July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3
p-ISSN: 1694-609X

International Journal of Instruction
e-ISSN: 1308-1470 ● www.e-iji.net

pp. 491-508
Article submission code:
20230920125025

Received: 20/09/2023
Revision: 01/03/2024

Accepted: 08/03/2024
OnlineFirst: 03/04/2024

Are Teachers Adequately Prepared for Inclusive Classrooms in
Cambodia? Knowledge and Experience for Inclusive Practices
Sokunrith Pov
Hiroshima University, Japan, sokunrithp@gmail.com
Norimune Kawai
Hiroshima University, Japan, nkawai@hiroshima-u.ac.jp
This study examined Cambodian teachers’ knowledge and experience related toinclusive education and investigated differences in their knowledge and experiencebased on schools that implemented and did not implement inclusive education
programmes. A survey was administered to 1,008 regular teachers from 236
primary schools of all 25 provinces and cities in Cambodia. Among the selectedschools, 50% implemented inclusive education, while the other 50% did not. A
four-part questionnaire was employed for data collection. Data analysis
encompassed descriptive statistics, the Chi-Square analysis, and the independent
sample t-tests. The study revealed that teachers had limited experience andknowledge in implementing inclusive practices. Teachers from schools withinclusive education programmes exhibited significantly higher levels of
experience in inclusive education training ( = 0.21, p < 0.001), teaching students
with disabilities ( = 0.21, p < 0.001), and collaborative efforts ( = 0.23, p <0.001) than those from schools without such programmes. They also demonstrated
significantly greater knowledge concerning policies, inclusive education (t = -8.29,
p < 0.001), and disability (t = -3.12, p < 0.001) than their counterparts. The study
provides various implications for improved policies and teacher training
programmes to enhance teachers’ knowledge and experience for inclusive
practices in Cambodia.
Keywords: knowledge, experience, inclusive education, disability, inclusive classrooms,
Cambodia
INTRODUCTION
The international trends in educational development for students with disabilities(SWDs) have evolved from providing segregated special education to integrated
education and now inclusive education (IE). The movements aim to promote the rights
of SWDs to be included in mainstream educational settings (Kuroda et al., 2017). Thereis no universally applicable model for implementing IE. Various countries haveembraced diverse approaches, transitioning from special education to integrated
education and further to IE, and sometimes revisiting these models based on their
Citation: Pov, S., & Kawai, N. (2024). Are teachers adequately prepared for inclusive classrooms in
Cambodia? Knowledge and experience for inclusive practices. International Journal of Instruction,
17(3), 491-508. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2024.17327a

492

Are Teachers Adequately Prepared for Inclusive Classrooms …

context and changes in policies. Some nations adopt a combination of these approaches
to cater to the specific needs of individuals. Crucially, it is imperative for the education
system to accommodate students’ unique special educational needs (SEN) instead of
expecting them to conform to the rigid structures of the school system (Disability
Action Council, 2003).
Cambodia has committed to providing IE services to SWDs by adopting international
development agenda, developing IE training (IET) programmes, formulating various
national policies, and implementing IE programmes in regular public schools. In 2019,
for instance, it adopted the goal of Agenda 2030 on Sustainable Development Goal 4(SDG4) as its first education policy priority to ‘ensure inclusive and equitable quality
education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all’ (Ministry of Education,
Youth, and Sport (MoEYS), 2019). Among various targets, Agenda 2030 emphasises
the quality of teacher training in preparing teachers with practical knowledge and skills
to cater to student’s individual needs, regardless of their SEN and disabilities. Target
4.C states that ‘by 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers,
including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries,
especially least developed countries and small island developing States’ (United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 2015, p.21).
Evidence-based strategies and policies need to address inclusion barriers regarding
teaching and learning materials, inclusive school facilities, and especially IET(UNESCO, 2015).
A large body of literature consistently asserts that providing IET to both pre-service andin-service teachers significantly influences the effective implementation of IE.
However, studies in various countries commonly found that teachers often received
insufficient and ineffective IET (e.g. Loreman et al., 2013; Malinen et al., 2013; Sharma& Sokal, 2015), including Cambodia (e.g. Kuroda et al., 2017; Ravet & Mtika, 2021).
In Cambodia, previous studies indicate that teachers severely lack IET to implement
inclusive practices, especially those in rural areas (Ravet & Mtika, 2021). The training
they have received is ineffective, leading to a lack of knowledge, skills, and teachingexperience to meet the special needs of SWDs. For instance, the current training on IE
follows a cascade training model, limiting the exposure of the comprehensive conceptof IE to the majority of teachers at the school level. Additionally, there is a lack of onsite support to guide teachers in implementing inclusive practices with SWDs (Kuroda
et al., 2017). Contributors to ineffective IET also include the short training duration,
trainers’ limited knowledge, and inadequate training facilities (Šiška & Suchánek,2015). With large class sizes, a shortage of teachers possessing adequate knowledge andskills in IE, and misconceptions about the benefits of inclusion, most schools decline toadmit SWDs into regular classrooms (Kalyanpur, 2016). Therefore, the implementationof IE programmes is currently very limited (see MoEYS, 2022) despite these
programmes being mandated by existing policies. Moreover, many teachers may only
be inclined to accept students with milder disabilities, such as physical and cognitive
disabilities, into their regular classrooms (Kalyanpur, 2016).

