The CPD Needs of Irish-Medium Primary and Post-Primary Teachers in Special Education

Abstract

There are few professional development courses available to teachers with a focus on meeting the special educational needs (SEN) of students in immersion education contexts worldwide. The continuous professional development (CPD) needs of immersion education teachers in SEN are under researched internationally. This study investigated the CPD needs of primary and post-primary Irish immersion education teachers (N = 133) in SEN using an anonymous online survey. In this article, we provide an overview of the types of CPD that teachers have engaged with in the past and their preferences for future CPD in this area. The challenges they face in relation to CPD are evaluated and provide a context for the future development of CPD courses for this cohort. It was found that teachers want to learn more about inclusive pedagogies and assessments through a variety of interactive pedagogies. The findings of this study will be of interest to immersion educators in other contexts.

Full text

Citation: Nic Aindriú, S.; Duibhir,
P.Ó.; Connaughton-Crean, L.; Travers,
J. The CPD Needs of Irish-Medium
Primary and Post-Primary Teachers
in Special Education. Educ. Sci. 2022,
12, 909. https://doi.org/10.3390/
educsci12120909
Academic Editor: James Albright
Received: 20 July 2022
Accepted: 29 November 2022
Published: 12 December 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
education
sciences
Article
The CPD Needs of Irish-Medium Primary and Post-Primary
Teachers in Special Education
Sinéad Nic Aindriú1, * , Pádraig ÓDuibhir 2, Lorraine Connaughton-Crean 1and Joe Travers 1
1School of Inclusive and Special Education, Dublin City University, D09Y0A Dublin, Ireland
2School of Language Literacy and Early Childhood Education, Dublin City University,
D09Y0A3 Dublin, Ireland
*Correspondence: sinead.andrews@dcu.ie
Abstract:
There are few professional development courses available to teachers with a focus on
meeting the special educational needs (SEN) of students in immersion education contexts worldwide.
The continuous professional development (CPD) needs of immersion education teachers in SEN are
under researched internationally. This study investigated the CPD needs of primary and post-primary
Irish immersion education teachers (N = 133) in SEN using an anonymous online survey. In this
article, we provide an overview of the types of CPD that teachers have engaged with in the past
and their preferences for future CPD in this area. The challenges they face in relation to CPD are
evaluated and provide a context for the future development of CPD courses for this cohort. It was
found that teachers want to learn more about inclusive pedagogies and assessments through a variety
of interactive pedagogies. The findings of this study will be of interest to immersion educators in
other contexts.
Keywords:
continuous professional development; special education; immersion education; assessment;
inclusive pedagogies
1. Introduction
Over the last decade research has shown that primary and post-primary teachers
in Gaelscoileanna and Gaeltacht (Irish immersion, IM) schools require CPD in the area
of special educational needs (SEN) provision for students learning through Irish [
1
–
6
].
Primary school teachers work with students during their first 8 school years, typically
with students aged between 4 and 12 years old. Post-primary teachers work with students
after this period, generally, aged between 12 and 18 years old. Most of the CPD courses
available to these teachers are based on meeting the SEN of children in English-medium
schools, with few courses available specifically for teachers of students with SEN learning
through Irish [
2
]. The findings of studies identified that teachers in IM schools find the
following elements challenging in relation to SEN provision; assessment through Irish,
having realistic expectations for their students, differentiation, implementing appropriate
inclusive teaching pedagogies, and accessing appropriate resources [
2
,
5
]. Teachers from
IM schools also reported how they often attended CPD in this area and that little reference
was made to meeting the needs of students with SEN learning through Irish [
2
,
7
]. In some
instances, the course facilitators questioned the teachers about the suitability of this form
of education for students with SEN [
2
]. This suggests that those delivering these CPD
courses may not have the appropriate knowledge and understanding as to how to meet
the SEN of students learning through Irish. International research suggests that effective
teachers promote higher levels of academic attainment for students with SEN [
8
] It also
suggests that the absence of appropriate teacher education, support, and guidance can
mean that teachers teaching through a language which is not the majority language of the
community can have misconceptions about patterns of first (L1) and second language (L2)
Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12120909 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 2 of 17
development for their students [
9
]. Hence, more students are often referred for additional
teaching support than is appropriate [
10
]. Therefore, it is important for teachers in IM
schools to have access to further education in this area, especially since they have requested
additional CPD in this area for over a decade [
1
]. Furthermore, recent research suggests
that there has been an increase in the percentage of students with SEN attending IM schools
over the last decade [
11
]. It is anticipated that this research and the development of a CPD
course may improve the quality of teaching and learning for students with SEN in the
classrooms of the teachers who undertake the course. This research and the subsequent
course which was developed was undertaken to ensure a high quality and appropriate
learning experience is provided to teachers.
This study identified primary and post-primary teachers’ self-reported future CPD
needs in relation to helping them meet the SEN of their students learning through Irish.
The study investigated what motivated teachers to undertake CPD in SEN, the challenges
they faced when doing so, and their preferred method of course delivery. The course that
was developed was piloted as a Department of Education and Skills approved summer
course (further outlined below). An anonymous online questionnaire was completed by
133 IM primary and post-primary teachers. As mentioned previously, the findings of
the study were used to inform the development of an online CPD course on meeting the
SEN of students learning through Irish. The findings informed the course development
through; (a) informing the development of module content based on the different areas
that the teachers wanted more CPD in (e.g., assessment, inclusive pedagogies), (b) their
learning preferences were taken into consideration in terms of how the content of the course
was to be taught/delivered (e.g., accessing up to date research, discussion forums), and
(c) every effort was made to overcome the challenges that they identified when designing
the course in order to make it more accessible for them (e.g., cost and location). The
research was undertaken in November 2020 at a time when teachers were under additional
pressure, implementing in-person teaching COVID-19 guidelines. The requirements of
social distancing, little/no group learning, sanitising of resources, and online learning for
students at home isolating, etc. are likely to have reduced the number of participants in the
study, as teachers had less time to complete the survey. Additionally, at the time, there was
little appetite for forward thinking in terms of completing CPD in the summer of 2021/2022
due to teachers suffering from burnout [12].
1.1. Irish Immersion Education
This study took place across two socio-linguistic contexts, IM ‘Gaelscoileanna’ and
‘Gaeltacht’ schools. Gaelscoileanna refer to Irish immersion schools located outside Irish
heartland areas known as the Gaeltacht. We use the term Irish medium (IM) to encompass
both types of school. At the time of publication of this study, there were 45,471 primary
school students and 14,581 post-primary school students being educated through the
medium of Irish (see Table 1).
Table 1.
The number of Irish-immersion and Gaeltacht schools in the Republic of Ireland (RoI) and
the number of students attending these schools [13].
Outside the Gaeltacht Gaeltacht Areas Total
Primary School Students 37,243 7059 44,302
No. of Primary Schools 151 101 252
Post-Primary Students 10,498 3602 14,100
No. of Post-Primary Schools 47 21 68
The Gaeltacht schools that participated in this study were located in the 26 Gaeltacht
Language Planning areas [
14
]. These schools have registered to participate in the Gaeltacht
School Recognition Scheme [
14
]. They operate fully through the medium of Irish, except
when teaching English and other languages. Students in infant classes (age 4–7) in Gaeltacht
primary schools experience total immersion in the Irish language, a condition of the

