You are on page 1of 18

Early Chikllto~ ResearchQuaderly,13, No.

1,107-124 (1998) © 1998 AblexPublishingCorporation


ISSN: 0885-2006 All dghts in any form reserved

Exploring Factors Influencing


Parents' and Early Childhood
Practitioners" Beliefs about Inclusion

Karen Callan Stoiber


University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Maribeth Gettinger
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Donna Goetz
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

To investigate beliefs concerning early childhood inclusion, we developed a


12-item brief scale and 28-item comprehensive measure, My Thinking About
Inclusion (MTAI). The 28-item MTAI Total Scale had an internal consistency
of .91, and was compnsod of three belief subscales: Core Perspectives,
Expected Outcomes, and Classroom Practices. MTAI was administered to 415
parents and 128 early childhood practitioners. Parents of children with disabili-
ties were more positive in their beliefs than parents of children without disabil-
ities, and parents' beliefs were related to their level of education, number of
children, and marital status. Practitioners held more positive beliefs than did
the parent participants. Practitioners' beliefs were associated with their level
of education, training background, and years of experience. Practitioners indi-
cated that children with speech and language delays, learning disabilities, and
mild cognitive disabilities can be most easily accommodated in early child-
hood inclusive settings, which corresponded to the children with disabilities
for whom they felt most prepared to provide services. In contrast, children
viewed to require the greatest accommodation were those with autism and neu-
rological disorders, and similarly, practitioners reported being the least pre-
pared to work with children with these disabilities. Limited time and limited
opportunities for collaboration received the highest ratings as barriers to inclu-
sion, whereas, direct "hands-on" experiences were the most preferred methods
for improving inclusion practices.

Direct all correspondence to: Karen Callan Stoiber, Department of Educational Psychology, Uni-
versity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201.

107
108 Stoiber, Gettinger, and Goetz

During the past decade, inclusion, or the integration of children with and without
disabilities, has emerged as a major systems-level change affecting early child-
hood programs across America (Salisbury, 1991; Tomlinson et al., 1997). At the
same time, the beliefs of individuals involved in the change process have become
a major research focus (Abelson, 1986; Alexander & Dochy, 1995; Olson &
Astington, 1993). It is important to understand the beliefs of parents and practitio-
ners in that beliefs influence both the process of change and standards of practice.
Although conventional research on innovation in early childhood education has
focused mainly on practice, the beliefs of parents and practitioners are also key
personal and sociopolitical elements that deserve investigation.
The issue of inclusion is being discussed widely within educational groups, at
professional meetings, and in professional journals as well as in a variety of com-
munity, state, and national forums (Vauglm, Schumm, Jallad, Slusher, & Saumell,
1996). The public attention being given to inclusion is exemplified by the fact that
several professional organizations have issued position statements to clarify impli-
cations for their members. Considerable polarity is evident in these position
statements, ranging from endorsement of full inclusion practices in which no
classes are designated as self-contained for special education students (Association
for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 1991), to concerns about the impact of inclu-
sion on the education of all children (American Federation of Teachers, 1993;
Council for Learning Disabilities, 1993). The debate sun'ounding inclusion will
influence how the concept of inclusion is perceived within public circles, educa-
tional systems, and community programs.
Noticeably absent in these discussions on inclusion is consideration of the
beliefs of parents and educators (Peck, 1993; Vaughn et al., 1996). Recent perspec-
fives on educational innovation suggest that for "systems change to be effective,
the change process must be participatory"(York & Tundidor, 1995, p. 32). Consis-
tent with this perspective is the view that the voices of those directly involved in
change should be heard because they provide valuable "inside" perceptions and
information. To the extent that inclusion promotes significant change in early
childhood practices (Peck, Odom, & Bricker, 1993), it is imperative to focus on the
beliefs among both parents and early childhood practitioners.

LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL BASIS FOR THE STUDY


The current study was conducted to extend our knowledge concerning parents' and
early childhood practitioners' beliefs related to inclusion. Two research strands
provide the theoretical and empirical rationale for this study: (a) research examin-
ing the importance of beliefs for understanding educational and parenting prac-
rices, and (b) studies focusing on the conceptualization and measurement of belief
domains related to inclusive education practices.

The Importance of Parents" and Educators" Beliefs


Our focus on beliefs is consistent with a recent paradigm shift from emphasizing
effects of inclusion to emphasizing constructs that influence inclusive practices
Beliefs About Inclusion lO9

(Peck, 1993; York, Vandercook, Macdonald, Heise-Neffe, & Caughey, 1992).


Peck argued that to advance an understanding of the issues associated with imple-
menting inclusive practices, we must conceptualize research in terms of how and
what influences practice. Beliefs comprise one factor that figures importantly in
parents' and educators' decision making about inclusion.
Beliefs include one's values and plans as well as ideologies about practices (Gar-
ner & Alexander, 1994; Stoiber & Houghton, 1994). Beliefs related to inclusion
are formed by parents and practitioners on the basis of their personal experience
and, more importantly, are used to develop expectations about how a child might
function in a classroom or about the outcomes of inclusion. In this study, beliefs
are conceptualized as powerful influences on the way we think and actwthey per-
meate one's perceptions and, in turn, influence teaching processes and learning
outcomes (Schommer, 1994; Stoiber, 1992). Examining beliefs about inclusion is
essential because previous studies have linked beliefs to parental and educational
practices (Anders & Evans, 1994; Miller, Manhal, & Mee, 1991; Stoiber &
Houghton, 1993). Specifically, the beliefs of parents and practitioners may deter-
mine whether and how inclusive approaches involving young children are
implemented. Information about beliefs is needed to provide a framework for
interpreting the actions and reactions of persons integral to inclusion.
Despite the documented role of beliefs in influencing practice and systems
change, few studies have explored both parents' and early childhood practitioners'
beliefs concerning inclusion (Marchant, 1995). Previous work generally has
focused either on parents (e.g., Ryndak, Downing, Jacqueline, & Morrison, 1995)
or on practitioners (e.g., Eiserman, Shisler, & Healey, 1995; Folsom-Meek, 1995;
Vaughn et al., 1996). Because parents and early childhood practitioners differ in
their opportunities to access information about inclusion, it seems likely that these
two groups may also differ in their beliefs. In addition, little is known about how
factors such as level of education and experience may influence beliefs toward
inclusion.

