See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254310295

Knowledge and Attitudes of Early Childhood Preservice Teachers

Regarding the Inclusion of Children With Autism Spectrum
Disorder

Article  in  Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education · October 2011

DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2011.622235

CITATIONS READS

15 495

3 authors:

Nicole Eloise Barned Nancy Flanagan Knapp

University of Georgia University of Georgia
4 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   225 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett
University of Georgia
47 PUBLICATIONS   527 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PAVE for success View project

Apprentice Reading View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett on 27 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett]
On: 09 November 2011, At: 07:21
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Knowledge and Attitudes of Early

Childhood Preservice Teachers Regarding
the Inclusion of Children With Autism
Spectrum Disorder
a a
Nicole E. Barned , Nancy Flanagan Knapp & Stacey Neuharth-
a
Pritchett
a
Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia, USA

Available online: 09 Nov 2011

To cite this article: Nicole E. Barned, Nancy Flanagan Knapp & Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett (2011):
Knowledge and Attitudes of Early Childhood Preservice Teachers Regarding the Inclusion of Children
With Autism Spectrum Disorder, Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32:4, 302-321

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2011.622235

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32:302–321, 2011
Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators
ISSN: 1090-1027 print / 1745-5642 online
DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2011.622235

Knowledge and Attitudes of Early Childhood

Preservice Teachers Regarding the Inclusion of
Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

NICOLE E. BARNED, NANCY FLANAGAN KNAPP,

AND STACEY NEUHARTH-PRITCHETT
Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Georgia, Athens,
Georgia, USA

Limited research exists on what preservice teachers know and believe about children
with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) and their inclusion in general education class-
rooms, especially in early childhood education. In this preliminary study, knowledge
and attitudes of 15 early childhood preservice teachers at a large southeastern uni-
versity were surveyed using a modified version of the Autism Inclusion Questionnaire
(Segall, 2008); four of these participants also engaged in subsequent in-depth inter-
views. Results indicated preservice teachers lacked knowledge and held basic miscon-
ceptions about ASD and the needs of children with ASD in inclusive classrooms. While
participants wanted to learn more in this area and were generally supportive of inclu-
sion, they had mixed attitudes about inclusion of children with more severe disabilities
and their own future roles in an inclusive classroom. Implications for both collegiate
and noncollegiate preparation and in-service training of early childhood educators are
discussed.

An increase in the number of young children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorders
(ASD) in an era of inclusive education suggests the need for responsive early childhood
teacher preparation programs, which address the specific professional learning required
by teachers to better support children with this diagnosis (Manning, Bullock, & Gable,
2009; Pugach & Blanton, 2009; Winton & Catlett, 2009). The reauthorizations of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) (2004) and the No
Child Left Behind legislation (2001), which contains a principal mandate of highly qual-
ified teachers in classrooms, present some significant challenges to the education field in
general and specifically for early childhood educators (Ray, Bowman, & Robbins, 2006).
These current challenges are found in early childhood educators’ limited knowledge about
ASD and their misperceptions about how to best support these young children in their
classrooms. This current study specifically addresses these two concerns.

Review of the Literature

In their review of undergraduate teacher education programs, Ray and colleagues noted
an average of 8.62 hours of college coursework addressing special education, indicating
Received 3 April 2011; accepted 10 June 2011.
Address correspondence to Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett, Department of Educational Psychology,
The University of Georgia, 329 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA. E-mail: sneuhart@uga.edu

302
 Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Inclusion 303

that “the developmental and educational needs of all children simply do not appear to
be at the center of teacher preparation coursework and practice” (2006, p. 8). Minimum
credentialing requirements for teachers in early childhood classrooms vary greatly from
state to state in the U.S., ranging from a high-school education in some states to completion
of a 4-year degree or graduate training in other states (Bruder, Mogro-Wilson, Stayton,
& Dietrich, 2009; Kagan, 2009). In the current paper, we operationalize early childhood
educators as those who teach children birth to age 8. Given the diversity in the minimum
credentials of the early childhood workforce across the United States and the fact that not
all early childhood educators have the opportunity to experience collegiate preparation, it
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

is imperative that we learn what intended early childhood education majors enrolled in
collegiate preparation programs know about ASD. Such understanding will allow the field
to translate what might be taught and learned in college classrooms to other early childhood
education preparation programs.

ASD and Its Prevalence

Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) are defined as a spectrum of psychological conditions
characterized by varying degrees of impairment in communication skills (both spoken and
unspoken language—eye gaze, pointing and smiling), social interactions (showing and
sharing emotions, understanding others’ emotions and thoughts, beginning and maintain-
ing conversation) and restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior (repeating
words or patterns, following routines, playing or using the same objects or toys) (National
Institute of Mental Health, 2004). The condition is found in all racial, ethnic, and socioe-
conomic groups (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2011a). The CDC recognizes three
types of ASD that include a) Autistic Disorder (also called Classic Autism), b) Asperger’s
Syndrome, and d) Pervasive Developmental Disorder–Not Otherwise Specified. Amongst
the three types, the CDC (2009) notes that 41% of children identified with ASD also were
diagnosed with an intellectual disability.
Estimates of prevalence rates in American children range from 1:80 to 1:240 with
an average of 1 in 110 children (CDC, 2011b) and have been increasing over the last
few decades (Kogan et al., 2009). Males are four times more likely to be diagnosed with
ASD. Because the diagnosis is typically made in late preschool or upon enrollment in
formal schooling in kindergarten or later (Bertrand et al., 2001), specific prevalence rates
for children under age 5 are difficult to find. Data from two communities on children from
ages 3 to 10 years suggest prevalence rates from 3.4 to 6.7 children per 1,000 (Bertrand
et al., 2001; Yeargin-Allsopp et al., 2003).
The implementation of the IDEIA (2004) has resulted in the more frequent inclusion
of children with ASD and other special needs in general education classrooms. In 2006, the
Data Accountability Center, using IDEIA data, reported that 35,111 children ages 3–5 and
224,596 children ages 6–21 were served under the ASD classification for special edu-
cation services (Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control
and Prevention, 2008). Between 1994 and 2006, the number of 6- to 17-year-old children
with ASD in public special education programs increased nearly tenfold, from 22,664 to
211,610. It is important to recognize that not all children with ASD receive special edu-
cation services under IDEIA classification, and therefore it is likely that the figures from
the government report are underestimates of the number of children with ASD in public
education programs.
With the increase in the number of children with ASD entering schools and being
included in general education classrooms, individuals who enter the teaching profession
 304 N. E. Barned et al.

need to understand their role in facilitating inclusion of children with ASD into general
education classrooms. The challenges of including children with ASD are many because
of the nature and potential severity of the disability (Simpson, de Boer-Ott, & Smith-Myles,
2003). Preservice teachers’ knowledge about and attitudes toward children with ASD and
their inclusion may influence their performance as teachers, the future of inclusion, and the
quality of education received by children with ASD (Al Faiziz, 2007). Romi and Leyser
(2006) note successful inclusion depends on many factors, including changes in policies,
administrative structures, availability of resources, and qualified classroom teachers. While
opportunities to work with children with ASD are more frequent for inservice teachers, pre-
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

service teachers are likely to have more limited contact and experiences. Despite lack of
formal experiences, like their in-service peers, preservice teachers need to have both posi-
tive attitudes toward inclusion and knowledge about ASD and other disabilities (Simpson,
Whelan, & Zabel, 1993).

