students at risk: perceptions of serbian teachers and implications for teacher education
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [NUS National University of Singapore]On: 17 June 2014, At: 15:41Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
European Journal of Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cete20
Students at risk: perceptions of Serbianteachers and implications for teachereducationOlja Jovanovica, Natasa Simica & Vera Rajovica
a Center for Teacher Education, Faculty of Philosophy, Universityof Belgrade, Belgrade, SerbiaPublished online: 27 Nov 2013.
To cite this article: Olja Jovanovic, Natasa Simic & Vera Rajovic (2014) Students at risk:perceptions of Serbian teachers and implications for teacher education, European Journal ofTeacher Education, 37:2, 220-236, DOI: 10.1080/02619768.2013.858693
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.858693
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Students at risk: perceptions of Serbian teachers and implicationsfor teacher education
Olja Jovanovic*, Natasa Simic and Vera Rajovic
Center for Teacher Education, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade,Serbia
While legislation is in place for the promotion of inclusive education in Serbia,the adoption of teaching practices that support diversity in schools is stilllacking. This study looks at teacher perceptions of students at risk (SaR), theirrelationships with peers and the teachers’ own roles as sources of support, usinga sample of 94 interviews with teachers analysed using qualitative contentanalysis. The SaR from Roma population and poor backgrounds are found to beperceived positively by their teachers, but most teachers failed to perceive theirinfluence on the improvement of academic performance and peer relationships.Perceptions of students with disabilities varied in tone across the dimensionpositive-depending on the type of disability-negative. Teachers who spokeaffirmatively about them expressed readiness to cooperate with parents andcolleagues, emphasising the importance of socialisation. Recommendations forteacher education are discussed, including diversity awareness and encouragingmore flexible understanding of teacher roles.
Keywords: students at risk; teacher perceptions; inclusive education; teachereducation; qualitative content analysis
Stereotypes and prejudices existing in society have become recognised as obstaclesfor the development and learning of students from marginalised groups (Van Laar2000). Academic failure is no longer perceived as a consequence of factors withinthe child, but as a phenomenon caused mainly by a restrictive environment. There-fore, students at the highest risk of academic failure are usually members of groupsthat are socially excluded from mainstream culture (Chen and DesJardis 2010;Coffey and Obringer 2000; Van Laar 2000).
According to the 2010 data quoted by the Social Inclusion and Poverty Reduc-tion Team, the three most socially excluded groups in Serbia were the Roma, peopleliving in poverty and people with disabilities, and the children from these popula-tions are known to be at risk of academic failure (see, e.g. Baucal 2006; Nikolić,Lukić, and Janković 2010; UNICEF 2006). This study explores the teachers’ percep-tions of these children in the context of inclusive education, in order to provide rec-ommendations for teacher professional development better suited to meet the needsof these students at risk (SaR). Besides providing insight into the perceptions ofeach SaR group, an additional value of this study is the possibility to compare teach-ers’ perceptions of these three groups of students, since until now studies of teachersin a Serbian context have focused on these groups separately.
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
© 2013 Association for Teacher Education in Europe
European Journal of Teacher Education, 2014Vol. 37, No. 2, 220–236, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.858693
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
In order to provide some background to our findings, we first give an overview ofthe difficulties faced by these SaR groups in Serbia and the government’s inclusiveeducation efforts. We then review the relevant theories of teacher professionaldevelopment in the context of social inclusion of marginalised groups, as well thedifficulties of their practical applications in a Serbian context. Our study then extendsthese findings by providing insight into teacher perceptions of SaR, and using theseto identify potential focal points for future professional development training.
SaR in a Serbian context
Studies of marginalised groups in Serbia reveal that the social distance towards theRoma is high (Miladinović 2008) and that they are underrepresented at all levels ofeducation (Open Society Institute 2010). Even those who attend school are not trea-ted equally to other children – teachers place Roma students in the back rows, callthem insulting names, allow them to skip classes without noting it down and fre-quently have very low expectations of Roma children. Peers adopt a similar attitudetowards them – it is shown that Roma students have the lowest sociometric status inmost primary school classes (Macura-Milovanović 2006). Therefore, the rate ofdropout of the Roma students is significantly higher and academic achievement issignificantly lower compared to the Serbian students (Baucal 2006), which preventsthem from obtaining further quality education.
Although the above-described group at risk largely overlaps with children fromfamilies with low socio-economic status (SES), there were no studies in a Serbiancontext that explored separately teacher perceptions of children from low SES fami-lies regardless of their ethnic group, and hence, we deemed it important to pursue thisline of research. The 2006 data indicate that among the poor population strata, only9% of children attended preschool institutions, the dropout rate from the primaryeducation system was high and the main explanation for this given by parents waspoverty (UNICEF 2006). The situation in secondary education is quite alarming, withless than two-thirds of these children attending secondary schools (UNICEF 2006),which again increases their chances to remain at the margins of society.
Children with disabilities are at risk of academic failure because of participationrestrictions that are usually ‘justified’ by their impairments. Studies indicate thatbefore the adoption of the Law on the fundamentals of the education system (OfficialGazette of the Republic of Serbia 72/2009), as many as 85% of students with dis-abilities were not included in education in Serbia (Vuković 2009). Furthermore,teachers continue to have negative attitudes towards the inclusion of children withspecial educational needs into regular schools, regardless of their age, gender andlevel of education (Kalyva, Gojković, and Tsakiris 2007; Macura-Milovanović andVujisić-Živković 2011; Rajović and Jovanović 2010). The main reason for such anattitude is the teachers’ feeling of incompetency in dealing with the children’s differ-ent education needs, the lack of professional support, a large number of students inclasses and lack of teaching aids in schools (CETI 2006; Kovačević andRadovanović 2006; Rajović and Jovanović 2010).
