Culturally Responsive Teaching Efficacy in Inclusive Education at Taiwanese Preschools

This study aimed to understand the process of implementing culturally responsive teaching (CRT) practices in inclusive settings for young children with disabilities. Two preschools and 24 teachers participated in this study. Data included interviews, field notes, professional consultation meeting notes, observation documents, and self-evaluation questionnaire responses. In the first phase, interview data were collected to understand how the teachers perceived their CRT efficacy. We next applied an action research method in the second phase, where the teachers received professional support in designing the CRT curriculum and instruction. Four themes emerged from the process, namely, curriculum and instruction, classroom management, support system, and cultural sensitivity. The findings suggest that professional support and collective teaching efficacy are key factors for the implementation of CRT practices in inclusive settings. Other implications are also discussed.

Keywords: Culturally responsive teaching; inclusion; preschools; Taiwan; teaching efficacy

Teaching efficacy (TE)[1] can affect how effectively inclusive education is promoted (Peng & Chang, [36]; You, Kim, & Shin, [51]). Besides, teachers can support maximum learning through culturally responsive teaching (CRT) for students with disabilities from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds in inclusive settings (Ford, Stuard, & Vakil, [17]). When examining high-quality inclusive education programmes for young children with disabilities, teachers with high TE may recognise the relevance of practising CRT (Chu, [9]; Ford et al., [17]). This involves including teaching activities and materials, evaluation, and a school environment that considers students' needs and cultural traits (García & Ortiz, [18]; Geerlings, Thijs, & Verkuyten, [20]; Sharma & George, [38]). In Taiwan, laws and policies have recognised the value of inclusive education, resulting in rapid implementation of inclusive education with approximately 90% of the young children with disabilities placed at inclusive preschool settings (Liao & Wu, [31]). Besides, an increasing population of CLD children with disabilities is being placed in inclusive classrooms (Chen & Chu, [4]; Sobel & Taylor, [40]). Therefore, a pressing concern is applying CRT practices and promoting supportive inclusive environments for children from CLD backgrounds (Brown, Dennis, & Matute-Chavarria, [3]; Tseng, [45]).

Inclusive preschool teachers frequently face the challenge of working with children from diverse backgrounds (Samuels, [37]), as also happens in Taiwan's education contexts. Taiwanese preschool teachers often must serve children from CLD backgrounds, including aboriginal[2] and new immigrant children. However, teachers may encounter difficulties in providing culturally sensitive services to meet children and families' needs (Chou, [7]; Kuo Li, [28]). To address this challenge, CRT has been suggested as a best practice in response to sociocultural and linguistic mismatches between students' home and school cultures (Gay, [19]; Ladson-Billings, [29]; Siwatu, [39]; Villegas & Lucas, [49]). Evidence-based research also suggests that practices should be culturally responsive to increase the likelihood that children with disabilities are engaged in instruction (Green & Stormont, [24]). Furthermore, teachers should have CRT professional competence, knowledge, and skills to meet the needs of children with disabilities in inclusive education (Chu & Garcia, [11]; Durden, Escalante, & Blitch, [15]; Farooq & Bukhari, [16]; Geerlings et al., [20]).

In inclusive classrooms, preschool teachers, special education teachers, and related professionals must work together and share responsibilities in teaching children with disabilities. From this perspective, the school climate (e.g., shared responsibilities) may effectively promote TE in inclusive education (Chu & Garcia, [11]; Donohoo, Hattie, & Eells, [13]). Thus, collective TE (CTE) is rooted in the concept of teaching self-efficacy (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, [23]). Both teaching self-efficacy and CTE affect goal setting, teacher commitment, and dedication to student learning (Gibbs & Powell, [21]). Goddard ([22]) and Goddard et al. ([23]) have reported that students' learning gains were significantly increased when teachers assumed collective responsibility for students' academic success as well as student failure. Teachers who have high CTE seek means of innovation and assist students in a variety of ways to increase student achievement (Goddard et al., [23]; Urton, Wilbert, & Hennemann, [47]; Viel-Ruma, Houchins, Jolivette, & Benson, [48]).

