Post-Script: Postgraduate Journal of Education Research, Vol. 8(1), August 2007, pp.

49-60

Teacher Attiitudes towards Preparatiion for Teacher Att tudes towards Preparat on for IIncllusiion IIn Support of a Uniifiied Teacher nc us on n Support of a Un f ed Teacher Preparatiion Program Preparat on Program

Miichelllle L.. W.. Hsiien M che e L W Hs en

ABSTRACT. This paper provides a critical examination of the existing literature surrounding general and special education teacher attitudes and beliefs toward inclusion. Teacher attitudes toward inclusion are determined by several factors. In particular, attitudinal variables associated with teacher training and perceived levels of efficacy are highlighted. Literature has reflected a pronounced focus on teacher responses to inclusion, but little research has been done examining teacher attitudes toward their pre-service preparation for inclusion. The gradually changing demographics of schools in Victoria require teachers to be aware of the complexities involved in teaching diverse learners. Through an examination of the relationship between special and general education teacher perspectives on training needs and their attitudes toward inclusion, this study advocates the unification of pre-service teacher preparation programs as the way forward to better cater to the needs of diverse learners. Research on teacher attitudes toward their pre-service preparation for inclusion should be undertaken to improve teacher preparation programs in order to better support teachers in the demanding inclusive classroom environment.

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY Current research on teacher attitudes has focused primarily on teacher responses to the inclusion of children with disabilities in the regular education classroom (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Cook, Tankersley, Cook & Landrum, 2000; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Despite the presence of literature identifying teacher concerns and needs to facilitate successful inclusive practices (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick & Scheer, 1999; Minke, Bear, Deemer & Griffin, 1999; Smith & Dlugosh, 1999; Smith & Smith, 2000), there has been little available research examining teacher attitudes toward their teacher preparation programs, or if these programs are thought to be adequate in providing the fundamental knowledge necessary for the practice of inclusion in the regular education classroom.

Post-Script is at http://www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au/research/resources/student_res/pscript_past.html ISSN 1444-383X Published August 2007 2007 Faculty of Education

Post-Script, Volume 8(1)

50

The attitudes of teachers toward inclusion are significantly influenced by their own perceived levels of efficacy, particularly in the teaching of children with disabilities in their classrooms (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Forlin 1998; Jordan, Karcaali-Iftar & Patrick Diamond, 1993; Soodak, Podell & Lehman 1998). This has often been associated with the training teachers have had at pre-service level (Avramidis, Bayliss & Burden, 2000; Campbell, Gilmore & Cuskelly, 2003; Martinez, 2003; Shade & Stewart, 2001; Shippen, Crites, Houchins, Ramsey & Simon, 2005). Research on teacher preparation has been found to be fundamentally flawed due to the lack of specific knowledge surrounding the field worldwide (Hamre & Olyer, 2004). In addition, the complexities surrounding the concept of inclusion and teacher attitudes toward inclusion are not straightforward, and depend on a constant interplay of factors. Several studies have shown that positive teacher attitudes toward inclusion are influenced by a myriad of factors, such as the overriding policies on inclusion, school ethos, available resources, and level of support in catering for the needs of children with disabilities (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Romi & Leyser, 2006; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Apart from the above mentioned factors, of particular interest to this paper are the attitudes of teachers toward their perceived levels of teacher efficacy and training, affected by the traditionally separate tracks of general and special education teacher preparation. Given the increased emphasis on prevailing government policies in Victoria supporting the inclusion of children with disabilities in the regular education classroom, it is imperative to examine the variables affecting teacher efficacy in relation to teacher attitudes toward training for inclusion at pre-service level. Further, this paper advocates the unification of general and special education teacher preparation programs at pre-service level to better cater for the needs of children with disabilities. Inclusion in the Victorian Context The inclusion of children with disabilities in the regular education classroom is a relatively recent phenomenon, taking centre-stage in educational reforms in the last two decades. Foreman (2005) defines inclusion as based on 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). In Victoria, the inclusion of children with disabilities came into focus in 1984 with the Ministerial Review for Integration in Victorian Education (Collins, 1984). This report reviewed and conceptualized the States educational services for persons with disabilities based on the following principles: (1) that every child has a right to be educated in a regular school, (2) non-categorisation, (3) that resources should, to the greatest extent possible be school-based, (4) collaborative decision-making processes, and, (5) that all children can learn and be taught. Challenging the traditional dual system of education where students with disabilities are educated in segregated settings, the stance of inclusion taken by the Victorian government is firmly entrenched in the principles of human rights and social justice (Ashman & Elkins, 1994; de Lemos, 1994; Jenkinson, 1997). A fundamental belief in equitable access to opportunities, and education, marks the departure from segregated systems of educational provision to one that values and embraces
Michelle L. W. Hsien Teacher Attitudes towards Preparation for Inclusion In Support of a Unified Teacher Preparation Program