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

493

Pov & Kawai

Implementation of Inclusive Education
Despite the exclusive focus on training to enhance teachers’ knowledge and skills
related to inclusion, it is important to consider alternative initiatives. The replacement ofhalf of the inadequately trained teachers with those specifically educated in IE can be atime-consuming process. For example, the Netherlands has a long history of
implementing IE. Even though teacher training incorporates IE courses and offers
advanced training opportunities, teachers often feel unprepared due to a lack of practicalexperience in teaching students with SEN (Pijl, 2010). This thesis does not assert that
IET is ineffective or unnecessary; rather, it proposes additional initiatives that could be
implemented at the school level to efficiently prepare teachers for inclusive practices ina shorter timeframe. It emphasises involving teachers in the IE process, regardless ofconsidering their IET qualifications, through the school-level implementation. Previous
research has highlighted that such implementation improves teachers’ self-efficacy forinclusive practices and attitudes toward inclusion (Malinen et al., 2013; Wray et al.,2022).
While some teachers may lack comprehensive IET, hands-on experience in teaching
students with SEN can be invaluable (Alnahdi, 2019; Pijl, 2010). Throughcollaboration, teachers can learn from their own experiences and from their colleagues,
allowing them to effectively implement inclusive practices in their respective schools.
However, successful outcomes from IE programmes at the school level necessitate
robust collaborative support for colleagues (Pijl, 2010) and the leadership team (Valdés& Gómez-Hurtado, 2023). Leadership teams have a pivotal role in establishing andencouraging inclusive practices. Research by Valdés and Gómez-Hurtado (2023)
revealed that the administrative burdens and overwhelming responsibilities faced byschool principals and their educational leadership teams were the major obstacles
hindering the cultivation of an inclusive culture in Chile. However, these challenges
were less prominent in schools that had adopted IE programmes and demonstrated amore robust inclusive culture. This was attributed to the dedication of leadership teams
to prioritise pedagogical inclusivity, embrace diversity, and foster teacher selfreflection.
In Cambodia, it is evident that IE notion has been introduced in public schools since theenactment of the Law on Education in 2007 (Cambodia National Assembly, 2007) andthe implementation of the Policy on Education for Children with Disability (PECD) in2008 (MoEYS, 2008). Article 9 of the Law on Education ensures the right of SWDs toreceive education in regular classrooms alongside their peers without disabilities, withadditional support from teachers (Cambodia National Assembly, 2007). In 2018, PECD
was revised into the Policy on IE (PIE) to align with Agenda 2030. PIE asserts that
individuals with special needs are entitled to receive inclusive and equitable quality
education and life-long learning opportunities (MoEYS, 2018). Due to the newprevalence of the IE concept, one of its urgent strategies is to urgently build capacity forteachers and school management to prepare to include students with SEN anddisabilities into regular classrooms. It aims to train teachers to teach persons with SEN
and disabilities at all educational levels, offers incentives to teachers teaching SWDs,
develops teacher capacities in IE to stay up to date with technological progress andInternational Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

494

Are Teachers Adequately Prepared for Inclusive Classrooms …

globalisation, enhances teachers’ pedagogy on disability, builds required skills incatering to diverse SEN, and develop pre-service and in-service training resources forteachers (see MoEYS, 2018).
Since the implementation of IE, there has been no monitoring and evaluation of its
implementation at the school level. The effects of implementing IE programmes at theschool level and understanding teachers’ knowledge and experience related to inclusive
practices remain unaddressed. Understanding these aspects is salient for informing
policy implementation to enhance teacher education and provide the necessary support
to improve teachers’ knowledge and experience in meeting the specific needs of SWDs.
Experience and Knowledge of Inclusive Education
Previous research provides compelling evidence that prior experience related to IE, suchas teaching SWDs, training experience, and collaborating with colleagues, is associatedwith improved attitudes (Minke et al., 1996; Scanlon et al., 2022), decreased concerns(Shah et al., 2016), and enhanced self-efficacy (Malinen et al., 2013) of teachers in
implementing inclusive practices within mainstream educational settings. Suchexperience significantly influences the implementation of IE at the school level. For
instance, Minke et al. (1996) found that teachers in inclusive classrooms demonstrated
more positive attitudes towards including students with mild disabilities than those in
traditional classrooms. Teaching experience with SWDs not only enhances teachers’
attitudes towards inclusion but also their self-efficacy in implementing inclusive
practices (Wray et al., 2022). Shah et al. (2016) noted that teachers with extensive
teaching experience but limited experience in teaching SWDs expressed greater
concerns than their counterparts who had more of such experience. Furthermore,
previous studies emphasise that experience of IET has a significant impact on the
successful implementation of IE (e.g. Loreman et al., 2013; Malinen et al., 2013;
Sharma & Sokal, 2015). Collaboration experience with colleagues (Pijl, 2010) andparents (Adiputra & Hendrowati, 2019) is also recognised as a pivotal factor increasingcollaborative support for effective inclusion at the school level.
Teachers’ knowledge of IE domains also stands as a crucial determinant of the successor failure of inclusive practices. Developing teachers’ knowledge to effectively address
the diverse needs of individuals, particularly those with disabilities, necessitates
substantial effort and time (Pijl, 2010). Numerous previous studies across different
contexts highlight the common lack of knowledge related to IE among teachers, leading
to their significant concerns about inclusion (e.g. Agbenyega & Klibthong, 2014; Maria,
2013) and reluctance to take on the responsibility of including SWDs (Pijl, 2010).
To date, there is no standardised measurement for assessing teachers’ knowledge related
to IE. It is salient that several studies have used a single-item measurement to gauge
teachers’ knowledge on IE (e.g. Agbenyega & Klibthong, 2014; Pijl, 2010; Sharma &Sokal, 2015). For example, Agbenyega and Klibthong (2014) evaluated the perceived
knowledge of Thai early childhood teachers regarding inclusive practices using a set of
13 items. These items encompassed areas such as ‘knowledge on how to collaborate
with other professionals’, ‘knowledge on developing IEPs’, and ‘knowledge ofThailand’s inclusive policy framework’. Teachers rated their knowledge levels on a

