Article 9

Id: 802820
Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Vol.9(1), pp. 98-115, January 2022
Available online at http://www.perjournal.com
ISSN: 2148-6123
http://dx.doi.org/10.17275/per.22.6.9.1
Teachers' attitudes and the challenges they experience concerning

individualized education program (IEP): A mixed method study
İshak Kozikoğlu*
Department of Educational Sciences, Van Yüzüncü Yıl University, Van, Turkey
ORCID: 0000-0003-3772-4179
Ezgi Nur Albayrak

Bahçeşehir College, Van, Turkey
ORCID: 0000-0003-3589-879X
Article history In this study, it was aimed to examine teachers' attitudes and challenges
Received: they experience concerning Individualized Education Program (IEP).
01.10.2020
Explanatory sequential design, one of the mixed methods, was used in
Received in revised form: this study. The study group of this study consists of 100 teachers working
31.05.2021 in the central districts of Van, Turkey within 2019-2020 academic year.
In data collection, the scales of “Determining the Attitudes towards IEP
Accepted: Preparation Process”, “Determining the Challenges Concerning IEP
21.06.2021
Preparation Process” and a semi-structured interview form were used.
Key words: Findings demonstrated that teachers have positive views about the IEP
Individualized education process, and the implementation of IEP is useful and essential.
program; Concerning the challenges they experience during the IEP process, the
IEP; teachers think that they do not have sufficient information about the
Attitude;
planning, implementation and assessment/evaluation processes of IEP,
Challenges;
Inclusive education; the school/classroom is physically inadequate, and the classes are
Teachers crowded in the implementation of IEP. In addition, it was found that as
the positive attitudes of the teachers towards IEP increased, the
challenges they encountered during the IEP process decreased. Based on
the results of this study, it can be suggested that teachers should receive
in-service training, physical conditions should be improved, the class
size should be reduced, and cooperation should be provided between the
family, classroom teachers and guidance counselor in order to conduct
IEP in a healthier way.
Introduction
It is accepted that different abilities, interests and skills of individuals are unique to
them, as each individual has their own physical development. With the innovations brought by
the age we live in, the education and training opportunities provided for individuals with normal
development characteristics as well as individuals with different developmental characteristics
from their peers are gradually increasing. Students who cannot benefit from normal education
*
Correspondency: [email protected]
Participatory Educational Research (PER), 9 (1);98-115, 1 January 2022
opportunities due to their differing developmental characteristics are named as special needs
students (Aral & Gürsoy, 2009). Education of disabled and non-disabled students together is
called inclusive education. In inclusive education, the individuals with special needs will be
together with the individuals with normal development, so the sense of dependence will
decrease and they will be self-confident. At the same time, the life of the individuals with
special needs in the society will be facilitated (Ministry of National Education [MoNE], 2010).
Special education services in Turkey date back to the 1950s. The execution process of special
education services was transferred from the Ministry of Health and Social Assistance to the
Ministry of National Education, which was the most important development of the period
(Özyürek, 2009). Gazi Education Institute was established in 1952 in order to train personnel
for special education services, served for two terms and then was closed in 1955 (State Planning
Organization [SPO], 1992). The Psychological Service Center was established in 1955 in order
to carry out the special education services in all our provinces in integrity, and the foundation
of today's Guidance and Research Centers was formed. With the establishment of the
Psychological Service Center, special classes were opened for mentally disabled students, and
the first application examples of sub-special class practice took place later (Özsoy, 1990). The
measures to be taken by the state were decided in 1956 with the law numbered 6660 in raising
gifted and gifted children. The 1960s are important in order to regulate special education
services legally and to train staff in universities in this field (Kargın, 2007).
With the implementation of the "Special Education Teaching Certificate Program" in 1978,
classroom teachers and teachers working in different branches were certified in order to train
teachers for all branches of special education (Akçamete & Kaner, 1999). With the
incorporation of special education services within General Directorate of Primary Education
into the General Directorate in 1980, the planning and execution of special education services
throughout the country took a systematic route (Şahin, 2003). Law numbered 2916, which
entered into force in 1983, paved the way for children with special needs to receive inclusive
education for the first time (MoNE, 2000). With the Decree Law numbered 573 which was
adopted in 1997 and the Regulation on Special Education Services, which entered into force in
2000, it was discussed in detail how students with special needs should be evaluated and how
appropriate educational environments, placement and individual education programs should be
organized in this sense (Kargın, 2007).
How the placement process of individuals with special needs should be in the educational
evaluation processes was discussed in the Special Education Services Regulation issued in
2006. Unlike the regulations that came into force in 1997 and 2000, it was stated in the 2006
Special Services Regulation that an "Education Plan" should be prepared for each individual
who needs special education. It was explained in detail in the regulation that the training plans
to be prepared and the goals that individuals with special needs will have to reach during the
year should be determined in the Guidance Research Centers (called as RAM) by the
assessment team, and prepared by the IEP team formed in the school or institution where the
IEP is taught, Again, with this regulation, the educational evaluation process was defined
legally and the steps to be followed in this process were expressed (Kargın, 2007).
The combination of an education program, individualization and planning elements constitute

individualized education programs. With IEP, it is aimed to prepare an environment for
individuals with special needs to receive educational support with their peers of normal
development (Özyürek, 2009). IEP is defined as a special education program prepared by taking
into account the needs of the individual, teacher and family for individuals who need special
-99-
Teachers' attitudes and the challenges they experience concerning individualized education… İ.Kozikoğlu, E.N.Albayrak
education. With this program, it is aimed that the individual in need of special education can
benefit from the appropriate learning environments (special education classes, the school itself,
and others.) and support units (therapy, rehabilitation, and alike). In this process, students who
need special education or show different characteristics from their friends are determined by
the classroom teacher. After the situation of the student is evaluated together with the school
administration, the counselor, the classroom teacher and parents, an individualized education
program is prepared for the relevant student (MoNE, 2010).
Individualized education programs (IEPs) constitute fundamental mechanisms to make special

