Sandra Kadum, PhD, Anna-Maria Ukić, Jurka Lepičnik Vodopivec, PhD Teacher Education for Assessment in Inclusive School DOI: https://doi.org/10.55707/ds-po.v39i2.118 Prejeto 31. 8. 2023 / Sprejeto 12. 4. 2024 Received 31. 8. 2023 / Accepted 12. 4. 2024 Znanstveni članek Scientific article UDK 159.922.76:373.3 UDC 159.922.76:373.3 KLJUČNE BESEDE: izobraževanje, inkluzija, pou- KEYWORDS: education, inclusion, teaching, asses- čevanje, ocenjevanje, osnovna šola, učenci, učitelji sment, primary school, pupils, teachers POVZETEK – Izhajajoč iz ideje o kakovostnem izo- ABSTRACT – Starting from the idea of quality educa- braževanju se srečujemo z izrazom inkluzija, inkluziv- tion, we encounter the term inclusion, and inclusive no izobraževanje pa pomeni sposobnost šole, da vsem education is understood as the school’s ability to pro- učencem omogoči kakovostno izobraževanje, ne glede vide all pupils with quality education, regardless of na razlike med njimi. Cilj inkluzivne šole je ustvariti their differences. The goal of an inclusive school is šolsko okolje, v katerem bo vsak učenec dosegel svoj to create a school environment in which each pupil maksimum ne glede na učni potencial. Zato bi mora- will achieve his or her maximum regardless of lear- lo biti ocenjevanje namenjeno spodbujanju učencev ning potential. Thus, assessment should be aimed at k aktivnemu sodelovanju v izobraževalnem procesu. encouraging pupils to actively participate in the edu- Napake, ki jih povzročajo težave, je treba odpraviti, cational process. Errors caused by difficulties need to vendar ne smejo vplivati na ocenjevanje učenčevega be corrected, but they must not affect the assessment dela. Namen raziskave je ugotoviti usposobljenost of student work. The purpose of the research is to de- učiteljev za ocenjevanje v inkluzivni šoli. V vzorec je termine the education of teachers for assessment in bilo vključenih 459 učiteljev osnovnih šol. Podatki an inclusive school. The sample included 459 primary so bili pridobljeni januarja 2021 s pomočjo spletne- school teachers. The data were obtained in January ga vprašalnika. Pridobljeni podatki so bili obdelani 2021 with the help of an online questionnaire. The ob- s programom SPSS. Rezultati kažejo, da so učitelji tained data were processed using SPSS. The results pripravljeni na poučevanje in ocenjevanje učencev show that research participants are ready to work s posebnimi potrebami, da razumejo njihove potrebe with and assess pupils with special needs, and that in poznajo pristope, metode in strategije, potrebne za they understand their needs and know the educational delo s takšnimi učenci s posebnimi potrebami v osnov- methods needed to work with such pupils. The results ni šoli. Dobljeni rezultati lahko učiteljem predstavlja- obtained can be a motivation for teachers to encoura- jo motivacijo za spodbujanje pozitivnega odnosa dru- ge positive attitudes in other students, all with the aim gih učencev, kar pa bi koristilo vsem učencem. of benefiting the children with whom they work. 1 Introduction During its existence, the school as an educational institution has needed to adapt to the needs and requirements of society. Its basic task was and is to educate and, as such, it is important for every society. In this sense, schooling is considered the best social investment (Kadum et al., 2019). We are increasingly encountering the term inclusion and the term inclusive educa- tion means the ability of the school to provide quality education to all children, regard- less of their differences. Drobnič (2018) states that before the introduction of inclusion and integration into education, a comprehensive system of special schools and institu- Kadum, PhD, Ukić, Lepičnik Vodopivec, PhD: Teacher Education for Assessment... 23 tions was established for the education of children with special needs. It was to be a kind of parallel education system, regulated by special legislation. School inclusiveness finds sufficient legitimacy in the regulations and official documents of the most impor- tant international organizations, from the United Nations (UN, 2006, Art. 24,) through UNESCO (IBE-UNESCO, 2016, UNESCO, 1994, 2016) to the European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (EADSNE, 2009, 2012). From the above, it can be concluded that inclusive education would be attended by all children and it would be experientially, socially, spiritually and emotionally enriched by children with special needs. Therefore, it is important for the teacher, when think- ing about teaching and when planning classes, to keep in mind what Demo (2019) has stated, namely that differences in teaching are normal and that it is necessary to consider the differences of each student. To what extent is the school up to the task? To a large extent, this can be judged on the basis of the assessment of student achievements! Assessment is a constantly present social function and is almost as old as society itself. All social formations tested and assessed the knowledge, abilities and skills of their members, depending on what was given priority. Grades today have an almost ir- replaceable status in the process of education. Due to their economy and the appearance of “clarity”, they are the simplest way of communication between teachers and parents when it comes to the progress of student