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 3 of 17
Gaeltacht School Recognition Scheme [
14
]. Traditionally, those living in Gaeltacht areas
used Irish as their day-to-day language of communication. Hence, these schools were
viewed as heritage language schools [
15
]. However, over the last number of decades, the
language profile of students in Gaeltacht schools has changed with more students coming
from homes where Irish is not their first language (L1) [
16
,
17
]. A Gaelscoil (Irish immersion
school) is located mainly in cities and small towns outside the Gaeltacht and students
come mostly from households where Irish is not their L1 [
18
]. The L1 in these areas is
English. Early total immersion programmes of up to two years are provided to students
before they commence English language [
19
]. At the time of the present study (academic
school year 2020/2021), there were 180 Irish immersion primary schools throughout the
island of Ireland outside the Gaeltacht [
13
]. Most of these schools (n= 151) and students
were situated in the Republic of Ireland (RoI). The remaining schools were located in
Northern Ireland.
1.2. Special Education in Irish Immersion Schools
Little research has been conducted on the prevalence and types of SEN of primary
and post-primary students in Gaeltacht schools [
4
,
6
]. Unfortunately, the most recent study
does not provide an overall prevalence rate for students with SEN attending Gaeltacht
primary schools [
4
,
20
]. However, it does provide an overview of the categories of SEN
that are most frequently reported in these schools (N = 15). The five most frequently
reported categories [
4
] are: (1) Specific Learning Difficulty (SLD), (2) Mild General Learning
Disability (MGLD) (3) Specific Language Impairment (SLI) (4) Autism Spectrum Disorder
(ASD) and (5) Developmental Coordination Delay (DCD). In 2004, it was estimated that 6%
(n= 511) of students attending primary Gaeltacht schools had a diagnosis of SEN [
6
]. In that
study, 4% (n= 358) of students were reported to be receiving additional teaching support
from the resource teacher in school. In relation to post-primary Gaeltacht schools in 2004, it
was estimated that 7% of students (n= 324) had a diagnosis of SEN [
6
]. The most frequently
reported categories of SEN in these post-primary schools were; (1) SLD (2) Borderline
Mild General Learning Disability (3) Mild General Learning Disability, (4) Severe General
learning Disability and (5) Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (EBD) [6].
It has been estimated that 9.4% of students in primary IM schools outside of Gaeltacht
areas in the RoI present with a diagnosis of SEN [
11
]. Dyslexia is reported to be the most
prevalent category of SEN in these schools [
4
,
11
,
20
]. The other most frequently reported
categories of SEN are Dyspraxia (DCD), ASD, EBD, and Specific Speech and Language
Disorder (SSLD) [
11
,
20
]. It was estimated that for the school year 2017–2018, 16.57% of
students enrolled in these primary schools received additional teaching support from the
special education teacher [
21
]. This figure is higher than that of 13% (n= 1719) estimated
previously by Nic Gabhann [
22
] for IM schools in the RoI. However, this percentage of
students (16.6%), is similar to that of 17% generated for students who were receiving
additional teaching support under the general allocation model in all primary schools in
the RoI [
23
]. Hence, this comparison suggests that there is little difference in the number of
students receiving additional teaching support in IM and English-medium schools. Unfor-
tunately for post-primary Irish immersion schools outside of Gaeltacht areas, there is no
data available on the prevalence and types of SEN experienced by students in these schools.
1.3. Bilingualism/Immersion Education and Students with SEN
Bilingualism is the ability to speak and understand two languages [
24
]. As this re-
search involves children with SEN, the definition of bilingualism by Grosjean [
25
] (p. 51)
which refers to “the regular use of two (or more) languages” by those who “need and use
two or more languages in their everyday lives” has been adopted. This definition has been
selected as it places an emphasis on the use of the languages, rather than the language
proficiency of the children with SEN. This is important, as children with SEN may never
acquire full language proficiency in any language [
26
]. Research suggests that bilingual
learners display increased attention control, problem solving, and abstract/symbolic rep-

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 4 of 17
resentational skills [
27
,
28
]. Better developed communication and social skills have also
been identified in bilinguals [
29
]. Some of the other benefits experienced by bilinguals
include, but are not limited to, an increased sense of identity, culture, and community, and
the benefit of forming friendships with others from a range of diverse backgrounds [
30
].
Nevertheless, the research has proposed that there may be disadvantages of learning two
languages for some individuals. These are thought to be caused by a lack of exposure to a
language, the age of L2 acquisition, and the lexical conflict that occurs due to the ownership
of two languages. Conflict is thought to arise as bilinguals experience more influences
during lexical decision making [
31
]. On verbal fluency tasks, it has been found that bilin-
guals can be at a disadvantage compared to monolinguals [
32
,
33
]. It is suggested that
bilinguals have a smaller vocabulary in each of their languages [
33
,
34
]. This is thought to
be attributed to the fact that bilinguals often receive less exposure in each language [
35
,
36
].
Those who receive higher levels of language exposure attain a larger vocabulary [
37
,
38
].
Reduced language input/output in both languages can negatively impact word learning
compared to those using only one language [
39
]. It has been suggested that the total
vocabulary of bilinguals (L1 vocab + L2 vocab) equals or is greater than the total vocabulary
of monolinguals 36 [38].
In terms of bilingual children with SEN the research into this topic is only starting to
emerge. Much of the research focuses on bilingual children with ASD, Specific Language
Impairment, Dyslexia, and Down syndrome [
40
,
41
]. This research has found ”no significant
differences between bilingual preschool-aged learners with Developmental Language
Disorder (DLD), ASD, and Down Syndrome and monolingual children with the same
disorders” when tested in their dominant language [42] (p. 171).
However, there are challenges of bilingual education for students with SEN, in terms of
(i) parental involvement, (ii) accessing bilingual services [
43
], (iii) professional development
for teachers [
7
,
44
] (iv) monolingual assessment [
45
,
46
], (v) professional advice from external
professionals regarding the suitability of bilingualism/immersion education for students
with SEN [
26
,
40
], and (vi) students with SEN transferring from immersion education [
47
].
Much international research has been conducted on the benefits of parental involvement
within a child’s education. Research on parental involvement in immersion education
programmes, identified that low parental proficiency in the school’s language of instruction
was a barrier to their participation [
5
,
48
,
49
]. This was referenced by parents of children
with SEN, who felt that they were unable to help their child academically and this caused
them anxiety and concern [5,48].
As mentioned previously, there are many benefits of bilingualism and immersion
education. However, as with all forms of education, a percentage of students with SEN
transfer from immersion education to a monolingual school due to several factors. For
students with SEN, international studies have shown that these students often transfer
from immersion education due to the academic challenges learning through a L2 poses
for them [
2
,
21
,
50
]. Concerns have also been raised regarding the ability of this form of
education to meet the diverse educational needs of these students [21,47,51].
1.4. CPD in Immersion Education Contexts
To date, little research has been undertaken on the CPD needs of immersion teachers
in the area of SEN. There has been some limited research undertaken in the area of teacher
preparation for bilingual education in general [
44
,
52
–
54
]. In designing a CPD course for
bilingual special education teachers, it is recommended that bilingual special education
teacher CPD should provide opportunities for participants to acquire theoretical and practi-
cal knowledge of bilingual education and bilingualism [
53
,
54
]. It should demonstrate how
to identify and utilize a range of appropriate assessment methods and tools. Teachers also
need to gain a repertoire of skills in terms of planning and the delivery of instruction in a
bilingual education context, develop an awareness of a student’s cultural and linguistic
diversity, and be provided with the skills that will allow for advancement within the teach-
ing profession. This is in line with other research that suggests that teachers in immersion