education services child-specific and improve the developmental outcomes of children with
disabilities (Boavida et al., 2010). It is argued that IEP has become an instructive mechanism
as well as an evaluative one. It functions as a method for assessing children's progress by
encouraging parental involvement in setting and monitoring educational goals (Goodman &
Bond, 1993). The IEP is critical for educators, parents, and students. Through the IEP process,
school-based teams (a) assess a student's educational needs, (b) develop meaningful and
measurable goals for the student, (c) develop and implement a program of special education
and related services (d) monitor student progress toward goals (Christle & Yell, 2010).
IEP includes the current educational situation of the student, the long-term goals envisaged to
be acquired by the student in an academic term, the short-term goals to be used to reach the
long term, the materials and methods-techniques used to achieve these goals. In addition, it
includes the time interval to reach the short-term goals, the monitoring/evaluation performed to
determine whether the goals are achieved, and where, when or by whom the services will be
provided to the student (Strickland & Turnbull, 1990). In order for both the preparation and
implementation of the IEP to be efficient, the IEP preparation committee consisting of the
school principal and assistant, counselor, classroom teacher, branch teachers and parents should
be in cooperation with each other (MoNE, 2018).
In order to determine the individual who needs IEP, the first thing to do is to create an informal
process by using evaluation tools such as observations, interviews, checklists, and so on. In this
process, the classroom teacher and the counselor should cooperate and prevent unnecessary
evaluation of the student who does not have special needs and take the student into detailed
evaluation (Kirk, Gallagher, Anastasiow, & Coleman, 2006). If the student is below the grade
level both academically and socially in this informal evaluation process, a detailed evaluation
should be made. In detailed evaluation, a formal evaluation process is initiated by applying
intelligence tests, which are widely used in Turkey. These formal evaluation results are
supported with informal evaluation results and it is decided whether the individual is suitable
for special education services (Kargın, 2007).
The most effective agent that actively takes part in the development, implementation and
evaluation of IEP and determines at what level the needs of the student should be met is the
teacher (Arivett, Rust, Brissie, & Dansby, 2007). The person who communicates with the
student, designs and implements the education program, uses the necessary material during the
application and makes the evaluation is again the teacher. Therefore, teachers have a very
important role in determining and evaluating what behaviors students can demonstrate
(Gözütok, 1991).
When the literature is examined; Saraç and Çolak (2012) concluded that the physical
characteristics of the classroom were insufficient in inclusive practices, the school personnel
were insufficient in solving the problems of classroom teachers, and the assistance provided
-100-
was dysfunctional and insufficient. Çuhadar (2006) reached the conclusion that although
classroom teachers and school administrators think that IEP is compulsory and educationally
essential, they continue their education and training based on trial and error without preparing
IEP for inclusive students. Öztürk (2009) concluded that classroom teachers think that IEP is
essential and beneficial for all stakeholders, teachers benefit from many resources in the process
of preparing IEP, but the physical conditions of the school are not sufficient in the IEP
application. Küçüker, Kargın and Akçamete (2002), in their study examining the views of the
staff in RAM on the issues of IEP preparation, application, evaluation and family education,
concluded that in-service training positively affected the issues of IEP preparation, monitoring
and evaluation. In addition, a limited number of studies have been reached in the literature that
examine teachers' attitudes towards IEP (Tike, 2007) and the challenges they experience
(Noseless, 2019; Söğüt & Deniz, 2018; Tike, 2007). Therefore, it can be said that there is a
need for comprehensive studies to determine the attitudes and views of teachers, who have an
active and important role in the IEP development, implementation and evaluation process, and
the challenges they experience in this process.
The purpose of this study is to determine teachers' attitudes towards the IEP process and the
challenges they experience in this process. For this purpose, the following research questions
are addressed:
(1) What are the teachers' attitudes towards the IEP process and the challenges they
experience during the IEP process?
(2) Is there a significant relationship between the teachers' attitudes towards the IEP process
and the challenges they experience during the IEP process?
(3) Do teachers' attitudes towards the IEP process significantly predict the challenges they
experience during the IEP process?
(4) What are the teachers' views concerning the IEP process?
It is thought that in IEP, which is created by the participation of teachers, school principals,
target experts and families in order to organize, implement and evaluate the educational
activities of students with special needs, determining the challenges that teachers experience in
both development, application and evaluation process will contribute to the development of
education programs prepared for these students. IEP is carried out in order to set appropriate
goals at school to ensure the success of children with disabilities. The results revealed that IEP
goals focus on three main issues: 1) improving school readiness, 2) improving communication
(both sign communication and speech communication) and 3) improving pre-academic
performance in targeted areas (Musyoka & Clark, 2017). Research on IEP examines current
practices and provides information on whether practitioners are implementing policies and if
the effectiveness of current practice in providing meaningful educational benefit to students.
Unfortunately,studies on IEP lack revealing the relationship between the quality of IEP and the
education level of students. Current research on IEP shows that progress has been made in terms
of student development, but we still have a long way to determine whether IEP is actually
appropriate (Christle & Yell, 2010).
As affective factors are a driving force of learning (Kasap & Peterson, 2018; Kasap, 2021), in
order for the IEP process to be effective, teachers should have a positive attitude towards this
application. Therefore, it is important to determine the attitudes of teachers towards the IEP
process, who have a critical role in the IEP process. In addition, the literature includes a limited
number of studies on IEP. There is a need for up-to-date studies examining teachers' attitudes,
views and problems about IEP. In this case, it is thought that this study will contribute to the
-101-
literature in terms of both determining the teachers' attitudes, views and problems about IEP
and providing in-depth data on the subject with the mixed method. In addition, this study is
important in terms of determining the relationship and predictive power between teachers'
attitudes towards IEP and the challenges they experience in the IEP process.
Method
Research design
In this study, explanatory sequential design, one of the mixed method designs, was used.
In explanatory sequential design, firstly data are collected by quantitative methods, then
qualitative data are collected based on the analysis of these data. In this design, quantitative and
qualitative data are integrated and interpreted together (Creswell, 2014). First, quantitative data
were collected in this study, and then qualitative data were collected and it was aimed to reach
valid research results with comprehensive and supportive data. While determining the teachers
to be interviewed in this study, diversity was provided by taking into account the variables of
teachers' gender, branch, whether they received in-service training related to IEP and their
inclusive education experiences.
In this study, a mixed method was used to evaluate teachers' attitudes towards the process of
preparing individualized education programs and the challenges they experience from a deep
perspective. The research design is presented in Figure 1.
First Stage: Quantitative Data

