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

net/publication/263929737

Attitudes of pre-school and primary school pre-service teachers towards

inclusive education

Article in Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education · June 2014

DOI: 10.1080/1359866X.2014.926307

CITATIONS READS

74 1,528

1 author:

Christopher Boyle
University of Adelaide
150 PUBLICATIONS 1,894 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Ethics in Practice View project

Inclusive Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Christopher Boyle on 16 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of New England]
On: 16 March 2015, At: 16:48
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/capj20

Attitudes of preschool and primary

school pre-service teachers towards
inclusive education
a b
Jake Kraska & Christopher Boyle
a
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
b
University of New England, Armidale, Australia
Published online: 05 Jun 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Jake Kraska & Christopher Boyle (2014) Attitudes of preschool and primary
school pre-service teachers towards inclusive education, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
42:3, 228-246, DOI: 10.1080/1359866X.2014.926307

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.926307

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 2014
Vol. 42, No. 3, 228–246, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.926307

Attitudes of preschool and primary school pre-service teachers

towards inclusive education
Jake Kraskaa and Christopher Boyleb*
a
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; bUniversity of New England, Armidale, Australia
(Received 16 November 2012; accepted 15 January 2014)
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are important as they have the primary respon-
sibility of implementing inclusive education. Attitudes at the beginning of teaching
careers are likely to predict future attitudes. Some studies show a drop in attitudes after
leaving university education. Using the Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion
(Amended) questionnaire, 465 pre-service teachers (located in Victoria, Australia)
from primary school and preschool streams were examined to determine the effect of
a number of independent factors on Total Inclusion Score; a measure of attitudes
towards inclusion. Two-way ANOVAs revealed module (unit) and year of study to be
significant factors. A multiple regression showed the factors combined accounted for
10% of the variance in Total Inclusion Score. Participants who had studied a module
(unit) on inclusive education or were in later years of study were more positive towards
inclusive education based on Total Inclusion Score from the questionnaire. No sig-
nificant differences for Total Inclusion Score were found between pre-service teachers
that study primary school teaching or preschool teaching. It is concluded that studying
a module on inclusive education is a particularly important factor in the development
of pre-service teacher attitudes towards inclusion.
Keywords: education policy; inclusion; inclusive education; preschool; pre-service
teachers; primary school; students with disabilities; teacher training

Introduction
Providing education to those with special needs has increasingly become an issue of
moral necessity over the last few decades (Croll & Moses, 2000). Because of increasing
demands for schools to include those with special needs, many nations and non-state
organisations, such as the United Nations, have begun to implement policies that assist
in the education of children with diverse needs (Forlin, 2006). Of particular interest is
how inclusive education could be best implemented. This has often involved investiga-
tion of teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion as they are frequently the primary imple-
menters of educational policy change (Boyle, 2012; Subban & Sharma, 2006). Forbes
(2007) argues that despite the push for inclusion, there has been a distinct lack of
appropriate planning by educational authorities. Furthermore, Boyle, Topping, Jindal-
Snape, and Norwich (2012) suggest that there has been a limited understanding of the
definition of inclusion. Does inclusion only relate to students with physical and mental
disabilities, or is it more encompassing, relating to the diversity of all students? Topping
(2012) discusses the conceptualisation of inclusion at length and concluded at this time
that “inclusion has widened, and it is now taken to mean at least all children achieving

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

© 2014 Australian Teacher Education Association

 Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 229

and participating despite challenges stemming from disability, poverty, social class, race,
religion, linguistic and cultural heritage, gender, and so on” (p. 17). Overall, it is
believed that in Australia, while its implementation varies, inclusive schooling is an
idea that garners support in all Australian educational authorities (Conway, 2012). This
is evidenced with the 2005 addition to the Disability Discrimination Act (1992), the
Australian Government (2005) amendment, which sought to ensure that students with
disabilities received appropriate access to education provision and that they were not
discriminated against.
The following article discusses the international development of inclusive education
and its relation to teachers’ attitudes, followed by a study within the state of Victoria,
Australia, that centres on the attitudes of teachers in training (i.e., pre-service teachers)
and their attitudes towards and understanding of inclusive education.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

Historical development of inclusive education

During the early twentieth century, children with special education needs were often
educated in special schools (Boyle, Scriven, Durning, & Downes, 2011), but the idea of
educating these children in mainstream schools soon became popular (Zigmond, Kloo, &
Volonino, 2009). In the 1970s, Australia began investigating political support for inclusive
education (Interim Commitee for the Australian Schools Commission, 1973) as well as
eventually developing policy that made it illegal for schools to deny enrolment on the
grounds of disability (Commonwealth Government, 1992, 2010). Other nations such as
the United Kingdom, the United States, and Italy were also developing inclusive policy at
this time (Lauchlan & Fadda, 2012; Michaud & Scruggs, 2012). For example, Italy
adopted Law 517 in 1977 leading to the closure of all “special schools,” an initiative
which has been particularly successful in adapting the education system towards an
inclusive education system (Lauchlan & Fadda, 2012). The shift towards inclusive
education was also reflected in the United Kingdom during the 1970s with the Warnock
Report (Warnock, 1978), which was the precursor to UK legislation (The National
Archives, 1980) and an instrumental move towards a more inclusive approach to educa-
tion in that country.
Perhaps the most important international indicator of commitment to inclusive educa-
tion was the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994). This international meeting of
education officials, representatives, and policy-makers had the goal of coming to an
agreement on how to best educate children with special education needs in “regular”
schools. The result was an accord that inclusive education was the ethical minimum
required by education institutions. By focusing on the underlying needs of each child
rather than the educational needs of all children, educational institutions could be least
wasteful with their resources and most effective in their teaching of children. Wider
international legislation such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities has ensured that self-determination and quality of life for all
people with additional support needs has become a universal right (Karr, 2011), not just in
the education sphere.