Inclusive education in Serbia
As SaR usually come from social minority groups, the competencies they gainedthrough socialisation are often not in accordance with the competencies promoted
European Journal of Teacher Education 221
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
within mainstream culture. There are two paths that could change this state of affairs– the SaR could themselves try to overcome the differences between their home andmainstream school settings (Gay 2000), or the school culture could become moreopen to interactions with values, norms and habits that the SaR bring to the school.During the last decade, the Serbian government has made a great effort to improvethe quality of education of SaR by introducing system changes. In the 2009 the newLaw on the fundamentals of the education system was adopted, which is consideredto be the beginning of systematic implementation of inclusive education in Serbia.The Law (Art. 3) introduced equality and accessibility of education for all childrenin principle, regardless of type and level of support they need. However, changes atthe level of teacher community, school culture and social structures have been slow.
Teacher education in the context of inclusion
Teachers as the agents of change in education and most important factors in studentachievements (Hattie 2009; Nordenbo et al. 2010) should take responsibility forestablishing the most supportive environment for learning and development possible.In the context of teaching children from marginalised groups, factors such as teach-ing strategies, the attribution of student failure, the teachers’ personal sense of effi-cacy and their general attitudes towards minorities should particularly be considered.
Literature review shows that there is a wide range of evidence-based teachingstrategies which have impact, not just on academic achievement of SaR, but on theiremotional and social development (see, e.g. Meijer 2001; Mitchell 2008). Thesestrategies are actually used in ordinary teaching and can be extended or emphasisedfor particular individuals or groups of pupils (Davis and Florian 2004; Lewis andNorwich 2005). After mastering them, teachers should be able to apply them in thesystematic, explicit and intensive way in order to support learning of every student.
In the educational context, the attribution of student failure has significant impli-cations for teacher perceptions of their own responsibility for the students’ perfor-mance, as well as their subsequent behaviour towards the students (Giavrimis andPapanis 2009). In relation to teacher expectations, studies suggest that low expecta-tion teachers are more likely to attribute a student’s failure to home and within-childfactors than teacher related factors (Poulou and Norwich 2000; Soodak and Podell1994), while teachers with high expectations tend to perceive themselves and stu-dent home backgrounds as supportive of their learning (Rubie-Davis 2010).
The teachers’ sense of efficacy appears in the literature to be related to theirinstructional practices and control strategies (Woolfolk, Rosoff, and Hoy 1990), andto various student outcomes. Teachers with a high level of efficacy expressed confi-dence in their ability to teach difficult students, and they had a more internally ori-ented locus of control for both student success and student failure. Research showsthat students who face academic difficulties are more likely to receive better and sus-tained treatment by teachers who have a higher sense of efficacy, who are willing toaccept part of the responsibility for the student’s learning outcomes and who see theacademically failing student as a challenge rather than a problem (Georgiou et al.2002).
Banks (2006) stresses the importance of fostering positive teacher attitudestowards minorities and raising the level of their academic expectations from SaR.Teachers have to be adequately prepared for effective encouragement of everystudent learning and to continuously learn in order to increase his/her own
222 O. Jovanovic et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
reflexivity, proactivity, accountability and readiness to work collaboratively(Buchberger et al. 2000; Collinson et al. 2009). Hence, it is essential to embed thesevalues in teacher training programmes, and to foster acquisition of competences thatare necessary for dealing effectively with diverse children’s needs.
Teacher education in Serbia
Unfortunately, a large number of teachers in Serbia had no opportunity to acquireeven the basic teaching competencies during the course of their studies (Rajovic andRadulovic 2001). Many faculties (e.g. Technical and Medical) have not recognisedtheir responsibility for providing adequate teacher training even though their gradu-ates are being employed as teachers. However, some changes aimed at establishingand building up systems of initial education for all teachers have already beeninitiated. They are fostered by the Law (2009) that requires a Master’s degree and aminimum of 36 ECTS in pedagogical–psychological–methodical education as prereq-uisites for entering the teaching profession starting from the school year 2012/2013.
Regarding teacher education for inclusion, even the faculties that are traditionallylabelled as ‘teaching’ (e.g. Faculty of Philology and Faculty of Mathematics) rarelyoffer courses dealing with inclusive or multicultural education. During the inductionperiod, which lasts for one year, teachers are more focused on the preparation forthe teacher licence exam than on acquiring competencies necessary for working indiverse classrooms (Rajović and Radulović 2010). In spite of the high number ofavailable professional development programmes for teachers in the field of workingwith SaR, studies have shown that teachers’ educational needs are not met at theseseminars, mostly because they are based on a one-way transmission model (Pešikan,Antić, and Marinković 2010).
Although the Law (2009) formally introduced inclusive education into Serbianschools and posed new requirements upon teachers, there are evidently still manychallenges that should be dealt with in order to improve teacher competencies forinclusive practice.
Research topic and objective
The objective of the research was to analyse: (1) how teachers perceive SaR (Romachildren, children from families with low SES and children with disabilities), (2)how they perceive their interaction with peers and (3) and their own roles as asource of support.
This research is perceived as one of the opportunities to gather information onteacher perceptions and to ‘map’ the actual state of affairs, in order to better under-stand which changes to initiate in the pre-service and in-service teacher training pro-grammes. We opted for talking about students, peer interaction and teachers’ rolesin dealing with diverse students because we believed that asking teachers directlyabout reforms and inclusion would bring about stereotyped and socially desirableanswers and therefore prevent us from obtaining relevant data.