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 5 of 17
education contexts need to develop their knowledge in the areas of L2 acquisition theory,
assessment, pedagogies for teaching through a L2, and research in this context [
7
,
55
,
56
].
Studies have found that many immersion education contexts find it difficult to recruit
teachers who are fluent in the language of instruction of the school and that are appro-
priately trained and accredited [
57
]. In the context of bilingual/immersion education,
internationally there are few courses available which are focused on preparing teachers to
teach bilingual children with SEN. This in turn poses “major challenges for policy-makers,
minority language immersion schools, and ITE [initial teacher education] providers, who
share the responsibility for the preparation, recruitment and support of suitably qualified
teachers for these schools” [58] (p. 168).
1.5. CPD for Teachers in Schools in the Republic of Ireland (RoI)
For the purposes of this study, “CPD refers to lifelong teacher learning and com-
prises the full range of educational experiences designed to enrich teachers’ professional
knowledge, understanding, and capabilities throughout their careers” [
59
] (p. 19). This
definition was taken from the Teaching Council’s Policy on the Continuum of Teacher
Education. In the RoI, the Teaching Council of Ireland [
60
] has developed ‘Cosán’ (pathway
or track in Irish), the national framework for teachers’ learning. This framework forms
part of an overall framework of standards for all stages of teacher learning. It recognises
that there are many ways in which teachers can learn and undertake CPD, for example,
formally, informally, personally, and professionally. A range of processes are listed in
the framework [
59
,
60
] including engagement in professional conversations, reading lit-
erature/research, team teaching with a colleague, engaging in collaborative reflection,
attendance at a professional learning event (e.g., conference), or school-based learning [
61
].
The Teaching Council [
60
] states that CPD is very important for teachers as it equips
them to meet the challenges that they face in their profession. CPD for teachers in Irish
primary and post-primary schools may be delivered through organisations such as, the
Department of Education, the Professional Development Service for Teachers, third level
institutions, Education Centres, and other organisations [
7
,
60
]. The format in which CPD
can be delivered includes face to face, online, and through a blended learning approach. Or-
ganisations that offer CPD to IM schools include An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta
agus Gaelscolaíochta, Gaeloideachas, Údarás na Gaeltachta, Education and Training Board
Ireland, and local voluntary groups/community cooperatives [7].
It is suggested that teacher led CPD, which allows teachers considerable autonomy
in regard to choice is better than provider driven CPD [
59
]. This frame of thought is in
line with that of the Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers [
60
], which states that;
teachers should take personal responsibility for sustaining and improving the quality
of their professional practice, they should actively acquire professional knowledge and
understanding that is current and relevant, and they should reflect on and critically evaluate
their professional practice. Research suggests that short-term non-qualification courses
are the format of CPD most frequently accessed by teachers internationally [
61
]. However,
the efficacy of this form of CPD has been questioned due to its short duration. It has
been suggested that the short duration of the course does not allow for comprehensive
and meaningful professional development [
7
,
61
]. In the context of Gaeltacht post-primary
schools in the RoI, NíThuairisg [
7
] investigated the personal and professional challenges
faced by teachers when accessing CPD. Through interviews with 20 post-primary teachers,
she found that teachers were dissatisfied with the provision in this area because it did
not address the sociolinguistic context of the Gaeltacht. Teachers reported that they were
frustrated by the lack of CPD available to them through the medium of Irish and the low
levels of awareness that CPD facilitators had of the teachers’ specific context. Some of
the teachers in the study were motivated to undertake CPD because they had personally
identified their need in a specific area. Barriers to undertaking CPD that were mentioned by
participants were, time, family commitments, and the location in which the CPD took place.

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 6 of 17
2. Materials and Methods
For the present study, a link to an anonymous online survey was distributed to all
primary and post-primary IM schools in the RoI (see Table 1above). The survey investigated
the following research questions:
-
What types of CPD do teachers in primary and post-primary IM schools undertake in
special education?
- What are the CPD needs of teachers in these schools in special education?
-
What are the motivating factors for teachers in IM schools when undertaking CPD in
special education?
-
What are the challenges that IM teachers experience when accessing CPD in special
education?
School principals were then asked to forward the link to the anonymous questionnaire
to the teachers in their school. The anonymous survey link and a brief message was also
shared online through Twitter. The plain language statement and informed consent form
were included in the survey link. Participants gave informed consent to participate in the
study before they could access the questionnaire. Those who participated in the question-
naire were offered the opportunity to undertake the CPD course which was developed
using the findings of this research.
The questionnaire contained 18 questions. The first two questions gathered data about
the age and gender of the participants. Two questions then asked what teaching position
they currently held in their school, as well as the total number of years that they had been
teaching. Four questions were then asked about their level of education and about the CPD
that they had undertaken in the last year. Following on from this, there were six questions
that asked participants about the aspects of SEN in which they would like more CPD, what
CPD was available to them in this area, and how they would prefer this content to be
delivered (e.g., online, face-to-face, blended learning). There was one question that asked
them about their motivation for undertaking CPD in this area. The next question listed a
range of categories of SEN and participants were asked how well prepared they felt when
teaching students with the following categories of SEN through Irish. Participants were
then asked what the barriers they encountered in accessing CPD. Finally, they were invited
to include any other comments they had in an open-ended question. Information on the
sources of literature that influenced the development of the questionnaire is available in
Table 2.
Table 2. The sources of literature that influenced the development of the questionnaire.
Questionnaire Theme Sources of Literature
Age range and years teaching experience. OECD 2008, 2013, 2014
Type of position they held in their school. OECD 2008, 2013, 2014
Their level of teacher training/education. OECD, 2008, 2013, 2014
Previous CPD. OECD, 2008, 2013, 2014
The areas of special education in which they would
like more CPD.
Andrews (2020), Barrett, Williams,
Kinsella, 2020; Nic Aindriúet al., 2020
The aspects of CPD course development that are
most relevant for them. OECD, 2008, 2013, 2014
The way they would like to access CPD in this area
(e.g., online, face-to-face, blended learning). OECD, 2008, 2013, 2014
Their motivations for undertaking CPD in this area.
NíThuairisg, 2018; McMillan, McConnell
& O’Sullivan, 2016
The barriers they face when accessing CPD in
this area.
NíThuairisg, 2018; McMillan, McConnell
& O’Sullivan, 2016

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 7 of 17
2.1. Data Analysis
Data responses were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS
27, IBM, accessed through Dublin City University). This enabled the examination of
quantitative data in terms of descriptive statistics and frequencies. Findings were analysed
in terms of percentages, averages, mean, mode, maximum value, minimum value, and
range. Statistical analyses (e.g., ANOVA, Crosstab) were undertaken in terms of; the type
of school in which participants worked, their role within the school, gender. characteristics,
education, and experience. There were no statistically significant differences identified
between these categories. Qualitative responses to open ended questions were analysed
using thematic analysis [
62
]. This process enabled the researcher to identify patterns and
themes within the qualitative data while addressing the research questions [
62
]. The data
gathered were analysed on a semantic level, where what the participant said was analysed
for ‘surface meaning’ and on a latent level, where ideas, assumptions, and ideologies
were identified and examined [
62
], p. 84). Responses to survey questions and additional
comments provided in the questionnaire were given in Irish. These were translated from
Irish to English for the presentation of data/findings in this chapter.
2.2. Participant Profiles
This study was undertaken using survey research. In total 133 primary and post-
primary school teachers from IM schools undertook an anonymous online survey to assess
their CPD needs in SEN provision. Unfortunately, the estimated total number of teachers in
IM schools in the RoI is not available and therefore cannot be used for comparison purposes
when reviewing these findings. Within this cohort surveyed, 87% of teachers were female
(n= 116) and the remaining 13% (n= 17) were male. The teachers were employed in four
types of schools, primary Gaelscoileanna schools, post-primary Gaelscoileanna schools,
primary Gaeltacht schools, and post-primary Gaeltacht schools (see Figure 1). Most of the
teachers who participated in the study worked in an IM school outside of a Gaeltacht area
(64.66%, n= 86). Less than 20% of participants worked in a post-primary school outside of
the Gaeltacht (17.29%, n= 23) and primary Gaeltacht schools (15.04%, n= 20). Only three
percent (n= 4) of participants taught in post-primary Gaeltacht schools.
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
Most of the teachers who participated in the study worked in an IM school outside of a
Gaeltacht area (64.66%, n = 86). Less than 20% of participants worked in a post-primary
school outside of the Gaeltacht (17.29%, n = 23) and primary Gaeltacht schools (15.04%, n
= 20). Only three percent (n = 4) of participants taught in post-primary Gaeltacht schools.
Figure 1. The percentage of teachers that worked in each type of IM school.
Most of the teachers surveyed were over 31 years of age (see Figure 2), with only 21%
(n = 28) reporting that they were 30 years old or younger. There were 26.3% of participants
aged between 31 and 40 years of age. There were 30.1% of teachers (n = 40) aged between
41 and 50 years of age. Within the 51–60 age group there were 21.8% teachers (n = 29) and
only one teacher (0.75%) who completed the survey was aged 61 or over.
Figure 2. The age range of the teachers (%) that participated in this study.
The teachers surveyed held various roles within their schools (see Figure 3). The co-
hort with the highest number of participants was the special education teacher group
(33.8%, n = 50), whilst the special class teacher cohort had the smallest number of
64.7
17.3 15
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Primary Immersion
Schools
Post-primary Immersion
Schools
Primary Gaeltacht
Schools
Post-primary Gaeltacht
Schools
21.05
26.3
30.1
21.8
0.75
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
20 - 30 years old 31 − 40 years old 41 − 50 years old 51 − 60 years old 60+ years old
Figure 1. The percentage of teachers that worked in each type of IM school.
Most of the teachers surveyed were over 31 years of age (see Figure 2), with only 21%
(n= 28) reporting that they were 30 years old or younger. There were 26.3% of participants
aged between 31 and 40 years of age. There were 30.1% of teachers (n= 40) aged between
41 and 50 years of age. Within the 51–60 age group there were 21.8% teachers (n= 29) and
only one teacher (0.75%) who completed the survey was aged 61 or over.