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

495

Pov & Kawai

five-point Likert scale. The study revealed that a significant majority of Thai teachers(72%) indicated their knowledge of IE as ‘poor’.
Similarly, Sharma and Sokal (2015) examined the knowledge of Canadian andAustralian teachers about local legislation, disabilities, and inclusion through a series ofsingle-item questions. These questions prompted teachers to rate their knowledge on a
five-point Likert scale. The findings indicated that around 63% of Australianparticipants perceived their knowledge of disabilities as ‘nil’ or ‘poor’, while 37%
considered it ‘average’. Among Canadian participants, 63% rated their knowledge as‘good’ or ‘very good’, 20% as ‘average’, and 11% as ‘poor’. These findings indicate aserious concern about the link between teachers’ knowledge and teaching practices(Agbenyega & Klibthong, 2014). The lack of knowledge about local legislation,
disabilities, and inclusion is a primary obstacle for teachers in establishing inclusive
learning environments for all students. This deficiency leads to increased negative
attitudes and heightened concerns about including SWDs in their classrooms (Forlin &Chambers, 2011). Overall, previous studies highlight the importance of understanding
teachers’ knowledge and experience regarding IE in implementing inclusive practices.
Aims and Research Questions
The aim of this study was two-fold: (1) to conduct a nationwide survey involving
regular primary school teachers to assess their knowledge and experience related to IE
and (2) to determine whether variations existed in their knowledge and experiencebased on the implementation of IE programmes. The study addressed two researchquestions:
1. What were the levels of Cambodian primary school teachers’ knowledge andexperience related to IE?
2. Were there significant differences in the knowledge and experience related to IE
between teachers from schools that implemented and did not implement IE
programmes?
METHOD
Research design
This study used a quantitative approach with a survey research design to assess
Cambodian teachers’ knowledge and experience for inclusive practices and examined
whether their knowledge- and experience-related aspects varied based on schools that
implemented and did not implement IE. The purpose was to generalise the findings to
all regular primary schools and teachers across Cambodia. Rather than surveying every
individual in the population, the survey design allows for data collection from a
representative portion of the population (Fowler, 2009). By utilising the survey design,
it enabled the study to gather data from a large number of teachers across the country,
enhancing the generalisability of the findings to the broader population of regularprimary schools and teachers in Cambodia.

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

496

Are Teachers Adequately Prepared for Inclusive Classrooms …

Participants
A cluster random sampling method was employed to select a total of 236 primaryschools across 25 provinces and cities in Cambodia as research sites. The selection was
based on two criteria: (1) school location and (2) schools that implemented and did not
implement IE. All teachers from these selected schools were invited to participate in the
study, and a total of 1,008 teachers voluntarily completed the questionnaire, with a
response rate of 71%. It should be noted that among the participants, 33% were maleand 67% were female. In terms of teaching experience, 27% reported having 1−5 yearsof teaching experience, 22% had 6−10 years of teaching experience, and 51% had 11
years or more of teaching experience. Additionally, age distribution among participantsrevealed that 16% were 18−24 years old, 27.88% were 25−31 years old, 22.02% were32−38 years old, 13.19% were 39−45 years old, 12% were 46−52 years old, and 8.83%
were 53−59 years old and older. Approximately 29% of the participants were fromschools located in urban areas, while 71% were from schools in rural areas.
Furthermore, 50% of them were from schools that implemented IE programmes, while
the remaining 50% were from schools that did not. Additionally, 80 primary school
teachers voluntarily completed the questionnaire for the pilot study, with a response rateof 69%.
Questionnaire
The present study employed a four-part questionnaire for data collection. This
questionnaire was developed based on previous research examining the attitudes,concerns, and self-efficacy of in-service teachers towards IE (e.g. Agbenyega &Klibthong, 2014; Kuyini et al., 2020; Poon et al., 2016; Sharma & Sokal, 2016; Sokal &Sharma, 2014). It was divided into four sections, encompassing variables related (1)demographic information such as school details, personal information, educational
background, professional learning, and work experience, along with (2) attitude, (3)concern, and (4) self-efficacy scales.
Howeverm, in this study, it is important to note that three experience-related variables
and seven knowledge-related variables were incorporated as independent variables in
the analysis. These variables were related to the concept and domains of IE, which werealso measured by previous studies (see Agbenyega & Klibthong, 2014; Maria, 2013).
Moreover, the variable ‘implementation of IE (1 = Not implemented, 2 = Implemented)’
was utilised as a dependent variable. The experience-related variables weredichotomous variables, evaluating teachers’ experience of IET, experience of teaching
SWDs, and experience of collaborating for inclusive practices. The knowledge-related
variables were continuous variables and measured teachers’ knowledge of the United
Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD),
PECD, PIE, IE, disability, special education, and the individualised education
programmes (IEPs). Teachers were requested to assess their knowledge across theseareas on a five-point Likert scale (1 = very poor, 2 = poor, 3 = average, 4 = high, and 5= very high). The questionnaire underwent a pilot phase and subsequent revisions toensure its clarity and appropriateness for the Cambodian teacher samples, taking into
account the specific context of Cambodia.

