Content uploaded by David A. Hernandez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David A. Hernandez on Oct 15, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
JAASEP FALL 2016 79
General Education and Special Education Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion
David A. Hernandez
Walden University
Susan Hueck
Cook International
Carmen Charley
Walden University
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the difference in general education and special
education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of students with disabilities and to ascertain if
levels of self-efficacy, teacher type, and education level were predictors of teachers’ attitudes
towards inclusion. Data were collected from 118 elementary and middle school teachers using an
online survey, and a 2-way ANOVA and multiple regression were conducted to answer the
research questions. Results indicated that special education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion
were significantly more positive than those of general education teachers and that teacher type
and self-efficacy were predictors of teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Higher levels of self-
efficacy were associated with more positive attitudes towards inclusion. Change in practice may
be achieved if school district administrators implement teacher training to improve teacher self-
efficacy regarding inclusive practices, which could ultimately improve student outcomes and
narrow the achievement gap.
General Education and Special Education Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion
Prior to a wave of reform which started in 1975 with the passage of the Education for All
Handicapped Children Act, students with disabilities had been effectively denied access to public
education (Aron & Loprest, 2012). Less than 25 years later, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act Amendments (IDEA) of 1997 and then the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
(NCLB; 2002) required the integration of students with disabilities into regular education
classrooms. This requirement was reiterated in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; 2015). In
fact, the purpose of IDEA was to ensure that all students with disabilities were given equal
opportunities to participate in their education in the least restrictive environment regardless of
intellectual, physical, or emotional disability (Kimbrough & Mellen, 2012). While emphasizing
high academic standards and accountability (Aron & Loprest, 2012), these laws were designed to
promote the academic success of students with disabilities as defined by individual education
plans (IEPs) designed to meet their unique needs and capabilities (Theoharis & Fitzpatrick,
2011). Students with IEPs are often fully included in the general education classroom
(McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2012). Inclusion is the process of providing
students with disabilities “equitable opportunities to receive effective educational services, with
the needed supplementary aids and support services, in age appropriate classrooms in their
JAASEP FALL 2016 80
neighborhood schools, in order to prepare students for productive lives as full members of
society” (National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion, 1995, p. 99).
Background and Research Questions
The practice of inclusion has generated both support and opposition. Proponents claim that
inclusion provides an opportunity for students with disabilities and their general education peers
to form and nurture friendships (Litvack, Ritchie, & Shore, 2011); gain social skills (Lamport,
Graves, & Ward, 2012); acquire behavioral skills and develop a work ethic (Murawski &
Hughes, 2009); and collaborate, which can promote academic success (Meadan & Monda-
Amaya, 2008) and social awareness (Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Berkley, 2007).
Despite claims that inclusion offers benefits to students and teachers, Litvack et al. (2011) found
that high-achieving students in general education classrooms felt that inclusive practices
negatively impacted their learning, and Fletcher (2010) discovered that including students with
emotional disabilities in kindergarten classes resulted in regular education students’ reading and
math performance decreasing by 10% by the beginning of the first grade. Other researchers have
noted barriers to the implementation of inclusive practices in the general education classroom.
For example, Fuchs (2010) found that the implementation of inclusive strategies is hindered by
unrealistic responsibilities and expectations for general education teachers as well as a lack of
support from administrators and special education staff. A number of researchers have identified
lack of training as a barrier to inclusion (Allison, 2011; Cipkin & Rizza, 2010; Fuchs, 2010).
Moreover, Orr (2009) suggested that general education teachers’ negative attitudes towards
inclusion, support staff’s lack of knowledge of inclusion, and lack of administrative support for
inclusion could serve as barriers to successful inclusion.
In addition, low levels of self-efficacy can foster poor teacher attitudes (cognitive process) and
inhibit teacher motivation (motivational process) to persist in implementing inclusive strategies
(Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). If teachers do not support the concept of inclusion,
do not persist in their efforts to implement inclusive strategies, and fail to master the skills
needed to appropriately implement inclusive strategies, those strategies will not be implemented.
When inclusive strategies are not implemented or are not implemented properly, students with
disabilities in the general education classrooms do not receive the support they need to reach
their fullest potential. Ultimately, lack of teacher training in inclusive practices could have a
negative impact on the academic (Fuchs, 2010) and social (Sayeski, 2009) success of students
with disabilities.
In light of the importance of the social and academic success of students with disabilities who are
included in the general education setting and variables shown in previous research to impact
teacher attitude, the following two research questions were posed: Is there a difference in
teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion between teachers of differing teacher type (general
education and special education) and education level (bachelor’s, master’s, and master’s plus 30
units)? and Does teachers’ sense of efficacy predict teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion while
controlling for teacher type and education level?
