Teachers’ Inclusive Education Support Practices, Learners’ Profile, and Academic Performance of Mainstreamed Learners with Special Educational Needs in Mangagoy Hilltop Elementary School, Bislig City Division: A Descriptive-Survey Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22070015Keywords:
inclusive education, mainstreamed learners, special educational needs, teachers’ support practices, academic performance, support enhancement planAbstract
This study determined teachers’ inclusive education support practices, the profile of mainstreamed learners with special educational needs (LSEN), and their academic performance in Mangagoy Hilltop Elementary School, Bislig City Division, during School Year 2025–2026 as basis for an Inclusive Education Support Enhancement Plan. A quantitative descriptive-survey design was employed. Total enumeration included 13 teacher-respondents, while documentary analysis covered 31 mainstreamed LSEN profile records; 29 records had encoded general academic averages. A researcher-made, expert-validated questionnaire using a four-point Likert-type scale measured five dimensions of inclusive education support practice and three areas of teacher challenges. Weighted mean, standard deviation, frequency, percentage, and rank ordering were used. Teachers reported a High overall extent of inclusive education support practice (M = 3.083, SD = 0.619), led by classroom management and learner engagement (M = 3.185) and collaboration with parents, fellow teachers, and school personnel (M = 3.169); learning resource and environmental support was comparatively lowest (M = 2.938). Teachers simultaneously reported a Very High overall level of challenge (M = 3.431, SD = 0.625), with resource, training, and school support challenges highest (M = 3.523). The 31 mainstreamed LSEN were distributed across Grades 1–6, were predominantly male (22 of 31), and were most commonly recorded with learning disability, autism spectrum disorder, and intellectual disability. Among 29 valid academic records, the mean general average was 79.21 (SD = 4.51; range = 71–91), and 17 learners (58.62%) were Fairly Satisfactory. The findings indicate that high teacher support coexists with substantial implementation barriers and that learner diversity and lower academic performance require systematic, differentiated monitoring. The proposed enhancement plan therefore prioritizes teacher capability-building, adapted resources, learner profiling, academic monitoring, parent collaboration, and school-level technical support.
Downloads
References
Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16.
AlRawi, J. M., & AlKahtani, M. A. (2021). Universal design for learning for educating students with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 68(6), 800–808.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21, 5–31.
CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Department of Education. (2015). DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2015: Policy guidelines on classroom assessment for the K to 12 Basic Education Program.
Department of Education. (2021). DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2021: Policy guidelines on the provision of educational programs and services for learners with disabilities in the K to 12 Basic Education Program.
Epstein, J. L. (2011). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools (2nd ed.). Westview Press.
Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2019). How to design and evaluate research in education (10th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education. https://www.mheducation.com/highered/product/how-design-evaluate-research-education-fraenkel-wallen/M9781259913839.html
Hornby, G., & Blackwell, I. (2018). Barriers to parental involvement in education: An update. Educational Review, 70(1), 109–119.
Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., de Boer, H., van Kuijk, M., & Doolaard, S. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and classroom management programs on students’ academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 643–680.
Miesera, S., DeVries, J. M., Jungjohann, J., & Gebhardt, M. (2019). Correlation between attitudes, concerns, self-efficacy and teaching intentions in inclusive education: Evidence from German pre-service teachers using international scales. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 19(2), 103–114.
National Privacy Commission. (n.d.). Republic Act No. 10173: Data Privacy Act of 2012.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2023). PISA 2022 results: Philippines country note.
Philippine Statistics Authority. (2022). Functional difficulty in the Philippines: For household population five years old and over, 2020 Census of Population and Housing.
Republic Act No. 11650. (2022). Instituting a policy of inclusion and services for learners with disabilities in support of inclusive education act. Supreme Court E-Library.
Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F. J., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2017). Affective teacher-student relationships and students’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review, 46(3), 239–261.
Schuelka, M. J. (2018). Implementing inclusive education. K4D Helpdesk Report. Institute of Development Studies.
Sharma, U., & Sokal, L. (2016). Can teachers’ self-reported efficacy, concerns, and attitudes toward inclusion scores predict their actual inclusive classroom practices? Australasian Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2015.14
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. In T. Kellaghan, D. L. Stufflebeam, & L. A. Wingate (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 31–62). Springer.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). ASCD.
UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education: All means all.
UNICEF. (2021). Seen, counted, included: Using data to shed light on the well-being of children with disabilities.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
Woodcock, S., Sharma, U., Subban, P., & Hitches, E. (2022). Teacher self-efficacy and inclusive education practices: Rethinking teachers’ engagement with inclusive practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, Article 103802.
Zhang, L., Carter, R. A., Jr., Greene, J. A., & Bernacki, M. L. (2024). Unraveling challenges with the implementation of Universal Design for Learning: A systematic literature review. Educational Psychology Review, 36, Article 35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09860-7
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
