions (Tarmansyah, 2007; Charema, 2010). Effective Inclusive Education is based on principle of sensitivity and accepts advantages and challenges and individual differences (Salend, 2011; Balta et al., 2015). Indonesia Law No. 8 of 2016 concerns persons with disabilities. Its article 10 states that the right of education for persons with disabilities includes the right to obtain quality education in education units of all types, paths and levels of education in an inclusive and special manner. The Salamanca (1994) states that all children should be educated despite experiencing severe learning and development barriers; hence inclusive education must provide education that will prevent children from developing poor self-esteem and other consequences it might cause. Inclusive education aims to create cooperation between friends and all personalities in schools, not competition (Charema, 2010; Salim, 2019). Children in inclusive schools help and cooperate with one another, whether they are persons with disabilities or normal.
In order to establish a disability friendly inclusive education environment, the role of school community and school environment is very much needed. Haller (2006) showed that many schools accept persons with disabilities but schools are not friendly to people with disabilities. There is no flexible curriculum, accessibility is not widely available, and only about 39% of schools provide special programs according to disability needs. Unfriendly schools would lead to bullying behavior, discrimination including cyber bullying, depression and other maladaptive social interactions (Cross et al., 2012). Rejection from peers and school members further make educational service meaningless for the children (Slam, 2016). In some cases, unfriendly attitude come from several factors such as having new friends, non-accessibility, transition, and lack of knowledge about disabilities (Harounan et al., 2013). In addition, poor creativity, poor school management and limited facilities also contribute to stressful impact on children with disabilities (Oluremi, 2012). According to UNESCO (2007) there are several factors that support implementation of friendly education for persons with disabilities in inclusive schools, namely: (1) Strong policies and their compliance in schools on inclusive education, (2) High accessibility in school environment, (3) Skills, knowledge and attitudes in the form of teachers’ acceptance, (4) Teacher’s competency on disability services in inclusive schools, (5) Meeting equality needs for students, (6) Providing accommodating curricula and assessments, (7) Specific lessons / compensatory programs for persons with disabilities, and (8) Strong community support. Alimul et al. (2018) too reiterates these factors and emphasizes that schools should become friendly schools for persons with disabilities and meet their scholastic needs by providing to them (a) qualified human resources, (b) facilities that are accessible to persons with disabilities, (c) financial support, (d) standard operational services for students with disabilities, and (e) such learning models that are easily accessible to persons with disabilities.
In the context of teacher's view of persons with disabilities in inclusive schools, there are some negative views from teachers such as those explained by Syafrida and Aryani (2013) that negative attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education are shown in (1) Teacher’s rejection to place person with disabilities in inclusion classes; and (2) The views of persons with disabilities that they do not have the ability to attend education in class with normal children. This negative view creates a lack of friendliness in schools for inclusive education. According to Ni’matuzahroh (2015) about school readiness as an inclusive school, some teachers (44.6%) stated that their school was not ready to become an inclusive school, because it would only burden the school without bringing benefits, and a majority of teachers (73.2%) said that not all schools need to be converted into inclusive schools.
The philosophical foundation for the implementation of inclusive education is the religious views associated with it (especially of Islam) which affirm that: (1) Humans are born in a holy state, (2) Someone's position before God (Allah) is not physical but because of Taqwa/ obedience to God (Allah), (3) Allah will not change the fate of a people unless they themselves change it, (4) Humans are created differently to be mutually friendly (Black-Hawkinsa, 2014). From the explanation, inclusion schools in the Ministry of Religion in Indonesia should have implemented friendly education for persons with disabilities, but the reality is still not optimal. This can be seen in the results of preliminary research on the understanding school teachers assigned as inclusive schools within the Ministry of Religion. They understand about disability-friendly education, 78% stated that they did not understand, and only 11% stated that they understood (Risnawati, 2013).
Based on the survey results on the attitude of teachers’ acceptance in the Ministry of Religion towards friendly education for persons with disabilities, 17% of acceptance attitudes were low, 72% were moderate, and 11% were high (Nugraheni, 2018). Based on these results, the attitude and understanding of teachers towards friendly education for persons with disabilities within the Ministry of Religion needs to be improved. For this reason a friendly education training module for persons with disabilities should be developed in public schools.
This study aims to determine the effectiveness of the implementation of friendly education training modules for persons with disabilities to increase the understanding of teachers in public schools selected as inclusive schools.