JAASEP FALL 2016 81
Theoretical Model
Teachers who have successful student academic and social outcomes are more confident in their
capabilities to teach various types of students (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). It is in
this perspective that the value of self-efficacy was understood in this study. Self-efficacy is “the
belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage
prospective situations” (Bandura, 1997, p. 37). This belief affects behaviors and ultimately
performance outcomes (Bandura, 1977).
There are four primary mechanisms for developing self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977). Mastery
experiences, or performance accomplishments, serve as positive examples that shape perceptions
about future capability to perform those or a similar tasks again (Bandura, 1977). Mastery
experiences are the most effective way to develop a strong sense of efficacy (Bandura, 1982,
1986). Another way to develop self-efficacy is through vicarious experiences (Bandura, 1977);
“observing others perform intimidating responses without adverse consequences can reduce fears
and inhibitions” (Bandura & Barab, 1973, p. 1) to act and increase the belief that one’s attempts
at the same action would be successful (Bandura, 1977). A third way to develop self-efficacy is
through verbal/social persuasion (Bandura, 1977). Through other’s suggestions, people are
prompted to believe that they have the capability to accomplish a task that they previously felt
ill-equipped to accomplish (Bandura, 1977). The last way to develop self-efficacy is through
physiological and affective states. Emotional arousal to stressful situations may promote fear and
anxiety, which negatively influences performance and, in a reciprocal fashion, impacts
physiological and affective states (Bandura, 1977).
The capacity for any outcome to be effected is dependent on both outcome expectations and
efficacy expectations (Bandura, 1977). An outcome expectation is “a person’s estimate that a
given behavior will lead to certain outcomes. An efficacy expectation is the conviction that one
can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes” (Bandura, 1977, p.
193). Thus, a person can believe that a certain behavior will have a certain outcome, but if the
person seriously doubts his or her ability to successfully perform the activity, outcome
expectancy will not influence his or her behavior (Bandura, 1977). This is particularly applicable
to verbal persuasion, which will not be successful in influencing behavior unless a person’s
efficacy expectations match his or her outcome expectations.
Literature Review
Teacher Self-Efficacy
Teacher efficacy may refer to personal teaching efficacy, teachers’ beliefs about their own ability
to complete tasks necessary to promote student achievement, or general teaching efficacy,
teachers’ beliefs that teaching itself can generate learning (Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Personal
and general teacher efficacy may be impacted by a combination of personal variables such as
teacher experience, gender, and education level, and organizational variables such as principal
influence, resource support, morale, and academic emphasis (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993;
Tschannen-Moran, Woolkfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). As well, a teacher’s overall sense of efficacy
is influenced by years of teaching experience and grade level taught (Fives & Buehl, 2009).
JAASEP FALL 2016 82
Teacher efficacy can be impactful in the school setting. When multiple variables are combined as
predictors, teacher efficacy in student engagement and teacher efficacy in classroom
management together with teacher age and experience are the strongest predictors of student
achievement (McGuire, 2011). Teachers with low levels of efficacy tend to become frustrated
easily and give up quickly when they receive undesirable outcomes (Gibson & Dembo, 1984).
Teachers with high levels of efficacy tend to be motivated (Swackhammer, Koellner, Basile, &
Kimbrough, 2009); confident, persistent, and academically focused in the classroom (Gibson &
Dembo, 1984); and dedicated to academic excellence (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1993).
Inclusion in the Public School Setting
Service models for students with disabilities vary depending on the type of institutional setting in
which they function and may represent a spectrum of teaching arrangements, student placements,
and levels of student IEP implementation (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, & Shamberger,
2010). While some general education teachers have positive attitudes towards inclusion
(O’Rourke & Houghton, 2009; Ross-Hill, 2009), others have been described as having negative
attitudes towards both inclusive education (Orr, 2009) and included students (Cassady, 2011).
Often these negative perspectives are unrelated to the teachers’ confidence in their ability to
teach in the inclusive setting (Cassady, 2011). Rather, teachers claim inclusive practices are time
consuming (Horne & Timmons, 2009), disruptive to the instructional routine of the general
education classroom (O’Rourke & Houghton, 2009), and not beneficial to all children (Cipkin &
Rizza, 2010). Regardless of varying perspectives pertaining to inclusion, most teachers have
reported believing that inclusion is beneficial for students with disabilities because it provides a
means for equal educational opportunities (Allison, 2011) and provides social benefits (Hwang
& Evans, 2011; Parker, 2009).
