Zimbabwean General Education Preschool Teacher Needs in Inclusion

Abstract

As Zimbabwe’s education system shifted from exclusion to inclusion in 1994, in alignment with the global world, the population of learners with disabilities educated in general education preschool settings has remarkably increased. Teachers experience diverse challenges in including learners with disabilities into general education preschool settings. Embedded in the core expertise of inclusive pedagogical philosophy, the current interpretive qualitative research gleaned from 24 purposively sampled Zimbabwean general education preschool teachers. A constant comparative approach, which entailed organization of data from individual interviews, nonparticipant observations and document analysis with continuous adjustment, was utilized all through the analysis. Despite teachers being ill-prepared for inclusion, coupled with individual and institutional needs in its practice, they had positive attitudes toward it. The study recommends that training of general education preschool teachers in the practice and theory of inclusion, collaborative pooling of resources of stakeholders, and the incorporation of sociocultural aspects in preschool curricula could optimize inclusivity. This study is a springboard for future studies on the subject.

Introduction

In 1994, Zimbabwe shifted from exclusion to inclusion in general education in tandem with the international world (Chireshe, 2011; Majoko, 2013; Mandina, 2012). This paradigm shift was informed by the reaffirmation of the fundamental right of every person to education as mandated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948). It also took note of the renewal of the pledge of the world community at the World Conference on Education for All (Unesco, 1990) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) that advanced fundamental rights for everyone despite personal differences and circumstances as ratified by the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994). Inclusion in general preschool classrooms in Zimbabwe which includes 3- to 6-year-olds is entrenched in policy and legislative infrastructure (Majoko, 2017a; Musengi & Chireshe, 2012). Consistent with the global arena, human rights and social justice inform its social policies and legislation (Mugweni & Dakwa, 2013; Mushoriwa & Muzembe, 2011). Education is a fundamental right for all children (Mpofu & Shumba, 2012). In comparison with several other countries, including Australia (Forbes, 2007), Botswana (Chhabra, Srivastava, & Srivastava, 2010), Scotland (Florian & Rouse, 2009), and South Africa (Naicker, 2009), Zimbabwe passed and enforces several policies and legislation on inclusion. These include the Zimbabwe Education Act of 1987 as revised in 2006, the Zimbabwe Constitution Amendment Number 20 of 2013 Section 75, the Secretary’s Circular Minute Number 14 of 2004, the Director’s Circular Number 7 of 2005, and the Principal Director’s Circular Number 20 of 2011 (Chireshe, 2013; Majoko, 2016a; Mugweni & Dakwa, 2013) that mandate the inclusion of learners with disabilities in general education preschool classrooms (Education for All, 2015; Mpofu, Kasayira, Mhaka, Chireshe, & Maunganidze, 2007; Mutepfa, Mpofu, & Chataika, 2007).

Consistent with the international fraternity, the promulgation of this policy and legislative framework on inclusion in general education in Zimbabwe complies with civil rights activism as enshrined in global human rights instruments (Chireshe, 2013). This includes the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Majoko, 2016b; United Nations, 2006). Zimbabwe also passed and enforces the Statutory Instrument 106 of 2005 which promulgates preschool education embedded in safety, quality health, education, and nutrition as benchmarks of development of learners in totality (Education for All, 2015). It mandates registration and operation of only preschools that meet the stipulated standards (Majoko, 2016b). These constitute outdoor and indoor playing space of 5.5 and 2.25 m² per child, respectively, six learners per wash basin, eight leaners per toilet, cold and hot water, child-sized furniture, 20 children per educator, educators with appropriate training or experience in preschool education and medical examination and X-rays of staff every year to ascertain their health (Education for All, 2015). School Development Committees build and furnish preschools in compliance with the Director’s Circular 12 of 2005 (Mugweni & Dakwa, 2013).

The Zimbabwe Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development in collaboration with the Zimbabwe Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, and the University of Zimbabwe guarantees preservice and in-service teacher training in preschool education (Majoko, 2005; Mandina, 2012). Six universities and 11 out of 12 primary school teachers’ training colleges provide full-time and part-time initial and continuous teacher training programs in preschool education at diploma and degree levels (Education for All, 2015). UNICEF also provides training to paraprofessionals to optimize their knowledge and competencies to teach in preschools, mobilizes communities as recruitment is done from neighborhood localities, and eliminates the enrolment gap between rural and urban settings and between poor and rich communities (Education for All, 2015). Public primary schools are mandated to attach preschools (Majoko, 2016a). A total of 98% of the 5,625 public primary schools in Zimbabwe offer preschool classes that educate both learners with and without exceptionalities (Education for All, 2015). There are also several private preschools that are under public primary schools that educate both children with and without developmental challenges (Majoko, 2016b). While public preschools which are funded by the government do not charge fees, private preschools which are funded by their owners charge fees (Mpofu & Shumba, 2012). All preschools implement the same national curriculum that was designed by the Zimbabwe Curriculum Development Unit (Education for All, 2015; Majoko, 2013).

Most preschools attached to primary schools are inadequately resourced as learners in some rural and resettlement settings are educated in make-shift classrooms of thatch and pole or under trees whereas some surpass the gazetted 1:20 preschool educator–learner ratio (Education for All, 2015). On average, a general education preschool classroom constitutes 25 children. This results in learners exhibiting adaptive behavior including aggressiveness (Majoko, 2013). Inadequately, trained teachers also serve in preschools in rural settings. While the best staffed Harare province is at 60%, other provinces are at 40% and below (Education for All, 2015). In mines, resettlement areas, commercial farms and rural areas, providing education to all is a challenge because long distances between preschools and homes complicates commuting of children by foot daily (Majoko, 2016a; Mugweni & Dakwa, 2013). Although parents were capable of paying fares, the lack of transport exacerbates this challenge (Education for All, 2015). There is also a shortage of other facilities and resources including toilets, numeracy materials, computers, and reading materials (Mugweni & Dakwa, 2013). Similarly, the existing materials and infrastructure at most preschools are unsuitable for learners with exceptionalities as they are meant for their counterparts without developmental challenges (Majoko, 2016b).

Consistent with global and national policies and legislation, that mandate access, acceptance, participation, and success of all learners in general education preschool classroom content, process, environment, and assessment (Majoko, 2016a; Mandina, 2012), most preschool children in Zimbabwe learn in general education preschools while some of them learn in special education preschools. In spite of the pursuance of inclusion globally, a universally acceptable definition of the philosophy is elusive, owing to conceptual complications in explaining it and evidence of its practice (Ainscow, 2005; Black-Hawkins & Florian, 2012; Dyson & Gallannaugh, 2007; Florian & Spratt, 2013). Because of its entrenchment in competing discourses and its openness to multiple interpretations and understandings, inclusion is complex (Ballard, 2012; Donnelly & Watkins, 2011; Graham & Slee, 2008; Pantić & Florian, 2015). Nevertheless, the philosophy can be viewed as a continuous process that entails transforming general education institutions to support all learners in response to their social, educational, and career needs. This includes the removal of communication, curriculum, socialization, assessment, and environmental barriers to teaching and learning (Florian, 2012; Friend & Bursuck, 2012; Kisanji & Saanane, 2009; Rouse, 2008).

