Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20

Download by: [Southern Illinois University] Date: 25 September 2015, At: 15:42

International Journal of Inclusive Education

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

Exploring preservice teachers' attitudes towardsinclusion

Isabel Killoran, Dagmara Woronko & Hayley Zaretsky

To cite this article: Isabel Killoran, Dagmara Woronko & Hayley Zaretsky (2014) Exploringpreservice teachers' attitudes towards inclusion, International Journal of Inclusive Education,18:4, 427-442, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2013.784367

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.784367

Published online: 25 Mar 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1039

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Exploring preservice teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion

Isabel Killoran∗, Dagmara Woronko and Hayley Zaretsky

Faculty of Education, York University, 4700 Keele Street, Winters 269, Toronto, ON,M3J 1P3, Canada

(Received 19 September 2012; final version received 6 March 2013)

This study responds to a call for research into existing teacher-educationprogrammes and their impact on teacher candidates’ attitudes. An inclusiveeducation course that examined the difference between ‘soft inclusion’ (inclusionwhich addresses the issue of place rather than substance of learning) and genuineinclusion was used to explore pre-existing teacher candidate beliefs andassumptions. Using the Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming-Adapted, fourclasses of students from two different teacher-preparation programmes within theFaculty of Education at York University in Toronto, Canada, were surveyed pre-and post-course. A statistically significant change in the scores was found for allof the classes. A significant difference was also found between the changes inscores of the two programme groups. Results indicate that the course wassuccessful at shifting preservice students towards inclusion and gave the studentsa foundation that will hopefully translate into practice.

Keywords: inclusion; attitudes; preservice; teachers; Ontario

Inclusive education of students with disabilities is a matter of human rights, wherebyaccess to quality education is coupled with respect and equity in the learning environ-ment (Moran 2007; Rioux and Pinto 2010). Internationally, Article 24(1) of the Con-vention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations 2006) requiressignatory nations to provide learners with an inclusive educational experience. InOntario, the Ministry of Education aligns inclusive education with rights to non-dis-crimination and dignity under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms andthe Ontario Human Rights Code. The Ministry’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strat-egy (2009) emphasises respect for student diversity and the importance of meaningfulparticipation in education for all learners. Successful and equitable inclusive class-rooms necessitate the presence of committed, competent and adaptable teachers. Effec-tive inclusive teachers hold positive attitudes towards children with disabilities, areskilled in delivering curriculum to a diverse population of students and feel confidentin their ability to promote inclusivity in their classrooms (Berry 2010; Blecker andBoakes 2010; Darling-Hammond 2006a; Lancaster and Bain 2010; Ryan 2009). Con-versely, the absence of positive attitudes and a sense of commitment to principles ofinclusion can negatively affect teachers’ efforts to effectively educate students withdisabilities (Berry 2010; Jordan and Stanovich 2004; Rioux and Pinto 2010). Thisabsence of positive attitudes and practices can also adversely impact peer attitudes

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

∗Corresponding author. Email: ikilloran@edu.yorku.ca

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2014Vol. 18, No. 4, 427–442, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.784367

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15

and intentions to engage socially with children with disabilities (Roberts and Smith1999; Ryan 2009).

Teachers face a number of pressures that may detract from a focus on buildinginclusive communities. Globally, Slee (2006) points to a ‘centralized fast curriculumand pedagogy development and production, high stakes testing, and teaching inspec-tion’ as enacting barriers to the realisation of inclusion (238). According to Slee(2006), when educators feel compelled to raise student performance in accordancewith uniform standards, disability can easily become understood as a ‘threat’ in theschool setting (238). Elsewhere, Curcic et al. (2011) discuss how accountability press-ures may detract from collaborative working relationships amongst general and specialeducators, thereby preventing the sense of shared responsibility for all learners. Astrong commitment to the principle of inclusion may help educators navigate thesepressures and begin to enact change at a local level. Promoting positive attitudes andshared responsibility towards inclusion amongst teachers is an important foundationfor the creation of equitable learning environments.

The foundation of positive, equitable and inclusive attitudes towards the educationof students with disabilities can be laid in preservice-teacher-preparation programmes.New teachers, who find themselves struggling with the complex demands and chal-lenges of the inclusive classroom, often cite a lack of adequate preparation as onesource of their frustration (Horne and Timmons 2009; Loreman 2010; Sosu, Mtika,and Colucci-Gray 2010). To address these concerns, teacher-preparation programmesmust design courses that help prospective teachers appreciate environmental, socialand cultural contexts of learning, behaviour and teaching, and be able to enact theseunderstandings in inclusive classrooms serving increasingly diverse students(Darling-Hammond 2006a; Horne and Timmons 2009; Jung 2007; Sosu et al. 2010).

Darling-Hammond (2006b) outlined three fundamental problems associated withlearning to teach inclusively.

(1) The problem of the ‘Apprenticeship of Observation:’ new teachers must under-stand teaching in ways different from and more complex than their own experi-ences as students.

(2) The problem of ‘Enactment:’ new teachers must not only learn to ‘think like ateacher,’ but also to ‘act like a teacher’.

(3) The problem of ‘Complexity:’ new teachers must learn to understand andrespond to the dense and multifaceted nature of the classroom (35).

Teacher-preparation programmes should be responsive to these problems and thechallenges faced by new teachers. Effective preparation needs to address these criticalissues and foster positive attitudes and teaching strategies for inclusive classroom set-tings. Existing teacher-education programmes need to be researched in terms of theirimpact on teacher candidates’ human qualities, attitudes and practices (Falkenberg 2008).