Educator’s Knowledge and Attitudes Related to Inclusion of Students With ASD

IDEIA (2004) is the primary federal legislation that mandates equal access to a free
and appropriate education for children with disabilities. Prior to age 3, additional fed-
eral legislation provides for early intervention services (birth to age 3) and access to infant
and toddler programs for children with special needs. Since the passage of the original
Education of All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142) in 1975, more and more children
with ASD have been integrated into the general education public school system.
In-service educators. A number of studies have examined practicing teachers’ knowl-
edge about and attitudes toward children with ASD, though many of these studies have
been conducted in countries other than the United States. Helps, Newsom-Davis, and
Callias (1999) investigated knowledge and understanding of ASD among 72 teaching and
support staff from inclusive and noninclusive preschools in the United Kingdom. Ten men-
tal health professionals working in the field of ASD comprised the control group. Using a
modified version of the Stone Autism Questionnaire (Stone, 1987), participants specified
factors they thought were commonly associated with a diagnosis of ASD, described diffi-
culties they faced in working with children with ASD, and provided information about their
training in working with children with ASD. Results indicated teachers held different views
of children with ASD than did mental health professionals. These differences centered
on describing important diagnostic characteristics of the disorder, specifically cognitive,
developmental, and emotional features of ASD. For example, teachers were more likely
than mental health professionals to understand that a) autism is a lifelong condition that
cannot be outgrown; b) children with ASD need structure, predictability, and explicit direc-
tion in tasks; and c) classroom organization can influence a child’s behavior. Results also
indicated the teachers and mental health professionals both lacked basic theoretical under-
standing of ASD, perhaps resulting from lack of training. Despite lack of knowledge,
participants who worked in special needs environments had remarkable understanding of
the appropriate strategies to use in facilitating learning for children with ASD.
Similarly, in another study conducted in the United Kingdom, York and colleagues
(York, von Fraunhofer, Turk, & Sedgwick, 1999), investigated 142 primary school
teachers’ knowledge of Fragile-X Syndrome, Down’s Syndrome, and ASD. Using a ques-
tionnaire to gather data, the authors found that many of the teachers had poor knowledge
of Fragile-X Syndrome, but were able to identify a variety of features typical of Down
Syndrome and ASD. Despite the ability to identify some characteristics of these two
disorders, however, teachers’ knowledge about the learning needs of children with any of
 Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Inclusion 305

these conditions was poor. Further, the authors found that knowledge about learning needs
was associated with primary school teachers’ experience teaching a child with a specific
disability.
Mavropoulou and Padeliadu (2000), using their own questionnaire, surveyed Greek
general and special education teachers’ perceptions about ASD regarding its etiology, treat-
ment, and behavioral characteristics. Results, in contrast to York and colleagues (1999),
revealed that the majority of the 64 teachers possessed adequate general knowledge of
ASD but there was confusion regarding its onset. Teachers were aware of the autistic spec-
trum and the distinct characteristics of the disorder; however, their knowledge about the
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

causes of ASD was dated. Teachers believed that ASD was a condition resulting from
poor parent–child relationships. Special education teachers were more likely to identify
correctly the specific characteristics of ASD, but general and special education teachers
were able to identify different, though appropriate, instructional priorities in the treatment
of ASD. General education teachers had a higher affinity for promoting affective relation-
ships, while special education teachers placed greater emphasis on specific educational
goals, for example, expression of desires using speech. Both groups of teachers agreed that
ASD cannot be cured. Fifty-five percent of general education teachers and 37% of special
education teachers had positive attitudes regarding integration. The authors suggested a
need for in-service training for all teachers focusing on ASD-specific characteristics.
Research conducted by McGregor and Campbell (2001) explored the attitudes, opin-
ions, and experiences of 23 specialist and 49 mainstream teachers in Scotland on the partial
or full integration of children with ASD into mainstream schools. Two questionnaires, one
for special educators and the other for general educators, were constructed to assess knowl-
edge, attitudes, and beliefs about inclusion of children with ASD. Analyses revealed that
the level of training in ASD was significantly low even among specialist teachers; only 50%
of these teachers reported specific training in ASD. Approximately 68% of mainstream
teachers received support from auxiliary staff; however, staff had not received adequate
training and guidance in working with ASD students, and their support was therefore con-
sidered unhelpful. Fifty percent of experienced teachers agreed that full integration was
not suitable for all children diagnosed with ASD because of the unpredictability of the
mainstream classroom environment and the different teaching styles needed by teachers
who would be working with children with ASD. The authors suggested the need for more
training (theoretical, practical, and in-service) and guidance for both specialist and main-
stream staff to better serve and educate children with ASD along the full range of the ASD
spectrum, as well as better support for integration.
While the research literature seems populated with more studies on teachers and ASD
outside of the U.S., there are a few studies in the U.S. that shed light on teachers’ knowl-
edge about, perceptions of, and strategies for teaching children with ASD. Hendricks
(2008) evaluated 498 special education teachers in Virginia to ascertain their knowledge of
ASD and implementation of educational practices for children with ASD, and to determine
areas of training needed by these special educators. Hendricks developed an electronic
version of the Needs Assessment of Special Educators who Serve Students with Autism
Survey to assess her participants. Hendricks, like York and colleagues (1999), found partic-
ipants had a low to intermediate level of knowledge about ASD. Teachers reported greater
general knowledge of ASD and lower levels of knowledge about specific strategies for sen-
sory motor development and social skills. Regarding implementation practices (appropriate
assessment and program planning for individuals with ASD), survey results indicated the
highest level of implementation was in the area of individualization and support strategies.
Strategies that addressed social skills were reported to be the least implemented. These data
 306 N. E. Barned et al.

support more recent studies on teachers’ lack of evidenced-based strategy use in working
with children with ASD (Morrier, Hess, & Heflin, 2010).
Another U.S. study by Segall (2008) focused on 9 general and 20 special education
teachers and 18 educational administrators. Segall collected data on participants’ expe-
riences with, knowledge of, and attitudes toward inclusion and classroom practices for
children with ASD. Using the Autism Inclusion Questionnaire (Segall, 2008), results indi-
cated most educational professionals had a positive attitude toward inclusion of students
with ASD in general education settings. However, 75% of the sample agreed that full inclu-
sion was not appropriate for all children with ASD. The number of effective inclusion
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

practices known to and used by educational professionals was better predicted by expe-
rience, rather than by knowledge or attitudes. General education teachers were found to
have the least experience with ASD and awareness of inclusion strategies. Results sug-
gested a need for training programs or inservice presentations to provide knowledge about
ASD for teachers, increased contact with children with ASD, and training on specific strat-
egy instruction to strengthen educator knowledge of evidence-based strategies for teaching
children with ASD.

