An Examination of Preservice Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Beliefs About Inclusive Education

Abstract

Teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs are important to classroom practices and student success. In this study, the authors examine preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs related to inclusive education. One hundred seventy-nine preservice teachers enrolled in secondary or elementary education programs participated in this study. Overall, participants in elementary versus secondary programs felt more responsible for students with disabilities and more efficacious with inclusive practices. At the same time, preservice teachers in the secondary program and those in their second (vs. first) year rated themselves higher on negative beliefs about inclusive education and viewed ability as more of a fixed and stable trait. Preservice teachers with a history of reading difficulty had higher teacher self-efficacy than those without this history. The factors examined in this study accounted for about a third of the variance in each of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusive instructional practices and in their negative beliefs about inclusive education. Epistemological beliefs about ability emerged as a strong predictor of preservice teachers’ negative beliefs about inclusive education. The results from this study are discussed within the context of preparing teachers for the inclusive classroom.

Keywords

preservice teachers teacher-efficacy inclusive education teacher preparation

The movement toward inclusive education has been a major topic in educational reforms over the past three decades (Civitillo, De Moor, & Vervloed, 2016). Inclusive education refers to having learning environments in neighborhood schools that effectively support the development and academic attainment of all students within a diverse society (e.g., Porter & Towell, 2017). Although policies and practices differ between provinces, the majority of Canadian students with identified exceptionalities attend general education classrooms within their local schools (e.g., New Brunswick Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, 2013; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2018). It is not surprising that classroom teachers have been identified as one of the most important factors in successful implementations of inclusive education (Forlin, Cedillo, Romero-Contreras, Fletcher, & Rodriguez Hernández, 2010). Furthermore, teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs related to inclusion are key determinants of teachers’ behavior in inclusive classrooms (Jordan, 2018).

Preparation for teaching in inclusive classrooms is a central objective of teacher education programs, and thus, self-efficacy and inclusion-related beliefs are important to understand in preservice teachers (Lancaster & Bain, 2010; Miesera, DeVries, Jungjohann, & Gebhardt, 2019). In this study, we examine preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusive instructional practices and their inclusion-related beliefs as a function of gender, school level they are preparing to teach, year in their program, personal-life experiences with individuals with disabilities, and their own histories of reading difficulties.

Teacher-Efficacy for Inclusive Practices

Teacher-efficacy for inclusive practices refers to teachers’ perceptions of their own ability to meet the diverse learning needs of students through a range of teaching strategies within the classroom (Sokal & Sharma, 2017). This sense of self-efficacy is an important determinant of teachers’ effectiveness in inclusive classrooms (Jordan, Glenn, & McGhie-Richmond, 2010; Jordan & Stanovich, 2004). Teachers with higher teacher-efficacy do more in the classroom to help students who are struggling and have more positive attitudes toward inclusion (e.g., Weisel & Dror, 2006; Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, & Davis, 2009).

Concerning preservice teachers, it has been reported that higher teacher-efficacy is related to more positive attitudes toward inclusion (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000; Forlin & Chambers, 2011); however, many preservice teachers report feeling ill-prepared for teaching in inclusive settings (Ahsan, Deppeler, & Sharma, 2013; Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2009). Specht et al. (2016) found higher teacher-efficacy to use inclusive instruction for preservice teachers with versus without friends with special needs, although there were no group differences based on gender or school-level one was preparing to teach. These conclusions are tentative, however, as comparison on each variable may have been confounded with other factors (e.g., more males in secondary than elementary programs). The current study went beyond previous research by examining not only if teacher-efficacy varied as a function of frequently included demographic factors but also if these factors interact with one another. Moreover, this study asked to what extent preservice teachers’ beliefs and demographic characteristics account for individual differences in teacher-efficacy for inclusive educational practices, a question which has not been adequately studied (Sokal & Sharma, 2017).

Beliefs about Inclusive Education

Beliefs about one’s role and responsibility for the education of students with disabilities influence teachers’ attitudes, approaches, and adaptations in inclusive classrooms (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Florian & Linklater, 2010). Teachers’ sense of responsibility for students with special needs is related to persistence in using inclusive practices to meet the needs of those students (Jordan, 2018). Preservice teachers have concerns about their role and responsibilities as teachers in inclusive classrooms (McKay, 2016). As their knowledge of their role in inclusive contexts develops, their sense of efficacy may increase (Forlin & Chambers, 2011). For example, Domović, Vidović Vlasta, and Bouillet (2017) reported that preservice teachers farther along in their programs had a more inclusive orientation concerning students with developmental disabilities. Whether preservice teachers’ sense of responsibilities for students with disabilities more generally differs as a function of their year in the program and other important characteristics needs to be further explored.

Teachers’ epistemological beliefs about ability range along a continuum from viewing ability as a fixed and stable trait, to that which is more malleable and flexible (Glenn, 2018; Jordan, 2018). Elementary teachers with views of ability as more malleable were more likely to report intervening and making adaptations for students with exceptionalities in their classrooms (Glenn, 2007), and these views were positively associated with teachers’ sense of responsibility for students with exceptionalities (Glenn, 2018; Jordan, 2018). For preservice teachers, Specht et al. (2016) found that males (vs. females) and those enrolled in secondary (vs. elementary) preparation programs more highly endorsed the notion of ability as more fixed. Preservice teachers with friends with special needs were lower on this scale than those without such friendships (Specht et al., 2016). The current study builds on previous research on preservice teachers’ beliefs about ability by including variables not previously examined (e.g., year in program) and by examining how individual differences in such predict teacher-efficacy and negative beliefs about inclusion.

