Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 976 – 985

International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology (ICEEPSY 2011)

Preschool and primary school teachers' attitudes towards

inclusive education in Egypt: The role of experience and self-
efficacy

Mahmoud Mohamed Emam1*

Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed2*
*Psychology Dept., College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman; Assiut University, Egypt

Abstract

Inclusive Education (IE) in Egypt has recently received a momentum by the reauthorization of the Child Act in 2008 and the
issuing of IE Mandates in 2009, and 2011. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between teacher self-
efficacy and teacher attitudes toward the inclusive classroom. Research studies have demonstrated that teachers' sense of self-
efficacy directly impacts student performance. We investigated the association between teachers' perception of self-efficacy and
their attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) at preschool and primary settings. In addition,
we explored whether experience had an effect on teachers' attitudes and sense of self-efficacy. The Opinions Relevant to
Integration of Students with Disabilities (ORI) and Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TES) were administered to 95 primary school
teachers and 71 preschool teachers. Results showed that scores on the ORI could predict scores on the TES for both preschool
and primary school teachers. Teachers with more experience had more positive attitudes than teachers with less experience
whereas experience had no effect on teachers' sense of self efficacy in teaching pupils with SEN. No differences were found
between preschool and primary school teachers' attitudes, whereas primary school teachers showed a higher sense of self-efficacy
than did preschool teachers regarding the management and teaching of pupils with SEN. The results of the study are discussed in
relation to international literature on IE, reflecting on the implications of the study in relation to the policies of IE in Egypt.

© 2011Published
© 2011 Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd. Open
Ltd. Selection and/oraccess underunder
peer-review CC BY-NC-ND
responsibilitylicense.
of Dr. Zafer Bekirogullari of Cognitive – Counselling,
Research & Conference
Selection Services C-crcs.
and/or peer-review under responsibility of Dr Zafer Bekirogullari.
Keywords: Inclusive education, attitudes, self-efficacy, experience

1. Introduction

Inclusive Education (IE) has become the cliché of modern educational systems both in developed and
developing countries (Farrell, Dyson, Hutcheson, & Gallannaugh, 2007). Egypt has recently endeavoured to legalize
IE by issuing the Inclusion Mandates in 2009 and 2011 (Ministry of Education, 2009, 2011). Since then schools

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mamer@aun.edu.eg

1877-0428 © 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of Dr Zafer Bekirogullari.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.331
 Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 976 – 985 977