- The scale for determining attitudes towards IEP preparation process
Research Design
- The scale for determining the challenges concerning IEP preparation process
Second Stage: Transition

Analyzing the quantitative data, preparing the interview form and
determining the study group for the next stage
Third Stage: Qualitative Data

- Semi-structıred interview form
Figure 1. Research design
Study group
The study group of this study consists of 100 teachers working in the central districts of
Van (İpekyolu, Edremit, Tusba) within 2019-2020 academic year. Criterion and convenience
sampling methods were used in determining the study group. Certain criteria are determined in
criterion sampling and individuals who meet the criteria are included in the study group
(Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2016). In convenience sampling method, the participants are selected from
the ones who are easy to contact or to reach (Büyüköztürk et al., 2015). Easy accessibility and
-102-
volunteerism were taken into consideration while determining the study group in the study, and
the criteria for teachers was determined as having worked with students of İEP for at least one
year. The distribution of teachers in the study group concerning their personal characteristics is
presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Distribution of teachers by demographic characteristics
Variable Category Number Percentage (%)

Gender Female 66 66.0
Male 34 34.0
Branch Classroom teacher 60 60.0
Branch teacher 40 40.0
As seen in Table 1, 66 of the teachers participating in the study are female and 34 of them are
male. Sixty of the teachers are classroom teachers and 40 are working in other branches. In this
study, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 15 teachers among the teachers who
responded to the scale in order to provide qualitative data. The maximum variation sampling
method, one of the purposeful sampling methods, was used in determining the teachers to be
interviewed. Maximum variation sampling is used to reveal the different dimensions of the
problem according to diversity (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2016). Ten of the teachers interviewed are
female and five are male. Ten of them are classroom teachers and five are branch teachers.
Seven of them received in-service training on IEP, and eight of them did not receive in-service
training on IEP. All of the teachers had previous inclusive education experience.
Data Collection Tools
The scale for determining attitudes towards IEP preparation process

The scale developed by Tike (2007) consists of 15 items and three sub-dimensions: "IEP
Perception", "Elements of IEP", "IEP Task Perception". The scale consists of a 5-point scale
ranging from "totally agree" to "strongly disagree". The scale includes such items as "IEP shows
where and how to start education.", "I think I will be beneficial to the student by participating
in the IEP preparation process.". As a result of the test-retest for the scale, the reliability
coefficient was calculated as 0.78 for the first sub-dimension, 0.76 for the second sub-
dimension, 0.82 for the third sub-dimension and 0.81 for the total of the scale. In this study,
Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficients of the scale were calculated as 0.81, 0.75,
0.72, 0.86, respectively. These values show that the data obtained from the scale are reliable.
The scale for determining the challenges concerning IEP preparation process
The scale developed by Tike (2007) has 20 items and four sub-dimensions: "Knowledge
Level", "Challenges Concerning the IEP Process", "Challenges Concerning the IEP Team",
"Challenges Concerning Sharing the IEP Responsibilities". The scale consists of a 5-point scale
ranging from "totally agree" to "strongly disagree". The scale includes such items as "It would
be very difficult to prepare IEP separately for each disabled student.", "I do not know what my
responsibilities are concerning IEP.". As a result of the test-retest for the scale, the reliability
coefficient was calculated as 0.78 for the first sub-dimension, 0.76 for the second sub-
dimension, 0.82 for the third sub-dimension, 0.79 for the fourth sub-dimension. In this study,
Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficients of the scale were calculated as 0.90, 0.79,
0.75, 0.74, respectively. These values show that the data obtained from the scale are reliable.
-103-
Semi-structured interview form

The interview form developed by the researchers consists of four questions. In the
interview form, there are questions about teachers' views (content, the need for the program,
benefits) about IEP, their knowledge or deficiencies about IEP, challenges experienced in the
implementation process of IEP and their suggestions for a healthier implementation of IEP.
After the draft interview form was prepared, expert views were obtained from three
academicians, namely Educational Sciences, Special Education and Turkish Education. In line
with the views of the experts, some corrections were made in terms of content, language and
clarity in the interview questions, and the interview form was finalized.
Data analysis
In this study, the mean and standard deviation values obtained from the scale were taken
into account in order to determine teachers' attitudes towards the IEP preparation process and
the challenges experienced in the IEP process. These values were interpreted between “1-1.79”
as very low, “1.80-2.59” as low, “2.60-3.39” as moderate, “3.40-4.19” as high and “4.20-5.00”
as very high level. Pearson Product Moments Correlation Coefficients were used to examine
the relationship between the attitude towards the IEP preparation process and the challenges
experienced in the IEP process. These values were interpreted between ‘0.00-0.29' as low level,
‘0.30-0.69' as moderate, ‘0.70-1.00' as high level. In addition, stepwise regression analysis was
used to determine to what extent teachers' attitudes towards the IEP preparation process
predicted the challenges they experienced in IEP process. Stepwise regression analysis is
performed by including the independent variables that significantly affect the variance in the
dependent variable in the order of importance (Büyüköztürk, 2018). Before the analysis, it was
examined whether the assumptions were met or not. Accordingly, first of all, scatter graphics
in sub-dimensions were examined and it was found that the linearity assumption was met. For
multivariate normality, mahalonobis distance values were examined and extreme values were
removed from the data set. By examining the relationships between the dependent variables for
the multicollinearity problem, it was found that the highest relationship was "-.334". As a result,
multivariate normality and linearity were provided, and it was concluded that there was no
problem of multicollinearity between variables.
The descriptive analysis technique, which is a qualitative data analysis technique, was used in
the analysis of the interview data. Descriptive analysis technique is the interpretation of
qualitative data according to predetermined themes. Descriptive analysis consists of four stages
that are creating a framework for descriptive analysis, processing data according to themes,
defining and interpreting the findings (Yıldırım & Şimşek, 2016). In this study, data were
classified, described and interpreted by creating codes in the process of data analysis. The data
were also supported by direct quotations in order to support the findings and present the
teachers' views clearly. In order to ensure external reliability, detailed explanations about the
position of the researcher and the participants were included in the study. The integrity and
consistency of the data were reviewed to ensure internal validity, and detailed explanations
regarding processes such as preparing the interview form, collecting and analyzing the data
were included to ensure external validity.
-104-
Results
Teachers' attitudes towards the IEP process and the challenges they experience during the
IEP process
Concerning the first sub-question of the study, descriptive statistics of the scales and its
sub-dimensions are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the attitude and challenges scales concerning the IEP process
Scale Sub- X ss
dimensions
Attitudes towards the IEP process (total) 3.54 0.55
IEP Perception 3.74 0.62
Elements of IEP 3.47 0.69
IEP Task Perception 3.31 0.69
Challenges experienced during the IEP process 3.05 0.63
(total)
As shown Table 2, it is seen that teachers' attitudes towards the IEP preparation process in total
scale ( X = 3.54) and sub-dimensions of IEP perception ( X = 3.74) and the elements of IEP (
X = 3.47) are at high level, and their attitudes towards IEP task perception ( X = 3.31) was
found to be at moderate level. In addition, it was revealed that the challenges that teachers
experience during the IEP process ( X = 3.05) are generally at moderate level. The results
concerning the challenges that teachers experience in IEP process are presented below,
according to the sub-dimensions.
Descriptive statistics for the items in the "knowledge level" sub-dimension are presented in
Table 3.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the "knowledge level" sub-dimension

