This article was downloaded by: [Tufts University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 13:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Psychology: AnInternational Journal of ExperimentalEducational PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Student Teachers' Attitudes Towards theInclusion of Children with Special NeedsRICHARD P. HASTINGS a & SUZANNA OAKFORD aa Department of Psychology , University of Southampton , UKPublished online: 02 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: RICHARD P. HASTINGS & SUZANNA OAKFORD (2003) Student Teachers' AttitudesTowards the Inclusion of Children with Special Needs, Educational Psychology: An InternationalJournal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 23:1, 87-94, DOI: 10.1080/01443410303223

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410303223

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

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

Educational Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2003

Student Teachers’ Attitudes Towards theInclusion of Children with Special Needs

RICHARD P. HASTINGS & SUZANNA OAKFORD, Department of Psychology,University of Southampton, UK

ABSTRACT Previous research has suggested that teachers’ attitudes are crucial to the successof inclusion programs for children with special needs. In the present study, the impact of specialneeds category (intellectual disabilities versus emotional and behavioural problems) and studentteachers’ training (being trained to work with either younger or older children) on theirattitudes towards inclusion were explored. Ninety three student teachers completed a newmeasure of attitudes towards inclusion: the Impact of Inclusion Questionnaire (IIQ). Resultsshowed that student teachers were more negative about the impact of children with emotionaland behavioural problems on other children, teachers, and the school environment than theywere about children with intellectual disabilities. There was little support for the effects oftraining background or student teachers’ previous experience of special needs on their attitudes.Implications for inclusion programs and future research are briefly discussed.

Introduction

In many countries throughout the world, children with special needs are increasinglybeing educated in mainstream school environments. In this context, research focusingon factors that may facilitate or impede efforts to include children with special needs issalient. In particular, researchers over several decades have concluded that teachers’attitudes are one of the most crucial variables in the success of inclusion schemes(Chow & Winzer, 1992; Hayes & Gunn, 1988; Williams & Algozine, 1977). Overall,teachers have been found to express positive attitudes towards the inclusion of childrenwith special needs in mainstream educational environments (Scruggs & Mastropieri,1996). In some cases, teachers are more positive than parents of children with specialneeds (Stoiber, Gettinger, & Goetz, 1998). Thus, research studies have exploredfactors that lead to variations in teachers’ attitudes (see recent reviews by Farrell, 1997;Salend & Duhaney, 1999; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996).

Multiple factors have been found to affect teachers’ attitudes (Salend & Duhaney,

ISSN 0144-3410 print; ISSN 1469-046X online/03/010087-08 2003 Taylor & Francis LtdDOI: 10.1080/0144341022000022951

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

45 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

88 R. Hastings & S. Oakford

1999) including child, teacher, and school variables (Soodak, Podell, & Lehman,1998). Each of these three general classes of variables will be reviewed briefly in turn.First, the key child variable explored in existing research relates to the nature of thechild’s special needs. Various studies have found that children with less severe specialneeds, who are also less demanding in terms of teachers’ input, are generally viewedmore positively as candidates for inclusion than children with severe disabilities. Inparticular, children with intellectual disabilities or emotional and behavioural problemsare typically rated less positively by samples of teachers and student teachers(Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000; Soodak et al., 1998; Stoiber et al., 1998).

Teacher variables found to impact on their inclusion attitudes include contact orexperience with people with special needs, and amount of teaching experience. Attituderesearch in the special needs field in general has found that experience or contact withspecial needs typically has a positive effect on attitudes in a wide variety of samples(Beh-Pajooh, 1991; Hastings & Graham, 1995). In keeping with this pattern offindings, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of children with special needs have beenfound to be positively associated with their nonwork experience of special needs(Harvey, 1985). However, those with more years of teaching experience have beenfound to express more negative inclusion attitudes (Center & Ward, 1987; Soodak etal., 1998).

