International Journal of Multidisciplinary Thought,
CD-ROM. ISSN: 2156-6992 :: 05(04):351–364 (2015)

TEACHER’S IMAGE ON INCLUSIVE EDUCATION: CLASSIFICATIONUSING CONJOINT ANALYSIS

T. Sanagi and Y. Matsumoto
Chiba University

This study was to clarify the features of teacher´s image of inclusive education. The extent ofunderstanding by teachers on inclusive education would affect the effective education practice. 150
teachers participated in our study. We used a questionnaire with 11 items for conjoint analysis. 138
questionnaires were analyzed with conjoint analysis and the profiles of participants were divided into
six types. Generally, respondents had held the image of inclusive education in association with the sizeand form of learning group. The result indicated not a small number of teachers had image of inclusive
education as style and place of educational practices. That implied they had not the correct image on
inclusive education. Teacher´s image on inclusive education very varied from person to person. Someteachers had their image of inclusive education like as just locational integration. Some denied all
segregated settings, including individual teaching, as inclusive education. We concluded that we should
provide some in-service training courses for teachers about the idea and key concepts of inclusive
education as soon as possible in Japan. And, also we should clarify whether teachers have the correctknowledge and image of inclusive education or not, not only in Japan but also in other countries.
Keywords: Inclusive Education, Conjoint analysis, Teacher’s image.

Introduction
In the special needs education feeds, ever since Salamanca statements (1994), the idea, concept, policy,
and practice on inclusive education was widely to spread. There are many papers and books that mentions
about inclusive education. We could even find a few books about inclusive education before Salamancastatements (e.g. Mason, 1992). The growth of interest in inclusion has been landmarked by a number ofkey events (Garner, 2009). Then, we have got quite many publications after Salamanca statements (e.g.
Ainscow,1994; Valachou,1997; Ballard and MacDonald,1999; Ainscow, Booth and Dyson,1999;
Wearmouth,2001; Ainscow, 2002; Dyson and Millward,2002; Farrell and Ainscow,2002; Hornby,2002;
Tod, 2002, Carson,2002; O'Brien,2002; Rose and Howley,2002; Clough and Corbett,2002; Dorries andHaller,2005; Rieser,2005; Schnorr, Matot, Paetow and Putnam,2005; Kane,2005; Osler and Osler,2005;
Dyson,2005; Maguire, Macrae and Milbourne,2005; Wain and Cook,2005; Slee and Allan,2005;
Ruth,2007; Ekins and Grimes,2009; Loreman, Deppeler and Harvey,2010; Hanks,2011; Armstrong,
Armstrong and Spandagou,2011; Westwood,2013 etc.)

351

352

Teacher’s Image on Inclusive Education: Classification ...

Sanagi (2011) defined the key essence of inclusive education as “expanding process of including
diversity of educational needs.” We could find many definitions of inclusive education around the world.
Although false definition regarding inclusion as just “locational integration” had become fewer, it seems
that there are still non-corrective definition about inclusive education. For constructive and effective
practice on inclusive education, we should share appropriate concept on inclusive education.
Among the reasonable definitions on inclusive education, we could find common elements in thesedefinitions - “including diversity” and “expanding process”. These keywords symbolize that the existenceof special education settings (e.g. special schools, special class or units, resource room) could not denied(e.g. DfE, 2001). We could justification various kind of educational setting. However, someone strongly
deny any kind of special setting as segregation. Needless to say, no one could be allowed to declare
discrimination. It is not the matter of “regular” or “special.” We use these term for discussion as relative
meaning. However, it is not intended alternative school system. We mean we should seek and create newschool system that schools will not divided into “two” kind of schools in the future. For such a future, theimportant thing we should recognize is that all children are included “substantially” in educational
opportunity. Namely, “Substantial participation” must be guaranteed. And, for such a future, accurate andappropriate understanding of teacher about inclusive education is essentially important, because theadequacy of their knowledge to determine the substantial success of inclusive education. For example, if
all teachers in a school have only belief on inclusive education as just providing one educational setting
for all children regardless of substantial participation of pupils, then, some of pupils may be segregatedand discriminated in their school, because their educational needs would not be included.
On the other hand, teachers who well recognized the emphasized substantial participation forincluding each pupil’s educational needs can certainly provide reasonable and effective educational
provision. Teacher’s recognition about inclusive education is essential for good practice. Sanagi (2014)
conducted an investigation in Japan and pointed out that many teachers had inclusive education regard as“type of group (group organization)” and “size of group”, though these factors were not directly related tothe concept of inclusive education.
The purpose of this study is to clarify teacher's image on inclusive education in detail.
Method150 teachers were participants of this study in Japan.
We used the questionnaire consisted of eleven items by conjoint analysis that was same as Sanagi(2014). We set four factors – factor 1: Inclusivity Image; factor 2: Group Organization; factor 3: Group
Size; factor 4: Diversity Image. Factor 1 and 4 were closely related on inclusive education image. On theother hand, factor 2 and 3 were not directly related on inclusive education image. These factors were on
special settings for pupils with special educational needs and/or general school environment. The reason
why we mixed these factors related to inclusive education image or not was that it is good way to clarify
whether teacher’s image on inclusive education is appropriate or not. That is, if teachers would answer
their image on inclusive education as factor 2 and 3 like as Sanagi (2014), we will have the result thatteachers have not appropriate image on inclusive education. We made our research plan also in Japan, so
it is easy to expect the same result as Sanagi (2014). However, this study project would seek to analyze indetail.
Table 1. Factors and Levels for questionnaire
Factor 1(Inclusivity Image)(level 1) put a pupil into a mainstream(level 2) expanding environment includes apupil