2.1. Research Design
This study adopted the pre-posttest design method to the same group in order to assess the impact of training. The study began with collecting preliminary data through a pre-test to teachers to assess their understanding of education services for people with disabilities. It was followed by training modules to teach how to implement disability-friendly education. These training modules had been developed prior to the commencement of this study. The training ended with a final test (post-test).
2.2. Participants
The research subjects included class teachers and subject teachers in inclusive schools within Surakarta Ministry of Religion. The selection of participants depended on following conditions: (a) he/she must be a class teacher or subject teacher in a school with persons with disabilities, (b) he/she should have a formal educational background not from a Special Education program (c) he/she should possess at least 2 years of teaching experience, (d) he/she should be willing to take part in training activities on the application of education training modules that are friendly to persons with disabilities, and (e) willing to take part in pre-test and post-test.
2.3. Data Collection Techniques
Data was collected by using a test method with the intention to accumulate teachers’ understanding about disability-friendly education in inclusive schools. The data on disability-friendly education ensured that (a) the school guarantees to fulfill the rights of children with disabilities in every aspect of life in a planned and responsible manner as outlined in school policies and regulations, (b) there is accessibility in the school environment (c ) there is an acceptance among teachers and school community for persons with disabilities to study together with non-disabled children, (d) there are programs to improve teachers’ competency, (e) flexible curricula and assessments are available, (f) there are compensation programs and (g) schools rewards persons with disabilities for achievements, and (h) schools have a safe, healthy, clean and cultured environment.
2.4. Data Collection Procedures
Data was collected through several stages, namely: (a) it commenced with taking permission to conduct research in Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (Elementary Schools), Madrasah Tsanawiyah (Junior High Schools) and Madrasah Aliyah (Senior high schools). (b) It was followed by a random selection of teacher subjects. (c) The teachers were collected at one place for the pre-test, a tool to collect initial data about teachers' understanding of disability-friendly education. (d) After pre-test, there was training in disability-friendly education through specialized modules designed for the education of people with disabilities for teachers. (e) Final test (post-test).
2.5. Instruments
The research test instrument consisted of several sub-variables developed into a blue print instrument as shown in the Table 1.
Table-1. The blue print of test instrument on the understanding of friendly education for persons with disabilities in inclusive schools.
No |
Sub variable | Total item |
1. |
Understanding of disability concept | 3 |
2. |
Understanding of inclusive education concept | 3 |
3. |
School rules contain guarantees for existence of persons with disabilities | 2 |
4. |
Accessibility at school both outside and inside of classroom, laboratory, library, and school office. | 3 |
5. |
School community’s acceptance of persons with disabilities / non-discrimination | 1 |
6. |
Flexible curriculum and assessment | 2 |
7. |
Availability of compensatory training program | 2 |
8. |
Safe, healthy, clean, and cultured school environment | 4 |
| Total | 20 items |
Source: Researcher document.
2.6. Validity and Reliability of Instrument
Validity of the test instrument was tested by using content validity on the feasibility or relevance of the contents of the test instrument through rational analysis by expert judgment (Anwar, 2012). The experts consisted of special education experts and inclusive education experts. Reliability of the instrument was to know the consistency of the results of the test instrument. In this study, the reliability was tested by using split-half reliability with the reliability level of 0.85 of alpha Cronbach.
2.7. Data Analysis Techniques
The data analysis technique was a paired T-sample parametric statistical technique used to find out how effective was training in improving teachers’ understanding of friendly education for persons with disabilities. If the results show significance <0.05 or p = <0.05, then it means that the training carried out was effective, and vice versa. The data obtained was processed by using SPSS 20.
As explained earlier, the research data was collected through a pre-test and a post-test. Data collected was related to the teacher's understanding of disability-friendly education. Based on the results of the pre-test, the following descriptive analysis was evident (Table 2).
Table-2. Results of pretest data descriptive statistical analysis of teachers' understanding about disability-friendly education.
Descriptive statistics
Data |
N |
Range |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Sum |
Mean |
Std. deviation |
Variance |
Pretest |
30 |
35 |
35 |
70 |
1645 |
54,83 |
9,603 |
92,213 |
Valid N (list wise) |
30 |
Source: Results of descriptive analysis of pretest data.
Table 2 exhibits that the pretest score of teachers' understanding about friendly education for persons with disabilities was 35 at the lowest and the highest score was 70. It was classified into: very poor = 35 - 45, poor = 46 - 55, fair = 56 - 65, good = 66 - 75, very good> = 76. The average score of the pretest was 54.83 showing the level of teacher's understanding about the friendliness of persons with disabilities.
