Teachers and Teaching

theory and practice

ISSN: 1354-0602 (Print) 1470-1278 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Inclusive education in pre-schools: predictors of

pre-service teacher attitudes in Australia

Jake Hoskin, Christopher Boyle & Joanna Anderson

To cite this article: Jake Hoskin, Christopher Boyle & Joanna Anderson (2015) Inclusive
education in pre-schools: predictors of pre-service teacher attitudes in Australia, Teachers and
Teaching, 21:8, 974-989, DOI: 10.1080/13540602.2015.1005867

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1005867

Published online: 16 Mar 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 3289

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 13 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctat20
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 2015
Vol. 21, No. 8, 974–989, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1005867

Inclusive education in pre-schools: predictors of pre-service

teacher attitudes in Australia
Jake Hoskina, Christopher Boyleb* and Joanna Andersonb
a
Faculty of Education, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; bSchool of Education,
University of New England, Armidale, Australia
(Received 7 April 2013; accepted 11 February 2014)

Teachers’ attitudes have been identified as being vital to the success of inclusive
education (IE). With pre-school student populations becoming increasingly
diverse, and many children experiencing this as their first involvement in formal
education, the attitudes towards IE of pre-school teachers are more important
than ever. This study investigated pre-service pre-school teachers in an attempt
to identify the factors that contribute to the formation of positive attitudes
towards IE in this population. Participants were 139 undergraduate and postgrad-
uate early education students studying at a metropolitan university in Australia.
Results indicated that participants generally held positive attitudes towards IE,
despite having concerns regarding their ability to implement the construct.
Attitudes did not significantly vary through years of study of the undergraduate
degree; however, postgraduate participants reported significantly lower attitudes.
While those who completed a tertiary-level unit on IE were significantly more
likely to display positive attitudes, neither personal experience with persons with
special needs nor practical classroom experience significantly influenced
attitudes. Experience, however, was found to significantly increase perceptions
of self-efficacy. Findings imply the presence of unique factors associated with
the attitudes of pre-service pre-school teachers. Implications for the structure of
pre-service pre-school education programmes and directions for future research
are discussed.
Keywords: inclusive education; inclusion; pre-school teachers; pre-service
teachers; teacher attitudes; pre-service training

Introduction
Since the publication of the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO) in 1994, there has
been a global shift towards inclusive education (IE) for special education needs
(SEN) students. The United States of America led the way with the Individual with
Disabilities Education Act of 1997 which gave SEN students a legal right to access
mainstream curriculum within regular classrooms at their local schools (Zigmond,
Kloo, & Volonino, 2009). Other countries, including South Africa, Hong Kong,
Sweden and Canada (see Burge, Ouellette-Kuntz, Hutchinson, & Box, 2008; Du
Toit & Forlin, 2009; Forlin & Sin, 2010; Mattson & Hansen, 2009 respectively for
discussion on the development of IE in these countries) followed this lead and intro-
duced policy or legislation which provided SEN students the choice of accessing

*Corresponding author. Email: chris.boyle@une.edu.au

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 975

regular classrooms in local schools. In 2006, the United Nations published the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006). This
reiterated the need for governments globally to provide IE settings for all SEN
students and has, to date, been ratified or signed off by more than 150 countries
(United Nations, 2015).
Australia has followed the same path as many other countries in adopting an IE
philosophy for the education of SEN students (Boyle, Scriven, Durning, & Downes,
2011) and in 2005, Federal legislation was introduced that made it illegal to deny
access to regular schooling on grounds of disability, unless unjustifiable hardship
could be proven (Commonwealth Government, 2006). With this change in federal,
and subsequently state government legislation (Boyle et al., 2011; Loreman &
Deepeler, 2001), education systems within Australia have reformed the way in
which SEN students are educated, moving away from the practice of segregation or
exclusion, towards IE. However, there is still much work to be done. As has been
the experience in many countries, the complex nature of IE has ensured the task of
delivering a highly effective education to all students, including those with SEN, is
a complex and challenging one for both educators and policy-makers alike (Richler,
2012).
The complexity of IE is immediately evident in the lack of a definitive global
definition of the construct, posing a challenge for those working in the field (Graham
& Slee, 2008). Despite this, both Wrigley, Thomson, and Lingard (2012), and Slee
(2011) contest that IE is best advocated for through the elimination of exclusionary
practices rather than time spent on trying to define the construct. However, when
writing about IE a definition is necessary and can be formed through consideration
of the key elements identified in IE-related literature. In general terms, IE can be
understood as a process (Topping, 2012) of developing knowledge, beliefs and prac-
tices within an education system to ensure that all students, including those with
SEN, are educated in the same classroom, by their regular classroom teacher
(Blecker & Boakes, 2010), and are participating, achieving and valued (Anderson,
Boyle, & Deppeler, 2014). While it is acknowledged that the term IE no longer
refers exclusively to the education of SEN students but rather encompasses the edu-
cation of all students (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010), for the purposes of this paper, the
term will be used in relation to the education of students with a disability.
Numerous studies have shown that SEN students educated in an IE setting dem-
onstrate improved outcomes in both academic achievement (Gibb, Turnbridge,
Chua, & Fredrickson, 2007; LeRoy & Simpson, 1996; Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009), and
social skills (Terpstra & Tamura, 2008), when compared to SEN students placed in
segregated education settings. Additionally, the research suggests IE has a similar
positive impact upon non-disabled students (Jackson, 2008), as well as on those
educators that work within IE settings (Boyle et al., 2011; Loreman, Deppeler, &
Harvey, 2011). However, despite these strong theoretical foundations and evidence
base to support its efficacy, effective IE is yet to be implemented consistently around
the globe (Allan, 2011). In response to the shortcomings of current IE practices, a
wealth of research has been conducted with the goal of identifying the factors that
contribute to the successful implementation of IE (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002;
Boyle, 2007; Sharma, Forlin & Loreman, 2008).
Initially, studies focused on the specific methods and policy of IE, attempting to
define IE and identify individual practices that resulted in its success (Loreman,
2007). However, this process was fraught with difficulties as it is widely accepted
976 J. Hoskin et al.