Knowledge Level X ss
1. I do not have enough information about IEP. 2.94 1.09
2. I do not have material support for learning IEP. 3.38 1.12
3. I do not know where to get support to learn about IEP. 2.58 1.02
4. I do not know what my responsibilities are concerning IEP. 2.71 1.08
5. I do not have the knowledge to determine the educational performance of the student. 2.45 0.99
6. I do not know how to determine annual goals during the preparation process of IEP. 2.75 1.18
7. I do not know with which activities and tools the IEP will be enriched. 2.80 1.10
Total 2.80 0.82
As shown in Table 3, it was found that teachers agreed on the item expressions related to the
knowledge level concerning IEP process at a moderate level ( X = 2.80). It was found that they
agree more on the items of "I do not have material support for learning IEP", "I do not have
enough information about IEP." and "I do not know with which activities and tools the IEP will
be enriched."
Descriptive statistics for the items in sub-dimension of "Challenges concerning the IEP
process" are presented in Table 4.
-105-
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for the items in sub-dimension of "challenges concerning the IEP
process"
Challenges concerning the IEP process X ss
1. I do not have any knowledge about the criteria to evaluate the student who has IEP. 2.75 0.88
2. It takes a long time to prepare IEP. 2.73 1.05
3. In implementing IEP, it is difficult to manage the curriculum of other students in the class. 3.22 1.15
4. The insufficiency of the class conditions makes it difficult to apply IEP. 3.68 1.10
5. It would be very difficult to prepare IEP separately for each disabled student. 3.14 1.12
6. Crowded classes make it difficult to prepare IEP. 3.77 1.12
7. It is difficult to explain the IEP to the parents of other students in the class. 3.36 1.06
Total 3.24 0.71
As shown in Table 4, it was found that teachers agreed on the item expressions in sub-dimension
of “challenges concerning the IEP process” at a moderate level ( X = 3.24). It was found that
they agree more (at a high level) on the items of "Crowded classes make it difficult to prepare
IEP." and "The insufficiency of the class conditions makes it difficult to apply IEP." Descriptive
statistics for the items in the sub-dimension of “Challenges Concerning the IEP Team” are
Table 5. Descriptive statistics for the items in the sub-dimension of “challenges concerning
the IEP team”
Challenges Concerning the IEP Team X ss
1. The school does not have a suitable room to hold the IEP team meetings. 3.06 1.30
2. Team members are reluctant to prepare IEP. 3.10 1.12
3. IEP team members do not attend the meetings regularly. 2.88 1.00
Total 3.02 0.94
of “challenges concerning the IEP team”at a moderate level ( X = 3.02). It was found that they
agree more on the items of "There is no suitable room in the school to hold the IEP team
meetings." and "Team members are reluctant to prepare IEP." Descriptive statistics for the
items in the sub-dimension of “Challenges Concerning Sharing the IEP Responsibilities” are
Table 6. Descriptive statistics for the items in the sub-dimension of “challenges concerning
sharing the IEP responsibilities”
Challenges Concerning Sharing the IEP Responsibilities X ss
1. The school administration does not help enough about IEP. 3.00 1.07
2. I am always held responsible when it comes to the education of disabled students and IEP. 2.55 1.14
3. Families expect a lot from the teacher about the education of disabled students. 3.94 0.89
Total 3.16 0.70
of “challenges concerning sharing the IEP responsibilities” at a moderate level ( X = 3.16). It
was found that they agree more to the items of "Families expect a lot from the teacher about
the education of disabled students." and "The school administration does not help enough with
IEP."
-106-
The relationship between the teachers' attitudes towards the IEP process and the challenges
they experience during the IEP process
Concerning the second sub-question of the study, Pearson Product Moments Correlation
Coefficient values are presented in Table 7.
Table 7. Pearson product moments correlation coefficients of the research dependent variables
Variables Challenges in Knowledge Challenges Challenges Challenges
IEP (total) Level Concerning the Concerning Concerning Sharing
IEP Process the IEP Team the IEP
Responsibilities
Attitude towards -.334** -.212* -.327* -.266** -.254**
IEP (total)
p<.01**
As shown in Table 7, a moderate level, negative and significant relationship was found between
teachers' attitudes towards IEP and total scale of the challenges they experience in IEP process
(r = -.334; p <.01), sub-dimension of the challenges concerning the IEP process (r = -.327; p
<.01) ); while a low level, negative and significant relationship was found between teachers'
attitudes towards IEP and knowledge level (r = -.212; p <.01), challenges concerning the IEP
team (r = -.266; p <.01), challenges concerning sharing the IEP responsibilities (r = -.254 ; p
<.01) sub-dimensions.
Whether attitudes towards the IEP process significantly predict the challenges experienced
during the IEP process
The stepwise regression analysis results concerning the third sub-question of the study are
Table 8. Stepwise regression analysis results concerning the challenges teachers experience in
IEP process
Steps Predictive Variables Β Prediction Power Explained
(R) Variance (𝑹𝟐 )
1. IEP Task Perception -.453 .205 .197
As shown in Table 8, the "IEP task perception" sub-dimension of the attitude scale concerning
the IEP process explains 19.7% of the variance in the challenges teachers experience in the IEP
process. ANOVA results for stepwise regression analysis given in Table 8 are presented in
Table 9.
Table 9. ANOVA results on predicting the challenges teachers experience in IEP process
Model Sum of squares Sd Mean of squares F p
Regression 8.106 1 8.106
24.980 .000
Residual 31.477 97 .325
As shown in Table 9, the predictive power calculated in the stepwise regression analysis in
Table 8 is significant (F (1, 97) = 24.980, p <.000). Regression analysis concerning the
challenges teachers experience in IEP process was carried out in one step and one variable was
found to be a significant predictor. However, it was found that the variables "IEP Perception”
and "Elements of IEP", which are sub-dimensions of the attitude scale towards IEP, do not
contribute significantly to the total variance.
-107-
Teachers' views concerning the IEP process
Concerning the fourth sub-question of the study, qualitative results were examined
under four themes that are “Views on IEP implementation", "Teacher competencies concerning
IEP", "Challenges that teachers experience in IEP implementation process" and "Suggestions
about IEP".
Views on IEP implementation

