Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress International Special Education Conference Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity? 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland

home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact

Comparison of Diverse and Nondiverse Preservice Teachers’
Attitudes Toward the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities

Dr. Mary Jane Hayes
Austin Peay State University
hayesm@apsu.edu

Prior to the 1960s and 1970s, children with disabilities were educated in segregated settings, not just in separate classrooms but often in separate facilities.   The social reform efforts of the 1960s marked a significant turning point in American society and had a tremendous impact on education in public schools.   Disability rights advocates took their lead from the Civil Rights movement, specifically the landmark legislation, Brown vs the Topeka Board of Education in 1954, which ended so called “separate, but equal” education in the United States.   Gartner and Lipsky (1987) identified three salient factors that connect the Brown ruling with disability reform efforts in the 1960s and 1970s.

We start with Brown v. Board of Education.   In doing so, we wish to make three points: (1) to note the importance of education to the ‘life and minds’ of children; (2) to set the framework concerning the inherent inequality of separate education; and (3) to recognize that advocacy efforts in the 1960s and 1970s on behalf of persons with disabilities were drawn from the context of the Civil Rights movement.   One of the tactics which the disability rights movement learned from the Black Civil Rights movement was how to produce change in policies and practices through use of both the legal system and the legislature.   Indeed, many see developments in special education as the logical outgrowth of civil rights efforts of an earlier period.   (p.368)

Therefore, in 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children’s Act (PL 94-142) was passed with one of the key components being the inclusion of children with disabilities in the general education classroom to the maximum extent possible.   Interestingly, in no federal or state legislation is the term “inclusive education” used (Lipsky & Gartner, 1996).   However, PL 94-142 (renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990) with its subsequent revisions and reauthorizations continued to guarantee the right of children with disabilities a free, appropriate education in the least restrictive environment possible.   According to the Individuals with Disabilities Act Revision of 1997 (Sec.612.a.5), least restrictive environment is defined as:

To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.  

The issue of inclusion remains a topic of great controversy among educators, administrators, parents and students (McLeskey, Henry & Axelrod, 1999).   At the heart of this debate lie attitudes and beliefs about disabilities and how persons with disabilities should be included in society, and specifically in public schools (Ferguson, 1987; Berryman, 1989; Garvar-Pinhas & Schmelkin, 1989; Pajares, 1992).  

Clearly, an individual’s attitudes and beliefs concerning persons with disabilities may have already been influenced in many ways prior to their entering a teacher preparation program.   More importantly, some of these beliefs may be predicated on fiction rather than fact.   Lortie (1975) wrote about the sociological aspects of becoming a teacher, contending that one’s personal predispositions were at the center of becoming a teacher.   This is further supported by Malouf and Schiller (1995) who suggest that attitudes and beliefs of teachers about education are formed before they enter a teacher preparation program. Malouf and Schiller further state that teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about disabilities may influence their behavior in the classroom.   Garvar-Pinhas and Schmelkin (1989) maintain that teacher attitudes towards including students with disabilities are important factors influencing the success or failure of students with disabilities in inclusive settings.  

Brantlinger (1996) focused on preservice teachers, finding that they held a number of beliefs contrary to successful inclusion.   Many of these beliefs centered on the learning and academic support for diverse learners.   He also found that the structure of the school often failed to support teachers with diverse populations.

Pajares (1992) argued that investigating inservice teacher and preservice teacher beliefs is a necessary and valuable endeavor within the realm of educational research, but one for which all too little has been accomplished.   He further stated that preservice teacher beliefs are guided by their experiences prior to entering college.   Therefore, their attitudes toward students with disabilities have been forged before becoming preservice teachers.   Pajares (1992) also asserted that teacher beliefs can have implications for student outcomes.   In a video series on inclusion produced by Allyn & Bacon (Inclusion, 1992), a principal of an inclusive high school remarked that if teachers did not believe that students with disabilities belonged, then those students would not succeed.   This same principal further stated that if teachers believed students with disabilities did belong and had a right to be educated with nondisabled peers, then those same students could be successful.  

According to Goodman (1988), preservice teachers’ philosophies of education are predicated on belief systems which act as filters or screens.   Therefore, teacher beliefs may be based on misconceptions, myths, fictions, and limited direct or vicarious experience.   These misconceptualized beliefs may then serve as the basis for decisions regarding teaching and learning which in turn impact students.  