Inclusion includes all learners that are at risk of marginalization and exclusion in general education than just those with special educational needs (Ainscow, 2005; Berry, 2010; Blanton, Pugach, & Florian, 2011; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). It is embedded in access, participation, achievement, and acceptance of all learners in general education content, environment, process, and product through meeting their individual differences and circumstances (Agbenyega, 2007; Donnelly & Watkins, 2011; European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education [EADSNE], 2011; Florian, 2009; Forbes, 2007; Naicker, 2009). Inclusion is thus a social justice and human rights issue that advocates for pedagogy of learners with unique needs, including disabilities and those vulnerable to marginalization and exclusion in their neighborhood general education classrooms with their peers without developmental delays (Ballard, 2012; Berry, 2010; Chhabra et al., 2010; Flecha & Soler, 2013; Florian, 2012). In Zimbabwe, consistent with the global world, inclusion is grounded in social, physical, cultural, and emotional integration of learners with unique needs and those who are at risk of exclusion and marginalization in general education (Chireshe, 2013; Deluca, Tramonta, & Kett, 2013; Majoko, 2016b; Mandina, 2012).

Learners with disabilities in Zimbabwe are children with visual impairments, language or speech impairments, hearing impairments, mental retardation, emotional disorders, orthopedic impairments, Autism Spectrum Disorders, brain injuries, other health-related impairments, or learning disabilities (Majoko, 2005; Mpofu et al., 2007; Mutepfa et al., 2007). The Zimbabwe Schools Psychological Services and Special Needs Education Department places learners with low support needs in general education classrooms (Deluca et al., 2013; Majoko, 2013; Mpofu et al., 2007). Although current and reliable statistics on learners with disabilities is important in informing policy and provision of services (Education for All, 2015; EADSNE, 2011; Mutepfa et al., 2007), studies executed in Zimbabwe established a widely contrasting prevalence for disability (Majoko, 2016b). The Inter-Censal Demographic Survey Report of 1997 found that there were about 57,232 learners with disabilities while the United Nations Children’s Emergence Fund Report of 1997 established that there were 150,000 learners with disabilities, three times the former survey report (Mandipa & Manyatera, 2014). In addition, Chakuchichi’s (2013) study found that there were about 600,000 learners with disabilities in Zimbabwe. Owing to the increasing proportion of babies born with HIV/AIDS, the majority of whom will also be orphaned, this discrepancy warrants a national disability survey (Education For All, 2015; Majoko, 2016a; Mandipa & Manyatera, 2014).

Consistent with several countries, including South Africa (Donohue & Bornman, 2015), Scotland (Florian, 2012), Cambodia (Kim & Rouse, 2011), Malawi (Lynch, Lund, & Massah, 2014), Bangladesh (Malak, 2013), Lesotho (Mosia, 2014) and Botswana (Mukhopadhyay & Moswela, 2010), multidisciplinary teams that include parents, specialists, practitioners, and nonprofessionals support inclusion in general education in Zimbabwe (Mpofu & Shumba, 2012; Mugweni & Dakwa, 2013; Mutepfa et al., 2007). The support process includes the provision of training and consultancy, professional support and appropriate equipment, and programs and services for learners with disabilities, their families, and other school personnel (Deluca et al., 2013; Majoko, 2013; Mushoriwa & Muzembe, 2011). Stakeholders, including teachers, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, educational psychologists, teacher assistants, school administrators, and social workers assist in inclusion in regular education (Musengi & Chireshe, 2012). As teachers are the most integral component in successful and effective inclusion, it is imperative to establish their needs for its practice to develop preparation and development programs that are responsive to their requirements. The following section presents the needs of general education preschool teachers in inclusion.

General Education Preschool Teacher Needs in Inclusion

Worldwide, there are variations in the quality of preschool programs of inclusion as regards program philosophy, teacher training, attitudes of instructors, and administrative support (Baglieri, 2008; Baker-Ericzen, Mueggenborg, & Shea, 2009; Bruns & Mogharberran, 2009). General education classroom teachers are, nevertheless, the most integral component for successful and effective inclusion (Black-Hawkins & Florian, 2012; Blanton et al., 2011; Donnelly & Watkins, 2011; Forlin, 2010). Key indicators of the quality of inclusion include training, knowledge, experience, and attitudes of teachers (Edwards, 2010; Florian, 2012; Pantić & Wubbels, 2010; Rouse, 2008). As teachers serve learners with disabilities and endeavor to respond to the uniqueness of these learners, they require knowledge and experience in inclusion practices (Crane-Mitchel & Hedge, 2007; Hornby, 2010; Hu & Szente, 2010; Killoran, Tymon, & Frempong, 2007). Successful and effective inclusion is, thus, positively correlated with the competence to tailor pedagogical settings and approaches to the needs of learners and the utilization of successful instructional strategies and methods that foster positive behaviors in learners. These afford equal educational opportunities for all learners (Allday, Neilsen-Gatti & Hudson, 2013; Ballard, 2012; Florian & Rouse, 2009).

Overall, preschool teachers perceive that children with unique needs require inclusion and that it benefits them (Appl & Spenciner, 2008; Brown, Welsh, Hill, & Cipko, 2008; Crane-Mitchel & Hedge, 2007; Frankel, Gold, & Ajodhia-Andrews, 2010; Hu, 2010; Odom, Buysse, & Soukakou, 2011; Sharma, Moore, & Sonawane, 2009). These teachers, nevertheless, mention that they have inadequate knowledge about inclusion and are not competent to teach learners with disabilities (Agbenyega, 2007; Oliver & Reschly, 2010; Sze, 2009). Teachers also report that they need training, support of special education teachers, appropriate tools and materials to realize successful, and effective inclusion in general classrooms (Allday et al., 2013; Clunies-Ross, Little, & Kienhuis, 2008; Donnelly & Watkins, 2011; Dyson & Gallannaugh, 2007). Teachers further note that they need to learn to adapt the preschool education program and to engage learners with disabilities in teaching and learning activities to realize successful inclusion in general education classrooms (Hu, Wu, Su, & Roberts, 2017; Idol, 2006; Rafferty & Griffin, 2005). Teachers require workshops, seminars, and additional courses to acquire more knowledge and in-classroom experience as their preservice education exposes them to general information only (Allday, Neilsen-Gatti, Hinkson-Lee, Hudson, Russel, & Kleinke, 2012; Crane-Mitchel & Hedge, 2007; Voss & Bufkin, 2011).

Teachers need to design individualized educational programs, augmentative technology, behavioral and communication strategies, adaptation of instruction, and appropriate transportation/positioning for learners with motor disabilities (Bruns & Mogharberran, 2009). For more successful and effective inclusion, teachers articulate that they need relevant on-the-job training (Agbenyega, 2007; Ballard, 2012; Blanton et al., 2011; Flecha & Soler, 2013). Because the provision of once-off professional development is insufficient to foster in teachers appropriate competencies to respond to the needs of learners with disabilities, they require continuous in-service training (Artiles & Kozleski, 2007; Majoko, 2016b; Pantić & Wubbels, 2010; Rouse, 2008). Teachers also need monitoring to ensure they apply the knowledge acquired from their in-service training on the utilization of innovative strategies and techniques in pedagogical settings (Bruns & Mogharberran, 2009; Crane-Mitchel & Hedge, 2007). This is because several teachers are only knowledgeable and experienced through experimentation when learners with disabilities are placed in their classrooms (Berry, 2010; Forbes, 2007; Idol, 2006; Mandina, 2012).

