Exploring Preservice Teachers Attitudes Towards Inclusion

International Journal of Inclusive Education
ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20
Exploring preservice teachers' attitudes towards

inclusion
Isabel Killoran, Dagmara Woronko & Hayley Zaretsky
To cite this article: Isabel Killoran, Dagmara Woronko & Hayley Zaretsky (2014) Exploring
preservice teachers' attitudes towards inclusion, International Journal of Inclusive Education,
18:4, 427-442, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2013.784367
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.784367
Published online: 25 Mar 2013.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1039
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20
Download by: [Southern Illinois University]
Date: 25 September 2015, At: 15:42
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2014

Vol. 18, No. 4, 427 442, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.784367
Exploring preservice teachers attitudes towards inclusion

Isabel Killoran , Dagmara Woronko and Hayley Zaretsky
Faculty of Education, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Winters 269, Toronto, ON,
M3J 1P3, Canada
Downloaded by [Southern Illinois University] at 15:42 25 September 2015
(Received 19 September 2012; final version received 6 March 2013)

This study responds to a call for research into existing teacher-education
programmes and their impact on teacher candidates attitudes. An inclusive
education course that examined the difference between soft inclusion (inclusion
which addresses the issue of place rather than substance of learning) and genuine
inclusion was used to explore pre-existing teacher candidate beliefs and
assumptions. Using the Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming-Adapted, four
classes of students from two different teacher-preparation programmes within the
Faculty of Education at York University in Toronto, Canada, were surveyed preand post-course. A statistically significant change in the scores was found for all
of the classes. A significant difference was also found between the changes in
scores of the two programme groups. Results indicate that the course was
successful at shifting preservice students towards inclusion and gave the students
a foundation that will hopefully translate into practice.
Keywords: inclusion; attitudes; preservice; teachers; Ontario
Inclusive education of students with disabilities is a matter of human rights, whereby

access to quality education is coupled with respect and equity in the learning environment (Moran 2007; Rioux and Pinto 2010). Internationally, Article 24(1) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations 2006) requires
signatory nations to provide learners with an inclusive educational experience. In
Ontario, the Ministry of Education aligns inclusive education with rights to non-discrimination and dignity under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Ministrys Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy (2009) emphasises respect for student diversity and the importance of meaningful
participation in education for all learners. Successful and equitable inclusive classrooms necessitate the presence of committed, competent and adaptable teachers. Effective inclusive teachers hold positive attitudes towards children with disabilities, are
skilled in delivering curriculum to a diverse population of students and feel confident
in their ability to promote inclusivity in their classrooms (Berry 2010; Blecker and
Boakes 2010; Darling-Hammond 2006a; Lancaster and Bain 2010; Ryan 2009). Conversely, the absence of positive attitudes and a sense of commitment to principles of
inclusion can negatively affect teachers efforts to effectively educate students with
disabilities (Berry 2010; Jordan and Stanovich 2004; Rioux and Pinto 2010). This
absence of positive attitudes and practices can also adversely impact peer attitudes
Corresponding author. Email: ikilloran@edu.yorku.ca
# 2013 Taylor & Francis
428
I. Killoran et al.
and intentions to engage socially with children with disabilities (Roberts and Smith
1999; Ryan 2009).
Teachers face a number of pressures that may detract from a focus on building
inclusive communities. Globally, Slee (2006) points to a centralized fast curriculum
and pedagogy development and production, high stakes testing, and teaching inspection as enacting barriers to the realisation of inclusion (238). According to Slee
(2006), when educators feel compelled to raise student performance in accordance
with uniform standards, disability can easily become understood as a threat in the
school setting (238). Elsewhere, Curcic et al. (2011) discuss how accountability pressures may detract from collaborative working relationships amongst general and special
educators, thereby preventing the sense of shared responsibility for all learners. A
strong commitment to the principle of inclusion may help educators navigate these
pressures and begin to enact change at a local level. Promoting positive attitudes and
shared responsibility towards inclusion amongst teachers is an important foundation
for the creation of equitable learning environments.
The foundation of positive, equitable and inclusive attitudes towards the education
of students with disabilities can be laid in preservice-teacher-preparation programmes.
New teachers, who find themselves struggling with the complex demands and challenges of the inclusive classroom, often cite a lack of adequate preparation as one
source of their frustration (Horne and Timmons 2009; Loreman 2010; Sosu, Mtika,
and Colucci-Gray 2010). To address these concerns, teacher-preparation programmes
must design courses that help prospective teachers appreciate environmental, social
and cultural contexts of learning, behaviour and teaching, and be able to enact these
understandings in inclusive classrooms serving increasingly diverse students
(Darling-Hammond 2006a; Horne and Timmons 2009; Jung 2007; Sosu et al. 2010).
Darling-Hammond (2006b) outlined three fundamental problems associated with
learning to teach inclusively.
(1) The problem of the Apprenticeship of Observation: new teachers must understand teaching in ways different from and more complex than their own experiences as students.
(2) The problem of Enactment: new teachers must not only learn to think like a
teacher, but also to act like a teacher.
(3) The problem of Complexity: new teachers must learn to understand and
respond to the dense and multifaceted nature of the classroom (35).
Teacher-preparation programmes should be responsive to these problems and the
challenges faced by new teachers. Effective preparation needs to address these critical
issues and foster positive attitudes and teaching strategies for inclusive classroom settings. Existing teacher-education programmes need to be researched in terms of their
impact on teacher candidates human qualities, attitudes and practices (Falkenberg 2008).
