This article was downloaded by: [University of Tasmania]On: 27 November 2014, At: 16:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20

Comparison of Brunei Preservice Student Teachers’Attitudes to Inclusive Education and SpecificDisabilities: Implications for Teacher EducationFaridah Serajul Haq a & Lawrence Mundia ba United Arab Emirates University , Al Ainb University of Brunei Darussalam , Brunei DarussalamPublished online: 02 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Faridah Serajul Haq & Lawrence Mundia (2012) Comparison of Brunei Preservice Student Teachers’Attitudes to Inclusive Education and Specific Disabilities: Implications for Teacher Education, The Journal of EducationalResearch, 105:5, 366-374, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2011.627399

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.627399

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Journal of Educational Research, 105:366–374, 2012Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0022-0671 print / 1940-0675 onlineDOI:10.1080/00220671.2011.627399

Comparison of Brunei PreserviceStudent Teachers’ Attitudes to

Inclusive Education and SpecificDisabilities: Implications for Teacher

EducationFARIDAH SERAJUL HAQ

United Arab Emirates University, Al AinLAWRENCE MUNDIAUniversity of Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Darussalam

ABSTRACT. The authors investigated and compared Bruneitrainee teachers’ attitudes to specific disabilities and studentswith high support needs. The random sample consisted of89 participants of both genders on 2 teacher education pro-grams. Data were collected using a 3-part self-report instru-ment constructed by the researchers. Overall, the participantssupported inclusion but were not in favor of accommodat-ing students with sensory, mental, challenging behaviors, andmultiple disabilities. Such students tend to have high supportneeds. Moreover, there were no significant differences in at-titudes to inclusion and specific disabilities between the gen-ders and types of programs. Future teacher training programsshould develop and foster more positive attitudes toward theintegration of students with less favorable disabilities and highsupport needs.

Keywords: attitudes, inclusion, specific disabilities, studentteachers, teacher education

S ignificant legislative changes have been made toprovide appropriate educational environments tomeet the unique individual needs of diverse learn-

ers (Sands, Kozleski, & French, 2000). The basic conceptof inclusion argues against segregation and discrimination oflearners in schools (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000). Forinclusion to be effective, general education teachers shouldbe receptive to the principles and demands of inclusion toensure inclusive policies are appropriately implemented andteachers are committed to teach even the most challeng-ing students (Berry, 2010; Hill, 1999; Huang, & Diamond,2009).

Although inclusion is viewed in terms of the overall hu-man rights movement, support for the placement of stu-dents with special needs in the general education classroomis largely dependent on the attitudes of teachers. Studieson the attitudes of teachers toward inclusion have demon-

strated differences in attitudes influenced by factors suchas gender (Alghazo & Gaad, 2004), teachers’ personal be-liefs (Dupoux, Hammond, Ingalls, & Wolman, 2006), theseverity of the student’s disability (Langon & Vesper, 2000;Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996), and teacher training and in-structional skills (Minke, Bear, Deemer, & Griffin, 1996;Shoho, Katims, & Wilks, 1997; Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad,Slusher, & Samuell, 1996; York & Vandercook, 1990).

General education teachers do not view the general ed-ucation setting as the most appropriate placement to meetthe academic and social needs of all students with disabilities(Heflin & Bullock, 1999). Teachers perceived students withmild disabilities as more able to learn in an inclusive settingcompared to students with severe disabilities (Langon &Vesper, 2000; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Teachers tendto favor the inclusion of students with physical, sensory, andmedical conditions who are considered easier to teach andmanage. Students with intellectual and multiple disabilitiesare viewed as problematic and less able to succeed in aninclusive setting. Teachers are also less tolerant of studentswith learning problems and maladaptive behaviors (Soodak,Podell, & Lehman, 1993). Behavior problems require teach-ers to increase time for behavior management while at thesame time they have to pay attention to the educationalachievement of a diverse group of students with and withoutdisabilities (Gal, Schreur, & Engel-Yeger, 2010; Salend &Duhaney, 1999).

The less favorable attitudes of general education teach-ers also reflect their lack of confidence in their instruc-tional and management skills. Teachers often are not

Address correspondence to Lawrence Mundia, University of BruneiDarussalam, Department of Psychological Studies & Human Develop-ment, SHBIE, Jalan Tungku Link, Gadong, Bandar Seri Begawan BE1410, Brunei Darussalam. (E-mail: lawrence.mundia@ubd.edu.bn)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

16:

59 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Journal of Educational Research 367

knowledgeable about disabling conditions and the instruc-tional modifications required to accommodate learners withdisabilities. According to Vaughn et al. (1996), teachers whoare concerned with class size, inadequate resources, and lackof training also have the most reservations about the successof inclusion. Teachers are found to be willing to implementinclusive practices if they are given adequate time for prepa-ration and training for instructional skills (Gal et al., 2010).In addition, general educators especially in secondary in-clusive programs require personal assistance, instructionaland curriculum materials (Cardona, 2009; Shoho et al.,1997). LeRoy and Simpson (1996) found teachers’ positiveattitudes increased with more teaching experience. Studiesalso demonstrated that special and general education teach-ers who received training in instructional methodologieswere able to implement inclusive programs more success-fully (Ernst & Rogers, 2009; Hill, 1999; Peterson & Beloin,1998; York & Vandercook, 1990), as they have more em-pathy and willingness to accept students with disabilities inthe classroom (Brandes & Crowson, 2009; Cook, Cameron,& Tankersley, 2007; Elik, Wiener, & Corkum, 2010; Minkeet al., 1996).