Post-Script, Volume 8(1)

51

diversity in the regular education classroom (Chenoweth & Stehlik, 2004; Kenworthy & Whittaker, 2000) and allows the achievement of equal educational outcomes. The Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) has also been instrumental in the reaffirmation of the rights of children with disabilities in Victoria, to participate in education and be afforded the opportunity to develop to their fullest potential and improve their life chances (DAlonso, Giordano & Vanleeuwen, 1997; Ferguson & Ferguson, 1998; OECD, 1999; Wedell, 2005). Since the Collins Report (1984), the 2001 Ministerial Review and other research have made recommendations to improve the capacity of educators to undertake collective responsibility for all children, regardless of impairment or disability. The recent Disability Standards for Education 2005 announced by the Commonwealth government (Ruddock, 2005) reiterate that it is unlawful for any educational authority/institution to reject entry based on disability, and that reasonable adjustments have to be made to assist children with disabilities in their enrolment, participation, and use of available facilities. A commitment to the fundamental principle that all young people should have the right and access to education in the regular school setting has direct implications for teacher attitudes and adequate training for inclusion. The importance of teacher preparation for inclusion through training in inclusive practices, curriculum adaptations, assessment and reporting for children with disabilities, as well as professional development in the regular school setting, is also emphasized by other research (Cullen & Brown, 1992; de Lemos, 1994; Loreman & Deppeler, 2000). The role of universities has also been highlighted. In particular, it has been proposed that existing pre-service teacher education courses include opportunities for familiarization with integrated classroom environments and to implement the appropriate strategies to facilitate successful integration. From the recommendations of the Victorian government and relevant research, it is apparent that teacher preparation for inclusion is essential for facilitating the practice of inclusion. Available research has also advocated the importance of positive teacher attitudes and beliefs toward inclusion, which are intertwined with the variables of teacher efficacy and practice. Of particular interest are the similarities and differences that between the general and special education teacher. General and Special Education Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs on Inclusion Positive attitudes reflecting a commitment to develop children with disabilities often determine the extent to which children with disabilities are accepted as part of the school community (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Harvey, 1992; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Current research on teacher attitudes has shown that both general and special education teachers are support the principle of inclusion, which advocates the rights of children with disabilities to be educated in the same educational setting as their peers (Minke et al, 1996; OShea, Stoddard & OShea, 2000; Semmel, Abernathy, Butera & Lesar, 1991). Research has also shown that both groups of teachers have similar feelings of apprehension with regard to the ability of the regular education
Michelle L. W. Hsien Teacher Attitudes towards Preparation for Inclusion In Support of a Unified Teacher Preparation Program

Post-Script, Volume 8(1)