Data collection
We opted for the qualitative approach because it enabled us to obtain richerknowledge and enhanced understanding of teacher perceptions compared to that
European Journal of Teacher Education 223
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
which could be obtained via quantitative research. Data were collected by thetechnique of semi-structured interview. The first version of the interview guide wasdeveloped and piloted on 15 teachers, after which some of the questions were modi-fied. The final version contained the following sections: (1) Perception of individualdifferences relevant in a school context, (2) The teaching methods, strategies androles that the teacher takes over during interaction with different students and (3)Perception of peer interaction. These broad topics were considered to cover theteachers’ holistic experience and reflect perceptions of SaR from all relevant per-spectives (student’s characteristics, student–teacher and student–student relation-ship). Within the first section, in order to avoid imposing authors’ meaningsregarding relevance of individual differences among students, the teachers were notasked directly about the Roma, students living in poverty or students with disabili-ties, but about individual differences among students they deemed relevant in theschool context. They were also asked to provide as many examples as possible ofdiversity in their classrooms. Within the second section, teachers were asked todescribe what accommodations they make in their teaching (if anything) when theywant to approach different students – e.g. whether they apply different teaching orgrading methods, introduce specific classroom rules, cooperate with colleagues andparents and what roles they take over to accomplish certain goals. The third sectioncomprised questions regarding relationships among peers, such as whether somestudents are excluded, when they interact well and when and why they argue. Fur-thermore, teachers were asked to describe a student from their professional experi-ence as an illustration of (non)acceptance of somebody’s uniqueness in the school.We were also interested in finding out whether teachers believe that they can (andshould) influence relations among peers.
After 120 one-hour interviews conducted, 26 (21.67%) were rejected since thoseteachers did not mention any of the three groups of SaR (instead, they provided per-ceptions of male and female students, those motivated and unmotivated to learn,well-behaved and disruptive students, etc.). The rest of 94 interviews were recorded,verbatim transcribed and then analysed. Although these 94 teachers also talkedabout many groups of children, we analysed only their speech about SaR.
Data on participants’ socio-demographic characteristics were also obtained – weregistered their gender, type of school they work in, school location, subject theyteach and years in service.
Participants
The participants were teachers recruited at the seminars for teacher professionaldevelopment. Since the participation in the research was voluntary, we assumeteachers were intrinsically motivated to take part in interviews, which might stemfrom the given opportunity to ‘raise voices’ and to indirectly influence the reformsclosely bound to their work by sharing their perceptions.
Out of 94 interviewed teachers, 74.5% were female and 25.5% male. Number ofyears of teaching experience varied from 1 to 36 years (16 years on the average).They were from different parts of Serbia, but 54% came from the capital Belgrade.Majority taught courses in the field of humanities and worked in primary schools(see Table 1).
224 O. Jovanovic et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
Data analysis
Data collected through interviews were analysed using the method of qualitativecontent analysis. We attempted to ‘immerse’ into the material without previouslyformulated hypotheses, endeavouring to reach implicit meanings (Smith, Harre, andVan Langenhove 1995; Willig 2008). Through constant comparing, we extracted thecategories; we identified themes and patterns that repeatedly appeared in theinterviews.
To ensure the accuracy of the category coding, the author who did not take partin the coding procedure was given representative examples from the data of eachcategory and asked to code 30 randomly chosen excerpts. She assigned 27 of theexcerpts to the same category as the two authors who analysed the interviewstogether, yielding a 90% level of agreement. Although this figure may includechance agreement (Zwick 1988), we consider it reasonable verification of the accu-racy of the coding procedure.
The conducted analysis showed that the teachers’ statements included speechabout students and speech about self and one’s own behaviour towards students (seeFigure 1). Analysing the teachers’ speech about the students, adjectives they used todescribe the students draw our attention. Teachers talked about students as, e.g.
Table 1. Frequencies of interviewed teachers according to school type and initial education.
School typeTotal
Primary Grammar Secondary vocational
Field Class teacher 12 (12.8%) – – 12 (12.8%)Humanities 28 (29.8%) 21 (22.3%) 8 (8.5%) 57 (60.6%)Science 8 (8.5%) 8 (8.5%) 9 (9.6%) 25 (26.6%)
Total 48 (51.1%) 29 (30.8%) 17(18.1%) 94
Figure 1. Category system.
European Journal of Teacher Education 225
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
‘aggressive’, ‘weird’ and ‘reticent’. We decided to name this subcategory: ‘Labels’.Teachers shared not only their perceptions of students’ characteristics, but also theirperceptions of students’ academic achievement and behaviour at school. Some ofthe examples of this subcategory ‘Academic achievement and behaviour in class’include: ‘since she was blind, she paid more attention during the classes’ and ‘chil-dren from wealthy families are more motivated and active during the lectures, theywant to dominate’. Relationship with peers was also addressed many times, so weintroduced the subcategory ‘Relations with peers’ – some of the examples were:‘They usually feel lonely, they are not well integrated’ and ‘With the children whostammered it was always the same. Children are cruel – they laughed’.
Furthermore, analysing teachers’ talk about themselves, four recurring themeswere registered. We coded statements about perception of professional competenciesand efficacy when working in a diverse setting as ‘Self-efficacy’. Some of the exam-ples were: ‘We are not prepared for the inclusion’ and ‘We had the training in theschool and now I know what can and what can’t be done …’ There were manyexamples of specific ways to meet different children’s needs; therefore we intro-duced the subcategory ‘Teaching methods and behaviour management strategies’.Typical statements were: ‘Children who can’t sit still usually get some special duty– to bring the map, to clean the blackboard and I always praise them’ and ‘I foundnewspaper articles on his favourite topic and I asked him to rewrite some sentences– at the beginning short ones, later complex ones’. Some of the teachers mentionedthat they cooperate with colleagues and parents (more or less successfully) in orderto meet students’ needs. Some of the examples of this subcategory ‘Cooperationwith parents and colleagues’ were: ‘The cooperation with parents, colleagues andchildren works – she is well accepted in the class’, ‘I didn’t know what to do andmy experienced colleagues told me that I have to adjust to the child …’. Finally,while talking about their professional roles, many teachers expressed their view onvalues that schools should propagate. Typical examples of this subcategory ‘Educa-tion aims and teacher roles’ were: ‘We talk about individual differences, I teachthem to appreciate others and not to discriminate against somebody just becausethey are different …’, and ‘My role is not just to transfer the knowledge; I want tomake them feel like a small community, to become tolerant and generous’.