Practical challenges of inclusion of students with disabili-ties are evident in many countries in the world. Research onteachers’ attitudes toward inclusion in developing countrieshighlights significant issues in the successful implementationof inclusive education. Inclusion in Jordon accommodatesstudents with learning disabilities who are served in resourcerooms (Al-Khatib, 2007). General education teachers wereoften knowledgeable and supportive of inclusion because ofattendance at workshops and interactions with special ed-ucation teachers. However, their awareness and ability tomake teaching adaptations and testing accommodations forstudents with challenging behaviors and high support needsis not known. Al-Zyoudi (2006) found that teachers’ accep-tance of inclusion was affected by the type of students’ dis-ability and teaching experience. Teachers who have taughtstudents with disabilities prefer to include students withphysical disabilities rather than students with intellectualand behavioral difficulties. Teachers of students with physi-cal disabilities are also more positive to the concept of inclu-sion. Male teachers in the United Arab Emirates were morenegative toward inclusion in comparison with their femalecounterparts (Alghazo & Gaad, 2004). In another study inthe same country, Elhoweris and Alsheikh (2006) foundthat general educators who were receptive toward inclusiontended to view inclusion as a basic individual right that ben-efits students with and without disabilities alike. Generaleducation teachers labeled as conservatives were concernedthat the presence of special children especially those with se-vere disabilities in the inclusive classroom would negativelyaffect their nondisabled peers. A comparative study of theattitudes of urban and rural teachers in Haiti indicated thatteachers in general were supportive of inclusion (Dupouxet al., 2006). More positive attitudes among teachers wereattributed to personal beliefs and teaching qualification. For

instance, teachers with tertiary qualifications were more will-ing to accept and educate students with disabilities (Dupouxet al., 2006).

Various studies in developing countries emphasized theimportance of special education courses in teacher trainingprograms. In a study of teachers’ attitude toward inclusion inTurkey, Rakap and Kaczmarek (2010) found that only 35%of the teachers in the sample were willing to include studentswith severe special needs in their classroom. However, themajority of the teachers are willing to learn specific in-structional skills by participating in inservice programs andcollaborating with parents. Similarly in India, teachers withpostgraduate qualifications are significantly more concern toteach students with special needs in comparison to teacherswith a bachelor’s degree (U. Sharma, Moore, & Sonawane,2009). Fakolade, Adeniyi, and Tela (2009) found that fe-male teachers in Nigeria had a more positive attitude towardinclusion and were more willing to attend seminars and con-ferences to improve teaching in inclusive settings. In Ghanatrained and untrained teachers were receptive to inclusionbut their acceptance was dependent on the local regulationsand standards (Gyimah, Sugden, & Pearson, 2009). Thereis an international recognition that teaching institutionsmust prepare teachers to meet the diverse needs of studentsin an inclusive environment (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, &Earle, 2009; U. Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008).

Special and Inclusive Education in Brunei

Education is considered a basic right of all children inBrunei Darussalam. In accordance with the National Edu-cation Policy, children attend primary school for 7 years, in-cluding 1 year of preschool, and secondary school for 5 years(Ministry of Education, 2004). Children with mild to mod-erate special needs are provided education at par with theirnondisabled peers in the general education classroom. Stu-dents with severe to profound disabilities receive educationin special schools called special education centers. The phi-losophy of special education in Brunei Darussalam empha-sizes that all children with special needs must be given educa-tional opportunities to develop their full potential to becomeproductive members of society. The Special Education Pol-icy Guidelines (Ministry of Education, 1997) state that (a)all children are able to learn given an appropriate learningenvironment, (b) appropriate learning environments can becreated within the inclusive school, and (c) the inclusiveschool is one that provides appropriate instruction for allchildren based on their capability.

The Special Education Unit of the Ministry of Educa-tion provides special education services such as educationalassessment, learning support, induction courses, and work-shops. Special educators in Brunei are trained at the Uni-versity of Brunei Darussalam at the undergraduate and post-graduate levels. Preservice student teachers take courses ineducational psychology, special and inclusive education, andguidance and counseling. Although special education in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

16:

59 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

368 The Journal of Educational Research

Brunei Darussalam is developing rapidly, there exist chal-lenges to the implementation of inclusive education. Theimportance of collaboration between general and specialeducation teachers is stressed as pertinent to the success ofinclusive programs in primary and secondary schools. Thecollaborative effort includes team teaching, sharing of exper-tise in content areas, cooperating in preparing instructionalmaterials, and making decisions about desired learning out-comes. The extent to which teachers are willing to collabo-rate and cooperate determines the effectiveness of inclusiveeducation. The willingness of teachers to accept and educatechildren with special needs in the general education settingis an important criterion to overcome the main barrier to theimplementation of inclusion in Brunei schools. Many stud-ies have been conducted on inclusive education in Brunei(e.g., Damit, 2008; Fitzgerald, 2010; Manaf, 2009; Timbang,2010). However, none of these previous studies comparedthe attitudes of preservice student teachers to inclusive edu-cation and specific disabilities. This knowledge gap needs tobe bridged and reduced.