Preservice teachers. A paucity of research exists on preservice teachers and their

knowledge and attitudes regarding inclusive education of children with ASD. While there
is research about preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education of children
with special needs, few of these studies have specified ASD as the main condition of
interest. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) conducted a synthesis on teacher perceptions of
mainstreaming/inclusion. This synthesis found most preservice and in-service general and
special education teachers believed they were able to teach children who required mini-
mal assistance, such as those with mild sensory, physical, or learning disabilities; however,
only a few teachers suggested that they were capable of teaching children with moderate
to severe conditions (severe sensory, physical, or intellectual disabilities). The authors also
suggested that coursework may increase awareness of techniques for inclusive teaching.
Leyser (1988) found that preservice undergraduate students (n = 30), who were
observed naturalistically, had behaviors that reflected their positive attitudes toward inclu-
sion after they received extended training, evidenced by the amount of time taken to
conduct tasks with students with disabilities in the classroom. Reber, Marshak, and Glor-
Scheib (1995) likewise examined preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. They
studied three groups of students enrolled in a large comprehensive teacher education
program and found that the type of academic preparation had an impact on attitudes of
students in teacher preparation programs (n = 182). Students who participated in a guided
practicum conveyed significantly more positive attitudes toward including students with
disabilities into general classroom settings. Further, preservice teachers’ attitudes differed
significantly depending on the nature of the disability. Children with orthopedic disabil-
ities (e.g., requiring the use of a wheelchair) received the most positive attitudes from
all participants. Children with seizure disorders received the most negative attitudes from
all participants, while children with behavior disorders fared only slightly better. ASD also
elicited negative attitudes. Overall, however, preservice teachers were generally welcoming
of the opportunity for inclusion and regarded inclusion as a fair practice.

Summary. While there is a small body of literature on both in-service and preser-
vice teachers, this literature examines a variety of different constructs associated with
ASD. Specifically among in-service teachers, the literature suggests that teachers hold
different views about ASD, have some knowledge of characteristics, limited experiences
with training to support inclusion of children with ASD in their classrooms, and limited
 Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Inclusion 307

knowledge of strategies to support children with ASD. For preservice teachers, the litera-
ture focused more on attitudes about teaching children with ASD. These attitudes were
generally perceived to be positive with increasingly positive attitudes associated with
training in teaching children with ASD.
Given this small body of literature, few of these researchers focused on children who
have ASD and tended to focus more on special needs in general. In addition, the number of
studies that specifically address early childhood educator perceptions is also limited. The
current study is a preliminary effort to address this gap in the literature by examining early
childhood preservice teachers’ knowledge and attitudes related to the inclusion of young
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

children with ASD. Using a survey methodology, we summarize our participants’ percep-
tions of young children with ASD and follow that summary with interviews of 4 of our
survey participants to gain greater understanding of their conceptions and misconceptions
of children with ASD.

Method

Participants
The data presented in this paper were drawn from a larger study on preservice teacher
perceptions of ASD. Participants in the current study include 15 preservice teachers who
expressed an interest in working with young children and either were enrolled or intended
to enroll in teacher preparation programs in early childhood. Participants were solicited
from a large pool of students enrolled in an undergraduate educational psychology course at
a large southeastern university. While the course did not focus specifically on special edu-
cation of children with ASD, it did include topics associated with individual differences,
exceptionality in general, and differentiated instruction.
All 15 of the participants were female, with 13 of the participants aged 18–24 years,
one aged 25–30 years, and one participant not indicating her age. No data were provided
by the survey participants on ethnicity. The participants varied in their year in college, with
6 participants each in their 1st and 2nd years, 2 participants in their third year, and one
participant in her 4th year of schooling. None of the participants had specific training in
educating children with ASD, but 8 participants noted experiences with children with ASD.
Following the survey results, findings derived from interviews of 4 of the 15 participants
who volunteered to talk with us further about their experiences are presented. A more
complete description of the participants is provided in the results section.

Instruments
AIQ. Survey data were collected with a modified version of the Autism Inclusion
Questionnaire (AIQ; Segall, 2008). The instrument contained items on experience with,
attitudes toward, and knowledge about children with ASD. Segall developed the AIQ to
assess experience, knowledge, attitudes, and current practices of educational professionals
(special and general educational teachers, and school administrators) as they related to
the inclusion of students with ASD. The current study used a modified version of the
original questionnaire with a reduction in the number of sections and some modification
and addition of questions, to address the characteristics of preservice teachers, as opposed
to those already working in the field.
Data were collected on participant demographics, preservice teachers’ knowledge of
ASD, and participant attitudes toward inclusive education. Regarding inclusive education,
 308 N. E. Barned et al.

participants indicated their agreement or disagreement with statements related to (a) the
importance of various factors for successful inclusion, and (b) attitudes regarding inclusive
education in general and as it related to children with ASD in particular. Data in the current
study are presented through the individual items. Given the size of the sample, it was
not possible to determine whether the items would hold together to form scales. Content
validity for the AIQ has been documented in previous studies, with internal consistency of
.86 (Segall, 2008).
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

Interviews. We conducted interviews at least a week after participants had completed

the survey. Interviews focused on examining a) the consistency of and reasons for par-
ticipants’ survey responses, and b) attitudes and values of the participants on inclusion
of students with ASD. Participants who indicated their willingness to participate in an
interview (only 4 of the 15) on their survey form engaged in an interview that lasted
approximately 30 minutes.
The interview consisted of questions connected to their survey responses, specific
questions to expand on their knowledge-related answers on survey items, and on any
conflicting or extreme responses (e.g., “strongly agree” or “strongly disagree”) in the sec-
tion of the survey on opinions and attitudes towards inclusion. Sample questions included
‘What does successful inclusion mean to you?’ ‘How would you define ASD?’ ‘Should
the severity of a child’s disability be a factor in the inclusion decision?’ ‘What sorts of
classroom practices are appropriate for children with ASD?’ and ‘Can you comment on
your experiences with children with ASD?’
All interviews were audio-recorded using a digital recorder and transcribed for analy-
sis. The use of semistructured, open-ended questions based on participant responses on the
survey was intended to provide information on authenticity and credibility of their survey
responses, as well as to delve deeper into their knowledge and opinions. We employed
a typological analysis methodology to the interview data (Hatch, 2002; LeCompte &
Preissle, 1993). We used this approach because interviews were the primary data source
for this portion of the study, interview questions were semistructured, and the research pur-
pose was to understand “the perspectives of individuals around particular topics” (Hatch,
2002, p. 152). Each interview transcript was read multiple times and coded into topics or
a typology that centered on teachers’ knowledge and attitudes of children with ASD and
inclusion, much like a theme approach used in other qualitative research studies. The spe-
cific typologies were further broken down into subtypologies: : a) conceptions of ASD;
b) view of inclusion—successful and unsuccessful; and c) role of the general education
teacher in inclusion. These typologies were formed from the literature cited earlier in the
current paper. The typologies were classificatory, essentially answering the question: What
is the phrase or excerpt from the interview data an exemplar of? Additional readings were
conducted to identify and highlight key words and phrases within the typology as well as
representative quotes that would help illuminate the perceptions of the preservice teachers.
The interview and survey responses were analyzed a final time for triangulation (Patton,
2002). Consistencies and inconsistencies between survey and interview data are reported
below.