that IE is not simply a state that can be adopted, but rather a complex process that
requires reform at all levels of an education system (Forlin & Forlin, 2000; Ryndak,
Jackson, & Billingsley, 2000) and perhaps beyond. While research may not have
been able to determine the exact practices that result in successful IE, it has consis-
tently identified a variety of factors that have a bearing on the success (or not) of IE
(Anderson et al., 2014).

Factors that affect the efficacy of IE

In his work The Ecology of Education (1976), Urie Bronfenbrenner developed a
framework to describe the influence of factors on a learner’s experience of educa-
tion. It presented a ‘nested arrangement of structures’ (p. 5), referred to as systems,
with the learner at its centre. Recently, Anderson et al. (2014) reconceptualised this
work with a focus on the influencing factors of IE, creating The Ecology of Inclusive
Education. Within this framework, the system immediately encompassing the lear-
ner, the micro-system, describes the factors in environments with which the learner
has direct contact, such as the classroom. The next system, the exo-system, contains
factors that directly influence the micro-system, such as school structures and prac-
tices. The final environmental system, the macro-system, encompasses the factors of
societal culture within which the school exists, including economic, social, political
and historical contexts. All factors in the framework influence the success (or not)
of IE, however, it is important to note that while the learner sits at the centre of The
Ecology of Inclusive Education, they should not be considered a determining factor
of IE as ‘it is precisely the characteristics of the learner that should not influence
whether or not a student is delivered an effective IE’ (Anderson et al., 2014).
Nevertheless, some factors influence a learners’ experience of IE more directly, and
unsurprisingly, those under teacher control have consistently been identified as the
most influential (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000a; Scruggs & Mastropieri,
1996; Subban & Sharma, 2006).
For this reason, the attitudes that teachers hold in relation to IE has consistently
been identified as one factor that is essential to the success of IE (Cornoldi, Terreni,
Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 1999; Parasuram, 2006; Ross-Hill, 2009).
Previous research has shown that despite the existence of legislation promoting
IE in schools, teachers that held negative attitudes towards IE avoided using tech-
niques known to facilitate the practice (Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995; Forlin, Keen, &
Barrett, 2008). Contrastingly, a study by Monsen and Frederickson (2004) found
that students being educated in classrooms with teachers who held positive attitudes
towards IE not only returned better academic outcomes, but were more satisfied with
their education and reported less friction in the class, when compared to students
being educated in classes in which the teacher did not favour IE. This suggests that,
even within a single setting operating under an IE paradigm, the beliefs and attitudes
held by individual teachers can ultimately influence the academic and social
outcomes of their students, with or without SEN.

Teacher attitudes towards IE

With the understanding of teacher attitude as a determinant of IE, the past 15 years
has seen a number of studies investigating the attitudes of practising teachers working
in IE environments. Early research suggested that teachers held positive attitudes
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 977

towards IE (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Cornoldi et al., 1999), with one study
reporting that as many as two-thirds of teachers supported the practice (Scruggs &
Mastropieri, 1996). More recently, however, a concerning trend has emerged which
suggests that the positive attitudes to inclusion of teachers are declining, with one
study finding only one-third of teachers supported IE (de Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert,
2010). Along with this, a study by Boyle, Topping, and Jindal-Snape (2013) found
that despite initially reporting positive attitudes as graduate teachers, attitudes towards
IE declined significantly after just a single year of teaching. Given that teacher atti-
tudes significantly impact the success of IE, these trends indicate a serious problem.
In order to understand why teachers’ attitudes towards IE have been subject to a
recent decline, it is essential to identify and understand the factors that influence these.
While research has generally focused on practising teachers (de Boer et al., 2010;
Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996), there has been some suggestion that the attitudes of
pre-service teachers should be considered (Kim, 2010; Sharma, Moore, & Sonawane,
2009). Investigation of pre-service teachers allows for the opportunity to identify fac-
tors that contribute to the formation of positive attitudes towards IE. Understanding
these factors may provide teacher training organisations with the ability to encourage
graduates to develop positive attitudes towards IE, before they enter the profession.

Determinants of pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards IE

A number of factors have been established by researchers as contributors to the for-
mation of attitudes to IE during pre-service teacher education, with many being
directly attributed to the course of study being undertaken.

Social Constructionist theory and IE

The social interactions pre-service teachers have with SEN students have been
shown to contribute to attitudes towards IE. This can potentially be explained by the
Social Constructionist theory, which suggests that attitudes are formed based on
ones social interpretation of relevant events (Burr, 2003). For example, the experi-
ence gained from placement in an IE classroom will only result in positive attitudes
if IE is embraced by the school community, and in particular, the classroom teacher
(Anastasiou & Kauffman, 2011). Conversely, it is possible that if a classroom tea-
cher does not support IE and shows negativity towards its practice, this may nega-
tively influence the views of the pre-service teacher (Florian & Linklater, 2010).
Similarly, studies have shown that many forms of contact with persons with a dis-
ability in a personal or family setting has a positive influence on attitudes towards
IE (Bender et al., 1995; Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2009; Sharma, Ee, &
Desai, 2003; Subban & Sharma, 2006). This interaction may initially shape knowl-
edge and beliefs about disabled persons in general and in turn may influence atti-
tudes towards education of disabled persons and the practise of IE (Stoddard, Braun,
& Koorland, 2011).