Background
The following study measures the attitudinal shifts of preservice teacher candidates
after participation in a 36-hour Inclusive Education course offered in the Faculty of
Education at York University. York University, located in Toronto, Ontario, is the
third largest university in Canada, with approximately 50,000 students. It has 11 faculties, including the Faculty of Education, one of the largest in Ontario. Preservice
429
(Bachelor of Education) students prepare for teaching careers through either a threeyear concurrent programme, in which they complete an additional Bachelors simultaneously, or a one-year consecutive programme, which is done after a Bachelors.
Course work requirements are complemented with practicum placements. Preservice
teachers are working towards certification in one of the following division groupings:
primary/junior (kindergarten to grade 6); junior/intermediate (grades 410) and intermediate/senior (grades 712). This study drew participants from the concurrent programme and a specialised consecutive cohort at York for those who have already
graduated with an early childhood education (ECE) degree or another degree and an
ECE diploma. Successful graduates of both programmes receive a Bachelor of Education degree, with a recommendation to the Ontario College of Teachers for teaching
certification (general education).
Within these programmes, some students are offered the opportunity to take a 36-hour
course on Inclusive Education. In the consecutive programme, the course is offered as an
elective only to the primary/junior students who are in the ECE consecutive group. All of
the concurrent students have the option of choosing the Inclusive Education course as an
elective. The ECE consecutive option is offered in a two-week module format, while the
concurrent option is offered over a 12-week term. The concurrent students in the elective
are generally in their second or third year of the programme, have completed a variety of
practica and may be in any of the division groupings mentioned above (primary through
secondary). Inclusive Education is a seminar course that focuses on the inclusion of children with exceptionalities in the general education classroom. [Exceptionalities is used
in reference to identified behaviour, communication, intellectual, physical or multiple
learning needs, including giftedness (MoE 2001, A18A20).] The approach taken is
that it is the right of students with exceptionalities and of parents to elect placement in
general education classrooms at neighbourhood schools, and it is the obligation of
schools, teachers and administration to provide an effective, inclusive placement (York
University 2011, taken from course syllabus).
In Inclusive Education, inclusion is humanised through the examination of reallife stories, case studies and guest speakers. These strategies may help preservice
teachers personally connect to inclusion, which is critical for shifting attitudes. Evans
(2004) contends that the most significant shift in attitudes towards inclusion
comes at an emotional level [teachers] have to believe that these children belong, that
they have a place in the classroom, that children with special needs can form relationships
with others, and that, as teachers, they can facilitate this process. (200)
As such, within Inclusive Education, pre-existing teacher candidate beliefs and

assumptions are challenged and the difference between soft inclusion (inclusion that
addresses the issue of place rather than substance of learning) and genuine inclusion is
presented (Rioux and Pinto 2010). Time is spent in this course looking at bias and the
stereotypes of disabilities within society as a whole. The importance of peers (see, for
example, Girolametto and Weitzman 2007) and how inclusion/exclusion impacts the
social and emotional development of children with and without disabilities is explored.
The misperception that special education teachers are privy to a wealth of teaching strategies foreign to general education teachers is dispelled through the introduction of
Universal Design for Learning (CAST 2011) and Differentiation. Disability as a social
construct, inclusion as a human right and the collaboration of parents, teachers, paraprofessionals and peers in supporting inclusive practice are also examined.
430
I. Killoran et al.
The founding principles for the course are as follows:
(1) A child has the right to be included.

(2) The general-education teacher has the responsibility and knowledge to include
children with disabilities.
(3) Behaviour is a form of communication.
(4) Social and emotional development needs to be an important component of
inclusion.
(5) Collaboration is critical.
The focus of the course is to get preservice teachers to grasp these principles and to
understand that the issues preventing inclusion do not lie within the child but rather
with those around him/her. In an effort to meet the objectives of the course, the instructor attempted to demystify inclusion, challenge assumptions and empower the preservice teachers to feel confident in their abilities to implement inclusive practices.
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to examine whether participation in Inclusive Education
resulted in statistically significant attitudinal shifts among preservice teacher candidates, given the empirical evidence that demonstrates the correlation between positive
attitudes and effective inclusive practices (Berry 2010; Blecker and Boakes 2010;
Darling-Hammond 2006a; Lancaster and Bain 2010; Ryan 2009). Although some preservice teachers may come to the programme with relatively inclusive beliefs, the
instructor was curious as to whether attitudes all along the continuum of inclusive
beliefs could be shifted in a positive direction regardless of the students starting
position.
Four cohorts of students participated in the study. The survey was given during
class time and all of the students completed it at the first collection. Some surveys
were unable to be matched from the final collection because students used a different
four-digit ID code. Originally, the data were intended for the personal use of the instructor to consider when evaluating the course and its objectives. Upon analysis of the data,
the instructor requested retroactive permission from the Universitys Human Participants Review Committee to use the data for further analysis and publication. This
approval was given and all of the participating students (N 81) signed consent forms.
(1) November 2002 ECE/consecutive group (n 21),
(2) November 2003 ECE/consecutive group (n 21),
(3) Fall 2005 all divisions (primary/junior, junior/intermediate, intermediate/secondary)/concurrent group (n 17),
(4) Winter 2007 all divisions/concurrent (n 22).
Students enrolled in the ECE/consecutive groups attended class for 8 days, for a
total of 36 hours of instruction. Students enrolled in the all divisions/concurrent
groups attended class 3 hours a week, for 12 weeks, totalling 36 hours of instruction.