It can be seen even from the few examples above that teachers talked about thesethemes in different ways. Regarding the category ‘Labels’, adjectives they usedpointed to a positive or negative evaluation (e.g. responsible, emotionally immature).Referring to categories ‘Academic achievement and behaviour in class’ and‘Relations with peers’, teachers used verbs indicating success or failure of thestudent (e.g. getting good notes, struggling) and collocations pointing to a positiveor negative perception (e.g. good socialising, inappropriate comments).
Therefore, we decided to introduce one ‘evaluative’ category that would embraceall the subcategories of the category Students – ‘Tone’, which could be positive ornegative. Comments that were generally optimistic and affirmative were coded bypositive tone, whereas those statements that reflected negative evaluation and emo-tions, pessimism and rejection of the children were coded by negative tone. Differ-ing statements by ‘Tone’ enabled quantification of data – using frequencies ofpositive and negative tone in the talk about three groups of students made moreclear and precise comparison possible, which we believed provided additional valuecompared to previous studies conducted in Serbian context. Besides that, frequencies
226 O. Jovanovic et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
of positive and negative tone enabled us to compare perceptions of teachers differingin gender, experience in service, school location, school type and the subject thoughtby teachers, using statistical analyses in PASW18.
Results and discussion
General overview
In analysing teachers’ answers, it was established that their perceptions of SaR inthe school context can be marked as ‘positive’ or ‘negative’. However, when talkingabout students with disabilities, ten teachers (9.4%) expressed positive perceptionsof some children and negative perceptions of other children, depending on the typeof their disability and hence these answers were marked as ‘depending on disabilitytype’ (Table 2).
In all cases the teachers who spoke affirmatively about one group of studentsused the same tone when talking about the remaining two groups, with the exceptionof three cases (3.2%) of positive perceptions of Roma and children from familieswith low SES, and negative perceptions of children with disabilities. A review ofperceptions of three groups of SaR, differing by Tone across aforementioned catego-ries, will be presented in the following sections.
In order to compare perceptions of teachers differing in gender, experience inservice, school location, school type and the subject thought by teachers, Chi-squaretests were used. Differences in frequencies of positive, negative and depending-on-disability-type tone were not related to any of the socio-demographic characteristicsof teachers. This could have been expected given the finding from different studieson Serbian teacher attitudes toward inclusion in general and toward some of thegroups of SaR (Kalyva, Gojković, and Tsakiris 2007; Macura-Milovanović andVujisić-Živković 2011; Rajović and Jovanović 2010). Since further discussion of therelationship between perceptions of SaR and teachers’ socio-demographic character-istics would be beyond the scope of this paper, these findings will not be interpretedin the continuation.
Perception of Roma students
Out of 94 interviews, 35 teachers (37.2%) mentioned Roma students, and in allcases teacher perceptions of the children had a ‘positive’ tone.
When teachers talked about intellectual abilities of students, they stated that theycould not find any difference between Roma and non-Roma children, as one of theteachers said – ‘They are smart and gifted, like the other children’.
Table 2. Frequency of interviews considering the tone of teacher perceptions of SaR.
Students withdisabilities
Romastudents
Students from low SESfamilies
Positive 39 (59.1%) 35 (100%) 30 (93.7%)Negative 17 (25.8%) – 2 (6.3%)Depending on disabilitytype
10 (15.1%) – –
Note: Within one interview, a teacher could give his/her perception of students belonging to more thanone group.
European Journal of Teacher Education 227
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
Concerning the acceptance by peers, teachers stated that the cause ofnon-acceptance of Roma students in the class lay in the attitudes of the parents ofnon-Roma children serving as models, as well as the media and prejudice of thesociety in general – as in an example:
Teacher: Once I had a Roma girl in the class and nobody wanted to seat with her. Iwas always trying to explain them why it was not nice, but it had no long-term effects.That is what they [children] pick up from their very ‘knowledgeable and open-minded’parents …
Teachers observed the consequences of social deprivation as reversible and did notdoubt academic achievement of Roma students, provided they attended classes moreregularly. The majority of teachers (85.7%) were of the opinion that the reason forabsenteeism was the negative attitude of the Roma community towards education,as well as lack of interest and support on the part of the parents. Our participantsperceived the phenomenon of missing classes as a problem of society or the Romacommunity, not as a problem of every teacher individually – they renounced theirresponsibility and power as teachers and they felt comfortable with it – as in thefollowing example:
Teacher: There is no progress because nobody works with them at home. It is impossi-ble to solve this at the school level only, there has to be a system solution as well.
In addition, five teachers (14.3%) stated that prejudice of the mainstream populationcan have negative consequences on the class attendance and achievement of Romastudents.
Teacher: Roma students mostly feel inferior and that is why they often drop out of sec-ondary school or do not enrol at all.
Only 17.1% of teachers managed to see their own role in encouraging more regularclass attendance – they stated that they tried to instil love towards school in studentsand help them see the importance of regular education; they cooperated with parentsand organised work in small mixed-ability groups for the purpose of better socialisa-tion and consequently greater motivation to attend classes.
Also, a minority of teachers (8.6%) perceived themselves as being a factor thatcan influence students’ behaviour and peer relationships – for example, the teacherwho said:
Teacher: I am a pillar of support to my class. I have a lot of patience for everyone andI teach them how to be caring, tolerant and full of understanding.
There were 22.9% of teachers who stated that they lowered grading criteria for thesechildren. Although lower expectations and demands can facilitate transition fromone grade into the next, in the long run lower expectations might imply lowerengagement on the part of teachers and hence low-quality education for Roma chil-dren. These expressions of care and sympathy, accompanied with low expectationsand lack of engagement to change the status quo may reflect paternalistic prejudices(Glick and Fiske 2001) toward Roma children. Teachers did not mention anynegative characteristic of Roma children, but their practice of lowering the grading
228 O. Jovanovic et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
criteria reflected their, not overly stated, negative perception of Roma children’scompetencies. Therefore, our finding after the first phase of coding – that the allperceptions of Roma children are positive, will be reconsidered in the conclusion.
