Purposeful Preparation

Abstract

General and special education teachers are increasingly challenged by the prospect of collaborating in inclusive classrooms to meet the needs of all students. Unfortunately, few are prepared for such experiences. This study longitudinally explored elementary and special education pre-service teachers’ perceptions of inclusion as they partnered for a classroom management course and a field placement in K-5 classrooms. Statistical analyses of responses to the Attitudes toward Inclusion survey indicate statistically significant changes in the elementary pre-service teachers, but no change in the special education pre-service teachers. Implications for teacher educators are provided.

Keywords

collaboration teacher preparation practices and outcomes teacher beliefs inclusion

Federal legislation (Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004; No Child Left Behind Act, 2001) mandating access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities (SWDs) and Response to Intervention (RtI), a general education initiative for ensuring effective instruction for all students (Pierangelo & Giuliani, 2008), are changing the landscape of elementary classrooms. One school-based outcome of these recent mandates is an increase in the inclusion of children with disabilities in general education classrooms. Inclusion, the philosophy that “all students are full and accepted members of their school community, in which their educational setting is the same as their nondisabled peers, whenever appropriate” (Inclusive Schools Network, n.d., para. 2), requires that support services are brought to the child in the least restrictive environment. Often this least restrictive environment is the general education classroom. In fact, recent research indicates 77.4% of SWDs spend 40% or more of the school day in general education settings (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Similarly, RtI, a multitiered approach to providing individualized and specialized instruction for struggling learners in general education settings, necessitates joint collaboration among general and special educators in planning, teaching, and problem solving (CEC, 2011).

As such, general and special educators find their expanding roles are increasingly intertwined in a collective environment, the inclusive elementary classroom. This shifting context demands an understanding of SWDs and inclusive environments prior to induction to ensure positive outcomes for all learners (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). Furthermore, teacher educators must also attend to developing general and special education pre-service teachers’ preparation to work in a shared space while maximizing each other’s expertise. Unfortunately, the research literature indicates pre-service teachers feel woefully unprepared for teaching in inclusive environments (Jobling & Moni, 2004; Kirk, 1998). How to best prepare general and special education teachers for work in inclusive classrooms is a persistent challenge and source of debate among teacher educators (Shade & Stewart, 2001).

In an effort to prepare our pre-service teachers for collaboration in inclusive settings, we designed a cross-departmental collaborative course and field experience for elementary (EEMs) and special education majors (SEMs). The purpose of this research was to explore elementary and special education pre-service teachers’ initial and developing perceptions of inclusion in the context of this unique collaborative experience. We begin by providing a brief overview of the literature on in-service and pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward and perceptions of inclusion followed by the theoretical framework guiding this study. Next, we share information to contextualize the study, describe the procedures for data collection, and report our findings. We close with a discussion on our findings, including implications for teacher preparation and suggestions for future research.

Attitudes Toward Inclusion

Research suggests that the success of inclusion is largely dependent on teachers’ attitudes toward the practice (Burke & Sutherland, 2004; de Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2011; Forlin, Cedillo, Romero-Contreras, Fletcher, & Hernandez, 2010; Shade & Stewart, 2001). In a recent review of the literature on inclusive education, de Boer et al. (2011) found the majority of teachers expressed uncertainty and/or negative attitudes in their beliefs about inclusion, with many noting their lack of knowledge, competence, and confidence as contributing factors in their ratings. Shade and Stewart (2001) stated, “teachers may feel challenged, hopeful, and desirous of what can be accomplished, but they may also feel frustration, burden, fear, lack of support, and inadequacies about their ability to teach children with different kinds of problems” (p. 37). A teacher’s personal efficacy toward inclusion may also play a role in his or her attitude toward inclusion. Research suggests a teacher’s belief in his or her ability to work with SWDs predicts his or her attitude and willingness to work in inclusive contexts with stronger senses of personal efficacy indicating more positive attitudes (Brownell & Pajares, 1999; Lifshitz, Glaubman, & Issawi, 2004; Lopes, Monteiro, Sil, Rotherford, & Quinn, 2004).

Classroom teachers may also be more amenable to including students with certain types of disabilities over those they deem more challenging (Cook, 2001; Glaubman & Lifshitz, 2001; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). For example, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) concluded that teacher support for the placement of students in general education settings varied according to the nature of the disability with the vast majority of teachers supporting the inclusion of students with mild learning disabilities, and mild physical, sensory, and medical disabilities in general education classrooms. In contrast, the inclusion of students with emotional and behavioral disorders raised levels of concern among teachers. Additional and powerful contributing factors in teachers’ attitudes and levels of support for inclusion are practical considerations such as time, logistics, class load, and training (Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003; Rheams & Bain, 2005). In fact, it may be that these logistical challenges are more influential in teacher attitude than personal beliefs about inclusion.

Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of Inclusion

Research on pre-service teachers’ perceptions of inclusion of SWDs, like their in-service counterparts, is mixed. However, recent studies indicate that university experiences, even those that are short term, can positively impact pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of SWDs (McCray & Alvarez McHatton, 2011; Jobling & Moni, 2004; Shade & Stewart, 2001). For example, Shade and Stewart (2001) studied the attitudes of general and special education pre-service teachers toward inclusion prior to and following introductory coursework in special education. Dependent measures t tests by group on a range of questions related to placement, behavior, and teacher roles pertaining to inclusion revealed significant, positive gains in attitude scores of pre-service teachers from both majors following the course experience. Similarly, Shippen, Crites, Houchins, Ramsey, and Simon (2005) compared the perceptions of pre-service general and special education teachers regarding inclusion prior to and after an introductory course in special education using the Pre-Service Inclusion Survey (PSIS). Factor analysis indicated a slight shift in receptivity toward inclusion with special educators being more receptive than general education pre-service teachers. Similar positive shifts were seen in the anxiety/calmness factor with general educators showing the biggest change. McCray and Alvarez McHatton (2011) examined attitudes toward inclusion of elementary education and secondary education majors prior to and after completing a course on educating SWDs in general education settings. Results indicate attitudes toward inclusion were more positive after course completion. Exposure to the field of disabilities, opportunities to work with SWDs, and an emphasis on consultation, collaboration, and problem solving at the pre-service level may ameliorate teacher anxiety and facilitate positive shifts in attitudes toward inclusion (Shippen et al., 2005).