However, CTE in relation to CRT has received little attention (Chu & Garcia, [10]); moreover, relevant detailed Taiwanese studies that focus specifically on the experiences of preschool teachers teaching children with disabilities in inclusive settings are lacking. Besides, current CRT research in special education is mainly focused on issues related to working with families, behavioural management, and transition services (Brown et al., [3]; Green & Stormont, [24]). This study instead sought to understand how teachers practice CRT to exert a positive influence on children's learning in inclusive classrooms. Given the continuing patterns of inadequate service for children with disabilities from CLD backgrounds in inclusive settings (Chen & Chu, [4]), the current study has focussed on investigating how in-service teachers perceive their CRT classroom teaching practices in inclusive preschool settings. To meet this goal, action research (Niew, [33]) was conducted to solve practical problems that participating teachers encountered in their inclusive classrooms. During the action steps, the researcher assumed the role of the implementer to ensure the action plan served the purpose of this study by directly supervising the process (Tuncel, [46]).

Recognising the relevance of TE on the success of inclusive education in the literature on international contexts (Sharma & George, [38]; Song, [41]), teachers reported low levels of self-efficacy when pursuing inclusive education (You et al., [51]). In Taiwan, most TE research has focussed on elementary, middle, and high school teachers, and studies on TE of inclusive preschool teachers are lacking (Yeh & Chu, [50]). Preschool teachers have different levels of TE, and the factors that affect their TE include personal psychological characteristics, supervision, teaching tasks, and professional growth (Peng & Chang, [36]). Goddard et al. ([23]) extended TE concepts to the organisational level, which is CTE. CTE research focuses on student achievement (Chong, Klassen, Huan, Wong, & Kates, [6]), professional learning communities (Ting, [43]), job satisfaction and motivation (Klassen, Usher, & Bong, [27]), and the relationship between TE and CTE (Viel-Ruma et al., [48]).

Few studies have focussed on inclusive preschool CTE, with only one study in Taiwan (Chen & Chu, [4]) being on the relationship between preschool teachers' TE and CTE. Chen and Chu ([4]) reported that specific factors, such as school district, collaboration experiences, and quality of professional training, may influence teachers' perspectives on CTE. To improve the understanding of the current trend of inclusive education practices in Taiwan, a follow-up study investigating how contextual factors (e.g., support system and types of collaboration) might influence the CTE practices of inclusive preschool teachers is warranted. Although preschool teachers might have assimilated knowledge of inclusive CTE, a better understanding of how teachers practice CTE to serve CLD children in inclusive settings is needed. Therefore, action research was applied. This approach was selected because it emphasises solving problems immediately and follows a cyclical process of consistently reviewing, revising, and creating (Creswell, [12]; Hendrics, [25]; Niew, [33]).

CRT recognises the centrality of using students' prior knowledge, experiences, and personal stories to enhance teaching and learning (McKoy, MacLeod, Walter, & Nolker, [32]). Furthermore, the central components of CRT require teachers who can (a) incorporate students' cultural orientations to design culturally compatible classroom environments, (b) provide students with multiple opportunities to demonstrate what they have learned using various assessment techniques, and (c) provide students with the knowledge and skills required to function in mainstream culture while simultaneously helping students maintain their cultural identity, native language, and connection to their culture (Gay, [19]; Ladson-Billings, [29]; Villegas & Lucas, [49]). Exploring these concepts, studies related to how teachers practice CRT have focussed on a group of Latino English language learners with disabilities (e.g., Orosco & O'Connor, [34]) and African American students with disabilities (e.g., Howard, [26]). The focus of these studies emphasised how teachers practising CRT may have enhanced learning and increased student achievement. Besides, studies related to CRT practices for students with disabilities have referred to evidence-based behaviour intervention (e.g., Bal, Schrader, Afacan, & Mawene, [1]; Green & Stormont, [24]). However, relatively few studies have focussed on a group of students in Asia with disabilities, let alone a group in Taiwan. The current study extended the CRT model for in-service teachers, proposed by Chu and Garcia ([11]), by developing a questionnaire based on four domains – namely curriculum and instruction, classroom management, student evaluation, and cultural enrichment – in the model to examine how preschool teachers implement CRT practices, and an action approach was selected to examine classroom practices.