Concerning this theme, teachers were asked "What do you think about Individualized
Education Programs (IEP)?". When the views of the teachers on this subject are examined, it is
seen that all the teachers expressed a positive view. While all the teachers (n=15) found the IEP
application useful, almost all (n=13) emphasized that IEP is an essential application. The
teachers' prominent views concerning this situation are presented below.
“IEP is a support program prepared for students who need special education. Students may
be gifted, have a different need, or have learning difficulties. I think IEP is essential in
order to organize these and to be carried out in a certain order. I think we can see its benefits
within this framework.” (T4)
"I think IEP is absolutely beneficial, I see the required progress in the student if it is really
implemented in a planned and regular manner." (T6)
As stated in the teachers' views above, teachers stated that IEP was prepared for individuals
who need special education, it is very efficient when applied within a certain order and plan,
and they can see its benefits in this direction. In addition, some teachers stated that IEP is a
useful application to bring students who fall behind academically to a better point (n=6) and
students with special needs can gain social skills thanks to IEP (n=6). The striking views of the
teachers on these situations are given below.
"I think IEP is very efficient for a child with special needs if it is applied correctly, it enables
that child to socialize without being discriminated/isolated, so I think it is useful." (T8)
"I think IEP is essential and useful for the children with disabilities to be together with
children with normal development, to help the disabled child reach the academic level
expected from him and at the same time to help the child socialize." (T10)
"I think IEP is very useful in helping students with special needs socialize together with
other friends and reach a certain level." (T13)
As stated in the teachers' views above, IEP helps children with special needs gain social skills
and reach better academic positions. In addition, some teachers stated that IEP helps to know
students with special needs better (n=3) and provides students with basic skills (n=2). The
teachers' prominent views are presented below.
“We can fully see children with special needs thanks to IEP. We can see the behaviors the
child can or cannot demonstrate. If we know the child and act accordingly, I really think
that efficiency will be obtained." (T7)
"I find IEP very useful for students with special needs both in providing basic skills and
social skills." (T5)
Teacher competencies concerning IEP

Concerning this theme, teachers were asked "Do you think you have enough
information about IEP? On which aspects do you think you have deficiencies?" was posed to
-108-
the teachers. Almost all of the teachers (n=12) stated that they had deficiencies about IEP, while
three teachers stated that they had sufficient knowledge. The teachers' prominent views are
presented below.
“I think I do not have enough information about IEP, I act according to the current process
of the lesson in the field of application. In the application, I give what the child can receive
at that moment. When I am to make a plan ahead of time, I don't want to do it because I
feel incomplete.” (T5)
"I think I have a lot of deficiencies in the planning, implementation and assessment and
evaluation areas of IEP." (T3)
As stated in the teachers' views above, the teachers stated that they do not have enough
information about IEP. In IEP process, teachers stated that they have deficiencies in
measurement and evaluation (n=9), implementation (n=5) and planning (n=3), respectively.
The striking views of the teachers on this situation are given below.
“I don't think I have enough information about IEP. Since I do not have any knowledge in
planning, implementation or evaluation, I do not know what to provide the student with
and how to get feedback." (T9)
"Although I have a certificate in this field, I think I have a deficiency, I also do research to
make up for my deficiency, but I often see that I cannot get feedback from students in the
field of assessment and evaluation." (T12)
“I think I do not have enough information; our guidance counselor sometimes helps in this
subject. I deal with the child individually in the field of planning and implementation, but
I don't know what to do in the field of assessment and evaluation." (T14)
“I think I do not have the necessary knowledge about IEP. I have difficulties mostly in
implementation and assessment/evaluation." (T15)
As stated in teachers' views above, it is seen that besides the teachers generally do not have
sufficient knowledge about IEP planning, implementation and assessment/evaluation
processes, they stated that they had difficulties and did not know what to do, especially because
they had critical deficiencies in IEP process.
Challenges that teachers experience in IEP implementation process

Concerning this theme, the teachers were asked "What are the challenges you
experience in the IEP implementation process?" What do you think about the factors that cause
these challenges?” Almost all of the teachers (n=11) stated that they had difficulties in the
planning and implementation process of IEP. Teachers stated the reasons for their having
difficulties as not having enough knowledge (n=4), not receiving any support from the
family/family’s not accepting (n=4), inadequacy of physical conditions and materials (n=4),
crowded classes (n=3), classroom teachers' not having knowledge about IEP (n=2),
respectively. The striking views of the teachers on this situation are presented below.
"Because the classes are crowded, there is insufficient material available and I cannot get
the required support from the family, I have difficulties in both planning and
implementation." (T3)
“Since I do not have enough information about IEP, I have problems in both planning and
implementation." (T8)
"While applying IEP, I definitely have difficulties due to the physical conditions of the
school, I also have difficulties because there is no essential material." (T10)
-109-
“I mostly have problems with IEP implementation. I have difficulties because the class is
crowded, due to the physical conditions of the school and as the classrooms are not
sufficient, and since parents often do not accept the special situation of their child." (T11)
In addition, some teachers (n=4) stated that they had difficulties in the field of assessment and
evaluation during IEP process, one teacher could not communicate because the family did not
speak Turkish, and one teacher stated that the child with special needs had difficulty in
communication due to speech difficulties. Some of the teachers' views are given below.
“It is difficult for the student to adapt to the class and then to me, there is a speech problem.
Since some of the families did not speak Turkish, we had difficulties in understanding in
every field." (T2)
"While I do not have any difficulties in planning and implementing the IEP, I have
difficulties in evaluating the information I provide." (T6)
"While I have difficulty in getting down to the level of the student and getting their attention
while applying IEP; since my deficiency is in the field of measurement and evaluation, I
have more problems in measurement and evaluation." (T13)
Suggestions about IEP