Content, curriculum and philosophy were consistent across all four courses as they
were taught by the same course director. Using an adapted version of Opinions Relative
to Mainstreaming (Goodstadt-Killoran 2000), the four course groups were surveyed. In
each of the courses, the students were given the questionnaire on the first day of class
431
prior to any discussion about the syllabus or inclusion. On the last day, the students
were re-administered the questionnaire. The results were analysed based on the programme variable (consecutive or concurrent). The changes in the four subgroups
were also analysed.
Limitations
No demographic information was collected regarding the participants in the study
because the original purpose was only to see if the course objectives were being
met. Demographic information would have been useful in analysing the findings
further. Existing research on teacher attitudes has pointed to links between teacher
characteristics and dispositions towards inclusion (Avramidis and Norwich 2002). Collecting and analysing data with respect to practicum experience would also add another
layer of understanding to trends demonstrated in the attitudinal shifts. Previous research
(Goodstadt-Killoran 2000) demonstrated that preservice teacher candidates adopt the
attitudes and practices of their host/mentor teachers when it comes to the education
of students with disabilities. Although practicum experiences are a critical aspect of
preservice learning, it is difficult for teacher educators to monitor what is learned in
these settings (Jordan, Schwartz, and McGhie-Richmond 2009).
Familiarity with disability also impacts attitudes towards inclusive education
(Horne and Timmons 2009). No data were collected with respect to participants
prior knowledge of and/or experience with disability in the classroom, although anecdotally many of the students gave personal reasons related to experience with disability
for taking the course. Finally, studies indicate trends in attitudes towards inclusion and
the grade level educators teach (Avramidis and Norwich 2002). In a review of the literature on teacher attitudes, Avramidis and Norwich (2002) report that, generally, teachers in higher grade levels more focused on subject-matter tend to be less accepting
of inclusion than those in lower grade levels where there is a more holistic focus on
learner development (137 138). It would have been very beneficial to have had the
division levels delineated in the concurrent responses; potential differences between
division levels could have been noted and analysed further. All of these are considerations for future research.
Instrument
The Opinions Related to Mainstreaming (ORM) scale was developed by Larrivee and
Cook (1979) to investigate the effect of selected variables on the attitudes of generaleducation teachers towards mainstreaming students with disabilities. A five-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) was used. Eighteen
of the items represented a negative attitude towards mainstreaming; 12 reflected a positive attitude. The original scale, the ORM, consisted of 30 items. Items whose correlations with the total score were below 0.30 were discarded. The split-half reliability
of the scale, determined by the SpearmanBrown reliability coefficient, was found
to be 0.92.
Antonak and Larrivee (1995) revised the ORM and renamed it the Opinions
Relative to Integration (ORI) of students with disabilities. The 30 items were maintained; however, they were rewritten to use more inclusive and contemporary
terminology. Wordings were also changed to create 15 positive and 15 negative
432
I. Killoran et al.
responses. A six-point continuum with anchors ranging from 1 (disagree very much) to
6 (agree very much) was added to prevent midpoint responses.
The original 30 items (Larrivee and Cook 1979) were used in this study; however,
the six-point continuum created for the ORI (Antonak and Larrivee 1995) was chosen
to eliminate midpoint responses. Eighteen items represented negative attitudes towards
inclusion and were reverse scored so that higher scores represented more positive attitudes towards inclusion. Possible total scores ranged from 30 to 180. The language of
the items was also further updated to include current terminology. Due to the differences in the instrument used in this study compared to the original ORM, the instrument
used in this study has been identified as ORM-adapted (ORM-A) for clarification.
Below is an example of the differences in terminology in the ORM, ORI and ORM-A:
. In the ORM, Mainstreaming is likely to have a negative effect on the emotional
development of the special needs child.
. In the ORI, Integration will likely have a negative effect on the emotional development of a student with a disability.
. In the ORM-A, Inclusion is likely to have a negative effect on the emotional
development of the student with a disability.
(adapted from and originally discussed in Goodstadt-Killoran 2000).
Findings
The researchers hypothesised that the ECE consecutive group would have significantly
higher pre-test scores because of their ECE background, as attitudes towards inclusion
are generally better in the lower divisions (Scruggs and Mastropieri 1996). Analysis of
variance results, however, revealed no significance between the two groups when they
started the course (F (1, 80) 1.922; p , .169). Even though there was no significance, the ECE consecutive group did start and end with higher scores than the concurrent group. Of greater interest to the researchers was the impact of the course on the
preservice teachers attitudes towards inclusion. According to the t-test, the change
in scores for all of the groups reflected a statistical significance. Each of the four
subgroups had significance of p , .000 (consecutive 2002: t 7.043 (df 20); consecutive 2003: t 9.597 (df 20); concurrent 2005: t 5.988 (df 16); concurrent
2007: t 6.639 (df 21)).
Although all of the groups had a statistically significant change in the scores,
there was also a significance in the differences in the changes in scores between the
two programme groups, with the ECE consecutive group having the most significant
change (F (1, 81) 6.816; p , .02 (.011)).
Although this study did not use a factor analysis, past research has shown there to be
typically three to five components that account for variance (see Goodstadt-Killoran
2000 for a summary). Previous components linked well with the five founding principles of the course discussed earlier. These principles are restated as attitude areas
for the analysis. The five areas that were examined for a shift in attitude were: (a)
general attitude about educators perceived ability to include; (b) attitude towards the
behaviour of children with disabilities, (c) attitude towards children with disabilities;
(d) attitude towards the social and emotional development of children with disabilities
and (e) overall attitude about inclusion. The statements were sorted into the five areas.