Because prior experience plays a role in mediating these concerns and in positively shaping attitudes toward inclusion, it is critical for teacher educators to provide opportunities in inclusive contexts for pre-service teachers (Everington, Stevens, & Winters, 1999). The research literature primarily focuses on the role of coursework as a means for exposing general education pre-service teachers to SWDs. While these experiences are important and may provide some initial changes in pre-service teachers’ perceptions, the literature indicates teacher beliefs are enduring constructs that are difficult to change (Pajares, 1992). There is little empirical evidence in the research literature regarding the role of purposefully integrated course and field experiences on pre-service teachers perceptions of inclusion. The purpose of our study is to explore pre-service elementary general and special education pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion in the context of opportunities for collaboration in a uniquely combined course and field-based experience. By examining the outcomes of this innovative experience, we advance the field’s understanding of pre-service elementary and special education pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward and preparation for inclusive settings. This study addressed the following research questions:

Research Question 1: What are special education and elementary education majors’ attitudes toward inclusion?

Research Question 2: How does participation in a co-taught course with a linked collaborative field experience impact special education and elementary education majors’ attitudes toward inclusion?

Theoretical Framework

Because of the enduring influence of beliefs on teachers’ perceptions, judgments, and classroom behaviors, the construct of “teacher beliefs” was used as theoretical frame for this study (Pajares, 1992). A review of the literature indicates a range of terms synonymous with teacher beliefs, including attitudes, dispositions, knowledge, and perspectives (Pajares, 1992). Rokeach (1968) defined beliefs as having multiple components, including cognitive, affective, and behavioral elements, in essence suggesting knowledge, emotion, and action work in concert to shape beliefs. Researchers assert beliefs are an essential tool in effective teacher preparation (Hart, 2004; Pajares, 1992) and the failure to study these beliefs can inhibit pre-service teachers’ acquisition of professional knowledge necessary for becoming an effective teacher (Morton, Williams, & Brindley, 2006; Pajares, 1992). This framework supports the importance of addressing attitudes toward inclusion at the pre-service level and for providing general education pre-service teachers opportunities to collaborate with special education pre-service teachers in inclusive classroom. In our study, the course and field experiences provided knowledge and action points for shaping attitudes toward inclusion and collaboration. The coupling of coursework with field-based experiences provided opportunities in which they could attach meaning and emotion to the level of difficulty associated with inclusion, as well as their own self-efficacy for engaging in inclusive practices. In addition, course and field experiences provided a structured framework to explore, understand, and experience others’ perceptions of inclusion (e.g., teachers, classmates, professors, children, administrators).

Method

Context

In spring 2010, three faculty members, two from the Department of Special Education and one from Childhood Education, participated in the second year of a cross-departmental collaborative project at a large metropolitan university in the southeastern United States. The impetus for the project was to provide additional opportunities for both majors to collaborate and to provide elementary education pre-service teachers additional content and experience in teaching SWDs. At the time of the study, elementary education majors (EEMs) were only required to take one course on teaching exceptional children, which was taken in their senior year. Both programs are at the undergraduate level. Upon completion, EEMs receive K-6 certification and SEMs receive K-12 certification.

The project consisted of several facets: (a) co-teaching a three-credit hour classroom management/instructional methods course for a group of special education and elementary education pre-service teachers, (b) linking the on-campus course to a field experience, and (c) placing the pre-service teachers in co-teaching pairs (one elementary education and one special education) in inclusive K-5 classrooms with in-service special education and elementary education teachers. Elementary education and special education pre-service teachers spent one full day in the field in their collaborative placement. Special education pre-service teachers spent an additional day in the same placement. Supervision of the field placement was conducted by the course instructors and two graduate students. Pre-service teachers from both majors participated together in course activities and discussions related to classroom management, differentiated instruction, instructional planning, co-teaching, SWDs, and RtI. During the course, extensive time and attention were given to team building across the majors. This included an all-day orientation consisting of multiple opportunities for collaborative groups to get to know each other, the use of cooperative learning structures within the course, and field seminars scheduled at strategic times across the semester at which collaborative teams could discuss bridges and barriers they were experiencing in their settings. The pre-service teachers were also required to plan and co-teach three lessons and reflect extensively on their collaborative field experiences in inclusive K-5 classrooms.

Participants

The elementary education pre-service teachers were in their 1st year in the program (junior year, first or second semester) and in their first field experience. The elementary education program is quite large (well over 300 students are admitted each year); students take courses at various paces (part-time/full-time). In addition, multiple sections of each course are offered and students do not progress through the program as a group. Special education pre-service teachers were also in their 1st year in the program (junior year, second semester) and this was their second field experience. Special education pre-service teachers progress through their program as a cohort; one cohort of 25 students is seated each fall semester. All courses are sequenced and each semester prior to their final internship, or full-time student teaching, contains a field experience that is linked to a specific course or multiple courses within the semester. In both programs, the first field experience requires 1 day in the field and consists of guided observations with debriefing and participation in school activities.

A total of 32 elementary education pre-service teachers and 31 special education pre-service teachers were enrolled in the course and linked field experience. Although all consented to participate in the study, pre- and post-surveys were not completed by all participants; thus, only participants from whom pre- and post-surveys were obtained (31 EEMs and 25 SEMs) are included in the sample. The majority of the participants was female (n = 48). Of the 31 EEMs, 2 were male and 29 were female; 28 were between the ages of 18 to 25 and 3 were between the ages of 26 to 35. Of the 25 SEMs, 6 were males and 19 were females; 18 were between the ages of 18 to 25, 5 were between the ages of 26 to 35, 1 was between the ages of 36 to 45, and 1 was 46 or above (Table 1). Data regarding ethic/racial demographics were not collected.

Table 1.

Demographics.

	EEM (%)	SEM (%)
Gender
Female	29 (93.5)	19 (75)
Male	2 (6.5)	6 (34)
Age
18-25	28 (90.3)	18 (72)
26-35	3 (9.7)	5 (20)
36-45		1 (4)
46 or above		1 (4)

Note. EEM = elementary education majors; SEM = special education majors.

Procedures

During the first week of classes, all teacher candidates participated in a full day orientation during which we provided an overview of the course and how the field experience would be structured. Various ice-breaker activities took place to develop a sense of community and allow teacher candidates to get to know each other and spend time with their collaborative partner (i.e., the person they were paired with for their field experience, which we identified based on a variety of factors, including transportation and family responsibilities). At the end of the day, we discussed the purpose of the study, described what participation would entail, and reviewed the consent process. Following this overview, participants were given time to complete the survey if they consented to participate. Surveys were completed in paper and pencil format at Times 1 and 2; at Time 3, participants had the option of completing them online or in paper and pencil format. No identifying information was collected; rather, an ID number which the student provided was used to match pre- and post-surveys.