Finally, school factors have been found to be associated with teachers’ inclusionattitudes. Of particular relevance to the present study is that the age group of thechildren in the teachers’ school or classroom appears to be a significant variable.However, results are mixed in that several studies have found that inclusion of childrenat lower grades in the school system is viewed more positively (Scruggs & Mastropieri,1996), but some others have suggested that teachers working with older children aremore positive (Balboni & Pedrabissi, 2000). It could be argued that this variable issimply a factor related to the child. However, we believe that it is significant because ofits relationship to the nature of the school environment. In particular, younger childrentend to spend more time with a single teacher or smaller numbers of teachers than dochildren later in their school careers. The impact of a child with special needs on theteacher in these two circumstances may be quite different.

The main aim of the present study was to explore two issues that have not beenadequately addressed in previous research. First, although previous studies have sug-gested that teachers’ attitudes toward children with more severe special needs are morenegative than towards other diagnostic groups, there has not been a clear differentiationwithin this subgroup. In particular, we explored attitudes towards the inclusion ofchildren with intellectual disabilities and children with emotional and behaviouralproblems. Second, there have been mixed results relating to the effects of the schoolenvironment as indexed by the age of the children educated in the school. We exploredthe effect of this variable in the present research, both as an effect in its own right, butalso in interaction with the nature of the children’s special needs.

Due to the nature of these research questions, several existing measures of teachers’attitudes towards inclusion were inappropriate for the present study. In particular,many existing scale items focus on categories of special needs (Berryman, Neal, &Robinson, 1980; Wilczenski, 1995) and thus cannot be used to explore the impact ofdefined diagnostic categories on teachers’ attitudes. Other scales have focused more ondimensions of attitudes (Chow & Winzer, 1992), but in reviewing these scales for theirpotential use in the present research, we concluded that the dimensions measured didnot give a comprehensive picture. Therefore, we devised a brief attitude scale that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

45 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Attitudes Towards Inclusion 89

focused on the impact of including children with special needs on the childrenthemselves, other children in the school, the teacher, and the school and classroomenvironment.

Teacher variables that may affect their attitudes were addressed in the presentresearch in two ways. First, in order to control for any potential effects of amount ofteaching experience the sample were student teachers rather than qualified practi-tioners. Research on student teachers is also important as the attitudes they form duringtraining are likely to affect their behaviour during their teaching careers. Second, thestudent teachers’ previous experience of special needs was measured in order that itmay be controlled for in statistical analyses if found to be related to their attitudes.

Method

Participants

Ninety three university students studying for professional teaching qualifications partic-ipated in the present research. Sixty participants were being trained to work withchildren of 4–11 years of age, and 33 participants were being trained to work withchildren and adolescents 11–19 in age. Of the total sample, 79 participants were femaleand 14 were male. Their mean age at the time of the study was 26.47 (SD � 6.31).Thirty one participants had previous experience of working with children with specialneeds in a voluntary or paid capacity, and 26 participants had social contact withindividuals with special needs (family members, friends, contacts made through leisurepursuits).

Survey Instrument

Data were gathered using a self-report questionnaire containing two sections. In thefirst section, participants were asked for demographic information about themselves,and their experience of special needs (see participants above). Previous experience ofspecial needs was measured in two ways (previous work and nonwork contact) as eachpotentially could have different effects on attitudes towards inclusion. The secondsection contained a rating scale designed for the present study: the Impact of InclusionQuestionnaire (IIQ). The IIQ was developed to allow comparisons to be made betweendifferent special needs groups. Twenty four items were developed in total with six itemsin each of four potential impact domains: the child with special needs themselves, otherchildren in the classroom, the teacher, and the school or classroom environment. Theseitems were based on issues raised in existing research literature relating to the inclusionof children with special needs in mainstream classrooms, and through pilot interviewswith teachers. Each item is rated on a seven point agreement scale ranging from “verystrongly agree” to “very strongly disagree”.

The items in the child with special needs domain included the impact upon accept-ance/rejection by classmates, their personal development, and their academic develop-ment. Items in the other children domain included the impact upon contact time withthe teacher, children’s behaviour problems, and their learning opportunities. Items inthe teacher domain included the impact upon stress, tiredness, and workload. Finally,items in the school or classroom environment domain included the impact upon schoolfinances, classroom routines, and parent and community perceptions of the school.