Zimbabwean research on inclusion and the factors influencing its success and effectiveness reveal several challenges to its practice. Stakeholders, including teachers, school administrators and parents, report that such challenges include the absence of support services for learners and teachers, administrators’ and teachers’ ill-preparation for inclusion and teachers’ negative attitudes toward the philosophy (Majoko, 2013). A report on education that reveals inclusion practices, challenges, and opportunities titled “National Report on the Status of Education by Zimbabwe, 48th Session of UNESCO International Conference on Education, Geneva, 25-28 November 2008” reveals that although teachers welcome learners with disabilities into their general education classrooms, they are ill-prepared to serve these learners and they require relevant training to respond to the individual needs of learners. Chireshe (2013), similarly, established that teachers needed intensive professional preparation and development for inclusion. This will develop in them competencies and experience for successful and effective serving of children with disabilities in general education classrooms. In the same vein, Mandina (2012), Mugweni and Dakwa (2013), and Majoko (2016b) found that teachers failed to respond to the unique needs of learners because of their lack of theory and practice on inclusion. These researchers also indicate that teachers confront several challenges in serving learners with unique needs in their general education classrooms. This includes differentiation of the general education school curriculum in response to the unique needs of learners with exceptionalities, adaptation of instruction to the learners’ characteristics and abilities, and the use of effective and successful inclusive classroom management strategies, methods, and techniques. Similarly, most teachers believe that they are inadequately trained to respond to the needs of learners with disabilities but are keen to be equipped with the competencies they require to support the optimum development of these learners (Majoko, 2017a). Educational for All (2015) also reports that the equipping of teachers with knowledge and experience in inclusion is the most important need to ensure realization of its successful and effective practice. Several teachers report that they need support from professionals as they solve challenges presented by learners with disabilities on their own and, at times, with the support of these learners’ parents who lack specialist knowledge (Majoko, 2013).

In Zimbabwe, all teachers’ colleges are affiliates of a main national university (Education for All, 2015) and they consequently offer the same course structure and content to educators. Preschool educators are trained in inclusion as a part of a core course entitled “Theory of Early Childhood Development” in their teachers’ diploma. In this course, only basic information on inclusion, including some disability categories and policies on inclusion, is provided which does not adequately equip these teachers with competencies and experience for successful and effective serving of learners with disabilities (Majoko, 2016b). Similarly, in-service training of limited duration does not afford teachers the opportunity to practice the knowledge and skills that are presented on this course (Mandina, 2012). For example, Majoko (2016b) established that teachers need lengthy in-service training, as well as exposure to inclusive classroom teaching and learning during such training. Premised on previous research findings, prioritization of the provision of adequate knowledge and experience to teachers on inclusion are imperative if its successful and effective practice in general education preschool classrooms in Zimbabwe is to be realized. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to develop training programs on inclusion that consider the needs of teachers (Mandina, 2012). This study, entrenched in the core expertise of inclusive pedagogical philosophy, investigated the needs of teachers in inclusion of learners with disabilities in general education preschools.

Theoretical Framework

The current study was entrenched in the core expertise of inclusive pedagogical philosophy which is premised on “knowing,” “doing,” and “believing” (Edwards, 2010; Florian, 2009; Kim & Rouse, 2011). In this framework, the complexities that are characteristic in responding to the individuality of learners are embodied within intertwined views about them and about the curriculum, teaching, and learning (Forlin, 2010). They include

• the practice of inclusion of teachers at various levels of the school system including the classroom level (Florian, 2012; Pantić & Florian, 2015);

• teachers’ engagement with collaborative structures and cultures in responding to pedagogical issues needing actions beyond the school classroom (Florian & Spratt, 2013; Forlin, 2010);

• teachers’ professional and social networking in pursuit of human rights and social justice in education (Ballard, 2012; Edwards, 2010; Friend & Bursuck, 2012);

• the substantive involvement and participation of stakeholders, inclusive of families, communities, and learners, in educational decisions (Black-Hawkins & Florian, 2012; Rouse, 2008);

• strategic planning to address exclusion and underachievement in general education;

• the collaboration of professionals, nonprofessionals, paraprofessionals, and parents in the advancement of human rights and a social justice agenda in education (Florian, 2009; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011);

• teachers’ commitment to the enhancement of access, participation, acceptance, and success of all learners, while eliminating the exclusion of those who are at risk of exclusion and marginalization in general education;

• shifting of focus of teachers from “most” and “some” learners to “everybody” entrenched in social-cultural pedagogical approach (Pantić & Florian, 2015); and

• open-ended perceptions of the ability of all learners to learn and teachers’ extension of various opportunities to all learners in the community of the general classrooms (Hattie, 2009; Hu, 2010; Rouse, 2008).

Inclusion in general education preschool classrooms in Zimbabwe requires educators to account for the individuality of learners as an indispensable component of their development in any conceptualization of teaching and learning (knowing). Educators are expected to have the belief and confidence of their qualification and capacity to successfully and effectively teach all learners (believing) and develop innovative strategies of collaborating with other stakeholders (doing; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011).

Method

Entrenched in multiple case study research, this study used qualitative methodology. The study design, settings, participants, procedures, and data analysis are presented in the following sections.

Study Design

This qualitative research was entrenched in multiple case study design. Qualitative methodology provides a systematic avenue for comprehending complex events and phenomena within a particular context (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). Thus, it is ideal in generation of scientifically grounded thematic evidence and insight to inform scholarship, policy, and practice in education (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). As the study sought participants’ practices, experiences and views, it was grounded in phenomenology that seeks to understand participants’ subjective perspectives of their direct experiences and situations (Pierce, 2008). Teachers’ needs in inclusion in general education preschool classrooms constituted the experiences and situations of this study.

Study Settings

In Zimbabwe, government educational institutions are clustered into 10 administrative provinces. This research was carried out in Midlands educational province. The province constitutes government primary schools in urban, semi-urban, and rural localities of Mberengwa, Gokwe North, Kwekwe, Chirumhanzu, Zvishavane, Gweru, Shurugwi, and Gokwe South districts. One general education government primary school which included learners with disabilities was purposively selected from urban, semi-urban, and rural localities of each one of these districts for the transferability of findings. English is the language of instruction in these institutions. Nevertheless, local languages including Shona and Ndebele are also used as and when necessary to facilitate comprehension.

Participants

There are 776 government primary schools in Midlands province. To understand teachers’ needs in inclusion in general education preschool classrooms, government primary schools were purposively sampled. The sample comprised 24 government primary schools. One institution which included learners with disabilities was purposively drawn from the rural, semi-urban, and urban settings of each one of the eight districts in the educational province. Thereafter, one teacher was purposively drawn from each one of these purposively sampled schools. Teachers were recruited through writing a letter to the offices of Midlands educational province. Information letters were disseminated to designated schools in respective districts in the educational province. Once the head-teacher had approved the execution of the research, letters were sent to participants who met the subsequent criteria of inclusion. Teachers who were keen to participate contacted the researcher to schedule time to be observed and interviewed.