52

classroom to cater for the needs of children with disabilities, as well as the practicability of inclusion practices (Romano & Chambliss, 2000; Semmel et al, 1991; Soodak et al, 1998; Taylor, Richards, Goldstein & Schilit 1997). Several studies have also reported that special education teachers tend to hold more positive and optimistic views about inclusion compared with general education teachers (Cochran, 1998; Forlin, Douglas & Hattie, 1996; Semmel et al, 1991; Romi & Leyser, 2006; Villa, Thousand, Meyers & Nevin, 1996). Special education teachers tend to be more accepting of inclusion and see themselves as integral in facilitating positive social relationships between children with and without disabilities, and are more likely to intervene during conflict (Pavri & Monda-Amaya, 2001). However, other studies (Janney, Snell, Beers & Rayne, 1995; Lopes, Monteiro, Sil & Quinn, 2004; Villa et al, 1996) have indicated that there are no clear divisions between the attitudes and beliefs of general and special education teachers toward inclusion, particularly where collaboration and effective partnerships exist between both groups of teachers. Therefore, it appears that both general and special education teachers agree on the principle of inclusion, although their attitudes toward the feasibility of inclusion differ to some degree. If collaborative partnerships between general and special education teachers have been evidenced by research (Mastropieri et al, 2005; Trent, Driver, Wood, Parrott, Martin & Smith, 2003) to bring about more positive attitudes, the increasingly collaborative nature of inclusive classrooms can be said to depend on, and also affect, the attitudes of both groups of teachers (Forlin et al, 1996). Further, it can be posited that the attitudinal differences between special and general education teachers are directly influenced by teacher perceptions of their own efficacy, brought about by experience and training. Teacher Efficacy and Training Teacher efficacy and training are significant variables which have been known to affect teacher receptivity toward inclusion (Brownell & Pajares, 1999; Jordan et al, 1993; Soodak et al, 1998). In this paper, teacher efficacy is taken to mean the confidence, knowledge, and training associated with the extent of implementing inclusive practices within the regular education classroom. Key aspects of teacher efficacy in an inclusive classroom include sufficient knowledge and the ability to manage diverse needs, as well as the ability to adapt curriculum and instructional strategies to facilitate learning outcomes (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Forlin 1998; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Perceived levels of teacher efficacy in coping with the demands of the inclusive classroom are often determined by the sufficiency of training for inclusion. Research comparing the efficacy levels of special and general education teachers has found that general education teachers often find themselves lacking in knowledge and competencies deemed necessary for teaching in an inclusive classroom as compared with their special education counterparts (Buell et al, 1999; Pace, 2003; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). General education teachers have also reported that they perceive special education teachers to be better trained and to have more effective methods for teaching children with disabilities (Lopes et al, 2004; Minke et al, 1996; OShea et al, 2000).
Michelle L. W. Hsien Teacher Attitudes towards Preparation for Inclusion In Support of a Unified Teacher Preparation Program

Post-Script, Volume 8(1)

53

Concomitant with the views expressed by general education teachers, research has also shown that special education teachers perceive themselves to be more competent, better trained, more effective, and more able to implement teaching adaptations for children with disabilities in their classrooms (Buell et al, 1999; Minke et al, 1994). The higher efficacy levels of special education teachers in the practice of inclusion within the regular classroom indicate that specific training to cater for children with disabilities is critical to improving teacher efficacy (Brownell, Ross, Colon & McCallum, 2005). Within the regular classroom environment, children with disabilities are the collective responsibility of both the general and special education teacher. Training for inclusion within general education teacher preparation programs will alert teachers to better understand the goals, objectives, and implementation strategies for the various support services available to better cater for children with disabilities (Nougaret, Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2005; OShea et al, 2000). Increased knowledge about inclusion brings about higher levels of confidence, and dissipates the fear and anxiousness often associated with the lack of awareness and exposure to children with disabilities (Avramidis et al, 2000). Thus, the acquisition of knowledge about disabilities builds confidence, and contributes to higher levels of teacher efficacy and more positive attitudes toward the inclusion of children with disabilities. It is thus necessary to address the disparity in efficacy levels reflected by general education teachers through adequate training in order to better cater to the diversity of needs in the regular education classroom, particularly at the pre-service level. Pre-Service Teacher Preparation for Inclusion Research has shown that positive teacher attitudes toward the inclusion of children with disabilities in the regular education classroom often begin during pre-service teacher preparation (Avramidis et al, 2000; Campbell et al, 2003; Martinez, 2003; Shade & Stewart, 2001; Shippen et al, 2005). The acquisition of essential knowledge and strategies in the implementation of inclusive practices is critical during pre-service training, because it can affect teacher efficacy levels and their attitudes toward inclusion. General and special education teacher training have been traditionally separate from each other. These two streams of teacher preparation are known to have different focuses and priorities, with marked disparities in content and pedagogical approaches. Brownell et al (2005) reported that general teacher education programs were found to have little focus on the provision of knowledge and training in the area of managing children with disabilities. In contrast, special education teacher preparation programs had pronounced emphasis on inclusion and diversity, and differed in teaching philosophy as compared to that of general education teacher preparation. It is important to note that the lack of knowledge with regard to existing teacher preparation programs (Hamre & Olyer, 2004) at the pre-service level, as well as the complexities in the study of teacher preparation itself, make it difficult to recommend specific content appropriate for the practice of inclusion. What is known, however, is that the recent restructuring of pre-service teacher preparation programs has been
Michelle L. W. Hsien Teacher Attitudes towards Preparation for Inclusion In Support of a Unified Teacher Preparation Program