433
The statements within each area that showed the most shift in attitude are discussed
below.
Attitude 1: general educators perceived ability to include
This is a component that has repeatedly come out in factor analyses so it makes sense
to have it as central to the course. One of the main objectives of the course is to get
general educators to look at what they are already doing in their classes and find a
way to use Universal Design for Learning and Differentiation to set up their classes
to be more inclusive. Teachers are much more likely to make an effort to include if
they do not look upon it as an additional burden (Shade and Stewart 2001; Sharma
et al. 2006; Whiting and Young 1996).
Questionnaire items with the most change that relate to a general educators perceived ability to include are discussed below.
Statement 1: Many of the things teachers do with regular students in a classroom are
appropriate for students with special needs: ECE consecutives who agreed very much
rose from 2.3% to 40%. There was not nearly as much movement with the concurrent
participants, who rose from 3% to 10%.
Statement 8: General educators possess a great deal of the expertise necessary to work
with students with special needs: ECE consecutives who disagreed fell from 86% to
49%. Again, the concurrent participants showed less change. Those who disagreed
shifted from 90% to 72%.
Statement 13: Inclusion of students with disabilities will require significant changes in
the general-education-classroom procedures: Agreement amongst ECE consecutives
fell from 54% to 21%. Concurrent participants rose from 51% to 54% in agreement.
This is not surprising because the concurrent participants included higher grade
levels and were more subject-focused. They felt like they had less flexibility in their
delivery options and would need to change their procedures to be effective.
Statement 16: General educators have sufficient preparation to teach children with disabilities: Almost nobody agreed with this statement before the course. In fact, 98% of
ECE consecutive participants and 90% of concurrent participants disagreed with this
statement. After completion of the course, 44% of ECE consecutive participants disagreed with the statement, along with 69% of concurrent participants.
Statement 20: Diagnostic and prescriptive assessment is best done by special-education teachers rather than by general-education teachers: There was quite a bit of
shift for both groups. Over half of the ECE consecutive group and more than 60%
of the concurrent group agreed with this statement at the start of the course. After
the course, approximately 20% of both groups agreed with this statement.
Statement 27: Inclusion of students with disabilities will necessitate extensive re-preparation of general-education teachers: Although there was quite a considerable shift in
their responses to this statement, a larger percentage of concurrent students (close to
50% vs. 20%) believed that they would need extensive retraining after graduation to
make inclusion work.
434
I. Killoran et al.
Attitude 2: behaviour of children with disabilities

Another key principle of the course is to try and get teachers to understand behaviour as
a form of communication. It can be difficult for people to put aside personal feelings of
hurt or frustration when a child exhibits behaviour deemed to be inappropriate (Killoran
2004). It follows that once a teacher understands the principle of behaviour as communication, and stops viewing children as bad when they behave in ways teachers
do not appreciate or like, the more likely the teachers are to develop a positive relationship with the students.
Statement 5: The extra attention a student with disabilities requires will be to the detriment of the other students: ECE consecutives rose from 31% disagreeing very much to
71%. Concurrent participants rose from 26% disagreeing very much to 64%. At the end
of the course not a single ECE consecutive student agreed with this statement and only
one of the concurrent students still did (and only agreed a little).
Statement 9: The behaviour of students with disabilities will set a bad example for the
other students: There was a large shift in the response to this statement. The ECE consecutive participants moved from just under 60% to 80% disagreeing very much with
this statement. The concurrent students had an even larger shift, moving from fewer
than 40% to almost 70% disagreeing very much with the statement.
Statement 14: Most students with disabilities are well behaved in the general-education
classroom: Both groups ended up in the same place in overall agreement at the end of
the course (79%); however, it was a larger shift for the ECE consecutives who started at
39% in agreement compared to the concurrents, who started at 49%. In talking to the
students about whom they thought of when thinking about included children, the
ECE consecutives were more inclusive. The concurrents, who represent a broader
range of grade levels, generally mentioned only students who were gifted or had learning disabilities. This narrow perception of who is included at the start of the course may
have accounted for their belief that students with disabilities were better behaved as
they did not frequently encounter children with Autism spectrum disorder or emotional
behavioral disability in their settings.
Attitude 3: attitude towards children with disabilities
Underpinning some of what we do are our core beliefs about people with disabilities.
Time was spent in this course looking at bias and the stereotypes of disabilities within
society as a whole as well as the particular biases and stereotypes held by the preservice
teachers. At the beginning of the course, considerable time was spent discussing the
meaning of disability, and the difference between the medical and social models of disability (Shakespeare 1999). Throughout the course, the models were revisited and the
students were challenged to identify the belief that was serving as the lens for what they
were doing and experiencing in schools. There was also a considerable amount of time
spent on human rights and the importance of adopting a social-justice lens as an educator (Killoran 2002; Sapon-Shevin 2003). As the course progressed, specific readings
related to disproportionate representation, poverty and race were included so that the
students could recognise practices that were questionable (De Valenzuela et al. 2006;
Webb-Johnson 2003). The readings changed over the years of the course but the
message was the same in all of them.
435
Statement 15: The contact students without a disability have with a student with a disability in an inclusive setting may be harmful: The concurrent participants started out
with a more negative attitude with only 33% disagreeing very much with this statement.
By the end of the course, 72% disagreed very much. The ECE consecutives also had a
substantial shift moving from 51% disagreeing very much to 81% by the end of the
course.