The importance of teachers in inclusive education

Policy development in inclusive education has been shown to be an important factor in
the successful implementation of inclusive education (Sharma, Ee, & Desai, 2003). As
policy and opinion shifts towards a higher expectation of inclusion in educational
 230 J. Kraska and C. Boyle

institutions, schools are expected to receive more funding, have a wider focus on
learning rather than achievement, and create diversity in the curriculum (Wu &
Komesaroff, 2007). Because of the increased pressures of inclusive education policy,
teachers are increasingly feeling the demands to implement changes in the classroom
(Boyle, 2007, 2012). Added onto these policy and societal pressures is the requirement
of teachers to meet certain performance goals, leading many schools to reconsider the
implications of including children with “special education needs” (Peters, Johnstone, &
Ferguson, 2005). Pearson, Lo, Chui, and Wong (2003) point out that competition in
examinations, an inflexible curriculum, and poor ratio of students to teachers are
contrary to the ideas underlying the philosophy of inclusive education. The importance
of teachers in successful implementation of inclusion is evident since teachers are the
people charged with implementing and facilitating inclusive practice with all children in
a mainstream setting (Boyle et al., 2012).
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

Indeed, it is argued that teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education are the main
factor in how successfully educators include a diverse range of children into the classroom
(Forlin, Keen, & Barrett, 2008; Forlin & Sin, 2010; Subban & Sharma, 2006). Three types
of variables have been found to influence teachers’ attitudes (Avramidis & Norwich,
2002). These variables are child-related, teacher-related, and the educational environment.
It is these teacher-related variables that this article turns its focus to.

Teacher-related variables
While research has been conducted on the relationship between attitudes towards inclu-
sion and the type and severity of a child’s disability (i.e., child-related variables, Lifshitz,
Glaubman, & Issawi, 2004), or the availability of specialist support (i.e., educational
environment-related variables, Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley, 2007), teacher-related
variables are of particular importance because of the important roles of teachers. Often
research has considered the impact of factors such as age, gender, teaching experience,
grade level taught, experience with children with special education needs, level of
training, and contact with family or friends with perceived special needs (Avramidis &
Norwich, 2002).

Gender
Some studies on pre-service teachers have found that females are more positive towards
inclusion than males (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000; Burge, Ouellette-Kuntz,
Hutchinson, & Box, 2008), while others have found no significant differences
(Loreman, Forlin, & Sharma, 2007; Sharma et al., 2003). The purported evidence for
females being more positive towards inclusion is that they are more “caring” teachers
(Boyle, Topping, & Jindal-Snape, 2013).

Age
Age has often been found to be a non-significant factor in measurement of attitudes
towards inclusion (Loreman et al., 2007). For those studies that have found age to be
important, it is often those student teachers or in-service teachers who are youngest that
are most positive (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 231

Specialism
Specialism refers to the subject area that a teacher may focus on. In primary school,
students are exposed to specialist curriculum areas including, but not limited to, physical
education, art, and music. Given this, are there differences between those that study
specialisms (e.g., art) and those that do not? Avramidis et al. (2000) argue that those
who study science courses are more focused on academic performance and thus less
positive towards inclusion, whereas those who study humanities are more positive.

Teaching experience and year of study

Inconsistencies have also arisen in the inclusive education literature over the effect of
teaching experience. Hastings and Oakford (2003) and Ross-Hill (2009) showed no
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

significant differences for attitudes towards inclusion regardless of previous experience.

Contrary to this, Boyle et al. (2013) and de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert (2011) found that
teachers who had just left university were significantly more positive than those with
further teaching experience. Other research has found that pre-service teachers are more
positive towards inclusion in their final year of study than their first year of study (Sosu,
Mtika, & Colucci-Gray, 2010).

Perceived experience with people with special educational needs

Subban and Sharma (2006) found that teachers with close friends with a disability were
more confident in regards to implementing inclusive education. This confidence is
important in teachers as it often relates to willingness to include a diverse range of
children and students with disabilities (Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2007; Sharma,
Moore, & Sonawane, 2009). Contact with not only family members, but any close contact
with a person with a disability leads to more positive attitudes towards inclusion (Burge
et al., 2008; Loreman et al., 2007).

Module in special education or inclusion

Carroll, Forlin, and Jobling (2003) found no significant impact of a special education course
on the level of comfort that teachers felt when dealing with those with disabilities. On the
other hand, van Reusen, Shoho, and Barker (2000) and Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, and Earle
(2009) found that those who were more positive towards inclusion generally had higher
levels of training in special education. Studies that have developed or analysed modules on
special education and inclusive education have found that they improved attitudes towards
inclusion (Shade & Stewart, 2001; Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008; Spandagou, Evans, &
Little, 2008; Subban & Sharma, 2006). Some have argued that for inclusive education to be
successful, units on special education must be compulsory as well as some form of special
education practicum be included in teacher training (Forbes, 2007). Sharma et al. (2009)
found that those studying postgraduate degrees had the most positive attitudes towards
inclusion as they often had completed units in special education or inclusion.

Stream of enrolment
Pre-service teachers are most often enrolled in either an early childhood stream (pre-
school), primary stream, or secondary stream. Ross-Hill (2009) found that secondary
 232 J. Kraska and C. Boyle

school teachers were significantly less positive towards inclusion than those who taught
preschool and primary school. However, no significant differences were found between
those who taught primary and preschool, with preschool teachers being the most positive.
One view is that due to a focus on curriculum, assessment, and subject matter, inclusion in
secondary schools has had less opportunity to succeed (Pearce, 2009). Given these
findings, it would be expected that both preschool and primary school teachers would
have more positive attitudes than high school teachers, but there would be no significant
differences between preschool and primary school teachers. Alternatively, some research
has shown high school teachers to be more positive than primary school teachers
(McCormack & O’ Flaherty, 2010). It is obvious that these inconsistencies make under-
standing the impact of stream on inclusive attitudes difficult, and therefore a deeper
understanding of preschool and primary school teacher attitudes is important.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

Aim
Because of the inconsistencies in much of the research that investigates the impact of
teacher-variables’ on attitudes towards inclusion (Avramidis et al., 2000), this study aims
to investigate factors that have received less attention as well as to attempt to clarify the
impact of those factors that have received more focus vis-à-vis research studies but have
resulted in inconsistencies. By using a large sample of pre-service teachers, it will be
possible to determine the impact of many of the factors discussed above. This study will
be focusing on those participants enrolled in preschool and primary streams of teaching
(c.f. related studies focussing specifically on primary (Varcoe & Boyle, 2014) and
secondary pre-service teaching (Costello & Boyle, 2013)). This will provide a unique
sample to test the differences in attitudes towards inclusion between pre- and primary pre-
service teachers. This study will also analyse the impact factors such as age, gender,
previous teaching experience, regular contact with people with disabilities, and having
completed a module (unit) on inclusive education have on attitudes towards inclusion.

Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from the population of pre-service teachers at four Monash
University campuses in the Australian state of Victoria. Attempts were made to recruit
participants across various year levels and streams. In total, 465 participants were
recruited. This was made up of 63 males (M = 24.29 years old, SD = 7.59 years) and
402 females (M = 24.34 years old, SD = 7.57 years). The age range for the sample was
17–53. Table 1 shows the information gathered and summarises frequencies and percen-
tages of the participants by stream of enrolment.

Materials
Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion scale adjusted
The Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion Scale Adjusted (TAISA; Appendix) com-
prises 21 items that measure pre-service teacher attitudes towards inclusion. This survey
instrument was adjusted from the original Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion Scale
(TAIS) detailed in Boyle et al. (2013). To adjust the scale to examine pre-service teacher
attitudes rather than in-service teacher attitudes, all questions were replaced, removed,
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 233

Table 1. Pre-service teacher demographics by sample size and percentage.

Preschool Primary Total

Variable n % n % n %

Gender
Male 2 3 61 97 63 100
Female 134 33 268 67 402 100
Age in years
≤23 68 23 229 77 297 100
≥24 59 41 85 59 144 100
Year of enrolled study
1st year 48 27 133 73 181 100
2nd year 15 38 25 63 40 100
3rd year 15 17 72 83 87 100
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

4th year 34 46 40 54 74 100

Postgraduate 24 30 57 70 81 100
Completed a unit in inclusion
Yes 80 36 141 64 221 100
No 56 23 187 77 243 100
Campus location
Campus One 0 0 5 100 5 100
Campus Two 0 0 167 100 167 100
Campus Three 0 – 0 – 0 –
Campus Four 136 46 157 54 293 100
Contact
Yes 41 34 80 66 121 100
No 94 27 248 73 342 100
Specialism
None 131 49 138 51 269 100
Mathematics 0 0 4 100 4 100
Social Sciences 1 3 39 98 40 100
Science 0 0 5 100 5 100
Art 0 0 19 100 19 100
SOSE 0 0 16 100 16 100
Business 0 0 2 100 2 100
Physical Education 1 1 74 99 75 100
LOTE 0 0 3 100 3 100
Music 0 0 5 100 5 100
Other 2 8 24 92 26 100
Experience in teaching role
Yes 88 25 264 75 352 100
No 47 42 65 58 112 100
Total sample 136 29 329 71 465 100
Note: Sample sizes do not consistently total the overall sample size of 465 because of missing participant data
across some areas of demographic information.

or altered to be relevant to pre-service teaching. Therefore, while the TAIS has 27 items,
the TAISA has 21 items. As an example, participants are asked if they agree or disagree
with the following statement: “I feel competent to work with students who have varying
levels of difficulties.” The original scale was found to be reliable with a Cronbach’s
Alpha of 0.889 (Boyle et al., 2013). For the sample of 465 participants, the adjusted
scale was found to have acceptable reliability with a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.74
(Cronbach, 1951).
 234 J. Kraska and C. Boyle

At the end of the attitude scale of the TAISA, participants were asked to provide their
own definition of “inclusion.” These definitions were then coded by the author and one
other researcher based on predefined groupings. Definitions were split into five cate-
gories: 0 = no answer, 1 = did not define integration or inclusion, 2 = defined integration,
3 = basic definition of inclusion, and 4 = advanced definition of inclusion. Using the
kappa measure of agreement (Pallant, 2013), inter-rater reliability between the research-
ers’ classification of definition was found to be 0.89. Any level of agreement above 0.8 is
“very good” (Peat, 2001). Definitions were judged by two researchers against the follow-
ing definition by Zoniou-Sideri and Vlachou (2006):

Inclusion and inclusive education are concerned with the quest for equity, social justice,
participation, and the removal of all forms of exclusionary assumptions and practices. It is
based on a positive view of difference and has at its heart the principle that all pupils,
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

including those who are “different”, are considered to be valued and respected members of
the school community. (p. 379)

To qualify as advanced, the definition needed to identify factors such as modifying

curriculum to suit needs of students, valuing all students, ideas about equality and
justice, and avoiding limiting the definition to individual groups such as those that
have physical disabilities. A definition was classified as basic if it failed to mention
processes such as changes in the education environment or make no mention of the
values and inclusionary practices that underlie the practice of inclusion. Finally, defini-
tions were being classified as integration if it did not identify the need of modifying the
environment to the child or limited inclusion to a specific group of children rather than
all children. If the definition discussed something that was neither classifiable as
inclusion or integration, then it was to be scored as a “one,” and if no definition was
given at all, it was coded as a “zero.”

Exploratory principle components analysis (PCA)

To draw further information from the TAISA, the 21 items in the scale were subjected to
PCA. The initial PCA found five components with eigenvalues exceeding one, one being
the suggested minimum (Field, 2009). Using software for calculating Parallel Analysis
(Watkins, 2000) and the scree plot (Horn & Cattell, 1966), it was determined that three
components were to be retained. Varimax rotation was used in this PCA as it is the most
frequently used orthogonal rotation (Pallant, 2013). This three component solution
explained a cumulative variance of 40.27%. By looking at the rotated component matrix,
it is possible to see that four items loaded onto two components, suggesting that
Thurstone’s (1947) simple structure was not entirely achieved. However, as there was
no cross loadings between component two and component three, they appear to be the
most unique.
By analysing the items that loaded on each of the components (Pallant, 2013), it is
possible to title these components positive affect (PA), training and perceived competence
(TAPC), and negative affect (NA). PA consists of many statements that are framed in a
positive, general, and light manner relating to inclusion. Statements in the NA component
revolve around the negative results of inclusive education. Finally, TAPC consisted of
statements that related to how confident participants are in teaching a diverse range of
students. Reliabilities for each component were found to be internally consistent.
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 235

Procedure
Pre-service teachers were recruited in education-related lectures and tutorials. Participants
had the opportunity to take part in a draw for a $100 gift voucher. The Statistical Package
for Social Scientists, version 17 (SPSS V17) was used for data input and analysis. The
data was cleaned, checked for accuracy, and missing data was attended to by excluding
cases pairwise (Pallant, 2013). Some items, particularly those on the NA component, were
reverse scored.