Before the interview, observation, and document analysis, teachers were screened by telephone to determine eligibility. Teachers were sampled if they had at least an undergraduate preschool teaching qualification, experience of 5 years in inclusion of learners with disabilities in general education preschool classrooms, and they were a teacher in a general education preschool classroom in Midlands educational province. The adequacy of the participants was reached after realization of theoretical saturation which happened when no relevant or new data emerged as regards a category and categories were fully developed with respect to their dimensions, variations, and properties (Pierce, 2008; Silverman, 2009). The study sample comprised 24 general education preschool teachers (19 females, 5 males), one drawn from each of the participating institutions. Participants’ ages ranged from 29 to 56 years and they had between 6 and 17 years of teaching experience. Each one of them taught a general education preschool classroom which constituted a maximum of 19 learners who were 5 to 4 years old. Each general education preschool classroom included at least four learners who had disabilities. Besides the teachers’ diploma in preschool education, 13 teachers had undergraduate degrees in special education. Participants were furnished with a precise and concise study profile to expedite entry into general education primary schools, sampling, establishing and sustaining rapport and upholding research ethical considerations.

Procedure

Ethical clearance to execute the current study was secured from the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education of Zimbabwe Head Office, education offices of the Midlands province and participating institutions head-teachers. Thereafter, informed consent of participants was sought and secured prior to the execution of the present research. The current research was carried out from December 2015 to October 2016. Individual in-depth interviews, nonparticipant observation, and analysis of documents were utilized to solicit teachers’ needs in inclusion in general education preschool classrooms. Individual interviews are integral in understanding the meanings that participants make of their experiences (Cohen et al., 2007; Silverman, 2009). The interview protocol comprised open-ended, semi-structured question items designed to initiate conversations with participants.

The researcher held 24 individual interviews with participants, one face-to-face interview with each participant, lasting an average of 58 min. The individual in-depth interview questions clustered around teachers’ needs in inclusion and included the following:

• How do you understand inclusion?

• How do you feel about inclusion in your classroom?

• How do you practice inclusion in your classroom?

• What do you need in inclusion in your classroom?

• Share anything else that we did not deliberate on about inclusion in your classroom.

The interview guide necessitated the structured and organized execution of interviews while the use of context specific probing questions made the interviewing process flexible. Teacher demographics, particularly age, gender, teaching experience, and teaching qualifications, were also solicited. All individual interviews were executed in English and tape-recorded with the consent of the participants. To capture fundamental gestures and comments during the individual interviews, the researcher took notes.

For augmentation of data accumulated from individual interviews, document analysis and nonparticipant observation were executed (Creswell, 2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Individual participants were observed teaching one 30-min lesson utilizing an observation checklist that comprised components of effective inclusion in general education preschool classrooms. Individual and systemic needs in inclusion of learners with disabilities in general education preschool settings were focused on during nonparticipant observation. Document analysis constituted perusal of teachers’ daily lesson plans, schemes of work, learners’ workbooks, record books, and individual learner intervention record books. Utilization of individual interviews, nonparticipant observation, and document analysis provided a holistic understanding of teachers’ needs in inclusion.

Analysis of Data

Individual interviews were transcribed verbatim, sorted and categorized according to emergent themes around teachers’ needs in inclusion. The researcher utilized open coding in which a comprehensive understanding of the needs of teachers in inclusion was realized. The researcher started analysis of data by reading through each one of the individual interviews, the document analysis and the nonparticipant observation field notes many times and identified key themes that emerged grounded in commonalities and patterns. Accordingly, development, examination, comparison, and redefinition of codes which had common meanings were done. To ascertain that codes captured participants’ range of ideas (Creswell, 2009; Grbich, 2007; Pierce, 2008; Silverman, 2009), a constant comparative approach of organization of data with continuous adjustment and discussion between the researcher and a critical reader, who was a qualitative research expert, was utilized in the entire analysis. The researcher kept an audit trail of key analytical decisions regarding themes/codes. Trustworthiness of the findings was established through code-recode and examination of the critical reader.

Findings

Through analysis of data solicited from interviews, document analysis and observations, four themes emerged. These were the conception of inclusion, benefits of inclusion, teachers’ needs in inclusion, and strategies to address teachers’ needs in inclusion.

Conception of Inclusion

Most participants (17) conceptualized inclusion as a human rights and social justice entrenched pedagogical philosophy that affords needs responsive pedagogy for all learners in general education preschool classrooms in their neighborhood communities. They exhibited positive attitudes toward it, as illustrated in the subsequent selected statements (pseudonyms utilized so as to guarantee anonymity and confidentiality of the teachers):

Inclusion is a philosophy of education that responds to the needs of all learners in their local regular classrooms through the provision of services and programmes that meet their needs. Human rights and social justice premise of promotion, respect and celebration of human diversity and dignity informs it. (Chacha)

[Inclusion] is teaching and learning that is tailored to individual differences among children. Such differences can arise from several factors including ability, disability, culture, race, social-economic status, religion, culture, language and nationality. Inclusion is based on African and European political, social, cultural and religious life of respecting equality and equity in access, participation and achievement of all people in all spheres of life, including education, in spite of their individuality. (Mhembwe)

Pedagogical strategies, methods, techniques, content, assessment and settings that are commensurate with the unique needs, characteristics, interests, disabilities and abilities of individual pupils in ordinary classrooms in their localities constitute inclusion. The philosophy entails quality, equity and equitable access, acceptance, success and participation of all stakeholders including children with and without unique needs and their parents, communities, governmental and non-governmental officials and institutions including donors in the academic and social life of schools in their vicinity. (Heya)

Learners with unique needs, including those with learning disabilities, physical disabilities, the gifted, talented and creative, and those from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, were observed engaging in pedagogy in general education preschool classrooms. Class registers and social record books reviewed constituted learners from neighborhood communities of the general education preschools. Nevertheless, learners with total blindness and deafness and intellectual disabilities were not observed in any of the classrooms.

Benefits of Inclusion

Most participants (19) revealed that they witnessed the benefits of inclusivity for individual, organizational, and institutional stakeholders inclusive of learners with and without unique needs, countries, the government, their parents, communities, and the world in its entirety, as confirmed by the statements below.

Nungu, for instance, articulated that learners with unique needs are educated in mainstream general education institutions in their farm, urban, rural, semi-urban, and mine communities in line with national and international policies and legislation on inclusive education. Individuals, families, and communities accept and welcome diversity. Nungu elaborated,

Children with autism, blindness and deafness and the gifted, talented and creative, who used to be institutionalised, are now enjoying mainstream school and community life.

Shizha added,

Learners with and without unique needs and interests engage with each other in inclusive teaching and learning activities, sport and recreation activities and general school work. Such include pair work, group work, whole class work in academic activities, playing houses, modelling, watering flowers, cleaning classrooms and picking-up litter in the school yard and sport fields.

From a divergent perspective, Totika argued,

Since our country adopted inclusion, its expenditure on special education has massively dropped. It is financing fewer special schools and specialist teachers’ colleges and universities in comparison with the special education era. Most mainstream schools include pupils with unique needs while most teachers’ colleges and universities train teachers for inclusion. Similarly, parents no longer pay expensive boarding fees for their children as they are attending day schools within their close proximity.