Although measures evaluating teacher efficacy have evolved over the past 30 years, no studies in Taiwan have focussed on in-service preschool teachers' CRT efficacy beliefs regarding teaching young children with disabilities in inclusive settings. Most CRT research (e.g., Pan, [35]) has focussed on implementing multicultural curricula for school-age students and promoting multicultural awareness and professional competency. In the few studies focused on preschool children, the topic concerned delivering a localised curriculum (e.g., Cheuh, [5]). These Taiwanese CRT studies (e.g., Li & Fan, [30]; Pan, [35]) were conducted in regular classrooms and focused on typically developing school-aged students. Using the concepts of the CRT approach, this study fills a research gap and seeks an additional understanding of how CRT may be implemented in inclusive settings.

The protocol (Case No. 104–253) was approved by National Cheng Kung University Governance Framework for Human Research Ethics in Taiwan. An explanation of the study was given to the participants, emphasising that participation was voluntary and that refusing to participate would not affect any of their rights. Confidentiality was assured, and no identifying information was made available to others.

The two preschools selected had the largest enrolment of young children from CLD[3] backgrounds, including aboriginal background and new immigrant background (with parents from countries other than Taiwan). Some had families in hardship, had low income, had a single parent, or were being reared by a grandparent. Both schools served 10 children with disabilities, and every class had at least one child from a CLD background – a background which can create challenges to their engagement and achievement. After both participating schools granted permission to conduct this study at their preschools, preschool directors (denoted as TA1 and TB1) were sent permission forms to be distributed among participating teachers. Each preschool had four classes and a total of 120 students. A total of 24 teachers participated, with 12 teachers participating from each school (Preschool A: TA1–TA12; Preschool B: TB1–TB12). The average teaching load of children with disabilities was 6%–7%. Demographic information for the participants is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic information of participating teachers and children

Data collection was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, both quantitative and qualitative data were collected regarding their CRT practices in the inclusive preschools. These data were used for the professional consultation meetings of the next phase. Based on these data, the researcher discussed with participating teachers how their curriculum and instruction could be modified. An action research method (Creswell, [12]; Hendrics, [25]; Niew, [33]) was applied in the second phase: the researcher collected data regarding how the teachers practised CRT with professional consultation support. Figure 1 depicts the research steps. The researcher was involved in teachers' practices at different levels and set various goals during the action process. The researcher's involvement included collaboration (first step), modelling (second step), recording (third step), and problem discussion (fourth step). By following this four-step cycle, the researcher entered the field and examined the participating teachers' practices reflecting the four domains of CRT concepts proposed by Chu and Garcia ([11]). The researcher observed the teachers' practices once to twice per week and held professional consultation meetings once per month for further discussion of the teachers' lesson plans. While analysing multiple sources of data, the researcher guided the participating teachers in modifying their curricula and instruction.

Graph: Figure 1. Research process.

In the first phase, all participating teachers were interviewed to understand their attitudes towards and experiences with children with disabilities from CLD backgrounds. Based on the four domains of CRT concepts adapted from Chu ([8]), the questions addressed three areas: (a) teachers' role and responsibilities in inclusive settings, (b) young children with disabilities as targets, and (c) embedded CRT concepts in TE.

This questionnaire included four sections (background information, CTE, CRT self-efficacy, and outcome expectancy) adapted from the Chu and Garcia's CRT model: The CTE section contains 11 items, rated on a 5-point Likert scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree); the Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale (CRTSE) section includes 20 items, rated on a 5-point Likert-type of 1 (Definitely No) to 5 (Definitely Yes); and the Culturally Responsive Outcome-Expectancy Efficacy Scale (CRTOE) section comprises 12 items, rated on a 5-point Likert scale of 1 (Very Uncertain) to 5 (Absolutely Certain).