Pre-service teacher training and IE

Research cites efficacy in one’s ability to teach in an IE setting as a determinant of
pre-service teacher attitudes towards the construct (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002;
Pijl, 2010). However, a number of studies have criticised the effectiveness of teacher
978 J. Hoskin et al.

training programmes in preparing pre-service teachers for the diverse classrooms

they will encounter, including the education of SEN students (Lindsay, 2003, 2007;
Wu & Komesaroff, 2007). A report compiled in Australia examining the prepared-
ness of pre-service teachers to meet the demands of teaching in today’s schools
found that negative attitudes towards IE could be attributed to inadequate initial tea-
cher preparation programmes (House of Representatives Standing Committee on
Education and Vocational Training, 2007). Pre-service teachers themselves have
stated that the training they receive does not provide them with the necessary skills
or competencies that are essential to effectively enact IE (Forlin & Chambers,
2011). This is concerning given the already identified link between self-efficacy and
attitude towards IE.
However, the research into pre-service teacher training is not all unfavourable. A
consistent finding indicates a broad knowledge of the theory and practices behind the
philosophy of IE (Campbell, Gilmore, & Cuskelly, 2003; Sharma, Forlin, Loreman,
& Earle, 2006), along with the legislation and government policy that surrounds and
informs the practice (Ashman, 2010; Sharma et al., 2003), helps facilitate a positive
attitude towards IE in pre-service teachers. Whilst the completion of a unit of study
involving these concepts assists to foster a positive attitude (Lancaster & Bain, 2010;
Sharma et al., 2008; Sosu, Mtika, & Colucci-Gray, 2010), the benefits have been
found to be heavily dependent on the quality of education provided (Forlin et al.,
2008). As well as the content of the qualification, the type of degree being undertaken
and the time required to complete it have also been found to influence the attitude
towards IE of pre-service teachers (Chang, Early, & Winton, 2005).
While the effectiveness of pre-service teacher training programmes across
various degrees has been studied, the progression though a degree, and how this
may influence attitudes towards IE remains relatively unknown (Stella, Forlin, &
Lan, 2007). Another factor that remains comparatively unexplained is the effect that
working with different age groups of students has on attitudes.

Student age, teacher attitude and IE

Conflicting findings have been published from the research into this area. Some
studies have found that teachers working with older students display more positive
attitudes towards IE (Hastings & Oakford, 2003; Pearce & Forlin, 2005; Sharma
et al., 2008), whilst others found more positive attitudes from those teaching younger
students (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). These contradictory findings might be
explained by the wide variation between classroom environments in the different
levels of schooling, with each possessing its own unique characteristics, requirements
and challenges (Ross-Watt, 2005). While there is no consensus regarding the effect of
school level taught on teacher attitude towards IE, it has nonetheless been consis-
tently identified as having a significant impact (Petriwskyj, 2009; Ross-Hill, 2009).
The majority of past research has not investigated pre-school, primary and sec-
ondary settings as separate entities, potentially confounding and limiting the results
(Forlin et al., 2008). Of the research that has, the focus has been mainly on primary
or secondary teachers, while neglecting the experience of pre-school teachers (Boyle
et al., 2013; Glazzard, 2011; Pearce & Forlin, 2005). This is despite the importance
of IE at this level for the future educational outcomes of SEN students (Odom,
Buysse, & Soukakou, 2011; Odom & Diamond, 1998). There is also a notable lack
of research exploring attitudes in pre-service pre-school teachers. Given the
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 979

importance of attitude as a determinant of IE, pre-service pre-school teachers must

be investigated to better understand the factors that influence attitudinal formation
towards the construct of IE during teacher training programmes.

Research questions
This study aimed to investigate a number of contributory factors to the formation of
positive attitudes towards IE, during the pre-service training of pre-school teachers.
The research aimed to clarify the effects of previously identified factors on the for-
mation of positive attitudes within this under-researched population. Three questions
were considered.

(1) Will participants’ score higher on a measure of positive attitudes towards IE

as the amount of study completed increases?
(2) Will the training provided by the university, measured by investigating expe-
rience in an educational setting as well as the completion of a unit studying
IE, significantly influence attitudes towards IE?
(3) Will attitudes towards IE vary significantly due to pre-service teachers’
personal contact with a family member or friend with a disability?

Method
Participants
Participants in this sample formed part of a larger sample (N = 680) of pre-school,
primary-and secondary-level pre-service teachers who were studying across several
campuses of a large, metropolitan Australian university (cf. Costello & Boyle, 2013;
Kraska & Boyle, 2014; Varcoe & Boyle, 2014). The sample employed in this study
consisted of 139 pre-service teachers who were enrolled in pre-school education
courses, completing a Bachelor of Early Childhood Education, Bachelor of Early
Childhood Studies or a Masters of Teaching (Early Education). Participants were
sought on a volunteer basis from various on-campus education lectures. Due to the
usual lack of variability in enrolment (Victorian Institute of Teaching, 2011), the
majority of participants were female (n = 137, 98.56%), and were aged between 17
and 53 (M = 26.43 years, SD = 8.35 years), and can therefore be seen as representa-
tive of pre-service pre-school teachers.