The IIQ is scored by generating summed scores for each of the domains described

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

45 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

90 R. Hastings & S. Oakford

above and also a total attitude score. Scores on negatively phrased items are reversedso that higher totals on each of the five IIQ scores indicate more positive attitudes.Thus, scores on the IIQ domains range from 6 to 42 (5–35 for other child), and totalIIQ scores range between 23 and 161. Preliminary psychometric properties of the IIQwere explored via estimates of internal consistency of each of the scales using Cron-bach’s alpha. One item in the other children domain was found not to correlate withthe total score on that scale and it was removed from subsequent analyses. Thus, theother child domain contained only five items in the final version of the IIQ. All of thedomains of the IIQ (child with special needs, � � 0.74; other children, � � 0.65;teacher, � � 0.73; and school or classroom environment, � � 0.81), and the total scalescore (� � 0.92) were found to have good levels of internal consistency.

Procedure

Student teachers were invited to participate in the research by one of their universitytutors. One hundred and fifty questionnaires were given to tutors training students towork with either younger or older children. The raw response rate of 62% was likely tohave been affected by a number of important factors. First, the tutors approached theirstudents in lectures and also on an individual basis. These two methods were likely tolead to differing response rates. Second, the response rate from students training towork with older children (approximately 44%) was substantially lower than fromstudents training to work with younger children (approximately 80%). Thus, it isunlikely that the former group were representative. Third, the survey was completedanonymously and so it was not possible to issue reminders.

Two versions of the questionnaire were distributed on a random basis to theparticipating groups. One version asked respondents to focus on children with intellec-tual disabilities (generalised learning difficulties, mental retardation) and to considerthe impact of including children with these special needs within their schools when theyhad finished training and were working in an education setting. Similarly, the secondversion asked respondents to consider the impact of including children with emotionaland/or behavioural problems in mainstream school environments.

Results

In order to generate some information about the suitability of IIQ data for parametricstatistical analysis, one sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests were used to compare thedistributions of IIQ scores to a normal distribution. The results of these tests werenonsignificant, indicating that the data were reasonably normally distributed. Meanscores for participants, subdivided by their training group status (younger vs olderchildren) and the special needs they were asked to consider (intellectual disability vsemotional/behavioural problems), are displayed in Table I. These mean scores indicatepotential effects of both training group status and also special needs category.

Before conducting the main statistical analyses, relationships between demographicvariables and IIQ scores were explored. Previous research has suggested especially thatgender (Hastings & Graham, 1995) and experience (see above) are typically related toattitudes toward people with special needs. The effects of gender, previous workexperience with children with special needs (scored dichotomously), and previoussocial experience of children with special needs (scored dichotomously) were exploredusing t-tests. No significant effects were observed for any of the IIQ scores. Associations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

45 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Attitudes Towards Inclusion 91

TA

BL

EI.

Mea

nsc

ores

onII

Qdo

mai

nssu

bdiv

ided

bytr

aini

nggr

oup

stat

usan

dsp

ecia

lne

eds

cate

gory

Tra

inin

ggr

oup/

spec

ial

IIQ

spec

ial

need

sII

Qot

her

child

ren

IIQ

teac

her

IIQ

scho

ol/c

lass

IIQ

tota

lsc

ore

need

sca

tego

rych

ilden

viro

nmen

tM

ean

(SD

)M

ean

(SD

)M

ean

(SD

)M

ean

(SD

)M

ean

(SD

)

Inte

llect

ual

disa

bilit

y27

.29

(3.5

3)21

.23

(3.7

3)24

.83

(4.2

1)25

.92

(4.4

7)99

.27

(13.

99)

You

nger

child

ren

27.3

9(3

.19)

20.5

8(3

.96)

24.4

8(4

.01)

25.2

6(4

.60)

97.7

1(1

4.06

)O

lder

child

ren

27.1

2(4

.18)

22.4

1(3

.02)

25.4

7(4

.61)

27.1

2(4

.06)

102.