Measure

We assessed teacher candidates’ perceptions of inclusion at two points in time using the Attitudes Toward Inclusion survey (Alvarez McHatton & McCray, 2007; McCray & Alvarez McHatton, 2011). Cronbach’s alphas for the survey at each administration (2007 and 2011) were .91 and .905 respectively. The surveys were administered at the end of the orientation which took place the first week of classes (Time 1) and again during our last class meeting (Time 2). In addition to demographic information, the survey contained 28 statements addressing five domains: (a) teacher, (b) SWDs, (c) students without disabilities (SWODs), (d) all students, and (e) schools. The teacher domain consisted of 17 statements such as “I would be willing to make instructional adaptations needed by SWDs in my classroom” and “Inclusion does not place an undue burden on general education teachers.” Six statements pertained to SWDs. Examples include “inclusion does not deny SWDs individualized instruction” and “most students with disabilities (regardless of level of their disability) can be educated in the general education classroom.” Two statements focused on the impact of inclusion on SWODs and two statements centered on the benefits of inclusion on all students and an increase in acceptance of difference by all students as an outcome of inclusion. Finally, one statement highlighted the effect of inclusion on school performance on high-stakes tests. The survey utilized a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree).

In addition to completing the survey at the beginning (Time 1) and end of the semester (Time 2), all participants were asked to complete the same survey 1 year later (Time 3) to assess whether and how their attitudes toward inclusion had changed as a result of additional coursework and further participation in field experiences, including student teaching. Approximately half of the original sample completed the survey at the third point in time (EEMs n = 16; SEMs n = 12). The balance declined to complete the survey. A preliminary repeated measures ANOVA was computed on attitude scores to see whether the group that completed the surveys at all 3 points in time differed from the group that completed the surveys at Times 1 and 2. Neither a main effect of times tested (p ≥ .05) nor a significant interaction between times tested and any other factor existed indicating the sample that completed the survey at 3 points in time did not significantly differ from the sample that completed the survey at 2 points in time.

Findings

Findings for this study were generated through statistical analyses, including descriptive statistics and repeated measure ANOVAs to determine change from Time 1 to Time 2, from Time 2 to Time 3, and differences between groups. Reliability was calculated at .921 for Time 1, .879 at Time 2, and .892 at Time 3 using Cronbach’s alpha. Statistical and descriptive results are provide for Times 1 and 2 followed by statistical and descriptive results for the subset of the original sample that completed the survey at Time 3.

Statistical Analysis

Survey: Time 1 and Time 2

A repeated measures ANOVA was computed with major as the between-subjects factor and time of testing (i.e., pre- or post-survey) as the within-subjects factor. The significant main effect of major, F(1, 54) = 12.23, p = .001, revealed higher means overall for SEMs at both points in time. Although there also was a significant main effect of time, F(1, 54) = 5.74, p = .020, the results should be interpreted with caution in light of the significant interaction between program and time, F(1, 54) = 6.37 p = .015. As Figure 1 shows, the increase was mainly concentrated in the EEMs population. Follow-up analysis revealed the pattern of differences across time. SEMs and EEMs were significantly different from one another at both Time 1, F(1, 54) = 15.51, p ≤ .001, and Time 2, F(1, 54) = 4.41, p = .040. Although EEMs changed significantly (i.e., their attitudes toward inclusion became significantly more positively from Time 1 to Time 2), F(1, 30) =9.06, p = .005, there was no significant change across time by the SEMs (p = .89).

Figure 1.

Mean scores for sample at Time 1 and Time 2.

Survey: Time 3

All participants were asked to complete the survey again 1 year later. As noted previously, approximately half of the original sample completed the survey at this third point in time (EEMs n = 16; SEMs n = 12). A repeated measures ANOVA was computed to determine whether a significant difference existed between the group that completed the survey at 2 points in time and the group that completed the survey at 3 points in time (titled subgroup). The interaction between major and times tested was not significant, F(1, 52) = .051, p ≥ .05; there was also no significant main effect for times tested, F(1, 52) = .689, p = .41, nor a significant main effort for the interaction between major and time, F(1, 52) = .051, p ≥.05. These results suggest the groups were comparable. Therefore, we can assume that those who completed the survey at Time 3, referred to as the subgroup, were representative of the whole sample.

A repeated measures ANOVA was computed on the subgroup with major as the between-subjects factor and time of testing (i.e., Time 2 or Time 3) as the within-subjects factor. No significant main effects were found for major, F(1, 27) = .608, p ≥ .05; time, F(1, 27) = .169, p ≥ .05; or interaction, F(1, 27) = .455, p ≥ .05). Follow-up analysis revealed SEMs and EEMs were not significantly different from one another at Time 3, F(1, 27) = .066, p ≥ .05. Although there was no significant change between Time 2 and Time 3 by either of the subgroups, attitudes toward inclusion by EEMs did increase slightly across time (Time 2: M = 4.3, SD = .480; Time 3: M = 4.32, SD = .608). Conversely, attitudes toward inclusion by SEMs decreased across time (Time 2: M = 4.47, SD = .224; Time 3: M = 4.37, SD = .269; Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Mean scores for subsample at Time 2 and Time 3.

Comparison across time

Analysis revealed a significant difference across time between the two groups with EEMs demonstrating a significant increase in positive attitudes toward inclusion at the end of the semester. The overall mean for SEMs fell slightly at Time 2 yet remained higher than the mean for the EEMs. At Time 3, the attitudes toward inclusion by SEMs fell again while the attitudes toward inclusion by EEMs continued to increase although at a slower rate than at Time 2. As time progressed, the SEMs became more closely aligned with EEMs in their attitudes toward inclusion.

Descriptive Analysis

Results from the descriptive analysis are provided for each domain of the survey by time. Domains include teachers, SWDs, SWODs, all students, and school (Table 2). We conclude with a summary at the end of each domain comparing differences across time.

Table 2.

Survey Results by Group by Time.