Teachers’ negative beliefs about inclusive education may be one of the most detrimental factors to its successful implementation and are related to their use of inclusive classroom practices (Forlin et al., 2010; McGhie-Richmond, Irvine, Loreman, Cizman, & Lupart, 2013). Negative beliefs about inclusion include the position that students with disabilities take time and attention away from other students and beliefs that students with disabilities do not fare as well in general versus special education placements (Glenn, 2007). Negative beliefs about inclusion have been found to be higher for secondary teachers (McGhie-Richmond et al., 2013) and may increase with years of teaching experience (Parasuram, 2006; Varcoe & Boyle, 2014).

Although not studied directly, negative beliefs about inclusion may also increase for preservice teachers as they move through their preparation programs. Inclusion-related worries were found to increase with greater familiarity with inclusive education (Forlin & Chambers, 2011; see also Sharma & Sokal, 2015), and preservice teachers near completion of their programs were skeptical about the day-to-day experiences of teaching in inclusive settings (Civitillo et al., 2016). On the contrary, research suggests that overall attitudes become more positive with increasing years in a teacher preparation program (Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008; see also Domović et al., 2017). We examined differences in preservice teachers’ negative beliefs as a function of several demographic characteristics and determined what factors account for unique variance in these beliefs.

Personal-Life Experiences and History of Reading Difficulties

In their pan-Canada study, Specht et al. (2016) found that teacher-efficacy was higher for preservice teachers who had (vs. had not) endorsed that they had a friend with a disability. Similarly, Sokal and Sharma (2017) found higher teacher-efficacy for those who indicated they knew someone with a disability. We suggest that familiarity with challenges and beneficial practices for individuals with disabilities, gained through one’s personal life, may contribute to teacher-efficacy. Based on their own childhood experiences, preservice teachers with learning disabilities appear to have gained a sense of helpful and harmful practices in inclusive classrooms (Csoli & Gallagher, 2012). Therefore, childhood struggles with learning may be one type of personal-life experience that leads to a higher sense of teacher-efficacy for inclusive instructional practices.

A significant proportion of university students have a self-reported history of reading difficulties, which manifest in similar reading problems as for university students with diagnosed reading disabilities (Deacon, Cook, & Parrila, 2012). We expected that preservice teachers with a history of reading difficulties would have higher teacher-efficacy for inclusive instructional practices than their peers without this history. Previous research has found that less than half of aspiring teachers were enthusiastic readers themselves (Applegate et al., 2014). We focused on the relationship between histories of reading difficulties and teacher-efficacy, as well as examined whether the incidence of these varied between elementary and secondary teacher programs.

The Current Study

Given the importance of teacher-efficacy and beliefs for successful implementations of inclusive education, further research is needed to better understand these factors in the preservice population (Peebles & Mendaglio, 2014). We first examined teacher-efficacy and inclusion-related beliefs as a function of preservice teachers’ gender, program level (elementary vs. secondary), year in program, and personal-life experience with individuals with disabilities. Previous research findings have been sparse or inconsistent, or conclusions may be tentative given analytic approaches (e.g., Specht et al., 2016). We next explored the incidence of preservice teachers’ histories of reading difficulties and examined whether those with (vs. without) such a history would have higher teacher-efficacy for inclusive practices. Finally, given the dearth of studies exploring individual differences in this area (Sokal & Sharma, 2017), we examined which factors predict unique variance in preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and in their negative beliefs about inclusion.

Preservice teachers in this study were enrolled in a 2-year, post-degree education program. In their study, Specht et al. (2016) found that participants from 11 universities across Canada were mostly enrolled in such post-degree teacher preparation programs (71% of their 1,490 preservice teachers). Moreover, preservice teachers in post-degree programs did not differ from those in first-degree, 4- to 5-year education programs on constructs overlapping with this study (i.e., self-efficacy to use inclusive instruction and epistemological beliefs about ability). Participants in this study attended one of the four universities in the province with teacher education programs. This is one of the two institutes to admit the largest number of preservice teacher candidates in the province (Nova Scotia Department of Education and Early Childhood Development [NSDoEECD], 2007).

Method

Participants

A readily accessible sample of preservice teachers in a small Eastern Canadian university took part in this study. Participants had completed an undergraduate degree with specific pre-requisites for their program level (elementary—Grades K-6 or secondary—Grades 7-12). Approximately 95% of the preservice teachers enrolled at the university participated in this study. The participants completed the multi-part, pencil-and-paper questionnaire in September, in a class whose instructor was not involved in the research.

One hundred seventy-nine preservice teachers participated in this study. In total, 94 participants (86 females) were enrolled in the Elementary program, half of which were in their first year and half in the second year of their program. Furthermore, 65 participants were aged 25 years or younger, 18 were 26 to 30 years, seven were 31 to 40 years, and four were 41 years or older. There were 85 participants (57 females) enrolled in the Secondary program, with 37 in their first year and 48 in their second year. In terms of age distribution, 53 participants were 25 years or younger, 19 were 26 to 30 years, 12 were 31 to 20 years, and one was 41 years or older.

Participants at the start of their first year would have had very limited exposure to their coursework. Participants at the beginning of their second year would have successfully completed at least 30 credit hours of required coursework in the following areas: general and foundational education including a course on inclusive education, methods courses in their program areas, and a full-year professional seminar which includes 7 weeks of practicum in a local school.