Concerning this theme, the teachers were asked "What are your suggestions for a
healthier execution of IEP? What do you think should be done?". Most of the teachers (n=11)
emphasized that classroom teachers should be informed about special education through
seminars or in-service training. In addition, some teachers made suggestions such as physical
conditions should be improved and material support should be provided (n=4), parents should
be educated about special education (n=2). The highlights of the teacher suggestions are given
below.
"Rather than receiving an ostensible in-service training for classroom teachers, if

necessary, a serious in-service training should be given during the seminar periods, and
special education services should be given to us in a more comprehensive way." (T7)
"In order for the student to be diagnosed correctly and especially to make the diagnosis
early, trainings can be given to parents to have information in this sense, we (classroom
teachers) should definitely be given serious in-service training, and the physical conditions
of the schools should be improved for the student who will receive inclusive education."
(T10)
"Teachers should definitely be included in in-service training, and teachers who have
inclusive students should be taken into in-service training, inspected and evaluated at
intervals." (T13)
As seen above, teachers stated that especially classroom teachers should receive in-service
training, families should be informed about special education and physical conditions should
be improved in order to conduct IEP more properly. In addition, one of the teachers stated that
there should be feasible programs in order to conduct IEP in a healthier way, the class size
should be reduced and there should be cooperation between the family, classroom teachers and
guidance counselor. Teacher suggestions are presented below.
"The family, classroom teacher and guidance counselor should be in constant cooperation."
(T3)
"Applicable programs should be prepared, I think that our main purpose for the first four
grades in general should be reading and writing." (T4)
-110-
"If there are students as part of inclusive education in classrooms and if you want to be
efficient, the class size should definitely be reduced, I think classroom teachers should
receive serious in-service training.” (T5)
Discussion and Conclusion

In this study, it was concluded that teachers' attitudes towards the IEP process are at a
high level, in other words, teachers generally have positive views about the IEP process. These
results correspond to the interview data. In the interviews with the teachers, it was found that
according to teachers IEP application improves the development of both academic and social
skills of children with special needs. It was concluded that all of the teachers found the IEP
application useful and almost all of them thought IEP is an essential application. In parallel
with the results of this study, Öztürk (2009) found that classroom teachers seem IEP as
essential, and IEP is beneficial for both the family and the teacher. Similarly, in the study of
Öztürk and Eratay (2010), five of the teachers reached the conclusion that IEP is essential, and
four teachers stated that IEP is beneficial for both students and families. In this case, it can be
said that teachers have a positive attitude towards the IEP process. As emphasized by the
teachers on this result, it can be thought that IEP application positively improves the
development of both academic and social skills of children with special needs. Based on these
results, it is possible to say that IEP application is a useful application in meeting both the
educational and social needs of students with special needs.
This study concluded that the challenges teachers experience during IEP process are generally
at a moderate level. Similarly, in the interviews with teachers, almost all of the teachers stated
that they had difficulties in planning and implementation process of IEP. In parallel with the
results of this study, Çuhadar (2006) and Kuyumcu (2011) concluded in their studies that
teachers had difficulties in working with students due to lack of knowledge in the preparation
and development phase of IEPs and due to the incomplete application of the developed IEPs.
Therefore, it can be said that teachers have difficulties in planning and implementing IEP.
It was concluded that teachers agree with the statements in the "knowledge level" at a moderate
level which is one of the sub-dimensions of the scale about the challenges teachers experience
in IEP process, The teachers stated that they do not have sufficient knowledge about IEP, and
they do not know with which activities and tools the IEP will be enriched. Similarly, in the
interviews with the teachers, it was concluded that the teachers did not have enough knowledge
about IEP. It was found that besides the fact that the teachers did not have sufficient knowledge
about IEP planning, implementation and assessment/evaluation processes in general, they
stated that they had difficulties and did not know what to do especially because they had
important deficiencies in IEP process concerning measurement and evaluation. These results
support the results of similar studies in the literature. In parallel with the results of this study,
Yılmaz (2013) concluded that teachers did not have the required knowledge or skills concerning
the IEP process. Similarly, Deniz (2018) concluded that teachers have difficulties in applying
assessment and evaluation techniques for students with special needs. Based on the results of
this research and similar studies in the literature, it is possible to say that the teachers do not
have enough knowledge about IEP planning, implementation and assessment/evaluation
processes. It is very important for teachers to have sufficient knowledge and equipment about
the IEP process in order to develop, apply and evaluate IEP as desired. Therefore, it can be said
that teachers who have an important role in the IEP team should have sufficient knowledge
about IEP in order to carry out IEP in a healthier way, and there is a need for in-service training
for teachers on this aspect.
-111-
It was concluded that teachers agreed at a moderate level with the statements in the "challenges
concerning IEP process", another sub-dimension of the scale related to challenges teachers
experience in IEP process. Similarly, in the interviews with the teachers, it was found that
teachers had difficulties in IEP process due to the inadequate physical conditions, material
support and the crowded classroom. In parallel with the results of this study, several studies
(Akkoyunluoğlu, 2019; Kuyumcu, 2011; Sanır, 2009) concluded that there is lack of materials
used in the lessons and the physical infrastructure was insufficient during the IEP process.
Therefore, it can be said that the physical conditions of the school/classroom and the lack of
materials for IEP caused difficulties for teachers in the IEP process. Developing the training
materials needed in the planning, implementation and evaluation of the IEP and providing the
tools are important for the more efficient implementation of the IEP (MoNE, 2006). In this case,
it is possible to say that both the classroom and the school should be arranged according to the
needs of students with special needs in the IEP implementation process and the use of necessary
materials in this process will create chances for a better implementation of IEP and positive
changes on the student.
It was concluded that teachers agreed at a moderate level to the statements in "challenges
concerning the IEP team" and "challenges concerning sharing the IEP responsibilities ", which
are the other sub-dimensions of the scale related to the challenges teachers experience in IEP
process. Teachers stated that the appropriate room to hold the IEP team meetings was not at the
school, the team members were reluctant to prepare IEP, the families expected a lot from the
teacher about the education of the disabled student and the school administration did not
provide the adequate assistance in implementing IEP. Similarly, in the interviews with the
teachers, it was concluded that teachers had difficulties in IEP process due to the family’s not
accepting the situation of the child in the preparation process of IEP, the classroom teacher’s
not having enough knowledge about IEP and the family's not being able to speak Turkish.
Similarly, Ersan and Ata (2016) concluded in their study that there was no collaboration
between teachers and the family during the implementation of IEP, there were no support rooms
in the school, and parents were unconscious about this issue. Saraç and Çolak (2012) concluded
that the classroom teachers could not get enough help from the staff in the school in solving the
problems and the aids were not functional. Based on the results of this research and similar
studies in the literature, it can be said that the lack of suitable rooms to hold IEP team meetings
in schools during the IEP process and the lack of effective communication, sharing and
cooperation between IEP stakeholders (teachers, families, IEP team members, school
administrators) can cause difficulties for teachers in the IEP process. Individuals in the IEP
team should have a high level of communication skills with each other. Each member in the
team can bring important information that can help better planning, implementation and
evaluation of IEP, and in this case, it can be very useful for individuals with special needs
(Kargın, 2013). Therefore, it is thought that the communication and cooperation of the members
of the IEP team will enable better planning, implementation and evaluation of the IEP.
This study concluded that there is a moderate, negative and significant relationship between the
teachers' attitudes towards IEP and the challenges they experience in IEP process. Therefore, it
can be said that as the positive attitudes of the teachers about IEP increases, the challenges they
experience during IEP process decrease. In addition, it was concluded that "IEP task
perception", which is one of the sub-dimension of the IEP attitude scale, explains about one-
fifth of the variance concerning the challenges they experience in IEP process. One of the most
important factors in the success of the IEP implementation is the attitudes of the teachers
towards the IEP preparation process. In this process, if the teacher is willing to prepare IEP and
exhibits a positive attitude, the most important element for the successful implementation of
-112-
IEP will be completed (Gürkan, 1991). In order for IEP to be successful, the teacher should
know the student well, be aware of the needs of the student with special needs, know how much
support can be received and from whom support should be received, and should show an
accepting attitude to get support from other experts, if necessary, in communication with the
family (Kırcaali-İftar, 2004). Based on these results, it is possible to say that the teacher’s
having a positive and accepting attitude towards the student and IEP in the process of preparing
IEP is very important for IEP to be successful.
Suggestions
In this study, teachers developed suggestions for classroom teachers to receive in-service
training, inform families about special education, improve physical conditions, have applicable
programs, reduce the class size and collaboration between the family, classroom teachers and
guidance counselors is essential in order to conduct IEP in schools in a healthier way. The
following suggestions are presented in this study in line with the teacher suggestions and the
results obtained from this study.
 It may be suggested to provide teachers with practical in-service trainings concerning