After obtaining the results of the pretest, teacher-participants were provided 2- day training to improve teachers’ understanding about persons with disabilities. After the completion of training, the training participants were given a posttest. Data was analyzed by descriptive statistics whose results are shown in Table 3.
Table-3. Results of posttest data descriptive statistical on teacher understanding about disability-friendly education.
Descriptive statistics
Data |
N |
Range |
Minimum |
Maximum |
Sum |
Mean |
Std. deviation |
Variance |
Posttest |
30 |
35 |
60 |
95 |
2445 |
81,50 |
9,206 |
84,741 |
Valid N (list wise) |
30 |
Source: Results of descriptive analysis of post test data.
Table 3 illustrates that the score of teacher's understanding in the posttest on friendly education for persons with disabilities was 60 at the lowest and 95 at the highest. The score was classified into: very poor = 35 - 45, poor = 46 - 55, fair = 56 - 65, good = 66 - 75, very good = >76. The average score of the posttest was 81.50 including teacher's understanding about friendly education for persons with disabilities at a very good level.
Before conducting a paired sample T-test, parametric statistical prerequisite test was done, namely the normality test to find out whether the data obtained was normally distributed, because the requirements to conduct a paired sample T-test was to ensure that the data must be normally distributed. The following are the results of the normality test for pretest and posttest data, shown in Table 4.
Table-4. Results of the normality test of the pretest and posttest data of the teachers’ understanding about the education of persons with disabilities.
Tests of normality
Data |
Kolmogorov-Smirnova |
Shapiro-Wilk |
||||
Statistic |
Df |
Sig. |
Statistic |
Df |
Sig. |
|
Pretest |
,205 |
30 |
,002 |
,934 |
30 |
,063 |
Posttest |
,127 |
30 |
,200* |
,948 |
30 |
,150 |
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
a. Lilliefors significance correction.
The normality test was performed on pretest and posttest data as shown in Table 4 with Shapiro-Wilk table section. The significance obtained from the pretest was 0.063 which means > 0.05 and the posttest was 0.150> 0.05. Similarly significance obtained was > 0.05, which proves that the pretest and posttest data scores were normally distributed.
Having found the data on pretest and posttest normally distributed, the data was then tested by using paired T-test samples to find out how effective the implementation of training modules for friendly education of persons with disabilities to the understanding of teachers in public / inclusive schools. The results of the paired sample T-test are shown in Table 5.
Table-5. Results of the paired sample T-Test of teachers' understanding about friendly education for persons with disabilities.
Paired samples t-test
Paired differences |
t |
Df |
Sig. (2-tailed) |
||||||
Mean |
Std. deviation |
Std. error mean |
95% confidence interval of the difference |
||||||
Lower |
Upper |
||||||||
Pair 1 |
Pretest – Posttest |
-26,667 |
8,235 |
1,504 |
-29,742 |
-23,592 |
-17,736 |
29 |
,000 |
Source: Results of statistical data analysis t test samples in pairs.
From the results of the paired sample T-test (Table 5), it is revealed that t value is -17.736 with the significance level of 0.000, which means <0.05. It means that there is a significant difference in the average score of teachers' understanding about friendly education for persons with disabilities between before and after training, and the difference is statistically significant. It can be concluded that the implementation of friendly education training modules for persons with disabilities was effective in increasing teachers' understanding in public schools.
Based on the test results on the effectiveness of disability-friendly education training for teachers in public schools, it was concluded that training for friendly education for persons with disabilities was effective to increase the understanding of teachers in public schools about friendly education for persons with disabilities. These conclusions and results are in line with those of Risnawati (2013) who found that child-friendly schools are schools that consciously strive to guarantee and fulfill children's rights in every aspect of life in a planned and responsible manner. In addition to fulfill the rights for normal children, they also have to fulfill the learning rights of persons with disabilities to create an environment for friendly education.