Mujibha also articulated,

The government, parents of learners with and without developmental challenges, head-teachers, donors, teachers, communities and their leaders consult and partner with each other at international, national, district, school and community levels in pooling inclusive teaching and learning material, technological, financial and human resources including textbooks, furniture, sport and recreation equipment, and facilities. Inclusion nurtures social cohesion, solidarity and peace among stakeholders across societal levels despite their different political, social, cultural and religious affiliations.

Chacha further added,

Our government has established several teacher education institutions to train teachers to handle learner diversity and several teachers have trained in inclusion. Educators engineer economic development across nations as they are moulding future professionals.

From a different perspective, Kwayedza articulated that as a result of the strategic partnership with the Flemish Association for Development Cooperation and Technical Assistance, the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology is supporting teachers’ colleges and universities to produce preschool teachers who are competent in inclusion. Hende elaborated,

Developed countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States of America, have assisted our country with training of teachers and education administrators in inclusion. In order to exchange resources, including expertise, our country collaborates with several countries including Malawi, South Africa, Togo, Ghana and Tanzania in several projects on inclusion such as “Inclusion international” which advances the agenda for inclusion of persons with intellectual disabilities and their families.

Tsanga further argued that inclusion is rekindling Afrocentricity, particularly Ubuntu values such as human interdependence and communalism, and elaborated,

[inclusion] is restorative of selflessness among Africans that had been replaced by selfishness which manifested from cultural erosion due to capitalist ideology of colonialism.

Churu elaborated,

Consistent with international policy and legislation on inclusion, to which our country is a signatory, and its pro-inclusion policies and legislations, most pupils are educated in ordinary schools. They are being afforded their fundamental right to inclusion regardless of their individuality.

Learners with and without developmental delays were observed interacting with each other and their teachers in academic, sport, recreation, and general work activities of their general education preschools while meetings involving administrators, teachers, donors, and communities were observed taking place in some schools. Government gazettes revealed that since the adoption of inclusion in 1994, the number of teachers’ colleges and universities preparing and developing teachers for inclusion in the country had doubled while the expenditure of the country on special education has decreased. Classroom inventories revealed that most schools worked in collaboration and discourse with national and international donors, local business individuals and organizations, and local communities pooled inclusive teaching and learning materials and resources, including computers, braille machines, textbooks, and toys, as well as the building of classrooms and assisting with drilling boreholes.

Teachers’ Needs in Inclusion

All participants (24) reported professional development needs in inclusion despite their initial and in-service training in it, as highlighted in the following selected excerpts:

Equipped with the theory on inclusion from my initial and in-service teacher training, I only need teaching practice in an inclusive setting under mentorship of lecturers and teachers who are qualified and experienced in it. (Mwana)

Our primary school teachers’ diploma training infused theory on inclusion in only one of our courses, “Theory of Early Childhood Education.” I therefore need in-service training with stand-alone modules on inclusion and teaching practice in different inclusive settings with children with diverse unique needs with supervision from seasoned inclusive lecturers. (Tsanga)

I need a professional development course on inclusion which can expose me to both the theory and practice of inclusion. Such training should involve teaching practice in an inclusive setting with assistive technology including braille machines, typewriters, projectors and computers for children with disabilities. (Xharani)

Most teachers were observed ineffectively managing the misbehavior of learners including fighting, making a noise and refusing to carry out assigned formal and informal tasks. Some teachers were observed failing to use assistive technology, including computers, braille machines, and typewriters effectively, for instance, by taking too much time to unlock these machines. Schemes of work and lesson plans of teachers revealed their lack of breadth and depth in inclusion with respect to learner centered pedagogical strategies including task analysis and differentiation of instruction.

All participants (24) reported that they needed technological, human, material, and physical infrastructural resources in inclusion, as revealed in the subsequent selected statements:

I need appropriate technology for learners with special needs in my classroom. Such include tape recorders, walking supports, hearing aids, large-print textbooks, typewriters, computers, projectors, tape recorders, wheelchairs, mirrors and acoustic floors. I also need adequate toys, textbooks, chalkboards and games for typically developing children. (Nehumba)

Schools across the country require more teachers who are trained in inclusive education, specialist support personnel including occupational therapists, educational psychologists, social workers, teacher assistants and physiotherapists. Thus, more colleges and universities that train teachers in inclusive education and other specialist and assistant personnel need to be established. (Kwayedza)

Our school needs disability friendly physical infrastructure. We need spacious classrooms and toilets with ramps so that they are accessible to all children. Classroom furniture and playgrounds need to accommodate individual needs among learners. (Shizha)

The classrooms observed had inadequate computers, chairs, and desks, were not spacious and lacked ramps for easy mobility of learners who used wheelchairs. Learners’ support record books indicated that specialist staff, including educational psychologists, occupational therapists, and physiotherapists, provided services erratically to deserving learners because their schedules revealed that they served several schools.

Strategies to Address Teachers’ Needs

Most participants (20) reported several individual and system oriented strategies to address teachers’ needs in inclusion, as illustrated in the following selected statements:

Teacher’s colleges and universities need to blend theory and practice of inclusion in their pre-service and in-service teacher training programmes, seminars and workshops. Instructors with experience and higher qualifications in teacher education for inclusion should deliver instruction to pre-service and in-service teachers. Pre-service and in-service teacher training should constitute 50 percent theory of inclusion and 50 percent practice of inclusion in order to bridge the theory-practice gap. (Mujibha)

Infusion of theory on inclusion across course components of the primary school teachers’ diploma including professional studies, theory of education, curriculum depth study and main subjects and serving of teacher trainees in inclusive settings during teaching practice under qualified and experienced teachers’ mentorship can develop their competence in practising the philosophy. (Dzugu)

Only teacher educators with at least a master’s degree in inclusive education and experience in its practice should be required to instruct pre-service teachers in primary school teachers’ colleges at diploma level while only teacher educators with doctorate degrees and experience in inclusive education should be required to instruct under-graduate and post-graduate pre-service and in-service teachers in universities at degree level. Teachers’ colleges and universities should institutionalise continuous, in-service training courses, seminars and workshops for teacher educators constituting both the theory and practice of inclusion. (Chii)

Colleges and universities’ hosting of national, provincial, regional, district and community consultative forums and seminars with stakeholders, including teachers, parents, policy makers, children, donors and communities, for needs assessment can facilitate the designing of a teacher education curriculum that addresses teachers’ needs in inclusive practices. (Chako)

Undergraduate and post-graduate teacher education curricula need to constitute both inclusive and specialised training in diverse disability categories, including autism, deafness, behavioural and emotional disorders and speech and communication disorders, to develop in teachers expertise to deliver specialised teaching and learning in the context of mainstream pedagogical settings. (Zvedu)

All stakeholders, including teacher training colleges and universities, the Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, the government, provinces, districts, schools, teachers, school administrators, children, parents and communities, require to work in consultation and partnership with each other in order to share and pool material, human, technological and financial resources for inclusion. These include specialists such as therapists, assistive technology, inclusive classroom materials and resources, child-friendly playing grounds and classrooms. (Gano)

Most teachers were observed struggling with service delivery to learners with unique needs. This included failing to contain the behavior of children with autism, the use of sign language for learners who exhibited residual hearing, and reading braille for children who were partially blind. Teachers’ evaluations of lesson plans revealed their incompetence in the theory and practice of inclusion as they did not present reflective formative and summative evaluation constituting the strengths and shortcomings in delivery of lessons as well as strategic ways forward for betterment of practice with respect to inclusive education.

