Kluge Jacquelin, Korman Benjamin A, Schledjewski Janine, Grosche Michael
University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany.
Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories, Bamberg, Germany.
Front Psychol. 2025 Jun 17;16:1535727. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1535727. eCollection 2025.
Collaboration between general and special education teachers is important for the successful implementation of inclusive education. In this article, we discuss three forms of collaboration, with a particular focus on co-constructive collaboration as the most intensive and promising form for implementing inclusive education. Based on the theoretical framework of co-constructive collaboration, we validate two short questionnaires-in German as well as in English-for measuring co-constructive collaboration between general and special education teachers.
Across six studies involving a total of 2.332 general and special education teachers, we conducted both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, examined convergent validity, and investigated whether the measurement model of our scales is invariant between (1) general and special education teachers, (2) primary and secondary school teachers, and (3) German- and English-speaking teachers.
The results reveal two reliable instruments: (1) one that assesses a comprehensive view of co-constructive collaboration, encompassing requirements, co-constructive activities, and outcomes, and (2) one that specifically measures teachers' commitment to collaboration and iterative revision as a distinct co-constructive activity. The subscales largely correlate with related constructs, such as attitudes towards inclusion, confirming convergent validity. While measurement invariance is established for general and special education teachers, the results for the comparison between primary and secondary school teachers as well as between German- and English-speaking teachers are, with the exception of the latter group in the first instrument, less satisfactory. However, the respective factor structures of the individual groups are satisfactory.
The findings demonstrate the reliability and validity of the newly developed instruments for measuring core-aspects of co-constructive collaboration between general and special education teachers in German- and English-speaking inclusive schools, supporting cross-cultural research in inclusive education. Study limitations, such as the partial lack of measurement invariance, are also discussed.
普通教育教师与特殊教育教师之间的合作对于全纳教育的成功实施至关重要。在本文中，我们讨论了三种合作形式，特别关注共同建构性合作，因为它是实施全纳教育最深入且最具前景的形式。基于共同建构性合作的理论框架，我们验证了两份简短问卷（德语和英语），用于测量普通教育教师与特殊教育教师之间的共同建构性合作。
在六项涉及总共2332名普通教育教师和特殊教育教师的研究中，我们进行了探索性和验证性因素分析，检验了收敛效度，并调查了我们量表的测量模型在以下三组之间是否具有不变性：（1）普通教育教师和特殊教育教师；（2）小学教师和中学教师；（3）说德语的教师和说英语的教师。
结果显示有两种可靠的工具：（1）一种评估共同建构性合作的全面视图，包括要求、共同建构性活动和结果；（2）一种专门测量教师对合作和迭代修订的承诺，将其作为一种独特的共同建构性活动。各子量表在很大程度上与相关构念相关，如对全纳的态度，证实了收敛效度。虽然普通教育教师和特殊教育教师之间建立了测量不变性，但小学教师和中学教师之间以及说德语的教师和说英语的教师之间的比较结果，除了第一种工具中的后一组外，不太令人满意。然而，各个组的各自因素结构是令人满意的。
研究结果证明了新开发的工具在测量德语和英语全纳学校中普通教育教师与特殊教育教师之间共同建构性合作核心方面的可靠性和有效性，支持了全纳教育中的跨文化研究。还讨论了研究的局限性，如部分缺乏测量不变性。