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

497

Pov & Kawai

Data collection and ethical issues
We obtained ethical approval and permission for data collection from the Research
Ethics Review Board of Hiroshima University in Japan and MoEYS in Cambodia. In
Japan, we received ethical approval from the Research Ethics Review Board ofHiroshima University on 24 February 2023, with reference number ‘HR-ES-000805’. In
Cambodia, we obtained MoEYS’ approval for data collection on 6 February 2023, withreference number ‘735’. We also obtained permission from the target schools to ensurethat ethical concerns were addressed. We explained the study’s purpose to theparticipants in advance and assured them that their personal information would be kept
confidential. We explained that participation was voluntary, and they could withdraw
anytime. We obtained individual consent from all participating primary school teachersand distributed the questionnaire to them. The data collection process was divided into
two phases, both utilising the KOBO Toolbox. The first phase involved a pilot study,
while the second phase constituted the actual data collection. In the initial phase, thequestionnaire was distributed to 20 primary schools across two provinces, involving 80
participants. Necessary revisions were made to the instrument, and it was subsequently
administered to the target sample of 1008 teachers in 236 primary schools during thesecond phase.
Data analysis
To analyse the data, descriptive statistics such as mean (M) and standard deviation (SD)with 99% confidence interval (CI) estimations were computed to assess the level ofknowledge- and experience-related variables in IE. Additionally, a Chi-Square analysis
was conducted to determine if there were significant differences in teachers’
experience-related variables based on school that implemented and did not implement
IE programmes (1 = Not implemented, 2 = Implemented). The choice of Chi-Squareanalysis was appropriate as both the dependent and independent variables in the study
were categorical or dichotomous variables. The analysis involved examining the valuesof Pearson Chi-Square (χ2), significant values (p), and Phi () for interpretation anddiscussion. For Chi-Square analysis, Phi () refers to the strength of relationship or
effect size according to Cohen (1988), which is considered as Pearson’s correlation (r)(Morgan et al., 2004).
The independent sample t-test was utilised to assess whether there were significant
differences in teachers’ knowledge-related variables based on schools that implemented
and did not implement IE programmes. The independent sample t-test was suitable forthis estimation because it aimed to compare the means of teachers’ knowledge-related
variables of two groups: teachers from schools that implemented and did not implement
IE programmes (1 = Not implemented, 2 = Implemented). For the assessment ofknowledge in IE, teachers were asked to rate their knowledge related to policies, IE,
special education, disability, and IEPs on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = very
poor; 2 = poor; 3 = average; 4 = high; and 5 = very high). A higher score indicated ahigher level of knowledge in IE-related areas. The analysis considered the t-values,
significant values (p), and the effect sizes (d) according to Cohen (1988).

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

498

Are Teachers Adequately Prepared for Inclusive Classrooms …

FINDINGS
Experience related to inclusive education
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics of experience-related variables. The results
reveal that 30% of the participants reported having some experience of IET, while theremaining 70% had no experience of IET. Additionally, 45% of the participants had
experience teaching SWDs throughout their teaching career, compared to 55% who did
not. Interestingly, 53% of the participants reported having some experience withcollaboration to teach students with and without disabilities in their classrooms, while
47% did not report any collaboration experience.
Table 1
Number (n) and percentage (%) of experience-related variables
Variables
Experience of IET
No
Yes
Teaching SWDsNo
Yes
Collaboration experience
No
Yes

n

%

704
304

70
30

558
450

55
45

473
535

47
53

Knowledge related to inclusive education
Table 2 shows the results of descriptive statistics of knowledge-related variables bypercentage (%), mean (M), and standard deviation (SD) with 99% of CI values.
Teachers were asked to rate their knowledge on a scale from 1 (very poor) to 5 (veryhigh) for knowledge-related variables. The results indicate that teachers reported
slightly above the means (M = 2.50) of knowledge across all domains of IE, with ratings
below the value of 3 (average). The results show diverse and statistically significant
knowledge-related variables, as indicated by the non-overlapping 99% CI values. Theirknowledge related to policies such as UNCRPD (M = 2.81, SD = 0.57), PECD (M =2.53, SD = 0.60), and PIE (M = 2.54, SD = 0.59), as well as IE (M = 2.57, SD = 0.60),
and disability (M = 2.51, SD = 0.62) were all rated slightly above the means. They rated
their knowledge the lowest in special education (M = 2.32, SD = 0.64) and IEPs (M =2.37, SD = 0.65).

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

499

Pov & Kawai

Table 2
Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of knowledge-related variables with 99% of CI
valuesVariables
Knowledge of UNCRPD
Knowledge of PECD
Knowledge of PIE
Knowledge of IE
Knowledge of special education
Knowledge of disability
Knowledge of IEPs

M
2.81
2.53
2.54
2.57
2.32
2.51
2.37

SD
0.57
0.60
0.59
0.60
0.64
0.62
0.65

Lower CI
2.76
2.48
2.49
2.52
2.27
2.46
2.32

Upper CI
2.85
2.58
2.59
2.62
2.37
2.56
2.42

Sig.
p < 0.001
p < 0.001
p < 0.001
p < 0.001
p < 0.001
p < 0.001
p < 0.001

Table 3 presents the detailed distribution of each item of knowledge in IE. Althoughteachers indicated slightly above the means in most knowledge areas, most rated thembetween ‘poor’ and ‘average’, while a few rated them as ‘very poor’ and ‘very high’.
None of the participants rated ‘very high’. For instance, 18% of the participants
indicated ‘poor’ knowledge of UNCRPD and 74% indicated it was ‘average’.
Regarding knowledge of PECD, 40% rated their knowledge as ‘poor’ and 54% reported
it as ‘average’. Similarly, for knowledge of PIE, 39% reported ‘poor’ knowledge and56% reported it as ‘average’. Regarding knowledge of IE, 37% of teachers rated theirknowledge as ‘poor’ and 58% rated it as ‘average’. For knowledge of special education,
53% indicated ‘poor’ knowledge and 38% indicated ‘average’ knowledge. For
knowledge of disability, 42% of participants indicated ‘poor’ knowledge, while 51%
reported ‘average’ knowledge. For knowledge about IEPs, 49% indicated theirknowledge as ‘poor’ and 42% indicated it as ‘average’.
Table 3Distribution of knowledge-related items in percentage (%)
Variables
Knowledge of UNCRPD
Knowledge of PECD
Knowledge of PIE
Knowledge of IE
Knowledge of special education
Knowledge of disability
Knowledge of IEPs