Statement 26: Parents of a student with a disability present no greater problem for a
general-education teacher than those of a student without a disability: ECE consecutives who disagreed with this statement fell from 47% to 19%. Concurrent participants
fell from 39% in disagreement to 33%. With respect to how parents were discussed in
the courses, the biggest difference between the two groups was that the concurrents did
not have parents speak directly to them about their experiences with their childs
inclusion. The issues were not personalised for them and, as a much younger group
overall, fewer of them were parents and able to make the connection themselves.
Although the role-play activities occurred with both groups, it seems that having it personalised by a parent for the ECE consecutives made a difference in their response. This
finding is not surprising given previous studies that point to the positive impact parents
have on teachers attitudes towards inclusion (Novak et al. 2009; Pearson 2009; Scorgie
2010).
Statement 29: Students with disabilities are likely to create confusion in the generaleducation classroom: Both groups demonstrated changes in their response to this statement. By the end of the course over 75% of ECE consecutives (from 35%) and almost
60% of concurrents (from 20%) disagreed very much with this statement.
Attitude 4: social and emotional development

Another key area focused on in this course is the importance of peers (see, for example,
Girolametto and Weitzman 2007) and how inclusion/exclusion impacts the social and
emotional development of children with and without disabilities. Students often commented that until the Inclusive Education course they had not been taught about social
development and how to foster relationships between students with and without disabilities. The students who had come to the programme with ECE credentials had learned
about the social development of infants, toddlers and very young children, but they had
not focused on older children.
Statement 10: Isolation in a special-education class has a negative effect on the social
and emotional development of a student with a disability: ECE consecutives were more
likely to disagree with this statement than concurrents at the start of the class. At the end
of the class, however, both groups had the same level of agreement with this statement.
ECE consecutives who agreed very much rose from 26% to 55%. Concurrent participants who agreed very much rose from 18% to 56%.
Statement 18: Including a child with disabilities will promote his/her social independence: There was less shift for the concurrent group, but overall there was good movement with almost 80% of ECE consecutives and almost 60% of concurrents agreeing
very much with this statement at the end of the course.
436
I. Killoran et al.
Statement 23: Inclusion is likely to have a negative effect on the emotional

development of the student with disabilities: Again the concurrents started out with a
less positive attitude towards this statement, but at the end of the course approximately
75% of ECE consecutives and 70% of concurrents disagreed very much with this
statement.
Attitude 5: overall beliefs about inclusion
Much like the beliefs about students with disabilities, the preservice teachers came to
the course with biases/stereotypes about inclusion, special education and what they
thought was best. Several of them had worked as educational assistants or in other positions that involved interaction with schools. Unfortunately, this often resulted in jaded
experiences. Many had been in schools that claimed to be inclusive but were not, which
resulted in the preservice teachers thinking they had seen inclusion not work.
Statement 2: The needs of a student with a disability can best be served through special,
separate classes: Prior to the start of the class the groups varied in their response to this
statement. The concurrents tended to agree more with this statement than the ECE consecutives. By the end of the course, 98% of the ECE consecutives and 96% of the concurrents disagreed overall with the statement. The ECE consecutives were stronger in
their conviction with more disagreeing very much with the statement.
Statement 4: The challenge of being in a general-education classroom will promote the
academic growth of the student with special needs: The concurrent students had a significant shift in their response to this statement. Overall, they moved from 46% to 95%
in agreement. Before the course started not a single concurrent student agreed very
much with this statement. By the end of the course 38% agreed very much.
Statement 5: Inclusion offers mixed group interaction, which will foster understanding
and acceptance of differences: Both groups had a considerable shift in their response to
this statement. Approximately 80% of both groups agreed very much with this statement at the end of the course, compared to 50% at the beginning.
Statement 11: The student with disabilities will probably develop academic skills more
rapidly in a special-education class than in a general-education class: The concurrent
students had a larger shift than the ECE consecutives, moving from 46% to 7% in
agreement with this statement. If this is compared to the earlier discussed shifts
in their perceived abilities, it demonstrates that they do believe philosophically in
inclusion but are not sure that they are prepared for it.
Statement 21: Inclusion of students with disabilities can be beneficial for students
without disabilities: There was a huge shift for both groups in response to this statement. By the end of the course, 93% of ECE consecutives and 82% of concurrent students agreed very much.
Statement 28: Students with disabilities should be given every opportunity to function in
the general-education classroom, where possible: Once again there was another huge
shift with 95% of ECE consecutives and 87% of concurrent students choosing agreed
very much in response to this statement at the end of the course.
437
Statement 30: The presence of students with disabilities will promote acceptance of
differences on the part of students without disabilities: At the end of the course,
close to 90% of both groups agreed very much with this statement.
Discussion
Many significant shifts in preservice teacher attitudes occurred as a result of participation in the Inclusive Education course. For example, there was a significant drop
in the opinion that Diagnostic and prescriptive assessment is best done by special-education teachers rather than by general-education teachers. The researchers recognise
that this is an important shift because teachers often say they cannot do anything for
students until they have been formally assessed and identified. In some school districts,
that can take years. Consequently, students are left without support if teachers believe
that they cannot do anything without a completed formal process. In the Inclusive Education course, preservice teachers are challenged to reframe the response of doing
nothing to support students on a waiting list as an ethical issue. They are encouraged
to make the personal decision to support the student even if that is not the direction provided by the administrator. If general educators believe that they can do some of the
necessary assessment, they are more likely to be proactive in determining what accommodations should be provided while waiting for the formal process to be completed.
Brown et al. (2008) also found that general education teachers were more accepting
of inclusion once they gained confidence in their abilities to adapt assessment practices.