            Attitudes, beliefs, and values of teachers are fundamental to the academic and social success of children with disabilities and may affect the successful integration of persons with disabilities into adulthood and various other aspects of their lives in the larger society.   Even though legislative reforms continue to influence the inclusion of students with disabilities in today’s public schools, it is the attitudes of classroom teachers that ultimately determine the success or failure of inclusive programs.  

A growing body of research has focused on preservice teacher attitudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. However, there is little research comparing diverse with nondiverse populations of preservice teachers in terms of their attitudes toward inclusion.   Diverse learners may themselves have experienced some form of exclusion and discrimination that influences their attitudes toward inclusion.   It is entirely possible that diverse students bring to their teacher preparation programs a heightened sensibility and concern for learners with disabilities.  

            Attitudinal research on preservice and inservice teachers supports the notion that attitudes matter (Goodman, 1988; Garvar-Pinhas & Schmelkin, (1989); Pajares, (1992); Brantlinger, (1996); Scruggs & Mastropieri, (1996); Villa, Thousand, Meyers & Nevin, (1996); Hodge, (1998); Renzaglia, Hutchins & Lee, (1997); Leyser & Tappendorf, (2001); etc).   Findings from such research can and should impact teacher education programs which prepare educators for teaching in inclusive situations.   If there are differences in attitudes between diverse and nondiverse populations of preservice teachers, these should be understood and their impacts on classroom practice studied.    For the purposes of this study, the following definitions were used.

• Preservice teacher – one who is presently enrolled in a teacher certification training program and who has never taught in a public or private school as a certified teacher.
• Attitudes, Dispositions and/or Beliefs (for the purpose of this study, these terms will be used interchangeably) - values that make some assertion about some fact or principle; may or may not be based on factual knowledge; according to Malouf and Schiller (1995) “…used to denote a range of terms found in literature, including “values,” “judgments,” “assumptions,” “opinions,” “ideology,” “perceptions,” and “orientations”(p. 417), as well as dispositions.
• Diverse Population of Preservice Teachers – preservice teachers who are representative of a minority group based on race or ethnicity.
• Nondiverse Population of Preservice Teachers – preservice teachers who are representative of the majority/dominant cultural group (European American) in American society.
• Diverse Population of Preservice Teachers by Institution – one in which the majority (over 50%) of preservice teachers are representative of a minority group based on race or ethnicity.
• Nondiverse Population of Preservice Teachers by Institution – one in which the majority of preservice teachers (over 50%) are representative of the dominant culture of American mainstream society (European American).

            If teacher preparation programs are to adequately prepare preservice teachers to meet the challenges of teaching all children inclusively, then the “historically separate general and special education teacher preparation programs” (Villa, Thousand & Chapple, 1996, p. 43) must provide preservice teachers with the “necessary skills and dispositions to be effective collaborators in planning, teaching, and evaluating instruction” (p. 43).   It is the concept of attitudes (dispositions) that is the focus of this study, namely to ascertain if differences exist in attitudes held by diverse and nondiverse groups of preservice teachers toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms.   If reform in teacher preparation programs is necessary to effect change in preservice teachers’ attitudes, then present attitudes must be identified as a starting point.   By examining diverse and nondiverse populations of preservice teachers for possible differences, reform efforts can be tailored to meet the needs of the preservice teachers rather than adopting a “one shoe fits all” curriculum that may not effectively prepare all preservice teachers, just as no one curriculum or mode of instruction could meet the needs of all students, disabled or not, in public schools today.

Methods and Procedures

The purpose of this study was to compare attitudes of diverse and nondiverse preservice teachers toward the inclusion of students with disabilities into general education classrooms in public schools.   To this end students enrolled in teacher training programs in two universities in middle Tennessee were surveyed.  

A comparative/descriptive quantitative research design was employed for this study. The following research questions framed this study:

1a. Are there statistically significant differences in attitudes between diverse and nondiverse preservice teachers toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms?

1b. Are there statistically significant differences in attitudes between diverse and nondiverse preservice teachers by institution toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms?

2a. Are there statistically significant differences in attitudes by age of preservice teachers toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms?

2b. Are there statistically significant differences in attitudes by age between diverse and nondiverse preservice teachers toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms?

    3a. Are there statistically significant differences in attitudes by gender of preservice teachers toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms?