Materials
The study utilised a four-page survey originally constructed by Boyle et al. (2013)
known as the ‘Teacher Attitudes Towards Inclusion Scale’ (TAIS). As the survey was
designed for use with an in-service teacher population, minor adaptations to several
questions, as well as the removal of some demographic information, was required to
make the measure applicable to pre-service teachers. The revised scale was referred to
as the ‘Teacher Attitudes Towards Inclusion Scale: Adapted’ (TAISA).

The teacher attitudes towards inclusion scale: adapted

The survey contained two sections. Section 1 aimed to obtain pertinent demographic
information from participants and included age, gender, current year of study,
980 J. Hoskin et al.

previous work experience in educational settings, previous contact with disabled

persons and whether IE had been studied or not. Section 2 comprised the revised
attitude scale and contained 21-items measured on a six-point Likert scale, ranging
from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (6). Some questions were reversed when
scored so that higher scores indicate more positive attitudes towards IE.

Reliability tests
A series of reliability tests were conducted and while they revealed the TAISA
reported slightly less internal consistency than the original TAIS (Boyle et al.,
2013), the Cronbach’s alpha levels still indicated extremely good reliability (see
Table 1). Tests also indicated that the sub-scales used were very reliable. In order to
ensure that the scale was appropriate for use with a pre-service pre-school teacher
sample, separate reliability tests were conducted for this sample alone. These
showed that the scale was reliable for this specific population.

Data collection
Researchers attended pre-determined lectures across two semesters. A brief verbal
explanation of the rationale and aims of the study was given prior to the distribution
of the surveys and explanatory statements. Potential participants were made aware
that the survey was anonymous and that participation was entirely voluntary and
had no bearing on course requirements or final outcomes. Informed consent was
implied through successful completion and returning of the survey documents.

Results
Demographics of participants
Of the 172 pre-service teachers studying one of the early education degrees at the
University, 139 participated in the study, resulting in a response rate of 80.81%.
Table 2 presents the frequencies and percentages of group membership for the vari-
ables of experience, contact with a person with a disability, completion of a unit or
module of IE and current year level being completed.

Overall attitudes towards IE

As Table 3 shows, the overall mean score on the TAISA approached 4, suggesting
that participants generally agreed somewhat with the statements of the scale. The

Table 1. Reliability tests of internal consistency: Cronbach’s alpha coefficients.

Entire Pre-school Original
sample sample TAIS
Total inclusion score (TIS) .81 .76 .89
Positive affect (PA) .79 .76 NA
Training and perceived competence .70 .74 NA
(TAPC)
Negative affect (NA) .67 .56 NA
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 981

Table 2. Frequencies and percentage for group identification on demographic variables.

Variable Group identification Whole sample
Experience in an educational Yes 90 (65.52%)
setting No 48 (34.78%)
Contact with a disabled Yes 42 (30.43%)
person No 96 (69.57%)
Completion of a unit on IE Yes 80 (57.55%)
No 59 (42.45%)
Year of study 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year Postgraduate
50 14 15 34 25 (17.99%)
(35.97%) (10.07%) (10.79%) (24.46%)
NB: Percentages are based on number of responses to each question, not whole sample.

Table 3. Means and standard deviations for TAISA and sub-scales.

Name of scale N Mean SD
Total inclusion score (TIS) 132 4.00 .43
Training and perceived competence (TAPC) 136 3.53 .64
Negative affect (NA) 132 4.28 .55
Positive affect (PA) 135 4.34 .53

mean scores indicate that participants have slightly positive attitudes towards IE.
While the mean scores suggest positive attitudes on two of the three sub-scales (NA
and PA), mean scores for TAPC suggest neural attitudes.

Individual influencing factors

Contact with a family member or friend who has additional support needs
An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the TIS of participants that
identified themselves as having a family member or friend with a disability (n = 38)
to those who do not (n = 93). No significant difference in attitude scores was found
between those who identified having contact with a family member or friend with a
disability (M = 4.04, SD = 0.47) and those who did not (M = 3.98, SD = 0.41); t
(131) = 0.716, p > .05 (two-tailed).

Completion of an IE unit or module

A second independent samples t-test revealed that participants who had completed a
unit or module focusing on IE showed significantly higher scores on the TAISA
(n = 77, M = 4.07, SD = .38) compared to those who had not studied such a unit
(n = 55, M = 3.89, SD = .47) t (132) = 2.458, p < .05 (two-tailed), Cohen’s d = .44
indicating a relatively small effect size.

Experience working in an educational setting

A final independent samples t-test was run in order to investigate any effects that
experience working in an educational setting had on participants’ attitudes towards
982 J. Hoskin et al.

IE. It was found that the attitudes of participants with experience (n = 86, M = 4.039,
SD = .442) did not vary when compared to those without experience (n = 45,
M = 3.92, SD = .39); t (131) = 2.46, p > .05 (two-tailed). However, participants with
experience (n = 88, M = 3.62, SD = .66) did have significantly more positive atti-
tudes regarding their self-efficacy for implementing IE compared to participants
without experience (n = 47, M = 3.38, SD = .56) t (135) = 2.11, p < .05 (two-tailed),
Cohen’s d = .38 indicating a small effect size.