Results
Data from the survey are presented first, followed by presentation of the data from the
interviews. Each section concludes with a summary of the findings for the section.
 Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Inclusion 309

Survey Results
Knowledge of ASD. Participants completed ratings on 15 knowledge items about the
characteristics of ASD. The synthesis of responses on the knowledge items revealed some
interesting conceptions and misconceptions about the core characteristics of the disorder.
Preservice teachers in this sample had misconceptions about the etiology of the condition;
93.3% did not know that ASD was a developmental disorder. Only slightly over half of
the sample (53.3%) acknowledged the contribution of genetics to the disorder and 60%
incorrectly perceived that children could “outgrow” the condition. Twenty percent of the
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

sample incorrectly noted the role of trauma as a cause of ASDs.

When asked about common observable behaviors of children with ASDs, preservice
teachers again demonstrated misconceptions. For example, 26.7% of the teachers incor-
rectly noted that ASDs only exist in childhood and 73.3% said that behavior therapy
was not an effective intervention. Slightly less than half of the participants (46.7%) did
not recognize the role of early intervention in assisting children with ASD, while 26.7%
incorrectly assumed that behavioral interventions for children with ASD were universal.
Another noted misconception was that children with ASDs were very similar to one another
(66.7%).
Despite these misconceptions, 80% of the sample correctly indicated that medica-
tion does not alleviate the core symptoms of ASDs. Although individuals with ASD are
often portrayed in the popular media as exhibiting special talents or abilities, only one
preservice teacher incorrectly supported this assertion (6.7%). One hundred percent of
the preservice teachers agreed that the core deficits of ASD included social understand-
ing, language difficulties, and sensory impairments. When questioned about the specifics
of Asperger’s Syndrome and High Functioning Autism, 86.7% had correct conceptions
about the diagnostic criteria. Indeed, the field itself, in the revision of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual, is currently debating this issue. Finally, 93.3% of the teachers were
correct in their perceptions of the co-occurring disabilities with ASD. Specifically, when
questioned about whether or not most children with ASD have intellectual disabilities,
these preservice teachers knew that this was not the case for most children. Recent data
from the Centers for Disease Control (2009) indicate that on average 41% of children with
ASDs are also identified with an intellectual disability. Data on responses to the knowledge
items are displayed in Table 1.

Attitudes toward inclusive education. Data were collected on 21 items to solicit pre-
service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education. Opinions differed widely across the
items measured on the instrument. In general, preservice teachers agreed children with
special needs (86.7%) and specifically children with ASD (93.3%) should be integrated
in general education settings, but expressed some apprehension that not all students with
ASD should be included (53.3%). When polled about special schools for children with
ASD, 67.7% of participants indicated that a special school would be the best placement for
children with ASD. Preservice teachers saw the benefit of inclusion for children with ASD
to increase their learning experiences (86.7%), and agreed that children without disabilities
could also benefit from interacting with children with disabilities (100%).
When polled about who should teach children with ASD, 46.7% of teachers noted that
only special educators should teach children with special needs, and 53.3% noted that only
special educators should teach children with ASD. These numbers suggest some discrep-
ancy between participants’ approval of all children’s general inclusion in classrooms (noted
earlier) and the majority’s agreement that special educators should be the only teachers to
 310 N. E. Barned et al.

Table 1
Preservice Teacher Knowledge of the Characteristics of Autism Spectrum
Disorders (N = 15)

True False

Item n % n %
ASDs are developmental disorders. 1 6.7 14 93.3
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

Genetic factors play an important role in the causes of 8 53.3 7 46.7

ASDs.
ASDs exist only in childhood. 11 73.3 4 26.7
Behavior therapy is an intervention most likely to be 4 26.7 11 73.3
effective for children with ASDs.
Children with ASDs are very similar to one another. 10 66.7 5 33.3
Early intervention demonstrates no additional benefit 7 46.7 8 53.3
to children with ASD.
If an intervention works for one child with ASD, it 11 73.3 4 26.7
will definitely work for another child with an ASD.
Medication can alleviate the core symptoms of ASDs. 3 20.0 12 80.0
Most children with ASDs have cognitive abilities in 1 6.7 14 93.3
the intellectually disabled range.
Most children with ASDs have special talents or 1 6.7 14 93.3
abilities.
In many cases, the cause of ASDs is unknown. 6 40.0 9 60.0
The core deficits in ASDs are Impaired Social 0 0 15 100.0
Understanding, Language Abnormalities, and
Impaired Sensory Functioning.
Traumatic experience very early in life can cause an 3 20.0 12 80.0
ASD.
With proper intervention, most children with an ASD 9 60.0 6 40.0
will eventually “outgrow” the disorder.
The diagnostic criteria for Asperger’s Syndrome are 2 13.3 13 86.7
identical to High Functioning Autism.

teach children with either special needs in general or ASD in particular; yet most partici-
pants likewise agreed that a good general education teacher can help a student with ASD
(80%). Preservice teachers also noted the necessity of paraprofessional support (93.3%) as
an important factor for successful inclusion.
In addition to their responses about who should staff classrooms that include chil-
dren with ASD, preservice teachers were also surveyed on the characteristics of children
with ASD and whether those characteristics were related to children’s successful inclu-
sion. Specifically, participants noted academic ability (60%), the severity of the disability
(86.7%), and the child’s personality (80%) as important factors when considering the
inclusion of children with ASD in general education classrooms. Regarding specific inter-
ventions for supporting children with ASD, preservice teachers suggested that one-on-one
intervention (86.7%), interacting with typically developing peers (100%), and medication
and drug therapy (53.3%) were viable means for providing that assistance even though
 Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Inclusion 311

80% had agreed in the knowledge section of the survey that medication did not alleviate
the core symptoms of ASD.
What is most clear across all these items assessing preservice teachers’ opinions is that
the preservice teachers themselves express some confusion about what they believe and
endorse regarding inclusion and best practices for children with ASD. Data on responses
to the attitude items are presented in Table 2.
Summary of survey results. Preservice early childhood educators demonstrated a
number of misconceptions about ASD. Indeed, the number of misconceptions clearly
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

outweighed the number of correct assertions advanced by these preservice teachers.

Participants also expressed some mixed views about inclusion. On one hand, the partic-
ipants overwhelmingly advocated for inclusion for children with ASD. However, they also
noted that inclusion was perhaps not appropriate for all children with ASD and that special
schools might be the least restrictive environment. Again, participants noted mutually ben-
eficial outcomes of inclusion for children with and without disabilities, but also indicated
some reservations about their capability to assist children with ASD and asserted that spe-
cial educators would perform better in that role. Responses also focused on some necessary
conditions of inclusion such as the assistance of a paraprofessional and consideration of
the severity of the individual child’s condition.