Rationalefor Measuring the Specific Belief Dimensions


The present study of beliefs is consistent with recent research suggesting that
identifiable domains characterize aspects of parents' and educators' beliefs (Hyson
& Lee, 1996; Sigel, McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & Goodnow, 1992; York & Tundidor,
1995). To understand the thinking of parents and educators more specifically, it
would seem useful to consider various categories or domains of inclusive beliefs.
For example, an individual may value the concept of individualized instruction
that is nondiscriminatory for all learners, but have concerns about the academic
outcomes for more skilled learners. To examine these possible variations in
beliefs, we identified three types of constructs in which individuals may hold vary-
hag perspectives: (a) core perspectives, (b) expected outcomes, and (c) classroom
practices.
• Core perspectives held by parents and practitioners is the f'wst belief category. The
core perspectives dimension corresponds to research showing that beliefs permeate
one's perception of a concept (Alvermann & Commeryas, 1994). This dimension taps
110 Stoiber, Gettinger, and Goetz

individuals' values about what is ethically right and what constitutes "best practices"
related to educating children. The core perspectives category is perhaps best reflected
in the belief that children with disabilities have the right to be educated in classrooms
with typically developing children and that inclusion is considered "best practices"
for educating all children (Berryman & Berryman, 1981; Eiserman et al., 1995). The
core perspectives category is grounded in research documenting the importance of a
positive perspective toward integration of children with disabilities on successful
implementation of inclusion (Hanline, 1985; Moeller & Ishii-Jordan, 1996; Odom &
McEvoy, 1990). In addition, this belief category attempted to tap beliefs toward
inclusion practices for all children--those with and without disabilities, and was not
conceptualized to reflect differences in beliefs as a function of differences in a child's
disability.
Expected outcomes of inclusion constitute the second dimension. The expected out-
comes dimension is consistent with the view that beliefs not only permeate perceptions,
but also influence educational practices and outcomes (Ames & Ames, 1989; Schom-
mer, 1994). The expected outcomes category is similar to the construct of expectations.
Belief expectations and expected outcomes both reflect what one believes will happen
or result from a situation or event (Moeller & Ishii-Jordan, 1996; Stoiber & Houghton,
1993). Previous research examining parents' and educators' expectations has shown
that expectations are, in fact, linked to behaviors. For example, Stoiber and Houghton
found that parents who had realistic expectations for their parenting role and their
child's behavior were likely to have children who demonstrated positive coping skills.
Similarly, research on teachers' expectations has shown that positive expectations for
students' learning are linked to higher student achievement (Moeller & Ishii-Jordan,
1996; Schommer, 1994). The dimension of expected outcomes, therefore, is empiri-
cally-based on evidence that expectations influence adult and child outcomes (e.g.,
behaviors, development, practices, etc.). Unfortunately, the few studies that have exam-
ined expected outcomes related to inclusion (Eiserman et al., 1995; Vaughn et al.,
1996), have not clarified what factors affect practitioners' outcome beliefs.
Classroom practices dimension reflects thinking about how inclusion impacts on
classroom life and actual instructional practices. Researchers have shown that beliefs
determine the ways teachers structure their classroom environments, respond to chil-
dren, or adapt instructional approaches and materials (Anders & Evans, 1994; Borko,
Davinroy, Flory, & Hiebert, 1994). The classroom practices category also stems from
discussions in the literature on adaptations, barriers, facilitators, and other environmen-
tal indicators related to day-to-day functioning in inclusive environments. Researchers
using focus groups and interview methodologies have found that pragmatic issues, such
as time and classroom management skills, affect the implementation of inclusion
(Vaughn et al., 1996; York & Tundidor, 1995). Hence, the dimension of classroom
practices attempts to capture beliefs related to how inclusion works in the "typical day"
of inclusive educators.

Research Purpose and Questions


The rationale for our study stems from the need to acquire a better understanding
of parents' and early childhood practitioners' beliefs about early childhood inclu-
sion. It is grounded in a theoretical framework emphasizing the importance of
beliefs on educational practice, research documenting the importance of beliefs for
systems change, and empirical evidence pointing to the multiple dimensions of
Beliefs About Inclusion 111

beliefs. Hence, a primary purpose of the present study was to develop a measure of
parental and early childhood practitioner beliefs that demonstrated sound psycho-
metric properties. In addition, our study had four research questions:

1. How do situational and experiential factors affect parents' and early childhood prac-
titioners' beliefs related to inclusion?
2. How do parents' and early childhood practitioners' beliefs related to inclusion differ?
3. What are early childhood practitioners' perceptions regarding amount of accommo-
dation and level of preparation for differing types of disabilities?
4. What are early childhood practitioners' perspectives on barriers to, and preferred
methods for improving, inclusive practices?

METHODS

Participants
A total of 415 parents and 128 early childhood practitioners participated in the
study. Participants were recruited from 10 early childhood inclusive programs (30
classrooms) in Wisconsin. A geographical sampling plan was used to solicit
involvement, and to ensure representation from the four state quadrants (Northern,
Southern, Eastern, and Western regions) and from diverse communities (urban,
rural, suburban). An early childhood consultant from the Wisconsin Department of
Public Instruction assisted in identifying specific sites that approximated the ethnic
distribution of children attending early childhood programs in Wisconsin. All pro-
grams that were contacted agreed to participate, which included four half-day
kindergartens (for 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds), three Head Starts, two itinerant sup-
ported day care centers, and a university-affiliated private preschool program. The
racial-ethnicity of children in the 10 programs were: 52% European-American,
33% African-American, 10% American Indian, 3% Latino, and 2% Asian. In
terms of characteristics of children with disabilities, the following percentages of
disabilities occurred in the 30 classrooms: 41% speech/language delays, 17% cog-
nitive disability, 14% behavioral disability, 10% physical disability, 7% other
health impaired, 6% learning disability, and 5% hearing or visual disability or
other disability type.
Parents. Parents who had young children attending the 10 early childhood
inclusive programs were asked to complete a brief survey of their beliefs about
inclusion. Of the 415 parents who completed the survey, 150 were parents of
children with disabilities, and 260 were parents of typically-developing chil-
dren (five parents did not provide this information). The majority of parents
reported having a middle income level (64%), 31% reported low income, and
5% reported having a high income. Most parents lived in urban communities
(48%), 33% lived in suburban, and 18% lived in rural areas. In terms of educa-
tion, 68% reported some college education and 32% had received a high school
diploma or less. Seventy-five percent of parents were married, 18% were sin-
gle, and 7% were divorced. Parent participants had the following number of
children: one - 19%; two - 41%; three - 27%; four or more - 13%.
112 Stoiber, Gettinger, and Goelz