18(1

3.82

)E

mot

iona

l/beh

avio

ural

25.3

3(5

.45)

19.0

7(4

.66)

21.6

2(5

.04)

21.8

0(5

.48)

87.8

2(1

8.15

)pr

oble

ms

You

nger

child

ren

24.5

5(4

.91)

17.1

4(3

.63)

21.0

0(5

.22)

21.2

1(5

.72)

83.9

0(1

7.07

)O

lder

child

ren

26.7

5(6

.23)

22.5

6(4

.35)

22.7

5(4

.64)

22.8

8(5

.03)

94.9

4(1

8.40

)Y

oung

erch

ildre

n26

.02

(4.3

2)18

.92

(4.1

5)22

.80

(4.9

2)23

.30

(5.5

2)91

.03

(16.

95)

Old

erch

ildre

n26

.94

(5.2

0)22

.48

(3.6

7)24

.15

(4.7

6)25

.06

(4.9

7)98

.64

(16.

35)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

45 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

92 R. Hastings & S. Oakford

with participants’ age were explored using Spearman’s rank correlations because aKolmogorov–Smirnov test indicated that there was not a normal distribution of age inthe present sample. Again, no significant relationships were found. Therefore, thesedemographic and experience variables were not included as covariates in the analysesreported below.

Potential effects of the independent variables were explored using 2 � 2 betweensubjects analyses of variance. These analyses revealed a significant main effect of specialneeds category on the IIQ other children (F(1, 89) � 4.04, P � 0.05), teacher (F(1,89) � 9.55, P � 0.01), and school or class environment (F(1, 89) � 14.84, P � 0.001)domains, in addition to the total score (F(1, 89) � 9.39, P � 0.01). In each case,participants rating children with intellectual disabilities reported more positive attitudesthan participants rating children with emotional/behavioural problems (see Table I). Asignificant main effect of the participants’ training group was also found for the IIQother children domain (F(1, 89) � 19.63, P � 0.001), and for the total score (F(1,89) � 5.08, P � 0.05). In each case, those training to work with older children reportedmore positive attitudes (see Table I). No other main effects were found to be significantat the 0.05 level.

The analyses of variance also identified one significant interaction effect on the IIQother children domain (F(1, 89) � 4.82, P � 0.05). The nature of this effect wasexplored using Scheffe’s post hoc multiple comparison test. This revealed that thoseparticipants training to work with younger children who rated children with emotional/behavioural problems reported more negative attitudes than all other groups (see TableI). No other interaction effects were found to be significant at the 0.05 level.

Discussion

The results of the present study revealed that the majority of the domains of studentteachers’ attitudes towards inclusion measured by the IIQ were affected by the natureof the special needs of children considered as candidates for inclusion. Children withemotional and behavioural problems were rated as likely to have a more negativeimpact on other children, the teacher, and the school and classroom environment.Results relating to the effect of training background of the student teachers were muchless clear. Those training to work with older children were less negative about theimpact of including children with special needs on other children in the school.However, this effect is also qualified by the fact that a significant interaction was foundhere. It was only for the target children with emotional and behavioural problems thatstudents training to teach younger children were more negative than those training toteach older children.

Thus, the main finding of the present study was that student teachers expressed morenegative attitudes towards the inclusion of children with behavioural and emotionalproblems than they did towards children with intellectual disabilities. Effects of teacherexperience of special needs and the nature of the school environment (younger versusolder children) were not found to be important factors. The new measure of attitudestoward inclusion, the IIQ, was found to have good reliability and the differing patternof results across domains of potential impact reinforced the value of a measure that canbe scored to take into account attitude dimensions rather than simply a total attitudescore. Reliance on total attitude scores only in the present study would have led to theconclusion that student teachers’ training background was as important as the chil-dren’s special needs category in determining attitudes towards inclusion.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

45 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Attitudes Towards Inclusion 93

The implications of the present research are related to three main issues. First, it isclear from previous research that teachers’ attitudes are not the only factors thatdetermine the success of inclusion programs for children with special needs. Therefore,the fact that teachers may hold more negative attitudes towards a particular group ofchildren with special needs does not preclude successful inclusion for the childrenconcerned. In particular, teachers and education managers themselves identify supportsand appropriate resources as key factors in successful inclusion (Bennett, DeLuca, &Bruns, 1997; Cook, Semmel, & Gerber, 1999). Therefore, more research is needed thataddresses a broad range of child, teacher and school variables and the interactionsbetween them in terms of their impact upon inclusion for children with special needs.