Results from the literature are mixed regarding the factors that may affect teacher attitude
towards inclusive education. Some researchers have found that gender (Cipkin & Rizza, 2010),
age (Hwang & Evans, 2011), years of teaching experience (Ross-Hill, 2009), and level of teacher
confidence (Orr, 2009) can impact teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Other researchers have
found that gender and level of education (Buford & Casey, 2012), and grade level taught (Ross-
Hill, 2009) do not impact teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion.
One important benefit of inclusion is the opportunity for student socialization (Lamport et al.,
2012; Litvack et al., 2011). Another important benefit of inclusion is improved student outcomes
(Lamport et al., 2012). However, lack of collaboration between teachers can hinder effective
teaching and student learning in inclusive settings (Murawski & Hughes, 2009; Sayeski, 2009).
Other barriers to effective inclusion include poor relationships between special education
teachers and general education teachers (Allison, 2011; Fuchs, 2010), lack of preparation to work
with included students (Allday, Neilsen-Gatti, & Hudson, 2013; Cipkin & Rizza, 2010), lack of
knowledge of and experience with included students (Sze, 2009), negative teacher attitude
toward inclusion (Orr, 2009; Sze, 2009), and the disposition of teachers (Prather-Jones, 2011).
Methodology
The purpose of this study was to determine whether there was a difference between general
education and special education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion and to determine whether
JAASEP FALL 2016 83
there was a relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion.
A cross-sectional survey research design was used to gather data on the perspectives of both
general and special education teachers’ in a rural K-12 school district of South Carolina. E-mails
were sent to all elementary and middle school teachers (N = 296) in the district explaining the
purpose of the study, providing a URL link to the online survey, and inviting these teachers to
participate. At the beginning of the third and fourth weeks of data collection, e-mails were sent
reminding teachers of the study and again inviting them to participate.
Instrumentation
Two instruments were included in the online survey: the Scale of Teachers’ Attitudes Toward
Inclusive Classrooms (STATIC; Cochran, 1997) and the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale
(TSES; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The 20-item STATIC questionnaire yields
data on a teacher’s attitude towards the inclusion of special education students in the general
education classroom, which are represented in the one overall STATIC scale and four subscales,
Advantages and Disadvantage of Inclusion, Professional Issues of Inclusion (e.g., training and
ability), Philosophical Issues of Inclusion (e.g., beliefs), and Logistical Issues of Inclusion (e.g.,
space, materials, and support). The 12-item TSES questionnaire yields data on a teacher’s
internal state regarding feelings of efficacy. Besides an overall general self-efficacy score, the
TSES measures Self-Efficacy in Using Instructional Strategies, Self-Efficacy in Classroom
Management, and Self-Efficacy in Student Engagement. Extensive psychometric testing
indicates that both instruments are valid and reliable (Cochran 1997, 2000; Tschannen-Moran &
Woolfolk Hoy, 2001).
Participants
A total of 118 teachers completed the survey, which is a response rate of 40%. The majority of
the respondents were female, general education, elementary school teachers. A summary of the
demographic data on the respondents is displayed in Table 1.
Findings
Prior to conducting the analyses required to answer the two research questions, the internal
consistency of the two scales and seven subscales was evaluated. As reported in Table 2, a high
alpha coefficient was obtained for the full STATIC scale and acceptable values for the STATIC
subscales Advantages and Disadvantage of Inclusion, Professional Issues of Inclusion, and
Logistical Issues of Inclusion. Because the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the subscale
Philosophical Issues of Inclusion was .46, well below the cut-off score of .70 suggested by
George and Mallery (2003) to establish good scale reliability, this subscale was excluded from
Table 2 and from any further analyses. For the TSES, high alpha coefficient scores were
obtained for the full scale and three TSES subscales.
Table 1
Gender, Highest Education Level, Teacher Type, and Grade Level Taught as a Percentage of
Sample (N = 118)
Characteristic n %
JAASEP FALL 2016 84
Male 5 4.3
Female 112 95.7
Highest education level
Bachelor’s degree 19 16.1
Master’s degree 38 32.2
Master’s degree + 30 54 45.8
Doctoral degree 7 5.9
e
vel taughta
Elementary 88 75.2
Middle school 29 24.8
type
General education teacher 85 72.0
Special education teacher 33 28.0
aOne participant reported neither gender nor grade level taught, so N = 117.
The means, standard deviations, and ranges for the full STATIC scale, three STATIC subscales,
full TSES scale, and the TSES subscales are also displayed in Table 2. The mean score for the
full STATIC scale (70.19 out of a possible 100) indicated that overall, the participants held a
largely positive attitude towards inclusion. Moreover, mean score of the full TSES scale (90.76
out of a possible 108) indicated that the sample had high overall self-efficacy.