Post-Script, Volume 8(1)

54

motivated in part by prevailing government policies which encourage the increased participation of children with disabilities within the regular school setting. This move towards educational inclusion has seen several pre-service general teacher preparation programs include components traditionally limited to special education (Avramidis et al, 2000; Shippen et al, 2005), and in so doing, contribute to the eventual improvement of teacher efficacy levels. Though seen as generally beneficial, the introduction of special education content into general education teacher preparation programs has met with conflicting responses, with studies contesting the number of subjects needed to effect changes in teacher attitudes toward inclusion. Some studies (Shade & Stewart, 2001; Shippen et al, 2005) have reported that the inclusion of a single subject on exceptional students is sufficient to improve teacher attitudes, while others have revealed that a single course makes no significant difference in attitudinal changes of pre-service teachers (Martinez, 2003; Romi & Leyser, 2006; Tait & Purdie, 2000). Other research studies (Kamens, Loprete & Slostad, 2000; Martinez, 2003) have proposed that more units be included in general teacher education courses, as well as the incorporation of practical field experiences to ameliorate fears pertaining to the inclusion of children with disabilities (Campbell et al, 2003; Pace, 2003). It important to acknowledge the important role that pre-service teacher training plays in fostering teacher efficacy and confidence regarding the implementation of inclusive practices. Teacher training for inclusion at a pre-service level may more adequately prepare new teachers for the challenge of the inclusive classroom environment, and contribute to higher levels of efficacy (Dickens-Smith, 1995). Further, pre-service teacher inclusion training may be the most appropriate and effective platform in shaping teacher attitudes toward inclusion, as pre-service teachers may not yet have had to cope with most of the additional demands of teaching, such as increased administrative or extra-curricular responsibilities. This recognition of the potential impact of pre-service teacher preparation has sparked several studies, in which models have been proposed to improve pre-service teacher education for inclusion in the schools (Ford, Pugach & Otis-Wilborn, 2001; Golder, Norwich & Bayliss; 2005; Sim, 2006). The collaboration between schools and universities as a model of pre-service teacher training has also been explored by several researchers (Bondy, Stafford & Mott, 2005; Kluth & Straut, 2003; Sealey, Roberts & Hutchkins, 1997; Siebert & Britten, 2003), where field experience of preservice teachers has allowed for exposure to teaching within an inclusive classroom. While it is important that the restructuring of teacher preparation programs considers the formulation of models and effective methods to deliver content on inclusion, it is equally essential that these programs take into consideration the training needs that have been indicated by existing teachers. Several studies have reported that the areas of need concerning inclusion include classroom management strategies, adaptation of curriculum and materials, and the roles and responsibilities associated with collaboration between general and special education teachers (Buell et al, 1999; Kamens et al, 2000; Taylor et al, 1997; Westwood & Graham, 2003). The needs indicated by existing general and special education teachers should be incorporated
Michelle L. W. Hsien Teacher Attitudes towards Preparation for Inclusion In Support of a Unified Teacher Preparation Program

Post-Script, Volume 8(1)