achievement (Rajić, 2017). Therefore, the system of monitoring, checking and grading students must consider the child’s abilities and peculiarities of his or her psychophysical development, and consider the objective circumstances in which the student lives. Losing and repeating a school year should be kept to a minimum, as these measures often have the opposite effect than what is expected and desired to be achieved by applying these measures (Kadum-Bošnjak and Brajković, 2007). But the teacher is in direct interaction with the students. He or she chooses the ways, forms and methods of work, striving to make the teaching process better, more diverse, more meaningful, more interesting and appropri- ate to the age of the students he or she works with (Kadum-Bošnjak, 2012). According to the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports (MZOS, 2014, 2019), in the case of students with disabilities it is necessary to evaluate their attitude towards work, the set tasks and educational values. Programmes and special curricula need to be tailored to such students. Evaluation and assessment should be aimed at encouraging students to actively participate in the educational process and extracurricular activities. Errors caused by difficulties need to be corrected, but they must not affect the assess- ment of student work. The methods, ways and procedures of evaluation and assessment should be adapted to the degree and type of difficulty in accordance with the recom- mendations of the expert team for a particular area. Therefore, according to Štemberger (2013, pp. 32–33), “education that is focused on the achievements of all students ena- bles individual work according to the individual abilities of each child and the promo- tion of learning as an interdependent peer action.” In addition to the above, the question arises: Are teachers sufficiently educated to assess the students who are involved in inclusive education? 24 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (2, 2024) 2 Method The aim of the research was to examine teachers’ education for assessment in inclu- sive education, and their competencies and abilities to work with students involved in inclusive education on a sample of primary school teachers. After defining the goal of the research, the following null hypothesis was set: All connections between variables will be considered random until appropriate levels of statistical significance are shown under the conditions of statistical quantitative and qualitative analysis (Tot and Klapan, 2008). In the research, we used a descriptive and causal non-experimental method of pedagogical research. The measuring instrument was compiled for the purposes of this research and con- sisted of fifteen (15) items: three independent variables (gender; I teach in ...; years of work experience in primary school) and twelve dependent variables based on a Likert- type assessment scale. The research was conducted in 2021 in the Republic of Croatia using an online survey questionnaire as it was impossible to conduct research in direct contact with research participants due to the COVID-19 pandemic. After the adminis- trator’s permission was obtained, the survey questionnaire was posted to the Facebook group. The data obtained in this research were processed using the statistical package IBM SPSS 24.0 Standard Campus Edition (SPSS ID: 729357 5/20/2016). The research sample consisted of 459 primary school teachers in the Republic of Croatia. There were 439 female respondents (95.6 %) in the sample and 20 male re- spondents (4.4 %). Out of the 459 participants in the research, 260 or 56.6 % teach in the younger grades of primary school, while 199 or 43.4 % teach in the upper grades. Analysing the specificity of the sample with regard to years of work experience in primary school, it is evident that the largest number of research participants have 5 or more but less than 11 years, and 11 or more but less than 17 years of work experi- ence – i.e., 82 or 17.9 % in each interval. The smallest number of participants are those with 30 or more years of work experience: 53 or 11.5 %. To determine whether there are statistically significant differences in the distribu- tion of research participants with respect to the independent variable of years of work experience in primary school, we applied the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Normality is statistically insignificant, i.e., a random deviation from normality, if the magnitude of the significance (Sig.) is greater than .05. As the obtained significance values are .000, it means that there are statistically significant differences in the normal- ity/regularity of the distribution. Characteristics of the sample with regard to work experience in primary school: Most respondents have 5 years of service, namely 21.2 % (98). In the range from 6 to 11 and from 12 to 17 years of service, the number of respondents is the same: 17.9 % (82). The smallest number of them are found in the interval of more than 30 years of work experience: 10.9 % (50). Kadum, PhD, Ukić, Lepičnik Vodopivec, PhD: Teacher Education for Assessment... 