The researchers also examined preservice teacher attitudes regarding perceived
harmful impacts of contact students without a disability have with a student with a
disability and the attitude that students with disabilities are likely to create confusion
in the general-education classroom. Participation in the Inclusive Education course
shifted these potentially negative pre-existing attitudes significantly, pointing
towards the courses success in encouraging preservice teachers to reflect critically
on their assumptions regarding the impact of a child with a disability on the classroom
environment.
Chambers and Forlin (2010) note the importance of addressing any negative
opinions of preservice teachers towards inclusion before they become solidified and
more resistant to change. The Inclusive Education course encouraged the students to
address their assumptions, look at the definition of inclusion and examine the research
on the benefits and issues around inclusion for children with and without disabilities.
Teachers expectations are often governed by what they believe is the potential of
someone and, unfortunately, these beliefs are often flawed. For example, Biklen and
Burke (2006) discuss the tendency to underestimate the abilities of individuals with
communication difficulties. In order to help preservice teachers think more inclusively,
it is important to first help them recognise and reflect critically upon their assumptions
about students with disabilities and learning (Kozleski and Waitoller 2010; Sharma
2010). If they are going to be making decisions about a childs future, these decisions
must be informed and evidence based. Exposing teachers to evidence-based practices
can help them recognise ineffective teaching strategies, and seek out more responsive
practices of inclusive education (Sharma 2010). Significant shifts occurred in preservice teacher attitudes regarding academic growth, where the learning should take
place and how mixed group interaction affects the acceptance of differences on the
part of students without disabilities.
438
I. Killoran et al.
In summary, although both groups had a statistically significant shift in their attitudes about the general educators ability to include and what that would entail, the
ECE consecutive group had greater movement. This is not surprising based on the
subject-based focus of the higher divisions and the inclusion of these students in
the concurrent classes. As Avramidis and Norwich (2002) find, it is generally
believed that an emphasis on subject-matter affiliation is less compatible with
inclusion than is a focus on student development (138). In the concurrent group,
the preservice teachers at the higher grade levels discussed how they struggled
more with the idea of Differentiation and felt they would need retraining after they
left the teacher-preparation programme to be truly ready for including children.
Even though there was concern about their preparation, overall 56% of ECE consecutives and 31% of concurrent students felt that general educators had sufficient preparation to teach children with disabilities after the course. In Ontario, general
education and special education are seen by many as two very distinct streams of
speciality. Everyone is originally certified as a general educator, but in order to
have special-education qualifications a teacher must take additional qualification
courses. That being said, the vast majority of students receiving special-education
programmes and services are placed in the general-education classroom (Bennett
and Wynne 2006, 7). Consequently, the reality is that every general educator is
also a special educator. Separating general and special educators into distinct
streams can impede collaborative relationships, which are critical for realising
inclusion (Kozleski and Waitoller 2010). Working towards collapsing the two
streams is necessary if inclusion is to be our desired practice.
Both groups had a shift in their attitudes about the behaviour of children with disabilities and their attitudes about children with disabilities and the impact of having
them in the general-education classroom. There was a large shift in both groups attitudes about the social and emotional impact of inclusion. Important to note is the parallel shifting of both groups. It is very encouraging to see the higher-grade-level
teachers acknowledge the importance of social/emotional relationships. It was an objective of the course that was addressed repeatedly and through many avenues (e.g. speakers, circle of friends, research and seminars), as studies indicate the value of combining
teacher educator instruction with opportunities to learn from and alongside other educational stakeholders (i.e. parents and students) (Chambers and Forlin 2010; Evans
2004).
In keeping with the shifts above, there was also a very large shift in both groups
attitudes about the principle of inclusion as a right and overall benefit. Earlier research
(Horne and Timmons 2009; Lindsay 2007; Scruggs and Mastropieri 1996) has found
that teachers generally do support inclusion as a principle but unfortunately that is
where it often ends. While those in the field promote the benefits and necessity of
inclusive programmes, some educators find it extremely difficult to put the theory
into practice (Devore and Hanley-Maxwell 2000; Gettinger, Stoiber, and Lange
1999; Jones and Rapport 1997; Stoiber, Gettinger, and Goetz 1998 as cited in Killoran,
Tymon, and Frempong 2007, 83). Although prior research (Arceneaux Rheams and
Bain 2005; Campbell, Gilmore, and Cuskelly 2003; Soto and Goetz 1998) has
shown the link between attitude and inclusive practice, there is a lack of research
into whether the preservice teachers who have had a significant shift in their attitudes
towards inclusion and children with disabilities are able to translate that shift into
practice.
439
Conclusion
This study responds to Falkenbergs (2008) call for research into existing teachereducation programmes and their impact on teacher candidates attitudes. In addressing Darling-Hammonds (2006b) three fundamental issues associated with learning
to teach inclusively, this study has demonstrated the ability of an inclusion course to
shift preservice teachers attitudes in several areas. Through redefining behaviour as
a means of communication and repositioning inclusive education as a human right
rather than a privilege, this study has demonstrated that participation in effective
preservice inclusion courses can in fact address the problems identified by
Darling-Hammond (2006b, 35). Prior research indicates that while new teachers
must learn to understand and respond to the complex and multifaceted nature of
the classroom (Darling-Hammond 2006b), a positive shift in attitude about disability
and inclusion lays the foundation for successful and effective inclusive teaching
practice. Through completing this course, preservice teachers have had a statistically
significant shift in their attitude towards inclusion. It is our hope that this shift will
translate into more welcoming and inclusive classrooms for the upcoming generation
of students.