      3b. Are there statistically significant differences in attitudes by gender between diverse and nondiverse preservice teachers toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms?

1. Are there statistically significant differences in attitudes between subjects who have or have not had personal experiences with person(s) with disabilities?
2. Are there statistically significant differences in attitudes by the type of certification sought by subjects in their respective teacher training programs?

Instrumentation

            The instrument selected for this study was the Scale of Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusive Classrooms (STATIC) (Cochran, 2000).   This instrument has been used to measure inclusionary attitudes of inservice teachers.   “The purpose of this [Cochran’s] study was to develop a psychometrically sound instrument to examine the extent that teachers’ attitudes toward students with special needs could be measured.” (p.4) .   However, Cochran reported that the instrument has also been used to measure preservice teacher attitudes toward inclusion.  

Subjects

            Subjects for this study were undergraduate preservice teachers in Foundations of Education classes from two universities in middle Tennessee.   One of the institutions has an undergraduate majority population (65%) that is of European American descent (Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, Austin Peay State University, 2002) and the other, an historically black university (HBCU), has an undergraduate majority population (87%) that is African American (Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Research, Tennessee State University, 2002).   Three sections of the Foundations of Education classes from each university were selected from at least 5 possible sections.   Participation of preservice teachers in this study was voluntary and the opportunity to participate was made available to students present on the day the survey was administered.

Analysis of Data

            For the purposes of analysis, the research questions that frame this study were regrouped.   A significance level of 0.05 (p < 0.05) was set for all subsequent statistical analyses prior to testing.   To evaluate Research questions 1a and 4, data collected from the STATIC portion of the survey were used.   An unpaired t-test was performed to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of diverse and nondiverse preservice teachers.   F-tests and Mann-Whitney tests were then performed on unpaired comparisons when significance was indicated with p values < 0.05.   To evaluate Research Questions 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, and 5, ANOVA models were used.   Those determined if there were statistically significant interactions among those groups of variables.   Post hoc tests were used to further evaluate “pairwise differences among levels of main effects” (StatView Reference, 1998, p. 74).

Results

This study also examined the attitudes of preservice teachers toward the inclusion of students with disabilities into general education classrooms based on having prior personal experiences with individuals with disabilities, type of secondary school attended, types of certification sought through teacher training, and preferences for work setting.   Unpaired t-tests and ANOVA were also used to determine if there were statistically significant differences based on the above factors.   Each research question was examined.

Using an unpaired t-test, statistically significant differences at the 0.05 alpha level in attitudes between diverse and nondiverse preservice teachers were found for Item 3 (p = 0.0436).

Table 1

Propensity for Becoming Frustrated Teaching Students with Special Needs

Item 3. I become easily frustrated when teaching students with special needs.

(13 omitted responses)

Examination of the mean scores indicates a higher propensity for diverse preservice teachers to become less frustrated when teaching special needs students than for nondiverse preservice teachers.

            Research Question 1b examined the differences in attitudes between diverse and nondiverse preservice teachers by institution toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in the general education classroom.

Table 2

Demographic Table by Diversity per Institution

(11 omitted responses)

Each university exceeded the more than 50% population requirement for meeting the definitions of diverse and nondiverse by institution.   APSU is considered to be   nondiverse since its undergraduate majority population is 65% European American.   Conversely TSU’s undergraduate majority population is 87% African American, making it a culturally diverse institution.  

Unpaired t-tests showed statistically significant differences at the 0.05 alpha level for Item 4 (p = 0.0159), Item 7 (p = 0.0225), Item 8 (p = 0.0072), Item 19 (p = 0.0027), and Item 20 (p = 0.0009).   As seen in Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, it appears that APSU preservice teachers had more favorable attitudes toward inclusion than did TSU preservice teachers.   APSU preservice teachers compared to TSU preservice teachers surveyed reported becoming less anxious when knowing a special needs child will be in their classroom.   TSU preservice teachers reported stronger beliefs in placing students with disabilities in special education classrooms while APSU preservice teachers reported beliefs that more strongly favored inclusive practices.    This was also evident in the reported findings when the preservice teachers were asked to respond to the statement, “I am comfortable teaching a child that is moderately physically disabled.”   APSU preservice teachers reported that they might have little difficulty teaching students who are moderately physically disabled (M =3.955).   TSU preservice teachers reported that they might have problems teaching students with moderate physical disabilities (M = 3.389).