T. Sanagi and Y. Matsumoto

Factor 2(level 1) repudiation of separated learning
opportunity(Group Organization)(level 2) resource room system353(level 3) homogeneous group setting
Factor 3(level 1) individualized lesson(Group Size)(level 2) a small group(level 3) a large group

Factor 4(level 1) pupil with disability in a group(Diversity Image)(level 2) various attribution in a group

We analyzed the result of conjoint analysis with cluster analysis and cross tables. We show factors
and each factor levels as Table 1.
Total number of factor levels was 10 (= 2 factor1 level + 3 factor 2 level + 3 factor 3 level + 2 factor
4 level). In the full concept method on conjoint analysis procedure, each items for questionnaire should be
combined factor levels from those four factors. That is, 2 x 3 x 3 x 2 = 36 combination. We usedorthogonal layout and finally 11 question items were extracted for questionnaire.
Result138 questionnaires were analyzed.
The result of conjoint analysis was shown as figures below.

Figure 1. Subfile Summary (Conjoint Analysis)

354

Teacher’s Image on Inclusive Education: Classification ...

Subfile summary of conjoint analysis (fig.1) shows that teachers on our study tended to have images
on inclusive education by factor 2 and 3. Each score on fig.1 was relative, and total score of fig.1 was100(%). Then, we could make it clear what factor was evaluated as most related to the image of inclusive
education by teachers.
Relative importance of each factors were 17.13, 38.62, 28.60, and 15.66.
It was clarified that teacher's image on inclusive education were most influenced by “grouporganization” (factor 2) and “group size” (factor 3). On the other hand, the image of inclusive education
was not so influenced by “inclusivity image” (Factor 1) and “diversity image” (factor 4). Generally,

respondents had held the image of inclusive education in association with the size and form oflearning group.
It became obvious that although teachers had appropriate image on “inclusivity” and “diversity”
factors (see Figure 2), they made their image on inclusive education not by “inclusivity” and “diversity”
but mainly by image of group settings.

Figure 2. Average Relative Importance and Utility Score

Figure 2 shows Utility Score of conjoint analysis. Each utility score belonging four factors showed
the extent that factor level was related to image on inclusive education. For example, teachers had notion
on “an expanding environment include a pupil” as the image on inclusive education in inclusivity image(factor 1). On the other hand, they did not think “homogeneous group setting” was not their image on
inclusive education. It showed many teachers denied certainly that kind of group setting as inclusive
education.
We could also find some feature from figure 2. Many teachers had image on inclusive education as“resource room setting (factor 2)” and “large group size” of their lessons (factor 3).
For detailed analysis, we used cluster analysis method to the data on “relative importance” and“utility scores” of each teacher. Then, we could divide into three types on relative importance and two
types on utility scores. And, 3 x 2 cells contingency table was made by these two cluster analysis as
below:

T. Sanagi and Y. Matsumoto

355

Table 2. Contingency table on relative importance and utility score

Table 2 shows we could divide 138 teachers into six types. We described the features of each type in
brief. Type C (n=15) teachers seemed to have more appropriate image on inclusive education though only
15 teachers of 138 were belonged in this type. Figures on these six types will be shown for more easily
understanding each type.

Teacher’s Image on Inclusive Education: Classification ...