Perception of students from families with low SES
In 32 interviews (34%), teachers mentioned children from families with low SES,and in two interviews (6.2%), these children were negatively perceived as non-moti-vated or less intelligent than their peers. In all other teachers’ statements, childrenfrom low SES households were described as ambitious, diligent and more persistentthan other students – as stated in following example:
Teacher: Children from wealthy families often take private lessons and come to regularschool to see their peers. Children whose parents cannot afford that are aware that reg-ular school is the only place where they can learn something. They can be very diligentand ambitious because they see this as the way to live better.
Some other differences perceived as relevant in the school context between the chil-dren from high and low SES families include parental educational level, vocabularyrichness and access to information. Teachers said that children from impoverishedfamilies, who also often came from rural areas, have limited access to socio-culturalresources, such as books, computers and the Internet, and hence, from the beginningof their schooling, were not on an equal footing with the children coming fromhigher SES households.
When it comes to relations with peers, 15.6% of the teachers pointed out that,children from low SES families felt inferior and insecure. Although teachers claimedthey did not treat the children from families with higher and lower SES differently,they declared that the children themselves sometimes grouped according to theirfinancial status:
Teacher: When there are prominent differences in wealth, they can often be the sourceof antagonism among students and the cause of competitiveness among them.
In such situations, teachers often felt the need to point out some other values in lifeapart from financial ones, and to additionally encourage and empower the childrenfrom low SES families, mainly by praising them:
Teacher: They are all equally valuable as persons to me. Although I feel that those[poor] children are more introverts, I encourage them to study as much as they can andoften send them to public competitions. They need additional motivation and a niceword.
Teachers also stated that they felt it was important to show students that they wereall equal to them, regardless of their financial status. They mentioned that there waspositive discrimination regarding extracurricular activities – teachers endeavoured tohelp poor students by procuring textbooks from previous generations or by raisingmoney for class trips. Only 6.2% of teachers expressed readiness to adjust instruc-tion to the needs of these students, and those who did mostly took into account theconditions at home when grading students. We got an impression from teachers’answers that they were more ready to take over an active role in providing better
European Journal of Teacher Education 229
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
socialisation of children from families with low SES than to adjust instructions totheir educational needs.
Perception of students with disabilities
Teachers mentioned children with disabilities in 66 interviews (70.2%). The findingthat the perceptions of 10 teachers (15.2%) depended on the type of disability (seeTable 2) is in line with the results of the study by Hrnjica and colleagues (2009),which revealed that a certain number of teachers had a selective approach to inclu-sive education, implying that feasibility of inclusive education was perceived asdepending on the type and level of disability.
Teachers who perceived students with disabilities negatively pointed to their lowintellectual capacities and poor academic achievement, which was, in their opinion,a sufficient reason for transferring these children to special schools. They labelledthem as persons with ‘limited abilities’ and ‘poor marks’, who ‘disrupt classes’ orwho are ‘too shy’. Unlike the former, the teachers who spoke positively aboutstudents with disabilities described them as ‘calm’, ‘diligent’, ‘motivated’ and‘kind-hearted’.
Descriptions of peer interaction also differed. The teachers with positive percep-tions of students with disabilities recalled examples of good acceptance and coopera-tion among peers, pointing out the key role of teachers as creators of an acceptingand supportive environment:
Teacher: My role, as well as the role of other teachers, was to ensure that other chil-dren listened to him [a boy with speech impediment], that they encouraged, supportedand helped him as much as possible.
On the other hand, teachers with negative perceptions of students with disabilitiesmentioned examples when peers did not accept them, emphasising the dominant roleof parents and the media in shaping students’ attitudes, failing to perceive their ownpotential power as facilitators of social interaction among students:
Teacher: … I am afraid that handicapped children would have to endure teasing andother unpleasant things by other students. Lately there has been a terrible lack of homeupbringing; children are less and less tolerant. The worst thing is that it seems thatteachers cannot do much to improve this.
Teachers who expressed a selective approach to inclusion of children with disabili-ties into regular schools, had positive perceptions of children with physical disabili-ties, lowered intellectual abilities and chronic illnesses, but negative perceptions ofhyperactive or aggressive children, who, in their own words, were not accepted evenby their peers. One of the examples of this perception is:
Teacher: Physical handicap does not put children off because they respect and appreci-ate their effort. Children with not so severe mental impairments are also acceptedbecause they like to socialise. Children with tics, characteristic appearance, as well asthe aggressive ones, are not so easily accepted.
Analysis of answers revealed that teachers who had negative perceptions of studentswith disabilities spoke exclusively about academic intelligence, while emotional andsocial aspects of a child’s development were not taken into account. They spoke
230 O. Jovanovic et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
only about studying and academic performance, disregarding other aspects ofeducation, as in the example:
Teacher: Inclusion is an illusion, not because I am an obstinate conservative whothinks that such children should be separated from ‘normal’ ones, but I don’t see themas equal with others when I can do only simple tasks with them and give them a B ifthey manage to sign their name.
The noticeable lack of motivation for working with students with disabilities mightbe related to the sense of incompetence. As teachers with negative perceptions stated– they had insufficient training for working with children with disabilities, systemsupport for teachers was missing and conditions at schools for including childrenwith disabilities were unsuitable. In their opinion, the special education therapist,speech therapist and psychologists should work with children with disabilities – asstated in the example:
Teacher: There is not much a teacher can do to help him [a student with impairedmotor skills]. There are people who have the appropriate education for that and whosejob is to help them.
In contrast, those teachers who had positive perceptions of children with disabilitiesemphasised the importance of socialisation, as well as the values of tolerance andequal rights:
Teacher: There are more important and more humane goals than those imposed byeveryday school routine, and those are the goals that enable the child who was sounfortunate to develop the potentials that can be developed and to improve them at therate most suitable to him/her. In this process, the curriculum envisaged for this age isnot of utmost importance; humanity and joy of socialising are what matters.