Objectives of the Study

Previous research has suggested that several factors affectteachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and specific disabilities.The goal of the present study was to compare preserviceteachers’ attitudes to inclusive education and specific dis-abilities by gender and program of study.

Method

In this study we used the field survey research method.Similar to other approaches to research, field surveys havedisadvantages and advantages. One of the strategy’s majorlimitations is that the findings may not indicate cause-and-effect relationships among the variables investigated. An-other main drawback is that the presence of the investigatorduring data collection may lead to negative researcher effectssuch as encouraging research participants to give sociallydesirable responses. Despite these and other weaknesses, therationale for employing the field survey procedure to investi-gate the problem was twofold. First, we wanted to involve asmany student teachers as possible in the study. Second, wewanted to give on-the-spot help to respondents who neededassistance in completing the instrument properly so as toincrease the number of usable returns. We made every effortto ensure that the shortcomings of the research method useddid not adversely affect the outcomes of the study.

Sample

The study was based on the responses of Brunei under-graduate or preservice student teachers who were taking aneducational psychology course taught by one of the two re-searchers in the Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah Institute of Educa-tion at the University of Brunei Darussalam. The course had

91 students (population), but only 89 (98%) of them com-pleted the research instrument appropriately and providedusable protocols. Of these, 67 (75%) were women whereas22 (25%) were men. Their age ranged from 20 to 25 yearswith a mean of 21.7 years (SD = 0.89 years). There wasno significant difference in age between the two genders,t(87) = 0.73, p > .05. The research participants were part oftwo teacher education programs: Bachelor of Arts in Educa-tion (29 [33%]) and Bachelor of Science in Education (60[67%]). The student teachers studied a wide range of schoolsubjects as either a major or minor that included mathe-matics, physics, chemistry, biology, geography, accounting,economics, history, and teaching English as a second lan-guage (TESL). The majority of the respondents were in theirthird year (51 [57%]), whereas 27 (42%) were in their sec-ond year and only one (1%) was in the fourth year of study.The parents (fathers and mothers) of the research partici-pants were engaged in various occupations. Only nine partic-ipants had fathers who were teachers, and eight participantshad mothers in the teaching profession. Five participantsreported that both of their parents were teachers. Most ofthe respondents’ mothers (50 [56%]) had secondary schooleducation in comparison with the respondents’ fathers (39[44%]). An equal number of fathers and mothers (15, 17%)had college education. However, only nine (10%) moth-ers had university education in comparison with the fathers(16 [18%]). Only 29 (33%) of the participants indicatedthat they had either a sibling or an acquaintance with adisability.

Instrument

A three-part and quantitative self-report instrument with36 items was used in data collection. Part A (11 items)collected demographical data. The independent variablesmeasured in this section were described previously underthe sample biographical data. This section was constructedusing various sources from the literature review. Part B (16items) was a 5-item Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 5 (strongly agree) that measured attitudes towardinclusive education. The items in this section of the in-strument were adapted from Alghazo and Gaad (2004) andwere modified to suit the context of the present study. Allthe items in this section were phrased positively and did notrequire reversing when scoring. Based on pilot data this sub-scale had a Cronbach’s alpha reliability of .73 and was judgedby peers in special education to have had high content valid-ity. Part C (nine items) was also a 5-item a Likert-type scaleranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) andmeasured attitudes to specific disabilities. We also developedthis section, just as was done for Part A. All the items wereworded positively and did not need reversing when scoring.The Cronbach’s alpha reliability of this subscale based onpretest data was .75 and the scale was similarly rated by col-leagues in special education to have had adequate contentvalidity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

16:

59 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Journal of Educational Research 369

Procedure

Prior to administering the instruments, we verbally ex-plained to the participants the purpose of the study andthe ethical conditions or requirements for being involvedin the study. This discussion centered on issues of voluntaryparticipation, privacy, anonymity, confidentiality, physicaland psychological harm, debriefing, and informed consent.Students were given ample time to reflect on and withdrawfrom the study if they felt uncomfortable with the research’spurpose and objectives. The participants voluntarily agreedto participate in the study. In addition, the participants alsopermitted us to use the obtained data in other psycholog-ical investigations such as being included in various casestudies. No deception was used or involved in this study.With regard to English language problems, the meanings ofdifficult English words, sentences and phrases were verballyexplained to the participants. Furthermore, students at theparticipants’ university take most courses in the English lan-guage and have participated in many research studies thatrequired them to complete self-report scales and question-naires in English. We therefore deemed it not necessary totranslate the instrument into Bahasa Melayu (Brunei’s offi-cial language). The study met the ethical requirements forusing human participants in research stipulated by the Uni-versity of Brunei Darussalam, the Government of Brunei,and the Helsinki Declaration.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statis-tics. Descriptive statistics included the frequencies, percent-ages, mean, standard deviation, and ranks. The t test forindependent groups was the only inferential statistical pro-cedure used.

Results

The findings of the study are presented subsequently underthree separate subheadings.

Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education

The attitudes of the research participants toward inclu-sive education are presented in Table 1. A few observationsmay be deduced from this table. First, for purposes of de-scribing the outcomes, items in Table 1 might be dividedinto three groups (top, middle, and bottom) based on theirmean scores. The top category (comprising items 1, 9, 2, 10,and 5) represents items that were endorsed more positively.However, only item 1 in this group received the strongestpositive overall rating. The bottom group (comprising items14, 15, 6, 13, and 11) represents items with which respon-dents disagreed. The middle group (items 16, 4, 8, 12, 3,and 7) represents items in the center of the two extremes ofthe rating scale that did not receive a strong endorsement in

either direction. Second, despite the varied response patternindicated by the standard deviation values, the participants’overall attitudes to inclusive education may be described aspositive in general. This is especially illustrated by responsesto items 1, 6, and 9.