(1) Instructional delivery, (2) child's performance, and (3) child–family–teacher interaction were recorded as observations. Based on the four domains of CRT efficacy, these areas were used to collect how the teachers practised CRT. Using every observation noted, the researcher suggested how teachers might make modifications.

Whether professional consultation facilitated teachers' CRT efficacy was evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Data were collected by two trained research assistants. Besides, unstructured interviews were used to understand teachers' perspectives regarding the implementation of CRT practices with professional support.

Quantitative data included CRT efficacy and social validity, and descriptive statistics were used for producing response frequencies, percentages, and means to understand participants' backgrounds and perspectives. All interviews were recorded using digital voice recorders. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed. Qualitative data, such as observation documents and meeting notes, were coded and analysed. Three individual researchers read these transcripts independently. According to constant-comparative analysis (Strauss & Corbin, [42]), three researchers coded line-by-line to get a sense of the information. Besides, the data obtained from observation and field notes were reflected in the concepts proposed by Chu and Garcia ([11]). Key phrases and sentences that captured an important aspect of an interviewee's response were highlighted and sorted into categories. These categories were further analysed to identify how these participating teachers practised CRT. Next step, an inductive approach was used to identify additional codes for responses made that did not fit into initial categories. Finally, selective coding was conducted and explicit themes were identified (Creswell, [12]). Three researchers interpreted the patterns and themes evident in the categories and subcategories. Efforts have been made to ensure rigourthe of the data collection and analysis process by addressing issues of credibility and dependability (Niew, [33]).

Item means of the CTE section for Preschools A and B clustered around a rating of 4 (4.23 and 4.29, respectively). The most positive agreement for Preschool A was noted for item 5 ("Teachers in my school are confident about increasing the levels of parental involvement, including involvement of parents of children with disabilities from CLD backgrounds"; M= 4.83), whereas for Preschool B it was noted for item 4 ("Teachers in my school work together to produce meaningful learning for students with disabilities from diverse backgrounds"; M = 4.42). The lowest CTE score for both preschools was noted for item 11 ("Teachers in my schools need more training about creating environments to facilitate learning for children from CLD backgrounds"; M = 4.00).

The mean scale scores for Preschools A and B were, respectively, 3.71 and 3.85 in the CRTSE section and 4.40 and 4.56 in the CRTOE section. The CRTSE results revealed that teachers in both preschools perceived their ability in helping their students develop positive interactions with each other as their highest (M = 4.09 and 4.18 for Preschools A and B, respectively). By contrast, the lowest scores for both preschools were regarding implementing interventions that minimise the effects of cultural mismatch between home and school (M = 3.36 and 3.55 for Preschools A and B, respectively). Besides, the CRTOE results indicated that the teachers had the highest of certainty that understanding different communication styles reduces misunderstanding between teachers and students and their families (M = 4.40 and 4.56 for Preschools A and B, respectively). By contrast, the teachers had the lowest of certainty that encouraging the use of the native language of students with special needs helped maintain students' cultural identity (M = 3.73 and 4.00 for Preschools A and B, respectively).

The participating teachers also shared their perspectives of CRT in inclusive settings: The issues they mentioned centred on how culture related to the curriculum, family, and individual difference. Reflecting on CRT practices, most teachers (n = 22) related to how they modify the curriculum based on a family's beliefs and embed cultures into the curriculum through a partnership with families. For instance, TB3 said,

We understand each family has their own expertise, and every semester we regularly invite families to the school to share their culture. Currently, our curriculum emphasises recognising native language. We have indigenous families who came to our class to share with us how to speak their language. Our students can also understand their culture while learning to understand the different languages they used.