The Interviews
As indicated in the Methods section, four of the early childhood preservice teaching majors
who completed the survey volunteered for interviews. While these interviews confirmed
and expanded some findings from the survey data, they also contradicted some of the
participants’ responses to survey items. All interviewees were White females.
The interviewees. Chloe1 was a 1st-year student who planned to become an early
childhood teacher. She had not yet taken any coursework in special education, and so had
received no formal college-level instruction about ASD. Holly was a 2nd-year student with
an intended early childhood teacher education major; like Chloe, she had not yet taken
any coursework in special education. Elizabeth, also a 2nd-year student, planned to teach
general early childhood education after completing her degree, and, like Chloe and Holly,
had not yet taken any coursework in special education. Annie was the most educationally
advanced of the interviewees, a 3rd-year student majoring in early childhood education.
She was also the only interviewee who had received any instruction regarding ASD, as
she had completed the one special education survey course required in her program, which
briefly covered ASD.
Conceptions of ASD. The interviewees demonstrated varying understandings of
exactly what ASD was. When asked to define ASD, Holly and Chloe tended to con-
flate ASD with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), with both stating that
children with ASD primarily have trouble “focusing.” As Holly admitted openly, she
“really [didn’t] know the difference between ASD and ADHD.” However, like all of
the survey participants, they both marked as “true” the statement: The core deficits in
ASDs are Impaired Social Understanding, Language Abnormalities, and Impaired Sensory
Functioning. Their confusion of ASD symptoms with those of ADHD and the lack of any
real understanding of the disorder revealed by their interview responses calls into question

1
All names are pseudonyms.
 Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

Table 2
Preservice Teacher Opinions on Inclusive Education (N = 15)

Agree Neutral Disagree

n % n % n %
Children with an ASD should be integrated in general education settings. 14 93.3 0 0 1 6.7
The help of an auxiliary teaching professional (i.e., paraprofessional) is an important factor in the 14 93.3 1 6.7 0 0
successful inclusion of a student with an ASD.
The academic ability of the student is an important factor in the successful inclusion of a student 9 60.0 1 6.7 5 33.3
with ASD.
The severity of disability is an important factor in the successful inclusion of a student with ASD. 13 86.7 0 0 2 13.3
The student’s personality is an important factor in the successful inclusion of a student with ASD. 12 80.0 0 0 3 20.0
All students with an ASD should be included in general education settings. 8 53.3 0 0 7 46.7
Children with special education needs should be integrated in general education settings. 13 86.7 0 0 2 13.3
One on one intervention is an important factor in the successful inclusion of a student with ASD. 13 86.7 1 6.7 1 6.7
Encouraging students with an ASD to interact with typically developing peers is an important factor 15 100.0 0 0 0 0

312
in the successful inclusion of a student with ASD.
Medication and drug therapy is an important factor in the successful inclusion of a student with 8 53.3 3 20.0 4 26.7
ASD.
Only teachers with extension special education experience can be expected to deal with special 7 46.7 0 0 8 53.3
education needs in a school setting.
Only teachers with extension special education experience can be expected to deal with an ASD in a 8 53.3 0 0 7 46.7
school setting.
Inclusive education enhances the learning experience of students with disabilities. 13 86.7 2 13.3 0 0
Students with classic autism are too impaired to benefit from the activities of a regular school. 10 66.7 2 13.3 3 20.0
A good general education teacher can do a lot to help a student with ASD. 12 80.0 0 0 3 20.0
No discretionary financial resources should be allocated for the inclusion of students with an ASD. 11 73.3 2 13.3 2 13.3
Students without disabilities can benefit from contact with students with an ASD. 15 100.0 0 0 0 0
Special school specifically designed for their needs are the most appropriate placement for students 10 67.7 1 6.7 4 26.7
with an ASD.
It is important for children with an ASD to receive special education services at school. 15 100.0 0 0 0 0
 Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Inclusion 313

the actual depth of understanding by the other 13 survey participants who agreed with this
statement.
Annie and Elizabeth appeared to be more knowledgeable. Elizabeth said ASD was
“a social and learning disability like mental retardation, but more with social problems,”
while Annie stated clearly that it was “a genetic disorder,” and that “having problems with
social interactions, social cues” was “the big thing” that defined ASD.
As described above, all of the interviewees had some personal experience with chil-
dren with ASD, but these experiences also varied, and differences among interviewees’
knowledge of ASD appeared to be related to the depth of their experiences. Holly had
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

only been briefly “paired up” with a child with ASD as a volunteer, while Chloe had also
had only brief experience with a child with ASD in a classroom where she occasionally
volunteered as a high-school senior. Annie, however, had spent several years working for
and talking with the parents of a child with ASD. She commented extensively about the
parents’ struggles to receive a formal diagnosis and to get appropriate help for their child
in school. She further noted that the child himself spent a lot of time at the veterinary clinic
where she worked and eventually developed a positive relationship with her. Elizabeth had
a 12-year-old cousin with ASD whom she had known since his birth.
Regardless of their level of knowledge or experience, however, it became clear that
all four interviewees shared a common bias that was again not really reflected in their sur-
vey data. Annie was the sole survey participant who agreed with the statement that most
children with ASDs have special talents or abilities, yet the interview responses of all four
suggested their conceptions of ASD were based on people who were very high function-
ing, much like the portraits of people with ASD popularized in films and TV shows like
Rain Man and Parenthood. Elizabeth verbalizes this conception most clearly, describing
her 12-year-old cousin diagnosed with ASD as, “just a genius when it comes to Pokemon
and video games, building things,” and going on to say, “Everybody with autism that I’ve
ever interacted with has been just a genius at something.” Annie wondered whether the
father in the successful veterinary couple she worked for possibly had ASD, too, because,
“I mean, he is brilliant, but just the way his mind works—I really think he’s got it, too.”
Holly believed that a main benefit of inclusion for children with ASD was that they could
“just see what their friends or peers are doing and just try to do that, and see, like, ‘Oh
well, that’s what’s expected in the classroom,’“ apparently not realizing that difficulties in
recognizing and imitating appropriate social behaviors is characteristic for many children
with ASD. Even Chloe talked rather optimistically of all the students in a successful inclu-
sion classroom, including a child with ASD, “kind of coher[ing] together, you know, there
wouldn’t be a bunch of, like, differences.” More tellingly, none of the interviewees men-
tioned any learning challenges associated with ASD, except perhaps for some difficulty
“focusing,” and none implied that a child with ASD might have a lower than average IQ
or be unable to keep up with regular class work. Considering that fully 41% of children
diagnosed with ASD have intellectual disabilities, these interviewees, and other preservice
teachers like them, may be unprepared to deal with the inclusion of students with ASD.

Views of inclusion. When asked about inclusion of children with ASD in general edu-
cation classrooms, like all of our survey participants, these four preservice teachers were
philosophically in favor of it, though it was sometimes difficult to tell if they envisioned
full or partial inclusion, and, as stated above, none envisioned inclusion of a child with
ASD who had intellectual disabilities. Instead, their images of successful and unsuccess-
ful inclusion focused primarily on behavioral issues, and, for all but one, primarily on the
behavior of the child with ASD.
 314 N. E. Barned et al.

“Successful” and “unsuccessful” inclusion. For three of the interviewees, the main
criterion for successful inclusion was an absence of conflict or disruption for the students
who were typically developing in the classroom. For example, when asked to describe
“successful inclusion,” Chloe said inclusion would be successful if “the other students
wouldn’t be bothered,” but not if “the other students were affected,” because if the stu-
dents with ASD “were extremely disruptive, that kind of hinders the abilities of the
other students.” Holly was concerned primarily about physical disruption, saying, “If
kids that are autistic . . . are able to interact with their peers and not have a bad situa-
tion come out of it, like hitting or something,” that would be an example of successful
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

inclusion.
Elizabeth, while still supporting inclusion, was perhaps the most specific about
possible negative outcomes:

If there were no mishaps or no breakdowns or something, then I would say it

was successful . . . a mishap would be like my cousin, like, he would freak
out and just start screaming or rocking. . . . Well, I think a successful inclusion
would be if they get in there and stay calm, you know, without screaming or
shaking or getting too upset. . . . If it’s a point where it’s just dangerous, then
no, but if it’s not dangerous, then I think they should be included.