Results
A number of analyses were conducted using the four Monash University campuses under
study on “Total Inclusion Score” and the three components found in the factor analysis:
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

PA, TAPC, and NA.

Stream and other independent variables on Total Inclusion Score

A number of two-way ANOVAs were calculated for Total Inclusion Score to determine
the significance of stream (i.e., preschool and primary) in combination with the other
demographic independent variables. The results of these analyses are shown in Table 2.
As preschool pre-service teachers were only found at one of the four campuses under
study, there were insufficient numbers for an interaction to be calculated. Age was
grouped into two groups: “23 and below” and “24 and above.”
As can be seen from Table 2, stream was non-significant for all analyses. There was a
significant main effect of year of study, F(4, 431) = 3.627, p < 0.05, age, F(1,
437) = 6.639, p < 0.05, and module, F(1, 438) = 20.830, p < 0.05. An interaction was
also found between year of study and stream of study, F(4, 431) = 5.501, p < 0.05. A
more stringent significance level was set (0.0063) because of the number of tests
completed using a Bonferroni adjustment (Pallant, 2013). Only “age” became non-
significant after this adjustment. Table 3 displays the mean Total Inclusion Score of
students who have and have not studied a module on inclusive education across the
pre- and primary streams. Table 4 shows the means for pre- and primary school pre-
service teachers across years of study on Total Inclusion Score. Table 5 shows the post-
hoc analysis for differences in Total Inclusion Score based on year of study.

Table 2. Two-way ANOVA: stream and each demographic IV effect on Total Inclusion Score.

Stream Sig. Variable Sig. Interaction

Variable F p pη2 F p pη2 F P pη2

Campus 0.198 0.657 0.000 1.697 0.184 0.008

Gender 1.022 0.313 0.002 0.656 0.418 0.001 1.104 0.294 0.003
Family/Friend 0.234 0.629 0.001 1.550 0.214 0.004 1.244 0.265 0.003
Year of study 0.086 0.770 0.000 3.627 0.006* 0.033 5.501 0.000* 0.049
Specialism 1.557 0.213 0.004 1.230 0.270 0.028 0.340 0.797 0.002
Age 0.529 0.467 0.001 6.639 0.010* 0.015 2.524 0.113 0.006
Module 0.388 0.533 0.001 20.830 0.000* 0.045 0.147 0.701 0.000
Experience 0.020 0.887 0.000 1.420 0.234 0.003 0.946 0.331 0.002
Notes: *indicates significance at p < 0.05. Bold indicates significance at p < 0.0063.
 236 J. Kraska and C. Boyle

Table 3. Mean for Total Inclusion Score between stream and module.

Stream Studied a module n Mean

Preschool Yes 77 4.072

No 52 3.897
Primary Yes 136 4.114
No 177 3.907

Table 4. Mean for Total Inclusion Score between stream and current year of study.

Stream Current year of study N Mean

Preschool (n = 129) 1st year 45 3.912

Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

2nd year 15 3.946

3rd year 13 4.242
4th year 33 4.172
Postgraduate 23 3.834
Primary School (n = 312) 1st year 124 3.937
2nd year 25 3.901
3rd year 68 3.967
4th year 40 4.033
Postgraduate 55 4.200

Table 5. Tukey’s HSD for year of study on Total Inclusion Score.

Base/comparison 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year Postgraduate

1st year – MD: −0.013 MD: 0.081 MD: 0.165 MD: 0.162
SE: 0.069 SE: 0.053 SE: 0.055 SE: 0.054
Sig: 0.000 Sig.: 0.549 Sig.: 0.023 Sig.: 0.023
2nd year MD: 0.013 – MD: 0.093 MD: 0.178 MD: 0.174
SE: 0.069 SE: 0.076 SE: 0.077 SE: 0.076
Sig.: 0.000 Sig.: 0.732 Sig.: 0.143 Sig.: 0.15
3rd year MD: −0.081 MD: −0.093 – MD: 0.085 MD: 0.081
SE: 0.053 SE: 0.076 SE: 0.063 SE: 0.062
Sig.: 0.549 Sig.: 0.732 Sig. 0.665 Sig. 0.688
4th year MD: −0.165 MD: −0.178 MD: −0.085 – MD: −0.004
SE: 0.055 SE: 0.077 SE: 0.063 SE: 0.064
Sig.: 0.023 Sig.: 0.143 Sig. 0.665 Sig.: 0.000
Postgraduate MD: −0.162 MD: −0.174 MD: −0.081 MD: 0.004 –
SE: 0.054 SE: 0.076 SE: 0.062 SE: 0.064
Sig.: 0.023 Sig.: 0.15 Sig. 0.688 Sig.: 0.000
Note: Bold indicates significance at p < 0.05, MD = mean difference, SE = standard error, Sig. = significance.

Module and year of study on components

As “module” and “year of study” were found to be significant main effects on Total Inclusion
Score, further investigation was conducted to determine their effect on the component scores.
Table 6 shows that module remained important with a significant main effect on PA, TAPC,
and NA, F(1, 443) = 13.572, p < 0.05, F(1, 451) = 8.534, p < 0.05, and F(1, 444) = 11.583,
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 237

Table 6. Two-way ANOVA of stream and module on components.

Stream Module Interaction

Component F p pη2 F p pη2 F p pη2

PA 3.208 0.074 0.007 13.572 0.000* 0.030 0.170 0.680 0.000

TAPC 1.092 0.297 0.002 8.534 0.004* 0.019 0.492 0.483 0.001
NA 0.261 0.610 0.001 11.583 0.001* 0.025 0.026 0.871 0.000

Notes: *indicates significance at p < 0.05. Bold indicates significance at p < 0.0083 PA = positive affect,
TAPC = training and perceived competence, NA = negative affect.

Table 7. Two-way ANOVA of stream and year of study on components.

Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

Stream Year of study Interaction

Component F P pη2 F p pη2 F p pη2

PA 0.790 0.375 0.002 6.686 0.000* 0.058 2.653 0.033* 0.024

TAPC 2.936 0.087 0.007 0.381 0.822 0.003 4.527 0.001* 0.039
NA 0.106 0.744 0.000 3.480 0.008* 0.031 3.069 0.016* 0.027
Notes: *indicates significance at p < 0.05. Bold indicates significance at p < 0.0083 PA = positive affect,
TAPC = training and perceived competence, NA = negative affect.

p < 0.05, respectively. Table 7 shows a significant main effect for year of study on PA, F(4,
436) = 6.686, p < 0.05, and an interaction effect between stream and year of study, F(4,
436) = 2.653, p < 0.05. An interaction was also found on TAPC, F(4, 444) = 4.527, p < 0.05.
Finally year of study had a main effect on NA, F(4, 437) = 3.480, p < 0.05, as did the
interaction, F(4, 437) = 3.069, p < 0.05. As with previous analyses, a Bonferroni adjustment
was made and a new p value of 0.0083 was set. All significant effects remained except for the
interaction between stream and year of study on PA and NA.

Definition rating
A Chi-square test for independence indicated a significant association between definition
classification and stream of study, χ2(4, n = 465) = 18.614, p < 0.05, Cramer’s V = 0.200.
This Cramer’s V effect size is small (i.e., between 0.01 and 0.30; Pallant, 2013). Table 8
shows the counts and percentages of definition classifications across preschool and
primary school pre-service teachers. It appears that, in general, those in a primary school
stream could provide a definition more aligned with the working definition used in this

Table 8. Count and percentages of definition ratings.

Definition

None Neither Integration Basic Advanced

Preschool Count 55 23 7 44 7
% Stream 40.40 16.90 5.10 32.40 5.10
% Total 11.80 4.90 1.50 9.50 1.50
Primary Count 82 41 14 151 41
% Stream 24.90 12.50 4.30 45.90 12.50
% Total 17.60 8.80 3.00 32.50 8.80
 238 J. Kraska and C. Boyle

Table 9. Two-way ANOVA: stream and definition on each dependent variable.

Stream Sig. Definition Sig. Interaction

F p pη2 F p pη2 F p pη2

TIS 0.005 0.945 0.000 2.244 0.064 0.020 0.602 0.662 0.006
PA 0.097 0.755 0.000 3.647 0.006* 0.032 0.340 0.851 0.003
TAPC 0.190 0.663 0.000 0.569 0.686 0.005 0.762 0.550 0.007
NA 0.159 0.690 0.000 5.205 0.000* 0.045 0.200 0.938 0.002
Notes: *indicates significance at p < 0.05. Bold indicates significance at p < 0.01, PA = positive affect,
TAPC = training and perceived competence, NA = negative affect.

study than those in a preschool stream. No association was found between definition
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

classification and year of study, χ2(16, n = 463) = 25.099, p > 0.05, Cramer’s V = 0.116 or
between definition classification and whether the participant had studied a module/unit on
inclusive education, χ2(4, n = 464) = 5.493, p > 0.05, Cramer’s V = 0.109.
To further examine these differences, a two-way ANOVA was run between stream and
definition classification on each of the dependent variables. As can be seen in Table 9, there is
a main effect of definition classification on PA, F(4, 438) = 3.647, p < 0.05, and definition
classification on NA, F(4, 439) = 5.205, p < 0.05. Both the main effects of definition
classification on PA and NA remain significant after making a Bonferonni adjustment
(p < 0.01) because of non-equal variances. No significant differences were found between
mean scores of Total Inclusion Score, PA, TAPC, and NA, but it is noted that those pre-service
teachers who were able to provide a definition more aligned with the working definition used
in this study were higher on Total Inclusion Score, PA, TAPC, and NA.

Multiple regression
A multiple regression was calculated to consider all the independent variables at once.
The variables used were campus, gender, contact, stream, study year, age, unit, and
experience. The regression made use of 12 predictors. Variables included in the multiple
regression accounted for 10% of the variance in Total Inclusion Score. An ANOVA of the
regression model suggests that it was statistically significant, F(12, 428) = 3.971,
p < 0.0005. Two independent variables’ unique contributions to the regression model
were found to be statistically significant: if a participant had attended Campus One or if
they had studied a module or unit on inclusive education.

Discussion
Variables
Stream of study
No differences in attitudes towards inclusion were found between pre- and primary
streams. These findings are supported by Ross-Hill (2009). Previous research has
shown that preschool teachers are the most positive of preschool, primary school, and
secondary school teachers (Avramidis et al., 2000). However, based on the mean Total
Inclusion Score for this study, a general trend in this sample was that primary pre-service
teachers had more positive attitudes than preschool pre-service teachers. Potential reasons
for the differences between this study and previous studies are numerous; for example,
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 239

this could relate to the working definition used in this study, differences in the scales used
to measure attitudes, or more importantly a difference in the way pre-service teachers in
this study have been educated about inclusion compared to participants in previous
studies. As no significant findings were found across streams, it is necessary to consider
the wider impact of the other variables considered.

Age and gender

No differences in attitudes were found across genders, nor were any differences found
when considering gender and stream together. This is consistent with studies that have
shown no gender differences in attitudes towards inclusion (Loreman et al., 2007; Sharma
et al., 2003). After adjusting for the large number of analyses conducted, age was not
significant at the more stringent significance level.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

Perceived experience with people with special education needs

This study failed to support the idea that people who have regular contact with friends or
family with disabilities are more positive towards inclusion (Burge et al., 2008; Loreman
et al., 2007; Subban & Sharma, 2006). This was unexpected and further research is
required to clarify why no significant differences were found within this cohort.

Specialism
Only a limited number of studies have previously considered specialism in regards to
inclusive attitudes (Avramidis et al., 2000). Previous literature indicates that those study-
ing mathematics or science courses would be significantly less positive than those study-
ing other specialities. In this study, specialism was not found to be a significant factor in
participants’ attitudes towards inclusion for either primary or preschool pre-service tea-
chers. As mentioned previously, specialism is a concept more relevant to primary school
and secondary streams where specialist classes are often taught (e.g., physical education
or art). Even then specialist classes are limited at primary school compared to secondary
school where curriculum becomes even more segmented (e.g., history, English, literature,
and mathematics).