Second, focusing on the issue of teachers’ attitudes, previous research has suggestedthat teacher training courses have little impact upon student teachers’ attitudes towardschildren with special needs (Hastings, Hewes, Lock, & Witting, 1996). Therefore,other methods of making an impact on teachers’ attitudes are needed. In particular, itmay be that teachers’ attitudes are moderated by factors likely to reduce the perceivednegative impact of inclusion programs or possibly those that enhance the perceivedbenefits of such programs. These factors are likely to include the provision of appropri-ate supports and resources for teachers.

Finally, the IIQ seems to be a promising addition to measurement instrumentsdesigned to assess teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. The measure clearly needsmore work in terms of the exploration of its psychometric properties, but preliminarydata reported here are encouraging. Furthermore, assessing teachers’ attitudes across anumber of domains may well prove significant. Further research could address whichdimensions of teachers’ attitudes are crucial to their acceptance of children with specialneeds in their classrooms and also to the success of inclusion programs. If it provesuseful in this respect, the IIQ could then be used to monitor change achieved inteachers’ perceptions as a result of training or support schemes designed to facilitateinclusion for children with special needs.

Correspondence: Dr Richard Hastings, School of Psychology, University of Wales Ban-gor, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG Wales, UK (e-mail: r.hastings@bangor.ac.uk).

REFERENCES

Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion ofchildren with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16,277–293.

Balboni, G., & Pedrabissi, L. (2000). Attitudes of Italian teachers and parents toward school inclusionof students with mental retardation: The role of experience. Education and Training in MentalRetardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 148–159.

Beh-Pajooh, A. (1991). The effect of social contact on college students’ attitudes toward severelyhandicapped students and their educational integration. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 35,339–352.

Bennett, T., DeLuca, D., & Bruns, D. (1997). Putting inclusion into practice: Perspectives of teachersand parents. Exceptional Children, 64, 115–131.

Berryman, J.D., Neal, W.R., & Robinson, J.E. (1980). The validation of a scale to measure attitudestoward the classroom integration of disabled students. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 199–203.

Center, Y., & Ward, J. (1987). Teachers’ attitudes towards the integration of disabled children intoregular schools. The Exceptional Child, 34, 41–52.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

45 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

94 R. Hastings & S. Oakford

Chow, P., & Winzer, M.M. (1992). Reliability and validity of a scale measuring attitudes towardsmainstreaming. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 223–227.

Cook, B.G., Semmel, M.I., & Gerber, M.M. (1999). Attitudes of principals and special educationteachers toward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities: Critical differences of opinion.Remedial and Special Education, 20, 199–208.

Farrell, P. (1997). The integration of children with severe learning difficulties: A review of recentliterature. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 10, 1–14.

Harvey, D.H.P. (1985). Mainstreaming: Teachers’ attitudes when they have no choice about thematter. The Exceptional Child, 32, 163–175.

Hastings, R.P., & Graham, S. (1995). Adolescents’ perceptions of young people with severe learningdifficulties: The effects of integration schemes and frequency of contact. Educational Psychology, 15,149–159.

Hastings, R.P., Hewes, A., Lock, S., & Witting, A. (1996). Do special educational needs courses haveany impact on student teachers’ perceptions of children with severe learning difficulties? BritishJournal of Special Education, 23, 139–144.

Hayes, K., & Gunn, P. (1988). Attitudes of parents and teachers toward mainstreaming. TheExceptional Child, 35, 31–39.

Salend, S.J., & Duhaney, L.M.G. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and withoutdisabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 114–126.

Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59–74.

Soodak, L.C., Podell, D.M., & Lehman, L.R. (1998). Teacher, student, and school attributes aspredictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion. Journal of Special Education, 31, 480–497.

Stoiber, K.C., Gettinger, M., & Goetz, D. (1998). Exploring factors influencing parents’ and earlychildhood practitioners’ beliefs about inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 107–124.

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

Williams, R.J., & Algozine, B.C. (1977). Differential attitudes toward mainstreaming: An investigation.The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 23, 207–212.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tuf

ts U

nive

rsity

] at

13:

45 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014