Measures

Demographic information and personal-life experience with individuals with disabilities

The participants completed a demographic questionnaire, providing information on their age, gender, year in program, and program level (i.e., Elementary or Secondary). Similar to previous research (Sokal & Sharma, 2017; Specht et al., 2016), participants completed a question asking them to check all items that “. . . best describe your prior experience with individuals with disabilities.” The four possible responses to endorse were as follows: I have a family member with a disability; I had (a) friend(s) with disabilities in my neighborhood when I attended grade school; I had (a) friend(s) with disabilities in my classroom in elementary or high school; and I had (a) friend(s) with disabilities in extracurricular activities when growing up. Endorsed items were tallied to obtain scores between 0 and 4 on this Life Experience variable.

History of reading difficulties

Participants completed the Elementary scale on the Adult Reading History Questionnaire–Revised (ARHQ-R; Parrila, Corkett, Kirby, & Hein, 2003). Participants respond on a 5-point Likert-type scale to eight items assessing the extent of their difficulties acquiring reading skills in elementary school (e.g., How much difficulty did you have learning to read in elementary school?). Responses are added across the items and transformed into a proportion score ranging from 0 to 1 (higher scores indicating more difficulties learning to read). From previous research, the cutoff score for identifying participants as having a history of reading difficulties is equal to or greater than 0.37, and scores less than 0.25 are indicative of no self-reported difficulties learning to read (Parrila, Georgiou, & Corkett, 2007). Cronbach’s alpha on this scale was .89 for this sample.

Teacher-efficacy and beliefs about inclusive education

The specific efficacy and belief constructs in this study are not currently measured by any single published questionnaire, and do not appear to have been investigated all together in this population. For example, the Beliefs About Learning and Teaching Questionnaire (Glenn, 2018) measures teachers’ epistemological beliefs about ability but does not measure negative beliefs about inclusion or beliefs about teacher responsibility for students with disabilities. Therefore, scales to measure the specific teacher-efficacy and belief constructs examined in this study were based on items from several questionnaires. Both construct and face validity of these scales should be largely maintained, as items or clusters of items were used to measure the same construct as in the original questionnaires. We report Cronbach’s alphas for each scale to ensure that reliabilities were acceptable for the purpose of this investigation (for similar approaches, see Schmidt & Vrhovnik, 2015; Subban & Mahlo, 2017). Recommended levels of Cronbach’s alphas range from .7 to .9; however, alpha coefficients will be lower for scales with fewer items (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).

For each of the teacher-efficacy and inclusion-related beliefs scales described below, participants responded on a 6-point Likert-type scale, with higher scores indicating stronger agreement with the item. The items for each of our scales are presented in the appendix.

Teacher-efficacy for inclusive instruction

This measure assessed efficacy for the use of inclusive instructional practices. The eight items on our scale included items from the Efficacy to Use Inclusive Instruction scale (Sharma, Loreman, & Forlin, 2012), supplemented with several items from questionnaires also measuring this construct (Glenn, 2007; Kim, 2011). Higher scores on this scale are indicative of higher teacher-efficacy. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for this sample was .77.

Beliefs about responsibility

Two items made up this measure of teachers’ sense of their role and responsibilities for students with disabilities (Kim, 2011). Cronbach’s alpha was .71. Higher scores are indicative of feeling greater responsibility for students with disabilities.

Beliefs about ability: The Entity-Increment scale

Preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about ability was measured with seven items, a slightly adapted Entity-Increment scale based on versions of the Beliefs About Learning and Teaching Questionnaire (Glenn, 2007; Glenn, 2018). Higher scores indicate a belief in abilities as more fixed and static (i.e., the Entity end of the continuum). Cronbach’s alpha for our sample was .71.

Negative beliefs about inclusion

Three items were used to measure participants’ negative belief about inclusive education. These items originated in the work of Glenn (2007). Higher scores on this measure are associated with higher negative beliefs about inclusive education. Cronbach’s alpha for our sample was .69. This reliability is at about the lower end of the recommended range, and is likely an underestimate as it has few items (Eisinga, Te Grotenhuis, & Pelzer, 2013; Taber, 2018; Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). As will be seen in the “Results” section, the reliability of this scale is also supported by the observation that it has a similar range of correlations with each of the three other teacher-efficacy and beliefs scales as among themselves.

Results

All variables but one were normally distributed (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Mild skewness on the ARHQ-R was corrected with a log transformation.

Gender Differences on Teacher-Efficacy and Inclusion-Related Beliefs

To examine gender differences while controlling for other factors, male participants were individually matched with female participants on each of program level, year in program, and age category. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with each of the four inclusion-related measures was conducted for these two groups consisting of 36 participants each. There was an overall significant effect of the group, F(4, 67) = 4.16, p < .01, Wilks’s Λ = .80. Follow-up univariate analyses showed that males were lower on the Efficacy and Responsibility scales and were higher on the Entity-Increment scale (see Table 1 for group means, standard deviations, F values, and $η_{p}^{2}$ ). The group comparison for Negative Beliefs failed to reach statistical significance (p = .09). Examination of the groups’ means suggests that neither males nor females strongly endorsed the negative items.

Table 1.

Scale Mean Scores, Standard Deviations, F Values, and Partial-Eta Squared by Gender.