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 8 of 17
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
Most of the teachers who participated in the study worked in an IM school outside of a
Gaeltacht area (64.66%, n = 86). Less than 20% of participants worked in a post-primary
school outside of the Gaeltacht (17.29%, n = 23) and primary Gaeltacht schools (15.04%, n
= 20). Only three percent (n = 4) of participants taught in post-primary Gaeltacht schools.
Figure 1. The percentage of teachers that worked in each type of IM school.
Most of the teachers surveyed were over 31 years of age (see Figure 2), with only 21%
(n = 28) reporting that they were 30 years old or younger. There were 26.3% of participants
aged between 31 and 40 years of age. There were 30.1% of teachers (n = 40) aged between
41 and 50 years of age. Within the 51–60 age group there were 21.8% teachers (n = 29) and
only one teacher (0.75%) who completed the survey was aged 61 or over.
Figure 2. The age range of the teachers (%) that participated in this study.
The teachers surveyed held various roles within their schools (see Figure 3). The co-
hort with the highest number of participants was the special education teacher group
(33.8%, n = 50), whilst the special class teacher cohort had the smallest number of
64.7
17.3 15
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Primary Immersion
Schools
Post-primary Immersion
Schools
Primary Gaeltacht
Schools
Post-primary Gaeltacht
Schools
21.05
26.3
30.1
21.8
0.75
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
20 - 30 years old 31 − 40 years old 41 − 50 years old 51 − 60 years old 60+ years old
Figure 2. The age range of the teachers (%) that participated in this study.
The teachers surveyed held various roles within their schools (see Figure 3). The cohort
with the highest number of participants was the special education teacher group (33.8%,
n= 50), whilst the special class teacher cohort had the smallest number of participants
(2.0%, n= 3). There were also 12.8% of participants that worked as a subject teacher in
post-primary schools (n= 19).
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
participants (2.0%, n = 3). There were also 12.8% of participants that worked as a subject
teacher in post-primary schools (n = 19).
Figure 3. The teaching roles of participants (%) in this study.
2.3. Teaching Experience and Qualifications of Participants.
To investigate the current CPD needs of the participants in this study, it was im-
portant to establish their teaching experience and qualifications (see Figure 4). When the
level of education of the participants of this study was investigated, it was found that most
of the teachers held a primary degree and a postgraduate qualification (34.9%, n = 53).
Over a quarter of respondents (27.0%, n = 41) had a master’s degree and only 1.3% (n = 2)
held a doctorate.
10.8
10.8
1.4
25
33.8
2
12.8
3.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Teaching Principal
Administrative Principal
Administrative Vice Principal
Mainstream Class Teachers
Special Education Teacher
Special Class Teacher
Subject Teacher Post-Primary
Other
24.3
34.9
12.5
27
1.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Primary Degree
Primary Degree and Higher Diploma/Post Graduate
Professional Masters in Education
Masters
Doctorate
Figure 3. The teaching roles of participants (%) in this study.
2.3. Teaching Experience and Qualifications of Participants
To investigate the current CPD needs of the participants in this study, it was important
to establish their teaching experience and qualifications (see Figure 4). When the level of
education of the participants of this study was investigated, it was found that most of the
teachers held a primary degree and a postgraduate qualification (34.9%, n= 53). Over a
quarter of respondents (27.0%, n= 41) had a master’s degree and only 1.3% (n= 2) held
a doctorate.

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 9 of 17
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
participants (2.0%, n = 3). There were also 12.8% of participants that worked as a subject
teacher in post-primary schools (n = 19).
Figure 3. The teaching roles of participants (%) in this study.
2.3. Teaching Experience and Qualifications of Participants.
To investigate the current CPD needs of the participants in this study, it was im-
portant to establish their teaching experience and qualifications (see Figure 4). When the
level of education of the participants of this study was investigated, it was found that most
of the teachers held a primary degree and a postgraduate qualification (34.9%, n = 53).
Over a quarter of respondents (27.0%, n = 41) had a master’s degree and only 1.3% (n = 2)
held a doctorate.
10.8
10.8
1.4
25
33.8
2
12.8
3.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Teaching Principal
Administrative Principal
Administrative Vice Principal
Mainstream Class Teachers
Special Education Teacher
Special Class Teacher
Subject Teacher Post-Primary
Other
24.3
34.9
12.5
27
1.3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Primary Degree
Primary Degree and Higher Diploma/Post Graduate
Professional Masters in Education
Masters
Doctorate
Figure 4. The level of education of the participants (%) of the present study.
The teachers who responded to the survey had a range of teaching experience. Almost
half, (47.7%, n= 63) had five or less years of teaching experience. Fifteen percent of
participants (15.6%, n= 20) had been teaching between 11 and 15 years. Only 16.0% (n= 21)
teachers had been teaching for more than 16 years.
3. Results
3.1. Previous CPD in Special Education
As part of the questionnaire, the teachers were asked what type of CPD in SEN they
had undertaken in the previous 3 years from 2017–2020 (see Figure 5). This question was
important to assess the level of CPD that respondents had in this area. Similar to the findings
of international studies, teachers who participated in this study stated that they most
frequently engaged in short CPD courses [
61
]. The most frequently reported form of CPD
that the teachers engaged with was in-school in-service training (85%, n= 114). Engagement
in workshops was reported next with 72.9% (n= 97) of respondents accessing this form
of CPD. The other most frequently reported forms of CPD accessed were conferences or
educational seminars (62.4%, n= 83) and summer courses accredited by the Department of
Education (62%, n= 78). There were only 27.8% of participants (n= 37) who had undertaken
a university accredited course over the previous three years. However, this figure is quite
high as international research states that generally university accredited courses are the
lowest type of CPD undertaken by teachers [61].
Participants listed a wide range of topics and subjects that they covered during these
forms of CPD which focused specifically on SEN for students learning through Irish. In the
area of SEN, the following topics were covered by the study participants over the previous
three years; language and communication difficulties/bilingualism, setting up an ASD
special class in an IM school, differentiation, assessment, planning, supporting students
with SEN learning through Irish, in-class support/team teaching, dealing with trauma,
Nurture groups, Dyslexia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Attention
Deficit Disorder (ADD), and ASD. The contents of the other courses that were undertaken
included Irish literacy, assessment in Irish literacy (n= 4), mathematics (n= 1), ICT (n= 1),
music (n= 1), and IM education (n= 4).