25 3 Research results Of the twelve dependent variables, the first three are related to the adaptation of teachers to the needs of students involved in inclusive education. They read: □ I adapt my teaching to the student’s abilities. □ I use simpler books and materials for students with special needs. □ I give students with special needs more time for written assignments. Statistical indicators of these three variables are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Statistical Indicators of Variable “Adaptation of Teachers to the Needs of Students Involved in Inclusive Education” N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev. Variance Var 4 459 1 5 4.58 .674 .454 Var 5 459 1 5 4.35 .937 .878 Var 6 459 1 5 4.71 .736 .542 Note. Valid N (listwise) = 459. Var 4: I adapt my learning to the student’s abilities. Var 5: I use simpler books and materials for students with special needs. Var 6: I give students with special needs more time for written assignments. From Table 1 it can be seen that for all three variables the arithmetic means are high: the highest is for the variable “I give students with special needs more time for written assignments”, namely 4.71, with a standard deviation of .736, while the lowest is for the variable “I use simpler books and materials for students with special needs”, which is 4.35 with a standard deviation of .937. The relationship between the variables “adaptation of teachers to the needs of stu- dents involved in inclusive education” was investigated using Pearson’s linear correla- tion coefficients. Preliminary analyses were performed to prove that the assumptions about normality, linearity and homogeneity of variance were met. A positive correlation between these three variables was calculated: r4,5 = .331, r4,6 = .314, and r5,6 = .272, all for N = 459 and p < .001. The next set of dependent variables, grouped under the name “assessment of stu- dents in inclusive education”, consists of the following nine items: □ I adapt written tests, i.e., assignments, to the students involved in inclusive education. □ I more often test the knowledge of students involved in inclusive education orally. □ I test the knowledge of students with reduced concentration more often. □ When compiling exams for students involved in inclusive education, I consult with professional associates. □ When evaluating, I set clear boundaries and expectations. □ I approach the assessment of students involved in inclusive education with special objectivity. 26 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (2, 2024) □ I always apply the same criteria when evaluating. □ I always explain the grade I give to a student. □ I encounter difficulties in assessing students involved in inclusive education. From Table 2 it can be seen that for all nine items, the arithmetic means are high: the highest is for the variable “I adapt written tests, i.e., assignments, to the students involved in inclusive education”, namely 4.83, with a standard deviation of .549, while the lowest is for the variable “When compiling exams for students involved in inclusive education, I consult with professional associates”, which is 3.21, with a standard devia- tion of 1.454. Table 2 Statistical Indicators of Variable “Assessment of Students in Inclusive Education” N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev. Variance Var 7 459 1 5 4.83 .549 .301 Var 8 459 1 5 3.90 1.112 1.236 Var 9 459 1 5 3.70 1.100 1.211 Var 10 459 1 5 3.21 1.454 2.113 Var 11 459 1 5 4.46 .807 .651 Var 12 459 1 5 4.09 1.069 1.142 Var 13 459 1 5 3.74 1.161 1.347 Var 14 459 1 5 4.75 .580 .337 Var 15 459 1 5 3.46 1.296 1.681 Note. Valid N (listwise) = 459. Var 7: “I adapt written tests, i.e., assignments, to the students involved in inclusive education.” Var 8: “I more often test the knowledge of students involved in inclusive education orally.” Var 9: “I test students with reduced concentration more often.” Var 10: “When compiling exams for students involved in inclusive education, I consult with professional associates.” Var 11: “When evaluating, I set clear boundaries and expectations.” Var 12: “I approach the assessment of students involved in inclusive education with special objectivity.” Var 13: “I always apply the same criteria when evaluating.” Var 14: “I always explain the grade I give to a student.” Var 15: “I encounter difficulties in assessing students involved in inclusive education.” To determine whether there are statistically significant differences between the arithmetic means of the independent variable “years of work experience in primary school” and the dependent variables under the name “assessment of students in inclu- sive education”, we applied a one-factor analysis of variance. The obtained results are shown in Tables 5, 6 and 7. Kadum, PhD, Ukić, Lepičnik Vodopivec, PhD: Teacher Education for Assessment... 