Table 2
Alpha Coefficients, Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of the STATIC and TSES Scales
and Subscales
Range
Scale α n M SD
Potential Actual
Full STATIC scale .85 97 70.19 11.83 0-100 35-94
STATIC subscales:
Advantages and Disadvantages of Inclusion .78 102 22.24 5.42 0-35 10-35
Professional Issues of Inclusion .75 113 17.54 4.63 0-25 5-25
Logistical Issues of Inclusiona .70 116 6.22 2.37 0-20 0-10
Full TSES scale .94 107 90.76 12.00 12-108 57-108
TSES subscales:
Efficacy in Instructional Strategies .91 115 30.71 4.28 4-36 18-36
JAASEP FALL 2016 85
Efficacy for Classroom Management .84 110 30.45 4.51 4-36 17-36
Efficacy for Student Engagement .81 114 29.60 4.36 4-36 18-36
aData presented for this subscale represent analyses based on two of the four original survey
items. Two items were dropped to achieve internal consistency for the subscale.
Research Question 1
To answer the research question, Is there a difference in teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion
between teachers of differing teacher type and education level?, a two-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted to assess the main effects and any interactions of teacher type (general
or special education) and level of education (bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, master’s plus 30
units) on Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion as measured by STATIC scale scores.
Additionally, three separate two-way ANOVAs were conducted for the three STATIC subscales.
Because too few participants reported holding doctoral degrees (<10% of the sample), this level
of education was excluded from all analyses. The results of the two-way ANOVAs are presented
in Table 3.
Table 3
ANOVAs for the Full STATIC Scale and the Three STATIC Subscales
Source df MS F p
η2
Scale of Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion
Teacher type 1 2,041.97 19.13 < .001 .19
Education level 2 153.77 1.44 .243 .03
Teacher type x education level 2 45.65 .43 .653 .01
Error 84 106.74
Advantages and Disadvantages of Inclusion subscale
Teacher type 1 264.65 10.79 .001 .11
Education level 1 20.76 .85 .432 .02
Teacher type x education level 2 23.78 .97 .383 .02
Error 89 24.53
Professional Issues of Inclusion subscale
Teacher type 1 575.55 44.10 < .001 .31
Education level 2 42.32 3.24 .043 .06
Teacher type x education level 2 8.56 .66 .521 .01
Error 100 13.05
Logistical Issues of Inclusion subscale
Teacher type 1 3.56 .64 .426 .06
Education level 2 23.76 4.27 .017 .08
Teacher type x education level 2 3.61 .65 .525 .01
Error 103 5.57
JAASEP FALL 2016 86
For the full STATIC scale, there was a significant main effect for teacher type, F(1, 84) = 19.13,
p < .001. Special education teachers held significantly higher attitudes towards inclusion (M =
79.74, SD = 7.27) than general education teachers (M = 66.90, SD = 11.32). Teacher type had a
large effect on attitudes, partial η2 = .19, and explained 19% of the variance in attitudes.
For the Advantages and Disadvantages of Inclusion subscale, a significant main effect was found
for teacher type, F(1, 89) = 10.79, p = .001. Special education teachers held significantly higher
attitudes towards the advantages and disadvantages of inclusion (M = 25.15, SD = 4.12) than
general education teachers (M = 20.96, SD = 5.32). Teacher type had a medium effect on
attitudes towards the advantages and disadvantages of inclusion, partial η2 = .11, and explained
11% of the variance in attitudes.
For the Professional Issues of Inclusion subscale, a significant main effect was found for teacher
type, F(1, 100) = 44.10, p < .001. Special education teachers held significantly higher attitudes
towards the professional issues of inclusion (M = 22.21, SD = 2.42) than general education
teachers (M = 15.87, SD = 4.09). Teacher type had a large effect on attitudes towards
professional issues of inclusion, partial η2 = .31, and explained 30.6% of the variance in
attitudes. Moreover, a significant main effect also was found for education level, F(2, 100) =
3.24, p < .05. Teachers who held bachelor’s degrees (M = 19.63, SD = 3.22) and master’s
degrees plus 30 units (M = 17.91, SD = 4.80) had significantly higher attitudes towards
professional issues on inclusion than teachers holding a master’s degree (M = 15.82, SD = 4.61).
Teacher education level had a moderate effect on attitudes towards professional issues on
inclusion, partial η2 = .06, and explained 6% of the variance in attitudes.
For the Logistical Issues of Inclusion subscale, a significant main effect was found for education
level, F(2, 103) = 4.27, p < .05. Teachers who held master’s degrees (M = 6.57, SD = 2.21) and
master’s plus 30 units (M = 6.49, SD = 2.45) had significantly higher attitudes towards logistical
issues of inclusion than teachers with bachelor’s degrees (M = 4.89, SD = 2.40). Teacher
education level had a moderate effect on attitudes towards logistical issues of inclusion, partial η2
= .08, and explained 8% of the variance in attitudes.