Background

The following study measures the attitudinal shifts of preservice teacher candidatesafter participation in a 36-hour Inclusive Education course offered in the Faculty ofEducation at York University. York University, located in Toronto, Ontario, is thethird largest university in Canada, with approximately 50,000 students. It has 11 fac-ulties, including the Faculty of Education, one of the largest in Ontario. Preservice

428 I. Killoran et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15

(Bachelor of Education) students prepare for teaching careers through either a three-year concurrent programme, in which they complete an additional Bachelor’s simul-taneously, or a one-year consecutive programme, which is done after a Bachelor’s.Course work requirements are complemented with practicum placements. Preserviceteachers are working towards certification in one of the following division groupings:primary/junior (kindergarten to grade 6); junior/intermediate (grades 4–10) and inter-mediate/senior (grades 7–12). This study drew participants from the concurrent pro-gramme and a specialised consecutive cohort at York for those who have alreadygraduated with an early childhood education (ECE) degree or another degree and anECE diploma. Successful graduates of both programmes receive a Bachelor of Edu-cation degree, with a recommendation to the Ontario College of Teachers for teachingcertification (general education).

Within these programmes, some students are offered the opportunity to take a 36-hourcourse on Inclusive Education. In the consecutive programme, the course is offered as anelective only to the primary/junior students who are in the ECE consecutive group. All ofthe concurrent students have the option of choosing the Inclusive Education course as anelective. The ECE consecutive option is offered in a two-week module format, while theconcurrent option is offered over a 12-week term. The concurrent students in the electiveare generally in their second or third year of the programme, have completed a variety ofpractica and may be in any of the division groupings mentioned above (primary throughsecondary). Inclusive Education is a seminar course that focuses on the inclusion of chil-dren with exceptionalities in the general education classroom. [‘Exceptionalities’ is usedin reference to identified behaviour, communication, intellectual, physical or multiplelearning needs, including giftedness (MoE 2001, A18–A20).] The approach taken isthat it is the right of students with exceptionalities and of parents to elect placement ingeneral education classrooms at neighbourhood schools, and it is the obligation ofschools, teachers and administration to provide an effective, inclusive placement (YorkUniversity 2011, taken from course syllabus).

In Inclusive Education, inclusion is ‘humanised’ through the examination of real-life stories, case studies and guest speakers. These strategies may help preserviceteachers personally connect to inclusion, which is critical for shifting attitudes. Evans(2004) contends that the most significant shift in attitudes towards inclusion

comes at an emotional level – [teachers] have to believe that these children belong, thatthey have a place in the classroom, that children with special needs can form relationshipswith others, and that, as teachers, they can facilitate this process. (200)

As such, within Inclusive Education, pre-existing teacher candidate beliefs andassumptions are challenged and the difference between ‘soft inclusion’ (inclusion thataddresses the issue of place rather than substance of learning) and genuine inclusion ispresented (Rioux and Pinto 2010). Time is spent in this course looking at bias and thestereotypes of disabilities within society as a whole. The importance of peers (see, forexample, Girolametto and Weitzman 2007) and how inclusion/exclusion impacts thesocial and emotional development of children with and without disabilities is explored.The misperception that special education teachers are privy to a wealth of teaching strat-egies foreign to general education teachers is dispelled through the introduction ofUniversal Design for Learning (CAST 2011) and Differentiation. Disability as a socialconstruct, inclusion as a human right and the collaboration of parents, teachers, parapro-fessionals and peers in supporting inclusive practice are also examined.

International Journal of Inclusive Education 429

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15

The founding principles for the course are as follows:

(1) A child has the right to be included.(2) The general-education teacher has the responsibility and knowledge to include

children with disabilities.(3) Behaviour is a form of communication.(4) Social and emotional development needs to be an important component of

inclusion.(5) Collaboration is critical.

The focus of the course is to get preservice teachers to grasp these principles and tounderstand that the issues preventing inclusion do not lie within the child but ratherwith those around him/her. In an effort to meet the objectives of the course, the instruc-tor attempted to demystify inclusion, challenge assumptions and empower the preser-vice teachers to feel confident in their abilities to implement inclusive practices.

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to examine whether participation in Inclusive Educationresulted in statistically significant attitudinal shifts among preservice teacher candi-dates, given the empirical evidence that demonstrates the correlation between positiveattitudes and effective inclusive practices (Berry 2010; Blecker and Boakes 2010;Darling-Hammond 2006a; Lancaster and Bain 2010; Ryan 2009). Although some pre-service teachers may come to the programme with relatively inclusive beliefs, theinstructor was curious as to whether attitudes all along the continuum of inclusivebeliefs could be shifted in a positive direction regardless of the students’ startingposition.

Four cohorts of students participated in the study. The survey was given duringclass time and all of the students completed it at the first collection. Some surveyswere unable to be matched from the final collection because students used a differentfour-digit ID code. Originally, the data were intended for the personal use of the instruc-tor to consider when evaluating the course and its objectives. Upon analysis of the data,the instructor requested retroactive permission from the University’s Human Partici-pants Review Committee to use the data for further analysis and publication. Thisapproval was given and all of the participating students (N ¼ 81) signed consent forms.

(1) November 2002 – ECE/consecutive group (n ¼ 21),(2) November 2003 – ECE/consecutive group (n ¼ 21),(3) Fall 2005 – all divisions (primary/junior, junior/intermediate, intermediate/sec-

ondary)/concurrent group (n ¼ 17),(4) Winter 2007 – all divisions/concurrent (n ¼ 22).