The result of the research is also in line with the research finding by Cross et al. (2012;2018) who claimed that intervention reduces multi-level intimidation behavior among the educational staff after 3 years of training. The research by Cross et al. (2012) as noted, was addressed to children without disabilities. Even though this research focused on disabilities, the results indicated that training succeeded in changing the staffs’ bullying behavior into friendlier attitude towards disabilities. The findings of this study also suggest that for a school to move on towards disability-friendly environment, it is the power of intervention that changes the negligence of teachers and staffs into positive attitude. Similarly, it was also felt that family members and peers too needed training and intervention practices to develop a positive attitude towards disabilities (Slam, 2016; Cross et al., 2018). Henceforth, training and intervention plays a paramount role in changing people’s behavior from relatively negative to positive attitude towards disabilities. Disability- friendly attitude among school members is likely to change through the intensity of training and intervention. In addition, for a school to be disability-friendly, the inclusive child-friendly environment needs special attention from the government as well as the school management. This is in line with the research by Oluremi (2012); Santos and Miguel (2019) stating that school with child-friendly classrooms as well as accessible infrastructure for all children could create a discrimination and bullying free environment, and make all students in school feel at home. According to Hartono and Pamungkas (2010) child-friendly schools aim to create a learning environment that encourages children to grow up safely, properly and pleasantly to get the right to good education and environment. Especially for public schools to be designated as inclusive schools and termed as schools with friendly education, they must provide a safe, feasible and enjoyable learning environment to even persons with disabilities. This need includes both physical and non-physical needs. This is in accordance with the results of Alimul et al. (2018) that to be friendly schools for persons with disabilities, public schools need (a) qualified human resources, (b) fulfilling disability-accessible facilities, (c) financial support (d) standard operational services for students with disabilities, and (e) easily accessible learning models for persons with disabilities.
Applying child-friendly education according to Utari (2016); Daroni et al. (2018) is that children will get their rights in good schools in terms of comfort, security, and freedom of expression, well conveyed in the delivery of learning materials and children feel comfortable. Children can learn without pressure and without coercion. The school also provides facilities and infrastructure both academically and non-academically. With this friendly education implemented, learning will be carried out maximally. Therefore it is necessary to implement friendly education for persons with disabilities in inclusive schools / public schools (Irawati, 2015).
The effectiveness side of friendly education to persons with disabilities training is that teachers finally understand that persons with disabilities need the eight aspects that must be applied to create friendly education in public schools, namely: (1) There are policies and support from schools on inclusive education, (2) Accessibility in the environment school, (3) The acquisition of skills, knowledge and attitudes by teachers, (4) Increasing teacher competency for disability services in inclusive schools, (5) Fulfilling equal needs for students, (6) Accommodating curricula and assessments available, ( 7) There are special lessons / compensatory programs for persons with disabilities, and (8) There is community support.
Disability-friendly education training for teachers in public schools has often shown effective results, but any improvement mechanism for teachers' understanding of disability-friendly education cannot necessarily be implemented. This depends on the consistency of each teacher to implement friendly education for persons with disabilities. Haller (2006) and Hasan and Handayani (2014) explained that after teachers have received training, it turned out that only 40% of schools provided disability services and only 39% of schools provided curricula and learning materials that were suitable to the needs and abilities of persons with disabilities. This suggests that schools do not provide specific programs for disability services and nor their curriculum and learning materials are suitable to the needs of persons with disabilities. This research also faced a few limitations: (1) This model of training for friendly education for persons with disabilities was developed in public schools only under the management of the Ministry of Religion. (2) The sample used in this study was only for teachers in public school schools within the Ministry. That is why in future it needs to be developed more broadly into public schools which are not only within the Ministry of Religion. From the discussion, it can be concluded that training for disabled-friendly education for teachers in public schools can be effective in increasing teachers' understanding of disability-friendly education.
The results of the study concluded that training in the application of modules on friendly education for people with disabilities was effective in increasing teachers' understanding in public schools. Some recommendations for future researchers are (a) Friendly education modules for people with disabilities should be used more often in public schools, (b) the application of training modules should be able to include teachers from other broader regions so that several regions can provide friendly education services to people with disabilities.
| Funding: This study received financial support from competitive research postgraduate grants. |
| Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. |
| Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. |
Alimul, H., M. Masrukan and S. Sulhadi, 2018. Evaluation program of inclusive education in College (Study at Brawijaya University Malang and State Islamic University of Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta). Journal of Educational Research and Evaluation, 7(2): 128-138.
Anwar, S., 2012. Reliability and validity. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Balta, N., M. Arslan and H. Duru, 2015. The effect of in-service training courses on teacher achievement: A meta-analysis study. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(5): 254-263.Available at: https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v3i5.1037.
Black-Hawkinsa, K., 2014. Inclusive education and the philosophy of education: What can inclusive education learn from philosophy? Cambridge Journal of Eeducation, 44(4): 445–450.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2014.960258.