Scale	Females		Males		F(1, 70)	$η_{p}^{2}$
Scale	M	SD	M	SD	F(1, 70)	$η_{p}^{2}$
TE	5.19	0.48	4.79	0.56	10.54**	.131
RR	5.54	0.70	5.08	0.75	7.17**	.093
EI	2.19	0.75	2.72	0.70	9.77**	.122
NB	2.18	1.01	2.59	1.00	2.96^†	.041

Note. TE = Teacher-Efficacy scale; RR= Roles and Responsibility scale; EI = Entity-Increment scale; NB = Negative Beliefs scale.

†

p = .09. **p ≤ .01.

Effects of Program Level and Year in Program on Teacher-Efficacy and Inclusion-Related Beliefs

We next examined group differences for Elementary and Secondary preservice teachers and for the Year in Program on the four measures. For the two scales that are positively related to inclusion, a repeated-measures analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted with Program Level (Elementary, Secondary) and Year (first, second) as between-participant variables, and measure (Efficacy, Responsibility) as a within-participant variable. Gender was entered as a covariate (see Table 2 for cell means and standard deviations). Results showed a main effect of Measure, F(1, 174) = 25.97, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .130, and a main effect of Program Level, F(1, 174)= 15.88, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .084. Overall, scale scores were higher for Responsibility (M = 5.44; SD = 0.67) than Efficacy (M = 4.95; SD = 0.54), and were higher for Elementary (M = 5.36; SD = 0.53) than Secondary preservice teachers (M = 5.03; SD = 0.54).

Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations for Inclusion Scales by Program Level and Year.

	Elementary				Secondary
	Year 1		Year 2		Year 1		Year 2
n	47		47		37		48
n	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Positive inclusion scales
TE	5.24	0.50	5.09	0.50	4.77	0.63	4.71	0.56
RR	5.61	0.54	5.56	0.66	5.36	0.72	5.19	0.78
Negative inclusion scales
EI	2.29	0.76	2.36	0.76	2.27	0.55	2.73	0.71
NB	1.85	0.77	2.21	0.94	2.07	0.64	2.76	1.05

Note. TE = Teacher-Efficacy scale; RR = Roles and Responsibility scale; EI = Entity-Increment scale; NB = Negative Beliefs scale.

A similar ANCOVA was performed on the two measures negatively associated with inclusion: the Entity-Increment and Negative Beliefs scales. The analysis revealed a main effect of Program Level, F(1, 174) = 4.19, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .024, and Year, F(1, 174) = 14.99, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .079, and a significant interaction of Year × Measure, F(1, 174) = 4.32, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .024. Overall, Secondary preservice teachers were higher on these negative scales (M = 2.42; SD = 0.70) than Elementary preservice teachers (M = 2.21; SD = 0.69). As well, those in the second year were higher than those in the first year (M = 2.52; SD = 0.67 and M = 2.12; SD = 0.68, respectively). Post hoc comparisons revealed that first-year preservice teachers were higher on the Entity-Increment scale than the Negative Beliefs scale, whereas there were no differences between these scales for participants in their second year.

Effects of Experiences with Individuals with Disabilities on Teacher-Efficacy and Inclusion-Related Beliefs

To compare participants who contrasted in their self-reported experience with individuals with disabilities, we created two groups. The first group did not endorse any of the four items on the Life Experience question. The second group endorsed three or four of these items. This led to a group of 44 preservice teachers who indicated they did not have these experiences and 46 who endorsed having more experience with individuals with disabilities. For a MANOVA with each of the four measures, the group effect just failed to reach conventional levels of statistical significance, F(4, 85) = 2.4, p = .056, Wilks’s Λ = .90. Univariate follow-up tests did show that participants with more experience had higher efficacy, F(1, 88) = 5.77, p < .02, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .062, than those with no experience (M = 5.14; SD = 0.54 and M = 4.83; SD = 0.70, respectively). Those with versus without this experience were also lower on the Entity-Increment scale, F(1, 88) = 5.86, p < .02, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .062 (M = 2.10; SD = 0.99, and M = 2.51; SD = 1.02, respectively). On the contrary, comparing a group of participants who endorsed having a family member with a disability (n = 74) with participants who did not in a similar MANOVA, the overall effect did not reach statistical significance (p > .07), nor did those for univariate follow-up tests.

Preservice Teachers’ Histories of Reading Difficulties and Teacher-Efficacy

We conceptualized participants’ own experiences learning to read as another type of relevant personal-life experience. We first examined whether there was a difference in the proportion of preservice teachers meeting criteria for having a history of reading difficulties in the Elementary versus Secondary program. A chi-square analysis showed that there was no association between Program Level and reaching criteria to be identified as having a history of reading difficulties (24.5% of elementary preservice teachers and 18.8% of secondary preservice teachers). An independent-samples, one-tailed t test showed that, as predicted, those who met criteria for having a history of reading difficulties (n = 39) felt more efficacious than those with no indication of difficulties learning to read, n = 109; t(146) = 1.76, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .021; M = 5.18 (0.55) and M = 4.96 (0.63) for the groups, respectively.