Attitudes Toward Specific Disabilities

The participants’ attitudes toward specific disabilities arepresented in Table 2. The most liked or preferred categoriesof disabilities are those represented by items 3, 1, and 7(physical, learning, and health). Items 4, 5, 8, and 9 repre-sent disabilities that were most disliked (visual, mental, andmulticategory). Two items (2 and 6) received weak positiveendorsements. These findings have implications for teachereducation.

Gender Differences in Attitudes

As indicated in Table 3, no statistically significant genderdifferences were obtained on attitudes to inclusion educationand attitudes to specific disabilities. Participants appear tohave had largely similar views on these issues and seem tohave reacted to the items in the same fashion to a largeextent.

Differences in Attitudes by Study Programs

As indicated in Table 4, participants in the Bachelor ofArts program had slightly higher positive attitudes to in-clusion and disability in comparison with the participantsin the Bachelor of Science program. However, the differ-ences between the two groups of participants are statisticallyinsignificant.

Discussion

Although the study was set on the local Brunei context orsituation, the results have educational implications that canbe shared with the regional and international community.For example, many previous studies show that student teach-ers tend to have positive attitudes to inclusion but that theirattitudes to specific disabilities that require high supportneeds as well as their self-efficacy in special education areoften shaky and fragile. The local Brunei and internationalcommunity could learn from each other the various ways toresearch and solve such problems. With this in mind, themain results of the present study are discussed subsequentlyunder separate subheadings.

Positive Attitudes to Inclusion

The first major finding of this research was that preserviceteachers had positive attitudes toward inclusion of childrenwith special needs in the general education classroom. Manyinterpretations can be made to this finding. For instance, this

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

16:

59 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

370 The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 1. Participants’ Attitudes to Inclusive Education (N = 89)

Attitudes statements/dimensionsStronglydisagree Disagree Neutral Agree

Stronlyagree M SD

1. I am willing to make needed instructional adaptations formy students with disabilities.

0 0 10 52 27 4.19 0.62

2. I believe inclusion is a desirable educational practice. 1 6 28 45 9 3.62 0.803. I believe most students with disabilities (regardless of the

level of their disability) can be educated in the regularclassroom).

2 24 36 21 6 3.06 0.93

4. I believe many students with disabilities lack skills neededto master the regular classroom course content.

0 15 25 42 7 3.46 0.87

5. I believe in an academic program where all students areheld to similar standards.

1 17 18 40 13 3.49 1.07

6. Educating students with disabilities in the regularclassroom is disruptive to other students.

7 27 34 18 3 2.79 0.99

7. Regular students will accept students with special needsin a same-age classroom.

0 10 49 29 1 3.24 0.66

8. Students with special needs can attain positiveself-concepts in the regular classroom atmosphere.

1 13 29 43 3 3.38 0.82

9. With suitable in-class support, teaching regular andspecial needs students in an integrated classroom iscompletely feasible.

0 2 30 47 10 3.73 0.69

10. Children with special needs learn better when groupedtogether.

1 7 31 37 13 3.61 0.87

11. I have the training to teach and include children withspecial needs into the regular classroom.

14 25 37 12 1 2.56 0.95

12. Children with special needs should be in regularclassrooms to the greatest extent possible.

1 20 30 31 7 3.26 0.94

13. I prefer to include children who are mentally disabled inmy classroom.

6 34 39 9 1 2.61 0.81

14. I prefer to include children who are physically disabled,including hard of hearing and visually impaired in myclassroom.

5 19 40 23 2 2.98 0.89

15. I prefer to include children who are emotionally disturbedin my classroom.

3 27 33 23 3 2.96 0.92

16. I prefer to include children who have specific learningdifficulties in my classroom.

1 12 27 40 9 3.48 0.89

concurs with the results of previous research, which foundthat teachers’ attitudes to inclusion became positive afterthey received appropriate sensitization and awareness expo-sure and training in special and inclusive education (Dupoux

et al., 2006). In addition, teachers with experience in work-ing with children with disabilities had high comfort levelswith inclusive education (Ernst & Rogers, 2009; Huang &Diamond, 2009). No significant differences were found in

TABLE 2. Participants’ Attitudes to Specific Disabilities (N = 87)

Specific disabilities Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Stronly agree M SD Rank

1. Learning disabilities 1 17 10 47 14 3.65 1.00 22. Behavioral disorders 0 16 19 49 5 3.48 0.85 43. Physical disabilities 0 5 13 52 19 3.96 0.77 14. Hearing impairments 4 30 26 26 3 2.93 0.96 65. Visual impairments 7 31 25 23 3 2.82 1.02 76. Communication disorders 3 20 25 37 4 3.21 0.96 57. Health impairments 3 6 19 54 7 3.63 0.86 38. Mental impairment (difficulties) 10 42 29 7 1 2.40 0.84 89. Multidisabled 15 34 34 5 1 2.36 0.87 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

16:

59 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Journal of Educational Research 371