Very poor
3
4
4
4
8
4
8

Poor
18
40
39
37
53
42
49

Average
74
54
56
58
38
51
42

High
4
1
1
2
1
2
2

Very high
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Effects of inclusive education programmes on experience
Table 4 presents the results of the Chi-Square analysis. The results indicated thatteachers from schools that implemented IE programmes had significantly moreexperience in IET compared to those from schools that did not implement IE
programmes (2 = 42.86,  = 0.21, p < 0.001). Phi () representing the effect size was
0.21, indicating a small effect size according to Cohen (1988). Furthermore, teachers
from schools that implemented IE programmes had significantly more experience inteaching SWDs than those from schools that did not implement IE programmes ( 2 =46.05,  = 0.21, p < 0.001). The effect size () was 0.21, indicating a small effect size.

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

500

Are Teachers Adequately Prepared for Inclusive Classrooms …

Lastly, it was found that teachers from schools that implemented IE programmes had
significantly more collaboration experience compared to those from schools that did not
implement IE programmes (2 = 53.54,  = 0.23, p < 0.001). The effect size () was
0.23, indicating a small effect size.
Table 4
Results of chi-square analysis of significant differences in experience-related variables
by the implementation of IE
Variablesn
Not implemented
Implemented2Experience of IET
No
Yes
Experience of teaching SWDsNo
Yes
Collaboration experience
No
Yes

704
304

399
104

305
200

558
450

332
171

226
279

473
535

294
209

179
326

42.86***

0.21

46.05***

0.21

53.54***

0.23

Note. ***p < 0.001; 2 = Pearson Chi-Square;  (Phi) = Strength of relationship or
effect size according to Cohen (1988)
Effects of inclusive education programmes on knowledge
Table 5 presents the results of the independent sample t-test. The findings revealed thatteachers from schools that implemented IE programmes differed significantly fromthose from schools that did not implement IE programmes in terms of their knowledgeof UNCRPD (t = -2.97, p < 0.01), PECD (t = -3.74, p < 0.001), PIE (t = -6.95, p <0.001), IE (t = -8.29, p < 0.001), and disability (t = -3.12, p < 0.001).
The mean score of knowledge of UNCRPD for teachers from schools that implemented
IE programmes (M = 2.86, SD = 0.57) was significantly higher than the mean score forthose from schools that did not implement IE programmes (M = 2.76, SD = 0.56). The
effect size (d) was -0.19, indicating a small effect size, according to Cohen (1988).
Similarly, the mean score of knowledge of PECD for teachers from schools that
implemented IE programmes (M = 2.60, SD = 0.59) was significantly higher than themean score for those from schools that did not implement IE programmes (M = 2.46,
SD = 0.61), with a small effect size (d = -0.24). Additionally, the mean score ofknowledge of PIE for teachers from schools that implemented IE programmes (M =2.67, SD = 0.55) was significantly higher than the mean score for those from schoolsthat did not implement IE programmes (M = 2.42, SD = 0.61), with a small effect size(d = -0.44). Moreover, the mean score of knowledge of IE was significantly higher forteachers from schools that implemented IE programmes (M = 2.72, SD = 0.54)
compared to those from schools that did not (M = 2.41, SD = 0.63), with a medium
effect size (d = -0.53). Lastly, the mean score of knowledge of PIE for teachers fromschools that implemented IE programmes (M = 2.57, SD = 0.64) was significantly
higher than the mean score for those from schools that did not (M = 2.45, SD = 0.60),
with a small effect size (d = -0.20).

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

501

Pov & Kawai

Table 5Results of independent sample t-test of significant differences in knowledge-related
variables by implementation of IE
Variables
Knowledge of UNCRPD
Knowledge of PECD
Knowledge of PIE
Knowledge of IE
Knowledge of special education
Knowledge of disability
Knowledge of IEPs

Not implemented
M
SD
2.76
0.56
2.46
0.61
2.42
0.61
2.41
0.63
2.30
0.65
2.45
0.60
2.35
0.64

Implemented
M
SD
2.86
0.57
2.60
0.59
2.67
0.55
2.72
0.54
2.33
0.63
2.57
0.64
2.39
0.65