Predicting Teacher-Efficacy for Inclusive Instruction

The correlations for the major variables in this study are shown in Table 3. To better understand all individual differences that contribute to preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusion, we conducted a hierarchical regression with variables entered from lowest to highest associations with Efficacy. One exception was that Program Level was entered into the equation last, to see if the other variables accounted for its association with Teacher-Efficacy. Gender and Year were included in the first step to control for variance associated with these variables. As can be seen in Table 4, Step 1 accounted for 5.5% of the variance in Teacher-Efficacy, with History of Reading Difficulties as the significant predictor. Entity-Increment accounted for a further 5.5% of the variance as Step 2, and Personal Experience accounted for an additional 4.9% of the variance as Step 3. Negative Beliefs was entered as Step 4, accounting for an additional 6% of the variance, with Responsibility accounting for an additional 10% of the variance in Efficacy as Step 5. As the final step, Program Level accounted for an additional 4.9% of unique variance in Efficacy. In all, 36.3% of the variance in preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusive practices was accounted for. Each of Personal Experience, Negative Beliefs, Responsibility, and Program Level accounted for unique variance in the final equation.

Table 3.

Correlations of Major Variables in Study.

Measure	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Year
2. Program Level	.07
3. ARHQ-R	−.18*	.06
4. Pers Exp.	−.08	−.10	.11
5. TE	−.12	−.37**	.17*	.26**
6. RR	−.09	−.23**	.13	.12	.48**
7. NB	.28**	.23**	−.10	−.17*	−.38**	−.38**
8. EI	.17*	.14	.03	−.11	−.25**	−.38**	.53**

Note. Year = Year in Program; ARHQ-R = Adult Reading History Questionnaire–Revised; Pers. Exp. = personal experience with individuals with disabilities; TE = Teacher-Efficacy scale; RR= Roles and Responsibility scale; NB = Negative Beliefs scale; EI = Entity-Increment scale.

p < .05. **p ≤ .01.

Table 4.

Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Preservice Teachers’ Self-Efficacy for Inclusive Practices.

Predictor	∆R²	β	Final β
Step 1
Gender		−.142	.065
Year		−.092^{^}	.003
ARHQ-R	.055*	.157*	.038
Step 2
Entity-Incremental	.055**	−.243**	.002
Step 3
Pers. Experience	.049**	.224**	.179**
Step 4
Negative Beliefs	.06**	−.302**	−.188*
Step 5
Responsibility	.098**	.344**	.335**
Step 6
Program Level	.052**		−.246**

Note. Year = Year in Program; ARHQ-R = Adult Reading History Questionnaire–Revised; Pers. Experience = personal experience with individuals with disabilities.

p = .055. *p < .05. **p ≤ .01.

Predicting Preservice Teachers’ Negative Beliefs about Inclusion

In a final analysis, we examined what variables accounted for unique variance in preservice teachers’ Negative Beliefs. The variables entered were suggested as important in previous research and significant in the zero-order correlations. We entered Gender, Year, and Personal Experience in Step 1. As seen in Table 5, Step 1 accounted for 12.8% of the variance in Negative Beliefs, with Gender and Year in Program as significant predictors. In Step 2, the Entity-Increment scale accounted for an additional 20.3% of the variance in Negative Beliefs. Finally, Program Level accounted for a small but significant 1.7% of unique variance. In total, 34.7% of the variance in preservice teachers’ Negative Beliefs was accounted for, with each of Year, Entity-Increment, and Program Level as significant predictors in the final equation.

Table 5.

Hierarchical Regressions Predicting Preservice Teachers’ Negative Beliefs About Inclusion.

Predictor	∆R²	β	Final β
Step 1
Gender		.165*	.040
Year		.275**	.187**
Pers. experience	.128**	−.124	−.080
Step 2
Entity-Increment	.203**	.469**	.458**
Step 3
Program Level	.017*		.136*

Note. Year = Year in Program; Pers. Experience = personal experience with individuals with disabilities.

p < .05. **p ≤ .01.

Discussion

This article explored preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusive instructional practices and beliefs concerning inclusive education. We first examined gender differences on the major constructs in our study. Not unlike other studies, males represented only 9% of our elementary-program participants but made up about one third of our secondary-program sample. For groups matched on age and program level, females felt more efficacious with inclusive instruction and more responsible for the education of students with disabilities. We do note, however, that relatively high mean ratings indicated that, overall, both females and males viewed the classroom teacher as responsible for students with disabilities. Our findings differ from previous research on gender differences with preservice teachers (Specht et al., 2016); however, they are consistent with other research on in-service teachers (for review, see Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). We also found that males more highly endorsed the notion of ability as a static, stable trait than did females (see also Specht et al., 2016). Coupled with lower self-efficacy for inclusive practices, male preservice teachers may be at higher risk to graduate feeling less prepared for inclusive classrooms.

Research has reported more positive, inclusion-related beliefs for practicing teachers in elementary versus secondary schools (e.g., McGhie-Richmond et al., 2013). We found that elementary preservice teachers felt more efficacious with inclusive instructional practices and more responsible for students with disabilities. These program-level differences were associated with moderate effect sizes. Furthermore, secondary preservice teachers more highly endorsed ability as a fixed and stable trait (see also Specht et al., 2016), as they did for negative beliefs about including students with disabilities in the classroom. These differences were associated with small effect sizes. This pattern of findings for our preservice secondary teachers has been associated with less persistence and effort in implementing classroom practices to accommodate all learners among in-service teachers (Jordan, 2018). The absence in the analyses of any interactions with the participants’ year in program suggests that preservice teachers in elementary versus secondary programs may already have different orientations toward inclusive education upon entering their teacher preparation programs.