They emphasised the importance of talking with peers about the student who is ‘dif-ferent’, as well as cooperation with school psychologists, other teachers and parents.They did not reduce their role to transferring knowledge but viewed it as a morecomplex one – that of encouraging emotional and social development of children,carrying a certain system of values, cooperating with colleagues and parents. Never-theless, the motivation to assure the learning of all the children was not lacking.Teachers with positive perceptions mentioned numerous examples of being able toaccommodate to the needs of children with disabilities, changing class organisationand adjusting criteria for marks, thus indicating that they were more flexible andopen to change than the teachers with negative perceptions. Hence it can be said thatthey were not only subject matter experts, but pedagogy and didactics experts aswell (Beijaard, Verloop, and Vermunt 2000).
Conclusions and recommendations
This study does have a specific limitation that needs to be taken into account whenconsidering the results and conclusions. Namely, the prevalence of positive percep-tion might be the consequence of a highly selected sample of teachers motivated totake part in the interviews. Additionally, the study shares the weaknesses of all self-report studies – teachers’ responses might not disclose how they actually thoughtand felt and might not represent their actual classroom behaviour (Paulhus and
European Journal of Teacher Education 231
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
Vazire 2007). Nonetheless, we believe that the results of the study are still useful,and can be used to guide teacher training in order to facilitate more effectiveinclusive education.
From the above analysis, it can be seen that teachers have more favourable per-ceptions of Roma students and students from low SES families, compared to stu-dents with disabilities. However, the finding that all the perceptions of Romastudents are positive should be taken with caution. Namely, after the analysis ofadjectives and expressions used to describe Roma children, no evidence for negativeperceptions were found, but the analysis of teaching practices (subcode of the codeTeacher in relation to students), revealed that 22.9% teachers hold paternalistic prej-udices – ‘hidden’ perceptions of Roma children as less competent. The presence ofthis phenomenon that was not recognised at first is in accordance with the results ofprevious studies (Baucal 2006; Macura-Milovanović 2006; Miladinović 2008).
The content analysis of teachers’ speech reveals that they mostly attribute the cau-sality of students’ failures to their families, or, in the case of Roma students, to theethnic community that fosters different values compared to mainstream culture.Speaking in terms of attribution theory (Weiner 1985, 2000, 2010), teachers tend toattribute children’s low school success to factors that are stable, external and uncon-trollable by the teacher. Consequently, this may contribute to the development oflearned helplessness (de Jesus and Lens 2005) in the context of working with SaR.Regarding children with disabilities, teachers who expressed negative perceptionstend to put emphasis on the students’ low academic performance, neglecting otheraspects of schooling, such as socialisation. There are a small number of teachers whoperceive themselves as a source of powerful influence on the students’ developmentand learning. Similarly, teachers who expressed negative perceptions toward studentswith disability do not recognise the need for supporting children to actively acceptdiversity as a value per se; moreover, they construe diversity as a barrier to learning.
On the other hand, those teachers whose perceptions are more positive tend toperceive their own accountability for the inclusion success or failure, stressing theimportance of both cognitive and socio-emotional aspects of children’s developmentat school and therefore adopting the role of not just subject matter experts, but peda-gogy experts, as well. They have higher expectations of their students and of them-selves as teachers, so they express willingness to implement various teachingmethods and to cooperate with students, parents and colleagues in order to supportstudent development.
Relying on the collected data, we derived several recommendations for teachereducation. The issue of SaR should be explicitly and elaborately addressed in tea-cher education and during staff development programmes. Student teachers shouldbe introduced to the theory of labelling, attribution theory and theories of modernforms of prejudices. Wherever there is a minority group, such as Roma in Serbia,that is a target of paternalistic (or even contemptuous) prejudices, student teachersshould be introduced to the concept of intercultural sensitivity/competence and sup-ported to explore areas of cultural self-awareness, other-cultural awareness and topractice various approaches to intercultural communication (Bennett 1986). Studentteachers and teachers should be encouraged to examine their beliefs, stereotypes andconsequent expectations for SaR. Relying on Korthagen’s model of realistic teachereducation (Korthagen et al. 2001), we believe that the pre-service courses shouldaddress students’ needs, concerns and values, and challenge implicit theoriesthrough discussions and practical experience at schools that are successful in
232 O. Jovanovic et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
inclusion implementation. During pre-service courses and at the in-serviceprogrammes, teachers should learn that they do not have to be experts for disordersand impairments, but should know how to use diversity as a resource and how toenhance students’ awareness and appreciation for diversity.
It would be important to work with teachers on the development of differentiatedinstruction, classroom management skills and evidence-based teaching methods forproviding guidance for students who need additional support. It is necessary tostrengthen capacities of teachers to recognise and accept the comprehensiveness oftheir role, i.e. to understand the importance of the school as the agent of socialisa-tion and their responsibility for the holistic development of children.
Since successful implementation of inclusive education requires cooperation withparents (Titone 2005; Yaoying and Filler 2008), it is recommended that teacherscontinue building skills for collaboration, teamwork and conflict resolution at differ-ent stages of their professional development. They should also acquire the knowl-edge on different groups at risk of social exclusion and on mechanisms of socialinclusion in order to prevent inequality reproduction (Bourdieu and Passeron [1977]1990). Through raising awareness of socio-cultural influences on students’ academicachievement and life opportunities, teachers might become more eager to take onthe role of agents of social change. In order to empower teachers for this role,reforms should not be implemented top-down, but policy-makers should start fromteachers’ and students’ needs in the process of creating the changes.
AcknowledgementsThe authors want to thank Dr Friedrich Buchberger for the helpful comments whichenhanced the quality of this paper.
Funding
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Developmentof the Republic of Serbia, grant number OI 179018.