t

d

-2.97**-3.74***-6.95***-8.29***-0.76-3.12**
-0.79

-0.19
-0.24
-0.44
-0.52
-0.05
-0.20
-0.05

Note. **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; d = Effect size according to Cohen (1988)
DISCUSSION
Experience for inclusive practices
This study revealed that, among all experience domains, Cambodian teachers reported
the most limited experience with IET, even though they all taught in schools with ahistory of inclusion, and nearly half (45%) were teaching SWDs. In line with this,Agbenyega and Klibthong (2014) investigated knowledge related to IE among earlychildhood teachers in Thailand, discovering that a significant majority of their
participants (65.7%) had no experience with IET in special education or IE, eventhough they were teaching SWDs in regular early childhood classrooms. Similarly,
Maria (2013) identified that Romanian teachers perceived their pre-service and inservice IET as ‘insufficient’, leaving them ill-equipped to understand, apply, andimplement inclusive practices.
The present study discovered that teachers who worked in schools implementing IE
programmes reported significantly higher levels of experience in IET, teaching SWDs,
and collaboration compared to those in schools without such programmes. The findings
highlight positive effects of IE programmes on teachers’ experience for inclusive
practices and the development of the IE system at school level, aligning with various
previous studies (e.g. Minke et al., 1996; Scanlon et al., 2022; Shah et al., 2016; Wrayet al., 2022). For instance, Minke et al. (1996) investigated teachers’ experiences withinclusive classrooms including students with mild disabilities. Three different groups ofregular and special education teachers were included for the observation. The study
found that regular and special education teachers in inclusive classrooms demonstrated
more positive attitudes and higher levels of self-efficacy to including SWDs comparedto those in traditional classrooms. They also reported higher levels of competence andsatisfaction in teaching SWDs in inclusive classrooms, where ‘protected resources’
were available to support inclusion. Teaching experience in inclusive settings not only
enhances teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion but also their self-efficacy inimplementing inclusive practices (Wray et al., 2022). Similarly, Shah et al. (2016) notedthat teachers with extensive teaching experience but limited experience of teaching
SWDs expressed greater concerns than their counterparts who had more of such
experience.

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

502

Are Teachers Adequately Prepared for Inclusive Classrooms …

Knowledge for inclusive practices
In this study, most teachers reported their knowledge regarding policies and otheraspects of IE as either ‘poor’ or ‘average’, despite around 30% receiving IET and 45%
having experience in teaching SWDs. Teachers from schools implementing IE hadsignificantly higher levels of knowledge of IE-related policies, IE, and disability thantheir counterparts.
Agbenyega and Klibthong (2014) also observed similar trends in Thailand. They
discovered that despite 44% of their participants having taught SWDs, the majority(72%) indicated that their overall knowledge of IE was inadequate. Their knowledge
with various policies such as UNCRPD, was limited (20.6%), and their knowledge ofThai PIE was rated as ‘low’ (M = 2.87, SD = 1.05). Additionally, their knowledge of
IEPs and teaching strategies for children with sensory disabilities ranked the lowest
among the 13 items. In Thailand, teachers’ poor knowledge of IE was strongly
associated with the quality of the training, which lacked practical inclusive practices(Agbenyega & Klibthong, 2014). Moreover, a study conducted in Romania evaluatedteachers’ perceptions, knowledge, and behaviour in IE. It found that most teachers did
not offer accurate responses concerning the definition of the IE concept and reported
having very limited knowledge about IE and disability. This lack of knowledge resulted
in teachers’ rejection, stereotypes, and prejudice towards SWDs (Maria, 2013).
IMPLICATIONS
The current study offers crucial insights into the knowledge and experience of teachers
regarding inclusion and the effects of IE implementation at the school level. Despite
limited access to training, teachers in schools implementing IE programmes had
significantly greater knowledge and experience related to IE than those in schools not
implementing such programmes. This underscores the need for improved policies andteacher training for both pre-service and in-service teachers to enhance Cambodianteachers’ readiness for implementing inclusive practices.
In line with Agbenyega and Klibthong (2014), the concept of PIE prevails in Cambodia,
focusing on specialised curricula and conditional inclusion for students with SEN anddisabilities (UNICEF, 2020). These policies lack effective dissemination and on-site
support, hindering the sustainability and effectiveness of knowledge transfer (King,2018). The top-down approach to policy implementation without considering teachers’
capacity in special needs and the local context and culture creates concerns among
teachers about their inadequate pedagogical knowledge and skills in including SWDs in
regular classrooms (Kalyanpur, 2016). To address this, it is crucial for stakeholders toconsider local understanding on disability and integrate them into policies andprogrammes rather than imposing concepts from Global North countries (Kalyanpur,
2016). A systematic policy dissemination paradigm with on-site support should beestablished (King, 2018; Kuroda et al., 2017).
It is imperative to increase training opportunities to improve teachers’ readinessregarding knowledge and skills for inclusive practices. IET should be emphasised
within the continuous professional development framework and action plan (CPDFAP)

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

Pov & Kawai

503

of MoEYS (see MoEYS, 2021). Action research can also help teachers reflect on theirpractices and understand the learning difficulties that SWDs face. It leads teachers to
become reflective practitioners for effective inclusive practices (Finkelstein et al.,2021). In 2020, MoEYS firstly developed an action research guidebook for all
educational staff, especially teachers, to use as a self-learning resource to assist them in
conducting classroom and small-scale research. It enables them to reflect on their own
practices, improve students’ learning outcomes by responding to their SEN, and bringabout positive changes to the school system (see MoEYS, 2020). This guidebook could
serve as an additional resource for IET and should be considered for inclusion in the
training module.
Training in IE or special needs is considered a critical determinant of the success or
failure of the development of the IE system. However, numerous studies have indicatedthat such training falls short in adequately preparing teachers for inclusive classroom
settings, particularly in regions of the Global South where resource limitations posesignificant barriers to implement inclusive practices (see Bhatnagar & Das, 2014;
Loreman et al., 2013; Malinen et al., 2013). The current training system in Cambodia
falls short in adequately preparing pre-service and in-service teachers to teach ininclusive settings, especially in resource-constrained regions like Cambodia, where
teachers lack access to effective training and perceive their knowledge and skills as‘inadequate’ (Kalyanpur, 2011; Kuroda et al., 2017; Ravet & Mtika, 2021). The training
primarily emphasises theory rather than practical inclusive practices and lacks on-site
support (Kuroda et al., 2017). The teaching practice does not include hands-on
experience in inclusive classrooms. The short duration of the training, limited
knowledge among teacher trainers themselves, and ineffective facilitation of the
training are the main barriers to preparing teachers for effective inclusive practices(Kalyanpur, 2011). For instance, in pre-service training programmes, a topic on thebasic concept of IE is allocated only six hours of in-class instruction (MoEYS, 2017a,
2017b), while in-service training lasts only about two to five days, with an emphasis ona broad variety of topics without practical inclusive practice components (Kalyanpur,
2011). This led to the findings of the current study, where 60.41% of participants
reported their IET as ‘inadequate’, and 11.11% indicated it as ‘completely inadequate’.
This discrepancy is attributed to implementing policies and teacher education, whichhave limited reach, do not promote effective inclusive practices, and offer minimal
practical skills and knowledge in IE (Agbenyega & Klibthong, 2014). To facilitate theinclusion of SWDs in regular classrooms, teachers require IET and specialised training
programmes in disabilities (Maria, 2013). The training needs to provide practical skills,
hands-on experiences in inclusive classrooms, and knowledge of disabilities forinclusion, moving beyond theoretical concepts (Luștrea, 2023; Yada & Alnahdi, 2021).
The course on IE should be made mandatory for teacher education at all levels in
Cambodia.
Furthermore, the study suggests that expanding IE programmes should be a priority toenhance teachers’ knowledge and skills for inclusive practices. However, there is aconcerning trend that the most recent education congress report from 2022 indicated agreater expansion of integrated education programmes compared to IE programmes atprimary and secondary schools recently (MoEYS, 2022). As Cambodia is moving