Table 3

Degree of Anxiety Reported When Students with Special Needs are to be Included in General Education Class

Item 4: I become anxious when I learn that a student with special needs will be in my classroom.

(4 omitted responses)

Preservice teachers at TSU reported a greater predisposition for becoming anxious when learning that a student with disabilities will be in their classrooms than students from APSU.

Table 4

Attitudes and Beliefs for Special Education Placements

Item 7: I believe that children with special needs should be placed in special education classes.

(5 omitted responses)

Based on an examination of the mean scores, preservice teachers surveyed at TSU appeared to express attitudes favoring segregated settings more so than did the preservice teachers at APSU.

Table 5

Comfort in Teaching Moderately Physically Disabled

Item 8: I am comfortable teaching a child that is moderately physically disabled.

(1 omitted response)

APSU preservice teachers may be more comfortable teaching a child with a moderate physical disability than would TSU preservice teachers.

Table 6

Principals Exhibiting Supportive Inclusive Practices

Item 19: My principal is supportive in making needed accommodations for teaching children with special needs.

(13 omitted responses)

For preservice teachers, responses to Item 19 would be based on knowledge or perceptions formed through experiences other than having one’s own classroom as with inservice teachers.   At the preservice level, these perceptions would most likely be formed from classroom and school observations as part of the required field experiences and also formed from prior knowledge or perception of principals they might have had as students.  Mean scores obtained from an unpaired t-test indicated that APSU preservice teachers may perceive principals as exhibiting more support for inclusive practices than those perceived by TSU preservice teachers.

Table 7

Attitudes and Beliefs for the Inclusion of Students with Special Needs in General Education Classrooms

Item 20: Students with special needs should be included in regular education classrooms.

(1 omitted response)

APSU preservice teachers surveyed seem to have more favorable dispositions toward including students with disabilities in the regular education classroom than did TSU preservice teachers.

            Preservice teachers were asked to give their age based on a range of ages.   For this study, five separate age ranges were used: (a) 18-22 (n = 77); (b) 23-30 (n = 23); (c) 31-39 (n = 14); (d) 40-49 (n = 7), and (e) 50 & over, (n = 0).   Using an ANOVA to analyze Research Question 2a, it was determined that there was a statistically significant difference of preservice teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities based on the age of the preservice teacher (p = 0.0064).   Further analysis using a Fisher’s PLSD post hoc test showed a statistically significant difference at the 0.05 alpha level between preservice teachers in the 18-22 age range and preservice teachers in the 23-30 age range (p = 0.0015) and between preservice teachers in the 23-30 age range and the 40-49 age range (p = 0.0473).   Preservice teachers in the 23-30 age range indicated a more positive attitude toward including students with disabilities in general education classrooms than did preservice teachers in the 18-22 age range.   As seen in Table 8, when presented with the statement, “I believe that children with special needs should be placed in special education classes” the mean score for 23-30 age range was 3.273 while the mean score for the 18-22 age range was 1.986.   Furthermore, the mean score for the 23-30 age range was 3.273 compared to the mean score of the 40-49 age range of 2.143, also indicating that preservice teachers in the 23-30 age range tend to have more positive attitudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education settings than those in the 40-49 age range.

Table 8

Attitudinal Differences Based on Age

(5 omitted responses)

Research Question 2b was concerned with examining differences between diverse and nondiverse preservice teachers based on the ages of the respondents in these groups.   Therefore, a 2-Way ANOVA was used to test for interactions between age and ethnicity.    Using a 0.05 alpha level, no statistically significant differences were found based on interactions between age and ethnicity.

Using an unpaired t-test to empirically examine preservice teachers’ attitudes based on their gender, it was determined that there was no statistically significant difference based on gender at the 0.05 alpha level.   Further analysis using a 2-Way ANOVA was conducted to determine if there were statistically significant differences based on interactions between gender and ethnicity.   Therefore, in response to Research Question 3b, no significance was noted for any of the survey items in terms of interactions between gender and ethnicity.

Research Question 4 was intended to examine preservice teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms and the effect that having had prior experiences with someone with a disability would have on these attitudes.   When preservice teachers had prior personal experiences with persons with disabilities, they indicated a lesser predisposition for becoming frustrated than preservice teachers who had no personal experiences with persons with disabilities when teaching students with special needs.   As seen in Table 9, when given the statement, “I become easily frustrated when teaching students with special needs,” the mean score for preservice teachers with personal experiences was 3.987 compared to the mean score of 3.317 for preservice teachers with no personal experiences.   An unpaired t-test indicated a statistically significant difference between these means (p = 0.0016).  