Participants in their first and second year did not differ on their sense of responsibility for individuals with disabilities or on their sense of efficacy. Preservice teachers in their second year did more highly endorse notions that inclusive education is not helpful for students or for teachers, and viewed ability more as a stable trait. These differences were associated with a moderate effect size. These cross-sectional findings are not unlike those from longitudinal studies which have found that preservice teachers’ concerns (about resources, time, and workload demands associated with inclusion) increase over the course of their programs (e.g., Forlin & Chambers, 2011). As one learns more about complex issues and spends more time in inclusive classrooms, the challenges in these settings may become more real and contribute to higher negative beliefs in second- versus first-year preservice teachers.

Personal-life experiences were associated with teacher-efficacy and beliefs. We found that preservice teachers who endorsed more versus less personal-life experience with individuals with disabilities felt more efficacious to use inclusive instruction and had more of an orientation to ability as malleable and flexible (see also, Specht et al., 2016). A novel area of study with preservice teachers was our examination of their own experiences learning to read. We found the proportion of preservice teachers who met criteria for having a history of reading difficulties (19%-25%) to be commensurate across program level and with rates in studies of first-year undergraduate students (Bergey, Deacon, & Parrila, 2017). As predicted, those with a history of reading difficulties had higher teacher-efficacy for inclusive instructional practices. Furthermore, across the entire sample, the extent of reading difficulties in childhood was related to more positive teacher-efficacy, even after accounting for variance associated with gender and year of program. Preservice teachers who have struggled to acquire literacy skills may have more experience as recipients of varied instructional strategies in their own past (Leko, Kulkarni, Lin, & Smith, 2015). This increased familiarity may lend itself to feeling more confident with varied instructional approaches to meet the needs of all learners (see also, Csoli & Gallagher, 2012).

Little research has examined which factors uniquely predict preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusive practices. Sokal and Sharma (2017) found that having a friend or family member with a disability and greater knowledge of legislation both contributed to preservice teachers’ higher self-efficacy. In the current study, each of personal-life experiences with individuals with disabilities, negative beliefs about inclusion, sense of responsibility for educating individuals with exceptionalities, and program level emerged as significant predictors, together accounting for about a third of the variance in teacher-efficacy for inclusive instruction. Negative beliefs and sense of responsibility are two malleable factors in this final equation, and positive changes in these could contribute to an increased level of teacher-efficacy. The association between teacher-efficacy and program level was not explained by the factors examined in this study. Secondary teachers’ greater focus on disciplinary knowledge, as well as teaching many more students for shorter periods each day, may impede a full consideration of the needs of students with exceptionalities in the secondary classroom (McGhie-Richmond et al., 2013).

Teachers’ negative beliefs and attitudes about inclusion have been identified as a major impediment to its successful implementation (e.g., Forlin & Chambers, 2011). We found that both gender and personal-life experience with individuals with disabilities were related to negative beliefs; however, these did not account for unique variance in the final equation. Preservice teachers’ year in the program and program level each predicted unique variance in negative beliefs about inclusion. Perhaps most notable, preservice teachers’ beliefs of ability as more static and fixed predicted 20% of the unique variance in beliefs that inclusive education compromises teaching time, is not good for students with disabilities, and takes away from the education of students without special needs. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time the magnitude of the association of these epistemological beliefs with negative beliefs about inclusive education has been delineated in preservice teachers.

Considerations for Teacher Preparation Programs

Consistent with research on in-service teachers (McGhie-Richmond et al., 2013), preservice teachers enrolled in secondary programs had a less inclusive orientation than those in the elementary program. To positively affect such outlooks, secondary programs may need an increased focus on inclusive instructional practices. For secondary special education teachers, preservice courses and professional development focused on pedagogical content knowledge and practice in reading instruction were associated with higher self-reported focused and effective instruction (Leko, Chiu, & Roberts, 2018). Such dedicated courses might help preservice secondary teachers believe that they can meet the instructional needs of diverse students in inclusive classrooms. Inclusive practices for secondary schools, however, remain less well studied, and current approaches may be more challenging in secondary settings (Lovett, Lacerenza, De Palma, & Frijters, 2012; Swanson et al., 2016). This means that faculty in secondary teacher education programs may not have a readily accessible research base to inform course development.

To mitigate negative beliefs about inclusion, preservice programs may need to intentionally target preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about ability (see also Specht & Metsala, 2018). Teacher candidates may need to learn and practice effective approaches that allow them to experience and observe the positive influence of instruction on learning outcomes. Although this will not sound like a new goal for teacher preparation programs, the degree to which this has been successfully carried out has been questioned (e.g., Feiker Hollenbeck, 2013; Hanford, 2018; Washburn, Binks-Cantrell, Joshi, Martin-Chang, & Arrow, 2016).

Monitoring students’ inclusive orientation as they progress through their programs seems important, as second-year students more highly endorsed scales negatively associated with inclusive education. Discussions that purposefully explore the most challenging and concerning aspects about inclusive education as well as periodic, written check-ins may be ways to address concerns as they arise (see also Forlin & Chambers, 2011). The inclusive orientation and knowledge of students with more experience with individuals with disabilities, or with experiences of learning difficulties themselves, may be untapped resources in teacher preparation programs. Forums for critical reflection on such experiences, lessons learned, and generalizations to teaching might benefit all students, especially those without these life experiences.