Teacher		EEM %	SEM %
Inclusion does not place a burden on general education teacher	Time 1	58.1	88.0
	Time 2	77.0	96.0
	Time 3	75.0	91.7
Inclusion does not place a burden on special educated teacher	Time 1	61.3	88.0
	Time 2	80.6	84.0
	Time 3	87.5	100.0
Would not hesitate to have a SWD in my classroom	Time 1	64.5	100.0
	Time 2	71.0	100.0
	Time 3	81.3	100.0
Would be willing to complete professional development to better meet the needs of SWDs	Time 1	87.1	100.0
	Time 2	96.8	96.0
	Time 3	93.8	100.0
Willing to make instructional adaptations for SWDs	Time 1	90.3	100.0
	Time 2	96.3	100.0
	Time 3	100.0	100.0
Believe inclusion is a desirable educational practice	Time 1	77.4	84.0
	Time 2	87.1	92.0
	Time 3	93.8	91.7
General education teachers do not need to worry about increased problem behaviors as a result of inclusion	Time 1	35.5	72.0
	Time 2	54.8	64.0
	Time 3	50.0	58.3
Believe most SWDs (regardless of disability) can be education in the general education classroom	Time 1	64.5	72.0
	Time 2	83.9	60.0
	Time 3	81.3	66.7
Believe most students with learning disabilities can be educated in the general education classroom	Time 1	90.3	100.0
	Time 2	93.5	100.0
	Time 3	100.0	100.0
Believe most students with behavior disorders can be educated in the general education classroom	Time 1	71.0	84.0
	Time 2	90.3	96.0
	Time 3	75.0	91.7
Believe most students with physical disabilities can be educated in the general education classroom	Time 1	80.6	100.0
	Time 2	83.9	96.0
	Time 3	81.3	100.0
Believe most students with hearing impairments can be educated in the general education classroom	Time 1	74.2	100.0
	Time 2	77.4	96.0
	Time 3	93.8	91.7
Believe most students with visual impairments can be educated in the general education classroom	Time 1	74.2	92.0
	Time 2	77.4	96.0
	Time 3	93.8	91.7
Believe most students with communication disorders can be educated in the general education classroom	Time 1	61.3	92.0
	Time 2	77.4	96.0
	Time 3	93.8	91.7
Believe most students with health impairments can be educated in the general education classroom	Time 1	77.4	92.0
	Time 2	80.6	92.0
	Time 3	93.8	91.7
Believe most students with cognitive disabilities/developmental delay can be educated in the general education classroom	Time 1	54.8	72.0
	Time 2	64.5	68.0
	Time 3	75.0	58.3
Believe most students with multiple disabilities can be educated in the general education classroom	Time 1	51.6	72.0
	Time 2	61.3	72.0
	Time 3	68.8	72.0
SWDs
Inclusion promotes independence of SWDs	Time 1	100.0	100.0
	Time 2	93.5	96.0
	Time 3	100.0	100.0
SWDs will find it easier to mix with peers after school is taught in inclusive settings	Time 1	93.5	92.0
	Time 2	100.0	100.0
	Time 3	100.0	91.7
Inclusion can positively affect self-concept of SWDs	Time 1	48.4	56.0
	Time 2	71.0	52.0
	Time 3	75.0	50.0
Inclusion can give SWDs a better chance to readily fit into their community	Time 1	90.3	96.0
	Time 2	96.8	100.0
	Time 3	100.0	100.0
SWDs can do well in the general education environment with support	Time 1	90.3	96.0
	Time 2	100.0	96.0
	Time 3	100.0	100.0
Inclusion does not deny SWDs individualized instruction	Time 1	48.4	84.0
	Time 2	87.1	84.0
	Time 3	81.3	58.3
SWOD
SWODs are not unfairly shortchanged by the extra attention teachers may give to SWDs	Time 1	35.0	76.0
	Time 2	58.1	88.0
	Time 3	62.5	83.3
Inclusion does not hinder the learning opportunities of SWODs	Time 1	64.5	96.0
	Time 2	80.6	100.0
	Time 3	81.3	83.3
All students
Inclusion is beneficial for all students	Time 1	54.8	56.0
	Time 2	67.7	40.0
	Time 3	87.5	33.0
Inclusion offers mixed-group interaction which fosters understanding and acceptance of differences	Time 1	90.3	100.0
	Time 2	100.0	100.0
	Time 3	100.0	100.0
Schools
Inclusive schools do not risk lowering their performance on high-stakes testing	Time 1	29.0	68.0
	Time 2	61.3	52.0
	Time 3	37.5	58.3

Note. EEM = elementary education majors; SEM = special education majors; special education; SWD = students with disabilities; SWOD = students without disabilities.

Teachers

Time 1

At Time 1, a larger percentage of SEMs compared with EEMs strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion does not place an undue burden on either general education (SEMs = 88%; EEMs = 61.3%) or special education teachers (SEMs = 88%; EEMs = 58.1%). Not surprisingly, 100% of SEMs compared with 64.5% of EEMs strongly agreed or agreed that they were not hesitant to have SWDs in their classroom. A majority of both groups strongly agreed or agreed that they would be willing to participate in extra professional development to better meet the needs of SWDs in their classrooms (SEMs = 100%; EEMs = 87.1%) and that they would be willing to make instructional adaptations needed by SWDs within their classroom (SEMs = 100%; EEMs = 90.3%). A slightly lower percentage, although still a majority, of both groups strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion was a desirable education practice (SEMs = 84%; EEMs=77.4). While a majority of SEMs (72%) strongly agreed or agreed that general education teachers did not need to worry about problem behaviors as a result of including SWDs in his or her classroom, only 35.5% of EEMs strongly agreed or agreed with this statement.

Finally, when asked to indicate level of agreement regarding the belief that SWDs (regardless of level of their disability) can be educated in the general education classroom, 72% of SEMs compared with 64.5% of EEMs strongly agreed or agreed with the statement. However, when asked as a follow-up to indicate whether most students with specific disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, physical disabilities, hearing impairments, visual impairments, communication disorders, health impairments, cognitive disabilities/developmental delay or multiple disabilities) could be educated in regular classrooms, percent of positive responses varied based on the disability category. For example, percent of positive responses by SEMs ranged from a low of 72% for students with multiple disabilities to a high of 100% for students with learning disabilities. Percent of positive responses by EEMs ranged from a low of 51.6% for students with multiple disabilities, to a high of 90.3% for students with learning disabilities.