27 Table 3 Levene Test of Homogeneity of Variance Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig. Var 7 1.333 5 450 .249 Var 8 1.650 5 450 .145 Var 9 .942 5 450 .454 Var 10 .649 5 450 .662 Var 11 3.012 5 450 .011 Var 12 .213 5 450 .957 Var 13 3.560 5 450 .004 Var 14 5.829 5 450 .000 Var 15 2.098 5 450 .065 Table 3 shows the Levene test of homogeneity of variance, which we used to exam- ine the equality of variance in the results in each of the groups. It can be noticed that only in two items – Var 13: “I always apply the same criteria when evaluating” (Sig. = .004) and Var 14: “I always explain the grade I give to a student” (Sig. = .000) – the magni- tude is less than .05, which means that in these two items the assumption of homogene- ity of variance is violated. Significance values (Sig.) for other items are greater than .05, which means that the assumption of homogeneity of variance is not violated. Table 4 Robust Tests of Equality of Arithmetic Means Statistic(a) df1 df2 Sig. Welch 1.611 5 196.517 .159 Var 13 Brown-Forsythe 1.444 5 395.510 .207 Welch 3.069 5 193.191 .011 Var 14 Brown-Forsythe 1.436 5 336.590 .211 Note. (a) Asymptotically F-distributed. For the items “I always apply the same criteria when evaluating” and “I always explain the grade I give to a student”, for which the significance magnitude is less than .05, we will look at the results in Table 4, where two tests (Welch and Brown-Forsythe) that are resistant to the violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variance are shown. Table 4 shows the sums of the squares of deviations of the results from their arith- metic mean, the number of degrees of freedom, as well as other relevant values that will be used for the analysis of different groups and the analysis of the same respondents. 28 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (2, 2024) Of particular interest is the significance magnitude column (Sig.). For values of significance magnitude that are less than or equal to .05 (p ≤ .05), there is a statistically significant difference between the arithmetic means of the dependent variable. How- ever, this still does not mean that it is known which group differs from which. Table 5 ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups .531 5 .106 .349 .883 Var 7 Within Groups 136.783 450 .304 Total 137.314 455 Between Groups 19.934 5 3.987 3.311 .006 Var 8 Within Groups 541.820 450 1.204 Total 561.754 455 Between Groups 11.714 5 2,.343 1.959 .083 Var 9 Within Groups 538.126 450 1,.196 Total 549.840 455 Between Groups 12.405 5 2.481 1.173 .321 Var 10 Within Groups 951.628 450 2.115 Total 964,.033 455 Between Groups 4.843 5 .969 1.530 .179 Var 11 Within Groups 284.786 450 .633 Total 289.629 455 Between Groups 6.811 5 1.362 1.201 .308 Var 12 Within Groups 510.549 450 1.135 Total 517.360 455 Between Groups 9.816 5 1.963 1.467 .199 Var 13 Within Groups 602.129 450 1.338 Total 611.945 455 Between Groups 2.462 5 .492 1.497 .189 Var 14 Within Groups 148.029 450 .329 Total 150.491 455 Between Groups 5.728 5 1.146 .677 .641 Var 15 Within Groups 761.394 450 1.692 Total 767.123 455 Table 5 shows that only one item – Var 8: “I more often test the knowledge of stu- dents involved in inclusive education orally” – has the value of p = .006 ≤ .05. Kadum, PhD, Ukić, Lepičnik Vodopivec, PhD: Teacher Education for Assessment... 29 Therefore, the impact of “years of work experience in primary school” on the level of “assessment of students in inclusive education” was examined by a one-factor analy- sis of variance. Subjects were divided into six groups according to years of work ex- perience. A statistically significant difference was found at the level of p ≤ .05 for the dependent variable “I more often test the knowledge of students involved in inclusive education orally” F(5, 450) = 3.311, p = .006. The relationship between the nine dependent variables we titled “assessment of students in inclusive education” was analysed using Pearson’s linear correlation coef- ficients. Preliminary analysis proved the satisfaction of assumptions about normality, linearity and homogeneity of variance. The following correlations were calculated: □ Eighteen (18) positive and two (2) negative, all for N = 459 and p < .01; □ Five (5) positive and one (1) negative, all for N = 459 and p < .05; □ Ten (10) correlation coefficients are not statistically significant. 4 Conclusion The school as an educational institution is obliged to respect the uniqueness of each of its students and respond to all their requirements and needs. The philosophy of an inclusive school is based on the view that everyone has the right to learn regardless of different needs and abilities. Inclusive education means changing the school institution, changing the curricula (Kadum et al., 2020) so that all children have equal opportunities to develop all their potentials, skills and abilities. Moreover, including all children in the same group provides an opportunity to learn and live together, developing as individu- als who will be able to understand and respect others. The goal of an inclusive school is to create a school environment in which the learning and development of all students, regardless of their learning potential, regardless of whether they master the language of instruction or have difficulties, can be promoted as effectively as possible (Keller et al., 2018; Luder et al., 2019). Based on the above, inclusion can be recognized as a culture of life in a learning community in which each individual is important because he or she co-shapes the school community by introducing his or her own personality elements (Drobnič, 2018). An important role is also played by the teacher, who has pedagogical and didactic knowledge for teaching and encouraging the acquisition of knowledge by children with special needs and who is aware that working with students with special needs requires a patient teacher (Strniša and Jurišević, 2018). According to Biasiol Babić (2009), students with disabilities often cannot