Besides, many teachers (n = 20) mentioned their practices emphasise consideration of individual differences in learning areas and implementation of multiple assessments. For example, the director of Preschool B (TB1) said,

The core curriculum of our school uses the learning areas to understand each child's performance. Let's assume we wanted to understand children's spatial concept by using pattern blocks. We can assess this by either asking them to manipulate them or to draw their ideas. Our teachers should understand how to make best use of each child's advantages.

Both quantitative and qualitative data indicated that the teachers considered the family-centred principle a practice priority. Besides, communication was the most recommended CRT practice that could be implemented in inclusive preschools. Studies (Durden et al., [15]; Peng & Chang, [36]) have determined that family involvement with practitioners is crucial to achieving desirable outcomes when taking cultural issues into account. However, the participants' CRT practices remained on the surface level (e.g., "aboriginal clothing is different"), recalling cultural "iceberg theory" (Ting-Toomey & Chung, [44]). Reflecting on CRT perspectives, teachers' CRTSE scores were not as high as their CRTOE scores. In other words, the teachers were unsure about their ability to implement this practice, but they held high levels of certainty regarding the associations between CRT practices and students' learning outcomes. The focus of the next phase was to guide the teachers towards a deeper level of CRT practice.

Figure 2 depicts how the teachers increased their professional CRT and CTE competencies from the first to the second phase. In the second phase, they continued to believe their preschools had the capacity to succeed in teaching young children with disabilities from CLD backgrounds. Their perspectives of CTE were influenced by several key elements proposed by García and Ortiz ([18]).

Graph: Figure 2. Essential components of action process.

Based on these elements, four overarching themes emerged from the open, axial, and selective coding process (see Table 2). As expected, the themes were similar in many respects to the lowest-scored scale items, the theme of support system also emerging due to challenges the participating teachers experienced when practising CRT for young children with disabilities. Most teachers (n = 23) were only required to take three credits of introductory special education in their early childhood education programmes, but they often worked with children with disabilities. During the four-step cycle of the action plan, the researcher identified participants' needs and then guided the teachers to access early intervention services. The participants learned to contact early intervention professionals and understood how the special education system works. In this process, these teachers not only promoting their CRT self-efficacy but also strengthening their perceived organisational support (i.e., CTE) Table 3.

Table 2. Emerging themes and subthemes of the professional consultation process

Table 3. Participants' feedback

The preschools shared the same curricular approach to early childhood education. To fulfil the needs of CLD children and their families, the curriculum emphasised the planning and organisation of classroom learning areas. At the first step of the plan, the questions raised were related to the children not having the same learning backgrounds (i.e., prior knowledge), and all the participants mentioned that these areas could be associated with the children's needs. With professional support, the teachers developed classroom learning areas based on what their students already knew (e.g., home experiences).

Taiwan's M-shaped society[4] is reflected in the preschools, and more than 50% of the children met the criteria for priority admission (e.g., parents or children with disabilities, low income). To meet the needs of children with such diverse backgrounds, the topic of individual differences was discussed during all the professional consultation meetings. For instance, a special education teacher TA12 said,

I came to each class to guide children with disabilities during learning area periods. They need help, but their parents have difficulty working with them at home. Each child has an area they need to practice. Here you can see each child has their required tasks to complete each day. No one has the same schedule, and it depends on their educational goals.

The researcher guided the teachers into focusing on constructing learning areas through implementing multilevel instruction. This included components such as adjusting teaching and learning goals, providing multiple ways of participating, adopting multiple teaching strategies, and accepting multiple learning performance. TA9 shared her experiences:

I had a difficult time involving kids with disabilities in our daily activities. After participating in this project, I learned how to embed Individualized Educational Plan goals in an activity. For instance, Andrew [the child was from the Preschool A] can practice eye–hand coordination while playing with materials.

While practising multilevel instruction at the second step of action cycle, these teachers could be flexible in their understanding of CLD children. TB3 stated,

In the past, I would be mad if Tina [the child was from the Preschool B] could not meet my expectations. I tried to see where Tina comes from, and how the family influences her behaviours. Now, I spend more time communicating with her family, and understand their expectations and long-term goals for Tina. The good news is she could do more than I expected.