Future research might take a more focused approach by investigating how an
inclusion course may impact the attitudes of a particular group of teachers with
specific backgrounds. Although this study demonstrates the value of an inclusion
course for promoting positive attitudes, greater detail about preservice teachers
characteristics, practicum experiences and familiarity with disability would have
added further insight into the findings. Research demonstrates the links between
these factors and attitudes towards inclusion (Avramidis and Norwich 2002;
Goodstadt-Killoran 2000; Horne and Timmons 2009). Thus, unless an inclusion
course specifically addresses the differences in teacher characteristics and experiences, these factors may impact the degree to which an inclusion course can
promote positive attitudes.
Notes on contributors
Isabel Killoran is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education. Her area of focus is
inclusive education and teacher preparation.
Dagmara Woronko is a doctoral student in the Faculty of Education and contract faculty at York
University.
Hayley Zaretsky is a MEd student at the Faculty of Education and a teacher with the York
Region District School Board.
References
Antonak, R.F., and B. Larrivee. 1995. Psychometric analysis and revision of the Opinions
Relative to Mainstreaming scale. Exceptional Children 6, no. 2: 139 49.
Arceneaux Rheams, T., and S.K. Bain. 2005. Social interaction interventions in an inclusive era:
Attitudes of teachers in early childhood self-contained and inclusive settings. Psychology in
the Schools 42, no. 1: 53 63. doi:10.1002/pits.20029
Avramidis, E., and B. Norwich. 2002. Teachers attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A
review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education 17, no. 2: 129
47. doi:10.1080/08856250210129056
Bennett, S., and K. Wynne. 2006. Special Education Transformation: Report of the Co-chairs
with the Recommendations of the Working Table on Special Education. Report submitted
to Ontario Minister of Education.
440
I. Killoran et al.
Berry, R.A.W. 2010. Preservice and early career teachers attitudes toward inclusion, instructional accommodations, and fairness: Three profiles. The Teacher Educator 45, no. 2:
75 95. doi:10.1080/08878731003623677
Biklen, D., and J. Burke. 2006. Presuming competence. Equity & Excellence in Education 39:
166 75.
Blecker, N.S., and N.J. Boakes. 2010. Creating a learning environment for all children: Are teachers able and willing? International Journal of Inclusive Education 14, no. 5: 435 47.
doi:10.1080/13603110802504937
Brown, K.S., L.A. Welsh, K.H. Hill, and J.P. Cipko. 2008. The efficacy of embedding special
education instruction in teacher preparation programs in the United States. Teaching and
Teacher Education 24, no. 8: 2087 94. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.013
Campbell, J., L. Gilmore, and M. Cuskelly. 2003. Changing student teachers attitudes towards
disability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 28, no. 4:
369 79. doi:10.1080/13668250310001616407
CAST. 2011. UDL Guidelines: Educator Checklist Version 2. http://www.udlcenter.org/
aboutudl/udlguidelines/downloads (accessed March 15, 2011).
Chambers, D., and C. Forlin. 2010. Initial teacher education and inclusion: A triad of inclusive
experiences. In Teaching education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative
approaches, ed. C. Forlin, 74 83. New York: Routledge.
Curcic, S., S. Gabel, V. Zeitlin, S. Cribaro-DiFatta, and C. Glarner. 2011. Policy and challenges
of building schools as inclusive communities. International Journal of Inclusive Education
15, no. 1: 117 33.
Darling-Hammond, L. 2006a. Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education 57, no. 3: 300 14. doi:10.1177/0022487105285962
Darling-Hammond, L. 2006b. Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
De Valenzuela, J., S. Copeland, C. Huaqing Qi, and M. Park. 2006. Examining educational
equity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Exceptional Children 72, no. 4: 425 41.
Evans, C.J. 2004. Learning through personal interaction: Preparing pre-service teachers for
students with special needs. Exceptionality Education Canada 14, nos. 2 3: 189 208.
Falkenberg, T. 2008. Mapping Research in Teacher Education. In Mapping research in teacher
education in Canada, eds. T. Falkenberg and H. Smits, 9 19. Winnipeg, AB: Proceedings
of the Working Conference on Research in Teacher Education in Canada.
Gettinger, M., K. Stoiber, and J. Lange. 1999. Collaborative investigation of inclusive early
education practices: A blueprint for teacher researcher partnership. Journal of Early
Intervention 22, no. 3: 257 65.
Girolametto, L., and E. Weitzman. 2007. Promoting peer interaction skills: Professional development for early childhood educators and preschool teachers. Topics in Language Disorders
27, no. 2: 93 110. doi:10.1097/01.TLD.0000269927.96009.b7
Goodstadt-Killoran. 2000. A longitudinal investigation of preservice teachers perspectives to
inclusion and developmentally appropriate practice. Unpublished diss., University of
Alabama, Birmingham, AL.
Horne, P.E., and V. Timmons. 2009. Making it work: Teachers perspectives on inclusion.
International Journal of Inclusive Education 13, no. 3: 273 86. doi:10.1080/
13603110701433964
Jones, H., and M. Rapport. 1997. Research-to-practice in inclusive early childhood education.
Teaching Exceptional Children 30, no. 2: 57 61.
Jordan, A., E. Schwartz, and D. McGhie-Richmond. 2009. Preparing teachers for inclusive
classrooms. Teacher and Teacher Education 25, no. 4: 535 42. doi:10.1016/
j.tate.2009.02.010
Jordan, A., and P. Stanovich. 2004. Teachers personal epistemological beliefs about students
with disabilities as indicators of effective teaching practices. Journal of Research in
Special Education Needs 3, no. 1: 1 12. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2003.00184.x
Jung, W.S. 2007. Preservice teacher preparation for successful inclusion. Education 128, no. 1:
106 13.