Annie was the only preservice teacher interviewed who looked at the success or failure
of inclusion primarily from the viewpoint of the student with ASD. She initially defined
“successful inclusion” as “just the child having a positive experience . . . being more
comfortable making new friends and talking to new people,” but when prompted, added,

It definitely has to do with learning, too. You know, with being able to focus
and learn in a classroom with a lot more kids, where it’s not just the one-on-one
attention. . . . If a child who has a very, very severe autism spectrum disorder
is not comfortable at all being around other people, then I think [inclusion can]
do more harm than good. If they’re worried about, you know, everything else
going on around them and more self-conscious, then I don’t think they’re going
to learn as well.

The clear concerns expressed by these interviewees about possible disruptive behavior
by students with ASD may help us understand why, while over 90% or our survey partic-
ipants agreed that children with ASD should be integrated into general education settings,
87% felt that the severity of the disability was an important factor in the success of such
inclusion, and only 53% agreed that all students with ASD should be included in general
education settings.
The benefits of inclusion. All interviewees were, however, adamant that inclusion
should be attempted when feasible because it had important benefits for both the child
with ASD and his or her potential classmates; in this, they again reflected the responses of
the vast majority of our survey participants.
Benefits for students with ASD. Chloe summed up the attitudes of all four intervie-
wees when she said, “The whole point of inclusion is to try to make things normal.” This
theme, of the need for students with ASD to experience a typical environment, and even
the possibility that such an environment might help to “normalize” the ASD student, came
 Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Inclusion 315

up repeatedly during the interviews, helping us understand better why so many of our sur-
vey participants, despite their concerns, were in favor of inclusion. Again, Annie took the
most “emic” view of this process, focusing on what experience with “the real world” might
mean to children with ASD:

I think in most cases it definitely benefits them. . . . I don’t really believe in

just having them totally separated in their own little world because then they
don’t get a taste of the real world; they’re not introduced to it, and you know
what happens when they get out of school, and they’ve never been introduced
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

to other people. And I think it just gives them a much better sense of self and
makes them more comfortable with their disorder and being around, you know,
people, other people.

Elizabeth agreed that inclusion may benefit students with ASD “a lot” because
“they’re still kids . . . they need to be around people their own age. . . . It’s important
for them to be included in the activities, ‘cause what it comes down to, they’re just kids,”
but also because “it will show them how we socially expect behavior to be, and then they
can mimic it. . . . I think if they can see examples and practice in situations like that, it will
really help them.” Holly saw this modeling as the main potential benefit of inclusion for
students with ASD, “because they could . . . just see what their friends and peers are doing
and just try to do that, and see, like, ‘Oh well, that’s what’s expected in the classroom,’ and
maybe they could work on that.” Interestingly, none of the interviewees mentioned benefits
related to greater access to grade-level curriculum or increased opportunities to learn from
their peers (except for proper behavior) as potential advantages of inclusion for children
with ASD.
Benefits for other students. Agreeing with 100% of our survey respondents, three
interviewees also mentioned important benefits inclusion may have for the classmates of
students with ASD, and again their responses helped us understand the types of benefits
the rest of our survey respondents may have been anticipating. Holly said that the “other
students” “have a lot to learn” from the inclusion experience. Elizabeth agreed, stating that
while the student with ASD is “gaining the childhood experiences they need . . . the stu-
dents around them are learning to be, I guess, tolerant; learning acceptance.” Annie used
almost the same words, while elaborating a bit more on this idea:

It just teaches them tolerance, and, you know, just kind of opens up a whole
new [world]. . . . It gives them a whole new attitude and perspective. I think it’s
important for them to know not everybody is like you, and that it’s OK, and
acceptance . . . I think they definitely benefit from it, too.

Future role(s) as general education teachers in inclusion. All of the interviewees said
that, as future teachers, they wanted and needed more knowledge about ASD. Elizabeth
voiced what seemed to be a general concern of all the interviewees—that they had been
taught and knew much less about ASD than about other, more familiar disabilities like
ADHD.

I think I should know a lot more than I do know. I’m 20 and a half, and I’m
going into my third year of college, and it’s never been addressed . . . not
only should it be taught . . . as a teacher, I think that they should teach you
 316 N. E. Barned et al.

specifically how to handle them, what to do in the situation, how to teach them
specifically, but as far as everyone else out there goes, I think that it should
be brought up; I mean, all kinds of other disabilities and stuff are brought up;
that’s just one that’s not really talked about as much.

However, the interviewees varied in terms of just how much knowledge they believed
they needed as general education preservice teachers, and this variance corresponded to
their beliefs about whether they would, or should, be teaching students with ASD.
Chloe, like over half of our survey participants, had agreed with the statement: Only
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

teachers with extensive special education experience can be expected to deal with students
with an ASD in the school setting. She explained she believed this because “I think they
need to be with someone who understands their learning styles.” However, she did think
that preservice teachers should have some knowledge about ASD “just in case.” When
asked whether, given a choice, she would prefer to teach a child with ADHD or ASD,
Chloe somewhat hesitantly chose ADHD because, “I think it would be easier . . . I know
they can be put on medicine and stuff to, like, help; I don’t know if [with] ASD, they can
do anything with that, that really helps.”
Holly had “somewhat agreed” with the survey statement given above, and, when
offered the choice during the interview, she also chose to teach a child with ADHD over
one with ASD, but “just because I’ve heard of it more . . . versus I haven’t really heard of
ASD as much.” Her interview responses, though, again suggested that she did not envision
taking primary responsibility for the education of a child with ASD in her future class-
room; she said that general education teachers should know about ASD and other special
needs because “you’ll never know who’s going to come into your classroom before they
are even diagnosed, or even during the diagnosis . . . so I think all teachers should have a
general knowledge, at least.”
Elizabeth, like Chloe, Holly, and 53% of all our survey participants, agreed that only
teachers with extensive special education experience can be expected to deal with students
with an ASD in the school setting, but she seemed to see these “experienced” teachers
as possibly being general education teachers like herself, if the current lack of training
in this area could be remedied. When asked about her agreement with this statement, she
elaborated, saying, “I’m not basing it on what it should be; I’m basing it on how it is. But if
we [general education teachers] did have knowledge of it, then I would say, by all means,
let us teach, let us help out and teach them. But we don’t; we’re not trained that way.”
Elizabeth also agreed with Chloe that ASD was “definitely” a more severe disability than
ADHD, but, unlike Chloe, for just that reason she said she would choose to teach a child
with ASD, rather than one with ADHD, because, “I feel like I would be making more of a
difference because I’m helping them, but they’re also just so much more intriguing to me.”
Unlike the other three interviewees, Annie had “strongly disagreed” with the survey
statement that only teachers “with extensive special education experience” should teach
children with ASD; she expanded on this strong opinion in her interview:

I definitely disagree with that. I don’t think that children with special needs
need to be excluded from a general education classroom, that only the special
education teachers should be responsible for them or know how to deal with
them. I think it’s really important for general education and all, anybody in
the education field to have at least some experience and to have, you know,
a decent understanding of the disorder and how they can help the students as
much as possible.
 Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Inclusion 317

Annie, like Elizabeth, would choose to teach a student with ASD, because “the disorder
itself really interests me.” She mentions the same difference as Chloe, that ADHD “can be
treated so much more with medication,” but, perhaps because of this difference, she says,
“I think I would like working with ASD more.”