Time 2

At Time 2, a larger percentage of SEMs compared with EEMs again strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion does not place an undue burden on either general education (SEMs = 96%; EEMs = 77.4%) or special education teachers (SEMs = 84%; EEMs = 80.6%). Again, not surprisingly, 100% of SEMs strongly agreed or agreed that they were not hesitant to have SWDs in their classroom compared with 71% of EEMs. A majority of both groups strongly agreed or agreed that they would be willing to participate in extra professional development to better meet the needs of SWDs in their classrooms (SEMs = 96%; EEMs = 96.8%) and that they would be willing to make instructional adaptations needed by SWDs within their classroom (SEMs = 100%; EEMs = 96.3%). A majority of both groups also strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion was a desirable education practice (SEMs = 92%; EEMs=87.1%). A slight majority in both groups strongly agreed or agreed that general education teachers did not need to worry about problem behaviors as a result of including SWDs in their classroom (SEMs = 64%; EEMs = 54.8%).

Finally, when asked to indicate level of agreement regarding the belief that SWDs (regardless of level of their disability) can be educated in the general education classroom, 92% of SEMs compared with 87.1% of EEMs strongly agreed or agreed with the statement. However, when asked as a follow-up to indicate whether most students with specific disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, physical disabilities, hearing impairments, visual impairments, communication disorders, health impairments, cognitive disabilities/developmental delay or multiple disabilities) could be educated in regular classrooms, percent of positive responses varied based on the disability category. For example, percent of positive responses by SEMs ranged from a low of 68% for students with cognitive disabilities to 100% for students with learning disabilities. Percent of positive responses by EEMs ranged from a low of 61.3% for students with multiple disabilities, to a high of 93.5% for students with learning disabilities.

Time 3

At Time 3, a larger percentage of SEMs compared with EEMs again strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion does not place an undue burden on either general education (SEMs = 91.7%; EEMs = 75%) or special education teachers (SEMs = 100%; EEMs = 87.5%). Again, not surprisingly, 100% of SEMs strongly agreed or agreed that they were not hesitant to have SWDs in their classroom compared with 81.3% of EEMs. A majority of both groups strongly agreed or agreed that they would be willing to participate in extra professional development to better meet the needs of SWDs in their classrooms (SEMs = 100%; EEMs = 93.8%) and 100% of both groups indicated a willingness to make instructional adaptations needed by SWDs within their classroom. A majority from each group strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion was a desirable education practice (SEM = 91.7; EEM = 93.8). Approximately half of the participants from each group (SEMs = 58.3%; EEMs = 50%) strongly agreed or agreed that general education teachers did not need to worry about problem behaviors as a result of including SWDs in their classroom.

Finally, when asked to indicate level of agreement regarding the belief that SWDs (regardless of level of their disability) can be educated in the general education classroom, 66.7% of SEMs compared with 81.3% of EEMs strongly agreed or agreed with the statement. However, when asked as a follow-up to indicate whether most students with specific disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, behavioral disorders, physical disabilities, hearing impairments, visual impairments, communication disorders, health impairments, cognitive disabilities/developmental delay or multiple disabilities) could be educated in regular classrooms, percent of positive responses varied based on the disability category. For example, percent of positive responses by SEMs ranged from a low of 58.3% for students with cognitive disabilities to 100% for students with learning disabilities and students with physical disabilities. Percent of positive responses by EEMs ranged from a low of 68.8% for students with multiple disabilities, to a high of 100% for students with learning disabilities.

Comparison across time: Teacher

The domain of teachers contained items that addressed personal beliefs regarding the effect of inclusion. SEMs were least concerned with the added burden inclusion places on teachers, both special education and general education. For EEMs, the burden on teachers was of greater concern, especially as it relates to general education teachers. EEMs reported less hesitancy in having SWDs in their classrooms across time. A majority in both groups were willing to obtain additional professional development needed to meet the needs of SWDs in inclusive settings and to make adaptations for these students within the general education classroom. A majority in both groups also agreed inclusion was a desirable practice. Concerns over problem behaviors in the classroom as a result of inclusion were evident in responses by both groups. Although the percentage of EEMs who agreed general education teachers did not need to worry about increased problem behaviors as a result of inclusion, the highest percentage of EEMs who concurred was 50% at Time 3. Responses by SEMs dropped across time with only 58% responding in agreement at Time 3. While both groups espoused positive attitudes toward inclusion, concerns regarding the impact of inclusion on teachers and possible problem behaviors in the classroom may preclude efforts toward inclusion. In addition, while a majority in both groups agreed most students, regardless of disability, could be served in general education classrooms, the specific disability which the student was identified with was a factor in the extent to which SWDs could be included.

SWDs

Time 1

All participants (100%) strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion promoted independence in SWDs and in excess of 90% from both groups (SEMs = 92%; EEMs = 93.5%) strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion facilitated positive peer interactions between SWDs and SWODs. A significantly lower percentage from both groups (SEMs = 56%; EEMs = 48.4%) strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion can positively affect self-concept in SWDs. A majority of both groups also strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion gave SWDs a better chance of readily fitting into their community (SEMs = 96%; EEMs = 90.3%). Likewise, a majority of both groups strongly agreed or agreed that SWDs could perform well in the general education classroom with support (SEMs = 96%; EEMs = 90.3%). Finally, although 84% of SEMs agreed that inclusion did not deny SWDs individualized instruction, only 48.4% of EEMs concurred.

Time 2

At Time 2, 96% of SEMs and 93.5% of EEMs strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion promoted independence in SWDs and 100% from both strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion facilitated positive peer interactions between SWDs and SWODs. A significantly lower percentage from both groups (SEMs = 52%; EEMs = 71%) strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion can positively affect self-concept in SWDs. A majority of both groups also strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion gave SWDs a better chance of readily fitting into their community (SEMs = 100%; EEMs = 96.8%). Likewise, a majority of both groups strongly agreed or agreed that SWDs could perform well in the general education classroom with support (SEMs = 96%; EEMs = 100%). Finally, 84% of SEMs agreed that inclusion did not deny SWDs individualized instruction compared with 87.1% of EEMs.

Time 3

At Time 3, 100% of both groups again strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion promoted independence in SWDs and 91.7% of SEMs and 100% of EEMs strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion facilitated positive peer interactions between SWDs and SWODs. A significantly lower percentage from both groups (SEMs = 50%; EEMs = 75%) strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion can positively affect self-concept in SWDs. All participants (100%) strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion gave SWDs a better chance of readily fitting into their community and that SWDs could perform well in the general education classroom with support. Finally, 58.3% of SEMs agreed that inclusion did not deny SWDs individualized instruction compared with 81.3% of EEMs.