show their knowledge and skills as others can. Therefore, an individualized curriculum that clearly defines the learning objectives, strategies and outcomes is essential. It is im- portant to be sensitive, attentive and prepared when monitoring, testing and assess- ing students with special needs. In addition to a good higher education, which is the basis for their career development (Blažič, 2021), teachers also need opportunities for lifelong learning in order to realize their mission as an inclusive teacher in everyday pedagogical practice. Lifelong learning enables them to connect theoretical knowledge 30 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (2, 2024) with practical experience, strengthening intergenerational learning (Partalo et al., 2022) and thereby strengthening inclusive competences (Kiswarday and Štemberger, 2017). In this study, it was found that 92.5 % of respondents agree with this statement and that they adapt their teaching to student needs. For children with disabilities, it will sometimes be necessary to adapt the written material and extend the time allocated for writing. In the written task the student can answer by just underlining the answer or circling the letter in front of the correct answer. The research Teaching Strategy of Teachers in Teaching Students with Specific Learning Difficulties (Martan et al., 2016) found that the arithmetic mean is M = 3.41, which means that most teachers adapt books and didactic material to the needs of stu- dents involved in inclusive education. The authors further state that teachers provide students with specific learning difficulties with more time for written assignments. Namely, a large number of teachers are ready to provide help and support to students involved in inclusive education (Martan et al., 2016). In our study, we found that 92.0 % of research participants provide more time for written assignments to students with special needs, which shows that teachers are aware that students with special needs need more time for written assignments. In the case of students with reduced concentration, knowledge needs to be tested more often, in short- er time units, and with a small number of tasks or questions in one examination (MZOS, 2014). The task was to examine how many respondents adhere to these instructions. We found that 57.9 % of respondents adhere to the above, while almost one third of survey participants (30.0 %) could not decide on the above, i.e., were undecided. Therefore, it can be concluded that a large number of respondents do not follow these instructions or are not even familiar with them. In the paper Monitoring and Grading of Students with Disabilities Užarević (2012) states that the research obtained an arithmetic mean M = 4.29 with a standard deviation SD = 0.547 with regard to the Guidelines for monitoring and assessment of students with disabilities in primary and secondary school (MZOS, 2014), which state that the assessment of students with special needs involved in inclusive education should be objective. In the mentioned research, 74.8 % of respondents agreed with this statement (Užarević, 2012). Students with special needs pose a major challenge to teachers. They require special methods of work; the competencies of teachers to work with children with special needs and the needs of students should be divided according to various factors. Moreover, each group requires different adjustments. Therefore, it is important that teachers have enough knowledge and skills to work with children with special needs who are involved in inclusive education so that they can work with them in the best and most efficient way. The research showed that the participants in the research are ready and competent to work with students with special needs and that they understand their needs and know the educational methods needed to work with such students. It is important that teachers are informed in order to be able to help students with special needs to complete their education as well as possible. The obtained results can be a motivation for teachers to look for ways and paths that will contribute to more positive attitudes of parents towards the inclusion of children with disabilities and encourage positive attitudes in other students, all for the benefit of Kadum, PhD, Ukić, Lepičnik Vodopivec, PhD: Teacher Education for Assessment... 31 the children with whom they work. There should be more research on this topic so that teachers could get a true picture of the situation of children with disabilities in schools with the aim of providing more successful assessment and achieving better educational outcomes, all in order to improve the quality of life of all children. As has already been pointed out, the process of inclusion requires constant work aimed at raising the level of teaching quality. According to Mura and Zurru (2019), the inclusion process should enable students to more easily adopt learning contents. It is necessary to innovate teaching practice through work that includes all students. And fi- nally, we should strive for educational institutions to appreciate everyone, with all their virtues and flaws. In conclusion, this paper could be a starting point for further research with the inclusion of a larger sample of respondents in order to expand the research. Dr. Sandra