Year of study
The variable “year of study” was the only variable that was shown to have an interaction
effect with stream. It was found that postgraduate students were significantly different
from 1st year students and 4th year students, and 1st year students were significantly
different from both 2nd year students and 4th year students. Postgraduate students
enrolled in the preschool stream were in fact the least positive compared to all year levels
of study in both the pre- and primary school streams. In general, as year of study
increased, attitudes towards inclusion became more positive. Those in the primary school
sample became more positive across the years of study than those in the preschool sample.
While this is consistent with work that shows pre-service attitudes towards inclusion
improve as year of study increases (Sosu et al., 2010), it is contrary to research that shows
as years of experience increase, attitudes towards inclusion go down (de Boer et al.,
2011). It is also inconsistent with that research that shows no effect on length of
experience (Hastings & Oakford, 2003; Ross-Hill, 2009). An explanation for this is that
 240 J. Kraska and C. Boyle

while year of study might be related to a higher length of experience, in pre-service

teachers, a drop in attitudes typically found in in-service teachers is mitigated by both
modules on inclusive education as well as lengthy periods of non-teaching between
placements. Another consideration here is that there is no distinction made regarding
the diversity of postgraduate students. Students studying postgraduate units in education
could previously have extensive background in teaching, they could have immediately
transferred from an undergraduate course, or they could have been from other back-
grounds with the intention of re-training as teachers.
Differences across year of study were investigated on the individual components
found in the principal components analysis. Year of study was found to be a main effect
on PA and NA. Also an interaction between stream and year of study was found to be
significant on TAPC. It could be argued that as year of study increases, pre-service
teachers gain the knowledge and experience to better understand the statements that
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

make up the PA and NA components. The effect size for PA (0.058) was larger than
that for NA (0.031), possibly because people find it easier to agree with statements that
are framed more positively, known as the Pollyanna principle (Armstrong & Hogg, 2001;
Matlin & Stang, 1978). However, it was unexpected to find no significant difference on
the TAPC component. While it would be logical to assume that as pre-service teachers go
through their 4 years of training that they would feel that their training and competence
has increased, research has shown that both pre-service teachers and in-service teachers
are often concerned about their ability to include children with “special education needs”
even when they have training in the field (Bradshaw & Mundia, 2006).

Experience in a teaching role

No significant differences were found in attitudes between those who had teaching
experience and those who had not. It appears that it is the length of experience that is
significant in teacher attitudes, as shown by year of study, rather than the actual having
had experience or not.

Module on inclusive education

Differences in attitudes were found between those students who had studied a module on
inclusive education and those who had not. It appeared that those who studied a module
were more positive about inclusion based on Total Inclusion Score. These findings are
consistent with research on the positive impact of modules on inclusive education (Forlin
et al., 2009; Sharma et al., 2008; Subban & Sharma, 2006; van Reusen et al., 2000). This
emphasises the importance of modules on inclusive education in either improving atti-
tudes towards inclusion or maintaining already existing positive attitudes. Across the
whole sample, only 47% of student teachers had studied a module on inclusive education.
While consideration must be made for those only just beginning university (i.e., 1st year),
this shows that there is scope for improvement in attitudes through use of inclusive
education modules. Another important consideration here is that the questionnaire did
not ask participants if they had studied a module on special education. While there is a
distinction between these two kinds of modules, participants may have been unaware of
this difference.
Analysing the impact of stream and module on the three components also revealed
some useful information. Having studied a module significantly impacted the results
of TAPC. This supports the idea that modules on inclusive education improve pre-
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 241

service teacher attitudes and assist with preparation for teaching diverse children
(Sharma et al., 2008; Subban & Sharma, 2006). Specifically, modules increase student
teachers’ beliefs that they have sufficient training and competence to teach children
with diverse needs.

Implications, limitations and future research

Consistent with previous research (e.g., Forlin et al., 2009), the mean scores of Total
Inclusion Score, PA, NA, and TAPC were generally above 3.5, indicating that primary
school and preschool pre-service teachers in this study were generally positive towards
inclusion. However, based on the findings of this research, there are important implica-
tions for pre-service teachers, particularly the effect of having studied a module on
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

attitudes towards inclusion. While year of study was a significant factor in this research,
this needs to be interpreted with caution, as it was not a significant predictor in the
multiple regression. In fact, the multiple regression, which included all the independent
variables as predictors except specialism, only accounted for 10% of the variance in Total
Inclusion Score. This implies that there are many more factors that are impacting on pre-
service teacher attitudes towards inclusion. Further research could determine these “other
factors.”
Also noteworthy is the fact that primary school pre-service teachers were able to
provide definitions more aligned with the working definition used in this study than those
enrolled in preschool streams. The ability to define inclusion was shown to significantly
impact the PA and NA components. These significance values along with the increase in
mean scores for those that were able to provide definitions more aligned with the working
definition used in this study show the importance of simply understanding what inclusion
is as having an underlying impact on attitudes towards inclusion. However, given the
quantitative focus of this study, findings based on statistical interpretation of the partici-
pants’ qualitative responses should be considered carefully.
While these implications are important to consider, a few limitations have been
identified as well as potential avenues for future research. First, the TAISA was adapted
from a relatively new instrument, the TAIS. While both appear to be psychometrically
sound, the results need to be interpreted with caution because of its relative recent
introduction to the literature base. Second, as the questionnaires are self-report, it is
important to consider the impact of socially desirable responding. Third, some of the
questions in the questionnaire are based on deficit, that is, they focus on the difficulties
students may experience, and thus it is possible participants were unduly influenced by
the phrasing of some questions.
Another important point is that some areas of the sample were skewed. For example,
very small numbers of those enrolled in specialisms, few male participants in the pre-
school sample, and very few participants from Campus One and Three were recruited.
Results relating to specialism, gender, and campus should be interpreted with caution.
Another important point is that all four campuses were from one university and were
located in one single state in one country, making it difficult to generalise the findings
overall.
The results and limitations of this study pave the way for some interesting future
research. Most importantly, further research should be done to investigate the impact of
modules on inclusion on the attitudes of preschool and primary pre-service teachers
towards inclusion.
 242 J. Kraska and C. Boyle

Conclusion
This study has investigated the impact of various variables on pre-service teachers’
attitudes towards inclusion. In general, it appears that most pre-service teachers enrolled
in primary school and preschool streams were positive towards inclusion, which is
contrary to a recent review that showed teachers had a negative or neutral attitude towards
inclusion (de Boer et al., 2011). It was found that year of study and having studied a
module on inclusive education were significant factors on the Total Inclusion Score as
measured by the TAISA. No significant impact of stream was found across this study. The
importance of studying a module (unit) on inclusive education and having an under-
standing of inclusive education are clearly beneficial to pre-service teachers as has been
exemplified in this study. Therefore, universities should consider the identified positive
benefits for good teaching practice that come from modules (units) on inclusive education
for all pre-service students not just those choosing inclusive education as an elective
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

subject. This should facilitate a more inclusive approach from new graduates who will
consequently be somewhat more efficacious and skilled to teach across the range of
academic abilities inherent in a modern education system. This, after all, is the goal,
which should have inclusive mainstream practice at its core.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Shane Costello, Linda Varcoe, Jessica Grembecki, Christopher Barrell, and Jake
Hoskin for assistance with the data collection.