Early Childhood Practitioners. Within the sample of early childhood practi-


tioners, 39 were special educators, 35 were regular educators, 35 were
paraprofessionals, and 19 were support service personnel (i.e., school psycholo-
gists, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists, or administrators).
Participants varied in years of experience: 16% had less than 5 years, 27% had 5-9
years, 16% had 10-14 years, and 41% reported over 15 years of experience. The
majority of practitioners held a college degree (52%), 9% had a high school
diploma, 6% had an associate degree, and 32% attained masters degrees.

Measures
A primary purpose of this study was to develop a measure of beliefs about inclu-
sion that could be used with parents and early childhood practitioners. Two
versions of the My ThinkingAbout Inclusion (MTAI) scale were constructed. First,
a brief scale containing 12 items was developed. Second, an extended 28-item
scale, which included the brief 12-item scale, was constructed. Both versions con-
rained (a) a demographics section that requested participants to provide relevant,
descriptive information about themselves; and (b) an inclusion beliefs section. In
the present study, parent participants completed the brief MTAI whereas practitio-
ners completed the comprehensive MTAI. The demographics section used with
parents elicited information about their education level (high school education or
post high school education), community (urban, rural, suburban), family income
level (high, middle, or low), marital status, number of children, and whether their
child attending the early childhood program had a disability. On the demographics
section for practitioners, participants reported their training (special education,
regular education, paraprofessional, related service staff), education level (high
school, undergraduate, or graduate degree), and years of experience.
The beliefs section of the MTAI survey was cons~'ucted by reviewing the litera-
ture on parents' and practitioners' views, attitudes, and concerns related to
inclusion or mainstre~lming. It should be noted that the majority of this literature
has focused on mainstreaming because inclusion--the practice of fully integrating
children with disabilities---is a policy that was rarely discussed and described prior
to 1990 (Vaughn et al., 1996). To construct MTAI, questions were either adapted
from previous mainstreaming-oriented measures or developed by the first two
authors to reflect three belief domains related to inclusion: Core Perspectives,
Expected Outcomes, and Classroom Practices. For example, the item "In general
mainstreaming is a desirable educational practice" (Berryman & Berryman, 1981,
p. 7) was adapted to "Inclusion is not a desirable practice for educating most typi-
cally developing students." When item adaptations were made, they were done
(a) to use language consistent with the concept of inclusion, Co) to tap types of
beliefs, and/or (c) to specify effects of inclusion not only for children with disabil-
ities but also for typically developing children. A preliminary version of MTAI
was piloted and reviewed by 50 early childhood practitioners (special educators,
regular educators, paraprofessionals, and support service personnel) and 10 par-
ents. The authors altered the scale based on comments regarding the importance,
face validity, appropriate wording for parent use, and clarity of specific items. In
Beliefs About Inclusion 113

Figure 1. My Thinking About Inclusion Scale: (28-item Total Scale; alpha .9051)
Core Perspectives (12 items; alpha .8040) Parent X E.C. Prac. X
* 1. Students with special needs have the right to be educated in the 1.82 1.48
same classroom as typically developing students.
*2. Inclusion is NOT a desirable practice for educating most typically 2.28 1.74
developing students. (R)
*3. It is difficult to maintain order in a classroom that contains a mix of 2.53 2.12
children with exceptional education needs and children with
average abilities. OR)
*4. Children with exceptional education needs should be given every 1.75 1.67
opportunity to function in an integrated classroom.
*5. Inclusion can be beneficial for parents of children with exceptional 1.95 1.76
education needs.
*6. Parents of children with exceptional needs prefer to have their child 2.62 2.49
placed in an inclusive classroom setting.
7. Most special education teachers lack an appropriate knowledge
base to educate typically developing students effectively. (R)
8. The individual needs of children with disabilities CANNOT be
addressed adequately by a regular education teacher. (R)
9. We must learn more about the effects of inclusive classrooms
before inclusive classrooms take place on a large scale basis. (R)
10. The best way to begin educating children in inclusive settings is
just to do it.
11. Most children with exceptional needs are well behaved in
integrated education classrooms.
12. It is feasible to teach children with average abilities and exceptional
needs in the same classroom.
Expected Outcomes (11 items; alpha .8506)
"13. Inclusion is socially advantageous for children with special needs. 1.87 1.49
"14. Children with special needs will probably develop academic skills 2.72 2.50
more rapidly in a special, separate classroom than in an
integrated classroom. (R)
"15. Children with exceptional needs are likely to be isolated by 2.42 2.04
typically developing students in inclusive classrooms. (It)
* 16. The presence of children with exceptional education needs 1.75 1.55
promotes acceptance of individual differences on the part of
typically developing students.
17. Inclusion promotes social independence among children with
special needs.
18. Inclusion promotes self-esteem among children with special needs.
19. Children with exceptional needs are likely to exhibit more
challenging behaviors in an integrated classroom setting. OR)
20. Children with special needs in inclusive classrooms develop a
better self-concept than in a self-contained classroom.
21. The challenge of a regular education classroom promotes academic
growth among children with exceptional education needs.
22. Isolation in a special class does NOT have a negative effect on the
social and emotional development of students prior to middle
school. OR)
23. Typically developing students in inclusive classrooms are more
likely to exhibit challenging behaviors learned from children
with special needs. (It)
Classroom Practices (5 items; alpha .6378)
*24. Children with exceptional needs monopolize teachers' time. (R) 3.89 3.66
114 Stoiber, Gettlnger, and Goetz