Discussion

As the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education (UNESCO, 1994) reaffirmed its commitment to inclusion and endorsed its global practice, it has become a model pedagogical service delivery option of inspiration, passion, and contention the world over (Allday et al., 2013; Appl & Spenciner, 2008; Sze, 2009). Consequently, significant numbers of children with disabilities are served in regular education classrooms in many countries (Frankel et al., 2010; Hu et al., 2017; Kim & Rouse, 2011; Pantić & Florian, 2015), including Zimbabwe (Chireshe, 2013; Majoko, 2005; Mandina, 2012). To realize successful and effective inclusion, teacher education needs to be research evidence based (Arthaud, Aram, Breck, Doelling, & Bushrow, 2007; Florian & Spratt, 2013; Hattie, 2009; Kim & Rouse, 2011; Oliver & Reschly, 2010). Thus, entrenched in the core expertise of inclusive pedagogical philosophy, the current study interrogated teachers’ needs in inclusion in regular education preschools in Zimbabwe.

Consistent with the entrenchment of the core expertise of inclusive pedagogical philosophy in information and knowledge of teachers regarding the social-cultural contexts of the schools in which they serve so as to comprehend the impact of families and other systems on academic achievement (Berry, 2010; Flecha & Soler, 2013; Hattie, 2009; Pantić & Florian, 2015), teachers conceptualized inclusion as a pedagogical philosophy that is entrenched in Afrocentricity and Eurocentricity. Consistent evidence demonstrates that comprehension of teachers of the influence of social forces on inclusion/exclusion in general education is integral to their promotion of inclusive practices (EADSNE, 2011; Hattie, 2009; Hornby, 2010). Teachers felt that inclusion is grounded in promotion, respect, and celebration of human diversity and dignity. Consistent evidence indicates that inclusion has a social justice and human rights agenda that is premised on quality, equity, and equality in education and the imperative to optimize academic achievement and outcomes for all children (Ballard, 2012; Forlin, 2010; Zeichner, 2009). Teachers conceptualized inclusion as a pedagogical philosophy that meets the individuality of children in their neighborhood general education preschool classrooms through the institutionalization of teaching and learning content, process, product, and environment that are responsive to their uniqueness. Similarly, previous research demonstrates that inclusion is a process which entails transformation of general education classrooms to support all learners in response to their educational and personal potential. It entails the elimination of communication, curriculum, socialization, assessment, and environmental barriers to teaching and learning (Florian, 2012; Friend & Bursuck, 2012; Kisanji & Saanane, 2009; Rouse, 2008). The core expertise of inclusive pedagogy, similarly, requires the gaze of teachers to shift from “most” and “some” learners to “everybody” (Flecha & Soler, 2013; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011).

Teachers felt that inclusion responds to learner diversity which can manifest from a diversity of factors including ability, disability, culture, race, social-economic status, religion, language, and nationality. Similarly, past research reveals that inclusion embodies all learners including those who are at risk of exclusion and marginalization in education and their peers with disabilities (Ballard, 2012; Dyson & Gallannaugh, 2007; Kim & Rouse, 2011; Pantic & Florian, 2015). In the same vein, the core expertise of inclusive pedagogy is embedded in the learning of all learners in regular school community rather than just those with “additional needs” (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Pantić & Florian, 2015). Teachers perceived that inclusion is entrenched in an Afrocentric and Eurocentric political, social, cultural, and religious life of upholding equality and equity in access, participation, and success of all individuals in every sphere of human existence despite their individual differences and circumstances. Similarly, the core expertise of inclusive pedagogy requires educators to provide learning opportunities that enable all learners to participate in general education classroom life (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011).

In alignment with past research which views inclusion as social, academic, cultural, and emotional integration of all stakeholders in general education schools in their neighborhood communities (Agbenyega, 2007; Ballard, 2012; Idol, 2006), participation of stakeholders, including learners, parents, communities, governments, and nongovernmental organizations, in the academic and social domains of their neighborhood general education schools informed teachers’ conceptualization of inclusion. The core expertise of inclusive pedagogy, similarly, expects schools to collaborate with other stakeholders who are respectful of the dignity of learners as full members of regular classrooms (Donnelly & Watkins, 2011; EADSNE, 2011; Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). Despite teachers’ conceptualization of inclusion, they were inarticulate about it being a complex philosophy and process which is entrenched in competing discourses and open to multiple interpretations and understandings because of conceptual complications in defining it inclusive of evidence of its practice (Ainscow, 2005; Dyson & Gallannaugh, 2007; Florian & Spratt, 2013).

Teachers exhibited positive attitudes and commitment to inclusion despite their ill-preparation in its theory and practice. Similarly, past studies established that teachers support inclusion in general education preschools despite their inadequate preparation and development for it (Appl & Spenciner, 2008; Brown et al., 2008; Crane-Mitchel & Hedge, 2007; Frankel et al., 2010; Hu, 2010; Odom et al., 2011). Inclusivity benefited governments, learners, parents, communities, and countries. Consistent evidence indicates that inclusion benefits individual, organizational, and institutional stakeholders socially, academically, politically, and economically (Ainscow, 2005; Appl & Spenciner, 2008; Frankel et al., 2010; Kisanji & Saanane, 2009). Learners with diverse unique needs including autism, giftedness, and talentedness were educated in general education preschool classrooms in their respective farm, rural, semi-urban, and mine communities. Similarly, previous studies shows that inclusion entails access, participation, acceptance, and achievement of children in the neighborhood general education classrooms they would attend if not diagnosed with special needs (Chakuchichi, 2013; Majoko, 2013; Voss & Bufkin, 2011). In alignment with past research which reveals that inclusion combats societal discriminatory attitudes toward people with disabilities (UNESCO, 1994), teachers perceived that inclusion fostered in individuals, families, and communities the acceptance of individual differences. The core expertise of inclusive pedagogy, similarly, rejects a deterministic belief about ability and the premise that the inclusion of learners with disabilities in general education classrooms will interfere with the progress of their typically developing peers (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). In the same vein, past research shows that inclusion focuses teaching and learning on what learners can do instead of what they cannot do (Kisanji & Saanane, 2009). In spite of the inclusion of learners with disabilities in general education preschool classrooms and conceptualization of the philosophy of teachers, they exhibited ill-preparation for it including failure to manage the misbehavior of learners, ineffective use of assistive gadgetry and preparation of schemes of work and lesson plans. Consistent evidence reveals that teachers lack adequate theory and practice of inclusion (Chhabra et al., 2010; Florian & Rouse, 2009).