Research Question 2
To answer the research question, Does teachers’ sense of efficacy predict teachers’ attitudes
towards inclusion while controlling for teacher type and education level?, two separate multiple
regression analyses were conducted.
In the first model (see Table 4), both the TSES total scale and teacher type variables were found
to be significant predictors of the STATIC total scale score—F(5, 83) = 8.73, p < .001. The
higher the teachers’ total self-efficacy, the more favorable attitude towards inclusion the teachers
had. Additionally, special education teachers had more favorable attitudes towards inclusion than
general education teachers. Combined, these two variables explained 31% (adjusted R2 = .31) of
the variance in teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion.
JAASEP FALL 2016 87
Table 4
Multiple Regression Analysis: Effect of TSES Total Scale in Predicting the STATIC Total Scale
Score While Controlling for Teacher Demographics
Variable B SE B ß t p
TSES scale .30 .09 .31 3.508 .001
Teacher type (general or special education) 12.18 2.35 .46 5.17 < .001
Education level
Bachelor’s 1.03 4.44 .03 .23 .817
Master’s -4.79 4.15 -.19 -1.15 .252
Master’s plus 30 units -1.83 3.95 -.08 -.46 .644
Note. R = .59, R2 = .35, adjusted R2 = .31, F(5, 83) = 8.73, p < .001.
In the second model, two variables, Efficacy in Instructional Strategies and teacher type, were
found to be statistically significant predictors of STATIC total score—F(6, 83) = 7.94, p < .001
(see Table 5). The higher the teachers’ Self-efficacy in Instructional Strategies, the more
favorable attitude towards inclusion the teachers had. Additionally, special education teachers
had more favorable attitudes towards inclusion than general education teachers. Combined, these
two variables explained 32% (adjusted R2 = .32) of the variance in teachers’ attitudes towards
inclusion.
Table 5
Multiple Regression Analysis: Effect of TSES Subscale Scores in Predicting the STATIC Total
Scale Score While Controlling for Teacher Demographics
Variable B SE B ß t p
Efficacy in instructional strategies .90 .32 .33 2.79 .007
Efficacy for classroom management .07 .30 .03 .22 .825
Teacher type (general or special education) 12.01 2.31 .46 5.19 < .001
Education level
Bachelor’s 1.73 4.40 .06 .39 .695
Master’s -3.81 4.15 -.15 -.92 .361
Master’s plus 30 units -1.49 3.89 -.07 -.38 .703
Note. R = .60, R2= .37, adjusted R2= .32, F(6, 83) = 7.94, p < .001. Efficacy of Student
Engagement subscale was removed from the model due to multicollinearity.
Discussion
Although teachers overall generally had positive attitudes towards inclusion (M = 70.19, SD =
11.83) as measured by scores on the STATIC total scale (Research Question 1), special
education teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion (M = 79.74, SD = 7.27) were significantly more
positive than those of general education teachers (M = 66.90, SD = 11.32) as demonstrated by a
mean score difference of 12.84 on a 100-point scale. These results are supported in the literature.
JAASEP FALL 2016 88
Researchers have posited that special education teachers have more positive attitudes compared
to general education teachers because they have specialized training in implementing inclusive
strategies (Parker, 2009) and more experience in doing so (Malinen, Savolainen, & Xu, 2012). In
fact, in Orr’s (2009) study, special education teachers reported themselves as having more
positive attitudes than their general education peers, citing their peers’ lack of knowledge and
preparation for the perceived difference in attitudes. In another study, general education teachers
expressed confidence in their ability to implement IEPs, adapt lessons, and provide
accommodations, but they still maintained their negative attitudes towards special education
students (Cassady, 2011). However, while Ross-Hill (2009) did not compare teachers by type,
results from her study indicated that general education teachers at the elementary and secondary
levels were generally positive about inclusion.
Additionally, the analysis revealed that special education teachers had more positive attitudes
towards advantages and disadvantages of inclusion and professional issues of inclusion (e.g.,
training and ability) than general education teachers had. These results also are supported in the
literature. General education teachers reported that the design and delivery of specialized
instruction required to teach special education students interferes with the instructional routine of
the general education classroom (O’Rourke & Houghton, 2009) and is too time consuming
(Horne & Timmons, 2009). In one study, regular education kindergarten students’ reading and
math performance decreased 10% by the beginning of first grade when special education
students were included in the general education classroom (Fletcher, 2010). The results of these
studies have shown that general education teachers find teaching special education students in
the regular education classroom to be professionally challenging and a disadvantage to general
education students.