By the third step, observation, the researcher's note reflected that multi-instruction was being effectively used in all four Preschool B classrooms through the creation of different task levels in each learning area.

In the fourth step, reflection, the participating teachers shared their experiences. They expressed greater confidence in their CRT practice; specifically, they attempted to work on the cultural matching home and school. The subthemes revealed that CRT practices not only allowed children with disabilities to receive appropriate learning but were also suitable for every student. Every student could engage in learning activities. The teachers' practices echoed several of the key components of culturally and linguistically responsive curriculum and instruction proposed previously (e.g., Farooq & Bukhari, [16]; García & Ortiz, [18]; Gay, [19]) – including building on prior knowledge, scaffolding, collaborative learning, and individual guidance and support.

During the action cycle, teachers often mentioned they struggled with children's emotional or behavioural problems and needed effective strategies for classroom management, including supplying structure, providing engaging activities, and establishing clear rules and consequences. These strategies allow teachers not only to acclimatise children to the classroom but also to keep class running efficiently throughout the day. To keep children on task, the problem of seating arrangement was discussed in several meetings and at each action step. For example, TA5 commented,

Group time was always noisy. Our discussion was interrupted due to the disruption of Kevin and Jack (children with disabilities). We changed their seats to ensure their eye contact with the instructor. After rearranging their seats, they participated in the discussion.

Concerning this, several teachers also expressed concern about the children's short attention span. For example, TB8 mentioned, "He was idle, while other children had already chosen their learning areas. He did not know the class rule of pasting your card to the area you are going to work in." The researcher reminded all teachers that motivation is key to learning. At one Preschool A consultation, the researcher stated,

I would suggest you to learn each child's unique learning characteristics and the needs of students from CLD backgrounds. They are independent individuals. Once you learn how to support them, these children will have the motivation to engage in activities.

After the first round of the action cycle, most of the teachers (n = 20) already understood how to best use visual support and specifically guide children with disabilities to engage with learning areas. At one Preschool B meeting, the researcher commented,

I am impressed with the visual support provided for children with disabilities. It's individualised in each learning area, and it's easy for kids to follow the directions. Even more amazing would be the visual supports provided based on child's needs, interests, and strengths. Those visual tools assist children in processing language, organising information, and learning the skills necessary to participating effectively.

Besides, approximately 33% of the teachers (n = 8) expressed they had difficulty dealing with disruptive children. In the reflection step, the researcher suggested, "Your rules were unclear. The daily activities should maximise structure and predictability. Children can predict what will happen next and this helps them feel secure and prepared."

Discussion of the subthemes revealed the participants demonstrated CRT practices as described in other studies (Chu & Garcia, [11]; Farooq & Bukhari, [16]). In particular, they created culturally compatible learning environments that were supportive and secure, and they established expectations for appropriate classroom behaviour that helped children participate in learning (Gay, [19]). By using strategies (e.g., visual support) mentioned in the reflection meeting, the professional consultant and participants discussed how to incorporate these teaching techniques to meet children's diverse needs. Participating teachers shared their concerns and difficulties and then the researcher modelled teaching strategies. A reflective conversation about what teachers had observed and learned was conducted immediately after strategy delivery. In this process, the teachers developed communities of learners and could effectively communicate with students (Villegas & Lucas, [49]).

As mentioned, the theme of support system emerged from the action process. The high level of CTE in the preschools was related to a positive climate in which teachers accepted responsibility for creating learning environments that promoted successful learning for all (Donohoo et al., [13]). The preschools demonstrated culturally responsive climates, and teaching built on children's life experiences and recognised the funds of knowledge in all families (Durden et al., [15]). The results also indicated that the teachers provided services to ensure the needs of children were met. For example, the researcher found that most teachers (n = 20) used teaching assistants effectively to scaffold learning for young children with disabilities during learning area periods. Besides, the teaching assistants were not assigned to specific children, and their support was provided across classroom contexts, reflecting a shared responsibility for all children (Donohoo et al., [13]).

