SavedAdd your journal

Journals / The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences / 2026 / Volume: 2

PRESERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS’ CONCERNS FOR EDUCATING STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS IN THEIR FUTURE CLASSROOMS

Mustafa Cansız
Nurcan Cansız
Pages
—
Publication Date
2015-09-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results were discussed and implications for teacher education were made. 

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, the authors examined senior preservice science teachers’ (PSTs) concerns for educating students with disabilities in science classrooms.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Under each, there existed several sub issues.  For the first category, data analysis yielded that PSTs were concerned about being unable to cope with extra workload by accepting students with disabilities; lacking of enough training for educating those students; insufficient pedagogical knowledge; and scarce knowledge about disabilities.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results were discussed and implications for teacher education were made. 
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Inclusive education · science education · students with special needs

Abstract

In this study, the authors examined senior preservice science teachers’ (PSTs) concerns for educating students with disabilities in science classrooms. Eight PSTs were involved in the study. The constant comparative data analysis was performed. PSTs’ concerns for inclusive education were categorized into two themes: PSTs’ concerns about themselves and PSTs’ concerns about students with disabilities. Under each, there existed several sub issues.  For the first category, data analysis yielded that PSTs were concerned about being unable to cope with extra workload by accepting students with disabilities; lacking of enough training for educating those students; insufficient pedagogical knowledge; and scarce knowledge about disabilities. PSTs’ concerns about students with disabilities included three sub-issues which were: not devoting enough time for disabled students’ science learning; not to be able to achieve their science learning in terms of science content and science process skills, and not to be able to help them develop positive attitudes toward science. The results were discussed and implications for teacher education were made. 

🔖

Cite This Article

Cansız, M., Cansız, N. (2015). PRESERVICE SCIENCE TEACHERS’ CONCERNS FOR EDUCATING STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS IN THEIR FUTURE CLASSROOMS. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences, Volume: 2. https://ajindex.com/articles/1550458

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (23)

  1. De Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2011). Regular primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(3), 331–353.
  2. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co. Kirk, S., Gallagher, J., Coleman, M. R., & Anastasiow, N. J. (2012). Educating exceptional children. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Leatherman, J., & Niemeyer, J. (2005). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion: Factors influencing classroom practice. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26(1), 23–36.
  3. Leyser, Y. & Tappendorf, K. (2001). Are attitudes regarding mainstreaming changing? A case of teachers in two rural school districts. Education, 121, 751-61.
  4. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (Rev. ed.). Jossey-Bass, Inc., San Francisco. Ministry of National Education [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı] (2000). Milli Eğitim Bakanliği özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği. Tebliğler Dergisi, Şubat 2000/2509 Ministry of National Education [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı] (2010). Okullarımızda neden nasıl niçin kaynaştırma. Ankara:
  5. MEB. Nielsen, L. B. (2002). Brief reference of student disabilities:.With strategies for the classroom. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
  6. Odom, S. L. & McEvoy, M. A. (1990). Mainstreaming at the preschool level: Potential barriers and tasks for the fields. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10(2), 48–61.
  7. Peebles, J. & Mendaglio, S. (2014). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms: Introducing the individual direct experience approach. Learning Landscapes, 7(2), 245-256.
  8. Peltier, G. L. (1997). The effect of inclusion on non-disabled children: A review of the research. Contemporary Education, 68(4), 234-238.
  9. Roach, V. (1995). Supporting inclusion: Beyond the rhetoric. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(4), 295–99.
  10. Rose, D. & Smith, B. (1993). Preschool mainstreaming: Attitude barriers and strategies for addressing them. Young Children, 48(4), 59–62.
  11. Sharma, U., & Desai, I. (2002). Measuring concerns about integrated Education in India. Asia and Pacific Journal on Disability, 5(1), 2-14.
  12. Tiegerman- Farber, E., & Radziewicz, C. (1998). Collaborative Decision Making: The Pathway to Inclusion. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. De Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2011). Regular primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(3), 331–353.
  13. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory; strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co. Kirk, S., Gallagher, J., Coleman, M. R., & Anastasiow, N. J. (2012). Educating exceptional children. Belmont: Cengage Learning. Leatherman, J., & Niemeyer, J. (2005). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion: Factors influencing classroom practice. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26(1), 23–36.
  14. Leyser, Y. & Tappendorf, K. (2001). Are attitudes regarding mainstreaming changing? A case of teachers in two rural school districts. Education, 121, 751-61.
  15. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (Rev. ed.). Jossey-Bass, Inc., San Francisco. Ministry of National Education [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı] (2000). Milli Eğitim Bakanliği özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği. Tebliğler Dergisi, Şubat 2000/2509 Ministry of National Education [Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı] (2010). Okullarımızda neden nasıl niçin kaynaştırma. Ankara:
  16. MEB. Nielsen, L. B. (2002). Brief reference of student disabilities:.With strategies for the classroom. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.
  17. Odom, S. L. & McEvoy, M. A. (1990). Mainstreaming at the preschool level: Potential barriers and tasks for the fields. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10(2), 48–61.
  18. Peebles, J. & Mendaglio, S. (2014). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms: Introducing the individual direct experience approach. Learning Landscapes, 7(2), 245-256.
  19. Peltier, G. L. (1997). The effect of inclusion on non-disabled children: A review of the research. Contemporary Education, 68(4), 234-238.
  20. Roach, V. (1995). Supporting inclusion: Beyond the rhetoric. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(4), 295–99.
  21. Rose, D. & Smith, B. (1993). Preschool mainstreaming: Attitude barriers and strategies for addressing them. Young Children, 48(4), 59–62.
  22. Sharma, U., & Desai, I. (2002). Measuring concerns about integrated Education in India. Asia and Pacific Journal on Disability, 5(1), 2-14.
  23. Tiegerman- Farber, E., & Radziewicz, C. (1998). Collaborative Decision Making: The Pathway to Inclusion. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.