Table 9

Means Table for Item 3: Comparing No Personal Experiences to Having Personal Experiences with Persons with Disabilities

(2 omitted responses)

Preservice teachers who had prior personal experiences with persons with disabilities indicated a more positive belief in the ability of children with special needs to progress academically.   As seen in Table 10, when presented with the statement, “I believe that academic progress is possible in children with special needs,” the mean score for having personal experiences with someone with a disability was 4.671 as opposed to the mean score of 4.238 for having had no personal experiences.   Results from an unpaired t-test showed a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of p = 0.0008.

Table 10

Personal Experience and Belief in Potential for Academic Progress

            Preservice teachers who had personal experiences with persons with disabilities indicated a propensity for having little difficulty teaching a student with cognitive disabilities as compared to preservice teachers who had no such experiences.   As seen in Table 11, when presented with the statement, “I have problems teaching a student with cognitive deficits” the mean score for preservice teachers with personal experiences was 3.633 while the mean score for preservice teachers without personal experiences with individuals with disabilities was 3.025.   The unpaired t-test indicated statistically significant differences between these means at the 0.05 alpha level (p = 0.0100).

Table 11

Personal Experiences Relative to Teaching Students with Cognitive Deficits

(2 omitted responses)

            Preservice teachers who had personal experiences with persons with disabilities reported a more positive belief in requiring special inservice training in teaching students with disabilities for general education teachers.   As seen in Table 12, when presented with the statement, “Special inservice training in teaching special needs students should be required for all regular education teachers,” the mean score for preservice teachers with personal experiences with persons with disabilities was 4.190 while the mean score for those without personal experiences was 3.643.   A t-test indicated a statistically significant difference between the two means (p = 0.0155).

Table 12

Personal Beliefs and Attitudes for Special Inservice Training

            Research Question 5 asked if there were statistically significant differences in attitudes by type of certification sought by the subjects in their respective teacher training programs.   An ANOVA indicated statistically significant differences for Item 1 (p = 0.0004), Item 2 (p = 0.0017), and Item 16 (p = 0.0424).   A Fisher’s PLSD Post Hoc test was used to determine statistical significance between the types of certification sought by the respondents in their respective programs.   Respondents who indicated Other specified the following: one was Pre K-3, two were Pre K-4, two in child development, two did not specify, and two were not seeking certification.

As seen in Table 13, when presented with the statement, “I am confident in my ability to teach children with special needs” six groupings by certification areas were found to have statistically significant differences.

Table 13

Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Special Needs: Groupings Indicating Significance

Therefore, by examination of the mean scores in each certification area of as reported in Table 14, respondents in Special education programs (M = 4.375) seemed to be more confident in their ability to teach special needs children than did those in K-8 (M = 3.064); K-12 Music, Art and HHP (M = 2.789); Secondary (M = 3.074); and Other (M = 1.889) programs.   Also, preservice teachers in K-8 programs reported more confidence in their ability to teach students with disabilities than did ones in the Other category, while Secondary preservice teachers reported higher levels of confidence for teaching disabled students than did those in the Other category.

Table 14

Perceived Ability to Teach Students with Special Needs                        

As seen in Table 15, when presented with the statement, “I have been adequately trained to meet the needs of children with disabilities,” six groupings by certification areas were found to have mean scores that evidenced statistically significant differences.

Table 15

Certification Groupings Indicating Significance when Comparing Beliefs in Adequacy of Training in Meeting Needs of Children with Disabilities

According to mean scores in Table 16, when presented with the statement, “I have been adequately trained to meet the needs of children with disabilities,” preservice teachers in Special education (M = 2.625) held more positive beliefs in the adequacy of their training to meet the needs of children with disabilities than did preservice teachers seeking certification in the areas of K-8 (M = 1.574); K-12 music, art and HHP (M = 1.579); Secondary education (M = 0.815); and Other programs (M = 0.889).   Also, preservice teachers in K-8 programs (M = 1.574) appear to have more positive beliefs about the adequacy of their training compared to those reported by secondary preservice teachers (M = 0.815).   Preservice teachers in K-12 music, art and HHP (M = 1.579) also held more positive attitudes concerning the adequacy of their training programs compared to preservice teachers in Secondary education programs (M = 0.815).