Students enrolled in the ‘ECE/consecutive groups’ attended class for 8 days, for atotal of 36 hours of instruction. Students enrolled in the ‘all divisions/concurrentgroups’ attended class 3 hours a week, for 12 weeks, totalling 36 hours of instruction.Content, curriculum and philosophy were consistent across all four courses as theywere taught by the same course director. Using an adapted version of Opinions Relativeto Mainstreaming (Goodstadt-Killoran 2000), the four course groups were surveyed. Ineach of the courses, the students were given the questionnaire on the first day of class

430 I. Killoran et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15

prior to any discussion about the syllabus or inclusion. On the last day, the studentswere re-administered the questionnaire. The results were analysed based on the pro-gramme variable (consecutive or concurrent). The changes in the four subgroupswere also analysed.

Limitations

No demographic information was collected regarding the participants in the studybecause the original purpose was only to see if the course objectives were beingmet. Demographic information would have been useful in analysing the findingsfurther. Existing research on teacher attitudes has pointed to links between teachercharacteristics and dispositions towards inclusion (Avramidis and Norwich 2002). Col-lecting and analysing data with respect to practicum experience would also add anotherlayer of understanding to trends demonstrated in the attitudinal shifts. Previous research(Goodstadt-Killoran 2000) demonstrated that preservice teacher candidates adopt theattitudes and practices of their host/mentor teachers when it comes to the educationof students with disabilities. Although practicum experiences are a critical aspect ofpreservice learning, it is difficult for teacher educators to monitor what is learned inthese settings (Jordan, Schwartz, and McGhie-Richmond 2009).

Familiarity with disability also impacts attitudes towards inclusive education(Horne and Timmons 2009). No data were collected with respect to participants’prior knowledge of and/or experience with disability in the classroom, although anec-dotally many of the students gave personal reasons related to experience with disabilityfor taking the course. Finally, studies indicate trends in attitudes towards inclusion andthe grade level educators teach (Avramidis and Norwich 2002). In a review of the lit-erature on teacher attitudes, Avramidis and Norwich (2002) report that, generally, tea-chers in higher grade levels more focused on ‘subject-matter’ tend to be less acceptingof inclusion than those in lower grade levels where there is a more ‘holistic’ focus onlearner development (137–138). It would have been very beneficial to have had thedivision levels delineated in the concurrent responses; potential differences betweendivision levels could have been noted and analysed further. All of these are consider-ations for future research.

Instrument

The Opinions Related to Mainstreaming (ORM) scale was developed by Larrivee andCook (1979) to investigate the effect of selected variables on the attitudes of general-education teachers towards mainstreaming students with disabilities. A five-pointLikert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) was used. Eighteenof the items represented a negative attitude towards mainstreaming; 12 reflected a posi-tive attitude. The original scale, the ORM, consisted of 30 items. Items whose corre-lations with the total score were below 0.30 were discarded. The split-half reliabilityof the scale, determined by the Spearman–Brown reliability coefficient, was foundto be 0.92.

Antonak and Larrivee (1995) revised the ORM and renamed it the OpinionsRelative to Integration (ORI) of students with disabilities. The 30 items were main-tained; however, they were rewritten to use more inclusive and contemporaryterminology. Wordings were also changed to create 15 positive and 15 negative

International Journal of Inclusive Education 431

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15

responses. A six-point continuum with anchors ranging from 1 (disagree very much) to6 (agree very much) was added to prevent midpoint responses.

The original 30 items (Larrivee and Cook 1979) were used in this study; however,the six-point continuum created for the ORI (Antonak and Larrivee 1995) was chosento eliminate midpoint responses. Eighteen items represented negative attitudes towardsinclusion and were reverse scored so that higher scores represented more positive atti-tudes towards inclusion. Possible total scores ranged from 30 to 180. The language ofthe items was also further updated to include current terminology. Due to the differ-ences in the instrument used in this study compared to the original ORM, the instrumentused in this study has been identified as ORM-adapted (ORM-A) for clarification.Below is an example of the differences in terminology in the ORM, ORI and ORM-A:

. In the ORM, ‘Mainstreaming is likely to have a negative effect on the emotionaldevelopment of the special needs child’.

. In the ORI, ‘Integration will likely have a negative effect on the emotional devel-opment of a student with a disability’.

. In the ORM-A, ‘Inclusion is likely to have a negative effect on the emotionaldevelopment of the student with a disability’.

(adapted from and originally discussed in Goodstadt-Killoran 2000).

Findings

The researchers hypothesised that the ECE consecutive group would have significantlyhigher pre-test scores because of their ECE background, as attitudes towards inclusionare generally better in the lower divisions (Scruggs and Mastropieri 1996). Analysis ofvariance results, however, revealed no significance between the two groups when theystarted the course (F (1, 80) ¼ 1.922; p , .169). Even though there was no signifi-cance, the ECE consecutive group did start and end with higher scores than the concur-rent group. Of greater interest to the researchers was the impact of the course on thepreservice teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. According to the t-test, the changein scores for all of the groups reflected a statistical significance. Each of the foursubgroups had significance of p , .000 (consecutive 2002: t ¼ 7.043 (df ¼ 20); con-secutive 2003: t ¼ 9.597 (df ¼ 20); concurrent 2005: t ¼ 5.988 (df ¼ 16); concurrent2007: t ¼ 6.639 (df ¼ 21)).

Although all of the groups had a statistically significant change in the scores,there was also a significance in the differences in the changes in scores between thetwo programme groups, with the ECE consecutive group having the most significantchange (F (1, 81) ¼ 6.816; p , .02 (.011)).

Although this study did not use a factor analysis, past research has shown there to betypically three to five components that account for variance (see Goodstadt-Killoran2000 for a summary). Previous components linked well with the five founding prin-ciples of the course discussed earlier. These principles are restated as attitude areasfor the analysis. The five areas that were examined for a shift in attitude were: (a)general attitude about educator’s perceived ability to include; (b) attitude towards thebehaviour of children with disabilities, (c) attitude towards children with disabilities;(d) attitude towards the social and emotional development of children with disabilitiesand (e) overall attitude about inclusion. The statements were sorted into the five areas.