Charema, J., 2010. Inclusive education in developing countries in the Sub Saharan Africa: From theory to practice. International Journal of Special Education, 25(1): 87-93.
Cross, D., T. Shaw, M. Epstein, N. Pearce, A. Barnes, S. Burns, S. Waters, L. Lester and K. Runions, 2018. Impact of the friendly schools whole-school intervention on transition to secondary school and adolescent bullying behaviour. European Journal of Education, 53(4): 495-513.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12307.
Cross, D., S. Waters, N. Pearce, T. Shaw, M. Hall, E. Erceg, S. Burns, C. Roberts and G. Hamilton, 2012. The friendly schools friendly families programme: Three-year bullying behaviour outcomes in primary school children. International Journal of Educational Research, 53: 394-406.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.05.004.
Daroni, G.A., A. Salim and Sunardi, 2018. Impact of parent's divor.Ce on children's education for disability kids. Indonesian Journal of Disability Studies, 5(1): 35 - 45.
Faradina, N., 2016. Self acceptance of parents who have children with special needs. E-Journal Psychology, 4(4): 34-39.
Haller, B.A., 2006. Promoting disability-friendly campuses to prospective students: An analysis of university recruitment materials. Disability Studies Quarterly, 26(2): 15 - 22.Available at: https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v26i2.673.
Harounan, K., D. Levy, L.L. Linden and M. Sloan, 2013. The effects of" girl-friendly" schools: Evidence from the BRIGHT school construction program in Burkina Faso. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(3): 41-62.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1257/app.5.3.41.
Hartono, A. and A. Pamungkas, 2010. Media development training towards child friendly schools. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.
Hasan, A.S. and M.M. Handayani, 2014. The relationship between peer friend social support and self-adjustment of deaf students in the inclusion school. Journal of Educational and Development Psychology, 14(2): 128 – 135.
Irawati, N., 2015. The relationship between empathy and regular student social acceptance of disabilities students in inclusive classes (junior high school 2 sewon). Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 10(4): 56-62.
Ni’matuzahroh, 2015. Analysis of teacher readiness in management of inclusion classes. Psychology & Humanity Seminar. Psychology Forum UMM.
Nugraheni, 2018. Attitude of teachers' acceptance of learning-friendly education for children with disability in the ministry of religion in Surakarta. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 6(1): 52-59.
Oluremi, O., F., 2012. Creating a friendly school learning environment for Nigerian children. European Scientific Journal, 8(8): 44-49.
Pandji and Wardani, 2013. Have we friendly special needs children? , Jakarta: Elex Media Komputindo.
Pratiwi and Murtaningsih, 2013. Tips for success in caring for children with special needs. Ar-ruzz, Yogyakarta.
Risnawati, 2013. Child friendly schools as education oriented to children's needs. Bandung: Rosda.
Salamanca, S., 1994. The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. World Conference on Special Needs Education: Access and Quality. Spanyol.
Salend, J.S., 2011. Creating inclusive classrooms. Effective and reflective practices. New York: Pearson.
Salim, A., 2017. Teacher’s mastery on the concepts of differentiated instruction in inclusive primary schools. Proceeding International Conference on Special Education in Southeast Asia Region. Malang: January 21 2017. pp: 1-4.
Salim, A., 2019. The analysis of teachers’ competence in participating the in-service training program of inclusive education in Indonesia. Asian Social Science, 15(2): 8-16.
Santos, D. and L. Miguel, 2019. The relationship between teachers' beliefs, teachers' behaviors, and teachers' professional development: A literature review. International Journal of Education and Practice, 7(1): 10-18.Available at: https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2019.71.10.18.
Slam, Z., 2016. Education nonviolence through child friendly school. TARBIYA: Journal of Education in Muslim Society, 3(2): 186-204.Available at: https://doi.org/10.15408/tjems.v3i2.4983.
Syafrida, E. and W.T. Aryani, 2013. Teachers' attitudes toward inclusive education are viewed from the forming factors of attitude. Journal of Development and Education Psychology, 13(2): 10 – 12.
Tarmansyah, 2007. Inclusion educational for all. Jakarta: Depdiknas.
UNESCO, 2007. Toolkit for developing an inclusive, friendly environment for learning. Jakarta: Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education Management.
Utari, R.E., 2016. Implementation of child friendly school programs in tempuran 1 junior high school magelang district. Journal of Education Policy, 5(7): 695 – 707.
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), International Journal of Education and Practice shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. |