have had to respond to the mandates by admitting a number of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) both in
preschool and primary school settings. Concerns were raised, however, about the need of pupils with SEN to receive
high quality education which may be difficult within the currently staggering education system. The education
system in Egypt has been a topic of criticism by both politicians and scholars due to the lack of facilities, equipment,
and qualified teaching staff in addition to the absence of model curricula that can embrace diverse pupils. Within
such system a welcoming context for IE can hardly be realized. Hence, the education system in Egypt fell in the
dilemma of quality versus quantity of education which modern education system similarly experienced when they
adopted IE (Dyson, 2001). This dilemma holds the admission of more pupils with SEN at one pole and assuring
quality by raising attainment standards at the other pole (e.g. Kalambouka, Farrell, Dyson & Kaplan, 2007;
Ainscow, Booth & Dyson, 2006).
In both cases, teachers' attitudes towards IE and their sense of self-efficacy in managing pupils with SEN have
been argued to play crucial role in approaching new challenges such as that of IE (O'Shea, 2006). The work related
to teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion originated from the theoretical framework developed by Fazio (1986) who
viewed attitudes as having an evaluative component. Foreman (2005) defined inclusion as the ‘philosophy that
schools should, without question, provide for the needs of all the children in their communities, whatever the level
of their ability or disability’ (p. 12). Supported by the human rights perspective, inclusion has developed into IE
which referred to the right of every child to reach the optimal level of learning and development in formal education
settings by removing barriers to learning to all pupils in schools (Wedell, 2005).
It is suggested that understanding of the attitudes toward children with SEN could contribute to maintain a
good relationship between teachers and students, which is crucial effective inclusive practices (Pianta, 2004). The
success of IE is thus reliant on teachers’ attitudes (Salend, 2001; Van Reusen, Shosho, & Bonker, 2000). Teachers
may have different attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN based on their years of experience, their
training, and their self-efficacy beliefs (Gilmore, Campbell & Cuskelly, 2003; Hastings, & Oakford, 2003). The
majority of the teachers believed that the regular classroom is not the best resource for children with SEN and their
opinions of inclusion became more negative as their teaching experience increased (Gilmore et al., 2003). A number
of research studies suggest that teachers’ attitudes (Forlin, 2001; Pivik, McComas & Laflamme, 2002; Parasuram,
2006), and teachers’ sense of efficacy (Avramidis, Bayliss & Burden, 2000; Avramidis and Norwich, 2002) have
been imperative factors for IE.
In a comprehensive review of literature conducted by Avramidis and Norwich (2002) on teachers’ attitudes
toward the inclusion of pupils with SEN it was shown that the majority of teachers tend to have positive attitudes. In
addition, Avramidis and Norwich (2002) found that there are some factors which have an impact on teachers’
attitudes toward inclusion of pupils with SEN. These factors were: (a) those related to teachers such as gender, age,
teaching experience, and training; (b) those related to children such as the severity of the child’s disability; and (c)
those related to environment such as the availability of personnel and financial support. A number of research
studies reported that teachers’ perceived levels of efficacy had an impact on their attitudes towards the inclusion of
pupils with SEN (e.g. Forlin 1998; Soodak, Podell, & Lehman, 1998). Brownell and Pajares (1999) posited that
teachers' possession of knowledge about disabilities helps them build confidence, increase their levels of efficacy,
and promote positive attitudes toward the inclusion of children with SEN.
Self-efficacy was defined by Bandura (1977) as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the
courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). It is believed that self-efficacy is considered as
future-oriented belief concerning the level of competence an individual might display in a certain situation and
which could affect thought and emotions (Bandura, 1977). Teachers’ self-efficacy was considered a vital factor
which has a significant impact on their attitudes towards inclusion. A number of research studies concluded that
teachers’ with more confidence in inclusive classrooms tend to exhibit more positive attitudes toward inclusion
(Bradshaw & Mundia, 2006; Subban & Sharma, 2006). The higher the sense of personal efficacy, the more positive
attitudes toward inclusion teachers will have and the more willing to teach pupils with SEN they become (Lifshitz,
Glaubman, & Issawi, 2004). Teachers who have low personal efficacy believe that pupils with SEN will jeopardize
the learning of general education pupils (Lopez, Monteiro, Sil, Rutherford, & Quinn, 2004).
Teaching experience in general and experience of teaching in inclusive settings in particular were among
several factors that were shown to impact teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN (Cook, 2001;
Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Regular and special education teachers in the US with 13 or more years of teaching
experience were less supportive of inclusion than teachers with less years of experience (Leyser & Tappendorfk,
2001). Conducting a thorough and intensive review of literature on teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, Avramidis
and Norwich (2002) found similar results and concluded that teachers with more years of teaching experience were
978 Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 976 – 985

less supportive of inclusion than less experienced teachers. Gilmore et al., (2003) found teachers with fewer years of
experiences and younger teachers had more positive attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN in the
regular classroom. Taylor, Smiley and Ramasamy (2003) replicated the same conclusion. Ernst (2006) posited that
teachers’ experience and training is positively related with their support of inclusion. Similarly, a number of
research studies concluded that teachers who received training on special education had more positive attitudes
toward inclusion than their peers who did not (Avramidis and Kalyva, 2007; Koutrouba, Vamvakari, &
Theodoropoulos 2008; Parasuram 2006). Thus, it is the training and experience of working in inclusive settings that
are related with positive attitudes rather than the years of teaching experience in general (Avraidis & Norwich,
2002). Avramidis et al., (2000) concluded that teachers had more positive attitudes toward the inclusion of pupils
with physical impairment than pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties, reflecting that the type of
disability may be a determinant of teachers' attitudes.
There has been an argument in the literature with regard to the explanation of differences in attitudes. Teachers
who have positive attitudes towards inclusion consider that pupils with SEN belong to general education classrooms
(Burke & Sutherland, 2004). Conversely, teachers with negative attitudes believe that inclusion is a burden on
teachers and they should receive special service delivery in special education settings to avoid the negative impact
on their typically developing peers in the regular classroom (Zambelli & Bonni, 2004). A number of studies found
that general education teachers are not supportive of inclusion. Hammond and Ingalls (2003), for example,
concluded that most of the teachers did not support inclusion, albeit their schools had inclusive programs. Burke and
Sutherland (2004) found similar results where in-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion were negative.
Other studies found that general education teachers are less supportive of inclusion (Armstrong, Armstrong,
Lynch, & Severin, 2005; De Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2010; De Boer, Pjil, & Minnaert, 2011). Rakap and Kaczmarek
(2010) investigated Turkish general education teachers working in public elementary schools regarding the inclusion
of students with disabilities in their classrooms and their readiness to include students with severe learning
disabilities. The results indicated that the teachers had negative attitudes towards the inclusion of students with
disabilities into regular education classrooms. Alternatively, a number of researchers argued that teachers had
positive attitudes toward inclusion (O’Shea, Stoddard, & O’Shea, 2000). Research studies related to the self-efficacy
and attitudes of preschool teachers toward IE were sparse. Sari, Celikoz and Secer (2009) used a sample of
preschool teachers and concluded that attitudes of preschool teachers were undecided and that the attitudes of the
teachers toward inclusion were affected by their self-efficacy perceptions in terms of teaching dimension. Hsieh and
Hsieh (in press) concluded that early childhood teachers’ attitudes toward IE were positive.
2. The Current Study