Kadum, Anna-Maria Ukić, dr. Jurka Lepičnik Vodopivec Izobraževanje učiteljev za ocenjevanje v inkluzivni šoli Vključevanje otrok s posebnimi potrebami v redne osnovne šole je v zadnjem de- setletju doživelo vzpon. Vse pogosteje se srečujemo s terminom inkluzija in inkluzivno izobraževanje, kar predpostavlja možnost šole, da vsem otrokom, ne glede na njihove razlike, zagotovi kakovostno vzgojo in izobraževanje. Inkluzivno izobraževanje pred- stavlja enega najpomembnejših izzivov in pobud v izobraževanju. Inkluzivno izobraže- vanje se namreč nanaša na prakso vključevanja vseh učencev v redne šole, ne glede na njihove posebnosti. Inkluzivna paradigma si prizadeva doseči enakopravnost vsakega otroka in zagotoviti pogoje, ki bodo omogočali optimalen razvoj vsakega otroka v skla- du z njegovimi zmožnostmi (Kadum idr., 2020). Tako naravnava šola prevzema filozofijo inkluzije, ki temelji na izhodišču, da imajo vsi pravico do učenja, ne glede na različne potrebe in sposobnosti, ter uvaja v šole novo dimenzijo – kulturo inkluzije. Spremembe, ki se dogajajo, posledično postavljajo nove izzive za vse učitelje in strokovne delavce v šolah (Robinson in Buly, 2007), saj je velik del teh sprememb zaznati še zlasti na izved- beni ravni, pri čemer je vloga učitelja izjemno pomembna. Z vključevanjem primernih metod, strategij in ustrezne podpore učencem je zagotovljen osnovni cilj inkluzivne- ga izobraževanja, to je pravica vsakega otroka do izobraževanja. Strniša in Juriševič (2018) pa dodajata, da je poleg pedagoške in didaktične usposobljenosti pomembno zavedanje učitelja, da je za delo z učenci s posebnimi potrebami potrebno veliko str- pnosti in razumevanja. Ocenjevanje je nenehno prisotna družbena funkcija, ki je stara skoraj toliko kot družba sama. Vse družbene formacije so preverjale in ocenjevale znanje, sposobnosti in veščine svojih članov, odvisno od tega, kaj je bilo prednostno. Sodobne paradigme inkluzije danes ne rešujejo problema ocenjevanja učencev s posebnimi potrebami, tem- več opozarjajo na njegovo kompleksnost. Zato mora sistem spremljanja, preverjanja in ocenjevanja učencev upoštevati učenčeve sposobnosti in posebnosti njegovega psihofi- zičnega razvoja z upoštevanjem objektivnih okoliščin, v katerih učenec živi. V prispevku so prikazani rezultati raziskave, s katero smo želeli na vzorcu osnovno- šolskih učiteljev preveriti njihovo usposobljenost za ocenjevanje v inkluzivnem pouče- 32 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (2, 2024) vanju, njihove kompetence in usposobljenost za delo z učenci, vključenimi v inkluzivni pouk. Vzorec predstavlja 459 osnovnošolskih učiteljev v Republiki Hrvaški, od tega 439 (95,6 %) učiteljic in 20 oz. 4,4 % učiteljev. Od vseh sodelujočih jih 260 (56,6 %) poučuje od 1. do 4. razreda, 199 oz. 43,4 % pa od 5. do 8 razreda. Za zbiranje podatkov smo uporabili anketni vprašalnik, sestavljen za potrebe te raziskave, ki je vseboval tri neodvisne in dvanajst odvisnih spremenljivk. Uporabili smo Likertovo lestvico stališč. Podatke smo zbrali v letu 2021. Zaradi pandemije covid-19 smo uporabili on-line anketni vprašalnik, ki je bil predstavljen v Facebook skupini. Pridobljeni podatki so se obdelovali z uporabo IBM SPSS Statistics 24. Pridobljeni so bili naslednji rezultati: □ Tri odvisne spremenljivke: □ učenje prilagajam zmožnostim učenca, □ za učence s posebnimi potrebami uporabljam bolj preproste knjige in ma- teriale in □ učencem s posebnimi potrebami ponujam več časa za pisne naloge so se nanašale na prilagajanje učiteljev potrebam učencev, vključenih v inklu- zivni pouk. Pri vseh treh spremenljivkah so aritmetične sredine visoke: najvišja je za spremen- ljivko (3) in znaša 4,71, ob standardni deviaciji 0,736, medtem ko je najnižja tista za spremenljivko (2), ki znaša 4,35 ob standardni deviaciji 0,937. Med vsemi tremi spremenljivkami so bile izračunane pozitivne korelacije: r1,2 = 0,331, r1,3 = 0,314, ter r2,3 = 0,272, vse za N = 459 in p < 0,001. □ Del raziskave, ki se je nanašal na ocenjevanje učenca v inkluzivnem pouku, je pred- stavljalo preostalih devet odvisnih spremenljivk. Za vse spremenljivke so aritme- tične sredine visoke: najvišja je za spremenljivko učencem, vključenim v inkluzivni pouk, prilagajam pisna preverjanja in znaša 4,83, ob standardni deviaciji 0,549, medtem ko je najnižja aritmetična sredina (3,21) tista za spremenljivko pri sesta- vljanju izpita za učence, vključene v inkluzivni pouk, se posvetujem s strokovnimi sodelavci, ob standardni deviaciji 1,454. □ Zveza odvisnih spremenljivki ocenjevanje učenca v inkluzivnem pouku je podana s Pearsonovim linearnim koeficientom. Pridobljene so naslednje korelacije: □ osemnajst (18) pozitivnih in dve (2) negativni, vse za N = 459 in p < 0,01; □ pet pozitivnih (5) in ena (1) negativna, vse za N = 459 in p < 0,05; □ deset (10) koeficientov korelacije statistično ni pomembnih. □ Z enofaktorsko analizo variance je bil raziskan vpliv delovnih izkušenj v osnovni šoli na del raziskave ocenjevanja učenca v inkluzivnem pouku. Ugotovljena je bila statistično pomembna razlika na ravni p ≤ 0,05 za odvisno spremenljivko Znanje učencev, vključenih v inkluzivni pouk, pogosteje preverjam ustno F (5, 450) = 3,311, p = 0,006. Poleg tega je treba poudariti, da se 92,5 % anketirancev strinja s to trditvijo in da učenje prilagajajo potrebam učenca. Skladno z Navodilom za spremljanje in ocenjeva- nje učencev z motnjami v razvoju v osnovni in srednji šoli (MZOS, 2014) bo otrokom s posebnimi potrebami včasih potrebno prilagoditi pisna gradiva. V raziskavi Učne Kadum, PhD, Ukić, Lepičnik Vodopivec, PhD: Teacher Education for Assessment... 