Table 16

Attitudes and Beliefs in Adequacy of Training in Preservice Training Programs

            As seen in Table 17, when presented with the statement, “Special inservice training in teaching special needs students should be required for all regular education teachers,” two groupings by certification areas were found to have statistically significant differences in mean scores.

Table 17

Certification Groupings Indicating Significance Comparing Need for Special Inservice Training for Regular Educators

Therefore, by examining the mean scores in these three certification areas of preservice teachers in Table 18, it appears that preservice teachers in K-8 and Special education programs have stronger beliefs concerning the need for inservice training in teaching students with disabilities for regular educators than do preservice teachers in Secondary education programs.

Table 18

Requirement for Special Inservice for Regular Educators

            Of the five research questions examined, it can be noted that there were statistically significant differences between inclusive attitudes of preservice teachers by “institution”; statistically significant differences in overall attitudes of preservice teachers toward inclusion were also found in one age group.   Comparison of the effect of prior experiences with persons with disabilities yielded statistically significant differences across the combined groups.   Significance among the types of certification programs subjects were pursuing was found as were differences noted based on work setting preferences.

            No statistically significant differences were found between diverse and nondiverse preservice teachers based on age.   Similarly, no statistically significant difference was found based on gender of respondents.  

Summary of Major Findings

The results from testing the research questions that framed this study were both informative and surprising.

With regard to differences between diverse and nondiverse preservice teacher attitudes, statistically significant differences were found when mean scores of diverse and nondiverse preservice teachers were compared based on frustration levels they reported when working with students with disabilities.  

Statistical significance in attitudinal differences was also obtained between diverse and nondiverse preservice teachers by institution.   According to the findings of this study, respondents from the institution with the predominantly European American undergraduate population reported more positive attitudes toward inclusion than did respondents from the institution with the predominantly African American undergraduate population.   Students at the first school reported less anxiety upon learning that a student with disabilities will be in their classrooms as well as feeling more comfortable teaching children with moderately physical disabilities than students at the second school.   In addition, primarily European American preservice students (those from APSU) perceived principals as being more supportive of inclusive practices than did students from the predominately African American students (those from TSU).  

Other important findings included statistically significant differences based on age of the respondents.   In this population of preservice teachers, those in the 23-30 age range had more positive attitudes in general toward inclusive practices than did those in the 18-22 range or the 40-49 age range.   A number of reasons could account for these differences such as beliefs in positive self-efficacy of respondents in the 23-30 age range compared to their younger peers.   This age group may also be first time parents giving them more empathy for children with disabilities.

When preservice teachers have had prior personal experiences with persons with disabilities (65-66%), statistically significant differences were found in their attitudes toward inclusion compared to those who had no such experiences (34-35%).   Those with prior experiences reported a lesser predisposition for becoming frustrated when teaching special needs students as well as having higher beliefs in positive academic progress of special needs students in least restrictive environments.   They also reported a propensity for having little difficulty teaching students with cognitive deficits.   Lastly, this group held stronger beliefs in providing inservice training on how to teach special needs students for regular education teachers.  

As expected, preservice teachers seeking certification in Special education seemed to have more positive attitudes toward inclusion relative to their perceived abilities to teach students with special needs than did those seeking certification in K-8 and K-12 music, art and HHP programs.   There were statistically significant differences in attitudes toward special needs students between mean scores in the Other category of certification compared to those in Special education, K-8, and Secondary programs respectively.   Respondents in the Other category reported more negative attitudes toward inclusion.   However this significance may be due to the effects of differences in sample size rather than a true measure of variance.

Special education majors (as a combined group) reported stronger beliefs in the adequacy of their training enabling them to better meet the needs of students with disabilities than did those preservice students seeking licensure in the areas of K-8, K-12 music, art and HHP, and Other.   This was also an expected result.   Further examination of variance showed K-8 and K-12 music, art and HHP preservice teachers also expressed being more adequately trained to meet the needs of special students than did their peers seeking Secondary certification.   Again, due to the differences in sample size, the significance found between Special education and Other respondents may not be generalizable to the broader population.  

Conclusions

            Not all preservice teachers emerge from their teacher training institutions with open, positive, receptive and confident attitudes toward the inclusion of children with disabilities into regular education classrooms. Surprisingly, this study suggests that diverse preservice teachers may need additional help and attention if they are to feel prepared and confident working with children with disabilities in regular education classrooms.