Clasroom Practices (12 items; alpha .8040) Parent X E.C. Prac. X


*25. The behaviors of students with special needs require significantly 2.86 2.61
more teacher-directed attention than those of typically
developing children. OR)
26. Parents of children with exceptional education needs require more
supportive services from teachers than parents of typically
developing children. (R)
27. Parents of children with exceptional needs present no greater
challenge for a classroom teacher than do parents of a regular
education student.
28. A good approach to managing inclusive classrooms is to have a
special education teacher be responsible for instructing the
children with special needs. OR)
R = Reverse scoring. * = Brief version.
Rated on a 5-point scale where I = Strongly Accept and 5 = Strongly Reject.

Table 1. Degree of Accomodation and Level of Preparation According to Disability


Type
Accommodation Preparation
Disability Rank Mean Rank Mean
Speech and Language Delay 1 1.77 12 2.91
Learning Disability 2 1.89 11 2.84
Mild Cognitive Disability 3 2.06 10 2.82
Moderate Cognitive Disability 4 2.25 7 2.51
ADHD 4 2.25 9 2.69
Visual Impairment 6 2,41 2 2.12
Hearing Impairment 7 2.43 3 2.20
Physical/Motor Impairment 8 2.44 5 2.36
Emotional Disturbance 9 2.58 5 2.36
Challenging Behavior 10 2.69 8 2.58
Brain Injury/Neurological 11 2.76 1 2.01
Autism/PDD 12 2.88 3 2.20
Note: Degree of Accommodation and Sense of Preparation rated on 1 - 4 scale, where I ffileast and 4 = greater.

addition, the pilot aimed to ensure that the surveys were self-explanatory so that
they could be distributed without instructional assistance. Feedback from both the
practitioner and the parent pilot groups indicated that demographic information on
ethnicity should not be asked, hence it was omitted in the final MTAI survey. To
complete the survey, participants indicated their degree of agreement for belief
statements using a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly Accept, 2 = Agree, 3 = Undecided/
Neutral; 4 = Disagree; and 5 = Strongly Reject). Figure 1 displays the 28-item
scale, grouped by belief domains.
A "Pragmatics" section was also included in the comprehensive version of the
MTAI. Practitioners were presented with a list of 12 disability profiles (see Table
1) and asked to "indicate the ease that you believe each of the following types of
disabilities can be accommodated in an inclusive classroom setting" (1 = No or
Beliefs About Inclusion 115

Table 2. Mean Ratings for Barriers to Inclusion


Reason Mean
Limited Time 2.62
Limited Opportunities for Collaboration 2.57
Teacher Attitudes 2.47
Lack of Experience Regarding Inclusion 2.39
Little Knowledge in this Area 2.37
Current Work Commitments 2.24
Little Support from School/District 2.18
Parent Attitudes 1.91
Note: Degree that interfered with inclusion rated on a 1 - 4 scale, where 1 = does not and 4 = does extremely.

Table 3. Mean Rankings for Methods of Improving Inclusive Practices


Method Mean
Direct Teaching Experience with Children with Disabilities 2.95
Observation of Other Teachers in Inclusive Settings 3.12
Inservice Training/Workshops 3.75
Consultation Activities with other Teachers, Specialists, and Parents 4.20
Exposure to Children with Disabilities 4.48
Discussion Groups on Inclusive Practices 5.14
University Coursework 6.37
Research Involvement 7.26
Collaborative Experiences with University Faculty 7.36
Independent Reading 7.53
Note: Items were ranked with 1 = most preferred method and 10 = least preferred method.

Very Little Accommodation, 2 = Minor Accommodation, 3 = Much Accommoda-


tion, 4 = Major Accommodation). The same 12 disability profiles were presented
again and participants were asked to indicate "the level of preparedness that you
feel you have in teaching children in a full inclusive classroom setting" (1 = Not
Prepared, 2 = Somewhat Prepared, 3 = Very Prepared, 4 = Extremely Prepared). In
addition, practitioners were requested to rate the extent to which eight factors, such
as limited knowledge or lack of experience, interfered with inclusion practices
from 1 (Does Not) to 4 (Does Extremely) (see Table 2), and to rank 10 methods for
improving inclusive practices in terms of their usefulness from best (1) to least (10)
preferred (see Table 3).

Procedure
The administration of the survey was completed using the following procedures.
First, potential site participants were contacted by the researchers, given an expla-
nation of the project, and offered an option to accept or decline (all sites accepted).
The researchers held a meeting with a contact person from each early childhood
program during which the surveys and procedures for their administration were
116 Stoiber, Gettlnger, and Goetz

described. Practitioner survey packets were provided to the program contact per-
son with a letter describing the study, consent forms, and envelopes to ensure
confidentiality. The number of classrooms involved at each participating site
ranged from 1 to 6, with a total of 30 classrooms. Practitioner surveys were admin-
istered by having the contact person distribute them during a staff meeting to
individual early childhood practitioners. Participants remained anonymous, and
completed surveys were returned to the researchers by the contact person. Intact
faculty groups, rather than a random sampling of early childhood practitioners
within a program, were used to provide for a more broad representation of partici-
pants. Each contact person was given 15-20 parent survey packets per classroom
in her program (each containing a survey, consent form, and envelope) to distrib-
ute to families. Classrooms serving more families were given a greater number of
surveys (i.e., 20 vs. 15). Parent surveys were distributed either through par-
ent-child conferences or by sending them home with a child. Parent surveys were
returned to the classroom teacher in a sealed envelope. Based on the number of sur-
veys that were distributed, a 92% return rate occurred for practitioners and an 85%
rate for parents.