Summary of interview results. Our interviewees demonstrated a range of knowledge

about and experience with ASD and a range of attitudes toward inclusion of students with
ASD and opinions about whether early childhood teachers in general, and themselves in
particular, should be expected to teach students with ASD. They all agreed that successful
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

inclusion offers benefits for both students with ASD and their typically developing class-
mates, but they tended to define successful inclusion primarily on the basis of a lack of
behavior problems or disruptions. Most focused on the experiences of the typically devel-
oping classmates, rather than on the experiences or actual content area learning of the
student with ASD.

Conclusions and Implications

Several findings emerged from this preliminary study that suggest implications for early
childhood teacher preparation programs, specifically in relation to preservice teachers’
a) knowledge about ASD and b) attitudes related to inclusion of students with ASD.

Knowledge of ASD
Results suggest that early childhood preservice teachers in this sample had limited knowl-
edge of the general characteristics of ASD, as evidenced by the high percentage of
participants who gave inaccurate responses to survey statements about the core features
of ASD. The interview responses reinforced this finding. Two of the four interviewees
failed to distinguish between ASD and ADHD in their descriptions of the disorder, and all
of them appeared to endorse the idea that most people with ASD were savants, “geniuses”
in specific and limited fields. These findings are consistent with previous studies in which
inservice teachers were also found to have low to intermediate levels of knowledge about
ASD (Helps et al., 1999; Hendricks, 2008; Segall, 2008; York et al., 1999). Interview data
suggest that most of participants’ limited knowledge of ASD had been obtained through
life experiences rather than formal coursework. In addition, all interviewees agreed that
knowledge of ASD was important for teachers, though they reported somewhat mixed
opinions on who should have what level of knowledge, with most stating that only special
educators needed in-depth knowledge of ASD, but general educators should know and be
able to use effective teaching strategies for children with ASD.
That almost all of our interviewees’ concerns about inclusion were related to stu-
dents’ behavior, rather than their learning, suggests that these preservice teachers also need
greater knowledge of classroom guidance principles and techniques to become success-
ful inclusive teachers. The language used by our interviewees to describe “unsuccessful”
inclusion—words such as “extremely disruptive,” “bad situation,” “hitting,” and even
“dangerous”—seemed to evidence real fear of losing control in a classroom situation
involving students with ASD or other special needs. Unless they learn sound guidance
techniques and develop confidence in their knowledge and ability to handle difficult or dis-
ruptive situations, these preservice teachers like those in Reber et al.’s (1995) study, may
be unwilling to include students with significant special needs, especially those that affect
behavior, in their classrooms.
 318 N. E. Barned et al.

Attitude Toward the Inclusion of Students With ASD

More encouraging was that these preservice teachers all held a generally positive attitude
toward the inclusion of students with ASD in a regular classroom setting. Most of them
agreed that inclusive education was beneficial for students with disabilities and all agreed
that their typically developing peers would benefit from such contact. Our interviewees
detailed a number of potential benefits from inclusion for both students with ASD and
their typically developing classmates, and all agreed that inclusion should be attempted
whenever feasible.
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

However, our participants’ attitudes toward inclusion were strongly influenced by the
perceived severity of the disorder. While nearly all survey respondents agreed that children
with an ASD should be integrated in general education settings, a nearly equal number
agreed that the severity of disability is an important factor in the successful inclusion of a
student with ASD, and two-thirds felt that students with classic autism are too impaired to
benefit from the activities of a regular school. These findings are consistent with previous
studies where teachers displayed generally positive attitudes toward inclusion of children
with special needs, but their attitudes varied considerably based on the type and/or sever-
ity of a disability or disorder (Avramidis & Norwich 2002; Reber, et al., 1995). Interview
data suggested that, similar to the inservice teachers in Scruggs and Mastropieri’s (1996)
synthesis, our interviewees felt comfortable with inclusion of only students with very mild
ASDs, those who would remain “calm,” could “interact with their peers,” and not have
“a bunch of differences.” Survey responses also indicated that our participants expect to
have paraprofessionals or other “experts” assigned to work in their classrooms with any
students with ASD. If these preservice teachers are going to be ready to teach in inclusive
classrooms, they need experience in inclusive classrooms through their practica, they need
to know more about how inclusion is structured in real schools, and they also need suc-
cessful models of inclusion under less than ideal circumstances with children who present
challenges.

Translating Findings From Preservice Teacher Collegiate Preparation to Other Early

Childhood Preparation Options
The data from this preliminary study focused on a collegiate teacher preparation program.
Within the early childhood field, there are a variety of pathways by which educators access
their preparation before they assume roles in the classroom. Noncollegiate pathways range
from basic training required by state agencies (e.g., courses on child abuse, fire prevention,
and universal precautions) to coursework for a child development associate credential and
other training options. These professional learning experiences, while meritorious for their
given purposes, are often not as comprehensive as formal collegiate preparation in teaching
children from birth to age 8. Given the increase in the number of young children diagnosed
with ASD enrolling in early childhood classrooms, much can be learned from what tran-
spires in collegiate preparation programs (Manning et al., 2009; Pugach & Blanton, 2009;
Winton & Catlett, 2009). Indeed, collegiate teacher education programs that are accredited
pay specific attention to schooling preservice teachers about the characteristics of children
with special needs and with ASD in particular.
Although the preservice teachers in this study lacked complete, correct knowledge
of ASD, the likelihood that they would be exposed to such information is higher than in
the array of preparation opportunities from which noncollegiate early childhood educa-
tors can choose. Yet, it was clear from this small sample that even in environments where
 Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Inclusion 319

there should be greater expertise and opportunities for field placements and a variety of
experiences working with diverse groups of children, these preservice teachers had miscon-
ceptions about ASD and opinions that were not consistent regarding successful inclusion
of children with ASD in early childhood classrooms. It could be helpful for the field to
consider additional avenues coupled with the basic course in special education to provide
placements and reflective opportunities to discuss experiences teaching children with ASD.
For example, specifically designed activities such as case studies, implementing lessons
with children, and interviewing teachers who have had extensive successful experience
with children with ASD would not only dispel some of the myths and misunderstandings
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

that preservice teachers have, but would also provide for carefully structured and sup-
portive environments in which preservice teachers can express their concerns and seek
guidance about best practices.
A patchwork of training experiences is often assembled by some early childhood edu-
cators to meet state licensing regulations. Because many of these practitioners (e.g., family
or church-based child care providers) have not experienced a 4-year collegiate preparation
program, it is imperative that we design professional learning opportunities for them. These
opportunities would allow these practitioners to confirm the accuracy of their understand-
ings and challenge the assumptions they have about teaching children with ASD, as well as
children with other special needs. Even with limited preparation from formal coursework,
early childhood teacher educators should focus on making the most of such professional
learning opportunities that can be coupled with meaningful field experiences, opportunities
for reflection about their experiences with children, and connections with mentors in the
field who have experienced successful inclusion.
Early childhood teacher educators should also focus on providing experiences in high-
quality inclusive settings where preservice teachers have support from classroom-based
mentors as well as teacher educators to process their experiences. Too often, preservice
teachers may be placed in early childhood settings that are less than ideal and do not
provide the proper support for maximizing the field placement experience. Careful consid-
eration of placements and reflection within and after such experiences could provide safe
learning environments where preservice teachers could carefully consider their experience
and solidify more appropriate and welcoming beliefs about inclusion.