33 strategije učiteljev pri poučevanju učencev s specifičnimi motnjami učenja (Martan idr., 2016) je iz rezultatov razvidno, da večina učiteljev prilagaja knjige in didaktični ma- terial potrebam učencev, vključenih v inkluzivni pouk. Avtorji še navajajo, da učitelji učencem s posebnimi potrebami omogočajo več časa za pisne naloge. Prav tako je veliko število učiteljev pripravljenih nuditi pomoč in podporo učencem, vključenim v inkluzivni pouk (prav tam). Dobljeni rezultati kažejo, da 92 % anketiranih učiteljev zagotavlja več časa za pi- sne naloge učencem s posebnimi potrebami, kar kaže, da se učitelji zavedajo, da učen- ci s posebnimi potrebami potrebujejo več časa za pisne naloge. “Če gre za učence z zmanjšano koncentracijo, je treba znanje preverjati pogosteje, v krajših časovnih eno- tah in z majhnim številom nalog ali vprašanj v enem preverjanju znanja” (MZOS, 2014, str. 4). Zanimalo nas je, koliko anketirancev upošteva ta navodila. Ugotovili smo, da jih to navodilo upošteva 57,9 %, medtem ko se skoraj ena tretjina udeležencev do nave- denega ni opredelila oziroma so bili neodločeni. Na podlagi tega lahko sklepamo, da večina učiteljev ne upošteva navedenih navodil ali – celo zelo verjetno – z njimi niso niti seznanjeni. Dobljeni rezultati vsekakor predstavljajo motivacijo za učitelje, da še naprej iščejo načine in poti, ki bodo pripomogle k bolj pozitivnim stališčem staršev do inkluzije otrok z motnjami v razvoju, kot tudi k spodbujanju pozitivnih stališč ostalih učencev, vse pa s ciljem dobrobiti otrok, s katerimi delajo. Kot smo že poudarili je proces inkluzije proces, ki je usmerjen v dvigovanje ravni kakovosti pouka. Kot navajata Mura in Zurru (2019) bi moral proces inkluzije učenca usposobiti za čim preprostejše obvladovanje gradiva. Učno prakso je treba posodobi- ti skozi delo, ki vključuje vse učence. Takšnih raziskav bi moralo biti več, da učitelji pridobijo pravo sliko položaja otrok z motnjami v razvoju v šolah, s ciljem njihovega uspešnejšega ocenjevanja in doseganja boljših vzgojno-izobraževalnih rezultatov, vse to pa zaradi izboljšanja kakovosti življenja vseh otrok. Prizadevati si je treba za to, da izobraževalne ustanove cenijo in spoštujejo vsakega posameznika z vsemi odlikami in pomanjkljivostmi. V sklepu izpostavljamo, da bi lahko bilo to delo izhodišče za nadaljnje razširjene raziskave, v katere bi vključili večji vzorec anketirancev. Dobljeni rezultati kažejo, da so anketirani pripravljeni in kompetentni za delo z učenci s posebnimi potrebami, da razumejo njihove potrebe in poznajo metode in stra- tegije, ki so potrebne za delo s takšnimi učenci. Učitelji se zavedajo, da lahko učencem s posebnimi potrebami pomagajo čim bolj kakovostno zaključiti šolanje. Zaradi tega je treba osmisliti individualizirani program, ki jasno določa cilje, strategije in rezul- tate učenja, prilagojene zmožnostim posameznega učenca. Pri tem je pomembno, da so učitelji pri spremljanju, preverjanju in ocenjevanju učenca s posebnimi potrebami občutljivi, strpni in prilagodljivi. Rezultati raziskave predstavljajo spodbudo ne le učiteljem, temveč tudi vodstvom šol in odločevalcem šolskih politik, da ne pozabijo na ta segment našega življenja, ki terja odgovorno in profesionalno držo vseh deležnikov z namenom spodbujanja uvelja- vljanja inkluzivne kulture na šoli in širše v družbi. 34 Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja (2, 2024) REFERENCES 1. Blažič, M. (2021). Prispevek visokošolskega učnega okolja h kariernemu razvoju študentov. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 36(1), 93–113. 2. Biasiol Babić, R. (2009). Vrednovanje i ocjenjivanje s posebnim osvrtom na učenike s teškoća- ma u razvoju integrirane u redovini sustav odgoja i obrazovanja. Metodički obzori, 4(1–2), 207–2019. Available at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/45774 (retrieved 14. 1. 2021). 3. Demo H. (2019). Le competenze inclusive del docente. L’integrazione scolastica e sociale, 18(4), 346–349. 4. Drobnič, J. (2018). Inkluzija/integracija oseb s posebnimi potrebami v slovenski bibliografiji. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 33(3–4), 20–35. 5. EADSNE – European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2009). Key Prin- ciples for Promoting Quality in Inclusive Education. Recommendations for Policy Makers. Odense (Denmark): European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. 6. EADSNE – European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2012). Teacher Education for Inclusion. Profile of Inclusive Teachers. Odense (Denmark): European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. 7. IBE-UNESCO – International Bureau of Education-UNESCO. (2016). Training Tools for Cur- riculum Development – Reaching Out to All Learners. Geneva (Switzerland): Resource Pack for Supporting Inclusive Education. 8. Kadum, S., Šuvar, V. and Tomić, R (2020). Školska pedagogija. Pula: Sveučilište Jurja Dobrile, Fakultet za odgojne i obrazovne znanosti. 