Current year of study

A one-way between-groups ANOVA was conducted to explore any variation in atti-
tude that may have arisen due to the current year of study being completed. This test
revealed that there was a significant difference in attitudes between the different year
levels F(4, 127) = 4.48, p < .05, η² = .12. Due to the uneven sample sizes,
Hochberg’s post hoc analysis was employed to examine where the significant differ-
ence lay (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995). It was revealed that the postgraduate sam-
ple (n = 24, M = 3.81, SD = .28) had significantly lower means to both the third
year (n = 13, M = 4.24, SD = .39), Cohen’s d = 1.24, and fourth year (n = 33,
M = 4.00, SD = .423) samples, Cohen’s d = .52. According to Cohen’s guidelines
(Cohen, 1998), effect sizes were very large and moderate, respectively. No signifi-
cant differences were found between any other combinations of year level samples.

Levels of influence
A standard multiple regression revealed that 15.4% (13.4% adjusted) of the total
variance was explained by the factors of experience, completion of an IE unit and
current year of study (F(3, 127) = 7.73, p < .001). Current year of study and experi-
ence were both found to produce significant (p < .05) regression coefficients.
Although neither variable had high predictive power, as their unique variance was
relatively small (see Table 4), current year of study was more influential than
experience in predicting attitudes towards IE, as indicated by their squared semi-
partial correlations (Tebachnick & Fidell, 2013). Table 4 displays the correlations
between the variables, as well as the unstandardised and standardised regression
coefficients.

Discussion
This study aimed to investigate a number of factors that influence attitudes towards
IE in pre-service pre-school teachers, in an attempt to better understand how positive
attitudes towards IE are formed during pre-service teacher education.
The findings of this study were mixed, generating results that both support and
contradict previous research in the area. In a broad sense, this study showed that
pre-service pre-school teachers have a positive attitude towards IE. This finding is
consistent with a recent study that utilised the same measure as this study (adapted
slightly for use on an in-service population) that found participants’ overall attitude
towards IE to be slightly positive (Boyle et al., 2013), further lending support to the
wealth of research that suggests pre-service teachers endorse the theory of IE
(Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000b; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). This is
despite some recent assertions to the contrary (de Boer et al., 2010; Sharma et al.,
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 983

Table 4. Standard multiple regression of current year of study, studied a unit on inclusion
and experience on total inclusion score.
Total Current Studied
inclusion year of a unit on sr²
Variables score study inclusion Experience B β (unique)
Current year .33 – – – .11** .37 .09
of study
Studied a -.21 −.58 – – −.02 −.02 –
unit on
inclusion
Experience −.13 .23 −.11 – −.19** −.22 .04
Intercept = 3.87
Means 4 1.89 .42 .34
Standard .43 1.47 .50 .48 Adjusted R² = .13, R² = .15
deviations R = .39**
**p < .01.

2009). When results from individual factors were broken down, some interesting
trends were noted.
It was found that the completion of a unit studying the philosophy, fundamentals
and legislation of IE significantly improved attitudes in pre-service pre-school teach-
ers; a finding consistent with past research. This provides support for the assertion
that learning about the philosophies and practices of IE can facilitate more positive
attitudes in pre-service teachers (Bradshaw & Mundia, 2006; Sharma et al., 2008).
However, this attitude was not translated to positive perceptions of ability and com-
petence to implement IE practices upon completion of the degree. While attitude
scores were still slightly positive overall, the subscale measuring perceived compe-
tence and adequacy of training was lower than that of general attitudes towards IE.
These findings add support to the growing consensus that although pre-service
teachers may support the philosophies of IE, they lack the knowledge and efficacy
to implement the practice effectively. The possibility exists that this may in turn
impact negatively on their practical perceptions of IE in pre-schools (Mogharreban
& Bruns, 2009; Sharma et al., 2006; Walls, 2007). As previous studies have
described, the isolated completion of a single unit studying IE is not enough to
ensure positive attitude or self-efficacy (Kim, 2010). Instead, the principles of IE
need to be woven across all areas of pre-service teacher training (Chang et al., 2005;
Forlin & Chambers, 2011), providing pre-service teachers with multiple and
continuing exposure to the concept of IE so they are equipped with the knowledge
and skills required to become effective teachers in today’s diverse pre-school
classrooms.
Some researchers have suggested low self-efficacy concerning IE could be a con-
sequence of pre-service teachers’ lack of practical experience (Chang et al., 2005).
This theory is supported by the current findings, as experience was found to increase
participants’ perception of competence and ability. However, as perceived compe-
tence levels of participants were relatively low, it would suggest insufficient practical
experience is occurring within the degrees. As the importance of experience has
been cited by numerous authors (e.g. Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Lancaster &
Bain, 2010), IE classroom placements should continue to be a priority during
984 J. Hoskin et al.