55

into pre-service teacher training in order to address and alleviate potentially similar concerns by future teachers. An examination into the attitudes of current teachers toward their teacher preparation experiences for inclusion may also prove beneficial in better determining the subjects relevant to practice in the inclusive classroom. Attitudes toward the perceived adequacy of pre-service training for inclusion would also contribute to the formulation and development of teacher preparation programs that would better cater to, and address the needs of teachers. It is apparent that with the gradual inclusion of children with disabilities into the regular education classroom, there is a need for special education content to be incorporated into general education teacher preparation, and vice versa. Further, the complexities of the inclusive regular education classroom has heralded collaboration between general and special education teachers to better meet the needs of children with disabilities in their classrooms (Mastropieri et al, 2005; Trent el al, 2003). Therefore, given the above literature, it is reasonable to propose that the traditionally distinct and separate tracks of general and special education teacher preparation be unified to reduce the gap between pedagogical approaches, knowledge, and in so doing, foster the positive development of collaborative relationships and teacher attitudes toward inclusion. The Unification of Teacher Preparation Programs In considering the variations between general and special education teacher preparation programs and the resultant effects on perceived levels of teacher efficacy, the unification of teacher preparation programs may be the means by which existing differences between the two can be bridged. In addition, the concerns put forward by both existing general and special education teachers can be better addressed through a unified teacher preparation program (Romi & Leyser, 2006). The unification of teacher preparation programs essentially demands a redesign of existing programs to effectively blend the streams of general and special education teacher preparation together (Pugach, 1996), which includes taking into account the common concerns and issues that teachers have about meeting the needs of diverse learners in their classes (Stainback, Stainback & Forest, 1989). Existing research advocates the inclusion of special education elements in general teacher preparation programs to aid in the demystification of disability through subjects on diverse learners, special needs and field experiences (Baker & Zigmond, 1990; Ford et al, 2001; Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). These quick-fixes in the absence of common underlying philosophies, goals and objectives on inclusion at pre-service level do not necessarily end up contributing to the expertise essential for the wellbeing and development of children with disabilities in the regular classroom environment. Further, inclusive education is an evolutionary process and goes beyond the mere idea of assimilating children with disabilities into the regular school environment. It requires changes to be made to the existing education system in terms of political and school reforms. The increasingly collaborative nature of the inclusive classroom requires more than just the effective partnership between the special and general education teacher, both of whom have traditionally been exposed to fundamentally different approaches and focuses on inclusion (Brownell et al, 2005).

Michelle L. W. Hsien

Teacher Attitudes towards Preparation for Inclusion In Support of a Unified Teacher Preparation Program

Post-Script, Volume 8(1)

56

The meshing of the two different roles in a unified teacher education program has the potential to contribute to reducing conflict in the objectives, philosophies and instructional approaches to inclusion of the two kinds of teacher education programs. In addition, the strengths of both general and special education teacher preparation can be fused together in a common teacher preparation program to improve teacher efficacy, promote collaboration and reduce existing concerns put forward by both groups of teachers about each others training needs. Other positive attributes of a unified teacher preparation program include the flexible and more efficient use of resources and increased integrity of curriculum (Xu, Gelfer & Filler, 2003). Therefore, a unified teacher preparation program would allow for a change in attitudes toward inclusion based on common underlying philosophies of inclusion. This can be achieved through the provision of knowledge, field experience and practice common to all teachers to produce equity in learning opportunities for all children resulting in better learning outcomes (Bynoe, 1998; Stainback et al, 1989). DISCUSSION The relationship between teacher attitudes, teacher efficacy and training toward inclusion is complex. Literature has shown these factors to be highly mutually dependent, and thus it is nothing short of impossible to isolate individual variables or to put them one above the other. The effect of teacher preparation for inclusion is known to have significantly affected efficacy levels and teacher attitudes. Teacher efficacy in implementing inclusion directly affects their practices and attitudes toward including children with disabilities in their classrooms (Brownell & Pajares, 1999; Jordan et al, 1993; Soodak et al, 1998). Comparing the efficacy and attitudinal differences between general and special education teachers, it is apparent that the emphasis on inclusion, taken within special education teacher preparation, has contributed to more positive attitudes and higher efficacy levels (Brownell et al, 2005). At the same time, this implies that general education teacher preparation programs are lacking in elements to better prepare teachers for the diversity now synonymous with inclusion in the regular education classroom. It has been proposed that this discrepancy in general education teacher preparation be addressed via the inclusion of some special education content (Ford et al, 2001), but this may not be sufficient on its own to address the needs of teachers due to the changing demands of teaching. Additionally, the inclusive teaching environment has inevitably changed the traditionally separate roles of the general and special education teacher, to shared responsibility and collaboration as one single entity. Collaborative partnerships between the general and special education teacher have also been factored to improve efficacy and attitudes toward inclusion (Janney et al, 1995; Lopes et al, 2004; Villa et al, 1996). However, success of this partnership is extremely dependent on the relationships forged between the two groups of teachers. Accommodations and compromises between the general and special education teacher have to be made in terms of their expectations for instructional delivery within the classroom, teaching styles, curriculum demands as well as working within the constraints of time in planning for lessons.
Michelle L. W. Hsien Teacher Attitudes towards Preparation for Inclusion In Support of a Unified Teacher Preparation Program