TABLE 3. Differences in Attitudes to InclusiveEducation and Specific Disabilities, by Gender (N = 89)

Attitudesobject Gender n M SD t(87) p (2-tailed)

Inclusiveeducation

Male 22 50.86 6.63 −1.11 .270

Female 67 52.48 5.68Specific

disabilitiesMale 22 28.45 5.01 0.99 .270

Female 67 28.45 5.19

the attitudes of male and female teachers. Teachers also didnot differ in attitudes based on their teacher education pro-gram. In Brunei, the idea of inclusion is not only supportedby educational policy and legislation but also receives en-couragement from cultural and religious values. The majoritypeople in Brunei are Malay and follow the Muslim religion.An old Malay adage says, “If you want to bend a bamboo,start with the shoot” (Mundia, 2007, p. 156). This meansthat if you want people (e.g., nondisabled students and reg-ular teachers) to develop positive attitudes toward disabledlearners, start integrating the disabled early in childhoodduring the formative ages. Children will then grow up ac-cepting the disabled not only in the family or communitybut also at school and place of work. As Muslims, the Malayfamilies with a disabled child believe that the child was givento them by Allah to test the strength of their Islamic faith.In view of this faith, disabled children are well cared for andsupported by their parents. Parents ensure that the disabledchild is sent to school to receive an education and trainingsuiting his/her ability.

Negative Attitudes to Certain Disabilities

The second main finding of the present study was thatteachers were not favorable toward the inclusion of studentswith sensory, behavioral, and communication multidisabili-ties. This is consistent with previous studies that found thatteachers were concerned about accommodations for studentswith behavior problems (Gal et al., 2010) and severe learn-ing difficulties (Rakap & Kaczmarek, 2010). Three types ofinterpretations will be attached to this finding in the context

of the present study. These are the global trend of teachers’reactions to certain disabilities, invisibility of people withsome types of disabilities in the community or society, andtraditional stereotype beliefs. In terms of the global teach-ers’ reactions to disability, this finding confirmed the resultof previous studies showing that teachers’ acceptance of stu-dents with special needs was dependent on the severity ofthe disabling condition (Langon & Vesper, 2000; Scruggs &Mastropieri, 1996). Preference for teaching certain studentswith disabilities to the exclusion of others probably reflectedignorance and lack of confidence in teaching skills. The pre-service teachers who participated in the present study hadlimited or no exposure to teaching students with disabili-ties. They had also not undergone the compulsory courseon inclusive education at the university. Their views on theintegration of students with diverse categories of disabili-ties were probably influenced by their lack of knowledge andawareness on how to teach and manage behaviors of learnerswith special needs. For example, students with intellectualdifficulties and challenging behaviors often pose numerousproblems in teaching that even experienced teachers do notknow how to address.

In addition, regular school teachers in the past weregenerally opposed to having disabled children in theirclassrooms (Jamieson, 1984; Jones, Gottlieb, Guskin, &Yoshida, 1978). The more severe or profound the child’sdisability was, the more likely the child was to be rejectedby ordinary school teachers, nondisabled peers, and parentsof nondisabled children (Heward, 1996). Among thepartially or mildly disabled children who were includable inmainstream schools, regular teachers preferred more thosewho had learning difficulties and liked least those withmental and behavioral disorders (Vandivier & Vandivier,1981; Williams & Algozzine, 1979). A major concern thatwas often raised when a severely disabled child was includedin a regular classroom was the fear that his or her presencewas going to detract and retard the academic achievementof the other students in the class (Hunt & Goetz, 1997). Inaddition, regular teachers often thought that the placementof disabled children in ordinary classrooms would negativelyinfluence teaching effectiveness (Myles & Simpson, 1989).However, Hunt and Goetz (1997) reviewed 19 researchinvestigations of inclusive educational programs, practices,and outcomes for students with severe disabilities. Theirmeta-analysis revealed that children with severe disabilities

TABLE 4. Differences in Attitudes to Inclusion and Disability, by Study Program (N = 89)

Attitude dimension Program n M SD t p (2-tailed)

Inclusive education Bachelor of Arts 29 52.86 6.25 0.70 .484Bachelor of Science 60 51.91 5.76

Specific disabilities Bachelor of Arts 29 28.69 5.43 0.31 .755Bachelor of Science 60 28.33 4.90

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

16:

59 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

372 The Journal of Educational Research

were actually also includable in ordinary schools and thatthey could achieve positive academic and learning outcomescontrary to the unfounded fears or concerns held by manystakeholders. Hunt and Goetz (pp. 25–26) found that the in-clusion of severely disabled children into regular schools wasmore effective and beneficial where and when (a) parentalinvolvement was made an essential component of inclusion;(b) the school and classroom environment fostered ac-ceptance, social interactions, and friendships; (c) teachingand learning were collaborative efforts involving all themajor stakeholders such as teachers, other school personnel,disabled and nondisabled children, and professionals; and(d) appropriate curricular adaptations were made.

Invisibility of the Disabled in the Community

What makes the findings of the present study unique fromthose of previous investigations is that persons with disabil-ities are invisible in Brunei. By extension, students with dis-abilities are even less visible in Brunei mainstream schools,although teachers generally accept inclusion. The main im-plication drawn from this finding is that in Brunei, and per-haps other developing-country contexts, inclusion of stu-dents with partial or moderate disabilities in regular schoolsis not considered as the same as the inclusion of learnerswith severe disabilities and high support needs in ordinaryschools. This may explain the reason why the country stillhas special education schools (known as special educationcenters) for students with severe disabilities. Functional in-clusion requires that all students (regardless of the disabilitythey may possess) learn in the same facilities.