Comparison across time: SWDs

This domain specifically addresses teacher beliefs on the effect of inclusion on SWDs. Across time, a majority (in excess of 90%) of both groups agreed that inclusion promoted independence in SWDs, facilitated peer interactions after school, and enabled SWDs to readily fit into their communities. Furthermore, a majority (in excess of 90%) in both groups also agreed that SWDs could do well in inclusive settings with support. Responses regarding the effect of inclusion of the self-concept of SWDs and whether inclusion allowed for the provision of individualized instruction to SWDs were less positive. Although percent of positive responses by EEMs regarding both of these statements increased across time, at Time 3, only three quarters felt inclusion positively impacted self-concept in SWDs and 81% felt SWDs were not denied individualized instruction in inclusive settings. Conversely, percent of positive responses by SEMs regarding both of these statements decreased across time. At Time 3, only 50% agreed inclusion positively impacted self-concept in SWDs and only 58% agreed inclusion did not deny individualized instruction to SWDs. The discrepancies between these responses compared with the other items in this domain suggest there is some tension within both groups relative to inclusion.

SWODs

At Time 1, a higher percentage of SEMs (76%) compared with EEMs (35%) strongly agreed or agreed that the additional attention given to SWDs did not shortchange SWODs in the general education classroom. Likewise, higher percentages of SEMs (96%) compared with EEMs (64.5%) strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion did not hinder the learning opportunities for SWODs. A similar pattern emerged at Time 2 in which a higher percentage of SEMs (88%) compared with EEMs (58.1%) strongly agreed or agreed that the additional attention given to SWDs did not shortchange SWODs in the general education classroom and that inclusion did not hinder the learning opportunities for SWODs (SEMs: 100%, EEMS: 80.6%). At Time 3, again a higher percentage of SEMs (83.3%) compared with EEMs (62.5%) strongly agreed or agreed that the additional attention given to SWDs did not shortchange SWODs in the general education classroom. Similarly, higher percentages of SEMs (83.3%) compared with EEMs (81.3%) strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion did not hinder the learning opportunities for SWODs.

Comparison across time: SWODs

Items pertaining to this domain specifically addressed the effect of inclusion on SWODs. Although initially only 35% of EEMs agreed SWODs were not shortchanged by the extra attention teachers may give SWDs, this percentage increased to 62.5% at Time 3. The percentage of EEMs that agreed that inclusion did not hinder learning opportunities for SWODs also increased across time (i.e., 64% at Time 1; 81% at Time 2). On the other hand, the percentage of SEMs who agreed with both of these statements was higher across all points in time (i.e., in excess of 75%; range 76%-96%).

All Students

At Time 1, slightly more than half of both groups (SEMs = 56%; EEMs = 54.8%) strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion was beneficial for all students. A majority in both groups (SEMs = 100%; EEMs = 90.3%) strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion fostered understanding and acceptance of differences. At time 2, 40% of SEMs compared with 67.7% of EEMs strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion was beneficial for all students. Yet, 100% of both groups strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion fostered understanding and acceptance of differences. Finally, at time 3 only 33% of SEMs compared with 87.5% of EEMs strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion was beneficial for all students while 100% of both groups again strongly agreed or agreed that inclusion fostered understanding and acceptance of differences.

Comparison across time: All students

Across time, a stark difference between the two groups emerged regarding whether inclusion was beneficial for all students. The percent of positive responses by SEMs decreased across each point in time while the percent of positive responses by EEMs increased across each point in point. However, a majority in both groups (range 90.3%-100%) strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that inclusion fosters understanding and acceptance of differences.

Schools

At Time 1, 68% of SEMs compared with 29% of EEMs strongly agree or agree that including SWDs will not negatively affect school performance on high-stakes tests. At Time 2, percent of positive responses regarding the impact of inclusion on school performance on high-stakes tests decreased for SEMs (52%) and increased for EEMs (61.3%). At Time 3, a higher percentage of SEMs (58.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that including SWDs would not negatively affect school performance on high-stakes testing compared with EEMs (37.5%).

Comparison across time: Schools

This domain specifically addressed the impact of inclusion on school performance on high-stakes testing. Positive responses to this statement fluctuated across time in both groups. Although at Time 2, approximately two thirds of EEMs agreed that inclusion did not negatively affect school performance, this percentage decreased at Time 3. Percent of positive responses by SEMs dropped at Time 2 (52%) then rose again at Time 3 (58.3%) but did not reach the same level from Time 1 (68%).

Discussion

This study explored elementary education and special education pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion across time (i.e., after participating in a unique cross-departmental collaborative course and field experience and 1 year later). Findings suggest elementary and special education pre-service teachers follow markedly different trajectories in developing attitudes toward inclusion across their teacher education programs. Data analyses indicate EEMs experienced a positive increase in their attitude toward inclusion following a collaborative course/field experience. Although we cannot attribute the change specifically to the collaborative experience as other factors such as cooperating teachers, school climate, and collaborative partner may have also played a role, it did serve as the vehicle for exposure to SWDs, inclusion, and co-teaching for both groups. In many instances, the percentage of EEMs agreeing or strongly agreeing with the various domain specific aspects of inclusion rose significantly from Time 1 (prior to the collaborative experience) to Time 2 (immediately following the collaborative experience. For the EEMs, the collaborative course/field experience was their first exposure to special education and SWDs. It occurred in a highly structured setting with deliberate pairings with special education pre-service teachers, an emphasis in coursework on SWDs, and field placements in inclusive classrooms. The findings here underscore the impact of the combined power of these three factors. It is possible that the Time 1 scores for EEMs were largely informed by their prior beliefs about disabilities and special education developed during their “apprenticeship of observation” (Lortie, 1975) and/or a fear of the unknown. For many of the EEMs, the collaborative course/field experience dispelled many of the myths and misconceptions associated with special education. Longitudinal data indicates the positive trend continued for EEMs as they progressed through their teacher education program, including final internship. Perhaps the collaborative course/field experience provided a foundation for EEMs’ developing understanding of inclusion and co-teaching and helped to dispel fears about meeting the needs of SWDs previously reported in the literature (Jobling & Moni, 2004; Kirk, 1998). Due to the pervasive nature of inclusion, it may also suggest that as EEMs develop a more nuanced understanding of the complexity of teaching in K-5 classrooms they may perceive inclusion as one of the many responsibilities inherent in being an elementary teacher.