Post-Script, Volume 8(1)

57

Within Victoria, prevailing government policies have acknowledged the need for teachers to be better prepared for the inclusive classroom, with emphasis on teacher preparation at the pre-service level (Collins, 1984; de Lemos, 1994). It is interesting to note that in Victoria the streams of special and general pre-service teacher education are not differentiated, thereby indicating that all teachers should commonly embrace the philosophy of inclusion and be appropriately trained to cater to the needs of all students in the regular education classroom. Additionally, the changing educational climate has influenced a corresponding change in the roles of the general and special education teacher. Higher levels of accountability, greater personal involvement in education reform and the development of curriculum have become part and parcel of teaching (Forlin, 1998), as with collaborative efforts with parents and relevant support personnel out of the school environment. The unification of teacher preparation at the pre-service level can be envisioned to bridge some of the existing gaps and concerns as indicated by current practising special and general educators on inclusion. It is imperative that the processes surrounding special education be demystified through common subjects about disabilities and inclusive practices, to foster the overall improvement of teacher efficacy levels and attitudes toward inclusion (Romi & Leyser, 2006). A unified teacher preparation program serves this purpose, taking into account reforms based on the identification of strengths from within the two separate tracks of teacher education. These strengths can be derived from how existing teachers perceive their preparation programs as adequately preparing them for inclusion in the regular education classroom, in terms of relevant content and program delivery. CONCLUSION In sum, this paper provides the background to the stand on inclusion undertaken by the Victorian government and its call for teachers to be more adequately prepared to cater to the needs of diverse learners in the regular classroom environment. A comparison of the attitudes and beliefs of general and special education teachers has revealed that both groups of teachers do agree on the principle of inclusion, but differ with respect to their perceived efficacy levels and the feasibility of successfully implementing inclusive practices. Both groups of teachers have also identified different areas of concern and needs that should and can be addressed at the preservice level. Teacher preparation plays an important role in developing positive attitudes toward inclusion, and affects the level of confidence and knowledge which teachers regard as necessary for them to better cater for the needs of diverse learners. Given the complexity of variables affecting teacher attitudes toward inclusion, the aspects of teacher efficacy and training have been specifically highlighted in this paper. With regard to the expressed differences between general and special education teacher preparation programs, this paper supports teacher education reform in the development of a unified teacher preparation program at the pre-service level, where common philosophies and approaches to inclusive teaching are shared.

Michelle L. W. Hsien

Teacher Attitudes towards Preparation for Inclusion In Support of a Unified Teacher Preparation Program

Post-Script, Volume 8(1)

58

Recommendations for Future Research The study of teacher preparation is a complex field, as many variables surround the concepts of teacher attitudes and teacher efficacy. In order to better understand the effect of teacher preparation on inclusion, it is thus necessary to explore teacher attitudes toward the different streams of teacher preparation programs. Research on teacher attitudes toward their preparation for inclusion can contribute to the formulation of an improved (and perhaps unified) pre-service program that can better serve the needs of future teachers. Further, an examination of teacher attitudes toward their teacher preparation can aid in the identification of subjects deemed relevant for inclusion.