People with mental health problems are among the mostinvisible and least integrated categories of disabled personsin Brunei. Their condition is largely blamed on divine pun-ishment by superstitious beliefs. These people tend to beinvisible for a number of reasons. In the Brunei context,the invisibility of students with psychological and mentalhealth problems may be attributed to three main factors.First, these students tend not to perform well on achieve-ment tests, and most are therefore eliminated out of educa-tion in the early years of schooling by Brunei’s examination-oriented system. Second, students with psychological andmental health problems may be invisible for fear of exposingtheir problems due to negative psychiatric labels attachedto such problems. Third, unless the problem is severe orprofound, Brunei students with mild and moderate psycho-logical and mental health problems rarely seek professionalhelp from counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists on avoluntary basis or with parental consent. In terms of thepresent information protection laws in the country, detailsof people with mental health problems can only be passedon to others when the person is a danger to the self or others,or when requested by the court of law, and when the personis referred from one mental health professional or facility toanother.

Traditional Stereotype Beliefs

Despite the influence of the Islamic religion and effortsat integration and inclusion described previously, a quickglimpse at the local Brunei culture makes it apparent thatsuperstitious beliefs are still prevalent among the local pop-ulation. One such popular belief is the birth of a child withdisabilities as a divine sign of punishment for a sin commit-ted previously by one or both of the parents. Similar fatalisticbeliefs are also held by families in other societies such asTaiwan (Kang, Lovett, & Haring, 2002), India (Vakil, Wel-ton, & Khana, 2002), Nigeria (Lamorey, 2002), and Thai-land (Fulk, Swerdlik, & Kosuwan, 2002). These traditionalbeliefs contribute significantly to the creation and perpetua-tion of negative attitudes toward the disabled. The negativeattitudes are passed on to children from one generation tothe next. In Brunei, magical powers are sometimes attributedto individuals with disabilities that they have the abilityto cure serious illnesses. Psychiatric conditions and mentalillnesses are often associated with demonic possession. Apartfrom superstitious beliefs, negative misconceptions are stillprevailing that hinder efforts to encourage integration ofindividuals with disabilities into mainstream society. Themost pervasive negative attitudes are those that focus onthe inability of individuals with disabilities to be educated,be productively employed, and to raise a family as parents.In the past, Brunei family members with disabilities werehidden at home (protected by parents and siblings). Despitesociety’s attempt to provide more equal opportunities for in-dividuals with special needs, stereotype behaviors still play alarge role in Brunei and prevent disabled persons from beingvisible.

Implications for Teacher Education

The results of the present study have important implica-tions for future teacher education programs. First, it is nec-essary to review the present teacher training curriculum toincrease the number of courses in both special and inclusiveeducation. Knowledge on disabilities and teaching of di-verse learners with special needs is pertinent and crucial tothe teachers’ development of positive attitudes toward inclu-sion as indicated by previous research (Dupoux et al., 2006).Training in instructional and behavioral management skillsallows teachers to be more accommodating toward diverselearners in the classroom irrespective of the disabilities. Sec-ond, positive teacher attitudes can be developed throughcooperation and collaboration between special and generaleducators. This collaborative effort requires more resources,administrative support, inservice professional developmentprograms, and more time for preparation and planning. Pre-service training is highly influential in changing teachers’attitudes. Positive attitudes developed during the criticalyears of teacher training at the university affect how teach-ers view students with special needs in the school settings.Future researchers should investigate whether teaching

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

16:

59 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Journal of Educational Research 373

experience and additional inservice training increase pos-itive attitudes as well as confidence in instructional skills ofteachers involved in inclusive programs. A case study ap-proach to research provides a more in-depth understandingof best practices in teaching and areas that require further at-tention to improve the education of all children with diverseneeds.

Conclusion

Overall, participants in the study had positive attitudesto inclusion but displayed negative attitudes toward somespecific disabilities such as sensory impairments (hearing,communication, and visual), mental disorders, multiple dis-abilities, and challenging behaviors. Students with these dis-abilities have high support needs and are less visible in Bruneisociety and ordinary schools. Among these, only those withbehavior disorders such as attention deficit hyperactivity dis-order have high visibility in the community and at schools.Future sensitization programs should target these more neg-atively regarded disabilities that participants in the presentstudy assigned low status and priority. In particular, studentteachers need to be adequately exposed to all categories ofdisabled persons especially those with high support needs. Toincrease teachers’ confidence in handling disabled learnersin special and inclusive schools, teacher education programsneed to emphasize and impart important skills such as cur-riculum differentiation, variation of teaching strategies tomeet and address students’ individual needs, and making ap-propriate testing accommodations. Future researchers shouldexamine the role of stereotypes in perpetuating negative at-titudes toward the disabled. Research of a qualitative naturecould look into other ways culture and religion might beused to enhance positive attitudes to disability.