During the third step of the action cycle, the researcher observed that this supportive, positive school climate was linked to active administrative support and the provision of early intervention resources. For instance, the researcher commented at one Preschool B consultation, "When children demonstrated challenging behaviours or were noisy at nap time, your administration team is your backup." One reason their CRT scores were lower than their CTE scores was the lack of special education training. After receiving the support provided by the consultations, TB4 commented, "I feel more comfortable answering parents' questions about where to access early intervention services." The information on school readiness and adjustment for young children with disabilities provided by the researcher guided all participating teachers' selection of instructional materials and teaching strategies. Throughout the four-step action plan, with professional support, the teachers became more knowledgeable about how to support children's learning, and this knowledge increased their CRT efficacy (Durden et al., [15]).

At the four-step cycle of the action plan, the theme of cultural sensitivity emerged because of the implementation of CRT practices, such as using different methods (i.e., in instruction and assessment) to ensure they were relevant to children's unique characteristics as well as recognition of teacher attributes that could facilitate effective learning (McKoy et al., [32]; Samuels, [37]; Siwatu, [39]). Participants mentioned a high ratio of students with disabilities had low-income families and lacked multiple stimuli at home. Because of having less experience with the tasks provided at the schools, these children initially had difficulty participating in activities (i.e., learning areas and group times). At the first phase, participants focused on children's "disadvantages" and blamed families for children's failure to learn. In the planning step of the second phase, the researchers guided participants to re-evaluate whether school tasks attracted children's interest and asked them to identify possible reasons for any lack of interest in tasks. The teachers became aware of the cultural differences existing among children and their families and developed the cultural sensitivity required to serve the children and their families. For example, TB9 commented, "Now, I will not see less-advantaged parents as having less time to be involved in their child's learning. I've learned how to support parent involvement, and believe it would work well." When teachers become aware of their biases towards specific cultural groups, this enables the cultural sensitivity needed to work successfully in CRT classrooms (Durden et al., [15]).

During the final interview with the participants to gain their input on the action plan process, most comments were positive and centred on being supported by the professional consultant. The average social validity rating was 4.15 (range 3.8 to 4.6) for Preschool A and 4.54 (range 4.1 to 4.8) for Preschool B. The written comments suggested that the professional consultant played different roles, including being a facilitator, consultant, mediator, and supporter. For example, PB7 commented, "The researcher's third-party perspectives assisted us to interpret children's behaviour from a comprehensive viewpoint, and it would help support children to regulate their own behaviour."

The participants' comments can be summarised as the following suggestions: increased time for discussion and exchange between teachers and the professional consultant; professional development opportunities to learn strategies for educating CLD populations; and the need for multiple strategies for responding to diverse needs (McKoy et al., [32]).

Chong et al. ([6]) and Donohoo et al. ([13]) have focussed on the sense of CTE, a significant mediator for promoting TE, but no empirical studies had focussed on inclusive preschool teacher engagement with CRT practices in Taiwan. As mentioned previously, previous CRT studies have focussed either on school-age students (Li & Fan, [30]; Pan, [35]) or on the issue of behaviour intervention (Bal et al., [1]; Green & Stormont, [24]). However, the current study specifically has focussed on how CTE influenced preschool teachers' inclusive practices, and how these teachers, in the four-step cycle of the action plan, implemented CRT practices supported by a professional consultant. The findings suggest that the participants were dedicated to serving children from CLD backgrounds, and they held high CTE in both phases. The findings revealed that effective inclusion practices resulted from positive school environments (e.g., support provided by all staff; Klassen et al., [27]). In the second phase, participants' CRT increased, which might be attributable to professional consultation (McKoy et al., [32]) during the action cycle. The teachers presented different viewpoints regarding this support process, and their personal experiences and the school climates may have influenced their perceptions of children with disabilities. The implications of the findings follow.