pre-service education programmes in order to ensure the potential positive influence

it has on attitudes towards IE.
The finding that experience can have a positive influence on competence lends
support to the Social Constructionist theory. However, this theory was not supported
consistently across the study. Results showed that while practical experience did
increase perceptions of competence to deliver IE, it did not raise attitudes towards
the construct. Interestingly, a slight (though not significant) decline in attitude
between both third and fourth year, and undergraduate and post-graduate participants
was found, despite these cohorts generally having had more experience of working
with students with additional support needs. This is in support of the findings of
Kim (2010), who also found that previous experience did not influence attitudes
towards IE. The conflict with previous research arises in its suggestion that when
attitudes towards IE do not become more positive after classroom experience, con-
cerns about competence generally increase (Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007), a finding
contradicted by this study.
The Social Constructionist theory is also challenged by the finding that contact
with a family member or friend did not increase attitudes towards IE, a finding that
is again inconsistent with past literature (Bender et al., 1995; Carrington, 1999).
While this theory may be useful in explaining how some attitudes form (Anastasiou
& Kauffman, 2011), the findings of this study indicate that it is not an influential
determinant in the formation of attitudes towards IE.
The inconsistencies in these findings imply that the formation of attitudes
towards IE is a complex issue that involves the combination of multiple factors. This
notion is further supported by the findings of the regression analysis in this study. A
number of factors identified in previous research to have a significant effect on atti-
tudes were used to assess how they affect the attitudes of pre-service pre-school
teachers. Despite the evidence from countless studies, the predictive ability of the
factors used was poor. This could indicate there are other contributing factors to the
development of attitudes towards IE in the pre-service pre-school teacher population
that this study, and those before it, have not been identified or examined. The pre-
school setting provides a range of challenges and needs which differ to those of the
primary and secondary settings (DeVore & Russell, 2007; Ross-Watt, 2005), how-
ever, the majority of research has been centred upon these populations (de Boer
et al., 2010; Pearce & Forlin, 2005). It is possible that, until now, the unique factors
that shape pre-service pre-school teachers attitudes have been masked by the number
of studies that incorporate overwhelmingly primary and secondary pre-service tea-
cher samples. As the unique variables that contribute to the formation of attitudes
remain relatively unassessed in pre-service pre-school teachers, it is impossible to
draw any conclusions about what they may be. This study provides some interesting
preliminary findings that require further investigation to identify and clarify the
factors that influence this unique population.

Implications for theory and practice

Factors relating to the role universities play in the formation of attitudes towards IE
in pre-service pre-school teachers were found to be of significant importance. Of
note, it was found that both knowledge and experience of IE are essential in the for-
mation of positive attitudes towards the construct. IE as a philosophy and educa-
tional paradigm should be taught throughout education degrees, not limited to a
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 985

specific unit (Forlin & Chambers, 2011), to ensure the provision of the knowledge
and skills necessary for teachers to manage the diversity when they enter into the
classroom. Additionally, as experience was a significant factor in increasing
competence, universities must collaborate with enactors of effective IE practices, in
order to pass on practical skills and understandings (Lancaster & Bain, 2010) to pre-
service pre-school teachers. Past research has consistently shown that pre-service
education courses are essential to the formation of positive attitudes towards IE,
requiring the continual assessment and revision of these programmes to ensure the
desired outcomes are being met.

Limitations of this study

A number of limitations of this study must be acknowledged and results should be
viewed in light of these. One such limitation was the research employed only self-
report measures. There are a number of assumptions that this type of methodology
makes about the honesty and integrity of responses, which may or may not have
been violated (Cohen & Swedlik, 2005). For example, participants may have offered
answers they deemed ‘socially acceptable’ rather than reporting their true beliefs.
Additionally, this research did not make a distinction between categories of SEN stu-
dents. Type of disability has been found to alter teacher attitudes towards IE
(Hastings & Oakford, 2003); therefore, results may be limited by not assessing atti-
tudes towards the construct for different types of student categorical differences.
Finally, only factors identified in previous literature pertaining to educational degrees
of pre-service teachers were investigated. As noted in the introduction, there are a
plethora of factors with varying levels of influence over the success (or not) of IE
for a learner, from the physical classroom space to the political context within which
the school operates (Anderson et al., 2014). This study investigated the single factor
of teacher attitude towards IE and considered only factors related to pre-service
education as influences of attitude.

Conclusion
Attitudes towards IE of pre-service pre-school teachers cannot be explained in full
by factors previously implicated in the literature, raising many questions about this
unique population. Globally defined goals of IE are closely linked to the desired out-
comes of early years education; namely, school readiness and social skill develop-
ment. As a result, pre-school teachers represent a necessary group to investigate as
their attitudes towards this construct have the potential to markedly influence the
outcomes of students in these areas (Petriwskyj, 2009). This study found that pre-
service pre-school teachers felt less positive about their perceived competence to
enact IE than their general attitudes towards the construct, although these where
found to be only slightly positive. Further investigation to identify and examine the
unique factors that contribute to pre-service pre-school teachers’ self-efficacy and to
the development of attitudes towards IE during educational training would be valu-
able. While pre-service pre-school teachers must take responsibility for ensuring IE
is practised well, the challenge for post-school organisations offering teacher training
remains. Quality courses that provide pre-service pre-school teachers with the neces-
sary skills, knowledge and understandings to develop and maintain positive attitudes
towards IE must be delivered, thereby facilitating a better quality education for all.
986 J. Hoskin et al.