REFERENCES
Ashman, A., Elkins, J. (1994). Educating Children with Special Needs. Sydney: Prentice Hall. 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, 277-293. Avramidis, E., Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration/inclusion: a review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129-147. Baker, J. M., Zigmond, N. (1995). The Meaning and Practice of Inclusion for Students with Learning Disabilities: Themes and Implications from The Five Cases. The Journal of Special Education, 29(2), 163-180. Brownell, M. T., Pajares, F. (1999). Teacher Efficacy and Perceived Success in Mainstreaming Students With Learning and Behaviour Problems. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(3), 154-164. Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E.P., McCallum, C.L. (2005). Critical Features of Special Education Teacher Preparation: A Comparison with General Teacher Preparation. The Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 242-252. Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M., Scheer, S. (1999). A Survey of General and Special Education Teachers' Perceptions and Inservice Needs Concerning Inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46(2), 143-156. Bynoe, P. F. (1998). Rethinking and Retooling Teacher Preparation to Prevent Perpetual Failure by Our Children. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 37-40. Campbell, J., Gilmore, L., Cuskelly, M. (2003). Changing student teachers' attitudes towards disability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 28(4), 369379. Chenoweth, L., Stehlik, L. (2003). Implications of social capital for the inclusion of people with disabilities and families in community life. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 8(1), 59-72. Cochran, H. K. (1998, October 14-16). Differences in Teachers' Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education As Measured By The Scale of Teachers' Attitudes Toward Inclusive Classrooms. Paper presented at the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois. Collins, M. K. (1984). Integration In Victorian Education Report of the Ministerial Review of Educational Services for the Disabled. Victoria. Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., Landrum, T. (2000). Teacher Attitudes Toward Their Included Students with Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 115-135. Cullen, R. B., Brown, N. F. (1992). Integration and Special Education in Victorian Schools: A Program Effectiveness Review: Department of School Education, Melbourne.

Michelle L. W. Hsien

Teacher Attitudes towards Preparation for Inclusion In Support of a Unified Teacher Preparation Program

Post-Script, Volume 8(1)

59

D'Alonzo, B. J., Giordano, G., Vanleeuwen, D. M. (1997). Perceptions by teachers about the benefits and liabilities of inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 42(1), 4-11. de Lemos, M. M. (1994). Schooling for Students with Disabilities: Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and Training. Ferguson, P. M., Ferguson, D.L. (1998). The future of inclusive educational practice: Constructive tension and the potential for reflective reform. Childhood Education, 74(5), 302-308. Ford, A., Pugach, M. C., Otis-Wilborn, A. (2001). Preparing General Educators to Work Well with Students Who Have Disabilities: What's Reasonable at the Preservice Level? Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(4), 275-285. Foreman, P. (2005). Inclusion in Action. Melbourne: Nelson Australia. Forlin, C. (1998). Inside Four Walls. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 96-106. Forlin, C., Douglas, G., Hattie, J. (1996). Inclusive Practices: How Accepting Are Teachers? International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 43(2), 119-133. Hamre, B., Oyler, C. (2004). Preparing Teachings for Inclusive Classrooms: Learning from a Collaborative Inquiry Group. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(2), 154-163. Harvey, D. H. P. (1992). Integration in Victoria: Teachers' Attitudes After Six Years of A NoChoice Policy. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 39(1), 33-45. Janney, R. E., Snell, M. E., Beers, M. K., Raynes, M. (1995). Integrating Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities Into General Education Classes. Exceptional Children, 61(5), 425-439. Jenkinson, J. C. (1997). Mainstream or special? Educating students with disabilities. London: Routledge. Jordan, A., Kircaali-Iftar, G., Patrick Diamond, C. T. (1993). Who has a Problem, the Student of the Teacher? Differences in Teachers' Beliefs About Their Work with At-risk and Integrated Exceptional Students. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 40(1), 45-62. Kenworthy, J., Whittaker, J. (2000). Anything to Declare? The struggle for Inclusive Education and Children's Rights. Disability and Society, 15(2), 219-231. Lopes, J. A., Monteiro, I., Sil, V., Quinn, M. M. (2004). Teachers' perceptions about teaching problem students in regular classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 27(4), 394-419. Loreman, T., Deppeler, J. (2000). Inclusive Education in Victoria: The UNESCO Education for All 2000 Assessment. Interaction, 14(2&3), 13-17. Martinez, R. S. (2003). Impact of a Graduate Class on Attitudes toward Inclusion, Perceived Teaching Efficacy and Knowledge about Adapting Instruction for Children with Disabilities in Inclusive Settings. Teacher Development, 7(3), 473-494. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., McDuffie, K. (2005). Case Studies in Co-Teaching in the Content Areas: Successes, Failures, and Challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(5), 260-270. Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., Deemer, S. A., Griffin, S. M. (1996). Teachers' Experiences with Inclusive Classrooms: Implications for Special Education Reform. The Journal of Special Education, 30(2), 152-186. Nougaret, A. A., Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A. (2005). Does Teacher Education Produce Better Special Education Teachers? Exceptional Children, 71(3), 217-229. OECD. (1999). Inclusive Education at Work Students with Disabilities in Mainstream Schools. France: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 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(2), 125-141.