432 I. Killoran et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15

The statements within each area that showed the most shift in attitude are discussedbelow.

Attitude 1: general educator’s perceived ability to include

This is a component that has repeatedly come out in factor analyses so it makes senseto have it as central to the course. One of the main objectives of the course is to getgeneral educators to look at what they are already doing in their classes and find away to use Universal Design for Learning and Differentiation to set up their classesto be more inclusive. Teachers are much more likely to make an effort to include ifthey do not look upon it as an additional burden (Shade and Stewart 2001; Sharmaet al. 2006; Whiting and Young 1996).

Questionnaire items with the most change that relate to a general educator’s per-ceived ability to include are discussed below.

Statement 1: Many of the things teachers do with regular students in a classroom areappropriate for students with special needs: ECE consecutives who agreed very muchrose from 2.3% to 40%. There was not nearly as much movement with the concurrentparticipants, who rose from 3% to 10%.

Statement 8: General educators possess a great deal of the expertise necessary to workwith students with special needs: ECE consecutives who disagreed fell from 86% to49%. Again, the concurrent participants showed less change. Those who disagreedshifted from 90% to 72%.

Statement 13: Inclusion of students with disabilities will require significant changes inthe general-education-classroom procedures: Agreement amongst ECE consecutivesfell from 54% to 21%. Concurrent participants rose from 51% to 54% in agreement.This is not surprising because the concurrent participants included higher gradelevels and were more subject-focused. They felt like they had less flexibility in theirdelivery options and would need to change their procedures to be effective.

Statement 16: General educators have sufficient preparation to teach children with dis-abilities: Almost nobody agreed with this statement before the course. In fact, 98% ofECE consecutive participants and 90% of concurrent participants disagreed with thisstatement. After completion of the course, 44% of ECE consecutive participants dis-agreed with the statement, along with 69% of concurrent participants.

Statement 20: Diagnostic and prescriptive assessment is best done by special-edu-cation teachers rather than by general-education teachers: There was quite a bit ofshift for both groups. Over half of the ECE consecutive group and more than 60%of the concurrent group agreed with this statement at the start of the course. Afterthe course, approximately 20% of both groups agreed with this statement.

Statement 27: Inclusion of students with disabilities will necessitate extensive re-prep-aration of general-education teachers: Although there was quite a considerable shift intheir responses to this statement, a larger percentage of concurrent students (close to50% vs. 20%) believed that they would need extensive retraining after graduation tomake inclusion work.

International Journal of Inclusive Education 433

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Attitude 2: behaviour of children with disabilities

Another key principle of the course is to try and get teachers to understand behaviour asa form of communication. It can be difficult for people to put aside personal feelings ofhurt or frustration when a child exhibits behaviour deemed to be inappropriate (Killoran2004). It follows that once a teacher understands the principle of behaviour as com-munication, and stops viewing children as bad when they behave in ways teachersdo not appreciate or like, the more likely the teachers are to develop a positive relation-ship with the students.

Statement 5: The extra attention a student with disabilities requires will be to the detri-ment of the other students: ECE consecutives rose from 31% disagreeing very much to71%. Concurrent participants rose from 26% disagreeing very much to 64%. At the endof the course not a single ECE consecutive student agreed with this statement and onlyone of the concurrent students still did (and only agreed a little).

Statement 9: The behaviour of students with disabilities will set a bad example for theother students: There was a large shift in the response to this statement. The ECE con-secutive participants moved from just under 60% to 80% disagreeing very much withthis statement. The concurrent students had an even larger shift, moving from fewerthan 40% to almost 70% disagreeing very much with the statement.

Statement 14: Most students with disabilities are well behaved in the general-educationclassroom: Both groups ended up in the same place in overall agreement at the end ofthe course (79%); however, it was a larger shift for the ECE consecutives who started at39% in agreement compared to the concurrents, who started at 49%. In talking to thestudents about whom they thought of when thinking about included children, theECE consecutives were more inclusive. The concurrents, who represent a broaderrange of grade levels, generally mentioned only students who were gifted or had learn-ing disabilities. This narrow perception of who is included at the start of the course mayhave accounted for their belief that students with disabilities were better behaved asthey did not frequently encounter children with Autism spectrum disorder or emotionalbehavioral disability in their settings.

Attitude 3: attitude towards children with disabilities

Underpinning some of what we do are our core beliefs about people with disabilities.Time was spent in this course looking at bias and the stereotypes of disabilities withinsociety as a whole as well as the particular biases and stereotypes held by the preserviceteachers. At the beginning of the course, considerable time was spent discussing themeaning of disability, and the difference between the medical and social models of dis-ability (Shakespeare 1999). Throughout the course, the models were revisited and thestudents were challenged to identify the belief that was serving as the lens for what theywere doing and experiencing in schools. There was also a considerable amount of timespent on human rights and the importance of adopting a social-justice lens as an edu-cator (Killoran 2002; Sapon-Shevin 2003). As the course progressed, specific readingsrelated to disproportionate representation, poverty and race were included so that thestudents could recognise practices that were questionable (De Valenzuela et al. 2006;Webb-Johnson 2003). The readings changed over the years of the course but themessage was the same in all of them.

434 I. Killoran et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Statement 15: The contact students without a disability have with a student with a dis-ability in an inclusive setting may be harmful: The concurrent participants started outwith a more negative attitude with only 33% disagreeing very much with this statement.By the end of the course, 72% disagreed very much. The ECE consecutives also had asubstantial shift moving from 51% disagreeing very much to 81% by the end of thecourse.