With regard to education level, the results showed that teachers who held bachelor’s degrees and
master’s degrees plus 30 units had significantly higher attitudes towards professional issues on
inclusion than teachers holding a master’s degree. This result is hard to explain based on the
varying results in the literature. Because teachers can begin professional practice with a
bachelor’s degree and later obtain a master’s degree to move up the salary schedule (Clotfelter,
Ladd, & Vigdor, 2007), more teachers who have bachelor’s degrees are likely to be young and
inexperienced compared to teachers with master’s degrees. (Younger teachers naturally have less
experience than older teachers although not all older teachers necessarily have more experience.)
While Berry (2010) found that less experienced teachers were more positive towards inclusion
and more experienced teachers were less likely to be positive, Ross-Hill (2009) did not find
significant differences in overall teacher attitude between groups of teachers based on
experience. Similarly, Buford and Casey (2012) found that as years of experience increased,
teacher attitudes appeared to remain generally positive. Moreover, Buford and Casey also found
that teachers who are younger often are more positive about inclusion than are teachers who are
older.
For Research Question 2, the TSES scale, the subscale Efficacy in Instructional Strategies, and
teacher type were found to be significant predictors of overall teachers’ attitudes towards
inclusion. These results are supported in the literature. Malinen et al. (2012) noted that teacher
self-efficacy did predict teacher attitudes towards inclusion. Likewise, Sokal and Sharma (2014)
found that training in special education and a teacher’s level of confidence in teaching students
JAASEP FALL 2016 89
with disabilities predicted teacher attitudes towards inclusion. Confidence in teaching students
with disabilities is similar in nature to overall self-efficacy measured by the TSES scale in this
study, and training in special education is equivalent to teacher type: special education.
Limitations
The choice to use convenience sampling to recruit participants limits the ability to generalize
these results to the larger population of teachers in other school districts in the state or at the
national level. An additional limitation was the small sample size. Small samples may
overestimate the magnitude of the association or effect size between the independent and
dependent variables in regression models. Despite this study’s limitations, the results provide a
valuable addition to the body of literature on inclusion of special education students in the
general education classroom.
Implications for Practice
The results of this study have practical application in the educational setting. Sze (2009) asserted
that teacher attitude is an important predictor of teacher effectiveness with regard to the capacity
to facilitate the integration of students with disabilities into the general education setting.
Specifically, teachers with negative attitudes are less effective than those with positive attitudes
(Sze, 2009). Ultimately then, a teacher’s attitude towards inclusion can be an integral part of the
successful implementation of inclusive practices, which can contribute to student achievement
(Hwang & Evans, 2011). Results of this study demonstrated that general education teachers in
the schools of the focus district have less positive attitudes than special education teachers have.
Based on Sze’s assertions, these teachers presumably are less effective than they could be with
regard to inclusive practices in the educational setting, which means that special education
students may not be receiving the level of support they need to be successful in the general
education classroom. School administrators, however, have the potential to initiate change. By
helping teachers improve their attitudes towards inclusion, administrators can help teachers
become more effective with regard to implementing inclusive strategies and, ultimately,
improving student outcomes.
Also, the results showed that overall teacher efficacy, Efficacy in Instructional Strategies, and
teacher type were predictors of teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion and that higher levels of
self-efficacy were associated with more positive attitudes towards inclusion. Based on these
results, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion potentially could be improved by improving teacher
levels of self-efficacy. School administrators could do this by implementing training not only in
instructional strategies but in inclusive practices as well. By doing so, teachers’ levels of self-
efficacy could be improved, which could help improve teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion,
again with the potential to improve student outcomes and reduce the learning gap between
students with disabilities and those without.
Future Research
Future research on this topic is warranted. It would be beneficial to explore differences in
teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion at various grade levels. It is possible that the duties
associated with inclusive practices and/or the unique needs of students with disabilities at various
age levels impact teachers’ attitudes differently. Additional research should be conducted to
explore other variables that may be related to teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion such as the
JAASEP FALL 2016 90
impact of collective teacher efficacy, efficacy for implementing inclusive strategies in the
classroom, age, and years of teaching experience. Because there were too few teacher responses
to analyze the data for gender and the educational level doctoral degree in the current study,
future research should consider these personal teacher characteristics as well.
Conclusion
Inclusion is a requirement of NCLB (2002), IDEA (2004), and ESSA (2015); therefore,
administrators, general education teachers, and special education teachers involved in educating
students with disabilities are mandated to modify instruction and provide instructional strategies
to accommodate students with disabilities. When teachers have low levels of self-efficacy with
regard to inclusive practices, they are not likely to actively put forth effort to implement these
strategies. However, by improving teacher self-efficacy and attitudes towards inclusion among
the teachers, the amount and quality of inclusive practices implemented in the classroom may be
improved and, ultimately, student outcomes may be improved.