the IEP planning, implementation and evaluation process, and to inform teachers about
their responsibilities in the process.
 Trainings can be organized for parents about what the individualized education program
is, how they can contribute to this program and what its benefits will be particularly for
the child.
 In order for the individualized education program to be more useful, the necessary
physical conditions in schools and classrooms can be arranged according to students
with special needs and essential materials can be provided within the program.
 It may be suggested to establish IEP support rooms and organize various activities in
schools to ensure interaction and cooperation between stakeholders in the IEP team.
 This study is limited to the scale and interview form, and the teachers working in Van.
In future studies, data can be obtained on IEP process with data collection tools such as
observation and alike and different samples (school administrators, parents, and others)
can be studied.
 Concerning the theoretical and practical implications for future research, curriculum
development studies may be conducted for IEP based on need analysis of the challenges
that teachers experience during IEP process. In order to determine the effectiveness of
IEP program, curriculum evaluation studies may be conducted, as well.
References
Akçamete, G., & Kaner S. (1999). Cumhuriyetin 75. yılında çocuğa yönelik özel eğitim çalışmaları
[Special education activities for children in the 75th anniversary of the Republic]. 2nd
National Child Culture Congress: Republic and Child, Ankara University Child Culture
Research and Application Center Publications, Ankara.
Akkoyunluoğlu, Ö. (2019). Determination of music teachers' difficulties in preparing
individualized training program and the investigation of their views about inclusive
practices (Unpublished master thesis). Atatürk University, Institute of Educational
Sciences: Erzurum.
Aral, N., & Gürsoy, F. (2009). Özel eğitim gerektiren çocuklar ve özel eğitime giriş [Children
requiring special education and introduction to special education]. İstanbul: Morpa
Cultural Publications.
-113-
Arivett, D. L., Rust, J. O., Brissie, J. S., & Dansby, V. S. (2007). Special education teachers'
perceptions of school psychologists in the context of individualized education program
meetings. Education, 127(3), 378-388.
Boavida, T., Aguiar, C., McWilliam, R. A., & Pimentel, J. S. (2010). Quality of individualized
education program goals of preschoolers with disabilities. Infants & Young Children, 23(3),
233-243.
Burunsuz, E. (2019). Teachers' opinions on the implementation of individualized education
program for teachers in elementary education schools (Unpublished master thesis).
Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, Institute of Social Sciences: Zonguldak.
Büyüköztürk, Ş., Akgün, Ö. E., Demirel, F., Karadeniz, Ş., & Çakmak, E. K. (2015). Bilimsel
araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Pegem Publications.
Christle, C. A., & Yell, M. L. (2010). Individualized education programs: Legal requirements and
research findings. Exceptionality, 18(3), 109-123.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ersan-Deniz, T., & Ata, S. (2016). Preschool teachers' opinions/views on developing the
individualized education program. Trakya University Journal of Education Faculty, Special
Issue, 162-177.
Goodman, J. F., & Bond, L. (1993). The individualized education program: A retrospective
critique. The Journal of Special Education, 26(4), 408-422.
Gözütok, D. (1991). Evaluation of professional behaviours according to the perceptions of teachers
and students. Ankara University Journal of Educational Sciences Faculty, 24(2), 405-409.
Gürkan, T. (1991). Pre-school education in Finland. Ankara University Journal of Educational
Sciences Faculty, 24(2), 353-369.
Kargın, T. (2007). Eğitsel değerlendirme ve bireyselleştirilmiş eğitim programı hazırlama süreci
[Educational evaluation and individualized education program preparation process].
Ankara University Special Education Journal of Educational Sciences Faculty, 8(1), 1-15.
Kasap, S. (2021). Attitude towards the first language and its effects on first language lexical
attrition. International Journal of Kurdish Studies, 7(1), 65-81.
Kasap, S., & Peterson, R. (2018). An interview on the role of input in second language learning.
Learning Journal of Education and Practice, 9(13), 81-87.
Kırcaali-İftar, G. (2004). Baş makale: Özel eğitimde fokus grup araştırmaları [Editorial: Focus
group research in special education]. Ankara University Special Education Journal of
Educational Sciences Faculty, 5(1), 1- 7.
Kirk, A. S., & Gallagher, J. J., Anastasiow, J. N., & Coleman, R. M. (2006). Educating exceptional
children (12th ed). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kuyumcu, Z. (2011). Problems faced by teachers in the process of developing and implementing
an individualized education plan (IEP) and suggestions for solutions to these problems
(Unpublished master thesis). Ankara University, Institute of Educational Sciences: Ankara
Küçüker, S., Kargın, T., & Akçamete, G. (2002). Improving the guidance and research centers
personnels’ opinions and perceptions of self-efficacy about the act of special education.
Educational Sciences and Practice, 1,101-113.
MoNE (2000). Özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği [Special education services regulation].
Retrieved from: http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/main.aspx?home=