Statement 26: Parents of a student with a disability present no greater problem for ageneral-education teacher than those of a student without a disability: ECE consecu-tives who disagreed with this statement fell from 47% to 19%. Concurrent participantsfell from 39% in disagreement to 33%. With respect to how parents were discussed inthe courses, the biggest difference between the two groups was that the concurrents didnot have parents speak directly to them about their experiences with their child’sinclusion. The issues were not personalised for them and, as a much younger groupoverall, fewer of them were parents and able to make the connection themselves.Although the role-play activities occurred with both groups, it seems that having it per-sonalised by a parent for the ECE consecutives made a difference in their response. Thisfinding is not surprising given previous studies that point to the positive impact parentshave on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion (Novak et al. 2009; Pearson 2009; Scorgie2010).

Statement 29: Students with disabilities are likely to create confusion in the general-education classroom: Both groups demonstrated changes in their response to this state-ment. By the end of the course over 75% of ECE consecutives (from 35%) and almost60% of concurrents (from 20%) disagreed very much with this statement.

Attitude 4: social and emotional development

Another key area focused on in this course is the importance of peers (see, for example,Girolametto and Weitzman 2007) and how inclusion/exclusion impacts the social andemotional development of children with and without disabilities. Students often com-mented that until the Inclusive Education course they had not been taught about socialdevelopment and how to foster relationships between students with and without disabil-ities. The students who had come to the programme with ECE credentials had learnedabout the social development of infants, toddlers and very young children, but they hadnot focused on older children.

Statement 10: Isolation in a special-education class has a negative effect on the socialand emotional development of a student with a disability: ECE consecutives were morelikely to disagree with this statement than concurrents at the start of the class. At the endof the class, however, both groups had the same level of agreement with this statement.ECE consecutives who agreed very much rose from 26% to 55%. Concurrent partici-pants who agreed very much rose from 18% to 56%.

Statement 18: Including a child with disabilities will promote his/her social indepen-dence: There was less shift for the concurrent group, but overall there was good move-ment with almost 80% of ECE consecutives and almost 60% of concurrents agreeingvery much with this statement at the end of the course.

International Journal of Inclusive Education 435

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Statement 23: Inclusion is likely to have a negative effect on the emotionaldevelopment of the student with disabilities: Again the concurrents started out with aless positive attitude towards this statement, but at the end of the course approximately75% of ECE consecutives and 70% of concurrents disagreed very much with thisstatement.

Attitude 5: overall beliefs about inclusion

Much like the beliefs about students with disabilities, the preservice teachers came tothe course with biases/stereotypes about inclusion, special education and what theythought was best. Several of them had worked as educational assistants or in other pos-itions that involved interaction with schools. Unfortunately, this often resulted in jadedexperiences. Many had been in schools that claimed to be inclusive but were not, whichresulted in the preservice teachers thinking they had seen inclusion ‘not work’.

Statement 2: The needs of a student with a disability can best be served through special,separate classes: Prior to the start of the class the groups varied in their response to thisstatement. The concurrents tended to agree more with this statement than the ECE con-secutives. By the end of the course, 98% of the ECE consecutives and 96% of the con-currents disagreed overall with the statement. The ECE consecutives were stronger intheir conviction with more disagreeing very much with the statement.

Statement 4: The challenge of being in a general-education classroom will promote theacademic growth of the student with special needs: The concurrent students had a sig-nificant shift in their response to this statement. Overall, they moved from 46% to 95%in agreement. Before the course started not a single concurrent student agreed verymuch with this statement. By the end of the course 38% agreed very much.

Statement 5: Inclusion offers mixed group interaction, which will foster understandingand acceptance of differences: Both groups had a considerable shift in their response tothis statement. Approximately 80% of both groups agreed very much with this state-ment at the end of the course, compared to 50% at the beginning.

Statement 11: The student with disabilities will probably develop academic skills morerapidly in a special-education class than in a general-education class: The concurrentstudents had a larger shift than the ECE consecutives, moving from 46% to 7% inagreement with this statement. If this is compared to the earlier discussed shiftsin their perceived abilities, it demonstrates that they do believe philosophically ininclusion but are not sure that they are prepared for it.

Statement 21: Inclusion of students with disabilities can be beneficial for studentswithout disabilities: There was a huge shift for both groups in response to this state-ment. By the end of the course, 93% of ECE consecutives and 82% of concurrent stu-dents agreed very much.

Statement 28: Students with disabilities should be given every opportunity to function inthe general-education classroom, where possible: Once again there was another hugeshift with 95% of ECE consecutives and 87% of concurrent students choosing agreedvery much in response to this statement at the end of the course.

436 I. Killoran et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Statement 30: The presence of students with disabilities will promote acceptance ofdifferences on the part of students without disabilities: At the end of the course,close to 90% of both groups agreed very much with this statement.

Discussion

Many significant shifts in preservice teacher attitudes occurred as a result of partici-pation in the Inclusive Education course. For example, there was a significant dropin the opinion that ‘Diagnostic and prescriptive assessment is best done by special-edu-cation teachers rather than by general-education teachers’. The researchers recognisethat this is an important shift because teachers often say they cannot do anything forstudents until they have been formally assessed and identified. In some school districts,that can take years. Consequently, students are left without support if teachers believethat they cannot do anything without a completed formal process. In the Inclusive Edu-cation course, preservice teachers are challenged to reframe the response of doingnothing to support students on a waiting list as an ethical issue. They are encouragedto make the personal decision to support the student even if that is not the direction pro-vided by the administrator. If general educators believe that they can do some of thenecessary assessment, they are more likely to be proactive in determining what accom-modations should be provided while waiting for the formal process to be completed.Brown et al. (2008) also found that general education teachers were more acceptingof inclusion once they gained confidence in their abilities to adapt assessment practices.