Notes on contributors
Jake Kraska is a Melbourne-based Psychologist working predominately in schools. He has research
interests in Inclusive Education and Psychological Assessment.
Dr Chris Boyle is a Senior Lecturer in Educational Psychology at the University of New England,
Australia. He has published widely in the subject areas of psychology and education.

References
Armstrong, N., & Hogg, C. (2001). The Pollyanna principle in French: A study of variable lexis.
Journal of Pragmatics, 33(11), 1757–1785. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00081-3
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of
children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 16(3), 277–293. doi:10.1016/s0742-051x(99)00062-1
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. doi:10.1080/
08856250210129056
Australian Government. (2005). Disability standards for education 2005. Canberra: Attorney–
General’s Department, Department of Education, Science and Training.
Boyle, C. (2012). Teachers make inclusion successful: Positive perspectives on inclusion. In
C. Boyle & K. Topping (Eds.), What works in inclusion? (pp. 98–109). Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Boyle, C., Scriven, B., Durning, S., & Downes, C. (2011). Facilitating the learning of all students:
The “professional positive” of inclusive practice in Australian primary schools. Support for
Learning, 26(2), 72–78. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9604.2011.01480.x
Boyle, C., Topping, K., & Jindal-Snape, D. (2013). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in high
schools. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 19(5), 527–542. doi:10.1080/
13540602.2013.827361
Boyle, C., Topping, K., Jindal-Snape, D., & Norwich, B. (2012). The importance of peer support for
teaching staff when including children with special educational needs. School Psychology
International, 33(2), 167–184. doi:10.1177/0143034311415783
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 243

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 Education, 22(1), 11–24.
Bradshaw, L., & Mundia, L. (2006). Attitudes to and concerns about inclusive education: Bruneian
inservice and preservice teachers. International Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 35–41.
Burge, P., Ouellette-Kuntz, H., Hutchinson, N., & Box, H. (2008). A quarter century of inclusive
education for children with intellectual disabilities in Ontario: Public perceptions. Canadian
Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 87, 1–22. Retrieved from http://umanitoba.
ca/publications/cjeap/pdf_files/Burge_etal.pdf
Carroll, A., Forlin, C., & Jobling, A. (2003). The impact of teacher training in special education on
the attitudes of Australian preservice general educators towards people with disabilities. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 30(3), 65–79.
Commonwealth Government. (1992). Disability discrimination act. Canberra: Author.
Commonwealth Government. (2010). Disability discrimination act 1992 (amended). Canberra:
Attorney-General’s Department.
Conway, R. (2012). Inclusive schools in Australia: Rhetoric and practice. In C. Boyle & K. Topping
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

(Eds.), What works in inclusion? (pp. 98–109). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Cook, B. G., Cameron, D. L., & Tankersley, M. (2007). Inclusive teachers’ attitudinal ratings of
their students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 40(4), 230–238. doi:10.1177/
00224669070400040401
Costello, S., & Boyle, C. (2013). Pre-service secondary teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education.
The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 129–143. doi:10.14221/ajte.2013v38n4.8
Croll, P., & Moses, D. (2000). Ideologies and utopias: Education professionals views of inclusion.
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 15(1), 1–12. doi:10.1080/088562500361664
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3),
297–334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555
de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2011). Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards
inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15
(3), 331–353. doi:10.1080/13603110903030089
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.
Forbes, F. (2007). Towards inclusion: An Australian perspective. Support for Learning, 22(2),
66–71. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9604.2007.00449.x
Forlin, C. (2006). Inclusive education in Australia ten years after Salamanca. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 21(3), 265–277. doi:10.1007/BF03173415
Forlin, C., Keen, M., & Barrett, E. (2008). The concerns of mainstream teachers: Coping with
inclusivity in an Australian context. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 55(3), 251–264. doi:10.1080/10349120802268396
Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Earle, C. (2009). Demographic differences in changing pre‐
service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive education. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(2), 195–209. doi:10.1080/13603110701365356
Forlin, C., & Sin, K. (2010). Developing support for inclusion: A professional learning approach for
teachers in Hong Kong. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 6(1), 7–26.
Hastings, R., & Oakford, S. (2003). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children
with special needs. Educational Psychology, 23(1), 87–94. doi:10.1080/01443410303223
Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized general
intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(5), 253–270. doi:10.1037/h0023816
Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission. (1973). Schools in Australia: Report of
the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission May 1973. Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service.
Karr, V. L. (2011). A life of quality: Informing the UN convention on the rights of persons with
disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22(2), 67–82. doi:10.1177/1044207310392785
Lauchlan, F., & Fadda, R. (2012). The “Italian model” of full inclusion: Origins and current
directions. In C. Boyle & K. Topping (Eds.), What works in inclusion? (pp. 31–40). Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Lifshitz, H., Glaubman, R., & Issawi, R. (2004). Attitudes towards inclusion: The case of Israeli and
Palestinian regular and special education teachers. European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 19, 171–190. doi:10.1080/08856250410001678478
 244 J. Kraska and C. Boyle

Loreman, T., Forlin, C., & Sharma, U. (2007). An international comparison of pre-service teacher
attitudes towards inclusive education. Disability Studies Quarterly, 27(4). Retrieved from http://
dsq-sds.org/article/view/53/53
Matlin, M. W., & Stang, D. J. (1978). The Pollyanna principle: Selectivity in language, memory,
and thought. Cambridge: Schenkman.
McCormack, O., & O’ Flaherty, J. (2010). An examination of pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards
the inclusion of development education into Irish post-primary schools. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26(6), 1332–1339. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.008
Michaud, K., & Scruggs, T. E. (2012). Inclusion in the United States: Theory and practice. In
C. Boyle & K. Topping (Eds.), What works in inclusion? (pp. 20–30). Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual (5th ed.). Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Pearce, M. (2009). The inclusive secondary school teacher in Australia. International Journal of Whole
Schooling, 5(2), 1–15. Retrieved from www.wholeschooling.net/Journal_of_Whole_Schooling/
IJWSIndex.html
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