Limitations of the Study

This study had three main limitations. First, collection ofdata relied mainly on a self-report questionnaire. While datafrom instruments may be useful, it might also be heavily con-taminated with social desirability bias. The data collectioninstrument used in the present study did not have mecha-nisms for assessing social desirability, impression making, andinfrequent and defensive responding. Second, quantitativeevidence of the validity of the data collection instrumentused was not obtained prior to conducting the study. In thepresent study, criterion-related validity of the subscales wasparticularly needed to demonstrate their theoretical rela-tionship with similar scales or subscales such as the Interac-tions with People with Disability Scale (Forlin, Jobling, &Carroll, 2001), Concerns About Inclusive Education Scale(Y. Sharma & Desai, 2002), Attitudes Toward InclusiveEducation Scale (Wilczenski, 1995), and the Sentiments,Attitudes, and Concerns About Inclusive Education Scale(Loreman, Earle, Sharma, & Forlin, 2007) in the Brunei con-text. Third, the students in the study were not interviewed

after administering the self-report instrument. A postadmin-istration briefing meeting with the students was needed toprovide feedback information to the participants and probetheir performance on the questionnaire. Qualitative infor-mation from the interviews would have helped to revealthe extent to which the students’ responses in the interviewmatched, differed from, or added to the data gathered by theself-report measure. In this way the qualitative interviewdata would have triangulated the quantitative data. Despitethese weaknesses, the findings of the study have importantlocal and international educational implications regardingthe attitudes the attitudes of trainee teachers to specific dis-abilities.

REFERENCES

Alghazo, M. E., & Gaad, N. E. (2004). General education teachersin the United Arab Emirates and their acceptance of the inclusionof students with disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 31,94–100.

Al-Khatib, J. M. (2007). A survey of general education teachers’ knowledgeof learning disabilities in Jordan. International Journal of Special Education,22, 72–76.

Al-Zyoudi, M. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education inJordanian schools. International Journal of Special Education, 21, 55–62.

Avramidis, A., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstreamteachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special edu-cational needs in the ordinary school in one local education authority.Educational Psychology, 20, 190–211.

Berry, R. A. W. (2010). Preservice and early career teachers’ attitudes to-wards inclusion, instructional accommodations and fairness: Three pro-files. Teacher Education, 45, 75–95.

Brandes, J. A., & Crowson, M. H. (2009). Predicating dispositions towardsinclusion of children with disabilities: The role of conservative ideol-ogy and discomfort with disability. Social Psychology in Education: AnInternational Journal, 12, 271–289.

Cardona, C. M. (2009). Teacher education students’ beliefs of inclusionand perceived competence to teach students with disabilities in Spain.Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 10, 33–41.

Cook, B., Cameron, D. L., & Tankersley, M. (2007). Inclusive teachers’attitudinal ratings of their students with disabilities. Journal of SpecialEducation, 40, 230–238.

Damit, M. (2008). The use of computer-based instruction for teaching vocabu-lary to pre-vocational students with learning disabilities (Unpublished master’sthesis). University of Brunei Darussalam, Bandar Seri Begawan.

Dupoux, E., Hammond, H., Ingalls, L., & Wolman, C. (2006). Teachers’attitudes toward students with disabilities in Haiti. International Journalof Special Education, 21, 1–14.

Elhoweris, H., & Alsheikh, N. (2006). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion.International Journal of Special Education, 21, 115–118.

Elik, N., Weiner, J., & Corkum, P. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ open-minded thinking dispositions, readiness to learn, and attitudes aboutlearning and behavioral difficulties in students. European Journal ofTeacher Education, 33, 127–146.

Ernst, C., & Rogers, M. R. (2009). Development of the inclusion attitudescale for high school teachers. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25,305–322.

Fakolade, O. A., Adeniyi, S. O., & Tela, A. (2009). Attitudes of teacherstoward inclusion of special needs children in general education classroom:The case of teachers in some selected schools in Nigeria. InternationalElectronic Journal of Elementary Education, 1, 155–169.

Fitzgerald, K. W. (2010). Enhancing inclusive educational practices withinsecondary schools in Brunei Darussalam. The Journal of International As-sociation of Special Education, 11(1), 48–55.

Forlin, C., Jobling, A., & Carroll, A. (2001). Preservice teachers’ discomfortlevels toward people disabilities. The Journal of International Special NeedsEducation, 4, 32–38.

Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Earle, C. (2009). Demographicdifferences in changing pre-service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

16:

59 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

374 The Journal of Educational Research

concerns about inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Ed-ucation, 13, 195–209.

Fulk, B. M., Swerdlik, P. A., & Kosuwan, K. (2002). Special education inThailand. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(5), 73.

Gal, E., Schreur, N., & Engel-Yeger, B. (2010). Inclusion of children withdisabilities: Teachers’ attitudes and requirements for environmental ac-commodation. International Journal of Special Education, 25, 89–99.

Gyimah, E. K., Sugde, D., & Pearson, S. (2009). Inclusion of children withspecial educational needs in mainstream schools in Ghana: Influence ofteachers’ and children’s characteristics. International Journal of InclusiveEducation, 13, 787–804.

Heflin, L. J., & Bullock, L. M. (1999). Inclusion of students with emo-tional/behavioral disorders; A survey of teachers in general and specialeducation. Preventing School Failure, 43, 103–112.

Heward, E. L. (1996). Exceptional children: An introduction to special educa-tion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Hill, J. (1999). Meeting the needs of students with special physical and healthcare needs. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.