SEMs, while having higher overall mean scores than the EEMs at each data point, remained relatively stagnant in their attitudes toward inclusion as a result of the collaborative course/field experience (Time 1 and Time 2), and slightly decreased as they completed their final internship (Time 3). In addition, there were a number of fluctuations and downward shifts in the domain specific questions for SEMs from Time 2 to Time 3. We question to what extent there is dissonance between their theoretical understandings of inclusion and the manner in which it is enacted in K-12 settings. As SEMs, this dissonance may manifest itself in field experiences where a multitude of factors (e.g., special educator as guest in the elementary classroom, lack of their own instructional space, attitude of the elementary educator) inform their perceptions. Thus, while they may be initially very positive about inclusion and co-teaching, their attitudes are continuously (re)shaped based on the nature of their field experiences.

Several findings within the specific domains of the survey warrant further discussion. When considering the role of the teacher in inclusion, EEMs reported increasingly positive attitudes toward the practice, and SEMs maintained overwhelming support of the practice in response to most of the questions. However, when asked specifically about concerns that there may be behavior problems resulting from inclusion, the EEMs and SEMs were much less positive. In fact, by Time 3 just more than half of the EEMs and SEMs reported that general education teachers did not need to worry about problem behaviors as a result of inclusion. While the EEMs’ attitudes positively changed over time on this item, the SEMs declined. Pre-service teachers routinely and historically report classroom management as a major concern (Browers & Tomic, 2000), and it may be that these results are reflective of that or are reflective of other studies which indicate teachers are less amenable to placing students with behavior issues in inclusive settings (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). We are also left to consider whether field experiences are providing real-world examples that are shaping their responses. It may be that they believe holistically that inclusion is a sound instructional practice, yet field experiences are providing specific contexts within which they can cite instances in which behavior management was challenging in an inclusive classroom.

Most surprising was the disconnect between SEMs’ reported attitudes toward inclusion in the teacher domain with those reported in the student domains (SWDs, SWODs, and all students), and the contrast of the SEMs’ percentages with the EEMs. When asked to consider inclusion and its impact on the teacher, SEMs, like EEMs, reported overwhelmingly positive attitudes toward the practice. In contrast, when asked about the impact of inclusion on SWDs in terms of self-concept and individualized instruction, the SEMs had less than positive perceptions, particularly when compared with the EEMs. For the SEMs, it may be a clash of university and school contexts. As they progress through their preparation program, it is likely they are taught research-based pedagogical best practices that emphasize individualized instruction, and initially may perceive that they can enact those practices. Yet, over time and across field experiences, there may be multiple instances where their philosophical stance collides with pervasive school practices (e.g., mandated curriculum, school pacing guides, inclusive classroom comprised of large numbers of SWDs and other struggling learners). The realities of what inclusion looks like for their students are juxtaposed against what they perceive as a best practice. This may also be a factor in decreased agreement over time by SEMs regarding inclusion as beneficial for all students. Based on their responses regarding the effect of inclusion on self-concept in SWDs and concerns over a lack of individualized instruction, this reduction may be directly related to their perceptions regarding the extent to which SWDs are receiving the needed services within inclusive settings.

Finally, findings reveal that EEMs and SEMs are keenly aware of the high-stakes context within which they will be evaluated and are concerned about the impact of inclusion on test scores and school performance. The percentages strongly agreeing or agreeing that inclusion does not unduly affect test scores were among the lowest reported on the survey, and for the EEMs represented one of the few areas that declined after Time 2. In this state, like many others, there is immense, unrelenting pressure on teachers to ensure that all students pass state-mandated standardized tests. Again, like in many other states, teachers’ pay is increasingly tied to student performance on these tests. As such, contextual features may play a significant role in the extent to which teachers and pre-service teachers’ embrace inclusion.

While we find the results of this study to be provocative, there are a number of limitations that should be noted. First, the sample size of this study is small and limited to two programs at one institution. As such, the authors caution readers that there is limited generalizability. However, the findings may inform future research and project development. In addition, inherent in survey data, particularly data collected as part of a course, is the issue of participants responding with answers that they believe reflect the professors’ expectations rather than their true beliefs. Although there is a possibility of social acceptance bias in participant responses, tensions emerged in responses relative to certain items within each domain that support the need for additional research. Finally, while the survey asked pre-service teachers to respond regarding their beliefs about inclusion, we did not include observations in the study and we do not know the extent to which these beliefs were reflected in their classroom practices. Furthermore, it is possible that differences in final student teaching placement for special education pre-service teachers (e.g., elementary, middle or high school and inclusive, resource, or self-contained settings) as well as other contextual factors for both elementary education and special education pre-service teachers (e.g., administrative support for inclusion, attitudes and beliefs of cooperating/supervising teachers) may have influenced participant attitudes and beliefs at Time 3. Future large scale, longitudinal studies of the role of integrated course and field experiences are needed to develop a richer understanding of their impact on pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion.

In spite of the limitations, the implications of this study for teacher educators are numerous. The power of the field as a context for connecting and enacting coursework cannot be understated—particularly for the EEMs. In this study, the purposeful pairing of a course and field experience with an explicit focus on inclusion and co-teaching provided a structure for exploring new constructs and may have supported positively developing attitudes. The exposure in a real-world context to SWDs was invaluable. We must caution, however, that more field experiences do not always equate to better field experiences (Allsopp, DeMarie, Alvarez McHatton, & Doone, 2006). We cannot overstress the importance of finding placements that are good models for pre-service teachers. In this collaborative experience, the schools were recommended by the district special education coordinator as exemplars in inclusion and co-teaching. As such, partnering with districts to identify high quality field placements is vital as they may have enduring influence on teacher beliefs, attitudes, retention, and student achievement gains (Ronfeldt, 2012).

While the intent of our study is not to engage in the ongoing dual certification (elementary and special education) debate, we feel it does highlight the inescapable fact that at a minimum, pre-service EEMs and SEMs need experiences that emphasize collaboration across their disciplines. Content-based course discussions of inclusion are insufficient. While the benefits for EEMs were previously discussed, collaborative cross-departmental experiences provide a context for SEMs to see that parity with general educators is possible. We have a responsibility to also model for our pre-service teachers effective collaborative approaches within higher education classrooms. As teacher educators, we have to teach pre-service teachers how to collaborate through creation of spaces in which all stakeholders’ expertise are recognized and valued.