ORCID
Christopher Boyle http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6196-7619

References
Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of
organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14,
401–416.
Allan, J. (2011). Complicating, not explicating: Taking up philosophy in learning disability
research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34, 153–161.
Anastasiou, D., & Kauffman, J. (2011). A social constructionist approach to disability:
Implications for special education. Exceptional Children, 77, 367–384.
Anderson, J., Boyle, C., & Deppeler, J. (2014). The ecology of inclusive education: Recon-
ceptualising Bronfenbrenner. In Z. Zhang, P. W. K. Chan, & C. Boyle (Eds.), Equality in
education: Fairness and inclusion (pp. 23–34). Rotterdam: Sense.
Ashman, A. (2010). Modelling inclusive practices in postgraduate tertiary education courses.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 667–680.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000a). A survey into mainstream teachers’ atti-
tudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary
school in one local education authority. Educational Psychology, 20, 191–211.
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000b). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the
inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 16, 277.
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., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A
review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129–147.
Bender, W., Vail, C., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers attitudes toward increased mainstreaming:
Implementing effective instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 28, 87–94.
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and
powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B
(Methodological), 57, 289–300.
Blecker, N., & Boakes, N. (2010). Creating a learning environment for all children: Are
teachers able and willing? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 435–447.
Boyle, C. M. (2007). An analysis of the efficacy of a motor skills training programme for
young people with moderate learning difficulties. International Journal of Special Educa-
tion, 22, 11–24.
Boyle, C., Scriven, B., Durning, S., & Downes, C. (2011). Facilitating the learning of all stu-
dents: The ‘professional positive’ of inclusive practice in Australian primary schools.
Support for Learning, 26, 72–78.
Boyle, C., Topping, K., & Jindal-Snape, D. (2013). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in
high schools. Teachers and Teaching, 19, 527–542.
Bradshaw, L., & Mundia, L. (2006). Attitudes to and concerns about inclusive education:
Bruneian inservice and preservice teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education,
21, 35–41.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The experimental ecology of education. Educational Researcher,
5, 5–15.
Burge, P., Oullette-Kuntz, H., Hutchinson, N., & Box, H. (2008). A quarter century of inclu-
sive education for children with intellectual disabilities in Ontario: Public perceptions.
Canadian Journal of Administration and Policy, Issue, 87, 2–22.
Burr, V. (2003). An introduction to social constructionism (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Campbell, J., Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Changing student teachers’ attitudes
towards disability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual Developmental Disability, 28,
369–379.
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 987

Carrington, S. (1999). Inclusion needs a different school culture. International Journal of

Inclusive Education, 3, 257–268.
Chang, F., Early, D., & Winton, P. (2005). Early childhood teacher preparation in special edu-
cation at 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education. Journal of Early Intervention, 27,
110–124.
Cohen, R. (1998). Statistical power analysis for behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, R., & Swedlik, M. (2005). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to
tests and measurements (6th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Commonwealth Government (2006). Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (amended). Canberra:
Attorney-General’s Department.
Cornoldi, C., Terreni, A., Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1999). Teacher attitudes in Italy
after twenty years of inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 350–356.
Costello, S., & Boyle, C. (2013). Pre-service secondary teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive
education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 129–143. doi:10.14221/
ajte.2013v38n4.8
de Boer, A., Pijl, S., & Minnaert, A. (2010). Regular primary school teachers’ attitudes
towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive
Education, 15, 331–353.
DeVore, S., & Russell, K. (2007). Early childhood education and care for children with disabil-
ities: Facilitating inclusive practice. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 189–198.
Du Toit, P., & Forlin, C. (2009). Cultural transformation for inclusion, what is needed? A
South African perspective. School Psychology International, 30, 644–666.
Florian, L., & Linklater, H. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Using inclu-
sive pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of Education,
40, 369–386.
Forlin, C., & Chambers, D. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive education: Increasing
knowledge but raising concerns. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 17–32.
Forlin, C., & Forlin, P. (2000). Special education research in Australia. Exceptionality, 8,
247–259.
Forlin, C., Keen, M., & Barrett, E. (2008). The concerns of mainstream teachers: Coping
with inclusivity in an Australian context. International Journal of Disability, Develop-
ment and Education, 55, 251–264.
Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Earle, C. (2009). Demographic differences in chang-
ing pre-service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive education.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13, 195–209.
Forlin, C., & Sin, K. (2010). Developing support for inclusion: A professional learning
approach for teachers in Hong Kong. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 6, 8–26.
Gibb, K., Tunbridge, D., Chua, A., & Frederickson, N. (2007). Pathways to inclusion:
Moving from special school to mainstream. Educational Psychology in Practice, 23,
109–127.
Glazzard, J. (2011). Perceptions of the barriers to effective inclusion in one primary school:
Voices of teachers and teaching assistants. Support for Learning, 26, 56–63.
Graham, L., & Slee, R. (2008). An illusory interiority: Interrogating the discourse/s of inclu-
sion. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40, 277–293.
Hastings, R., & Oakford, S. (2003). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of
children with special needs. Educational Psychology, 23, 87–94.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocational Training. (2007).
Top of the class: Report on the inquiry into teacher education. Canberra: The Parliament
of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Jackson, R. (2008). Inclusion or segregation for children with an intellectual impairment:
What does the research say? Retrieved from http://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/files/
library/Jackson-Inclusion-Seg1.pdf
Kim, J. (2010). Influence of teacher preparation programmes on preservice teachers’ attitudes
toward inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 355–377.
Kraska, J. & Boyle, C. (2014). Attitudes of pre-school and primary school pre-service teach-
ers towards inclusive education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 228–246.
doi:10.1080/1359866X.2014.926307
988 J. Hoskin et al.