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 10 of 17
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19
Figure 4. The level of education of the participants (%) of the present study.
The teachers who responded to the survey had a range of teaching experience. Al-
most half, (47.7%, n = 63) had five or less years of teaching experience. Fifteen percent of
participants (15.6%, n = 20) had been teaching between 11 and 15 years. Only 16.0% (n =
21) teachers had been teaching for more than 16 years.
3. Results
3.1. Previous CPD in Special Education
As part of the questionnaire, the teachers were asked what type of CPD in SEN they
had undertaken in the previous 3 years from 2017–2020 (see Figure 5). This question was
important to assess the level of CPD that respondents had in this area. Similar to the find-
ings of international studies, teachers who participated in this study stated that they most
frequently engaged in short CPD courses [61]. The most frequently reported form of CPD
that the teachers engaged with was in-school in-service training (85%, n = 114). Engage-
ment in workshops was reported next with 72.9% (n = 97) of respondents accessing this
form of CPD. The other most frequently reported forms of CPD accessed were conferences
or educational seminars (62.4%, n = 83) and summer courses accredited by the Department
of Education (62%, n = 78). There were only 27.8% of participants (n = 37) who had under-
taken a university accredited course over the previous three years. However, this figure
is quite high as international research states that generally university accredited courses
are the lowest type of CPD undertaken by teachers [61].
Figure 5. The types of CPD that participants (%) had engaged in over a three-year period from 2017
to 2020.
Participants listed a wide range of topics and subjects that they covered during these
forms of CPD which focused specifically on SEN for students learning through Irish. In
the area of SEN, the following topics were covered by the study participants over the pre-
vious three years; language and communication difficulties/bilingualism, setting up an
ASD special class in an IM school, differentiation, assessment, planning, supporting stu-
dents with SEN learning through Irish, in-class support/team teaching, dealing with
trauma, Nurture groups, Dyslexia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), At-
tention Deficit Disorder (ADD), and ASD. The contents of the other courses that were
85
72.9
62.4
62
27.8
20.3
18
18
17.3
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
School inservice days
Workshops/Courses
Conferences/Seminars
Summer Course
University Accredited Courses
Professional learning communities
Research
Mentoring programmes
Observation
Figure 5.
The types of CPD that participants (%) had engaged in over a three-year period from 2017
to 2020.
3.2. The CPD Needs of Teachers in Special Education
Participants were asked to choose five areas which they would like to learn more about
to help them when teaching students with SEN learning through Irish (see Figure 6). Irish
literacy was the area identified most by the teachers with 70.6% of teachers (n= 94) choosing
this option. The assessment of students learning through Irish was identified as the second
most important area (69.9%, n= 93). This was closely followed by the identification
of students with SEN learning through Irish (67.6%, n= 90). Other areas identified as
important were, differentiation (53.3%, n= 71), L2 acquisition (44.3%, n= 59), and inclusive
pedagogies (38.3%, n= 51). It is interesting that many of the areas identified for CPD have
previously been identified as challenges in terms of SEN provision in IM schools [
1
,
2
,
5
].
Additionally, many of the areas identified by teachers are suggested internationally as
essential components for CPD in this area for bilingual education teachers [44,52–54].
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
undertaken included Irish literacy, assessment in Irish literacy (n = 4), mathematics (n =
1), ICT (n = 1), music (n = 1), and IM education (n = 4).
3.2. The CPD Needs of Teachers in Special Education
Participants were asked to choose five areas which they would like to learn more
about to help them when teaching students with SEN learning through Irish (see Figure
6). Irish literacy was the area identified most by the teachers with 70.6% of teachers (n =
94) choosing this option. The assessment of students learning through Irish was identified
as the second most important area (69.9%, n = 93). This was closely followed by the iden-
tification of students with SEN learning through Irish (67.6%, n = 90). Other areas identi-
fied as important were, differentiation (53.3%, n = 71), L2 acquisition (44.3%, n = 59), and
inclusive pedagogies (38.3%, n = 51). It is interesting that many of the areas identified for
CPD have previously been identified as challenges in terms of SEN provision in IM
schools [1,2,5]. Additionally, many of the areas identified by teachers are suggested inter-
nationally as essential components for CPD in this area for bilingual education teachers
[44,52–54].
Figure 6. The areas in which teachers (%) would like to learn more when teaching students with
SEN through the medium of Irish.
To gain a greater understanding of the needs of students and teachers in IM educa-
tion, participants were asked which categories of SEN they wanted to learn more about
(see Figure 7). The most frequently reported category was Dyslexia (85.71%, n = 114). This
finding corresponds with previous research that identified Dyslexia as the most prevalent
category of SEN in IM primary schools [11,20]. ASD (73.6%, n = 98), SSLD (67.6%, n = 90)
and EBD (57.89%, n = 77) which are in the top five most frequently reported categories of
SEN in IM primary schools, were also identified as the areas in which teachers wanted the
most CPD [11].
70.6
69.9
67.6
53.3
44.3
38.3
31.6
30.8
27.1
24.8
21.8
19.54
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Irish literacy strategies
Assessment methods for students learning…
Identifying students with SEN learning through…
Differentiation
Second language acquisition
Inclusive pedagogies
Classroom management
ICT for inclusion
Team teaching
English literacy strategies
Co-operative learning
Curriculum integration
Figure 6.
The areas in which teachers (%) would like to learn more when teaching students with SEN
through the medium of Irish.

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 11 of 17
To gain a greater understanding of the needs of students and teachers in IM education,
participants were asked which categories of SEN they wanted to learn more about (see
Figure 7). The most frequently reported category was Dyslexia (85.71%, n= 114). This
finding corresponds with previous research that identified Dyslexia as the most prevalent
category of SEN in IM primary schools [
11
,
20
]. ASD (73.6%, n= 98), SSLD (67.6%, n= 90)
and EBD (57.89%, n= 77) which are in the top five most frequently reported categories of
SEN in IM primary schools, were also identified as the areas in which teachers wanted the
most CPD [11].
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19
Figure 7. The categories of SEN that teachers identified in which they want more CPD.
3.3. CPD Course Design
Teachers were asked to rate (1 being the most important and 6 being the least im-
portant) the factors listed in Figure 8 below in relation to the most important elements of
CPD course design. The element of course design that was most important for teachers
was that they would be given resources and strategies that would help them in their teach-
ing. The opportunity to learn from other teachers was cited third as the most important
element of a CPD course [60]. The opportunity to learn from other teachers through mul-
timedia, e.g., video analysis was cited fourth by participants. Time to think and consoli-
date learning was listed fifth and the opportunity to engage with appropriate up-to-date
research was listed sixth.
85.7
73.6
67.6
62.4
57.8
49.62
36.8
36
27.1
21.1
16.5
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Dyslexia
Autism Spectrum Disorder
Specific Speech and Language Disorder
Mild General Learning Difficulties
Emotional and/or Behavioural Difficulties
Attention Deficit Disorder/Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder
Dyspraxia
Dyscalculia
Hearing Impairment
Visual Impairment
Physical Impairment
Figure 7. The categories of SEN that teachers identified in which they want more CPD.
3.3. CPD Course Design
Teachers were asked to rate (1 being the most important and 6 being the least impor-
tant) the factors listed in Figure 8below in relation to the most important elements of CPD
course design. The element of course design that was most important for teachers was that
they would be given resources and strategies that would help them in their teaching. The
opportunity to learn from other teachers was cited third as the most important element of a
CPD course [
60
]. The opportunity to learn from other teachers through multimedia, e.g.,
video analysis was cited fourth by participants. Time to think and consolidate learning
was listed fifth and the opportunity to engage with appropriate up-to-date research was
listed sixth.
3.4. The Reasons Teachers Want to Undertake CPD in This Area
It is important to understand the motivating factors for teachers wishing to undertake
CPD in this area. In the questionnaires, the teachers were provided with a selection of
choices surrounding why they wanted to undertake CPD in this area. From this list (see
Figure 9) teachers could choose more than one option. The most frequently reported factor
was that teachers wanted to learn more and improve their teaching (74.4%, n= 99). This
coincides with Feng & Sass [
8
] who state that teachers become more effective when they
are supported and undertake CPD. A further 66.1% of teachers (n= 88) reported that they
were motivated due to their interest in this area [
7
]. Career progression was cited as a
motivation for 60% of teachers (n= 80). The other factors listed include wanting to access
more research/literature in this area (53.38%, n= 71), the fact that they were a special