The topic of the inclusion of children with disabilities into the regular classroom is relatively new and has not
received an adequate attention in Egypt. The purpose of the current study is to investigate the relationship between
teacher self-efficacy and teacher attitudes toward the inclusive classroom. The following questions guided the study:
x "What is the relationship between teachers' perceived efficacy and their attitudes towards the inclusion of
pupils with SEN?"
x How well does teachers' perceived efficacy predict their attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with
SEN?
x What is the effect of teachers' experience of teaching on their perceived efficacy and attitudes towards
inclusion of pupils with SEN?"
x "What is the difference between preschool teachers and primary school teachers in their sense of efficacy
and attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN?
3. Methods

The Opinions Relevant to Integration of Students with Disabilities (ORI) (Antonak and Larrivee, 1995) and the
Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) were administered to 71 preschool
teachers and 95 primary school teachers. The chosen scales were adapted using consecutive and back translation
methods by the authors.The ORI is a 6-point Likert scale containing 25 questions. The possible responses vary from
disagree very much, disagree pretty much, disagree a little, to agree a little, agree pretty much, and agree very
much. Teachers selected which response best answered the question based on their own perceptions concerning their
 Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 976 – 985 979

attitudes towards the benefits of inclusion (BoI), their attitudes toward classroom management (CM), their perceived
ability to teach special needs learners (PA), and their stance on inclusive classrooms versus separate classrooms (IE
vs. SE). Antonak and Larrivee (1995) stated on the scoring instrument that scores of 0-150 were possible. Scores
above the mean score of 75 indicated a more favorable attitude towards inclusion while scores below the mean
indicated a more unfavorable attitude. The TES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) was used to determine
teacher efficacy. The short form consists of 12 questions that are spread among three factors: (a) efficacy for
instructional strategies (EIS), (b) efficacy for classroom management (ECM), and (c) efficacy for student
engagement (ESE). The scale is set up with a Likert type scale ranging from one to nine. The scale ranges from a
response of “ QRWKLQJ´WR³ DJUHDWGHDO”. The collected data and statistical analyses were handled using SPSS
software (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences; release 16.0). All variables were graphically inspected to
assess their distribution.