RESULTS
Participants' responses to the MTAI survey were used to validate the measure, to
examine factors affecting parents' and early childhood practitioners' beliefs, and
to analyze patterns in respondents' beliefs. In addition, practitioners' perceptions
of accommodation, preparation, barriers, and facilitators related to inclusion were
analyzed.

Measure Validation
The three belief subscales and the total belief scale were examined for internal
consistency using Cronbach's alpha. Reliability analyses for the MTAI resulted in
the following alphas for the 28-item comprehensive version (and 12-item brief ver-
sion): Core Perspective, .80 (.77); Expected Outcomes, .85 (.69); Classroom
Practices, .64 (.69); and Total Beliefs, .91 (.86). Subscale-to-total-scale correlations
ranged from .73 to .91, suggesting an association between each belief domain and
the Total Scale. Next, intercorrelations among the three subscales were examined.
Subscale intercorrelations were moderate (r = .50 for Core Perspective-Classroom
Practices, r = .55 for Expected Outcomes-Classroom Practices, and r = .75 for
Expected Outcomes-Core Perspectives). The unidimensional structure of the three
belief domains was confirmed by the use of principal components analysis. For
each domain, only one factor was extracted. The total percentage of variance that
was explained by each factor was 47.7% for Core Perspectives, 52.2% for Expected
Outcomes, and 69.2% for Classroom Practices. Because the intercorrelatious
among subscales were not high (< .80) and the principle component analysis sup-
ported the conceptually distinct nature of each subscale, they were retained as
separate scales for further analysis.
Beliefs About Inclusion 117

Parent Beliefs
To address our fLrSt research question concerning factors that affect parents'
beliefs regarding inclusion, analyses were conducted using summary scores for
each subscale and the Total Scale of the brief MTAI (12 items). Parents of children
with special needs were more positive in their beliefs than parents of children with-
out special needs on the Total Scale, t(404) = 2.97, p <.01, Core Perspectives
subscale, t(404) = 3.47, p < .001, and Classroom Practices subscale, t (404) = 2.84,
p < .01. Analysis of variance (A_NOVA) showed significant associations between
parents' social-economic status and their beliefs on all three subscales (F = 4.67,
p < .01; F = 8.14, p < .001; F = 3.40, p < .05; for Core Perspectives, Outcomes, and
Classroom Practices, respectively) and the Total Scale (F = 7.59, p < .001). Fol-
low-up analyses using the Tukey HSD showed that parents with high or middle
incomes reported more positive beliefs than did parents with low income on the
Core Perspectives subscale, Outcomes subscale, and Total Scale. Although the
overall ANOVA was significant for the Classroom Practices subscale, no two
groups differed significantly at the .05 level. To investigate further the effect of
income, ANCOVAs were conducted with level of education as a covariate. When
education level was controlled, the relationship between income level and inclu-
sion beliefs was not significant for any scale.
Parents with a college education had more positive beliefs on the Core Perspec-
fives subscale compared to parents with a high school education or less (F = 5.58,
p < .05). Parents with one or two children had more positive beliefs about inclusion
than did parents with four or more children on the Total Scale (F = 3.10, p < .05)
and Outcomes subscale (F = 4.30, p < .05). Significant differences due to marital
status were detected on the Total Scale and Core Beliefs subscale. Tukeys showed
that married parents held more positive beliefs than did single parents (F = 3.16
and F = 4.18, respectively, on the Total and Beliefs scales, both ps < .05). No sig-
nificant variations among parents from different community settings were found.

Early Childhood Practitioner Beliefs


Using the 28-item MTAI scale, the next set of analyses examined factors associ-
ated with beliefs among early childhood practitioners (Research Question #1). The
full 28-item inclusion belief scale was used for these analyses because the compre-
hensive version demonstrated somewhat better psychometric properties than the
brief MTAI.
Analysis of variance showed a significant association between classroom role
arid inclusion beliefs on the Core Perspectives (F = 3.55), Classroom Practices
(F = 3.35), and Total Scale (F = 2.93), allps < .05. Post hoc comparisons revealed
that regular and special education teachers expressed more positive beliefs than did
paraprofessionals on the Classroom Practices subscale, and special educators were
more positive than paraprofessionals on the Core Perspectives and Total Scale.
Similarly, practitioners' level of education was si,Lmificantly related to their Class-
room Practices beliefs (F = 3.82, p < .01), however, no significant variations
occurred on the other subscales. Post hoc analyses indicated that practitioners with
118 Stoiber, Gettlnger, and Goetz

a high school degree demonstrated lower endorsement of inclusive classroom


practices than did practitioners with masters degrees. Finally, A_NOVA results
showed significant associations between practitioners' years of experience in early
childhood programs and their beliefs (F = 2.91, p < .05), and the Tukey procedure
indicated that practitioners with 15 or more years of experience were more positive
than those with 1 to 4 years.
To examine the second research question of how parents' and early childhood
practitioners' beliefs differ, a series of t-tests were used to compare their responses
on the brief 12-item belief scale (see Figure 1). As a group, early childhood prac-
titioners had more positive beliefs about inclusion than did the parent participants
on all three subscales and the Total Scale, t(525) - 5.04, 4.07, 2.92, 4.40, for Core
Perspectives, Expected Outcomes, and Classroom Practices, and Total scales, all
ps < .01.