Inclusion fostered social cohesion among learners with and without disabilities as they engaged with each other in academic, sport and recreation, and general school work. Consistent evidence shows that inclusion is beneficial to both children with and without exceptionalities in academic and social domains (Deluca et al., 2013; Hu et al., 2017; Odom et al., 2011; Rafferty & Griffin, 2005). In alignment with past research which demonstrates that inclusion is cost-effective (UNESCO, 1994), Zimbabwe spends less on education as it shifted in paradigm from exclusion to inclusion in education as it finances fewer special schools and specialist teachers’ colleges and universities. This is because general education schools include most learners with disabilities whereas teachers’ colleges and universities prepare and develop most teachers for inclusion. Parents were also exempted from paying boarding fees for their children with unique needs as these children were included in their neighborhood general education schools. Consistent evidence shows that inclusion is cost-effective (Hornby, 2010; Hu & Szente, 2010).

Parents of learners with and without disabilities, administrators, teachers, donors, and communities consulted and partnered at international, national, district, school, and community levels to pool materials, time, technology, finance, and personnel for inclusion. Consistent evidence shows that in inclusion, stakeholders need to collaborate to eliminate cultural and structural barriers to quality teaching and learning for all learners in regular education classrooms (Donnelly & Watkins, 2011). The core expertise of inclusive pedagogy, similarly, requires institutionalization of collaborative structures and cultures in schools to pool additional expertise and support to facilitate education for all (Pantić & Florian, 2015). Consistent with past research which demonstrates that inclusion facilitates the establishment and reinforcement of inclusive communities (Arthaud et al., 2007; Baker-Ericzen et al., 2009; Chireshe, 2013), the philosophy fostered social cohesion, solidarity, and peace among stakeholders of different political, social, cultural, and religious affiliations across levels of society.

Colleges and universities were established in Zimbabwe for preservice and in-service training of teachers in inclusion. Previous research, similarly, reveals that preparation and development of teachers in inclusion is integral in equipping them with the knowledge, information, and dispositions to meet the needs of all learners in general education preschools (Crane-Mitchel & Hedge, 2007; Hornby, 2010; Hu & Szente, 2010; Killoran et al., 2007). In the same vein, consistent evidence demonstrates that the individual capacity building of teachers is the most important in-school variable influencing participation and success of all learners in inclusive pedagogical settings (Hattie, 2009). In alignment with previous studies, which show that inclusion propels economic growth in countries as it facilitates tapping of the unique potentialities of all citizens (Chakuchichi, 2013; Majoko, 2005; Mandina, 2012), teachers felt that the establishment of colleges and universities in Zimbabwe facilitated national economic development as they perceived that teachers who were trained in inclusion delivered quality services which ultimately contributed to the preparation of future professionals who would contribute to the national fiscal.

International organizations, including the Flemish Association for Development Cooperation and Technical Assistance, collaborate with the Zimbabwe Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology to support teachers’ colleges and universities strategically in teacher preparation and development for inclusion. Consistent evidence demonstrates that the developed world has an international mandate to support the developing world (UNESCO, 1994). Zimbabwe collaborates with several countries, including Malawi, South Africa, Togo, Ghana, and Tanzania, in several projects on inclusion including “Inclusion international” which lobbies for including persons with intellectual disabilities and their families to exchange resources. Consistent evidence demonstrates that international cooperation is foundational in the successful and effective practice of inclusion across countries (EADSNE, 2011; Friend & Bursuck, 2012).

Consistent with previous studies which reveal that Ubuntu values, including respect for human dignity and caring for each other, are in alignment with the entrenchment of inclusive education in human rights and social justice (Majoko, 2005), participants felt that inclusion rekindled Ubuntu values, including human interdependence and communalism, which they believed were displaced by capitalist ideology due to cultural erosion emanating from colonialism. Learners were served in general education preschool classrooms in their neighborhood communities regardless of their individual differences and circumstances. Consistent evidence reveals that inclusion entails quality and teaching learning for all children in their neighborhood regular schools regardless of their unique needs (Bruns & Mogharberran, 2009; Donohue & Bornman, 2015; Mosia, 2014).

Participants lacked effective classroom management strategies including the use of positive and negative reinforcement. Participants lacked pedagogical strategies and techniques, including task analysis and scaffolding, to provide effective pedagogy to learners who experienced learning difficulties. Previous studies, similarly, show that teachers acquire competence in inclusion through trial and error when learners with disabilities are placed in their classrooms (Forbes, 2007; Idol, 2006; Mandina, 2012). In alignment with past research, which established that teachers are incompetent to meet the needs of children with disabilities (Majoko, 2016b; Pantić & Wubbels, 2010; Rouse, 2008), teachers had inadequate theory on inclusion including strategic sitting arrangements of learners with learning disabilities to avoid their distraction by the flow of traffic in the classrooms.

Teachers were unable to use assistive technology effectively including braille machines typewriters, projectors and computers. Similarly, previous research revealed that teachers require preparation in the use of augmentative technology (Bruns & Mogharberran, 2009). In alignment with past research, which demonstrates that teachers require additional tools and materials for successful and effective inclusive classes (Allday et al., 2013; Clunies-Ross et al., 2008; Donnelly & Watkins, 2011; Dyson & Gallannaugh, 2007), teachers lacked appropriate technology including tape recorders, walking supports, hearing aids, large-print textbooks, typewriters, computers, projectors, tape recorders, wheelchairs, mirrors, and acoustic floors for learners with disabilities. Teachers had inadequate toys, textbooks, chalkboards, and games for learners without developmental delays. This finding is inconsistent with the core expertise of inclusive pedagogy, which is embedded in creation of classroom environment in which all learners participate regardless of their individual differences (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). Consistent with past research, which found that educators needed specialized assistance because they resolved challenges presented by learners with disabilities on their own and, at times, with the help of parents who lack specialized knowledge (Majoko, 2013), general education preschool classrooms lacked adequate personnel including occupational therapists, educational psychologists, social workers, teacher assistants, and physiotherapists. General education preschools lacked disability-friendly physical infrastructure including playgrounds, spacious classrooms, and bathrooms with ramps, as well as classroom furniture to accommodate the individuality of learners. Consistent evidence reveals that schools lack resources for the successful and effective practice of inclusion (Ballard, 2012; Blanton et al., 2011).

Teachers perceived that the blending of inclusion theory and practice of colleges and universities in initial and continuous professional development programs, seminars, and workshops would prepare teachers for inclusion. Consistent evidence shows that teachers require professional development opportunities to acquire more knowledge and in-classroom experience (Allday et al., 2012; Crane-Mitchel & Hedge, 2007; Voss & Bufkin, 2011). Teachers believed that preservice and in-service training of teachers by instructors who are experienced and qualified in inclusion would prepare teachers for the philosophy. Similarly, past research shows that teachers’ training and knowledge are among the key indicators of the quality of inclusion (Edwards, 2010; Florian, 2012; Pantić & Wubbels, 2010; Rouse, 2008). Teachers felt that balancing between theory and practice of inclusion to bridge the theory–practice gap during initial and continuous professional development of teachers would prepare them for it. Consistent evidence shows that teachers’ most fundamental needs in inclusion include learning to adapt pedagogy and engaging learners with unique needs in daily activities (Hu et al., 2017; Mpofu & Shumba, 2012; Mukhopadhyay & Moswela, 2010).