References
Allday, R., Neilsen-Gatti, S., & Hudson, T. (2013). Preparation for inclusion in teacher education
pre-service curricula. Teacher Education and Special Education,36(4), 298-311.
doi:10.1177/0888406413497485
Allison, R. (2011). The lived experiences of general and special education teachers in inclusion
classrooms: A phenomenological study. Retrieved from http://www.gcu.edu/Ken-
Blanchard-College-of-Business/The-Canyon-Journal-of-Interdisciplinary-Studies/The-
Lived-Experiences-of-General-and-Special-Education-Teachers-in-Inclusion-
Classrooms-a-Phenomenological-Study.php
Aron, L., & Loprest, P. (2012). Disability and the education system. Future of Children, 22(1),
97-122. doi:10.1353/foc.2012.0007
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi:10.1016/0146-6402(78)90009-7
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2),
122-147. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373. doi:10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A., & Barab, P. G. (1973). Processes governing disinhibitory effects through symbolic
modeling. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 82, 1-9. doi:10.1037/h0034968
Berry, R. (2010). Preservice and early career teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, instructional
accommodations, and fairness: Three profiles. Teacher Educator, 45(2), 75-95.
doi:10.1080/08878731003623677
Buford, S., & Casey, L. (2012). Attitudes of teachers regarding their preparedness to teach
students with special needs. Delta Journal of Education, 2(2), 16-30. Retrieved from
http://www.deltastate.edu/college-of-education/delta-journal-of-education
Cassady, J. (2011). Teachers’ attitudes toward the inclusion of students with autism and
emotional behavioral disorder. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 2(7), 1-23.
Retrieved from http://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/ejie/
JAASEP FALL 2016 91
Cipkin, G., & Rizza, F. T. (2010). The attitude of teachers on inclusion. Retrieved from
http://www.nummarius.com/The_Attitude_of_Teachers_on_Inclusion.pdf
Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student
achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education
Review, 26 (6), 673-682. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.10.002
Cochran, H. (1997). The developmental and psychometric analysis of the scale of teacher’s
attitudes toward inclusive classrooms (STATIC; Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
Dissertation & Theses: Full Text database. (Pub. No. AAT 9735689)
Cochran, H. (2000, October). Differences in teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education as
measured by the scale of teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive classrooms. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association,
Chicago, IL.
Every Student Succeeds Act, Pub. L. No. 114-95 § Stat 1177 et seq. (2015).
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2009). Examining the factor structure of the teachers’ sense of
efficacy scale. Journal of Experimental Education, 78(1), 118-134.
doi:10.1080/00220970903224461
Fletcher, J. M. (2010). The spillover effects of inclusion of classmates with emotional problems
on test scores in early elementary school. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,
29(1), 69-83. doi:10.1992/pam.20479
Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. (2010). Co-teaching: An
illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 9-27. doi:10.1080/1047441090
3535380
Fuchs, W. W. (2010). Examining teachers’ perceived barriers associated with inclusion. Journal
of Southeastern Regional Association of Teacher Education, 19(1), 30-35. Retrieved
from http://apbrwww5.apsu.edu/SRATE/index.html
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference.
11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.589
Horne, P. E., & Timmons, V. (2009). Making it work: Teachers’ perspectives on inclusion.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(3), 26-41.
doi:10.1080/13603110701433964
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health
of schools. Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 335-372. doi:10.1086/461729
Hwang, Y.-S., & Evans, D. (2011). Attitudes toward inclusion: Gaps between belief and
practice. International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 136-146. Retrieved from
http://www.internationaljournalofspecialeducation.com/
Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-172 (1997). Retrieved
from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/omip.html
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. 108-446 (2004). Retrieved from
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cstatute%2C
Kimbrough, R., & Mellen, K. (2012). Research summary: Perceptions of inclusion of students
with disabilities in the middle school. Retrieved from http://www.amle
.org/TabId/198/ArtMID/696/ArticleID/308/Research-Summary-Perceptions-of-Inclusion-
of-Students-with-Disabilities.aspx
JAASEP FALL 2016 92
Lamport, M., Graves, L., & Ward, A. (2012). Special needs students in inclusive classrooms:
The impact of social interaction on educational outcomes for learners with emotional and
behavioral disabilities. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 1(5), 54-69.
Retrieved from http://www.ejbss.com/recent.aspx
Litvack, K., Ritchie, K., & Shore, B. (2011). High and average-achieving students’ perceptions
of disabilities and of students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Exceptional
Children, 77(4), 474-487. Retrieved fromhttp://cec .metapress.com/home/main.mpx
Malinen, O.-P., Savolainen, H., & Xu, J. (2012). Beijing in-service teachers’ self-efficacy and
attitudes towards inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 526-534.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.004
Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., & Berkeley, S. (2007, February). Peers helping with support from
their peers: Students with special needs can succeed in the general classroom.