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 12 of 17
education teacher (34.5%, n= 46), or that this area relates to their post of responsibility in
the school (20.3%, n= 27).
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 19
Figure 8. The most important elements in CPD course design as identified by participants (%).
3.4. The Reasons Teachers Want to Undertake CPD in This Area
It is important to understand the motivating factors for teachers wishing to undertake
CPD in this area. In the questionnaires, the teachers were provided with a selection of
choices surrounding why they wanted to undertake CPD in this area. From this list (see
Figure 9) teachers could choose more than one option. The most frequently reported factor
was that teachers wanted to learn more and improve their teaching (74.4%, n = 99). This
coincides with Feng & Sass [8] who state that teachers become more effective when they
are supported and undertake CPD. A further 66.1% of teachers (n = 88) reported that they
were motivated due to their interest in this area [7]. Career progression was cited as a
motivation for 60% of teachers (n = 80). The other factors listed include wanting to access
more research/literature in this area (53.38%, n = 71), the fact that they were a special ed-
ucation teacher (34.5%, n = 46), or that this area relates to their post of responsibility in the
school (20.3%, n = 27).
98.5
97.7
93.98
93.23
92.5
91.7
88 90 92 94 96 98 100
Resources to support students
Realistic ideas and teaching strategies
Learning from others on the course
Opportunities to learn using observation,
simulations, video
Thinking and discussion time
Engagement with research
Figure 8. The most important elements in CPD course design as identified by participants (%).
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 19
Figure 9. The motivating factors around why participants (%) wanted to undertake CPD in the area
of special education.
3.5. The Challenges of Accessing CPD
It is important to understand the challenges that teachers face when accessing CPD
in this area through the medium of Irish(see Figure 10). Similar to both national and in-
ternational research findings, the biggest challenge faced by teachers in IM schools when
accessing CPD in the area of special education was a lack of time,with almost three quar-
ters of teachers identifying this as a challenge (75.1%%, n = 100) [7,63]. The lack of availa-
bility of courses in special education that focus on teaching students learning through Irish
was cited as a challenge by 70% of teachers (n = 89) [1]. The lack of CPD targeted at teachers
who are teaching through the medium of Irish has been cited in previous research, with
teachers in Gaeltacht post-primary schools stating that some facilitators have a lack of
understanding of the IM education context and a lack of teaching experience in the area
[7]. In the present study, 27.8% of teachers (n = 37) wanted the opportunity to undertake
more CPD in this area in school, however, this was not an option for them. Other chal-
lenges that were cited included the cost of these courses (24%, n = 32), technology and
resources (18%, n = 24), lack of support from the school/colleagues (5.2%, n = 7), and a lack
of incentives (4.5%, n = 6) [61].
74.4
66.1
60.1
53.38
20.3
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Develop understanding/skills in SEN
I am interested in SEN
Career advancement
I am a special education teacher
Role of responsibility
Figure 9.
The motivating factors around why participants (%) wanted to undertake CPD in the area
of special education.
3.5. The Challenges of Accessing CPD
It is important to understand the challenges that teachers face when accessing CPD
in this area through the medium of Irish(see Figure 10). Similar to both national and
international research findings, the biggest challenge faced by teachers in IM schools when
accessing CPD in the area of special education was a lack of time, with almost three quarters
of teachers identifying this as a challenge (75.1%%, n= 100) [
7
,
63
]. The lack of availability
of courses in special education that focus on teaching students learning through Irish was
cited as a challenge by 70% of teachers (n= 89) [
1
]. The lack of CPD targeted at teachers
who are teaching through the medium of Irish has been cited in previous research, with
teachers in Gaeltacht post-primary schools stating that some facilitators have a lack of

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 13 of 17
understanding of the IM education context and a lack of teaching experience in the area [
7
].
In the present study, 27.8% of teachers (n= 37) wanted the opportunity to undertake more
CPD in this area in school, however, this was not an option for them. Other challenges that
were cited included the cost of these courses (24%, n= 32), technology and resources (18%,
n= 24), lack of support from the school/colleagues (5.2%, n= 7), and a lack of incentives
(4.5%, n= 6) [61].
Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19
Figure 10. The challenges that teachers (%) faced when accessing CPD in special education through
the medium of Irish.
4. Discussion
Little research is available on the CPD needs of immersion education teachers inter-
nationally in the area of special education [44,52–54]. This study investigated the CPD
needs of primary and post-primary teachers in IM schools (N = 133). This research was
undertaken to inform the development of a 20-hour online CPD summer course approved
by the Department of Education in the RoI [64]. The findings of this study informed the
development of the course through identifying the areas that teachers wanted to learn
more about and by identifying how they would like to access this information.
The findings of this study suggest that the most sought-after method of CPD delivery
in the area of SEN for teachers in Irish immersion schools is through a short course and/or
in-school in-service [61]. This factor should be taken into consideration when developing
future courses in this area. Interestingly, the challenges that teachers face in terms of SEN
provision in school were also identified in this study and the areas in which they wanted
further CPD (e.g., Irish literacy, assessment, interventions, and inclusive pedagogies) [2,5].
Therefore, it can be suggested that teachers are in urgent need of CPD in these areas. Fur-
thermore, if more CPD was available to teachers in these areas, the negative opinions re-
garding the suitability of IM schools for students with SEN may decline [2,4,5]. It may be
beneficial for this data to be considered by education policy makers, minority language
immersion schools, and ITE providers when preparing and supporting teachers to work
in this sector [58] (p. 168). Furthermore, this data corresponds with previous research into
CPD course development in this area for bilingual special education teachers and it may
be a good idea for course developers to follow the framework outlined previously [44,52–
54].
Teachers were motivated to undertake courses in special education because they
were motivated by their interest in the area, and/or due to the opportunity that it may
present for career progression [7,65]. This suggests that teachers in IM schools value CPD
in this area and have an understanding that it will help to improve their practice and their
students’ academic attainment [8]. The teachers in this study stated that they wanted CPD
that provided them with: (1) resources that will help them meet the needs of all their stu-
dents, (2) an understanding of inclusive teaching strategies, (3) the opportunity to learn
from others teaching in the sector, (4) the opportunity to learn from others working in
75.1
70
27.8
24
18
5.2
4.5
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Lack of time
Lack of courses available based on Irish
immersion
No in-school option
Cost of courses
Technology and resources
Lack of support from colleagues
Lack of incentives
Figure 10.
The challenges that teachers (%) faced when accessing CPD in special education through
the medium of Irish.
4. Discussion
Little research is available on the CPD needs of immersion education teachers inter-
nationally in the area of special education [
44
,
52
–
54
]. This study investigated the CPD
needs of primary and post-primary teachers in IM schools (N = 133). This research was
undertaken to inform the development of a 20-h online CPD summer course approved
by the Department of Education in the RoI [
64
]. The findings of this study informed the
development of the course through identifying the areas that teachers wanted to learn more
about and by identifying how they would like to access this information.
The findings of this study suggest that the most sought-after method of CPD delivery
in the area of SEN for teachers in Irish immersion schools is through a short course and/or
in-school in-service [
61
]. This factor should be taken into consideration when developing
future courses in this area. Interestingly, the challenges that teachers face in terms of SEN
provision in school were also identified in this study and the areas in which they wanted
further CPD (e.g., Irish literacy, assessment, interventions, and inclusive pedagogies) [
2
,
5
].
Therefore, it can be suggested that teachers are in urgent need of CPD in these areas.
Furthermore, if more CPD was available to teachers in these areas, the negative opinions
regarding the suitability of IM schools for students with SEN may decline [
2
,
4
,
5
]. It may be
beneficial for this data to be considered by education policy makers, minority language
immersion schools, and ITE providers when preparing and supporting teachers to work in
this sector [
58
] (p. 168). Furthermore, this data corresponds with previous research into
CPD course development in this area for bilingual special education teachers and it may be
a good idea for course developers to follow the framework outlined previously [
44
,
52
–
54
].
Teachers were motivated to undertake courses in special education because they were
motivated by their interest in the area, and/or due to the opportunity that it may present for
career progression [
7
,
65
]. This suggests that teachers in IM schools value CPD in this area
and have an understanding that it will help to improve their practice and their students’

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 14 of 17
academic attainment [
8
]. The teachers in this study stated that they wanted CPD that
provided them with: (1) resources that will help them meet the needs of all their students,
(2) an understanding of inclusive teaching strategies, (3) the opportunity to learn from
others teaching in the sector, (4) the opportunity to learn from others working in immersion
education internationally (videos, simulations, etc.), and (5) time to think and discuss
issues with others [
59
,
60
]. This in turn suggests that teachers want a practical course where
they can learn realistic and useful strategies to help them meet the needs of their students.
Through the analysis of this data, it may be beneficial to use the ABC course design method
when developing a course in this area [
66
]. This would ensure that participants can access
many different learning styles; acquisition, inquiry, collaboration, discussion, practice,
and production [
66
]. From the findings, it may also be beneficial for teachers to have the
opportunity to access professional learning communities where teachers can support and
learn from each other [
67
]. Nevertheless, it is important to take into consideration the
challenges that teachers reported when accessing CPD in this area in order to ensure the
accessibility and success of future courses in this area. As per teachers in all education
sectors, time was listed as the most challenging factor for teachers. This challenge might be
overcome by implementing courses using school in-service CPD days [
61
]. This would also
negate the other challenges teachers faced in terms of the availability of courses and the
cost associated with undertaking courses [
1
,
2
,
7
]. The development of professional learning
communities as mentioned above may also help relieve the challenge faced in terms of
feeling supported by colleagues [67].
However, when reviewing the findings of this study, it is important to be mindful of
its limitations. One of the limitations of this research was the small sample size that was
available, this can be attributed to the fact that the study was undertaken in November
2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic where teachers were navigating through a difficult
period of change [
12
]. Nevertheless, the findings of this study are important and add to the
limited international research that has been conducted into the CPD needs of primary and
post-primary teachers’ immersion education teachers in special education. This study aims
to fill the research gap in relation to the types of CPD available to teachers in IM education
in this area and their preferences in terms of the content delivered. The findings of the
present study may be applicable to other immersion education contexts throughout the
world, e.g., Canada, USA, Spain, Scotland, Wales, and New Zealand. When designing and
delivering CPD in immersion education sectors internationally, course providers should
consider holding school in-service days as this seems to be the most effective and popular
form of CPD accessed. The needs of teachers in this study relate to the international research
that states that a lack of resources and assessments are a challenge for immersion education
teachers. Due to this, it may be beneficial to provide CPD on appropriate assessment in
immersion education contexts internationally. This study has identified that teachers want
realistic teaching ideas and strategies that can be implemented in the class, which is an
important factor for consideration by any immersion teacher educators internationally.
Furthermore, research from the IM education sector suggests that there is a need for CPD to
be delivered by those with an understanding of the educational context. This is a factor that
should be considered by teacher educators in immersion education internationally. There is
a need for course providers with an understanding of bilingualism and SEN to provide the
CPD in order for it to be relevant to teachers in immersion education schools. It is hoped
that the content of this article will provide an insight for immersion education teachers and
educational professionals, particularly those designing and developing CPD courses in
special education for immersion education and heritage language teachers. The findings of
the study may positively influence the development of such courses and better support
teachers in immersion schools to implement inclusive practices for all their students.