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

504

Are Teachers Adequately Prepared for Inclusive Classrooms …

forwards to achieving Agenda 2030, these findings highlight the necessity for
expanding IE programmes over integrated education programmes. Though simpler toimplement, integrated education programmes may not promote interaction between
students with and without disabilities, and teachers are not trained in special education(Kalyanpur, 2011). Moreover, it is also essential to foster a sense of shared
responsibility among teachers, promote collaborative support, involve school leadershipteams, and provide access to resources to develop an inclusive culture and promote
inclusive practices (Pijl, 2010; Valdés & Gómez-Hurtado, 2023). Overall, the findings
emphasise the need for comprehensive policy changes and teacher training
improvements to support IE in Cambodia.
CONCLUSION
This study revealed that while some teachers had experienced IET and worked inschools implementing IE programmes, their knowledge, and experience regarding IE
remained very limited. Their knowledge and experience were significantly varied basedon the implementation of IE programmes. Teachers from primary schools with inclusive
education programmes had significantly higher levels of experience in IET, teaching
SWDs, and collaborative efforts than those from schools without such programmes.
Moreover, they demonstrated significantly greater knowledge of UNCRPD, PECD,
PIE, IE, and disability than their counterparts. To enhance the knowledge andexperience of Cambodian teachers in implementing inclusive practices, the study
underscores the necessity for comprehensive policy changes, increased opportunities fortraining, and the mandatory inclusion of IE courses in teacher education. It alsoemphasises the importance of training that focuses more on practical skills andknowledge for inclusive practices rather than theoretical aspects. The training shouldincorporate on-site support, taking into account teachers’ capabilities in addressing
special needs, as well as understanding the local context and culture. Integration ofaction research methodologies should be prioritised, fostering a practical approach toproblem-solving. A key recommendation is to significantly extend the duration oftraining programmes to ensure a more in-depth coverage of content and skill
development. Adequate resources and having well-qualified teacher trainers equippedwith substantial knowledge and practical experience in IE is indispensable to theeffectiveness of the training programmes. It calls for fostering shared responsibility
among teachers and collaborative support to promote inclusive practices and cultivate
an inclusive culture in Cambodian schools. These implications may also be relevant tocountries in the Global South with similar IE statuses.
LIMITATIONSThis study has certain limitations. It aimed to generalise findings on the knowledge andexperience of in-service teachers in primary level. Future research should explore these
aspects among teachers at different educational levels. The study investigated variationsin teachers’ knowledge and experience based on schools with and without IE
programmes. Future studies may examine additional factors that could significantly
impact their knowledge and experience, as well as explore how these aspects shapeteachers’ inclusive practices in regular classrooms. Moreover, this study did not focus

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

505

Pov & Kawai

on a specific disability. Future research may consider delving into teachers’ knowledge,
experience, and challenges of implementing inclusive practices for students withspecific disabilities in the context of Cambodia.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
We declare no competing interests.
REFERENCES
Adiputra, S., & Hendrowati, T. Y. (2019). Perceptions of inclusion education by parentsof elementary school-aged children in Lampung, Indonesia. International Journal of
Instruction, 12(1), 199-212. DOI: 10.29333/iji.2019.12113a
Agbenyega, J., & Klibthong, S. (2014). Assessing Thai early childhood teachers’
knowledge of inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(12),1247-1261. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2014.886306
Alnahdi, G. (2019). Are we ready for inclusion? Teachers’ perceived self-efficacy forinclusive education in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Disability, Development
and Education, 67(2), 182-193. DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2019.1634795
Bhatnagar, N., & Das, A. (2014). Regular school teachers’ concerns and perceived
barriers to implement inclusive education in New Delhi, India. International Journal of
Instruction, 7(2), 89-102.
Cambodia National Assembly. (2007). The law on education.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Disability Action Council. (2003). Inclusive education training in Cambodia.
Finkelstein, S., Sharma, U., & Furlonger, B. (2021). The inclusive practices ofclassroom teachers: A scoping review and thematic analysis. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 25(6), 735-762. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2019.1572232
Forlin, C., & Chambers, D. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive education:
Increasing knowledge but raising concerns. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
39(1), 17-32. DOI: 10.1080/1359866X.2010.540850
Fowler, F. J. (2009). Survey research methods. SAGE Publications, Inc.
Kalyanpur, M. (2011). Paradigm and paradox: Education for all and the inclusion ofchildren with disabilities in Cambodia. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
15(10), 1053-1071. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2011.555069
Kalyanpur, M. (2016). Inclusive education policies and practices in the context ofinternational development. Lessons from Cambodia. ZEP: Zeitschrift für Internationale
Bildungsforschung und Entwicklungspädagogik, 39(3), 16-21.