Practitioners' Perceptions related to Accommodation, Preparation, Barriers,


and Facilitators
With regard to research question #3, practitioners indicated that children with
speech and language delays, learning disabilities, and mild cognitive disabilities
can be most easily accommodated in early childhood inclusive settings. They felt
the greatest amount of classroom adaptation is needed for children with autism,
neurological impairments, and challenging behaviors (see Table 1). Analysis of
variance showed no significant associations between participants' role or degree
and their beliefs about accommodating children with various types of disabilities.
Participants' level of experience, however, was significantly related to their
accommodation beliefs. Specifically, practitioners with 1 to 4 years of experience
felt that children with neurological disorders are more difficult to accommodate
than did practitioners with 10 to 14 years of experience (F = 2.96, p < 05).
Practitioners indicated that they felt least prepared in integrating children with
neurological disorders, visual/hearing impairments, and autism. Conversely, they
reported feeling most prepared to include children with speech and language
delays, learning disabilities, and mild cognitive disabilities in inclusive settings.
Interestingly, these disability types correspond to children for whom the least
amount of accommodation was needed. A series of A_NOVAs showed a pattern
where special educators reported feeling a greater sense of competence in serving
children with (a) ADHD, compared to regular educators and paraprofessionals
(F = 4.88, p < .01), (b) autism, compared to regular educators (F = 2.72, p < 05),
(c) challenging behaviors, compared to related services professionals (F = 3.20,
p < .05), (d) emotional disturbance, compared to regular educators or related ser-
vices professionals (F = 4.56, p < .01), (e) hearing impairment, compared to
paraprofessionals (F = 5.91, p < .001), and (f) mild (F = 6.61) and moderate cog-
nitive disabilities (F = 7.49), learning disabilities (F = 7.86), and speech and
language disorders (F = 11.25), compared to regular education teachers and para-
professionals, all ps < .001. Related service professionals reported being better
trained to provide services to children with (a) brain injury or neurological disor-
ders, compared to regular education teachers (F = 3.06, p < .05), (b) hearing
Beliefs About Inclusion 119

impairments, compared to regular education teachers and paraprofessionals


(F = 5.91, p < .001), and (c) learning disabilities (F = 7.87) and children with
speech and language disorders (F = 11.25), compared to paraprofessionals (both
ps < .001). In examining the association between level of education and sense of
competence, practitioners with masters degrees reported significantly higher prep-
aration than did those with high school or associate degrees for working with four
groups of children: (a) learning disabilities (F = 5.36, p < .01); (b) mild cognitive
disabilities (F = 5.15, p < .01); (c) brain injury/neurological disorders (F = 3.05,
p < .05), and (d) speech and language disorders (F = 6.06, p < .001). Practitioners
with greater experience (15 or more years) felt better prepared to work with chil-
dren with mild (F = 3.92, p < .01) and moderate cognitive disabilities (F = 3.51,
p < .05) than did those with 1 to 4 years of experience.
Finally, concerning our fourth research question, limited time and limited oppor-
tunties for collaboration received the highest ratings as barriers to successful
inclusion, whereas, parent attitudes received the lowest rating (see Table 2). As can
be seen in Table 3, direct teaching experiences, peer observation of other practitio-
ners in inclusive settings, and inservice training were the most preferred methods
for improving inclusion practices; reading literature on inclusion was least
preferred.

DISCUSSION
One primary purpose of our study was to determine whether a scale measuring the
beliefs of both parents and practitioners could be developed that demonstrates
sound psychometric properties. Our data indicate that both the brief 12-item MTAI
and the more comprehensive 28- item MTAI demonstrate good internal reliability.
The internal consistency for the brief MTAI supports its use with both parents and
practitioners as a general measure to explore their beliefs related to inclusion. Val-
idation work on the comprehensive MTAI suggest that inclusion beliefs are fairly
consistent within the specific domains it measures (i.e., Core Perspectives,
Expected Outcomes, and Classroom Practices). Some variations were found, how-
ever, in the ways practitioners having differing backgrounds and experiences
responded to items within the three MTAI subscales, reflecting the multidimen-
sional nature of inclusion beliefs. Overall, greater variance in beliefs were evident
in comparing participants' responses on the Core Perspectives and Classroom
Practices subscales than on the Expected Outcomes subscale. Together these find-
ings lend support for differential use of the MTAI. The brief version has utility for
further comparative investigations of beliefs or for early childhood programs to
obtain a general indication of whether an individual or group holds positive or neg-
ative beliefs toward inclusion. The comprehensive 28-item MTAI might be used to
provide more refined indications of what dimensions are most important to address
in promoting greater awareness or acceptance toward inclusion. Prior to discussing
what we view as key findings, several limitations of the study should be acknowl-
edged.
12o Stoiber, Gettinger, and Goe~

First, our primary intent was to explore the beliefs of both parents and practitio-
ners because these adults' actions and reactions play an important role in the
implementation of inclusion. Our attempt to give voice to parents and practitioners
cannot capture their many subtle, yet critical, conceptions about inclusive prac-
rices. Although the use of a survey provided a quantitative approach for examining
diverse inclusion beliefs, this method did not fully assess the complexity of beliefs.
In addition, our conceptual distinctions regarding inclusion beliefs (Core, Prac-
rices, Outcomes) represent one possible conceptualization. Clearly, other
categories or dimensions of inclusion beliefs exist and need to be examined in fur-
ther research.
Despite these limitations, we observed important patterns related to how situa-
tional and experiential factors affect inclusion beliefs among parents. Differences
in beliefs due to having a child with a disability were revealed on two subscales
(Core Perspectives and Classroom Practices) and the Total Scale, with parents of
children with disabilities responding more positively than parents of typically
developing children. These findings differ from Vaughn et al.'s (1996) teachers
who "anticipated that parents of students with disabilities would not view inclusion
favorably" (p. 103). Parents with lower incomes and lower education levels (high
school education or less) held less positive beliefs concerning inclusion, however,
these differences were attributable to education level. One explanation for this dif-
ference based on parents' education is that socialization toward inclusion occurs
through the education process. It is also possible that individuals with higher edu-
cation levels have more opportunities to reflect on the advantages of inclusive
practices in reducing discrimination based on ability. Although parents' marital
status and number of children were associated with their beliefs about inclusion,
community context (urban, suburban, rural) did not influence parents' beliefs. The
current results support Sigel et al.'s (1992) contention that parental beliefs are
determined by multiple experiences, demographic characteristics, and sociocul-
tural contexts. In addition, our findings suggest that there are variations in the
degree of influence by differing factors. Proximal individual factors (i.e., educa-
tion, marital status) appear to be more potent in influencing inclusion beliefs than
distal, global factors (i.e., community).
Clearly, the need for more information about parents' beliefs and for dissemina-
tion of parents' beliefs to practitioners is apparent. Research that replicates or
clarifies the contextual nature surrounding parents' beliefs should also occur. For
example, do parents of children at the elementary or secondary levels differ in their
beliefs about inclusion from parents of young children? Do parents of typically
developing children who have greater contact or involvement with inclusive pro-
grams hold more positive beliefs related to inclusion practices? Answers to these
questions have important implications for understanding how patents' beliefs are
formed as well as how they may be altered through different experiences. Regard-
less of whether or when these questions are pursued, our results support the need
for public awareness efforts aimed at broadening the understanding of inclusion
both to parents and practitioners.
Beliefs About Inclusion 121