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 15 of 17
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, S.N.A.; Methodology, S.N.A., P.Ó.D., L.C.-C. and J.T.;
Formal analysis, S.N.A. and L.C.-C.; Investigation, S.N.A. and L.C.-C.; Resources, S.N.A., P.Ó.D.,
L.C.-C. and J.T.; Data curation, L.C.-C.; Writing—original draft, S.N.A. and L.C.-C.; Writing—review
& editing, S.N.A. and P.Ó.D.; Supervision, J.T.; Funding acquisition, S.N.A., P.Ó.D. and J.T. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelscolaíochta
(P61035).
Institutional Review Board Statement:
This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee
of Dublin City University (DCUREC/2020/195, Date of Approval 7 October 2020).
Informed Consent Statement:
Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in
the study.
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the small sample size and the
preservation of participant.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Muller, J. Riachtanais Speisialta Oideachais i Scoileanna ina Bhfuil an Ghaeilge mar Mheán (Special Educational Needs in Schools Where
Irish Is the Medium); An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelscolaíochta: Dublin, Ireland, 2010.
2.
Andrews, S. The Additional Supports Required by Pupils with Special Educational in Irish-Medium Schools. Ph.D. Thesis,
Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland, 1 February 2020. Available online: http://doras.dcu.ie/24100/1/Sin%C3%A9ad%20
Andrews%20PhD%20Final%20.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2022).
3.
NCCA. Language and Literacy in Irish-Medium Primary Schools: Supporting School Policy and Practice; National Council for Curriculum
and Assessment: Dublin, Ireland, 2007.
4.
Barrett, M. Doras Feasa Fiafraí: Exploring Special Educational Needs Provision and Practices Across Gaelscoileanna and Gaeltacht Primary
Schools in the Republic of Ireland; University College Dublin: Dublin, Ireland, 2016.
5.
NíChinnéide, D. The Special Educational Needs of Bilingual (Irish-English) Children; POBAL: Education and Training: Belfast,
Northern Ireland, 2009.
6.
Mac Donnacha, S.; NíChualáin, F.; NíShéaghdha, A.; NíMhainín, T. Staid Reatha na Scoileanna Gaeltachta: A Study of Gaeltacht
Schools 2004; An Chomhairle um Oideachas Gaeltachta agus Gaelscolaíochta: Dublin, Ireland, 2005.
7.
NíThuairisg, L. It was two hours [
. . .
] the same old thing and nothing came of it: Continuing professional development among
teachers in Gaeltacht post-primary schools. J. Immers. Content-Based Lang. Educ. 2018,6, 295–320. [CrossRef]
8.
Feng, L.; Sass, T.R. What Makes Special Education Teachers Special? Teacher Training and Achievement of Students with Disabilities:
Working Paper49; National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research: Stanford, CA, USA, 2010.
9.
Paneque, O.M.; Rodriguez, D. Language Use by Bilingual Special Educators of ELLs with Disabilities. Int. J. Spec. Educ.
2009
,24,
63–69.
10.
Artiles, A.J.; Kozleski, E.B.; Trent, S.C.; Osher, D.; Ortiz, A. Justifying and Explaining Disproportionality, 1968–2008: A Critique of
Underlying Views of c. Except. Child. 2010,76, 279–299. [CrossRef]
11.
Nic Aindriú, S.; ÓDuibhir, P.; Travers, J. The Prevalence and types of special educational needs in Irish immersion primary
schools in the Republic of Ireland. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2020,35, 603–619. [CrossRef]
12.
Minihan, E.; Adamis, D.; Dunleavy, M.; Martin, A.; Gavin, B.; McNicholas, F. COVID-19 related occupational stress in teachers in
Ireland. Int. J. Educ. Res. Open 2022,3, 100114. [CrossRef]
13.
Gaeloideachas. Statisitcs. 2020. Available online: https://gaeloideachas.ie/i-am-a-researcher/statistics/ (accessed on
10 January 2022).
14.
Department of Education and Skills. Policy on Gaeltacht Education: 2017–2022; Department of Education and Skills: Dublin,
Ireland, 2016.
15.
Murtagh, L.; Seoighe, A. Educational psychological provision in Irish-medium primary schools in indigenous Irish language
speaking communities (Gaeltacht): Views of teachers and educational psychologists. Br. J. Educ. Psychol.
2022
,92, 1278–1294.
[CrossRef]
16.
ÓGiollagáin, C.; Mac Donnacha, S.; NíChualáin, F.; NíShéaghdha, A.; O’Brien, M. Comprehensive Linguistic Study of the Use of
Irish in the Gaeltacht; Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs: Galway, Ireland, 2007.
17.
ÓGiollagáin, C.; Charlton, M. Nuashonrúar an Staidéar Cuimsitheach Teangeolaíoch ar Úsáid na Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht: 2006–2011;
Update on the Comprehensive Linguistic Study on the Use of Irish in the Gaeltacht 2006–2011; Údarás na Gaeltachta: Furbo,
Galway, Ireland, 2015.
18.
McAdory, S.E.; Janmaat, J.G. Trends in Irish-medium education in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland since 1920:
Shifting agents and explanations. J. Multiling. Multicult. Dev. 2015,36, 528–543. [CrossRef]