http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/arsiv/23937_1.pdf&main=http://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/a
rsiv/23937_1.pdf.
Retrieved from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/ 2006/05/20060531-2.htm.
MoNE (2010). Okullarımızda 3n/1k (neden, nasıl, niçin, kaynaştırma) [3n/1k in our schools (why,
how, why, inclusive)]. General Directorate of Special Education Guidance and Counseling
Services, Ankara.
-114-
Retrieved from: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/ 2018/07/20180707-8.htm.
Musyoka, M. M., & Clark, M. D. (2017). Teachers’ perceptions of individualized education
program (IEP) goals and related services. Journal of Developmental and Physical
Disabilities, 29(1), 5-23.
Özsoy, Y. (1990). Special education in Turkey. Educational Sciences I. National Congress, Ankara
University Faculty of Educational Sciences Publications, Ankara.
Öztürk, C. (2009). Determining the opinions of the teachers of mentally retarded students who
attend the education application school about the individualized education program
(Unpublished master thesis). Abant İzzet Baysal University, Institute of Social Sciences:
Bolu.
Öztürk, C. Ç., & Eratay, E. (2010). Determining opinions of teachers of students with mental
retardation attending an education application school on the individualized education
program. Journal of Abant İzzet Baysal University, 10(2), 146-159.
Özyürek, M. (2009). Bireyselleştirilmiş eğitim programı temelleri ve geliştirilmesi [Individualized
education program basics and development]. Ankara: Kök Publications.
Sanır, H. (2009). Evaluation of the problems of the students who are in inclusive education in
academic learning according to teacher and family opinions (Unpublished master thesis).
Selçuk University, Institute of Social Sciences: Konya.
Saraç, T., & Çolak, A. (2012). Elementary school teachers’ views and suggestions regarding the
problems encountered in the process of inclusive applications. Mersin University Journal
of Education Faculty, 8(1), 13-28.
Söğüt, D. A., & Deniz, S. (2018). Rigours which class teachers encounter with preparing
individualized education program (IEP) and assessment of views related to inclusive
practices. Erzincan Journal of Education Faculty, 2(20), 423-443.
State Planning Organization [SPO]. (1992). State planning agency report. State Planning Agency,
Ankara.
Strickland, B. B., & Turnbull, A. P. (1990). Developing and implementing individualized education
programs. Columbus OH: Merrill.
Şahin, S. (2003). Özel eğitim tarihçesi [History of special education]. A. Ataman (Ed.). In Özel
gereksinimli çocuklar ve özel eğitime giriş [Children with special needs and introduction
to special education]. Gündüz Education and Publications: Ankara.
Tike-Bafra, L. (2007). Sınıf öğretmenleri, rehber öğretmenler ve RAM çalışanlarının
bireyselleştirilmiş eğitim programları hazırlama sürecine ilişkin tutumları ve
karşılaşılabilecek güçlüklerin belirlenmesi [Determining the attitudes of classroom
teachers, counselors and RAM staff towards the process of preparing individualized
education programs and the difficulties that may be encountered] (Unpublished master
thesis). Ankara University, Institute of Educational Sciences: Ankara.
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative
research methods in social sciences]. Ankara: Seçkin Publications.
Yılmaz, M. F. (2013). Investigation of the challenges primary school administrators face in the
application of individualized education programs (IEP) (the case of the central districts of
Gaziantep province) (Unpublished master thesis). Hasan Kalyoncu University, Institute of
Social Sciences: Gaziantep.
-115-

Article 9

Uploaded by

Article 9

Uploaded by

Id: 802820

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Teachers' attitudes and the challenges they experience concerning

Ezgi Nur Albayrak

The combination of an education program, individualization and planning elements constitute

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Individualized education programs (IEPs) constitute fundamental mechanisms to make special

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

First Stage: Quantitative Data

Second Stage: Transition

Third Stage: Qualitative Data

Figure 1. Research design

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Table 1. Distribution of teachers by demographic characteristics

Variable Category Number Percentage (%)

Data Collection Tools

The scale for determining attitudes towards IEP preparation process

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Semi-structured interview form

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for the "knowledge level" sub-dimension

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Teachers' views concerning the IEP process

Views on IEP implementation

Teacher competencies concerning IEP

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Challenges that teachers experience in IEP implementation process

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Suggestions about IEP

"Rather than receiving an ostensible in-service training for classroom teachers, if

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Discussion and Conclusion

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

 It may be suggested to provide teachers with practical in-service trainings concerning

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

Participatory Educational Research (PER)

You might also like