Finally, we suggest that teacher educators must explicitly explore pre-service teachers’ (EEMs and SEMs) teaching beliefs and conduct studies in which the enactment of beliefs in practice is examined. Asking critical questions regarding the impetus for entry into the field and beliefs about SWDs at the onset provides a critical starting point for discussions of inclusion and co-teaching. It is in these open, honest climates that pre-service teachers can experience dissonance to spark new learning.

Conclusion

Considering that research indicates the extent to which inclusion is successful is largely dependent on teachers’ attitudes (Burke & Sutherland, 2004; de Boer et al., 2011; Forlin et al., 2010; Shade & Stewart, 2001), the results of this study are encouraging. We are also initially encouraged by altruistic attitudes toward inclusion as a whole and the perception that by and large it is a favorable educational practice. These finding juxtaposed with the perceptions that inclusion denies SWDs individualized instruction and may be detrimental to their self-concept suggest the very policies enacted to address issues of equity and access may result in unintended consequences for the purported beneficiaries—SWDs and student of color (Artiles, 2011). Furthermore, the stagnation and slight decrease in the scores for SEMs is troubling. That they would become less amenable over time to inclusion is disheartening. Even if it is not statistically significant, there appears to be a developing trend. Purposeful preparation of both general education and special education pre-service teachers must extend beyond the university classroom and provide both with genuine opportunities to work with and learn from each other. Doing so will require the dedication and commitment of all stakeholders.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Patricia Alvarez McHatton is Professor and Chair of the Department of Inclusive Education at Kennesaw State University. Her research interests include collaboration, pre-service teacher education, and the school experiences of diverse youth and families. A major emphasis of her work is the use of arts-based research as a means of making research findings accessible to the communities in which the research is undertaken.

Audra Parker is an Associate Professor at George Mason University and serves as Elementary Program Coordinator. Her research interests include pre-service teacher education, co-teaching, and young adolescents’ school experiences. She enjoys engaging in collaborative innovations in teacher education as a means of facilitating pre-service teachers’ professional development.

References

Allsopp

D. H.

DeMarie

Alvarez McHatton

Doone

(2006). Bridging the gap between theory and practice: Connecting courses with field experiences. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 19-35.

Alvarez McHatton

McCray

E. D.

(2007). Inclination towards inclusion: Perceptions of elementary and secondary education teacher candidates. Action in Teacher Education, 29(3), 25-32.

Artiles

A. J.

(2011). Toward an interdisciplinary understanding of educational equity and difference: The case of the racialization of ability. Educational Researcher, 40, 431-445. doi:10.3102/0013189X11429391

Browers

Tomic

(2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 239-253.

Brownell

M. T.

Pajares

(1999). Teacher efficacy and perceived success in mainstreaming students with learning and behavior problems. Teacher Education and Special Education, 22, 154-164.

Burke

Sutherland

(2004). Attitudes toward inclusion: Knowledge vs. experience. Education, 125, 163-172.

Cook

B. G.

(2001). A comparison of teachers’ attitudes toward their included students with mild and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 34, 203-213.

de Boer

Pijl

S. J.

Minnaert

(2011). Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 331-353.

Everington

Stevens

Winters

V. R.

(1999). Teachers’ attitudes, felt competence, and need of support for implementation of inclusive educational programs. Psychological Reports, 85, 331-338.

10.

Forlin

Cedillo

I. G.

Romero-Contreras

Fletcher

Hernandez

(2010). Inclusion in Mexico: Ensuring supporting attitudes by newly graduated teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 723-739.

11.

Glaubman

R. H.

Lifshitz

(2001). Ultra-orthodox Jewish teachers’ self-efficacy and willingness for inclusion of pupils with special needs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 16, 207-222.

12.

Hart

L. C.

(2004). Beliefs and perspectives of first-year, alternative preparation, elementary teachers in urban classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 104, 79-88.

13.

Inclusive Schools Network. (n.d.). Inclusion basics. Retrieved from http://inclusiveschools.org/inclusion-basics/

14.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

15.

Jobling

Moni

K. B.

(2004). I never imagined I’d have to teach these children: Providing authentic learning experiences for secondary pre-service teachers in teaching students with special needs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 32, 5-22.

16.

Kirk

R. H.

(1998). The link between university coursework and pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward students with special learning needs. College Student Journal, 32(1), 153-157.

17.

Klingner

J. K.

Ahwee

Pilonieta

Menendez

(2003). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 411-429.

18.

Lifshitz

Glaubman

Issawi

(2004). Attitudes toward inclusion: The case of Israeli and Palestinian regular and special education teachers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19, 171-190.

19.

Lopes

J. A.

Monteiro

Sil

Rutherford

R. B.

Quinn

M. M.

(2004). Teachers’ perceptions about teaching problem students in regular class- rooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 394-419.

20.

Lortie

(1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

21.

McCray

E. M.

Alvarez McHatton

(2011). “Less afraid to have them in my classroom”: Understanding pre-service general educators’ perceptions about inclusion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(4), 135-155.

22.

Morton

M. L.

Williams

N. L.

Brindley

(2006). Colliding cultures: Career switchers transition to elementary classrooms. Action in Teacher Education, 28(1), 40-50.

23.

No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). Public law 107–110. Washington, DC: U.S. Government.

24.

Pajares

M. F.

(1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.

25.

Pierangelo

Giuliani

G. A.

(2008). Frequently asked questions about response to intervention: A step-by-step guide for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

26.

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Retrieved from http://www.nectac.org/~pdfs/calls/2010/earlypartc/revitalizing_special_education.pdf

27.

Rheams

T. A.

Bain

S. K.

(2005). Social interaction interventions in an inclusive era: Attitudes of teachers in early childhood self-contained and inclusive settings. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 53-63.

28.

Rokeach

(1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

29.

Ronfeldt

(2012). Where should student teachers learn to teach? Effects of field placement school characteristics on teacher retention and effectiveness. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 3-26.

30.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

(1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958-1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59-74.

31.

Shade

R. A.

Stewart

(2001). General education and special education pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 46, 37-41.

32.

Shippen

M. E.

Crites

S. A.

Houchins

D. E.

Ramsey

M. L.

Simon

(2005). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of including students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 92-99.

33.

U.S. Department of Education. (2011). 30th annual report to congress on the implementation of the individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2008. Washington, DC: Author.