Reliability of the Measures

After preparing the Arabic versions of the ORI and TES the reliability and validity issues were tested. The employed
HYDOXDWLRQ PHWKRGV LQFOXGHG SULQFLSDO FRPSRQHQW DQDO\VLV VFDOH UHOLDELOLW\ DQDO\VHV &URQEDFK¶V Į DQG VSOLW KDOI
reliability). To obtain a measure of scale reliability, internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach alphas) were
calculated for the subscales of the ORI and TES.
Table 1 Reliability Analysis of the ORI and TES Subscales
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients
95% Confidence F test with true value of .70
Interval
ORI Subscales Average Intraclass Lowe Upper Value df1 df2 Sig
Measures Correlation Bound Bound
BoI .928c .894 .955 4.184 50 350 .01
c
CM .887 .835 .928 2.666 50 450 .01
c
PA .792 .669 .874 1.441 50 100 .06
c
IE vs. SE .815 .715 .886 1.618 50 150 .01
TES Subscales Average
Measures
ECM*** .885c .826 .928 2.606 50 200 .01
ESE .831 c
.740 .896 1.778 50 150 .004
EIS .825 c
.722 .895 1.719 50 100 .01
*** BoI: Benefits of Inclusion; CM: Class Management; PA: Perceived Ability; IE vs. SE: Inclusive Education vs. Special
Education; ECM: Efficacy for Classroom Management; ESE: Efficacy for Student Engagement; EIS: Efficacy for Instructional
Strategies
As shown in table 1 results of the reliability analysis for the ORI subscales, BOI subscale indicated a Cronbach’s
alpha of .92 which was significantly different [F (50,350) = 4.184. p < .01] from the test value of .70 established by
Kaplan and Saccuzzo (2009). CM subscale indicated a Cronbach’s alpha of .88 which was significantly different [F
(50,450) = 2.66 p < .01] from the test value of .70. PA indicated a Cronbach’s alpha of .79 which was not
significantly different [F (50,100) = 1.44. p = .06] from the test value of .70 we assumed that the collected data for
this subscale was reliable. IE vs. SE subscale indicated a Cronbach’s alpha of .81 which was significantly different
[F (50,150) = 1.61 p < .01] from the test value of .70. For the TES subscales, ECM subscale indicated a Cronbach’s
alpha of .88 which was significantly different [F (50,200) = 2.60 p < .01] from the test value of .70. ESE subscale
indicated a Cronbach’s alpha of .83 which was significantly different [F (50,150) = 1.77 p < .004] from the test
value of .70. EIS subscale indicated a Cronbach’s alpha of .82 which was significantly different [F (50,100) = 1.71 p
< .01] from the test value of .70.
In order to verify the proposed factorial structure of the 25 ORI and 12 TES items a confirmatory factor analysis
with varimax rotation was carried out. For the ORI , after rotation of the four extracted factors with initial
eigenvalues greater than 1, the resulting pattern of main loadings was an identical replication of the original ORI
subscales except for item13 which was loaded by the CM factor in the original ORI whereas it was loaded by the IE
980 Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 976 – 985

vs. SE factor in the Arabic version. Loadings higher than .30 were considered. A number of items had more than
one loading over .30 and therefore they were grouped according to the highest loading they had. The same
procedure was obtained for the TES. The resulting pattern of main loadings was similar to that of the original scale
except for item 11 which was loaded by the ECM in the original TES whereas it was loaded by the EIS in the Arabic
version. Table 2 shows the item loadings for both scales.
Table 2 Factor structure and original scales of the ORI and TES (N = 161- factor solution using Varimax
Rotation with Kaiser Normalization; Loadings greater than .30 are shown in boldface).
Extracted BoI CM PA SE vs. IE ESE EIS ECM
Factor
Initial 11.929 1.964 1.167 .962 6.123 1.025 .763
eigenvalue
Explained 47.716 7.858 4.666 3.849 51.022 8.543 6.357
variance
(initial)
Explained 21.799 21.723 11.767 8.801 27.106 25.142 13.675
variance
(rotated)
Item14 .547 .010 .319 .505 .724 .341 -.019-
Item7 . 721 . 185 .133 .159 .867 .216 .193
Item3 . 706 . 184 .406 .022 .497 .408 .439
Item11 . 607 . 184 .029 .158 .688 . 304 .290
Item20 . 603 . 341 -.032- .331 .244 .642 .448
Item24 . 842 . 280 .134 .039 .447 .598 .117
Item17 . 682 . 107 .243 .260 .156 .755 .087
TES

Item4 . 203 . 771 .107 .103 .260 .793 .152

Item13 . 366 . 670 .292 .283 . 107 .261 . 778
Item9 . 321 . 452 .191 .439 . 245 .165 . 729
Item25 .388 .590 .029 .200 . 342 .348 . 622
Item12 .269 . 734 .151 .152 . 423 .171 . 692
Item1 .379 .433 .421 .108
Item16 .230 . 788 . 127 .143
Item15 .242 . 752 . 091 .129
Item6 . 289 . 711 .109 .272
Item22 . 258 . 677 .366 .187
Item2 . 407 .233 . 648 .110
Item10 .495 .264 .497 .120
Item19 .468 .256 .492 .286
Item8 . 185 .217 .341 . 762
Item5 . 186 .488 .246 . 578
Item23 . 283 .263 .196 . 572
Item21 .309 . 005 .137 . 795
 Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 976 – 985 981