Killoran. 2002. A road less traveled: Creating a community where each belongs. Childhood
Education 78, no. 3: 371 7.
441
Killoran. 2004. Understanding the child with sensory integration dysfunction. Focus on
Inclusive Education Quarterly 2, no. 1: 3 7.
Killoran, I., D. Tymon, and G. Frempong. 2007. Disabilities and inclusion in Toronto preschools. International Journal of Inclusive Education 11, no. 1: 81 95.
Kozleski, E.B., and F.R. Waitoller. 2010. Teacher learning for inclusive education:
Understanding teaching as a cultural and political practice. International Journal of
Inclusive Education 14, no. 7: 655 66. doi:10.1080/13603111003778379
Lancaster, J., and A. Bain. 2010. The design of preservice inclusive education courses and their
effects on self-efficacy: A comparative study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 38,
no. 2: 117 28. doi:10.1080/13598661003678950
Larrivee, B., and L. Cook. 1979. Mainstreaming: A study of the variables affecting teacher attitude. Journal of Special Education 13, no. 3: 315 24.
Lindsay, G. 2007. Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology 77, no. 1: 1 24. doi:10.1348/
000709906X156881
Loreman, T. 2010. Essential inclusive education-related outcomes for Alberta preservice teachers. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research 56, no. 2: 124 42.
Moran, A. 2007. Embracing inclusive teacher education. European Journal of Teacher
Education 30, no. 2: 119 34. doi:10.1080/02619760701275578
Novak, J., M. Murray, A. Scheuermann, and E. Curran. 2009. Enhancing the preparation of
special educators through service learning: Evidence from two preservice courses.
International Journal of Special Education 24, no. 1: 32 44.
Ontario Ministry of Education. 2001. Special education: A guide for Educators. Toronto, ON:
Queens Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Education. 2009. Ontarios equity and inclusive education strategy.
Toronto, ON: Queens Printer for Ontario. http://cal2.edu.gov.on.ca/april2009/
EquityEducationStrategy.pdf
Pearson, S. 2009. Using activity theory to understand prospective teachers attitudes to and construction of special educational needs and/or disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education
25, no. 4: 559 68. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.011
Rioux, M.H., and P.C. Pinto. 2010. A time for the universal right to education: Back to basics.
British Journal of Sociology of Education 31, no. 5: 621 42. doi:10.1080/
01425692.2010.500094
Roberts, C.M., and P.R. Smith. 1999. Attitudes and behaviour of children toward peers with
disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 46, no. 1:
35 50. doi:10.1080/103491299100713
Ryan, T.G. 2009. Inclusive attitudes: A preservice analysis. Journal of Research in Special
Education Needs 9, no. 3: 180 7. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2009.01134.x
Sapon-Shevin, M. 2003. Inclusion: A matter of social justice. Educational Leadership 61, no. 2:
25 8.
Scorgie, K. 2010. Fostering empathy and understanding: A longitudinal case study pedagogy. In
Teacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative approaches, ed. C.
Forlin, 84 92. New York: Routledge.
Scruggs, T.E., and M.A. Mastropieri. 1996. Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion,
1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children 63, no. 1: 59 74.
Shade, R.A., and R. Stewart. 2001. General education and special education preservice teachers
attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure 46, no. 1: 37 41. doi:10.1080/
10459880109603342
Shakespeare, T. 1999. What is a disabled person? In Disability, divers-ability and legal change,
eds. M. Jones and L.A. Basser Marks, 25 34. Great Britain: Kluwer Law International.
Sharma, U. 2010. Using reflective practice for the preparation of pre-service teachers for inclusive classrooms. In Teacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative
approaches, ed. C. Forlin, 102 11. New York: Routledge.
Sharma, U., C. Forlin, T. Loreman, and C. Earle. 2006. Pre-service teachers attitudes, concerns
and sentiments about inclusive education: An international comparison of the novice preservice teachers. International Journal of Special Education 21, no. 2: 80 93.
Slee, R. 2006. Inclusive education: Is this horse a Trojan? Exceptionality Education Canada 16,
nos. 2 3: 223 42.
442
I. Killoran et al.
Sosu, E.M., P. Mtika, and L. Colucci-Gray. 2010. Does initial teacher education make a
difference? The impact of teacher preparation on student teachers attitudes towards educational inclusion. Journal of Education for Teaching 36, no. 4: 389 405. doi:10.1080/
02607476.2010.513847
Soto, G., and L. Goetz. 1998. Self-efficacy beliefs and the education of students with severe
disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 23, no. 2:
134 43. doi:10.2511/rpsd.23.2.134
United Nations. 2006, December 13. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and
Optional Protocol. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/conventioninfo.htm
Webb-Johnson, G. Winter, 2003. Behaving while Black. Beyond behaviour. http://www.ccbd.
net/documents/bb/3-7behavingwhileblack5.pdf
Whiting, M., and J. Young. 1996. Inclusive education: A question of justice. Australasian
Journal of Special Education 20, no. 2: 29 39. doi:10.1080/1030011960200205
York University. 2011. Faculty of Education. http://www.edu.yorku.ca (accessed March 28,
2011).

Exploring Preservice Teachers Attitudes Towards Inclusion

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Exploring Preservice Teachers Attitudes Towards Inclusion

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: 1360-3116 (Print) 1464-5173 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20