356

Fig. 3-1 to 3-5 shows relative importance and utility scores on factor 1 to 4 of Type A. (Fig.3-1:
relative importance; Fig.3-2: factor 1; Fig.3-3: factor 2; Fig.3-4: factor 3; Fig.3-5: factor 4)
This type was characterized as:xxx

strongly regards image on large learning group size as inclusive education
deny segregated setting and homogeneous group setting
appropriate image on factor 1 and 4 (expanding environment/diversity), however less emphasizedthan factor 2 and 3

We named type A as “strongly large learning group oriented type” from Fig.3-1 and Fig.3-4.

Fig. 4-1 to 4-5 shows relative importance and utility scores on factor 1 to 4 of Type B. (Fig.4-1:
relative importance; Fig.4-2: factor 1; Fig.4-3: factor 2; Fig.4-4: factor 3; Fig.4-5: factor 4).

T. Sanagi and Y. Matsumoto

357This type was characterized as:xxxx

something similar to Type A, but teachers regards image on the style of teaching as inclusive
educationstrongly deny not only segregated setting but also resource room style and homogeneous groupsettingtake a few account of expanding image of environment
appropriate image on diversity

We named type B as “strongly denying separated learning opportunity type” from Fig.4-1 and Fig.4-3.

Teacher’s Image on Inclusive Education: Classification ...

358

Fig. 5-1 to 5-5 shows relative importance and utility scores on factor 1 to 4 of Type C. (Fig.5-1:
relative importance; Fig.5-2: factor 1; Fig.5-3: factor 2; Fig.5-4: factor 3; Fig.5-5: factor 4)
This type was characterized as:xxxx

regards image on including diversity of needs as inclusive education
highest relative importance score of inclusive education concept
deny individual and segregated setting and homogeneous group setting
large learning group size oriented

We named type C as “strongly diversity oriented type” from Fig.5-1 and Fig.5-5.
The number of this type was small, however they seemed to have had most appropriate inclusive
education image as making their attention to diversity aspect.

T. Sanagi and Y. Matsumoto

359

Fig. 6-1 to 6-5 shows relative importance and utility scores on factor 1 to 4 of Type D. (Fig.6-1:
relative importance; Fig.6-2: factor 1; Fig.6-3: factor 2; Fig.6-4: factor 3; Fig.6-5: factor 4)
This type was characterized as:xxxx

regards group size factor, especially individual or small size setting, as deciding image ofinclusive education
also regards resource room setting as symbol of the inclusive education
deny large classroom setting
inclusion is close image to locational integration of children with and without disability

We named type D as “strongly denying large learning group type” from Fig.6-1 and Fig.6-4.

Teacher’s Image on Inclusive Education: Classification ...

360

Fig. 7-1 to 7-5 shows relative importance and utility scores on factor 1 to 4 of Type E. (Fig.7-1:
relative importance; Fig.7-2: factor 1; Fig.7-3: factor 2; Fig.7-4: factor 3; Fig.7-5: factor 4)
This type was characterized as:xxx

strongly has image of inclusive education as providing resource room, individual setting andsmall group setting
deny large learning group size
take little account of exact inclusive concept (just imaged inclusive education as grouporganization and group size)

We named type E as “favouring resource room type” from Fig.7-1 and Fig.7-3.

T. Sanagi and Y. Matsumoto

361

Fig. 8-1 to 8-5 shows relative importance and utility scores on factor 1 to 4 of Type F. (Fig.8-1:
relative importance; Fig.8-2: factor 1; Fig.8-3: factor 2; Fig.8-4: factor 3; Fig.8-5: factor 4)
This type was characterized as:xxxx

has almost no inclusivity image
inclusion is close image to locational integration of children with and without disability
resource room and small size group oriented
deny large size group and homogeneous group setting

We named type F as “small group and disability oriented type” from Fig.8-4 and Fig.8-5.

Figure 9 shows the ratio of relative importance between on inclusive related factors (factor 1 &4)
and non-related factors (factor 2 &3). As on the figure and mentioned, type C was the group which had
more appropriate image on inclusive education than others. However, even though, it seemed thatteachers of type C were influenced by factor 2 and 3. It means teachers still should learn and have more
understanding on concept of inclusive education.
Discussion
It is reasonable to assume that teacher's image on inclusive education was constructed not from theperspective of “inclusivity” and “diversity”, but from viewpoint of “group organization” and “group size”
because a lot of explanation on policy and practice of inclusive education in Japan had got along withdiscussion on “integration of pupils with disabilities in mainstream schools”. It has long been recognized362

Teacher’s Image on Inclusive Education: Classification ...