Item18 .426 .143 .155 .662

4. Results

To answer the question "What is the relationship between teachers' perceived efficacy and their attitudes
towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN?" we examined the interaction between the TES subscales and the ORI
subscales. As shown in table 3, there were several statistically significant correlations. Specifically there was a
statistically significant correlation between the BoI and each of the ECM, EIS, and ESE (r = 0.60, 0.52, 0.56
respectively, p < 0.01). In addition there was a statistically significant correlation between PA and each of the ECM,
EIS, and ESE (r = 0.51, 0.54, 0.58 respectively, p < 0.01).
Table 3 Intercorrelation between TES subscales and ORI subscales
ECM EIS ESE BoI CM PA
EIS .652**
ESE .721** .727**
BoI .600** .520** .567**
CM .482** .537** .523** .710**
PA .514** .547** .581** .594** .766**
IE vs. SE .434** .454** .478** .671** .832** .767**
**
P < 0.01, Pearson correlation coefficients (p-value; two-tailed)

To answer the question "How well does teachers' perceived efficacy predict their attitudes towards the
inclusion of pupils with SEN?, a multiple regression analysis was carried out. Before conducting the regression
analysis, an overall Teacher Self Efficacy Composite score was derived from the single items on the TES by
summing the responses for the 12. The same procedure was carried out for the ORI. A reliability analysis for the
TES entire scale generated a Cronbach’s Į of .891 whereas the Cronbach’s ĮIRUWKH25,HQWLUHVFDOHZDV6SOLW
half reliability was also computed for both scales. For the TES the Guttman split-half coefficient was .85 whereas it
was .86 for the ORI. Both reliability measures exceeded the value of .70 (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009), thus
suggesting that the TES and ORI scores could be summated to produce reliable total scores. After assessing the
basic parametric assumptions for regression including normality, linearity, and multicollinearity (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007), the regression analysis as carried out having the ORI composite score as the predictor variable and the
TES composite score as the outcome variable. This produced a statistically significant regression equation (TES=
.247×Attitude score + 23.988, [R = .651, R2 = .424, F= 120.61, p < .01). Using the online statistical calculator
(Soper, 2010) the effect size for the regression was (f2) =0.736111. Furthermore, we examined the effect of the
dimensions of the ORI as predictors of the TES composite score through conducting a stepwise regression analysis
using the ORI dimensions as independent variables and the TES composite score as dependent variable. Table 4
shows that BoI alone explained 62% of the variance in TES composite score (E = .62, F= 107.20, p < 0.01. Adjusted
R Square = .39.). But when the PA was added to the model the BoI accounted for 41% and the PA accounted for
36% of the TES score (F= 76.06, p < 0.01. Adjusted R Square = .47). Using the online statistical calculator the
effect size attributable to the addition of PA was 0.17.
Table 4 Regression coefficients for ORI in predicting TES
Predictor variables B SE B ȕ%HWD T-value p value
ORI Composite Score .247 .022 .651 10.983 .01
Step 1
Const 25.02 1.79
BoI .691 .067 .629 10.35 .01
Step 2
Const 22.91 1.71 .01
BoI .450 .077 .410 5.854 .01
PA .950 .181 .368 5.250 .01
982 Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 976 – 985

To answer the question "What is the effect of teachers' experience of teaching on their perceived efficacy and
attitudes towards inclusion of pupils with SEN?" A one-way ANOVA was used to test for attitude differences
among three categories of experience (<5, from 5-10, >10 years). As shown in table 5 Attitudes towards inclusion of
pupils with SEN differed significantly across the three categories, F (2, 163) = 8.36, p= .05. Tukey post-hoc
comparisons of the three groups indicate that the 10> group (M = 67.34, 95% CI [62.60, 72.09]) gave significantly
lower attitude ratings than the 5-10 group (M = 82.04, 95% CI [75.48, 88.59]), and the <5 group (M = 81.52, 95%
CI [74.64, 88.59]) p = .05. Comparison between the 5-10 group (M = 82.04, 95% CI [75.48, 88.59]) and, >10 group
(M = 81.52, 95% CI [74.64, 88.59]) was not statistically significant at p < .05. As for teacher perception of their
teaching efficacy, the one way ANOVA analysis showed that differences in teachers' perceived efficacy among the
three categories of experience were not significant, F (2, 163) =.64, p < .05
Table 5 One way NOVA analysis for the effect of experience of teaching on ORI and TES scores
Attitude Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 8287.096 2 4143.548 8.363 .05
Within Groups 80759.609 163 495.458
Total 89046.705 165
Self-efficacy
Between Groups 100.164 2 50.082 .643 .527
Within Groups 12704.198 163 77.940
Total 12804.361 165