Huang, H. H., & Diamond, K. (2009). Early childhood teachers’ ideas aboutincluding children with disabilities in programs designed for typicallydeveloping children. International Journal of Disability, Development andEducation, 56, 169–182.

Hunt, P., & Goetz, L. (1997). Research on inclusive education programs,practices and outcomes for students with severe disabilities. Journal ofEducation, 31(1), 3–29.

Jamieson, J. D. (1984). Attitudes of educators toward the handicapped.In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Attitudes and attitude change in special education:Theory and practice (pp. 206–222). Reston, VA: Council for ExceptionalChildren.

Jones, R. L., Gottlieb, J., Guskin, S., & Yoshida, R. K. (1978). Evaluatingmainstreaming programs; Models, caveats, considerations, and guide-lines. Exceptional Children, 44, 588–601.

Kang, Y. S., Lovett, D., & Haring, K. (2002). Culture and special educationin Taiwan. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(5), 12–15.

Lamorey, S. (2002). The effects of culture on special education services.Teaching Exceptional Children, 34(5), 67–71.

Langdon, C., & Vesper, N. (2000). The sixth Phi Delta Kappa poll of teach-ers’ attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappa, 81, 607–611.

LeRoy, B., & Simpson, C. (1996). Improving student outcomes throughinclusive education. Support for Learning, 11, 32–36.

Loreman, T., Earle, C., Sharma, U., & Forlin, C. (2007). The developmentof an instrument for measuring pre-service teachers’ sentiments, attitudes,and concerns about inclusive education. International Journal of SpecialEducation, 22, 150–159.

Manaf, Z. (2009). A study of the perceptions and attitudes of regular and specialeducational needs assistance (SENA) teachers toward the push-in program inBrunei Darussalam (Master’s project). University of Brunei Darussalam,Bandar Seri Begawan.

Minke, K., Bear, G., Deemer, S., & Griffin, S. (1996). Teachers’ experienceswith inclusive classrooms: Implications for special education reform. TheJournal of Special Education, 30, 152–186.

Ministry of Education. (1997). Policy guidelines on special education. BandarSeri Begawan, Brunei: Special Education Unit.

Ministry of Education. (2004). Education in Brunei Darussalam (Rev. ed.).Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei: Author.

Mundia, L. (2007). Early childhood education in Swaziland and BruneiDarussalam: Goals, achievements and challenges. Early Child Develop-ment and Care, 177, 151–158.

Myles, B. S., & Simpson, R. L. (1989). Regular educators’ modificationpreferences for mainstreaming mildly handicapped children. Journal ofSpecial Education, 22, 479–491.

Peterson, M., & Beloin, K. (1998). Teaching the inclusive teacher: Restruc-turing the mainstreaming courses in teacher education. Teacher Educationand Special Education, 21, 306–318.

Rakap, S., & Kaczmarek, L. (2010). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusionin Turkey. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25, 59–75.

Salend, S., & Duhaney, L. (1999). The impact of inclusion on studentswith and without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 20, 114–126.

Sands, D. J., Kozleski, B. E., & French, N. K. (2000). Inclusive education forthe 21st century. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of main-streaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Chil-dren, 63, 59–74.

Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training onpre-service teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive educationand sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23,773–785.

Sharma, U., Moore, D., & Sonawane, S. (2009). Attitudes and concernsof pre-service teachers regarding inclusion of students with disabilities inregular schools in Pune, India. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,37, 319–331.

Sharma, Y., & Desai, I. (2002). Measuring concerns about integrated edu-cation in India. Asia and Pacific Journal on Disability, 5(1), 2–14.

Shoho, A., Katims, D., & Wilks, D. (1997). Perceptions of alienation amongstudents with learning disabilities in inclusive and resource settings. TheHigh School Journal, 81, 28–36.

Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student,and school attributes as predictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion.Journal of Special Education, 31, 480–498.

Timbang, N. (2010). Perceptions and attitudes of regular and special educa-tional needs assistance (SENA) teachers toward the individualized educationalprogram (Master’s project). University of Brunei Darussalam, Bandar SeriBegawan.

Vakil, S., Welton, E., & Khana, R. (2002). Special education in India:The success of a model program. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, 46–51.

Vandivier, P. L., &Vandivier, S. C. (1981). Teachers’ attitudes towardmainstreaming exceptional students. Journal for Special Educators, 7,381–388.

Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., Jallad, B., Slusher, J., & Saumell, L. (1996).Teachers’ views of inclusion. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,11, 96–106.

Wilczenski, F. L. (1995). Development of a scale to measure attitudestoward inclusive education. Educational and Psychological Measurement,55, 291–299.

Williams, R. J., & Algozzine, B. (1979). Teachers’ attitudes toward main-streaming. The Elementary School Journal, 80, 63–67.

York, J., & Vandercook, T. (1990). Strategies for achieving an integratededucation for middle school students with severe disabilities. Remedialand Special education, 11(5), 6–15.

AUTHORS NOTE

Faridah Serajul Haq is affiliated with the Department ofSpecial Education at United Arab Emirates University. Hermain teaching and research interests are in special educationparticularly the areas of reading and learning difficulties.

Lawrence Mundia teaches educational psychology, spe-cial education and guidance and counseling in the SultanHassanal Bolkiah Institute of Education at the University ofBrunei Darussalam.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

asm

ania

] at

16:

59 2

7 N

ovem

ber

2014