Pearson, V., Lo, E., Chui, E., & Wong, D. (2003). A heart to learn and care? Teachers’ responses
toward special needs children in mainstream schools in Hong Kong. Disability & Society, 18(4),
489–508. doi:10.1080/0968759032000081020
Peat, J. (2001). Health science research: A handbook of quantitative methods. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Peters, S., Johnstone, C., & Ferguson, P. (2005). A disability rights in education model for
evaluating inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(2), 139–160.
doi:10.1080/1360311042000320464
Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs students.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), 188–198. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
3802.2009.01135.x
Shade, R. A., & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education preservice teachers’
attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and
Youth, 46(1), 37–41. doi:10.1080/10459880109603342
Sharma, U., Ee, J., & Desai, I. (2003). A comparison of Australian and Singaporean pre-service
teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive education. Teaching and Learning, 24(2), 207–217.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2007). What concerns pre-service teachers about inclusive
education: An international viewpoint? Journal of Educational Policy, 4(2), 95–114.
doi:10.2753/CED1061-1932400405
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(7), 773–785. doi:10.1080/09687590802469271
Sharma, U., Moore, D., & Sonawane, S. (2009). Attitudes and concerns of pre-service teachers
regarding inclusion of students with disabilities into regular schools in Pune, India. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 319–331. doi:10.1080/13598660903050328
Sosu, E. M., 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(4), 389–405. doi:10.1080/02607476.2010.513847
Spandagou, I., Evans, D., & Little, C. (2008). Primary education preservice teachers’ attitudes on
inclusion and perceptions on preparedness to respond to classroom diversity. Paper presented at
the AARE 2008 International Education Research Conference, Brisbane.
Subban, P., & Sharma, U. (2006). Primary school teachers’ perceptions of inclusive education in
Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 42–52.
The National Archives. (1980). Education Act 1980. Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/
ukpga/1980/20
Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Topping, K. (2012). Conceptions of inclusion: Widening ideas. In C. Boyle & K. Topping (Eds.),
What works in inclusion? (pp. 9–19). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
UNESCO. (1994). The UNESCO Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs
education. Salamanca: United Nations.
van Reusen, A. K., Shoho, A. R., & Barker, K. S. (2000). High school teacher attitudes toward
inclusion. The High School Journal, 84(2), 7–21.
Varcoe, L., & Boyle, C. (2014). Pre-service primary teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education.
Educational Psychology, 34(3), 323–337. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.785061
 Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 245

Warnock, M. (1978). Special educational needs: Report of the committee of enquiry into the
education of handicapped children and young people. London: H. M. Stationery Office.
Watkins, M. W. (2000). Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analysis [computer software]. State College,
PA: Ed and Psych Associates.
Wu, C. C., & Komesaroff, L. (2007). An emperor with no clothes? Inclusive education in
Victoria. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 31(2), 129–137. doi:10.1080/
10300110701704952
Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Volonino, V. (2009). What, where, and how? Special education in the
climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17(4), 189–204. doi:10.1080/09362830903231986
Zoniou-Sideri, A., & Vlachou, A. (2006). Greek teachers’ belief systems about disability and
inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10(4–5), 379–394.
doi:10.1080/13603110500430690

Appendix
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

The teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion scale adjusted

Please circle the appropriate item

(I) Please indicate your gender:

Male Female
(II) Does a member of your family or a friend with whom you have regular
contact with have additional support needs?
Yes No
(III) Please select the course that you are studying:
______________________________________________________________
(IV) What is your current year of study? 1 2 3 4 Post Grad
(V) What is your specialism/proposed specialism (e.g., physical education,
psychology)
______________________________________________________________
(VI) Please indicate your age: ______________
(VII) Have you studied a module or unit on inclusive education?
YES NO
(VIII) Have you experience of working in a school in some form of teaching
support role?
YES NO

FOR ALL THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS PLEASE INDICATE WHETHER YOU

DISAGREE OR AGREE WITH THE STATEMENT BY SELECTING A SCORE TO
REPRESENT YOUR VIEW
(Strongly Agree) 6 5 4 3 2 1 (Strongly Disagree)

(1) Students with additional support needs should be educated in a mainstream

school
(2) Educating children with additional support needs in mainstream classes has a
detrimental effect on the other children in the class.
(3) I feel that my teacher-training programme is preparing me adequately for work-
ing with all children irrespective of disability.
(4) I feel competent to work with students who have varying levels of difficulties.
 246 J. Kraska and C. Boyle

(5) Students with additional support needs have the social skills required to behave
appropriately in the classroom.
(6) The presence of students with additional support needs in my mainstream class
will have only a minimal effect upon my implementation of the standard
curriculum.
(7) Including children with additional support needs in the classroom can adversely
effect the learning environment of the class.
(8) A lot of the learning strategies employed in the classroom are applicable to all
students not just those with additional support needs.
(9) Some children have difficulties that mean that they should not be educated in
mainstream schools.
(10) I will be able to make a positive educational difference to students with addi-
tional support needs in my classroom.
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 16:48 16 March 2015

(11) Student peers will reject students with additional support

(12) Students performing at a level more than 3 years below their chronological age
should still be educated in mainstream classes.
(13) Children with Social and Emotional Behavioural Difficulties should be educated
in the mainstream class only if there is sufficient support in place for the class
teacher.
(14) It is not beneficial for children with additional support needs to be educated in
mainstream schools.
(15) It is my job, as a teacher, to provide alternative materials for students who have
additional support needs (e.g., printed sheets of work from the whiteboard).
(16) The daily or weekly formative assignments that are given to students to assess
the class should be adapted for children with additional support needs.
(17) The teacher should usually attempt to ensure that all the children in the class,
irrespective of levels of difficulty or ability, are able to participate in the class as
much as is possible.
(18) With appropriate support, I could teach all students (including additional support
needs) in the same class.
(19) A teacher, if given what are regarded to be appropriate resources, could teach the
vast majority of children with additional support needs.
(20) Children with additional support needs learn best when grouped with others with
similar needs.
(21) I do not support the policy of inclusion no matter how much extra support the
teacher is given in the class

PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR DEFINITION OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION:

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

View publication stats