Teachers believed that the infusion of theory of inclusion in all courses of the primary school teachers’ diploma, including professional studies, theory of education, curriculum depth study, and main subjects would prepare teachers for inclusion. Similarly, previous studies indicate that as teacher training equips teachers with general information, teachers require preparation in the designing of individualized educational programs, behavioral and communication strategies, adaptation of instruction, and appropriate transportation/positioning for learners with motor disabilities (Bruns & Mogharberran, 2009). Teachers perceived that teaching practice of preservice teachers in inclusive settings underqualified and experienced teachers’ mentorship would prepare them for inclusion. Consistent evidence demonstrates that teachers need appropriate on-the-job training (Agbenyega, 2007; Ballard, 2012; Blanton et al., 2011; Flecha & Soler, 2013).

Teachers believed that adequate professional preparation and development of teachers for inclusion could be facilitated through limiting the appointment of lecturers who train teachers at diploma level in primary school teachers’ colleges to individuals with at least a master’s qualification and experience in inclusion as well as limiting the appointment of lecturers who train teachers at degree levels in universities to individuals with doctoral degrees and experience in inclusive education. Similarly, past research established that the quality of teacher educators influences the quality of preparation and development of teachers for inclusion (Musengi & Chireshe, 2012; Naicker, 2009; Pantić & Florian, 2015). In alignment with past research, which established that teachers need diverse types of training programs to respond to the individual needs of learners in inclusive settings (Hundert, 2007; Yang & Rusli, 2012), teachers felt that the institutionalization of continuous in-service training courses, seminars, and workshops for teacher educators constituting practice and theory of inclusion would facilitate preparation of teachers for inclusion.

Consistent with previous research which reveals that teachers need relevant training and knowledge to meet their needs in inclusive classrooms (Oliver & Reschly, 2010; Sharma et al., 2009; Sze, 2009), teachers perceived that needs assessment in inclusion would facilitate the development of teacher education curricula that would be responsive to their needs. Teachers felt that such needs assessment would entail teachers’ colleges and universities launching national, provincial, regional, district, and community consultative forums and seminars with stakeholders including teachers, parents, policy makers, children, donors, and communities. Teachers felt that the embodiment of inclusive training and specialized training in different categories of disabilities including autism, deafness, behavioral and emotional disorders, and speech and communication disorders in both undergraduate and postgraduate teacher education curricula would prepare and develop teachers for inclusion. Teachers believed that such training would equip them with specialized pedagogy to meet learner diversity in general education preschool classrooms. Consistent evidence reveals that in initial and continuous training, teachers need preparation in positive attitudes, skills, knowledge, and understandings in inclusive pedagogy (Blanton et al., 2011; Majoko, 2017b; Voss & Bufkin, 2011; Zeichner, 2009).

Teachers perceived that consultation and partnership of the government, provinces, districts, schools, school administrators, teachers, learners, parents, communities, teacher education institutions and Ministries of Higher and Tertiary Education, Science and Technology Development and Primary and Secondary Education would pool and share the requisite resources for inclusion including therapists, assistive technology, inclusive classrooms, playing grounds, and inclusive classroom materials and resources. Consistent evidence reveals that collaboration of professionals, paraprofessionals, nonprofessionals and parents across and within families, communities, schools, departments, and systems is integral in pooling resources including expertise and material resources for the removal of intersecting barriers to inclusion (Agbenyega, 2007; Allday et al., 2012; Arthaud et al., 2007). Similarly, the core expertise of inclusive pedagogical philosophy is embedded in consultation and partnership of diverse stakeholders and the competence of different specialists to synchronize their actions and purposes with those of others in working relationships that are characterized by synergy and syllogism of diverse kinds of expertise in the advancement of inclusion (Ballard, 2012; Blanton, 2011 Edward, 2010). Community of practice, thus, can be integral in facilitating the requisition of resources for successful inclusion in general education preschool classrooms.

Research Limitations and Future Research

As teachers were purposively drawn from one educational province in Zimbabwe while inclusion is practiced across provinces, a sample of teachers which is representative of all the provinces is needed for an investigation about their needs in inclusion in general education preschools to aid the transferability of the findings. The transferability of the findings of the current study to other Zimbabwean provinces is, consequently, not known. Teachers who participated in the present study were volunteers whose option of participation may have been due to their negative and positive experiences in inclusion which may have influenced their expressions and behavior during interviews and nonparticipant observation.

This study did not interrogate the needs of other stakeholders inclusive of learners with and without exceptionalities and their guardians/parents, special teachers, and school administrators. Consequently, it cannot be established if their needs are consistent with those of general education preschool educators. Future studies could interrogate the needs of these stakeholders for a comprehensive understanding of needs that influence successful and effective inclusion in general education preschool classrooms. As teachers revealed their ill-preparation in the practice and theory of inclusion, future studies could investigate effective models for preservice and in-service training of teachers for the philosophy.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on Eurocentricity and Afrocentricity, teachers exhibited conceptualization and welcomed inclusion although they were ill-preparation in its theory and practice. Teachers’ colleges and universities can enhance teachers’ conceptualization and positive dispositions toward inclusion and its successful and effective practice. The failure of teacher education institutions to provide comprehensive teacher professional development for inclusion can, nevertheless, interfere with teachers’ conceptualization and positive dispositions toward it. Embedded in the accrued benefits of inclusion for stakeholders, including the government and individuals with and without special needs, institutionalization of structures and cultures of collaboration among these stakeholders is imperative for its successful and effective practice for the realization of social justice and human rights in education for human advancement. As teachers had inadequate inclusion theory and practice, their training needs to constitute comprehensive theory and practice to equip them for its successful and effective practice. Entrenched in teachers’ need for both practice and theory of inclusion, colleges and universities should institutionalize programs that strike a deft balance between these components. Such teacher training can include modules on inclusion and practice of teaching in inclusive classrooms underexperienced and qualified mentors’ tutelage.

Premised on the perceived entrenchment of inclusion in Eurocentricity and Afrocentricity, the infusion of Western and African political, social, cultural, and religious issues in preservice and in-service preparation of teachers for it is imperative. The infusion of human rights and social justice, disability, social, cultural, and religious issues in general education preschool curricula can develop in learners a realization, celebration, and accommodation of human diversity. Based on inadequate teaching and learning resources for inclusion, the collaboration of individual, institutional, and organizational stakeholders can facilitate the requisition of such resources for its practice. Investment in capacity building of institutions and individuals in inclusion, including constructing spacious, general education preschool classrooms that are friendly to children with disabilities and specialist staff training, including educational psychologists, occupational therapists, and physiotherapists, can support successful and effective inclusion in general education preschools. Informing teachers on available policy and legislative framework, financial, material, technological, and time resources for inclusion can result in its successful and effective practice.

This study is a springboard for studies on the needs of teachers in the inclusion of learners with disabilities in general education preschool classrooms. Future studies on teacher needs in inclusion in general education preschool classrooms could interrogate and establish best practices for implementation of enhanced service delivery. Assessment of teachers’ needs with respect to the practice of specific models of inclusion in general education preschool classrooms is needed for development and institutionalization of teacher education for inclusion which is entrenched in teachers’ needs for its successful and effective practice. Future studies could, similarly, investigate teachers’ needs with respect to the practice of specific models of inclusion to establish and delineate their specific requirements for addressing their preparation and development. As this study utilized interviews, nonparticipant observation and analysis of documents to solicit data, future studies could use questionnaires and participant observation.