Notes on contributorsOlja Jovanović graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy (Department for Psychology),University of Belgrade in 2009. She is currently a PhD student. As a research assistant sheparticipates within the Psychology Institute’s Research Projects. Her research is centred ondevelopment of inclusive education in Serbia with special interest in pupils’ socialdevelopment.
Nataša Simić graduated from the Faculty of Philosophy in Belgrade (Department for Psychol-ogy) in 2009. She is currently in the third year of her PhD studies and works as a researchassistant at the Faculty of Philosophy. Her main field of interest is teacher education and pro-fessional counselling.
Vera Rajović, PhD, is an associate professor of Psychology (Educational) at Centre forTeacher Education, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Serbia. She has publishedmore than 80 scientific papers, mainly in the field of inclusive education, conflict mediationand teacher education. She is a member of several Serbian and international professionalorganisations: ATEE, ISCAR, ICEVI, HEIRNET, Balkan association for pedagogy and edu-cation, etc. Currently she is a head of the Centre for Teacher Education and a Coordinator ofTempus project Master Programme for Subject Teachers in Serbia.
European Journal of Teacher Education 233
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
ReferencesBanks, J. A. 2006. Race, Culture, and Education: The Selected Works of James A. Banks.
London: Routledge.Baucal, A. 2006. “Development of Mathematical and Language Literacy Among ROMA
STUDENTS.” Psihologija 39 (2): 207–227. doi:10.2298/PSI0602207B.Beijaard, D., N. Verloop, and J. D. Vermunt. 2000. “Teachers’ Perceptions of Professional
Identity: An Exploratory Study from a Personal Knowledge Perspective.” Teaching andTeacher Education 16: 749–764. doi:10.1177/0022487107310749.
Bennett, M. J. 1986. “Towards Ethnorelativism: A Development Model of InterculturalSensitivity.” In Cross-cultural Orientation: New Conceptualizations and Applications,edited by R. M. Paige, 27–69. Boston, MA: University Press of America.
Bourdieu, P., and J. C. Passeron. [1977] 1990. Reproduction in Education, Society andCulture. London: Sage.
Buchberger, F., B. P. Campos, D. Kallos, and J. Stephenson. 2000. Green Paper on TeacherEducation in Europe. Umea: TNTEE.
CETI. 2006. Oslonci i barijere za inkluzivno obrazovanje u Srbiji. Izveštaj sa projekta[Anchors and Barriers of Inclusive Education in Serbia]. Beograd: CETI.
Chen, R., and S. DesJardis. 2010. “Investigating the Impact of Financial Aid on StudentDropout Risks: Racial and Ethnic Differences.” The Journal of Higher Education 81 (2):179–208.
Coffey, K. M., and S. J. Obringer. 2000. “Culturally Diverse Rural Students: At Special Riskfor LD Classification.” Rural Special Education Quarterly 19: 15–19.
Collinson, V., E. Kozina, Y. Kate Lin, L. Ling, I. Matheson, L. Newcombe, and I. Zogla.2009. “Professional Development for Teachers: A World of Change.” European journalof teacher education 32 (1): 3–19. doi:10.1080/02619760802553022.
Davis, P., and L. Florian. 2004. Teaching Strategies and Approaches for Pupils with SpecialEducational Needs: A Scoping Study. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills.
Gay, G. 2000. Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York:Teachers College Press.
Georgiou, S. N., C. Christou, P. Stavrinides, and G. Panaoura. 2002. “Teacher Attributions ofStudent Failure and Teacher Behavior Toward Failing Student.” Psychology in theSchools 39 (5): 583–595. doi:10.1002/pits.10049.
Giavrimis, P., and E. Papanis. 2009. “Greek Teacher’s Perceptions About “Efficient” and“Non-Efficient” Students Development of an Attribution Questionnaire for Teachers inthe North Aegean Region.” The Journal of International Social Research 2 (8): 191–199.
Glick, P., and S. T. Fiske. 2001. “Ambivalent Stereotypes as Legitimizing Ideologies:Differentiating Paternalistic and Envious Prejudice.” In The Psychology of Legitimacy:Emerging Perspectives on Ideology, Justice, and Intergroup Relations, edited by J. T. Jostand B. Major, 278–306. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hattie, J. 2009. Visible Learning. London: Routledge.Hrnjica, S., M. Dešić, Z. Kašić, B. Popović, B. Jablan, V. Rajović, and B. Bešlić. 2009. Škola
po meri deteta 2 [The School Made to Measure 2]. Beograd: Save the Children UK.de Jesus, S. N., and W. Lens. 2005. “An Integrated Model for the Study of Teacher
Motivation.” Applied Psychology: An International Review 54 (1): 119–134. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00199.x.
Kalyva, E., D. Gojkovic, and V. Tsakiris. 2007. “Serbian Teachers’ Attitudes TowardsInclusion.” International Journal of Special Education 22 (3): 30–35.
Korthagen, F. A. J., J. Kessels, B. Koster, and B. Lagerwerf. 2001. Linking Practice andTheory: The Pedagogy of Realistic Teacher Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.
Kovačević, J., and I. Radovanović. 2006. “Preparation of Regular School Teachers forInclusive Education.” [Pripremljenost nastavnika redovnih škola za inkluzivnoobrazovanje]. Beogradska defektološka škola 3: 125–136.
Lewis, A., and B. Norwich. 2005. Special Teaching for Special Children? A Pedagogies forInclusion. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Macura-Milovanović, S. 2006. “Social Aspects of Inclusion of Roma Children Living inDump Colony in Educational System.” [Socijalni aspekti inkluzije romske dece iz naseljadeponija u obrazovni system]. Pedagogija 61 (3): 304–319.
234 O. Jovanovic et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
Macura-Milovanović, S., and N. Vujisić-Živković. 2011. “Attitudes of Pre-service TeachersToward Inclusion – Implications for Initial Professional Education.” [Stavovi budućihučitelja prema inkluziji – implikacije za inicijalno profesionalno obrazovanje].Pedagogija 66 (4): 633–647.