Educational Leadership, 64(5), 54-58. Retrieved from http://www
.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/archived-issues.aspx
McGuire, K. (2011). The role of teacher efficacy on student achievement in mathematics
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://library.waldenu.edu/784.htm
McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. (2012). Are we moving toward
educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? Journal of Special
Education, 46(3), 131-140. doi:10.1177/0022466910376670
Meadan, H., & Monda-Amaya, L. (2008). Disabilities in the general classroom: A structure for
providing social support. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43(3), 158-167.
doi:10.1177/10533451207311617
Murawski, W., & Hughes, C. (2009). Response to intervention, collaboration, and co-teaching: A
logical combination for successful systemic change. Preventing School Failure, 53(4),
267-277. doi:10.3200/PSFL.53.4.267-277
National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. (1995, Fall). National study on
inclusion: Overview and summary report. National Center on Educational Restructuring
and Inclusion Bulletin, 2(2). Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED389143)
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2002). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
O’Rourke, J., & Houghton, S. (2009). The perceptions of secondary teachers and students about
the implementation of an inclusive classroom model for students with mild disabilities.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 23-41. doi:10.14221/ajte.2009v34n1.3
Orr, A. C. (2009). New special educators reflect about inclusion: Preparation and K-12 current
practice. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 3, 228-239. Retrieved from
http://www.cedarville.edu/event/eqrc/journal/journal.htm
Parker, S. (2009). A comparison of the attitudes of secondary regular education and special
education teachers toward inclusion of students with mild disabilities in their classrooms
(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(UMI 3351258)
Prather-Jones, B. (2011). “Some people aren’t cut out for it”: The role of personality factors in
the careers of teachers of students with EBD. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 179-
191. doi:10.1177/0741932510362195
Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs students.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), 188-195. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
3802.2009.01135.x
JAASEP FALL 2016 93
Sayeski, K. L. (2009). Defining special educators’ tools the building blocks of effective
collaboration. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 38-44.
doi:10.1177/1053451209338398
Sokal, L., & Sharma, U. (2014). Canadian in-service teachers’ concerns, efficacy, and attitudes
about inclusive teaching. Exceptionality Education International, 23(1), 59-71. Retrieved
from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021 &context=eei
Swackhammer, L. E., Koellner, K., Basile, C., & Kimbrough, D. (2009). Increasing the self-
efficacy of inservice teachers through content knowledge. Teacher Education Quarterly,
36(2), 63-78. Retrieved from http://www.teqjournal.org/TEQ%20
Website/TEQ%20Page/TEQ.html
Sze, S. (2009). A literature review: Pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward students with
disabilities. Education, 130(1), 53-56. Retrieved from http://www.projectinnov
ation.biz/education
Theoharis, R., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2011). Max's family experience: Web-resources for working
with special education students and their families. Critical Questions in Education, 2(1),
1-13. Retrieved from https://academyforeducationalstudies.org/journals/journal/
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an inclusive
construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. doi:10.1016/S0742-
051X(01)00036-1
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248. doi:10.2307/1170754
About the Authors
David A. Hernandez, Ed.D., Ph.D., is the lead kindergarten teacher at Newport Heights
Elementary School in the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. He is also adjunct faculty at
Walden University, where he is a research methodologist supervising doctoral students in the
Richard W. Riley College of Education and Leadership, and a lecturer at the University of
California, Irvine, where he teaches research in the School of Education in the Master of Arts in
Teaching. He can be contacted by e-mail at dahernan@earthlink.net.
Susan E. Hueck, M.A., is the senior document developer at Cook International, a document
development service she has owned and operated for more than a decade. While she offers
document editing and development support for all genres of business and academic
communication, her undergraduate degree in English literature, her master’s degree in
professional writing, and her teaching experience make her especially well-suited to work with
students. Her expertise is in tutoring and document development for doctoral students, and
academic and research professionals. She can be contacted by e-mail at susan@cook-int.com.
Carmen Y. Charley, Ed.D., is a lead special education teacher at Whittaker Elementary School
in Orangeburg Consolidated School District Five. She received her Bachelor of Arts Degree in
Interdisciplinary Studies from the University of South Carolina (Columbia, SC), Master of
Education degree in Elementary Education from South Carolina State University, and Doctorate
of Education degree in Administrator Leadership for Teaching and Learning from Walden
University. She is a National Board Certified Teacher in the area of Early Adolescence English
Language Arts. She can be contacted by e-mail at cycharley1@gmail.com.