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

506

Are Teachers Adequately Prepared for Inclusive Classrooms …

King, E. F. (2018). Developing teacher capacity in Cambodia: An expanded model.
Asian Education and Development Studies. DOI: 10.1108/AEDS-06-2017-0053
Kuroda, K., Kartika, D., & Kitamura, Y. (2017). Implications for teacher training andsupport for inclusive education in Cambodia: An empirical case study in a developing
country. JICA Research Institute.
Kuyini, A. B., Desai, I., & Sharma, U. (2020). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, attitudes
and concerns about implementing inclusive education in Ghana. International Journalof Inclusive Education, 24(14), 1509-1526. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2018.1544298
Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Forlin, C. (2013). Do pre-service teachers feel ready toteach in inclusive classrooms? A four country study of teaching self-efficacy.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education (Online), 38(1), 27-44.
Luștrea, A. (2023). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward school inclusion in
Romania. International Journal of Instruction, 16(4), 1-16. DOI: 10.29333/iji.2023.16
41a
Malinen, O. P., Savolainen, H., Engelbrecht, P., Xu, J., Nel, M., Nel, N., & Tlale, D.
(2013). Exploring teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices in three diverse countries.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 34-44. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.02.004
Maria, U. E. (2013). Teachers’ perception, knowledge and behaviour in inclusive
education. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 84, 1237-1241.
Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., Deemer, S. A., & Griffin, S. M. (1996). Teachers’
experiences with inclusive classrooms: Implications for special education reform. The
Journal of Special Education, 30(2), 152-186. DOI: 10.1177/002246699603000203
MoEYS. (2008). Policy on education for children with disabilities.
MoEYS. (2017a). Curriculum framework for bachelor of arts (education) at teacher
education college (TEC).
MoEYS. (2017b). Curriculum framework for primary school teacher (12+2) with credit
system.
MoEYS. (2018). Policy on inclusive education.
MoEYS. (2019). Education strategic plan 2019-2023.
MoEYS. (2020). Action research technique: Do-it-yourself guide.
MoEYS. (2021). Continuous professional development framework for teachers andschool directors.
MoEYS. (2022). Education congress: The education, youth and sport performance inthe academic year 2020-2021 and goals for the academic year 2021-2022.

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

Pov & Kawai

507

Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloeckner, G. W., & Barrett, K. C. (2004). SPSS for
introductory statistics: Use and interpretation. Psychology Press.
Pijl, S. J. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Some reflections from theNetherlands. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10, 197-201.
Poon, K. K., Ng, Z., Wong, M. E., & Kaur, S. (2016). Factors associated with staff
perceptions towards inclusive education in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of
Education, 36(sup1), 84-97.
Ravet, J., & Mtika, P. (2021). Educational inclusion in resource-constrained contexts: A
study of rural primary schools in Cambodia. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 1-22. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2021.1916104
Scanlon, G., Radeva, S., Pitsia, V., Maguire, C., & Nikolaeva, S. (2022). Attitudes ofteachers in Bulgarian kindergartens towards inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 112, 103650. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2022.103650
Shah, R., Das, A., Desai, I., & Tiwari, A. (2016). Teachers’ concerns about inclusive
education in Ahmedabad, India. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs,
16(1), 34-45. DOI: 10.1111/1471-3802.12054
Sharma, U., & Sokal, L. (2015). The impact of a teacher education course on
pre‐service teachers’ beliefs about inclusion: An international comparison. Journal of
Research in Special Educational Needs, 15(4), 276-284. DOI: 10.1111/14713802.12043
Sharma, U., & Sokal, L. (2016). Can teachers’ self-reported efficacy, concerns, andattitudes toward inclusion scores predict their actual inclusive classroom practices?
Australasian Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 21-38.
Šiška, J., & Suchánek, O. (2015). Access to education for learners with disabilities in
Cambodia as a post-conflict country. Development, Environment and Foresight, 1(2),77-91.
Sokal, L., & Sharma, U. (2014). Canadian in-service teachers’ concerns, efficacy, andattitudes about inclusive teaching. Exceptionality Education International, 23(1).
UNESCO. (2015). Incheon declaration and framework for action for the
implementation of sustainable development goal 4.
UNICEF. (2020). Education for every ability: A review and roadmap of disabilityinclusive education in East Asia and Pacific.
Valdés, R., & Gómez-Hurtado, I. (2023). Barriers and facilitators for leading thedevelopment of inclusive school cultures in Chile. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 1-17. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2023.2241861

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3

508

Are Teachers Adequately Prepared for Inclusive Classrooms …

Wray, E., Sharma, U., & Subban, P. (2022). Factors influencing teacher self-efficacy
for inclusive education: A systematic literature review. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 117, 103800. DOI: 10.1016/j.tate.2022.103800
Yada, A., & Alnahdi, G. H. (2021). A comparative study on Saudi and Japanese inservice teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education and self-efficacy in inclusive
practices. Educational Studies, 1-19. DOI: 10.1080/03055698.2021.1969646

International Journal of Instruction, July 2024 ● Vol.17, No.3