9. Kadum, S., Štemberger, T. and Beneš, M. (2019). Socijalizacija darovite djece i odgojno-obra- zovna podrška u prevenciji rizičnih ponašanja. V: Radetić-Paić, M. (ur.). Programi prevencije problema u ponašanju u lokalnoj zajednici (pp. 155–171). Pula: Sveučilište Jurja Dobrile, Fa- kultet za odgojne i obrazovne znanosti. 10. Kadum-Bošnjak, S. (2012). Suradničko učenje. Metodički ogledi, 19(1),181–199. 11. Kadum-Bošnjak, S. and Brajković, D. (2007). Praćenje, provjeravanje i ocjenjivanje učenika u nastavi. Metodički obzori, 2(2), 35–51. 12. Keller, R., Kunz, A., Luder, R. et al. (2018). Schulentwicklung für eine inklusive gesunde Sc- hule am Beispiel der Projekte ,,SIS” und ,,Challenge”. In: Zala-Mezö, E., Strauss, N.-C. and Häbig, J. (Eds.). Dimensionen von Schulentwicklung. Münster: Waxmann. 13. Kiswarday, V. R. and Štemberger, T. (2017). Pomen inkluzivnih kompetenc z vidika bodočih vzgojiteljev predšolskih otrok. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 32 (2), 3–17. 14. Kyriacou, Ch. (1995). Temeljna nastavna umijeća. Zagreb: Educa. 15. Luder, R., Kunz, A. and Müller Bösch, C. (2019). Das Besondere der Pädagogik einer inklu- siven Schule. In: Luder, R., Kunz, A. and Müller Bösch, C. (Eds.). Inklusive Pädagogik und Didaktik. Bern: hep-Verlag. 16. Martan, V., Skočić Mihić, S. and Puljar, A. (2016). Nastavane strategije učitelja u podučavanju učenika sa specifičnim teškoćama učenja. Život i škola: časopis za teoriju i praksu odgoja i obrazovanja, 62(3), 139–150. Available at: https://hrcak.srce.hr/index.php?show=clanak&id_ clanak_jezik=260823 (retrieved 28. 8. 2021). 17. MZOS – Ministarstvu znanosti, obrazovanja i športa. (2019). Pravilnik o načinima, postupcima i elementima vrednovanja u osnovnoj i srednjoj školi. Zagreb. Available at: https://www.sss- -makarska.hr/spisi/skola/pravilnik_vrednovanje_os_ss_2019_8_30.pdf (retrieved 14. 8. 2021). 18. MZOS – Ministarstvu znanosti, obrazovanja i športa. (2014). Naputak o praćenju i ocjenjivanju učenika s teškoćama u razvoju u osnovnoj i srednjoj školi. Available at: http://hud.hr/wp-con- tent/uploads/sites/168/2014/11/naputak-prac-ocj1.pdf (retrieved 14. 1. 2021). 19. Mura, A. and Zurru, A. L. (2019). Professionalità docente e processi di inclusione: dall’indagine sulle pratiche didattiche alla rilevazione dei bisogni formativi. L’integrazione scolastica e soci- ale, 18(1), 43–57. 20. Partalo, D., Šindić, A. and Ličen, N. (2022). Competencies and Intergenerational Learning of the Preschool Teachers. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 37(1), 37–49. Kadum, PhD, Ukić, Lepičnik Vodopivec, PhD: Teacher Education for Assessment... 35 21. Rajić, V. (2017). Pristupi vrednovanju u obrazovanju. V: Matijević, M. (ur). Nastava i škola za net- generacije (pp. 256–270). Zagreb: Učiteljski fakultet Sveučilište u Zagrebu. 22. Robinson, L. and Buly, M. R. (2007). Breaking the Language Barrier: Promoting Collaboration between General and Special Educators. Teacher Education Quarterly, 34(3), 83–94. 23. Strniša, T. and Juriševič, M. (2018). Razvoj strokovne samopodobe specialnih in rehabilitacij- skih pedagogov. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 33(1), 116–130. 24. Štemberger, T. (2013). Učiteljeva pripravljenost na inkluzijo. Didactica Slovenica – Pedagoška obzorja, 28(3–4), 3–17. 25. Tot, D. and Klapan, A. (2008). Ciljevi stalnoga stručnog usavršavanja: mišljenje učitelja. Peda- gogijska istraživanja, 5(1), 60–71. 26. UN. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and Optional Protocol, Uni- ted Nations. Available at: https://social.desa.un.org/issues/disability/crpd/convention-on-the-ri- ghts-of-persons-with-disabilities-crpd (retrieved 28. 4. 2021). 27. UNESCO. (1994). Salamanca Statement on Principles, Policy and Practice in Special Ne- eds Education and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Available at: https:// unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427 (retrieved 28. 4. 2021). 28. UNESCO. (2016). Education 2030. Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action for the Implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4. Available at: http://uis.unesco.org/si- tes/default/files/documents/education-2030-incheon-framework-for-action-implementation- -of-sdg4-2016-en_2.pdf (retrieved 8. 2. 2021). 29. Užarević, A. (2012). Praćenje i ocjenjivanje učenika s teškoćama u razvoju. [Master’s thesis]. Osijek. Josip Juraj Strossmayer University, Faculty of humanities and Social Sciences. Avai- lable at: https://repozitorij.ffos.hr/islandora/object/ffos %3A1652/datastream/PDF/view (retrie- ved 29. 5. 2021). Delo je podprla Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije [P5-0444]. This work was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency [P5-0444]. Besedilo / Text © 2024 Avtor(ji) / The Author(s) To delo je objavljeno pod licenco CC BY Priznanje avtorstva 4.0 Mednarodna. This work is published under a licence CC BY Attribution 4.0 International. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) Sandra Kadum, PhD, associate professor at the Faculty of Education in Pula, Croatia. E–mail: skadum@unipu.hr Anna-Maria Ukić, student of the 5th year of Teacher Studies at the Faculty of Educational Sciences in Pula, Croatia. E–mail: annamariaukic76@gmail.com Jurka Lepičnik Vodopivec, PhD, full professor for preschool pedagogy and scientific adviser at the Faculty of Education of the University of Primorska, Koper, Slovenia. E–mail: jurka.lepicnik@pef.upr.si