Limitations
While the current study provided a glimpse into preservice teachers’ knowledge and atti-
tudes about inclusion with children with ASD, future research might focus on examining
these constructs with greater numbers of preservice teachers from a more diverse sam-
ple. Additional research could also be conducted with early childhood educators from a
variety of early childhood settings such as Head Start programs, family child care, etc., to
examine consistency of these results with perceptions of teachers from this study. Finally,
specific training models for teaching and working in field settings with young children with
ASD can be developed, assessed with knowledge and attitudinal measures, and ultimately
examined for changes in attitudes regarding inclusive practices.

A Final Thought
The policies and laws that undergird children’s educational access have afforded children
with ASD and other special needs opportunities to access early childhood environments
with increasing frequency. Our field needs to be responsive to the needs of this group
 320 N. E. Barned et al.

of children. That responsiveness begins with correct knowledge and guided experiences
in which early childhood educators may form positive and accurate opinions about the
inclusion of children with ASD.

References
Al-Faiz, H. (2007). Attitudes of elementary school teachers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia toward the inclu-
sion of children with autism in public education (ProQuest Information & Learning). Dissertation
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68, 1403–1403.

Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of
the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129–147.
Bertrand, J., Mars, A., Boyle, C., Bove, F., Yeargin-Allsoop, M., & Decoufle, P. (2001). Prevalence
of Autism in the United States population: The Brick Township, New Jersey investigation.
Pediatrics, 108, 1155–1161.
Bruder, M. B., Mogro-Wilson, C., Stayton, V., & Dietrich, S. L. (2009). The national status of
in-service professional development systems for early intervention and early childhood special
education practitioners. Infants & Children, 22(1), 13–20.
CDC, Centers for Disease Control. (2011a). Autism spectrum disorders: Data & statistics. Retrieved
from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html#risk
CDC, Centers for Disease Control. (2011b). Facts about ASD. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/
ncbddd/autism/facts.html
CDC, Centers for Disease Control. (2009). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders—Autism
and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 14 Sites, United States, 2002. MMWR
Surveillance Summaries 56(SS-01), 12–28.
Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2008).
Autism information center frequently asked questions—prevalence. Retrieved from http://www.
cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/faq_prevalence.htm
Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State University
of New York Press.
Helps, S., Newsom-Davis, I., & Callias, M. (1999). Autism: The teacher’s view. Autism: The
International Journal of Research & Practice, 3, 287–298.
Hendricks, D. R. (2008). A descriptive study of special education teachers serving students with
autism: Knowledge, practices employed, and training needs (ProQuest Information & Learning).
Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68, 4664–4664.
IDEIA, Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446,
118 Stat. 2647.
Kagan, S. L. (2009). American early childhood education: Preventing or perpetuating inequity? New
York, NY: Teachers College, Equity Matters Research Review No. 3.
Kogan, M. D., Blumberg, S. J., Schieve, L. A., Boyle, C. A., Perrin, J. M., Ghandour, R. M., . . . Van
Dyck, P. C. (2009). Prevalence of parent-reported diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder among
children in the US, 2007. Pediatrics, 124, 1395–1403.
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in education research
(2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Leyser, Y. (1988). The impact of training in mainstreaming on teacher attitudes, management
techniques, and the behaviour of disabled students. The Exceptional Child, 35(2), 85–97.
Manning, M. L., Bullock, L. M., & Gable, R. A. (2009). Personnel preparation in the area of emo-
tional and behavioral disorders: A reexamination based on teacher perceptions. Preventing School
Failure, 53, 219–226.
Mavropoulou, S., & Padeliadu, S. (2000). Greek teachers’ perceptions of autism and implications for
educational practice: A preliminary analysis. Autism: The International Journal of Research &
Practice, 4, 173–183.
 Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Inclusion 321

McGregor, E., & Campbell, E. (2001). The attitudes of teachers in Scotland to the integration of
children with autism into mainstream schools. Autism: The International Journal of Research &
Practice, 5, 189–207.
Morrier, M. J., Hess, K. L., & Heflin, L. J. (2010). Teacher training for implementation of teach-
ing strategies for students with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 1–14.
National Institute of Mental Health. (2004). Autism spectrum disorders: Pervasive developmental
disorders (Publication No. 08-511). Retrieved from http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/
autism/complete-index.shtml
Downloaded by [University of Georgia], [Stacey Neuharth-Pritchett] at 07:21 09 November 2011

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107–110 (2001).

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Pugach, M. C., & Blanton, L. P. (2009). A framework for conducting research on collaborative
teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 575–582.
Ray, A., Bowman, B., & Robbins, J. (2006, April). Preparing early childhood teachers to success-
fully educate ALL children: The contribution of four-year undergraduate teacher preparation
programs. A report to the Foundation for Child Development, New York, NY.
Reber, C. K., Marshak, L. E., and Glor-Scheib, S. (1995, April). Attitudes of preservice teachers
toward students with disabilities: Do practicum experiences make a difference? Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Romi, S., & Leyser, Y. (2006). Exploring inclusion preservice training needs: A study of variables
associated with attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
21(1), 85–105.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion,
1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59–74.
Segall, M. (2008). Inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorder: Educator experience,
knowledge, and attitudes. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Simpson, R. L., de Boer-Ott, S. R., & Smith-Myles, B. (2003). Inclusion of learners with autism
spectrum disorders in general education settings. Topics in Language Disorders, 23(2), 116–133.
Simpson, R. L., Whelan, R. J., & Zabel, R. H. (1993). Special education personnel preparation in the
21st century: Issues and strategies. Remedial and Special Education, 14(2), 7–22.
Stone, W. L. (1987). Cross-disciplinary perspectives on autism. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 12,
615–630.
Winton, P., & Catlett, C. (2009). Statewide efforts to enhance early childhood personnel preparation
programs to support inclusion: Overview and lessons learned. Infants & Young Children, 22(1),
63–70.
Yeargin-Allsopp, M., Rice, C., Karapurkar, T., Doernberg, N., Boyle, C., & Murphy, C. (2003).
Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 49–55.
York, A., von Fraunhofer, N., Turk, J., & Sedgwick, P. (1999). Fragile-X syndrome, Down’s syn-
drome and autism: Awareness and knowledge amongst special educators. Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research, 43, 314–324.

View publication stats