To answer the question "What is the difference between preschool teachers and primary school teachers in
their sense of efficacy and attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN?" differences between preschool
and primary school teachers in ORI and TES composite scores were examined using independent sample T-test. As
shown in table 6 there were no differences between preschool teachers (79.64±23.08) and primary school teachers
(73.34±23.08) on the ORI composite score; whereas primary school teachers (45.95±6.10) showed better sense of
self-efficacy in relation to the management and teaching pupils with SEN than did preschool teachers (38.57±10.03).

Table 6 Differences in ORI and TES scores between preschool and primary school teachers
Preschool (N=71) Primary School (N=95)
Mean SD Mean SD T P value
ORI Composite Score 79.64 23.08 73.34 23.09 1.73 .084
TES Composite Score 38.57 10.03 45.95 6.10 -5.86- .01

5. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes
toward the inclusion of pupils with SEN. A related purpose was to explore whether teachers’ experience had an
impact on their attitudes and sense of self-efficacy. Attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN could
predict both preschool and primary school teachers’ self-efficacy. Teachers who were more experienced had
more positive attitudes than teachers with less experience whereas teaching experience had no effect on
teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in teaching pupils with SEN. We found that there are no differences between
preschool and primary school teachers’ attitudes, whereas primary school teachers showed a higher sense of
self-efficacy than did preschool teachers regarding the management and teaching of pupils with SEN.
The results of the first question supplemented previous research which found a significant relationship
between teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN (Avramidis & Norwich,
2002; Lifshitz et al., 2004; Weisel & Dror, 2006). Teachers’ low self-efficacy may hinder the learning of pupils
with SEN in general education settings (Lopez et al., 2004). It has also been concluded that teachers with more
confidence in inclusive classrooms show more positive attitudes toward inclusion (Bradshaw & Mundia 2006;
Subban & Sharma, 2006). We also found no differences between preschool and primary teachers’ attitudes
toward inclusion. Primary school teachers were found to show higher self-efficacy than preschool teachers.
These results are promising since some research studies posited that teachers who have negative attitudes and
 Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 976 – 985 983

lower self-efficacy toward the inclusion of pupils with SEN do so because they do not have enough experience
in IE.
The level of experience had no significant effect on teachers’ self-efficacy. Alternatively, experience was
shown to play a role in teachers' attitudes. Teachers with more years of teaching experience showed less
positive attitudes than teachers with fewer years of experience. These results are consistent with previous
research studies (Balboni & Pedrabissi, 2000; de Boer et al., 2010). In the current study, the <5 group of
teachers scored higher on the ORI than the 5-10 and >10 groups. It is not surprising that teachers with less
experience had higher attitudes as they began their career while inclusion was being a buzz word. De Boer
(2010) argued that more years of teaching experience are not enough for teachers to have positive attitudes
towards IE as they become "stale" in their career. What matters for attitudes, however, is the training and
experience with IE. Teachers with such experience are likely to hold more positive attitudes. Since IE has been
recently introduced to Egypt, the results seem reasonable as teachers with more years of experience were shown
as being less supportive of IE than teachers with fewer years of experience.
We also found no differences between preschool and primary school teachers in the attitudes toward the
inclusion of pupils with SEN whereas primary school teachers showed better self-efficacy in relation to the
management of and teaching of SEN pupils. This finding can also be attributed to the fact that primary school
teachers receive more training than preschool teachers. The IEM 94 and 264 have allowed primary schools to
admit more pupils with SEN in their classrooms than in preschool settings. This has been coupled with more
training to primary school teachers. There is also a parental focus on the education of children when they reach
the primary school age compared to earlier education settings. No studies investigated the difference between
preschool and primary school teachers regarding the self-efficacy and attitudes toward the inclusion of pupils
with SEN. This contradicts with what Turgul, Ustun, Akman, Erkan, and Sendogdu (2002; cited in Sari et al.,
2009) found. They concluded that preschool teachers had favourable attitudes toward IE. Results of the studies
on IE in Turkey (Avci & Ersoy, 1999, cited in Sari et al., 2009) and other countries such as USA and England
found that preschool teachers have positive attitudes toward IE. We posit that if either pre-service preschool or
primary school teachers take enough coursework in the college about IE, their self-efficacy and attitudes may
increase and will be positive even before they get involved in profession. Other reasons that might contribute to
the lower self-efficacy and attitudes toward inclusion include the insufficient working conditions inside the
classroom, lack of physical equipments, class density, teachers’ burnout because of stress and lack of
motivation, lack of professional and qualified personnel in general education settings which embrace IE.