Limitations and Conclusion

The findings of this study need to be considered within the context of its limitations. A significant limitation pertains to the measurement of teacher-efficacy and beliefs in this study. The questionnaire was compiled from items across several instruments and has not been previously administered in its entirety, and coefficient alphas were at the lower end of the recommended range. Further research and development with this questionnaire are needed to examine its validity and reliability. Another consideration is that all our participants came from one university. The teacher education program graduates approximately one third of teachers prepared in the province each year (NSDoEECD, 2007), and we did have a 95% participation rate. Further support for generalizability comes from the many similar findings for those constructs that were also measured in a large pan-Canada study (Specht et al., 2016). Nonetheless, a sample from one preservice program is a significant limitation of this study and replication of observed findings is needed with a more representative sample of preservice teachers. Similar to some previous research (Sokal & Sharma, 2017; Specht et al., 2016), we used a coarse and quantitative approach to delimiting participants’ life experiences with individuals with disabilities. Qualitative approaches would help to better understand and differentiate aspects of these important life experiences, and to delineate how these contribute to more inclusive orientations. Finally, while measures of self-efficacy and beliefs are necessarily self-report, it would be informative to relate these to observations of preservice teachers’ practices in inclusive settings.

In conclusion, our study highlights several aspects of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs that may be beneficial to consider in teacher preparation programs. First, individuals with histories of elementary-school reading difficulties have higher self-efficacy for inclusive practices, as do those with previous experience with individuals with disabilities. These are strengths that preservice programs could build upon. Second, preservice teachers farther along in their programs and those in secondary programs appear to have less inclusive orientations. Programs need to monitor orientations to inclusion over time and to find ways to better support secondary preservice teachers’ developing knowledge and competence of inclusive instructional practices. Third, negative beliefs about inclusion and one’s sense of responsibility for students with disabilities are malleable constructs, potentially open to positive influences in preparation programs, and each contributes to teacher-efficacy for inclusive practices. Finally, preservice teachers’ epistemological beliefs about ability as a more static entity are strongly predictive of their negative beliefs about inclusive education. Classroom approaches which demonstrate that positive learning outcomes are dependent on instruction may help change beliefs about ability and thus negative beliefs about inclusive education.

Footnotes

Appendix

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) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by the Gail and Stephen Jarislowsky Chair in Learning Disabilities endowment, Mount Saint Vincent University.

Author Biographies

Jamie L. Metsala is the Gail and Stephen Jarislowsky Chair in Learning Disabilities in the Faculty of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University. She is a researcher with the Canadian Research Center on Inclusive Education. Her research interests include the teaching and learning of reading, learning disabilities, and inclusive education.

Mary Jane Harkins is a professor in the Literacy Education Program in the Faculty of Education at Mount Saint Vincent University and a faculty advisor for MountAbility, a program for students with disabilities who may not be able to attend university without the supports provided by this program. Her research interests include inclusive education, Indigenous studies, the achievement gap, and literacy education.

References

Ahsan

M. T.

Deppeler

J. M.

Sharma

(2013). Predicting pre-service teachers’ preparedness for inclusive education: Bangladeshi pre-service teachers’ attitudes and perceived teaching-efficacy for inclusive education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43, 517-535. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2013.834036

Applegate

A. J.

Applegate

M. D.

Mercantini

M. A.

McGeehan

C. M.

Cobb

J. B.

DeBoy

J. R.

. . . Lewinski

K. E.

(2014). The Peter effect revisited: Reading habits and attitudes of college students. Literacy Research and Instruction, 53, 188-204. doi:10.1080/19388071.2014.898719

Avramidis

Bayliss

Burden

(2000). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 277-293. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00062-1

Avramidis

Norwich

(2002). Teachers’ attitudes towards integration / inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129-147. doi:10.1080/08856250210129056

Bergey

Deacon

S. H.

Parrila

(2017). Metacognitive reading and study strategies and academic achievement of university students with and without a history of reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 81-94. doi:10.1177/0022219415597020

Civitillo

De Moor

J. M. H.

Vervloed

M. P. J.

(2016). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education in the Netherlands: An exploratory study. Support for Learning, 31, 105-121. doi:10.1111/1467-9604.12119

Csoli

Gallagher

T. L.

(2012). Accommodations in teacher education: Perspectives of teacher candidates with learning disabilities and their faculty advisors. Exceptionality Education International, 22(2), 61-76. Retrieved from https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1122&context=eei

Deacon

S. H.

Cook

Parrila

(2012). Identifying high-functioning dyslexics: Is self-report of early reading problems enough? Annals of Dyslexia, 62, 120-134. doi:10.1007/s11881-012-0068-2

Domović

Vidović Vlasta

Bouillet

(2017). Student teachers’ beliefs about the teacher’s role in inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32, 175-195. doi:10.1080/08856257.2016.1194571

10.

Eisinga

Te Grotenhuis

Pelzer

(2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58, 637-642. doi:10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3

11.

Feiker Hollenbeck

A. R

. (2013). Beyond talking about books: Implications of the reading comprehension instruction and pedagogical beliefs of a special educator perceived as effective. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36, 112-125. doi:10.1177/0731948712451975

12.

Florian

Linklater

(2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Using inclusive pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40, 369-386. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2010.526588

13.

Forlin

Cedillo

I. G.

Romero-Contreras

Fletcher

Rodriguez Hernández

H. J.

(2010). Inclusion in Mexico: Ensuring supportive attitudes by newly graduated teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 723-739. doi:10.1080/13603111003778569

14.

Forlin

Chambers

(2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive education: Increasing knowledge but raising concerns. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39, 17-32. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2010.540850

15.

Forlin

Loreman

Sharma

Earle

(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

16.

Glenn

(2007). The impact of teachers’ epistemological beliefs and their beliefs about disability on their teaching practices in inclusive classrooms (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

17.