The researchers also examined preservice teacher attitudes regarding perceivedharmful impacts of ‘contact students without a disability have with a student with adisability’ and the attitude that ‘students with disabilities are likely to create confusionin the general-education classroom’. Participation in the Inclusive Education courseshifted these potentially negative pre-existing attitudes significantly, pointingtowards the course’s success in encouraging preservice teachers to reflect criticallyon their assumptions regarding the impact of a child with a disability on the classroomenvironment.

Chambers and Forlin (2010) note the importance of addressing any negativeopinions of preservice teachers towards inclusion before they become solidified andmore resistant to change. The Inclusive Education course encouraged the students toaddress their assumptions, look at the definition of inclusion and examine the researchon the benefits and issues around inclusion for children with and without disabilities.Teachers’ expectations are often governed by what they believe is the potential ofsomeone and, unfortunately, these beliefs are often flawed. For example, Biklen andBurke (2006) discuss the tendency to underestimate the abilities of individuals withcommunication difficulties. In order to help preservice teachers think more inclusively,it is important to first help them recognise and reflect critically upon their assumptionsabout students with disabilities and learning (Kozleski and Waitoller 2010; Sharma2010). If they are going to be making decisions about a child’s future, these decisionsmust be informed and evidence based. Exposing teachers to evidence-based practicescan help them recognise ineffective teaching strategies, and seek out more responsivepractices of inclusive education (Sharma 2010). Significant shifts occurred in preser-vice teacher attitudes regarding academic growth, where the learning should takeplace and how mixed group interaction affects the ‘acceptance of differences on thepart of students without disabilities’.

International Journal of Inclusive Education 437

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15

In summary, although both groups had a statistically significant shift in their atti-tudes about the general educators’ ability to include and what that would entail, theECE consecutive group had greater movement. This is not surprising based on thesubject-based focus of the higher divisions and the inclusion of these students inthe concurrent classes. As Avramidis and Norwich (2002) find, ‘it is generallybelieved that an emphasis on subject-matter affiliation is less compatible withinclusion than is a focus on student development’ (138). In the concurrent group,the preservice teachers at the higher grade levels discussed how they struggledmore with the idea of Differentiation and felt they would need retraining after theyleft the teacher-preparation programme to be truly ready for including children.Even though there was concern about their preparation, overall 56% of ECE conse-cutives and 31% of concurrent students felt that general educators had sufficient prep-aration to teach children with disabilities after the course. In Ontario, generaleducation and special education are seen by many as two very distinct streams ofspeciality. Everyone is originally certified as a general educator, but in order tohave ‘special-education qualifications’ a teacher must take additional qualificationcourses. That being said, the vast majority of students receiving special-educationprogrammes and services are placed in the general-education classroom (Bennettand Wynne 2006, 7). Consequently, the reality is that every general educator isalso a special educator. Separating general and special educators into distinctstreams can impede collaborative relationships, which are critical for realisinginclusion (Kozleski and Waitoller 2010). Working towards collapsing the twostreams is necessary if inclusion is to be our desired practice.

Both groups had a shift in their attitudes about the behaviour of children with dis-abilities and their attitudes about children with disabilities and the impact of havingthem in the general-education classroom. There was a large shift in both groups’ atti-tudes about the social and emotional impact of inclusion. Important to note is the par-allel shifting of both groups. It is very encouraging to see the higher-grade-levelteachers acknowledge the importance of social/emotional relationships. It was an objec-tive of the course that was addressed repeatedly and through many avenues (e.g. speak-ers, circle of friends, research and seminars), as studies indicate the value of combiningteacher educator instruction with opportunities to learn from and alongside other edu-cational stakeholders (i.e. parents and students) (Chambers and Forlin 2010; Evans2004).

In keeping with the shifts above, there was also a very large shift in both groups’attitudes about the principle of inclusion as a right and overall benefit. Earlier research(Horne and Timmons 2009; Lindsay 2007; Scruggs and Mastropieri 1996) has foundthat teachers generally do support inclusion as a principle but unfortunately that iswhere it often ends. While those in the field promote the benefits and necessity ofinclusive programmes, some educators find it extremely difficult to put the theoryinto practice (Devore and Hanley-Maxwell 2000; Gettinger, Stoiber, and Lange1999; Jones and Rapport 1997; Stoiber, Gettinger, and Goetz 1998 as cited in Killoran,Tymon, and Frempong 2007, 83). Although prior research (Arceneaux Rheams andBain 2005; Campbell, Gilmore, and Cuskelly 2003; Soto and Goetz 1998) hasshown the link between attitude and inclusive practice, there is a lack of researchinto whether the preservice teachers who have had a significant shift in their attitudestowards inclusion and children with disabilities are able to translate that shift intopractice.

438 I. Killoran et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Conclusion

This study responds to Falkenberg’s (2008) call for research into existing teacher-education programmes and their impact on teacher candidates’ attitudes. In addres-sing Darling-Hammond’s (2006b) three fundamental issues associated with learningto teach inclusively, this study has demonstrated the ability of an inclusion course toshift preservice teachers’ attitudes in several areas. Through redefining behaviour asa means of communication and repositioning inclusive education as a human rightrather than a privilege, this study has demonstrated that participation in effectivepreservice inclusion courses can in fact address the problems identified byDarling-Hammond (2006b, 35). Prior research indicates that while new teachersmust learn to understand and respond to the complex and multifaceted nature ofthe classroom (Darling-Hammond 2006b), a positive shift in attitude about disabilityand inclusion lays the foundation for successful and effective inclusive teachingpractice. Through completing this course, preservice teachers have had a statisticallysignificant shift in their attitude towards inclusion. It is our hope that this shift willtranslate into more welcoming and inclusive classrooms for the upcoming generationof students.

Future research might take a more focused approach by investigating how aninclusion course may impact the attitudes of a particular group of teachers withspecific backgrounds. Although this study demonstrates the value of an inclusioncourse for promoting positive attitudes, greater detail about preservice teachers’characteristics, practicum experiences and familiarity with disability would haveadded further insight into the findings. Research demonstrates the links betweenthese factors and attitudes towards inclusion (Avramidis and Norwich 2002;Goodstadt-Killoran 2000; Horne and Timmons 2009). Thus, unless an inclusioncourse specifically addresses the differences in teacher characteristics and experi-ences, these factors may impact the degree to which an inclusion course canpromote positive attitudes.

Notes on contributorsIsabel Killoran is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education. Her area of focus isinclusive education and teacher preparation.

Dagmara Woronko is a doctoral student in the Faculty of Education and contract faculty at YorkUniversity.

Hayley Zaretsky is a MEd student at the Faculty of Education and a teacher with the YorkRegion District School Board.

ReferencesAntonak, R.F., and B. Larrivee. 1995. Psychometric analysis and revision of the Opinions

Relative to Mainstreaming scale. Exceptional Children 6, no. 2: 139–49.Arceneaux Rheams, T., and S.K. Bain. 2005. Social interaction interventions in an inclusive era:

Attitudes of teachers in early childhood self-contained and inclusive settings. Psychology inthe Schools 42, no. 1: 53–63. doi:10.1002/pits.20029

Avramidis, E., and B. Norwich. 2002. Teacher’s attitudes towards integration/inclusion: Areview of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education 17, no. 2: 129–47. doi:10.1080/08856250210129056

Bennett, S., and K. Wynne. 2006. Special Education Transformation: Report of the Co-chairswith the Recommendations of the Working Table on Special Education. Report submittedto Ontario Minister of Education.

International Journal of Inclusive Education 439

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Berry, R.A.W. 2010. Preservice and early career teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, instruc-tional accommodations, and fairness: Three profiles. The Teacher Educator 45, no. 2:75–95. doi:10.1080/08878731003623677

Biklen, D., and J. Burke. 2006. Presuming competence. Equity & Excellence in Education 39:166–75.

Blecker, N.S., and N.J. Boakes. 2010. Creating a learning environment for all children: Are tea-chers able and willing? International Journal of Inclusive Education 14, no. 5: 435–47.doi:10.1080/13603110802504937

Brown, K.S., L.A. Welsh, K.H. Hill, and J.P. Cipko. 2008. The efficacy of embedding specialeducation instruction in teacher preparation programs in the United States. Teaching andTeacher Education 24, no. 8: 2087–94. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.013

Campbell, J., L. Gilmore, and M. Cuskelly. 2003. Changing student teachers’ attitudes towardsdisability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 28, no. 4:369–79. doi:10.1080/13668250310001616407

CAST. 2011. UDL Guidelines: Educator Checklist Version 2. http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines/downloads (accessed March 15, 2011).

Chambers, D., and C. Forlin. 2010. Initial teacher education and inclusion: A triad of inclusiveexperiences. In Teaching education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovativeapproaches, ed. C. Forlin, 74–83. New York: Routledge.

Curcic, S., S. Gabel, V. Zeitlin, S. Cribaro-DiFatta, and C. Glarner. 2011. Policy and challengesof building schools as inclusive communities. International Journal of Inclusive Education15, no. 1: 117–33.

Darling-Hammond, L. 2006a. Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of TeacherEducation 57, no. 3: 300–14. doi:10.1177/0022487105285962

Darling-Hammond, L. 2006b. Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

De Valenzuela, J., S. Copeland, C. Huaqing Qi, and M. Park. 2006. Examining educationalequity: Revisiting the disproportionate representation of minority students in special edu-cation. Exceptional Children 72, no. 4: 425–41.

Evans, C.J. 2004. Learning through personal interaction: Preparing pre-service teachers forstudents with special needs. Exceptionality Education Canada 14, nos. 2–3: 189–208.

Falkenberg, T. 2008. Mapping Research in Teacher Education. In Mapping research in teachereducation in Canada, eds. T. Falkenberg and H. Smits, 9–19. Winnipeg, AB: Proceedingsof the Working Conference on Research in Teacher Education in Canada.

Gettinger, M., K. Stoiber, and J. Lange. 1999. Collaborative investigation of inclusive earlyeducation practices: A blueprint for teacher–researcher partnership. Journal of EarlyIntervention 22, no. 3: 257–65.

Girolametto, L., and E. Weitzman. 2007. Promoting peer interaction skills: Professional devel-opment for early childhood educators and preschool teachers. Topics in Language Disorders27, no. 2: 93–110. doi:10.1097/01.TLD.0000269927.96009.b7

Goodstadt-Killoran. 2000. A longitudinal investigation of preservice teachers perspectives toinclusion and developmentally appropriate practice. Unpublished diss., University ofAlabama, Birmingham, AL.

Horne, P.E., and V. Timmons. 2009. Making it work: Teachers’ perspectives on inclusion.International Journal of Inclusive Education 13, no. 3: 273–86. doi:10.1080/13603110701433964

Jones, H., and M. Rapport. 1997. Research-to-practice in inclusive early childhood education.Teaching Exceptional Children 30, no. 2: 57–61.