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 16 of 17
19. Assessment, N.C.f.C.a. Primary Language Curriculum; NCCA: Dublin, Ireland, 2019.
20.
Barrett, M.; Kinsella, W.; Prendeville, P. Special educational needs in bilingual primary schools in the Republic of Ireland. Ir. Educ.
Stud. 2019,39, 273–295. [CrossRef]
21.
Nic Aindriú, S.; ÓDuibhir, P.; Travers, J. A survey of assessment and additional teaching support in Irish immersion education.
Languages 2021,6, 62. [CrossRef]
22. Nic Gabhann, D. Special Educational Needs in Gaelscoileanna. Master ’s Thesis, University of Wales, Bangor, Wales, 2008.
23.
Banks, J.; McCoy, S. A Study on the Prevalence of Special Educational Needs; National Council for Special Education: Co. Meath,
Ireland, 2010.
24.
Paradis, J.; Genesee, F.; Crago, M.B. Dual Language Development and Disorders: A Handbook on Bilingualism and Second Language
Learning; Paul H Brookes Publishing: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2011.
25.
Grosjean, F. Another view of bilingualsm. In Cognitive Processing in Bilinguals; Harris, R., Ed.; North-Holland: Amsterdam,
Holland, 1992; pp. 51–62.
26.
Kay-Raining Bird, E.; Genesee, F.; Verhoeven, L. Bilingualism in children with developmental disorders: A narrative review. J.
Commun. Disord. 2016,63, 1–14. [CrossRef]
27.
Costa, A.; Sebastián-Gallés, N. How does the bilingual experience sculpt the brain? Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
2014
,15, 336–345.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
28.
Garraffa, M.; Beveridge, M.; Sorace, A. Linguistic and cognitive skills in Sardinian–Italian bilingual children. Front. Psychol.
2015
,
6, 1898. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29.
Liberman, Z.; Woodward, A.L.; Keysar, B.; Kinzler, K.D. Exposure to multiple languages enhances communication skills in
infancy. Dev. Sci. 2017,20, e12420. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30.
de Jong, E.J.; Bearse, C.I. The same outcomes for all? High school students reflect on their two-way immersion program
experiences. In Immersion Education: Pathways to Bilingualism and Beyond; Tedick, D.J., Christian, D., Fortune, T.W., Eds.;
Multilingual Matters: Bristol, UK, 2011; pp. 104–122.
31. Bialystok, E. Bilingualism: The good, the bad, and the indifferent. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 2009,12, 3–11. [CrossRef]
32.
Kormi-Nouri, R.; Moradi, A.-R.; Moradi, S.; Akbari-Zardkhaneh, S.; Zahedian, H. The effect of bilingualism on letter and category
fluency tasks in primary school children: Advantage or disadvantage? Biling. Lang. Cogn. 2012,15, 351–364. [CrossRef]
33.
Portocarrero, J.S.; Burright, R.G.; Donovick, P.J. Vocabulary and verbal fluency of bilingual and monolingual college students.
Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2007,22, 415–422. [CrossRef]
34.
Barac, R.; Bialystok, E. Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: Role of language, cultural background, and
education. Child Dev. 2012,83, 413–422. [CrossRef]
35.
Michael, E.B.; Gollan, T.H. Being and becoming bilingual: Individual differences and consequences for language production. In
Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2005; pp. 389–407.
36.
Oller, D.K.; Pearson, B.Z.; Cobo-Lewis, A.B. Profile effects in early bilingual language and literacy. Appl. Psycholinguist.
2007
,28,
191–230. [CrossRef]
37.
David, A.; Wei, L. Individual differences in the lexical development of French–English bilingual children. Int. J. Biling. Educ.
Biling. 2008,11, 598–618. [CrossRef]
38.
Poulin-Dubois, D.; Bialystok, E.; Blaye, A.; Polonia, A.; Yott, J. Lexical access and vocabulary development in very young
bilinguals. Int. J. Billing 2013,17, 57–70. [CrossRef]
39.
Legacy, J.; Zesiger, P.; Friend, M.; Poulin-Dubois, D. Vocabulary size and speed of word recognition in very young French–English
bilinguals: A longitudinal study. Biling. Lang. Cogn. 2018,21, 137–149. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40.
Kay-Raining Bird, E.; Cleave, P.; Trudeau, N.; Thordardottir, E.; Sutton, A.; Thorpe, A. The language abilities of bilingual children
with Down Syndrome. Am. J. Speech-Lang. Pathol. 2005,14, 187–199. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41.
Lund, E.M.; Kohlmeier, T.L.; Durán, L.K. Comparative language development in bilingual and monolingual children with autism
spectrum disorder: A systematic review. J. Early Interv. 2017,39, 106–124. [CrossRef]
42.
Genesee, F.; Lindholm-Leary, K. The suitability of dual language education for diverse students: An overview of research in
Canada and the United States. J. Immers. Content-Based Lang. Educ. 2021,9, 164–192. [CrossRef]
43.
de Valenzuela, J.S.; Bird, E.K.; Parkington, K.; Mirenda, P.; Cain, K.; MacLeod, A.A.; Segers, E. Access to opportunities for
bilingualism for individuals with developmental disabilities: Key informant interviews. J. Commun. Disord.
2016
,63, 32–46.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
44.
Casey, P.; Dunlap, K.; Brister, H.; Davidson, M.; Starrett, T.M. Sink or swim? Throw us a life jacket! Novice alternatively certified
bilingual and special education teachers deserve options. Educ. Urban Soc. 2013,45, 287–306. [CrossRef]
45.
Caesar, L.G.; Kohler, P.D. The state of school-based bilingual assessment: Actual practice versus recommended guidelines. Lang
Speech Hear. Serv. Sch. 2007,38, 190–200. [CrossRef]
46.
Leung, C.; Scott, C. Formative assessment in language education policies: Emerging lessons from Wales and Scotland. Annu. Rev.
Appl. Linguist. 2009,29, 64–79. [CrossRef]
47.
Wise, N.; Chen, X. At-risk readers in French immersion: Early identification and early intervention. Can. J. Appl. Linguist.
2010
,
13, 128–149.
48.
Kavanagh, L.; Hickey, T.M. ‘You’re looking at this different language and it freezes you out straight away’: Identifying challenges
to parental involvement among immersion parents. Lang. Educ. 2013,27, 432–450. [CrossRef]

Educ. Sci. 2022,12, 909 17 of 17
49.
Tinkler, B. A review of literature on Hispanic/Latino parent involvement in K-12 education. 2002. Turney, K.; Kao, G. Barriers to
school involvement: Are immigrant parents disadvantaged? J. Educ. Res. 2009,102, 257–271. [CrossRef]
50.
Genesee, F.; Fortune, T.W. Bilingual education and at-risk students. J. Immers. Content-Based Lang. Educ.
2014
,2, 196–209.
[CrossRef]
51.
ÓDuibhir, P.; ÓCathalláin, S.; NigUidhir, G.; NíThuairisg, L.; Cosgrove, J. An Analysis of Models of Provision for Irish-Medium
Education; An Coiste Seasta Thuaidh Theas ar an nGaeloideachas: Dublin, Ireland, 2017.
52.
Ochoa, A.; Brandon, R.R.; Cadiero-Kaplan, K.; Ramirez, P.C. Bridging bilingual and special education: Opportunities for
transformative change in teacher preparation programs. Assoc. Mex. Am. Educ. J. 2014,8, 72–82.
53.
Rodriguez, D.; Carrasquillo, A. Bilingual special education teacher preparation: A conceptual framework. NYSABE
1997
,12,
98–109.
54.
Rodriguez, D. A conceptual framework of bilingual special education teacher programs. In ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International
Symposium on Bilingualism, Somerville, MA, USA, 30 April–3 May 2005; Cohen, J., McAlister, K.T., Rolstad, K., MacSwan, J., Eds.;
Cascadilla Press: Somerville, MA, USA, 2005; pp. 1960–1969.
55. Cammarata, L.; Tedick, D.J. Balancing content and language in instruction: The experience of immersion teachers. Mod. Lang. J.
2012,96, 251–269. [CrossRef]
56.
May, S. Indigenous immersion education: International developments. J. Immers. Content-Based Lang. Educ.
2013
,1, 34–69.
[CrossRef]
57.
Stiles, D.B. Four Successful Indigenous Language Programs. In Teaching Indigenous Languages; Reyhner, J., Ed.; Northern Arizona
University: Flagstaff, AZ, USA, 1997; pp. 248–262.
58. ÓGrádaigh, S. Who are qualified to teach in second-level Irish-medium schools? Ir. Educ. Stud. 2015,34, 165–182. [CrossRef]
59.
The Teaching Council. Initial Teacher Education: Criteria and Guidelines for Programme Providers; The Teaching Council: Maynooth,
Ireland, 2011.
60. The Teaching Council. Cosán: Framework for Teacher’s Learning; The Teaching Council: Maynooth, Ireland, 2016.
61. OECD. Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2014.
62. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006,3, 77–101. [CrossRef]
63.
Travers, J.; Balfe, T.; Butler, C.; Day, T.; Dupont, M.; McDaid, R.; O’Donnell, M.; Prunty, A. Addressing the Challenges and Barriers to
Inclusion in Irish Schools: Report to Research and Development Committee of the Department of Education and Skills; Department of
Education and Skills: Dublin, Ireland, 2010.
64. Department of Education. Provider’s Booklet for Summer Courses 2021; Department of Education: Dublin, Ireland, 2021.
65.
McMillan, D.J.; McConnell, B.; O’Sullivan, H. Continuing professional development-why bother? Perceptions and motivations of
teachers in Ireland. Prof. Dev. Educ. 2016,42, 150–167. [CrossRef]
66.
University College London (UCL). Designing Programmes and Modules with ABC Curriculum Design. 2022. Available on-
line: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/case-studies/2018/jun/designing-programmes-and-modules-abc-curriculum-
design (accessed on 19 July 2022).
67. DuFour, R. What’s a professional learning community? Educ. Leadersh. 2004,61, 6–11.