Michelle L. W. Hsien

Teacher Attitudes towards Preparation for Inclusion In Support of a Unified Teacher Preparation Program

Post-Script, Volume 8(1)

60

Pace, D. (2003). Increasing Awareness and Understanding of Students with Disabilities. Academic Exchange, 205-214. Pavri, S., Monda-Amaya, L. (2001). Social Support in Inclusive Schools: Student and Teacher Perspectives. Exceptional Children, 67(3), 391-410. Pugach, M. C. (1996). Unifying the Preparation of Prospective Teachers. In S. S. W. Stainback (Ed.), Controversial Issues Confronting Special Education: Divergent Perspectives (pp. 239-252). Mass.: Allyn & Bacon. Romano, K. A., Chambliss, C. (2000). K-12 Teachers' and Administrators' Attitudes Toward Inclusive Educational Practices (No. ED 443 215). 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. Ruddock, P. M. (2005). Disability Standards for Education 2005. Retrieved 10 March 2005, from http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/school_education/programmes_funding/forms_guideline s/disability_standards_for_education.htm Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S. (1995). Getting Ready for Inclusion: is the stage set? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10(169-179). Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. (1996). Teacher Perceptions of Mainstreaming/Inclusion. Exceptional Children, 63(1), 59-74. Semmel, M. I., Abernathy, T. V., Butera, G., Lesar, S. (1991). Teacher Perceptions of the Regular Education Initiative. Exceptional Children, 58(1), 9-23. Shade, R. A., Stewart, R. (2001). General Education and Special Education Preservice Teachers' Attitudes Toward Inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 46(1), 37-41. Shippen, M. E., Crites, S. A., Houchins, D. E., Ramsey, M. L., Simon, M. (2005). Preservice Teachers' Perceptions of Including Students with Disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28(2), 92-99. Smith, M. K., Dlugosh, L. L. (1999, April 19-23). Early Childhood Classroom Teachers' Perceptions of Success Inclusion: A Multiple Case Study. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Smith, M. K., Smith K. E. (2000). "I Believe in Inclusion, But...": Regular Education Early Childhood Teachers' Perceptions of Successful Inclusion. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14(2), 161-180. 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. Stainback, S., Stainback, W., Forest, M. (1989). Educating all students in the mainstream of regular education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Taylor, R. L., Richards, S. B., Goldstein, P. A., Schilit, J. (1997). Teacher Perceptions of Inclusive Settings. Teaching Exceptional Children, Jan/Feb 1997, 50-55. Trent, S. C., Driver, B. L., Wood, M. H., Parrott, P. S., Martin, T. F., Smith, W. G. (2003). Creating and sustaining a special education/general education partnership: a story of change and uncertainty. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 203-219. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education. Paris: UNESCO. Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Meyers, H., Nevin, A. (1996). Teacher and administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 63, 29-45. Wedell, K. (2005). Dilemmas in the quest for inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 3-11. Xu, Y., Gelfer, J., Filler, J. (2003) An Alternative Undergraduate Teacher Preparation Program in Early Childhood Education. Early Child Development and Care, 173(5), 489-497.

Michelle L. W. Hsien

Teacher Attitudes towards Preparation for Inclusion In Support of a Unified Teacher Preparation Program