that the issue of integration is assimilation of pupils with disability to mainstream curriculum, mainstream
teaching method, and mainstream goal. In this context, it was for this reason that teachers understood“special needs education” as to provide special provision like as individualized teaching, resource room,and specialist teacher etc. As a result, it follows many teachers have the image of inclusive educationinfluenced by “group organization” factor.
As we mentioned at beginning part, the concept of inclusive education symbolically expressed as
extending process which includes diversity of pupils’ educational needs. Then, it seems clear that weshould have an image of inclusive education as “inclusivity image” and “diversity image” properly.
On the contrary, in Figure 2, it showed that teachers thought resource room and a large group setting
as close image to the inclusive education. What was the reason of that? It may be that inclusive educationin Japan imaged as a large and organized classroom teaching in mainstream schools.
We would emphasize our opinion about inclusive education concept as that the important is not on
including pupils, but on including pupil's educational needs. In so doing, we will include “pupils” inwhole education system as a result. If pupils are included in mainstream classroom without reasonable
and effective provision, they may be excluded in the mainstream. It is essential that we certainly provide
suitable environment for inclusive practice with correct understanding the policy.
Teacher's image can be regard as an environmental factor. Sanagi (2007) propose an interactivemodel of special educational needs concept as developed the model of Gulliford (1971). In his
perspectives, special educational needs constructed by the interaction of individual factors andenvironmental factors. If teacher's image on inclusive education is not appropriate, pupil’s special
educational needs will become worse by low-quality environment. Appropriate teacher's image on
inclusive education can be said to be essential for reasonable and effective practice for inclusive
education.
In this study, we only made clear and classify of teacher's image on inclusive education and get six
type of image with conjoint analysis. (Type A: “strongly large learning group oriented”; Type B:“strongly denying separated learning opportunity”; Type C: “strongly diversity oriented”; Type D“strongly denying large learning group”; Type E: “favouring resource room”; Type F: “small group anddisability oriented”)
There were no statistically significant difference among these six types on teaching experience andschool types (mainstream or special). It is necessary to gain understanding of the reason why teacher's
image had been constructed. And, we also should clarify whether teachers have the correctknowledge and image of inclusive education or not, not only in Japan but also in other countries.
We concluded that we should provide some in-service training courses for teachers about theidea and key concepts of inclusive education.
Acknowledgment
This study was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (Grant in Aid for Challenging Exploratory Research) Grant
Number 26590255.
References
1.
2.

Ainscow, M. (1994) Special needs in the classroom.UNESCO.
Ainscow, M. (2002) Using research to encourage the development of inclusive practices. Farrell.P. and
Ainscow, M.(eds.) Making special education inclusive. - from research to practice. David fulton publishers. pp.
25-38

3.

Ainscow, M. and Booth, T. and Dyson, A. (1999) Inclusion and exclusion in schools: listening to some hidden
voices. Ballard, K.(ed.) Inclusive education. - international voices on disability and justice. Falmer press. pp.
139-151.

T. Sanagi and Y. Matsumoto

363

4.

Armstrong, A.C., Armstrong, D. and Spandagou, I. (2010) Inclusive education. international policy andpractice. SAGE.

5.

Armstrong, D. and Squires, G.(eds.) (2012) Contemporary issues in special educational needs. considering thewhole child. Open University Press.
Ballard, K. and McDonald, T. (1999) Disability, inclusion and exclusion: some insider accounts andinterpretations. Ballard, K.(ed.) Inclusive education. - international voices on disability and justice. Falmerpress. pp. 97-115.

6.

7.

Carson, I. (2002) An inclusive society? one young man with learning difficulties doesn't think so! Farrell.P.
and Ainscow, M.(eds.) Making special education inclusive. - from research to practice. David fulton
publishers. pp. 205-214.

8.

Cigman, R.(ed.) (2007) Included of excluded? the challenge of the mainstream for some SEN children.
Routledge.

9.

Clough, P. and Corbett, J. (2002) Theories of inclusive education. Paul chapman publishing.