Lancaster, J., & Bain, A. (2010). The design of pre-service inclusive education courses and
their effects on self-efficacy: A comparative study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education, 38, 117–128.
LeRoy, B., & Simpson, C. (1996). Improving student outcomes through inclusive education.
Support for Learning, 11, 32–36.
Lindsay, G. (2003). Inclusive education: A critical perspective. British Journal of Special
Education, 30, 3–12.
Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/
mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(1), 1–24.
Loreman, T. (2007). Seven pillars of support for inclusive education: Moving from “why?”
to “how?”. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 3, 22–38.
Loreman, T., & Deppeler, J. (2001). Inclusive education in Victoria: The UNESCO education
for all 2000 assessment. Interaction, 14, 13–17.
Loreman, T., Deppeler, J., & Harvey, D. (2011). Inclusive education: Supporting diversity in
the classroom. Crows Nest, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Mattson, E., & Hansen, A. (2009). Inclusive and exclusive education in Sweden: Principals’
opinions and experiences. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 24, 465–472.
Mogharreban, C., & Bruns, D. (2009). Moving to inclusive pre-kindergarten classrooms:
Lessons from the field. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 407–414.
Monsen, J., & Frederickson, N. (2004). Teachers’ attitudes towards mainstreaming and their
pupils’ perceptions of their classroom learning environment. Learning Environments
Research, 7, 129–142.
Odom, S., Buysse, V., & Soukakou, E. (2011). Inclusion for young children with disabilities:
A quarter century of research perspectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 344–356.
Odom, S., & Diamond, K. (1998). Inclusion of young children with special needs in early
childhood education: The research base. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 3–25.
Parasuram, K. (2006). Variables that affect teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive
education in Mumbai, India. Disability & Society, 21, 231–242.
Pearce, M., & Forlin, C. (2005). Challenges and potential solutions for enabling inclusion in
secondary schools. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 29, 93–105.
Petriwskyj, A. (2009). Diversity and inclusion in the early years. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 14, 195–212.
Pijl, S. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Some reflections from the
Netherlands. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 10, 197–201.
Richler, D. (2012). Systemic barriers to inclusion. In C. Boyle & K. Topping (Eds.), What
works in inclsuion? (pp. 176−187). London: Open University Press.
Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs students.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9, 188–198.
Ross-Watt, F. (2005). Inclusion in the early years: From rhetoric to reality. Child Care in
Practice, 11, 103–118.
Ruijs, N., & Peetsma, T. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special
educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4, 67–79.
Ryndak, D., Jackson, L., & Billingsley, F. (2000). Defining school inclusion for students with
moderate to severe disabilities: What do experts say? Exceptionality, 8, 101–116.
Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion,
1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59–75.
Sharma, U., Ee, J., & Desai, I. (2003). A comparison of Australian and Singaporean pre-
service teacher’s attitudes and concerns about inclusive eudcation. Teaching and Learning,
24, 207–217.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers’
attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with
disabilities. Disability & Society, 23, 773–785.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Loreman, T., & Earle, C. (2006). Pre-service teachers attitudes,
concerns and sentiments about inclusive education: An international comparison of the
novice pre-service teachers. International Journal of Special Education, 21, 80–93.
Sharma, U., Moore, D., & Sonawane, S. (2009). Attitudes and concerns of pre-service teach-
ers regarding inclusion of students with disabilities into regular schools in Pune, India.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 319–331.
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice 989

Slee, R. (2011). The irregular school: Exclusion, schooling and inclusive education. Oxon:
Routledge.
Sosu, E., Mtika, P., & Colucci-Gray, L. (2010). Does initial teacher education make a
difference? The impact of teacher preparation on student teachers’ attitudes towards
educational inclusion. Journal of Education for Teaching, 36, 389–405.
Stella, C., Forlin, C., & Lan, A. (2007). The influence of an inclusive education course on
attitude change of pre-service secondary teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education, 35, 161–179.
Stoddard, K., Braun, B., & Koorland, M. (2011). Beyond the schoolhouse: Understanding
families though preservices experiences in the community. Preventing School Failure:
Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55, 158–163.
Subban, P., & Sharma, U. (2006). Primary school teachers’ perceptions of inclusive education
in Victoria. Australia. International Journal of Special Education, 21, 42–53.
Tebachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson Education.
Terpstra, J. E., & Tamura, R. (2008). Effective social interaction strategies for inclusive
settings. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 405–411.
Topping, K. (2012). Conceptions of inclusion: Widening ideas. In C. Boyle & K. Topping
(Eds.), What works in inclusion? (pp. 9−19). Maidenhead, England: Open University
Press, McGraw-Hill Education.
UNESCO. (1994). Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education.
Spain: UNESCO.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
United Nations. (2015). Treaty collection: Convention and optional protocol signatures and rat-
ifications. Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&
mtdsg_no=IV-15&chapter=4&lang=en
Varcoe, L. & Boyle, C. (2014). Primary pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive
education. Educational Psychology, 34, 323–337. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.785061
Victorian Institute of Teaching. (2011). Pre-service teacher enrolments. Melbourne: Victorian
Institute of Teaching.
Walls, S. (2007). Early childhood preservice training and perceived teacher efficacy beliefs
concerning the inclusion of young children with disabilities (Unpublished thesis).
Retrieved from http://etd.auburn.edu/etd/handle/10415/135468
Wrigley, T., Thomson, P., & Lingard, B. (2012). Resources for changing schools: Ideas in
and for practice. In T. Wrigley, P. Thomson, & B. Lingard (Eds.), Changing schools:
Alternative ways to make a world of difference (pp. 194−214). Oxon: Routledge.
Wu, C., & Komesaroff, L. (2007). An emperor with no clothes? Inclusive education in
Victoria. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31, 129–137.
Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Volonino, V. (2009). What, where, and how? Special education in
the climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17, 189–204.