This study emphasised building partnerships between educators and expert practitioners. In this way, partners solved problems together, which further enhanced teachers' CTE. Previous studies (Goddard, [22]; Goddard et al., [23]; Klassen et al., [27]) have revealed that CTE is affected by teacher perception that schools set realistic goals and expected learning success. As observed, the two preschools have built strong teams serving diverse learners, which is considered an essential component of CRT practices. Because the climate of the preschools was positive and the schools valued CLD children and their parents, teachers' practices tended to respect diverse learning styles, encourage children to succeed, and have high expectations for all children (Donohoo et al., [13]). Furthermore, the preschools had high levels of CTE, which can enhance teacher performance and improve learning outcomes (Chen & Chu, [4]).

Reflecting on CTE with diverse populations in inclusive settings, this study suggests that schools should focus on the knowledge CLD children bring to school and using it as a foundation for learning. Although the two preschools promoted inclusive education, they did not share similar perspectives on practices. This finding highlights the necessity of exploring the beliefs of all teachers as they relate to successful inclusion. Future studies might investigate factors influencing CTE, such as the preschool's beliefs, colleague composition and attitudes, director leadership, and CLD family–teacher interaction. This process might construct effective components of inclusive education. Schools that work with CLD children must minimise negative perceptions of these children and their families if they are to be successful in developing CTE. When teachers have positive perceptions of the school climate, at both the personal and organisational levels, this will affect the effort they make with students (Chu & Garcia, [10]; Ting, [43]).

Even though inclusive education is the trend, preschool teachers might not have sufficient training in special education to provide appropriate educational services for children with disabilities. In the field, preschool teachers in Taiwan might practice what they consider inclusive education with limited support (Tseng, [45]). The researcher, as professional consultation, supported preschool teachers as they implemented CRT practices. This process could promote participants' professional competencies. Moreover, this study suggests that continuous professional support is needed in diverse educational settings, and a series of professional development workshops should be provided to develop teachers' knowledge and skills. In the action process, this study also revealed that professional development content can incorporate different activity types, such as modelling and coaching, which can aid in-service teachers in implementing an effective curriculum and instruction in inclusive education.

Because of time constraints, the provision of immediate support was the limitation of this study. Because the researcher has focussed on learning area periods, participants' scoring of the social validity of support for cooperation and communication with families provided by the professional consultant was relatively low. In early childhood education, family-centred practices are the core component of a successful programme (Dunst & Espe-Sherwindt, [14]). However, this study did not provide support regarding how practitioners might interact with, treat, and involve families in their children's education. To respond to the needs in the field of early childhood, this study also suggests that practitioners should be trained to be sensitive, knowledgeable, and responsive to family, cultural, and socioeconomic diversity. CLD societies expect teachers to establish multicultural awareness and learn the skills required to interact with children and families with CLD backgrounds.

The study had several limitations. First, two preschools were purposefully selected in a convenience sample in Taiwan, which could restrict the generalisability of the findings for other preschools in Taiwan. Second, the 24 participants in the preschools had their own unique characteristics (e.g., different experiences in interacting with children with disabilities and educational backgrounds). Therefore, the results may not be representative of the broader population applied to inclusive preschool teachers in Taiwan. Third, in children with CLD backgrounds, each child's disability type and severity varied, which could be the main influence on how participants practised CRT during the action process. Finally, culture and inclusion practices in Taiwan might not be similar to those of other Asian countries, and the findings should be interpreted with caution.

In summary, "one size fits all" does not apply to inclusive preschool settings, because it neglects CLD children's uniqueness. Low TE of preschool teachers reflects the challenges of providing services to CLD children. This study was intended to work with practitioners to promote awareness of cultural differences so that they could modify their curriculum and teaching strategies. This process could benefit CLD children and cultivate cultural assets. According to the experiences reported in this action research study, preschool teachers should be trained to promote best practices in preschools.

This research reported here was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, under [Grant 106-2410-H-007-043] to the principal investigator, Szu-Yin Chu.