6. Implications for policy and practice

The current study includes a number of significant implications on the level of policy and practice. First,
Egyptian colleges of Education do not have special programs for teacher preparation with regard to pupils with
SEN. Despite IE is presented in a few college coursework, still the topics covered are limited in scope and do
not actually provide pre-service teachers with sufficient preparation to work in inclusive settings. Such
coursework should focus on such topics as the human rights perspective on IE, the support and outreach
services in IE, the expected social, emotional and academic outcomes of IE for all pupils including those with
SEN, the international trends in IE. Orientation workshops about IE should be organized in schools and local
education authorities training centers for in-service and novice teachers in order to allow teachers to develop
their skills regarding the management of inclusive classrooms. Such development is expected to promote
teachers' positive attitudes and sense of efficacy regarding the inclusion of pupils with SEN in regular schools.
In addition, the amount of funding and logistic support including equipment, resources and support staff that
inclusive schools receive from local education authorities could be a crucial element in this respect. This may
empower teachers and facilitate the issues surrounding the management of pupils with SEN in inclusive
settings.
984 Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 976 – 985

References

Ainscow, M., Booth, T. and Dyson, A. (2006). Inclusion and the standards agenda: negotiating policy pressures in
England. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(4-5), 295-308.
Antonak, R. F., & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of the Opinions Relative to
Mainstreaming Scale. Exceptional Children, 62, 139-149.
Armstrong, A., Armstrong, D., Lynch, C. and Severin, S. (2005). Special and inclusive education in the Eastern
Caribbean: policy, practice and provision. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(1), 71–87.
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129–47.
Avramidis, E., & Kalyva, E. (2007). The influence of teaching experience and professional development on Greek
teachers' attitudes towards inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22, 367-389.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). Student teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of children with
special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(3), 277-293.
Balboni, G. & Pedrabissi, L. (2000) Attitudes of Italian teachers and parents toward school inclusion of students
with mental Retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35,
148-159
Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–
215.
Bradshaw, L., & Mundia, L. (2006). Attitudes and concerns about inclusive education: Bruneian inservice and
preservice teachers. International Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 35-41.
Brownell, M. T., Pajares, F. (1999). Teacher Efficacy and Perceived Success in Mainstreaming Students With
Learning and Behavior Problems. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(3), 154-164.
Burke, K., & Sutherland, C. (2004). Attitudes toward inclusion: Knowledge vs. Experience. Education, 125(2), 163-
172.
Cook, B. G. (2001). A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward their included students with mild and severe
disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 34, 203.
De Boer, A.A., Pijl, S.J. & Minnaert, A.E. (2010). Attitudes of parents towards inclusive education: A review of the
literature, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25(2), 165-181.
De Boer, A.A., Pijl, S.J. & Minnaert, A.E.M.G. (2011). Regular primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive
education: A review of the literature, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(3), 331-353.
Dyson, A. (2001). The Guilford lecture: Special needs in the twenty-first century: Where we’ve been and where
we’re going. British Journal of Special Education, 28(1), 24-29.
Ernst, C. (2006). High school teachers' attitudes toward inclusion of students with special needs. University of
Rhode Island.
Farrell, P., Dyson. A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G. & Gallannaugh, F. (2007). Inclusion and achievement in mainstream
schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(2), 31-145.
Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The handbook of
motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 204-243). New York: Guilford Press.
Forlin, C. (1998). Teachers' personal concerns about including children with a disability in regular classrooms.
Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities,10(1), 87-110.
Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers. Educational Research, 43(3),
235-245
Gilmore, L., Campbell, J., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Developmental expectations, personality, stereotypes, and
attitudes towards inclusive education: Community and teacher view of Down Syndrome. International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 50( 1), 65-76.
Hammond, H., & Ingalls, L. (2003). Teachers Attitudes toward Inclusion : Survey Results from Elementary School
Teachers in Three Southwestern Rural School Districts. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 22(2), 24-30.
Hastings, R.P., & Oakford, S. (2003). Student teachers' attitudes toward the inclusion of children with special needs.
Educational Psychology, 23(1), 87-94.
Hsieh, W.-Y., & Hsieh, C.-M. (in press). Urban early childhood teachers attitudes towards inclusive education.
Early Child Development and Care.
Kalambouka, A., Farrell, P., Dyson, A., & Kaplan, I. (2007). The impact of placing pupils with special educational
needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educational Research, 49(4), 365-382.
 Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 976 – 985 985