Since the highest rate of positive attitudes was among students who reported prior experiences with students with disabilities, perhaps all preservice students should have some type of personal experience with a child or children with disabilities.   Any number of options could meet this need beginning with a required field experience in a Special education setting for all preservice teachers.   Involving preservice teachers in tutoring programs for students with special needs may be another option for gaining experience working with these students.   Also, perhaps sensitivity training for preservice teachers should be included in teacher training programs.

Recommendations for Professional Practice

            Preservice teachers who had prior personal experiences with persons with disabilities and those who were seeking certification in   Special education, K-8, and K-12 music, art and HHP were found to have statistically significantly stronger beliefs in the need for requiring inservice general educators to have inservice trainings in teaching students with special needs.   The research on inservice teachers shows that they support the concept of inclusion in theory, but find that lack of training and supports within the schools undermine its implementation.  

            Therefore, principals and superintendents need to consider periodic inservice trainings for general educators in making modifications and accommodations for students with special needs in their classrooms.   State Boards of Educations could also implement required courses in Special education and Diversity or Multicultural education as part of a teacher’s continuing education to retain certification.   Although many states require teachers to have continuing education coursework as part of keeping their certificates to teach current, most have no specific requirements for which courses would satisfy the continuing education requirement.   This needs to be addressed and revised.

References

Berryman, J.D. (1989). Attitudes of the public toward educational mainstreaming. Remedial and Special Education, 10(4), 44-49.

Brantlinger, E. (1996). Influence of preservice teachers’ beliefs about pupil achievement on attitudes toward inclusion. Teacher Education and Special Education, 19(1), 17-33.

Cochran, H.K. (2000). The development and psychometric analysis of the Scale of Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion (STATIC). Manuscript submitted for publication.

Cochran, H.K. (2000a). Summary of the development and psychometric properties of the scale of teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive classrooms. Unpublished Manuscript.

Ferguson, P.M. (1987). The social construction of mental retardation. Social Policy, 18(1), 51-56.

Garvar-Pinhas, A., & Schmelkin, L.P. (1989). Administrators’ and teachers’ attitudes toward mainstreaming. Remedial and Special Education, 10(4), 38-43.

Goodman, J.L. (1988). Constructing a practical philosophy of teaching: A study of preservice teachers’ perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 121-137.

Hodge, S.R. (1998). Prospective physical education teachers’ attitudes toward teaching students with disabilities. Physical Educator, 55(2), 68-77.

Inclusion (1992). Video produced by Allyn & Bacon.

Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments of 1997. (n.d.) Retrieved April 26, 2002 from www.ideapractices.org/law/downloads/Idea97.doc

Leyser, Y., & Tappendorf, K. (2001). Are attitudes and practices regarding mainstreaming changing? A case of teachers in two rural school districts. Education, 121(4), 751-756.

Lipsky, D.K., & Gartner, A. (1996, Winter). Inclusion, school restructuring, and the remaking of American society. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 762-796.

Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Malouf, D.B., & Schiller, E.P. (1995). Practice and research in special education. Exceptional Children, 61(5), 414-424.

McLesky, J., Henry, D., & Axelrod, M.I. (1999). Inclusion of students with learning disabilities: An examination of data from reports to congress. Exceptional Children, 66(1), 55-67.  

Office of Institutional Research and Effectiveness, Austin Peay State University (2002, Fall).   Information obtained by telephone from Greg Schwartz.   These figures have been reported to the Integrated Postsecondary Data System for publication.

Office of Institutional Effectiveness and Research, Tennessee State University (2002, Fall) Information obtained on-line: www.tnstate.edu/oier/SIS530r/021.htm.

Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

Renzaglia, A., Hutchins, M., & Lee, S. (1997). The impact of teacher education on the beliefs, attitudes, and dispositions of preservice special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 20(4), 360-377.

Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: a research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59-75.

StatView Reference , 2 nd Ed. (1998). United States of America: SAS Institute, Inc.

Villa, R.A., Thousand, J.S., & Chapple, J.W. (1996, Winter). Preparing teachers to support inclusion: Preservice and inservice programs. Theory Into Practice, 35(1), 42-50.

Villa, R.A., Thousand, J.S., Meyers, H., & Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 29-46.

home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact