Factors that are related to teacher attitudes toward inclusive education: a review of literature

(1)

Running head: Teacher attitudes toward inclusive education 1

Author: Hesther van Gulick Student number: 10769137

Thesis supervisor: dhr. dr. L.J.F. Cornelissen Bachelor thesis

Educational Science University of Amsterdam June 2017

(2)

TEACHER ATTITUDES TOWARD INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 2 Table of content Abstract ... 4 Introduction ... 5 Inclusive education ... 6 Attitude theory ... 7 Method ... 9 Selection of studies ... 9

Chapter 1: How are teacher attitudes toward inclusive education defined? ... 10

Three components of attitude theory ... 10

Common themes in questionnaires ... 11

Self-efficacy, competence or confidence... 11

Concerns ... 14

Perceived impact or benefits ... 15

Chapter conclusion ... 15

Chapter 2: What individual factors are related to the attitude of teachers toward inclusive education? ... 17

Demographic variables ... 17

Gender ... 17

Age and length of teaching experience ... 26

Level of education ... 26

Previous teaching and personal experience with children with disabilities ... 26

Teaching experience ... 26

Personal experience ... 27

Self-efficacy and knowledge ... 28

Training ... 29

Chapter conclusion ... 32

Chapter 3: What environmental factors are related to the attitude of teachers toward inclusive education? ... 33

(3)

TEACHER ATTITUDES TOWARD INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 3

Child-related factors (micro) ... 33

Type of disability ... 33

Organizational factors ... 33

Class-size and workload ... 33

Resources ... 36

Support and expectations ... 36

National factors (macro) ... 37

Chapter 4: Developing a theoretical model that explains teacher attitudes toward inclusive edcuation ... 38

Conclusion and discussion ... 41

(4)

Abstract

The inclusion of students with special educational needs in regular classrooms has been a key element of international educational policy for the last decades. The successful implementation of inclusive educational practices is largely dependent on teachers’ attitudes toward the innovation. Therefore, this review study investigated what factors are related to teacher attitudes toward inclusive education and how they relate to the three components of attitude theory. Firstly, it was found that there is indistinctness about the definition of attitudes and the way they are measured. It is unclear whether self-efficacy, concerns and the perceived effects of inclusive education should be a part of the definition of attitudes. On top of this, most research has a strong focus on the cognitive component of attitude, and does not take into account the affective and behavioral components. Secondly, the majority of research investigates individual factors, while not many take environmental factors into account. With regard to individual factors, it was found that mainly training, self-efficacy, knowledge, experience in teaching children with a disability, and personal experience with people with a disability were consistently related to attitudes. Even though environmental factors are less often researched, mainly the type of disability a child has, and organizational factors such as class-size and workload, resources and support are consistently found to be related to attitudes. Lastly, this review study proposes a theoretical model that explains teacher attitudes toward inclusive education. Following this model, teacher attitudes can be improved by providing adequate training and removing organizational barriers.

Keywords: inclusive education, teacher attitudes, attitude theory, individual factors, environmental factors

(5)

Introduction

The inclusion of students with special educational needs in regular classrooms has been a key element of educational policy for the last few decades. An increasing number of countries have abandoned the segregated special school system (Meijer, Soriano & Watkins, 2003). Inclusive education is an international movement which has continuingly been promoted by the United Nations (UN), whose policies promote equal rights and opportunities for all children. Correspondingly, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Unicef, 1989) states that children with a mental or physical disability have the right to enjoy a full and decent life. On top of that, the Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (Nations, 1994, Rule 6) calls for equal educational opportunities in an integrated setting for children with disabilities. In 1994 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) initiated a global policy for inclusive education for all children in the Salamanca Statement (Unesco, 1994). In this statement it is declared that:

Inclusion and participation are essential to human dignity and to the enjoyment and exercise of human rights. Within the field of education, this is reflected in the development of strategies that seek to bring about a genuine equalization of opportunity. (p. 11).

In the Statement is it argued that the equalization of opportunity is best achieved in inclusive schools that accommodate to children with special educational needs. Specifically, children with disabilities should be placed in regular schools as often as possible to achieve education for all. After the release of the Salamanca Statement, national governments introduced their own policies regarding inclusive education. Examples are the United States’ ‘No child left behind act’ (No Child Left Behind Act, 2002), the Netherlands’ ‘Passend Onderwijs’ (Bijsterveld, 2011), and the United Kingdom’s ‘Green Paper’ (Department for Education and Skills, 2003).

In summary, there are numerous policies worldwide designed for the implementation of inclusive education. However, teachers do not always hold a positive attitude toward inclusive education (De Boer, Pijl & Minnaert, 2011). This is worrying, as teachers play a crucial role in implementing the innovation (Meijer et al., 2003), and a negative attitude can form a barrier for the successful implementation of inclusive education. Accordingly, the successful implementation of inclusive educational practices is seen to be largely dependent on teachers’ attitudes toward the innovation (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; De Boer et al., 2011; Parasuram, 2006). It is crucial to investigate the attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education so policy makers know if there are any concerns and how to address them (Newton, Hunter-Johnson,

(6)

Gardiner-Farquharson & Cambridge, 2014). However, no review-studies about the attitudes of teachers toward inclusive education have been published since 2011 (De Boer et al., 2011), even though worldwide the number of studies about the subject has been growing rapidly in the past six years. The current literature review will focus on recent literature from the past ten years and add to the previous 2011 study by categorizing them and thereby creating a more concise overview of the factors. Because researchers make use of different questionnaires to measure attitudes this review study will not only categorize factors that influence teacher attitudes, but also link these categories to the type of attitude being measured according to attitude theory (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). This will create a more easily interpretable overview of literature that could be used as a framework for future research as well as provide implications for policy and practice.

Inclusive education

The definition of inclusive education has widened in recent years (Topping, 2012). However, the exact definition remains unclear (Topping, 2012; Newton et al., 2014). The narrow definition of inclusive education is only focused on the inclusion of children with a disability in regular classrooms. Now, it does not only concern children with a disability, but also all children who may be deprived from regular education due to poverty, social class, religion, race, gender and so on. Armstrong (2016) defines the underlying belief of inclusive education as follows: ‘Inclusive education rests on the belief that all members of the community have the right to participate in, and have access to, education on an equal basis.’ On top of this, inclusive education does not just imply the physical presence of children with special educational needs, but these children should also participate socially and access the regular curriculum (De Boer et al., 2011; Topping, 2012). Social participation encompasses acceptance by classmates, and interaction and friendships with them. Before the term inclusion was introduced, the term ‘integration’ was used to represent the placement of students with disabilities. However, integration was about the assimilation of the student to the school system, whereas inclusion is about changing the system to accommodate all students (Norwich, 2012). The term ‘mainstreaming’ is also used to indicate the process of placing children with a disability in a mainstream classroom. In this study, the term inclusion will be used to refer to ‘the process of educating children with disabilities in regular classrooms of their neighbourhood schools’ (Rafferty, Boettcher, & Griffin, 2001).

Because the majority of previous research about the attitudes of teachers toward inclusive education still holds on to the narrow definition of inclusive education, this review study will only focus on inclusive education for children with a disability. Not only the

(7)

definition of inclusive education, but also the definition of a child with a disability has also been subject to change. In 1979 the English Warnock Report already suggests to replace the words ‘disability’ and ‘handicap’ with ‘special educational needs’ (De Boer et al., 2011). This change of terminology has created a shift in the way we think about inclusive education. Instead of focusing on the disability of the child, the focus is now on the needs it has in education. The old system where children with a disability are placed in schools for special education has the negative consequence that we see the problem as an inherent deficit of the child (Topping, 2012), when in fact it is not this deficit that causes a disability to become a handicap in a certain educational context. That is to say, the educational difficulties a child has are not only dependent on the disability itself, but also on the context in which a child is taught. This review study will focus on children with special educational needs and one of the following types of disability: motor skills disorders, sensory disorders, learning disorders, communication disorders, mental retardation, behavior disorders and chronic diseases.

Attitude theory

Defining attitude has occupied social psychologists for decades, which lead to multiple definitions. The most well-known attitude theory is the three-component theory (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Adopting this theory, Eagly and Chaiken (1998) define an attitude as ‘a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor’ (p. 269). Individuals do not have an attitude until encountered with an attitude object. Regularly studied objects of attitudes are social policies, social groups, individuals and behaviors. According to the three-component attitude theory, individuals respond evaluatively to an attitude object on an affective, cognitive or behavioral basis (Eagly and Chaiken, 1998). Thus, attitude can, more specifically, be defined as ‘an overall evaluation of an object that is based on cognitive, affective and behavioral information’ (Maio & Haddock, 2009). The affective component comprises feelings and emotions induced by the attitude object. The cognitive component consists of beliefs toward and knowledge about the attitude object. Lastly, the behavioral component is the predisposition to act toward the attitude object. This attitude theory emphasizes the relation between attitudes and the experience that underlies them (Eagly and Chaiken, 1994; Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto, 1994). The most recent review study by De Boer et al. (2011) used these components to categorize studies about the attitudes of teachers toward inclusive education. It was found that teachers were undecided or negative in their beliefs (cognitive component), did not feel competent and confident about teaching children with special needs (affective component), and hold negative or neutral behavioral intentions toward inclusive education (behavioral component). Then, factors that relate to teacher attitudes toward

(8)

inclusive education were investigated. However, these factors were not linked to the three components of attitude that were distinguished in this study. It is still unclear which factors affect the different either the cognitive, affective or behavioral component of attitude. This is important to investigate in order to gain more insight in the nature of the relation between the factors and the different components of attitude.

This review study will aim to fill this void in the literature, and provide a better understanding of the way attitudes are influenced by various factors. Moreover, a better understanding of teacher attitudes could be useful for the implementation of inclusive education, as negative attitudes often a barrier for implementation. To this end, the main research question is: What factors are related to teacher attitudes toward inclusive education and how do they relate to the three components of attitude theory? The first chapter will focus on how attitudes are defined in different studies and therefore which components of attitude they measure. The second and third chapters will summarize which individual and environmental factors have been found to be related to attitudes. The fourth and last chapter will propose a theoretical model that combines knowledge from the first three chapters.

(9)

Method Selection of studies

For this literature review forty-one studies that investigate factors related to teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education have been selected. Quantitative as well as qualitative research qualified. The selection criteria were as follows:

• The study has to be peer-reviewed.

• The study has to investigate at least one factor related to attitude.

• The study has to concern the inclusion of children with a sensory, intellectual, emotional or physical disability.

• The study has to concern pre-service, primary or secondary school teachers. • The study has to be published in the last ten years, between 2006 and 2016.

The main terms to search for appropriate articles were ‘teacher[s] attitudes’ combined with ‘inclusive education’. Teacher[s] attitudes was also replaced with ‘teacher[s] perspectives’. The databases used were Google Scholar, ERIC, and PsychINFO. Studies were then selected based on their abstracts. Combining ‘teacher attitude’ with ‘inclusive education’ resulted in 895 hits on Google Scholar, thirty-two of which were selected on relevance. Replacing inclusive education with ‘mainstreaming’ resulted in two additional studies in Google Scholar. Replacing teacher attitudes with ‘teacher perspectives’ did not result in more relevant articles. However, replacing inclusive education with ‘inclusion’ resulted in the selection of another eight studies. Using the same search terms and the descriptors ‘inclusion’ and ‘teacher attitudes’ in ERIC gave 69 results. This search resulted in the selection of one study in addition to the Google Scholar search. Combining the same search terms in PsychINFO resulted in 381 hits, five of which were selected.

In total, this search resulted in the selection of forty-eight studies. Three of these studies were untraceable and excluded out of necessity. Upon more thorough reading of the articles, four of the selected studies were excluded because they did not meet the criteria.

For the chapters two and three, an additional selection criterium was applied. For chapter two, studies had to investigate at least one individual factor that could be related to attitudes toward inclusive education. Thirty-nine of the forty-one studies met this criterium. For the third chapter, studies had to investigate at least one environmental factor that could be related to attitudes toward inclusive education. Seventeen studies met this criterium.

(10)

CHAPTER 1

How are teacher attitudes toward inclusive education defined?

Three components of attitude theory

According to attitude theory, attitudes can be sorted into three components: cognitive attitude, affective attitude and behavioral attitude. This is a useful theory because it is broad enough to include most definitions of attitude authors use, whilst still being able to make distinctions between them. A previous review study by De Boer et al. (2011) used this method to categorize different measurements of attitude, and gave the following questions as an example of an item in the different components. A typical question for the cognitive component is: ‘I believe that pupils with special needs belong in regular schools.’ This question is geared toward underlying beliefs and measures the extent to which teachers agree with the ideology of inclusive education. A sample question for the affective component is: ‘I’m afraid pupils with behavior problems disturb the order in class.’ This clearly measures a different kind of attitude, as one can agree with the underlying thought of inclusive education whilst still fearing the outcomes. Lastly, an example question for the behavioral component is: ‘I would refuse to give extra support to a pupil with special needs.’ This question clearly measures the predisposition to act upon the notion of inclusive education.

The results of the categorization of questionnaires in accordance with attitude theory are shown in Table 1. This chapter will highlight notable common themes that can be found in the questionnaires. If a questionnaire is not mentioned in the text, the questions were very similar to the sample questions listed above and need no further discussion. Strikingly, the majority of the questionnaires can only be sorted into the cognitive component. Thus, most studies focus on whether teachers are positive or negative about the idea of inclusive education; mainly whether they believe children with disabilities should be educated in regular classrooms. This might not provide the complete picture, as it is possible that teachers agree with the notion of inclusive education whilst also having some negative feelings about it (affective component) or not intending to implement inclusive practices in their own classroom (behavioral component). Two questionnaires, however, measure all three components. Firstly, the Multidimensional Attitudes toward Inclusive Education Scale (MATIES) was specifically developed to this end (Mahat, 2008). Mahat (2008) shows that the three components are positively correlated, but do form separate components. The affective and cognitive subscales had a moderate correlation of .48, and both the cognitive and affective subscales had a large correlation of respectively .61

(11)

and .62 with the behavioral component. Even though moderate to high correlations between the components exist, this suggests they do not measure the same construct.

Secondly, the Attitude Survey Towards Inclusive Education (ASIE) is also developed to measure all three components of attitude theory (De Boer, Timmerman, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2012). However, many questions in the affective component and all questions measuring the behavioral component that were included in this questionnaire were copied from the MATIES questionnaire. The questions for the cognitive component were copied from the My Thinking about Inclusion (MTAI) questionnaire (Stoiber, Gettinger, & Goetz, 1998).

Thirdly, The Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education and its revised version (SACIE and SACIE-R) was found to consist of three factors (Forlin, Earle, Loreman, & Sharma, 2011), two of which are similar to the components of attitude theory, namely sentiments, which could be interpreted as the affective component, and attitudes, which would be the cognitive component. Contrary to Mahat (2008) the affective and cognitive factors did not correlate (r = .05). A possible explanation is that the affective component is slightly different from the affective component in the MATIES and ASIE questionnaires, as the attitude object is children with disabilities as opposed to inclusive education as a policy. To illustrate, a sample question from the affective component of the SACIE-R questionnaire is: ‘I am afraid to look a person with a disability straight in the face’, whereas a sample question of the MATIES questionnaire is: ‘I am uncomfortable including students with a disability in a regular classroom with other students without a disability’. It is important to note the affective component of both questionnaires measure teachers’ attitudes toward different, yet related, objects.

Common themes in questionnaires

The rest of the chapter will discuss three common themes in order to conclude whether the different studies are in agreement about the definition of teacher attitudes toward inclusive education.

Self-efficacy, competence or confidence. First of all, questions about teachers’ self-efficacy1, competence or confidence levels are often added to questionnaires that measure attitudes toward inclusive education. Linking this to attitude theory, this study categorized these questions into the cognitive component, as they indicate a belief in one’s own competencies. In order to compensate for the negatively phrased items in the affective component of the MATIES

1_{¹The current study defines self-efficacy as ‘the self-evaluation by teachers of their capability to teach children}

(12)

Table 1. Definitions of teacher attitudes toward inclusive education in selected studies.

Study Attitude component* Questionnaire

Agbenyega (2007) C ATIAS

Ahmmed et al. (2012) C SPATI (adapted)

Alquraini (2012) C ORI

Anati (2012) C Nameless

Avramidis and Kalyva (2007) C MTAI

Bhatnagar and Das (2014) C ATIES

Boyle, Topping, and Jindal-Snape (2013) C Nameless

Čagran and Schmidt (2011) C IIQ

Costello and Boyle (2013) C TAISA (TAIS adapted)

Coutsocostas and Alborz (2010) C Nameless

De Boer, Pijl, Post, and Minnaert (2012) C, A, B ASIE

Dupoux et al. (2006) C ORI

Engelbrecht et al. (2012) C, A SACIE

Forlin et al. (2007) C ATIES

Gyimah et al. (2009) C Nameless

Humphrey and Symes (2013) C McGregor & Campbell (2001) (adapted)

Kim (2011) C, B Teachers' Attitudes Toward Inclusion

Lambe (2011) C, A Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education in NI

Lambe and Bones (2008) -** -

MacFarlane and Woolfson (2013) C, A, B MATIES

Malak (2013) -** -

Male (2011) C ATIES

Memisevic and Hodzic (2011) C, B The attitudes towards education inclusion of children with

(13)

Table 1. (Continued).

Study Attitude component Questionnaire

Monsen et al. (2014) C TAIS

Mukhopadhyay (2014) C Nameless

Ocloo and Subbey (2008) C ATIAS

Parasuram (2006) C ATDP, ATIES

Park et al. (2010) C, B AAST

Poon et al. (2016) C, A SACIE-R

Romi and Leyser (2006) C ORI

Ross‐Hill (2009) C STATIC

Santoli et al. (2008) C Luseno (2001) (adapted)

Sari (2007) C ORMS

Savolainen et al. (2012) C, A SACIE

Sharma and Nuttal (2016) C TATIS, CIES

Sharma et al. (2015) C ATIES

Sosu, Mtika, and Colucci‐Gray (2010) C Attitude to inclusion and social justice scale

Swain, Nordness, and Leader-Janssen, (2012) C Attitude Toward Inclusion Instrument (adapted)

Varcoe and Boyle (2014) C TAISA

Vaz et al. (2015) C ORI

Weisel and Dror (2006) C Shechtman et al. (1993) (adapted)

*C = cognitive, A = affective, B = behavioral ** exploratory study

(14)

questionnaire, De Boer et al. (2012) added items about positive feelings, concerning competence and confidence. One could discuss whether these questions do not measure a different psychological construct, namely self-efficacy. The extent to which teachers feel they are competent and confident enough to educate children with special educational needs might be a factor that influences their attitude toward inclusive education. Indeed, many of the selected studies measure attitudes and self-efficacy as separate variables (Weisel, & Dror, 2006; Sharma, Shaukat & Furlonger, 2015; Romi & Leyser, 2006; Savolainen, Engelbrecht, Nel & Malinen, 2012). However, de Boer et al. (2012) is not the only study to include self-efficacy in an attitudes questionnaire. The Attitudes Toward Inclusion in Africa scale (ATIAS) and Opinions Relative to Inclusion (ORI) scales respectively include professional competency and perceived ability to teach students with disabilities, even though factor analyses showed these formed a separate component (Agbenyega, 2007; Cook, 2002). Moreover, the questionnaire by McGregor and Campbell (2001) includes questions that inquire whether teachers are able to cope with typical behaviors of children with autism. Similarly, the SACIE(R) questionnaire includes the item: ‘I am concerned that I do not have knowledge and skills required to teach students with disabilities.’, which is even more complicated as it does not measure the perceived self-efficacy of teachers but merely their concern that they might not possess the required competencies. The “Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education in Northern Ireland” questionnaire by Lambe (2011) includes a similar statement. Concluding, research does not seem to agree on the role of self-efficacy. Is it part of an attitude itself or is it a factor that could influence attitude and should be studied separately?

Concerns. Secondly, a couple of researchers add teachers’ concerns about inclusive educational policies to the attitudes questionnaire. Again linking this to attitude theory, this study categorized these questions into the affective component, as they indicate anxieties or worries about inclusive education. In the SACIE or SACIE-R questionnaire ‘concerns’ forms the third and last factor, besides sentiments and attitude (Forlin et al., 2011). As discussed above, statements about concerns are in some cases combined with the construct of self-efficacy. One could also argue concerns are similar to the affective component of attitude theory, as they measure an insecurity rather than actual self-efficacy or other possible problems with inclusive education. Indeed, Forlin et al. (2011) shows a moderate correlation between their sentiments factor and the concerns component. Lambe (2011) includes statements about teachers’ concerns with inclusive education and their own competencies. In contrast to Forlin et al. (2011) these type of statements are defined as ‘concerns and anxieties’, indicating that it is seen as an affective component regarding certain feelings toward inclusive education. A

(15)

perspective similar to the findings by Forlin et al. (2011) is shown in Sharma and Nuttal (2016), as they use a separate questionnaire to measure concerns with inclusive education, and a separate questionnaire which is called teacher attitudes, indicating that the concerns teachers have is a different construct than their attitudes. However, they did not report the relation between concerns and attitudes, thus it remains unsure whether it is indeed a separate construct. Concluding, as for self-efficacy, there is no consensus about the role of the concerns questions. Should it be treated as a separate component that affects attitudes or is it a part of attitudes? Perceived impact or benefits. Thirdly, many studies measure teachers’ perceived impact or benefits of inclusive education. Linking this to attitude theory, it is most similar to the cognitive component, because it represents a belief about the impact or benefits of inclusive education. The clearest example for this is the study by Čagran, & Schmidt (2011) which uses the Impact of Inclusion Questionnaire (IIQ) to measure teacher attitudes. Sample statements in the IIQ are ‘… disturbs others’, and ‘… increases the workload’. They used a sample of teachers who had at least one child with special needs in their classroom. Therefore, what this study might have measured is more experience and observation than attitude. For example, if a child with a disability increases the workload, this does not mean that teachers hold a negative attitude toward the ideology of inclusive education. Similar to Čagran, & Schmidt (2011), the Opinion Relative to Integration (ORI) and its predecessor the Opinion Relative to Mainstreaming (ORM) questionnaires consist of multiple factors, one of which is the perceived benefits of inclusive education (Cook, 2002). Contrary to the IIQ, these questionnaires can be used before teachers have any experience in inclusive education as the statements are phrased in future tense, that is to say it investigates whether teachers expect inclusion to have benefits. This resembles the cognitive component of attitude theory, but it is not necessarily the same construct, as a sample question of the ORI scale is: ‘Integration of special needs students will require significant changes in regular classroom procedures’ (Dupoux, Hammond, Ingalls, & Wolman, 2006). Teachers could completely agree with this statement and also support the ideology of inclusive education.

Chapter conclusion

A review of literature reveals that there is no clear definition of teacher attitudes toward inclusive education. In the studies included in this review alone, twenty-six different questionnaires have been used to measure attitudes, which do not seem to be based on the same definition. Not all studies make use of previously developed questionnaires and choose to design yet another unique survey, even though multiple previously designed questionnaires are

(16)

tested on their psychometric properties and turned out to be reliable (Cook, 2002; Forlin et al., 2011; Mahat, 2008). Most questionnaires that measure attitude are designed for a specific situation and only used once (Mahat, 2008). This chapter shed more light on the different ways teacher attitudes toward inclusive education are defined by sorting questionnaires into the three categories of attitude theory and highlighting common themes. Only the MATIES and ASIE questionnaires comprise of all three components, while most only measure the cognitive component. Self-efficacy, concerns about inclusion and perceived effects of inclusive education are often added to the questionnaires. However, studies are not in agreement about the role these concepts play. Some studies treat them as a part of attitudes, thereby including them in the definition of attitudes, whilst others treat them as a separate component. The different definitions of teacher attitudes make the results of studies more difficult to compare in this literature review.

(17)

CHAPTER 2

What individual factors are related to the attitude of teachers toward inclusive education?

Table 2 shows an overview of all thirty-nine studies and their outcomes on individual factors that are related to the attitude of teachers toward inclusive education, listing details about the research method and relevant outcomes. Based on this table, the most frequently researched factors are selected, categorized and discussed in this chapter.

Demographic variables

Most studies take into account demographic variables when investigating attitudes toward inclusive education. The most commonly investigated demographics are gender, age and length of teaching experience, and level of education (see overview Table 2). However, research fails to come to an unambiguous conclusion of their influence on attitudes.

Gender. Findings on the influence of gender on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education are inconsistent. As shown in Table 2, eight studies in total found a significant effect for gender on attitudes. Exactly half of the studies that did find a difference in attitude between male and female teachers found males to be more positive toward inclusive education, and the other half found females to be more positive. A total of ten studies did not find a difference in attitudes between male and female teachers. When females are found to have more positive attitudes, this is attributed to their greater tolerance toward inclusion and their higher levels of empathy (Park, Chitiyo, & Choi, 2010; Vaz et al., 2015). Sharma et al. (2015) found that Pakistani male teachers held more positive attitudes toward inclusive education and note this is in contrast with Western research where females were found to be more positive. Alquraini (2012) similarly suggests that male teachers in Saudi Arabia hold more positive attitudes due to religious and cultural differences in this Islamic country. Girls in Saudi Arabia are taught separately to become housewives, which might influence their attitudes. Parasuram (2006) did not find any gender differences in Mumbai and suggests that this metropolis has a culture of participation of both genders. It is possible that research in societies where both genders are treated more equally find less gender differences in attitudes.

(18)

Table 2. Overview of studies that investigated individual factors related to teacher attitudes toward inclusive education.

Reference Country Design Sample Outcomes

Agbenyega (2007) Ghana Cross-sectional

and exploratory

100 elementary school teachers

Teachers reported a lack of competencies and skills that are required in order to teach children with disabilities. Ahmmed et al. (2012) Bangladesh Cross-sectional 738 elementary

school teachers

Teachers had a more positive attitude if they: • Were male

• Had a master’s degree

• Had previous success with teaching children with disabilities

• Had personal experience with someone with a disability There was no relationship with attitudes found for:

• Age

• Length of teaching experience* • Training

Alquraini (2012) Saudi Arabia Cross-sectional 303 elementary

school teachers in general and special education

• Had previous teaching experience with children with a disability

• Taught in general education

There was no relationship with attitudes found for: • Training

• Level of education • Grade taught

• Having a family member with a disability

Anati (2012) United Arab

Emirates Cross-sectional and exploratory 56 elementary, inclusive school teachers

Teachers had a more positive attitude if they:

(19)

Avramidis and Kalyva (2007)

Greece Cross-sectional 155 elementary

school teachers

• Had previous teaching experience with children with a disability • Had more training in teaching children with disabilities

There was no relationship with attitudes found for: • Gender

Bhatnagar and Das (2014) India Cross-sectional 470 elementary

school teachers

• Were younger than 40

• Had been teaching for a longer period of time*

• Had personal experience with someone with a disability • Had more training in teaching children with disabilities There was no relationship with attitudes found for:

• Level of education • Self-efficacy • Policy knowledge

Boyle et al. (2013) Scotland Cross-sectional 391 elementary

school teaching and management staff

Teachers had a more positive attitude if they: • Were female

• Were head teachers or deputy head teachers • Taught in the special needs department • Followed a module in special education There was no relationship with attitudes found for:

• Length of teaching experience*

• Having a family member or friend with a disability Čagran and Schmidt

(2011)

Slovenia Cross-sectional 1360 elementary

school teachers with at least one pupil with special needs

• Had more training in teaching children with disabilities

(20)

Costello and Boyle (2013) Australia Cross-sectional 193 preservice secondary school teachers

Teachers had a more positive attitude if they: • Were in an earlier year of study • Were more able to define inclusion Coutsocostas and Alborz

(2010)

Greece Cross-sectional 138 secondary

school teachers

Teachers had a more positive attitude if they: • Were younger

• Had a master’s degree

• Had more training in teaching children with disabilities De Boer et al. (2012) The Netherlands Cross-sectional 44 elementary

school teachers

• Previous teaching experience with children with a disability

Dupoux et al. (2006) Haïti Cross-sectional 184 elementary

school teachers

Teachers had a more positive attitude if they: • Had a master’s degree

• Had a larger instructional tolerance There was no relationship with attitudes found for:

• Length of teaching experience* • Urban versus rural schools Forlin et al. (2007) Australia, Canada,

Hong Kong, Singapore Cross-sectional 603 preservice teachers for general education at preschool, primary or secondary level

• Had personal experience with someone with a disability • Had a higher level of self-efficacy

• Had more training in teaching children with disabilities • Had more knowledge of policy and law regarding inclusive

education

• Age

• Level of education *not specifically experience in teaching children with disabilities

(21)

Gyimah et al. (2009) Ghana Cross-sectional 500 elementary

school teachers

• Had previous teaching experience with children with a disability • Had more knowledge of special educational needs

• Age

Kim (2011) United States of

America

Cross-sectional 110 preservice teachers for general and special education

• Had more training in teaching children with disabilities There was no relationship with attitudes found for:

Previous teaching experience with children with a disability

Lambe (2011) Northern Ireland Cross-sectional

and exploratory

125 preservice secondary school teachers

Teachers had a more positive attitude if they: Did not teach a practical subject

Lambe and Bones (2008) Northern Ireland Descriptive 41 preservice teachers

Teachers had a more positive attitude if they:

• Did not have previous teaching experience with children with a disability

MacFarlane and Woolfson (2013)

Scotland Cross-sectional 111 elementary

school teachers

• Had more training in teaching children with disabilities • Did not have previous teaching experience with children with a

disability

Malak (2013) Bangladesh Exploratory 20 preservice

teachers

Teachers had unfavorable attitudes toward inclusive education. Interviews revealed misconceptions and a lack of knowledge about children with disabilities.

Male (2011) United Kingdom Repeated

measures

48 teachers in a master’s program

Teachers had a more positive attitude after the program.

(22)

Memisevic and Hodzic (2011)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Cross-sectional 194 elementary school teachers

Teachers had a more positive attitude if they: • Taught in lower elementary school grades There was no relationship with attitudes found for:

• Gender

• Length of teaching experience* Monsen et al. (2014) United Kingdom Cross-sectional 95 elementary

school teachers

• Training in teaching children with disabilities

Mukhopadhyay (2014) Botswana Cross-sectional

and exploratory

• Had a diploma or degree in special education There was no relationship with attitudes found for:

• Gender • Age

• Post of responsibility • Rural versus urban school • Length of teaching experience* • Class taught

Teachers reported a lack of knowledge and skills that are required in order to teach children with disabilities, and expressed a necessity for training.

Ocloo and Subbey (2008) Ghana Descriptive

survey

Teachers reported they did not receive any training for teaching children with disabilities, which was seen as a large obstacle for effective implementation of inclusive education.

(23)

Parasuram (2006) India Cross-sectional 300 elementary

school teachers

• Had been teaching for a longer period of time* • Had a master’s degree

• Had personal experience with someone with a disability • Had a higher income

• The frequency of personal contact with someone with a disability • The closeness of the relationship with someone with a disability Park et al. (2010) United States of

America

Cross-sectional 141 preservice teachers in general and special education

• Had volunteering experience with children with autism • Had more training in teaching children with disabilities • Major in special education

There was no relationship with attitudes found for: • Age

Poon et al. (2016) Singapore Cross-sectional 131 secondary

school teachers

Teachers had a more positive attitude if they: • Had a higher level of self-efficacy

• Gender • Age

• Level of education

Romi and Leyser (2006) Israel Cross-sectional 1155 preservice

teachers in general and special education

• Studied at a Jewish college as opposed to an Arab college • Major in special education

• Had previous teaching experience with children with a disability • Were in their first year of study

(24)

Ross‐Hill (2009) United States of

America

Cross-sectional 73 elementary and secondary school teachers

• Taught in lower grades or preschool [which was only significant for three grades]

There was no relationship with attitudes found for:

• Previous teaching experience with children with a disability • Training in teaching children with disabilities

Santoli et al. (2008) United States of America

Cross-sectional 56 middle school teachers

Previous teaching experience with children with a disability

Sari (2007) Turkey Repeated

measures

Teachers had a more positive attitude after inservice training in teaching deaf children.

Savolainen et al. (2012) South Africa and Finland

Cross-sectional 319 South African and 822 Finnish primary and secondary school teachers

Sharma and Nuttal (2016) Australia Repeated

measures

30 preservice primary and secondary school teachers

Teachers had a more positive attitude after a course about the benefits of inclusive education.

Teachers’ attitudes improved the most if they:

• Did not have previous teaching experience with children with a disability

Did not have personal experience with someone with a disability

Sharma et al. (2015) Pakistan Cross-sectional 194 preservice

teachers in general and special education

• Did not have training in teaching children with disabilities • Had a lower level of self-efficacy

(25)

Sosu et al. (2010) Scotland Repeated

measures and exploratory

196 preservice teachers

Teachers had a more positive attitude after a four-year Bachelor of Education program.

Swain et al. (2012) United States of America

Repeated measures

777 preservice teachers

Teachers had a more positive attitude after an introductory special education course and practicum.

Varcoe and Boyle (2014) Australia Cross-sectional 342 preservice teachers

• Gender • Age

Vaz et al. (2015) Australia Cross-sectional 74 elementary

school teachers

• Were younger

• Had a higher level of self-efficacy

• Previous teaching experience with children with a disability

Weisel and Dror (2006) Israel Cross-sectional 139 elementary

school teachers

(26)

Age and length of teaching experience. Five studies found that younger teachers held more positive attitudes toward inclusive education. Bhatnagar and Das (2014) found a difference between teachers younger and older than 40 years of age, and Vaz et al. (2015) found a comparable difference between a group younger and a group older than 55 years. Similarly, Parasuram (2006) found the age group of 20-30 years to be more positive than and the age group of 40-50 years. Coutsocostas and Alborz (2010) found a significant Chi-squared for the difference between the three age groups thirties, forties and fifties. Lastly, Monsen, Ewing, and Kwoka (2014) found a difference in age for those with high and those with low attitude scores. Multiple possible explanations for these results are suggested. Younger teachers could be more up-to-date with training and therefore be more accepting of new inclusive policies (Monsen et al. 2014), they could have more years of experience (Parasuram, 2006) or they could be more positively influenced by the media which spreads awareness about disabilities and inclusive practices (Parasuram, 2006; Park et al., 2010). However, even more studies, namely seven, did not find this effect for age.

Even though researchers have not reported a correlation between age and length of teaching experience, such a relationship might exist, as Parasuram (2006) suggested. Seven studies investigated both variables, three of which found a significant effect for both (Bhatnagar & Das, 2014; Coutsocostas & Alborz, 2010; Parasuram, 2006). Two did not find a significant effect for either (Ahmmed, Sharma, & Deppeler, 2012; Gyimah, Sugden & Pearson, 2009), one found an effect for experience but not for age (Forlin, Sharma, & Loreman, 2007), and one only found an effect for age (Monsen et al., 2014). This suggests the variables could be related, but are not synonymous to one another.

Level of education. Overall, research finds a small or no effect for the level of education on attitudes toward inclusion. Four studies found teachers with a master’s degree have significantly more positive attitudes than teachers with a lower degree, such as a bachelor’s degree. Nevertheless, Ahmmed et al. (2012) reported that the difference was small and the effect size low. In addition, three studies did not find an effect for level of education.

Previous teaching and personal experience with children with disabilities

Teaching experience. As shown in Table 2, of the eleven studies that found a connection between previous teaching experience with children with disabilities, eight found that teachers or preservice teachers with more experience held more positive attitudes toward inclusive education, whereas four found the opposite. In addition, four studies did not find a significant relationship between experience and attitudes. It is usually expected that more experience in

(27)

teaching children with disabilities will lead to more positive attitudes, as experience is thought to enhance confidence levels, also known as self-efficacy (Sharma et al., 2015). Indeed, Poon, Wong, and Kaur (2016) found a high positive correlation (r = .34) between confidence in teaching children with special educational needs and previous experience. Qualitative research by Anati (2012) also found that teachers benefited from experience in an inclusive classroom, as they stated they found successful strategies to work with children with special educational needs.

However, not all studies found that previous experience improves attitudes toward inclusion. A few possible explanations are suggested. Firstly, it is possible that only successful previous experiences of teaching children with disabilities increase attitudes toward inclusive education. Ahmmed et al. (2012) asked teachers to indicate whether they had low, average or high past success in teaching children with disabilities and found a positive correlation between past success and attitudes. Secondly, the type of experience might also have an influence. Qualitative research by Lambe and Bones (2008) shows that preservice teachers who gained experience in teaching in special schools were less supportive of inclusive education, because they believed the children would suffer if put in mainstream classes. Perhaps teachers with experience in inclusive schools differ in opinion from teachers with experience in special schools. Lastly, Varcoe and Boyle (2014) suggest that teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion are more influenced by classroom practice, which they encountered during their teaching experience, than any biases against including children with disabilities. Practical difficulties with inclusive education might lead to a more negative attitude.

Personal experience. As Table 2 shows, five studies find that previous contact with a person with a disability improves attitudes toward inclusive education, whereas two studies did not find this connection. Ahmmed et al. (2012) found that the attitudes of Bangladeshi teachers who were acquainted with a person with a disability outside the classroom were significantly different from attitudes of teachers with no such acquaintance. However, the magnitude of the differences was smaller for personal experience than for experience with children with a disability in the classroom. Nevertheless, Park et al. (2010) indicate that both teaching experience and personal experience are important, as they found that American preservice teachers with both teaching experience and volunteering experience with children with autism had more positive attitudes than those who only had indirect contact with those children. In addition, Parasuram (2006) found that Indian teachers not only had more positive attitudes toward inclusion if they were acquainted with a person with a disability, they had more positive attitudes about people with disabilities in general. This could be related to culture as some

(28)

cultures hold more stereotypical beliefs toward people with disabilities than others. For example, Hindus tend to believe a disability is the result of past deeds in a previous life (Sharma, Forlin, Deppeler, & Yang, 2013). Close contact with people with disabilities might challenge those stereotypes. Forlin et al. (2007) additionally suggest that contact with people with disabilities improves comfort levels as well as attitudes.

Self-efficacy and knowledge

Research is more consistent about the influence of self-efficacy and knowledge on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education than about demographic variables. Weisel and Dror (2006) define the term ‘self-efficacy’ as ‘an individual’s belief in his/her abilities to perform successfully the required behaviours to achieve an anticipated result’ (p. 161). Some studies distinguish different types of self-efficacy. Poon et al. (2016) define personal efficacy as ‘the belief in a personal ability to achieve results’, and they define teacher efficacy as ‘the belief in the power of teaching to achieve results in the classroom’ (p. 86). Additionally, Poon et al. (2016) found that self-efficacy highly correlated with knowledge of inclusive policies, which indicates that teachers with knowledge about inclusion also believe more in their own capabilities to put it to action.

Two studies provide qualitative data that suggests that teachers feel unprepared to teach in inclusive classrooms due to a lack of the competencies this requires (Agbenyega, 2007; Mukhopadhyay, 2014). Agbenyega (2007) compared teachers from project schools to promote inclusive education in Ghana to a control group and did not find a difference in attitudes. However, this might be due to the low professional competency teachers reported. For example, a teacher commented: ‘We do not have the requisite knowledge, skills and experience to do that sort of teaching.’ (p. 51). In addition, teachers especially agreed that it would be difficult to give equal attention to all students in an inclusive classroom. Similarly, participants in the study of Mukhopadhyay (2014) expressed the necessity of training in how to handle students with disabilities, because they currently lacked the knowledge and skills needed, such as sign language and Braille.

As shown in Table 2, five quantitative studies support these findings and generally report self-efficacy to be highly related to teacher attitudes. Only one study by Bhatnagar and Das (2014) did not find such a connection; teachers with and without confidence in teaching students with a disability both held positive attitudes toward inclusive education. Whereas other research found self-efficacy to be positively related to attitudes, Sharma et al. (2015) surprisingly found the opposite: an increase in self-efficacy was related to more negative

(29)

attitudes. Although they found it difficult to explain these results, they suggest teachers with more self-efficacy have more knowledge and experience and therefore came across more barriers to the implementation of inclusion.

Similarly to qualitative research, Poon et al. (2016) found 92% of the teachers from Singapore participating in their study to express very low to average confidence levels in teaching students with special educational needs. In contrast, South African and Finnish participants in Savolainen et al. (2013) reported relatively high overall self-efficacy. Despite this difference, both studies used the SACIE scale to measure teacher attitudes and found the highest correlation between self-efficacy and the attitude component of concerns. In Savolainen et al. (2012) this correlation was .39 for Finnish teachers, and Poon et al. (2016) found a correlation of .49. South-African teachers’ self-efficacy was not highly correlated with attitudes. Self-efficacy profiles also differed between South-African and Finnish teachers: South-African teachers felt positive about their ability to manage the behavior of children with disabilities, whilst Finnish teachers saw this as their weakest point. This indicates that the relationship between self-efficacy and attitudes differs in various contexts. Forlin et al. (2007) reported a significant, yet lower correlation between confidence levels and attitudes (r = .19) for teachers from Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, and Singapore.

Three studies that found a connection between self-efficacy and attitudes additionally found that self-efficacy was an important predictor variable in a regression analysis. Vaz et al. (2015) were able to explain 42% of the variance in attitudes with the variables age, gender, self-efficacy and training. Teachers with low self-self-efficacy were significantly more likely to hold negative attitudes toward inclusive education. Poon et al. (2016) found that confidence in teaching children with disabilities was the only predictor with a significant unique contribution to the variance in attitudes. In addition, Weisel and Dror (2006) not only found self-efficacy to be highly correlated with attitude, but also to be the strongest predictor for attitudes.

Training

Training in teaching children with disabilities or participating in courses about inclusive or special education has been the most researched individual factor. This is not surprising, as research about training has the most practical policy implications. Research investigates a large variety of different programs, an overview of which is shown in Table 2. Many studies inquire whether the participant has had any preservice or inservice training on teaching children with special educational needs. Some studies investigate the effect of training by measuring attitudes pre-and post a training program. Table 2 shows that in total, seventeen studies found that

(30)

teachers with training were more positive about inclusive education than teachers without training or had increased positive attitudes after training, as indicated by a repeated measures design. Only four studies found no significant relationship between training and attitudes toward inclusive education. One qualitative study by Ocloo and Subbey (2008) found that teachers from Ghana did not receive any training for teaching children with disabilities, which was seen as a large obstacle for effective implementation of inclusive education. Sharma et al. (2015) surprisingly found that preservice teachers with no training in special education held more positive attitudes toward inclusive education than their trained counterparts. The authors suggest that teachers with more training came across more challenges inclusive education might bring, similar to studies that found a negative relation between teaching experience and attitudes.

Training becomes a more interesting factor if one also investigates what exactly is the effect of training. Firstly, as shown in Table 3 four studies found training is related to confidence levels or self-efficacy, indicating that teachers’ or preservice teachers’ confidence in their abilities to teach children with disabilities increased as their amount of training increased. Coutsocostas and Alborz (2010) similarly found that trained teachers were more comfortable about having students with complex learning difficulties in their classroom. In addition, teachers without training were more likely to feel like they did not receive any support in teaching children with complex learning difficulties. Table 3 also shows that three studies confirmed that training was related to knowledge about teaching students with disabilities, indicating that teachers with training were more knowledgeable. Lastly, training is found to be positively related to teaching experience by five studies, thus teachers with more training report to have more experience in teaching children with disabilities, which is in turn related to either more positive or negative attitudes. Poon et al. (2016) additionally found that policy knowledge, confidence and experience in teaching children with disabilities were all correlated with each other. A high correlation was found between policy knowledge and confidence in teaching children with disabilities. Moderate correlations were found between experience in teaching children with disabilities and knowledge and confidence. It is possible that experience in teaching these children will increase knowledge about the policies one is executing and confidence in teaching or that teachers with more knowledge and confidence are more willing to teach children with disabilities and therefore have more experience.

(31)

Table 3. The relationship between training and attitudes toward inclusive education.

Reference Relationship with attitudes

found

Type of training Other variables related to training

Ahmmed et al. (2012) No Modules on inclusive

education

-

Alquraini (2012) No General education and

inclusive education-specific training

-

Avramidis and Kalyva (2007)

Yes Long-term courses for

postgraduate qualification

-

Bhatnagar and Das (2014)

Yes, positive Preservice program -

Čagran and Schmidt (2011)

Yes, positive Preservice program,

seminars, additional training for work with children with SN

-

Coutsocostas and Alborz (2010)

Yes, positive Seminars Confidence, comfort,

perceived support

Forlin et al. (2007) Yes, positive Preservice program -

Kim (2011) Yes, positive Preservice program for

special education

-

MacFarlane and Woolfson (2013)

Yes, positive Inservice training Teaching experience

Male (2011) Yes, positive Master’s program in

special and inclusive education

-

Monsen et al. (2014) No Special education

courses

- Ocloo and Subbey

(2008)

Yes, positive* Inservice training -

Poon et al. (2016) Yes, positive Any training in special

needs education

Confidence,

knowledge, teaching experience

Ross‐Hill (2009) No Academic training in

special education

-

Sari (2007) Yes, positive Inservice training Knowledge

Sharma and Nuttal (2016)

Yes, positive Preservice training Teaching and

personal experience * qualitative research

(32)

Reference Relationship with

attitudes found

Type of training Other variables

related to training

Sharma et al. (2015) Yes, negative Preservice training Self-efficacy

Vaz et al. (2015) Yes, positive Inservice training -

Swain et al. (2012) Yes, positive Preservice special education course

Teaching experience

Varcoe and Boyle (2014) Yes, positive Preservice training Teaching experience

Vaz et al. (2015) Yes, positive Inservice training -

Weisel and Dror (2006) Yes, positive Inservice training Self-efficacy, school

climate, age

Chapter conclusion

In conclusion, findings on individual factors that influence attitudes toward inclusive education have not been consistent, especially with regards to demographic variables. The majority of studies does not find a relation between gender and attitude, and if such a relation is found, half of the studies find women have more positive attitudes and half find men are more positive. Older teachers are found to have more negative attitudes, but most studies did not find a significant relation between age and attitude. It is unclear how much age and length of teaching experience are related, and therefore which causes the difference in attitudes. Experience with teaching children with a disability as well as personal experience with people with a disability is often found to be positively related to attitudes, although teaching experience can also be negatively related to attitudes. Self-efficacy and confidence in teaching children with a disability is found to not only be related to attitudes, but also to be a strong predictor for attitudes. Lastly, training is most often found to be positively related with attitudes, which can be caused by an increase in self-efficacy, knowledge and experience.

(33)

CHAPTER 3

What environmental factors are related to the attitude of teachers toward inclusive education?

Table 4 shows an overview of the seventeen studies selected for this chapter and their outcomes on environmental factors that are related to the attitude of teachers toward inclusive education, listing details about the research method and relevant outcomes. Based on this table, the most frequently researched factors are selected, categorized and discussed in this chapter. Child-related factors (micro)

Type of disability. Some researchers distinguish different types of disabilities whilst measuring attitudes toward inclusive education, and report how positive teachers were toward each type with descriptive statistics. De Boer et al. (2012) took a different approach and presented teachers with a case study about a child with either ADHD, PDD-NOS or a cognitive disability, corresponding with the diagnosis of a child in their class. Unfortunately, no significant differences in attitude were found between teachers who were presented with different cases. Table 4 shows that descriptive research reports that teachers are most positive about the inclusion of children with social disabilities, physical disabilities such as impaired mobility, and learning disabilities. One study by Bhatnagar and Das (2014) partly contradicts this and found that teachers were least positive about including students with physical limitations. Teachers were generally less positive about including children with visual or hearing disabilities, behavioral problems, and emotional disorders.

Organizational factors (meso)

Organizational factors are less often included in research than teacher-related factors. However, research on these factors consistently find them to be significantly related to teacher attitudes towards inclusive education.

Class-size and workload. A qualitative study in Bangladesh by Malak (2013) showed that preservice teachers who had experience in a practicum held a negative attitude toward inclusive education due to the high workloads. Most of the participants explained the student-teacher ratio was about ninety to one and student-teachers do not have enough energy and time to teach disabled children. Teachers from Ghana in a qualitative study by Ocloo and Subbey (2008) similarly expressed that large class sizes negatively affect effective teaching, even without