In our analysis of practitioners' beliefs, we found repeated evidence that educa-


tion and experience affect the ways individuals think about inclusion. Teachers
with special and regular education training shared more positive beliefs about the
implementation of inclusion practices than did paraprofessionals. Similarly, com-
pared to early childhood practitioners with only high school training, practitioners
with extensive and specialized training were more apt to have positive beliefs con-
cerning inclusive practices in early childhood settings, and feel better prepared to
provide services for children with diverse disabilities in inclusive settings. Practi-
tioners with greater experience in the field of education held more positive beliefs
about inclusion than did those with less experience (1 to 4 years of experience).
Together these findings suggest that situational and experiential factors impact on
inclusion beliefs, again pointing to the likelihood that the context surrounding
inclusion beliefs plays an important role in belief development. Interestingly, our
findings differ significantly from Vauglm et al. (1996) who reported "Regardless
of background knowledge, the most consistent response of teachers.., was strong
negative feelings about inclusion." (p. 100). One reason for the difference in find-
ings may be methodological; Vaughn et al. used focus groups to capture the
feelings of teachers who were not presently participating in inclusion. Nonethe-
less, the differential nature of beliefs due to the length and type of practitioners'
training is important because it warns against "broad brush" interpretations of
practitioners' beliefs. Rather, beliefs about inclusion appears to be a complex phe-
nomena that evolve based on various situations and experiences.
When compared to parents, practitioners held more positive beliefs toward
inclusion. The more positive beliefs of practitioners suggest an individual's role
may influence what Weiner (1986) has called a "norm to be kind" (p. 146) to those
having limitations, which can include those with disabilities. Perhaps practitio-
ners' participation in inclusion promotes a culture that produces more positive
beliefs.
Children with challenging behavior, neurological problems, and autism were
perceived by practitioners as requiting the greatest amount of accommodation.
Other research verifies that children with significant behavioral challenges are
among the least preferred to instruct in mainstream education settings (Johnson,
1987; Moeller & Ishii-Jordan, 1996). Conversely, children with more mild disabil-
ities, including speech and language delays, learning disability, and mild cognitive
disabilities, were ranked most easily accommodated, which also concurs with
other research (Clark, 1997). The evidence that practitioners' level of preparation
in working with children of different disabilities corresponds to their accommoda-
tion rankings is noteworthy. Previous studies have indicated that teacher
acceptance of behavioral problems is facilitated through exposure to children with
behavior disabilities. Practitioners have also been shown to be more tolerant of
diverse learners when they believe they have the knowledge and skills to differen-
tiate instruction (MoeUer & Ishii-Jordan, 1996; Tomlinson et al., 1997).
The finding that limited time and limited opportunities for collaboration
emerged as the greatest barriers to inclusion holds important practical implica-
tions. The early childhood practitioners who served as participants in the present
122 Stoiber, GetUnger, and Goelz

study were all working in inclusive settings. Their concerns are consistent with
other research on teacher perceptions of inclusion (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996;
Vaughn et al., 1996), and suggest that attention should be given to increasing time
for planning and collaborating in inclusive settings. In addition, the need for col-
laborative skills is consistent with Putnam, Spiegel, and Brninink.q (1995) who
revealed strong support for all education majors to be trained in communication
skills and teamwork. Field-based approaches emphasizing direct, hands-on experi-
ence were considered most effective by our practitioners for improving inclusion
practices, thus underscoring the importance of training that is authentic and rele-
vant. Given these beliefs, it appears that effective training to move practitioners
toward "best" practices requires major restructuring of professional development.
The model for professional development that emerges from the preferences of
early childhood practitioners in the present study concurs with Moeller and
Ishii-Jordan (1996), who proposed that traditional, didactic instruction does not
match the dynamic and practical needs of inclusive practitioners. Practitioners
believe that they need more than just single-session inservice training to provide
them with appropriate teaching and intervention strategies; they need peer support
and ongoing opportunities for professional development.
Patterns evident throughout the data support the goal of increasing both parents'
and practitioners' exposure to diverse learners and strategies for accommodation.
It appears that propinquity or "getting up close" to children with diverse disabili-
ties and to inclusion has a powerful positive effect on our beliefs about inclusion.
Efforts aimed at motivating individuals to find ways to differentiate instruction for
the most challenging children may produce a powerful influence on beliefs related
to inclusion. Hence, school or program cultures dedicated to nurturing the positive
value of diverse learners and differentiated instruction are critical to support con-
tinued progress in the inclusion movement. Our results also point to the need for
continued research on parents' and early childhood practitioners' beliefs, espe-
cially regarding the impact of various educational and socialization approaches. It
would be informative, for example, to examine how one's beliefs about inclusion
develop over time with different types of knowledge and experience (e.g., knowl-
edge about what is meant by inclusion vs. knowledge of how to differentiate
instruction; knowledge constructed through didactic training vs. knowledge con-
structed through an action research project). In addition, more information is
needed on how individuals from various cultural groups view inclusion. As
progress is made in these areas, the beliefs of individuals assuming the critical
roles in inclusion will be more clearly understood. Such understanding is essential
to develop meaningful frameworks for enhancing both parents' and practitioners'
growth toward inclusion policies and practices.