Meijer, C. J. W. ed. 2001. Inclusive Education and Effective Classroom Practices. Middelf-art: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education.
Miladinović, S. 2008. “Ethnical and Social Distance Toward Roma.” [Etnička i socijalnadistanca prema Romima]. Sociološki pregled XLII (3): 417–437.
Mitchell, D. 2008. What Really Works in Special and Inclusive Education? UsingEvidence-based Teaching Strategies. Abingdon: Routledge.
Nikolić, G., M. Lukić, and V. Janković. 2010. Učenici sa smetnjama i teškoćama u razvoju uobrazovno-vaspitnim ustanovama Republike Srbije: informator i statističnjak [Studentswith Disabilities in Educational Institutions in the Republic of Serbia: Informer andSpecialist]. Beograd: Zavod za unapređivanje obrazovanja i vaspitanja.
Nordenbo, S. E., A. Holm, E. Elstad, J. Scheerens, M. Søgaard Larsen, M. Uljens, P. FibækLaursen, and T. Eiliv Hauge. 2010. Input, Process, and Learning in Primary and LowerSecondary Schools – A Systematic Review. Copenhagen: Danish Clearinghouse forEducational Research.
Open Society Institute. 2010. Roma Children in “Special Education” in Serbia:Overrepresentation, Underachievement, and Impact on Life. Budapest: Open SocietyInstitute
Paulhus, D. L., and S. Vazire. 2007. “The Self-report Method.” In Handbook of ResearchMethods in Personality Psychology, edited by R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, and R. F.Krueger, 224–239. New York: Guilford Press.
Pešikan, A., S. Antić, and S. Marinković. 2010. “Conceptualization of Teachers’ ProfessionalDevelopment in Serbia – How Far We are from the Effective Model.” [Koncepcija struč-nog usavršavanja nastavnika u Srbiji – koliko smo daleko od efikasnog modela]. Nastavai vaspitanje 59 (3): 471–482.
Poulou, M., and B. Norwich. 2000. “Teachers’ Causal Attributions, Cognitive,Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties.” British Journal of Educational Psychology70 (4): 559–581. doi:10.1348/000709900158308.
Rajović, V., and O. Jovanović. 2010. “Professional and Private Experience with SpecialNeeds Persons and Regular School Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion.” [Profesionalnoi privatno iskustvo sa osobama sa posebnim potrebama i stavovi nastavnika redovnihškola prema inkluziji]. Psihološka istraživanja XIII (1): 52–67.
Rajovic, V., and L. Radulovic 2001. “Teacher Education in Yugoslavia.” InternationalJournal of Historical Learning, Teaching and Research 2 (1): 1–12. http://www.ex.ac.uk/historyresource/journal3/journalstart.htm.
Rajović, V., and L. Radulović. 2010. “Serbian Beginning Teachers’ Views on Induction asTheir Professional Development Stage.” Paper presented at 35th annual conference of theAssociation for teacher education in Europe, Budapest, August 26−30.
Rubie-Davis, C. M. 2010. “Teacher Expectations and Perceptions of Student Attributes: IsThere a Relationship?” British Journal of Educational Psychology 80: 121–135.doi:10.1348/000709909X466334.
Smith, J., R. Harre, and L. Van Langenhove. 1995. Rethinking Methods in Psychology.London: Sage.
Soodak, L. C., and D. M. Podell. 1994. “Teachers’ Thinking About Difficult-to-teachStudents.” Journal of Educational Research 88 (1): 44–51. doi:10.1080/00220671.1994.9944833.
Titone, C. 2005. “The Philosophy of Inclusion: Roadblocks and Remedies for the Teacherand the Teacher Educator.” The Journal of Educational Thought 39 (1): 7–32.
UNICEF. 2006. Stanje dece u Srbiji – siromaštvo i socijalna isključenost dece [State ofaffairs in Serbia – poverty and social exclusion of children]. Beograd: UNICEF.
Van Laar, C. 2000. “The Paradox of Low Academic Achievement but High Self-esteem inAfrican American Students: An Attributional Account.” Educational Psychology Review12 (1): 33–61. doi:10.1023/A:1009032900261.
European Journal of Teacher Education 235
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014
Vuković, D. 2009. “European Standards and Reform of Educational System for Youth withDisabilities in the Republic of Serbia.” [Evropski standardi i reforma sistema obrazovanja ivaspitanja mladih sa smetnjama u razvoju Republike Srbije]. Socijalna misao 4: 221–239.
Weiner, B. 1985. “An Attributional Theory of Achievement Motivation and Emotion.”Psychological Review 92: 548–573. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548.
Weiner, B. 2000. “Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Theories of Motivation from an Attribu-tional Perspective.” Educational Psychology Review 12: 1–14. doi:10.1023/A:1009017532121.
Weiner, B. 2010. “The Development of an Attribution-based Theory of Motivation: AHistory of Ideas.” Educational Psychologist 45 (1): 28–36. doi:10.1080/00461520903433596.
Willig, C. 2008. Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology. Berkshire: Open UniversityPress.
Woolfolk, A. E., B. Rosoff, and W. K. Hoy. 1990. “Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and TheirBeliefs About Managing Students.” Teaching and Teacher Education 6: 137–148.doi:10.1016/0742-051X(90)90031-Y.
Yaoying, X., and J. Filler. 2008. “Facilitating Family Involvement and Support for InclusiveEducation.” School Community Journal 18 (2): 23–71.
Zakon o osnovama sistema obrazovanja i vaspitanja Republike Srbije 2009 [Law on theFundamentals of the Education System], Službeni glasnik RS, br. 72/2009.
Zwick, R. 1988. “Another Look at Interrater Agreement.” Psychological Bulletin 103:374–378. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.374.
236 O. Jovanovic et al.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
NU
S N
atio
nal U
nive
rsity
of
Sing
apor
e] a
t 15:
41 1
7 Ju
ne 2
014