Kaplan, R., & Saccuzzo, D. (2009). Student workbook for Kaplan /Saccuzzo's psychological testing: Principles,
applications and issues. New York: Wadsworth Publishing.
Koutrouba, K., Vamvakari, M., & Theodoropoulos, H. (2008). SEN students’ inclusion in Greece: factors
influencing Greek teachers’ stance, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(4) 413–421
Leyser Y, Tappendorf k. 2001. Are attitudes and practices regarding mainstreaming changing? A case of teachers in
two rural school districts. Education, 121(4),751–761.
Lifshitz, H., Glaubman, R., & Issawi, R. ( 2004). Attitudes towards inclusion: The case of Israeli and Palestinian
regular and special education teachers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19, 171-190.
Lopes, J. A., Monteiro, I., Sil, V., Rutherford, R. B., & Quinn, M. M. (2004). Teachers' perceptions about teaching
problem students in regular classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 394-419.
Ministry of Education (2009). The inclusion Mandate 94. Cairo: Egypt
Ministry of Education (2011). The inclusion Mandate 264 reformed. Cairo: Egypt
O'Shea, M. (2006). Student perception of teacher support: Effect on student achievement. PhD dissertation,
Graduate College of Bowling Green, Bowling Green, OH.
O'Shea, L. J., Stoddard, K., & O'Shea, D. J. (2000). IDEA '97 and educator standards: Special educators' perceptions
of their skills and those of general educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23, 125-141.
Parasuram, K. (2006). Variables that affect teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive education in Mumbai,
India. Disability and Society, 21, 231–42.
Pianta, R.C. (2004). Patterns of relationships between children and kindergarten teachers. Journal of School
Psychology, 32,5-31.
Pivik, J., McComas, J., & Laflamme, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education. Exceptional
Children, 69(1), 97-107.
Rakap, S., & Kaczmarek, L. (2010). Teachers. attitudes towards inclusion in Turkey. European Journal of Special
Needs Education, 25, 59-75
Salend, S. J. (2001). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices (4th ed.). Upper Saddler
River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Sari, H., Celikoz, N., & Secer, Z. (2009). An analysis of preschool teachers’ and students teachers’ attitudes to
inclusion and their self-efficacy. International Journal of Special Education, 24(3), 29-44.
Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, Student, and School Attributes as Predictors of
Teachers' Responses to Inclusion. The Journal of Special Education, 31(4), 480-497.
Soper, D.S. (2010). The free statistics calculators website. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from:
http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc.
Subban, P. & Sharma, U (2006) Primary school teachers perceptions of inclusive education in Victoria, Australia.
International Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 42-52.
Tabachnick, G. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
Taylor, R.L., Smiley, L.R., & Ramasamy, R. (2003). Effects of educational background and experience on teacher
views of inclusion. Educational Research Quarterly,26(3), 3-16.
Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive concept. Teaching and
Teacher Education 17, 783-805.
Van Reusen, A. K., Shoho, A. R., & Barker, K. S. (2000). High school teacher attitudes toward inclusion. The High
School Journal, 84, 7–20.
Wedell, K. (2005). Dilemmas in the quest for inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 32, 3–11.
Weisel, A. & Dror, O. (2006). School climate, sense of efficacy and Israeli teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of
students with special needs. SAGE publications, 1(2), 157-174.
Zambelli, F., & Bonni, R. (2004). Beliefs of teachers in Italian schools concerning the inclusion of disabled
students: A Q-sort analysis. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19(3), 351-364.