Acknowledgments: The authors extend their appreciation to Jenny Lange, Early


Childhood Consultant of the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, for her
assistance with this research. The authors are also indebted to the early childhood
programs that agreed to participate. This project was funded, in part, through an
IDEA Preschool Flow-Through Grant to the State of Wisconsin.
Beliefs About Inclusion 123

REFERENCES
Abelson, R. P. (1986). Beliefs are like possessions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 16,
223-250.
Alexander, P. A., & Dochy, F. J. R. (1995). Conceptions of knowledge and beliefs: A comparison
across varying cultural and educational communities. American Educational Research Jour-
nal, 32, 413-442.
Alvermann, D. E., & Commeryas, M. (1994). Gender, text, and discussion: Expanding the possibili-
ties. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text
(pp. 183-199). HiUsdale, NJ: Erlbanm.
American Federation of Teachers. (1993). Draft AFT position on inclusion. (Available from the
American Federation of Teachers, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001)
Ames, C., & Ames, R. (Eds.). (1989). Research on motivation in education: The classroom milieu,
Vol. 3. San Diego: Academic.
Anders, P. L., & Evans, K. S. (1994). Relationship between teachers' beliefs and their instructional
practice in reading. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction
with text (pp. 137-153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps. (1991). TASH resolutions and policy statement.
(Available from The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11201 Greenwood Ave-
nue N, Seattle, WA 98133)
Berryman, J. D., & Berryman, C. R. (1981, April). Use of the "Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming
Scale" with rural Georgia teachers. Paper presented at American Educational Research Asso-
ciation meeting, Los Angeles. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 346 082)
Borko, H., Davinroy, R. H., Flory, M. D., & Hiebert, E. H. (1994). Teachers' knowledge and beliefs
about summary as a component of reading. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs
about text and instruction with text (pp. 155-182). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clark, M. D. (1997). Teacher response to learning disability: A test of attributional principles. Jour-
nal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 69-79.
Council for Learning Disabilities. (1993). Concerns about the "full inclusion" of students with learn-
ing disabilities in regular education classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16, 126.
Eiserman, W. D., Shisler, L., & Healey, S. (1995). A community assessment of preschool providers'
attitudes toward inclusion. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 149-167.
Folsom-Meck, S. L. (1995). Validity and reliability of a mainstreaming attitude inventory for
child-care providers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 80, 1113-1114.
Garner, R., & Alexander, P. A. (1994). Beliefs about text and instruction with text. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Hanline, M. F. (1985). Integrating disabled children. Young Children, 40, 45-48.
Hyson, M. C., & l.,ee, K. (1996). Assessing early childhood teachers' beliefs about emotions: Con-
tent, contexts, and implications for practice. Early Education and Development, 7, 59-78.
Johnson, A. (1987). Attitudes toward mainstreaming: Implications for inservice training and teaching
the handicapped. Education, 107, 229-233.
Marchant, C. (1995). Teachers' views of integrated preschools, Journal of Early Intervention, 19,
61-73.
Miller, S. A., Manhal, M., & Mee, L. L. (1991). Parental beliefs, parental accuracy, and children's
performance: A search for causal relations. Developmental Psychology, 27, 267-276.
Moeller, A. J., & Ishii-Jordan, S. (1996). Teacher efficacy: A model for teacher development and
inclusion. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 293-310.
Odom, S. L., & McEvoy, M. A. (1990). Mainstreaming at the preschool level: Potential barriers and
tasks for the field. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 10, 48-61.
Olson, D. R., & Astington, J. W. (1993). Thinking about thinking: Learning how to take statements
and hold beliefs. Educational Psychologist, 28, 7-23.
Peck, C. A. (1993). Ecological perspectives on the implementation of integrated early childhood pro-
grams. In C. A. Peck, S. L. Odom, & D. D. Bricker (Eds.), Integrating young children with dis-
abilities into community programs: Ecological perspectives on research and implementation
(pp. 3 - 16). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
124 Stoiber, GetUnger, and Goetz

Peck, C. A., Odom, S. L., & Bricker, D. D. (1993). Integrating young children with disabilities into
community programs: Ecological perspectives on research and implementation. Baltimore,
MD: Brookes.
Putnam, J. W., Spiegel, A. N., & Bruininks, R. H. (1995). Future directions in education and inclu-
sion of students with disabilities: A Delphi investigation. Exceptional Children, 61, 553- 576.
Ryndak, D. L., Downing, J. E., Jacqueline, L. R., & Morrison, A. P. (1995). Parents' perceptions after
inclusion of their children with moderate or severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for
Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 147-157.
Salisbury, C, L. (1991). Malnstreaming during the early childhood years. Exceptional Children, 58,
146-154.
Schommer, M. (1994). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in
learning. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text
(pp. 25-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbanm.
Scruggs, T. E., & Matropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion,
1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74.
Sigel, I. E., McGillieuddy-DeLisi, A. V., & Goodnow, J. J. (Eds.). (1992). Parental belief systems:
The psychological consequences for children, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stoiber, K. C. (1992). Parents' beliefs about their children's cognitive, social, and motor functioning.
Early Education and Development, 3, 244-259.
Stoiber, K. C., & Houghton, T. G. (1993). The relationship of adolescent mothers' expectations,
knowledge, and beliefs to their young children's coping behavior. Infant Mental Health Jour-
nal, 14, 61-79.
Stoiber, K. C., & Houghton, T. G. (1994). Adolescent mothers' cognitions and behaviors as at-risk
indicators. School Psychology Quarterly, 9, 296-316.
Tomlinson, C. A., Callahan, C. M., Tomchin, E., Eiss, N., Imbeau, N., & Landrum, M. (1997).
Becoming architects of communities of learning: Addressing academic diversity in contempo-
rary classrooms. Exceptional Children, 63, 269-282.
Vaughn, S.; Schumm, J. S., Jallad, B., Slusher, J., & Saumell, L. (1996). Teachers' views of inclu-
sion. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11, 96-106.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. New York:
Springer-Vedag.
York, J., & Tundidor, M. (1995). Issues raised in the name of inclusion: Perspectives of educators,
parents, and students. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20,
31-44.
York, J., Vandercook, T., Macdonald, C., Heise-Neff, C., & Caughey, E. (1992). Feedback from
teachers and classmates about integrating middle school learners with severe disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 58, 244-259.

You might also like