Jordan, A., E. Schwartz, and D. McGhie-Richmond. 2009. Preparing teachers for inclusiveclassrooms. Teacher and Teacher Education 25, no. 4: 535–42. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.010

Jordan, A., and P. Stanovich. 2004. Teachers’ personal epistemological beliefs about studentswith disabilities as indicators of effective teaching practices. Journal of Research inSpecial Education Needs 3, no. 1: 1–12. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2003.00184.x

Jung, W.S. 2007. Preservice teacher preparation for successful inclusion. Education 128, no. 1:106–13.

Killoran. 2002. A road less traveled: Creating a community where each belongs. ChildhoodEducation 78, no. 3: 371–7.

440 I. Killoran et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Killoran. 2004. Understanding the child with sensory integration dysfunction. Focus onInclusive Education Quarterly 2, no. 1: 3–7.

Killoran, I., D. Tymon, and G. Frempong. 2007. Disabilities and inclusion in Toronto pre-schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education 11, no. 1: 81–95.

Kozleski, E.B., and F.R. Waitoller. 2010. Teacher learning for inclusive education:Understanding teaching as a cultural and political practice. International Journal ofInclusive Education 14, no. 7: 655–66. doi:10.1080/13603111003778379

Lancaster, J., and A. Bain. 2010. The design of preservice inclusive education courses and theireffects on self-efficacy: A comparative study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 38,no. 2: 117–28. doi:10.1080/13598661003678950

Larrivee, B., and L. Cook. 1979. Mainstreaming: A study of the variables affecting teacher atti-tude. Journal of Special Education 13, no. 3: 315–24.

Lindsay, G. 2007. Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/main-streaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology 77, no. 1: 1–24. doi:10.1348/000709906X156881

Loreman, T. 2010. Essential inclusive education-related outcomes for Alberta preservice tea-chers. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research 56, no. 2: 124–42.

Moran, A. 2007. Embracing inclusive teacher education. European Journal of TeacherEducation 30, no. 2: 119–34. doi:10.1080/02619760701275578

Novak, J., M. Murray, A. Scheuermann, and E. Curran. 2009. Enhancing the preparation ofspecial educators through service learning: Evidence from two preservice courses.International Journal of Special Education 24, no. 1: 32–44.

Ontario Ministry of Education. 2001. Special education: A guide for Educators. Toronto, ON:Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

Ontario Ministry of Education. 2009. Ontario‘s equity and inclusive education strategy.Toronto, ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. http://cal2.edu.gov.on.ca/april2009/EquityEducationStrategy.pdf

Pearson, S. 2009. Using activity theory to understand prospective teachers’ attitudes to and con-struction of special educational needs and/or disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education25, no. 4: 559–68. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.011

Rioux, M.H., and P.C. Pinto. 2010. A time for the universal right to education: Back to basics.British Journal of Sociology of Education 31, no. 5: 621–42. doi:10.1080/01425692.2010.500094

Roberts, C.M., and P.R. Smith. 1999. Attitudes and behaviour of children toward peers withdisabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 46, no. 1:35–50. doi:10.1080/103491299100713

Ryan, T.G. 2009. Inclusive attitudes: A preservice analysis. Journal of Research in SpecialEducation Needs 9, no. 3: 180–7. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2009.01134.x

Sapon-Shevin, M. 2003. Inclusion: A matter of social justice. Educational Leadership 61, no. 2:25–8.

Scorgie, K. 2010. Fostering empathy and understanding: A longitudinal case study pedagogy. InTeacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative approaches, ed. C.Forlin, 84–92. New York: Routledge.

Scruggs, T.E., and M.A. Mastropieri. 1996. Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion,1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children 63, no. 1: 59–74.

Shade, R.A., and R. Stewart. 2001. General education and special education preservice teachers’attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure 46, no. 1: 37–41. doi:10.1080/10459880109603342

Shakespeare, T. 1999. What is a disabled person? In Disability, divers-ability and legal change,eds. M. Jones and L.A. Basser Marks, 25–34. Great Britain: Kluwer Law International.

Sharma, U. 2010. Using reflective practice for the preparation of pre-service teachers for inclus-ive classrooms. In Teacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovativeapproaches, ed. C. Forlin, 102–11. New York: Routledge.

Sharma, U., C. Forlin, T. Loreman, and C. Earle. 2006. Pre-service teachers’ attitudes, concernsand sentiments about inclusive education: An international comparison of the novice pre-service teachers. International Journal of Special Education 21, no. 2: 80–93.

Slee, R. 2006. Inclusive education: Is this horse a Trojan? Exceptionality Education Canada 16,nos. 2–3: 223–42.

International Journal of Inclusive Education 441

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15

Sosu, E.M., P. Mtika, and L. Colucci-Gray. 2010. Does initial teacher education make adifference? The impact of teacher preparation on student teachers’ attitudes towards edu-cational inclusion. Journal of Education for Teaching 36, no. 4: 389–405. doi:10.1080/02607476.2010.513847

Soto, G., and L. Goetz. 1998. Self-efficacy beliefs and the education of students with severedisabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 23, no. 2:134–43. doi:10.2511/rpsd.23.2.134

United Nations. 2006, December 13. Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities andOptional Protocol. http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/conventioninfo.htm

Webb-Johnson, G. Winter, 2003. Behaving while Black. Beyond behaviour. http://www.ccbd.net/documents/bb/3-7behavingwhileblack5.pdf

Whiting, M., and J. Young. 1996. Inclusive education: A question of justice. AustralasianJournal of Special Education 20, no. 2: 29–39. doi:10.1080/1030011960200205

York University. 2011. Faculty of Education. http://www.edu.yorku.ca (accessed March 28,2011).

442 I. Killoran et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Sout

hern

Illi

nois

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

5:42

25

Sept

embe

r 20

15