10. Dorries, B. and Haller, B. (2005) The news of inclusive education: a narrative analysis. Nind, M., Rix, J.,
Sheehy, K. and Simmons, K.(eds.) Inclusive Education: diverse perspectives. David fulton publishers. pp.
274-294.
11. Department for Education (2011) Support and Aspiration: a new approach to special educational needs anddisability. London. DfE.
12. Dyson, A. (2005) Special needs education as the way to equity: an alternative approach? Rix, J., Simmons,K., Nind, M. and Sheehy, K. Policy and power in inclusive education. Open university. Routledge Falmer. pp.
121-129.
13. Dyson, A. and Millward, A. (2002) Looking them in the eyes: is rational provision for students 'with special
educational needs' really possible? Farrell.P. and Ainscow, M.(eds.) Making special education inclusive. - fromresearch to practice. David fulton publishers. pp. 13-24.
14. Ekins, A. and Grimes, P. (2009) Inclusion. developing an effective whole school approach. Open University
Press.
15. Farrell, P. and Ainscow, M. (eds.) (2002) Making special education inclusive: mapping the issues. Farrell.P.
and Ainscow, M.(eds.) Making special education inclusive. - from research to practice. David fulton
publishers. pp. 1-12.
16. Garner, P. (2009) Special educational needs. the key concepts. Routledge.
17. Gulliford, R. (1971) Special educational needs. Falmer press.
18. Hanks, R. (2011) Common SENSE for the inclusive classroom. How teachers can maximise existing skills to
support special educational needs. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
19. Hornby, G. (2002) Promoting responsible inclusion: quality education for all. O'Brien, T. Enabling inclusion blue skies...dark clouds? Optimus publishing. pp. 3-20.
20. Kane, J. (2005) Exclusion from school: different voices. Rix, J., Simmons, K., Nind, M. and Sheehy, K.
Policy and power in inclusive education. Open university. Routledge Falmer. pp. 96-106.
21. Loreman, T., Deppeler, J. and Harvey, D. (2010) Inclusive education. supporting diversity in the classroom.
22. Maguire, M., Macrae, S. and Milbourne, L. (2005) Early interventions: preventing school exclusions in the
primary setting. Rix, J., Simmons, K., Nind, M. and Sheehy, K. Policy and power in inclusive education.
Open university. Routledge Falmer. pp. 130-143.
23. O'Brien, T. (2005) Social, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Lewis, A. and Norwich, B.(eds.) Specialteaching for special children? pedagogies for inclusion. Open university press. pp. 166-179.
24. Osler, A. and Osler, C. (2005) Inclusion, exclusion and children's right: a case study of a student withAsperger syndrome. Rix, J., Simmons, K., Nind, M. and Sheehy, K. Policy and power in inclusive
education. Open university. Routledge Falmer. pp. 107-118.
25. Rieser, R. (2005) The struggle for inclusion: the growth of a movement. Nind, M., Rix, J., Sheehy, K. andSimmons, K.(eds.) Inclusive Education: diverse perspectives. David fulton publishers. pp. 174-192.
26. Rose, R. and Howley, M. (2002) Entitlement or denial? - the curriculum and its influences upon inclusion
processes. O'Brien, T. Enabling inclusion - blue skies...dark clouds? Optimus publishing. pp. 65-80.

364

Teacher’s Image on Inclusive Education: Classification ...

27. Sanagi, T. (2007) Rethinking the concept of “Special Educational Needs” - an interactive model -, Bulletin of
the faculty of education, Chiba University, vol. 55, pp. 1-5.
28. Sanagi, T. (2011) A design for experimental inclusive school. Bulletin of the faculty of education, Chiba
University, vol. 59, pp. 1-6.
29. Sanagi, T. (2014) What aspects of inclusive education are emphasized by teachers in Japan? The cluteinstitute international business & education conferences, 366-1.
30. Schnorr, R.F., Matott, E., Paetow, M. and Putnam, P. (2005) Building-based change: one school's journey
toward full inclusion. Rix, J., Simmons, K., Nind, M. and Sheehy, K. Policy and power in inclusive
education. Open university. Routledge Falmer. pp. 160-172.
31. Slee, R. and Allan, J. (2005) Excluding the included: a reconsideration of inclusive education. Rix, J.,
Simmons, K., Nind, M. and Sheehy, K. Policy and power in inclusive education. Open university. Routledge
Falmer. pp. 13-24.
32. Tod, J.(2002) Enable inclusion for individuals. O'Brien, T. Enabling inclusion - blue skies...dark clouds?
Optimus publishing. pp. 21-36.
33. Vlachou, A.D.(1997) Struggles for inclusive education. Open university press.
34. Wain, J. and Cook, T. (2005) In the name of inclusion: 'we all, at the end of the day, have the needs of thechildren at heart' Rix, J., Simmons, K., Nind, M. and Sheehy, K. Policy and power in inclusive education.
Open university. Routledge Falmer. pp. 59-71.
35. Wearmouth, J.(2001) Pygmalion lives on. (Wearmouth, J.(ed.) Special educational provision in the context ofinclusion. David fulton publishers.) pp. 283-290.
36. Westwood, P. (2013) Inclusive and adaptive teaching. meeting the challenge of diversity in the classroom.
Routledge.