Glenn

C. V.

(2018). The measurement of teacher’s beliefs about ability: Development of the beliefs about learning and teaching questionnaire. Exceptionality Education International, 28(3), 51-66. Retrieved from https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/eei/vol28/iss3/5/

18.

Hanford

(2018, October 26). Why are we still teaching reading the wrong way? Teacher preparation programs continue to ignore the sound science behind how people become readers. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/opinion/sunday/phonics-teaching-reading-wrong-way.html

19.

Jordan

(2018). The supporting effective teaching project: 1—Factors influencing student success in inclusive elementary classrooms. Exceptionality Education International, 28(3), 10-27. Retrieved from https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/eei/vol28/iss3/3/

20.

Jordan

Glenn

McGhie-Richmond

(2010). The supporting effective teacher (SET) project: The relationship of inclusive teaching practice to teachers’ beliefs about disability and ability and about their roles as teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 259-266. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.005

21.

Jordan

Stanovich

(2004). The beliefs and practices of Canadian teachers about including students with special needs in their regular elementary classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada, 14, 25-46. Available from https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/eei/

22.

Kim

J. R.

(2011). Influence of teacher preparation programmes on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 355-377. doi:10.1080/13603110903030097

23.

Lancaster

Bain

(2010). The design of pre-service inclusive education courses and their effects on self-efficacy: A comparative study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 38, 117-128. doi:10.1080/13598661003678950

24.

Leko

M. M.

Chiu

M. M.

Roberts

C. A.

(2018). Individual and contextual factors related to secondary special education teachers’ reading instructional practices. The Journal of Special Education, 51, 236-250. doi:10.1177/0022466917727514

25.

Leko

M. M.

Kulkarni

Lin

M. C.

Smith

S. A.

(2015). Delving deeper into the construct of preservice teacher beliefs about reading instruction for students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 38, 186-206. doi:10.1177/0888406414557677

26.

Lovett

M. W.

Lacerenza

De Palma

Frijters

J. C.

(2012). Evaluating the efficacy of remediation for struggling readers in high school. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 151-169. doi:10.1177/0022219410371678

27.

McGhie-Richmond

Irvine

Loreman

Cizman

J. L.

Lupart

(2013). Teacher perspectives on inclusive education in rural Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Education, 36, 195-239. Retrieved from journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/download/1155/1470/

28.

McKay

(2016). Beginning teachers and inclusive education: Frustrations, dilemmas and growth. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20, 383-396. doi:10.1080/13603116.2015.1081635

29.

Miesera

DeVries

J. M.

Jungjohann

Gebhardt

(2019). Correlation between attitudes, concerns, self-efficacy and teaching intentions in inclusive education evidence from German pre-service teachers using international scales. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 19, 103-114. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12432

30.

New Brunswick Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2013). Inclusive education (Policy 322). Retrieved from http://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/ed/pdf/K12/policies-politiques/e/322A.pdf

31.

Nova Scotia Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2007). Report and recommendations of the review panel on teacher education in Nova Scotia. Retrieved from https://www.ednet.ns.ca/docs/reviewpanelreportweb.pdf

32.

Ontario Ministry of Education. (2018). An introduction to special education in Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/elemsec/speced/ontario.html

33.

Parasuram

(2006). Variables that affect teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive education in Mumbai, India. Disability & Society, 21, 231-242. doi:10.1080/09687590600617352

34.

Parrila

Corkett

Kirby

Hein

(2003). Adult Reading History Questionnaire-Revised. Unpublished questionnaire, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

35.

Parrila

Georgiou

Corkett

(2007). University students with a significant history of reading difficulties: What is and is not compensated? Exceptionality Education Canada, 17, 195-220.

36.

Peebles

J. L.

Mendaglio

(2014). The impact of direct experience on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for teaching in inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18, 1321-1336. doi:10.1080/13603116.2014.899635

37.

Porter

Towell

(2017). Advance inclusive education: Keys to transformational change in public education systems [Pamphlet]. Inclusive Education Canada. Retrieved from https://inclusiveeducation.ca/

38.

Schmidt

Vrhovnik

(2015). Attitudes of teachers towards the inclusion of children with special needs in primary and secondary schools. Hrvatska revija za rehabilitacijska istraživanja, 51(2), 16-30. Retrieved from https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/221004

39.

Sharma

Forlin

Loreman

(2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23, 773-785. doi:10.1080/09687590802469271

40.

Sharma

Loreman

Forlin

(2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12, 12-21. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x

41.

Sharma

Sokal

(2015). The impact of a teacher education course on pre-service teachers’ beliefs about inclusion: An international comparison. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15, 276-284. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12043

42.

Sokal

Sharma

(2017). Do I really need a course to learn to teach students with disabilities? I’ve been doing it for years. Canadian Journal of Education, 40, 739-760. Retrieved from journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/download/3186/2469/

43.

Specht

McGhie-Richmond

Loreman

Mirenda

Bennett

Gallagher

. . . Cloutier

(2016). Teaching in inclusive classrooms: Efficacy and beliefs of Canadian preservice teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20, 1-15. doi:10.1080/13603116.2015.1059501

44.

Specht

J. A.

Metsala

J. L.

(2018). Predictors of teacher efficacy for inclusive practice in pre-service teachers. Exceptionality Education International, 28(3), 67-82. Retrieved from https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/eei/vol28/iss3/6/

45.

Subban

Mahlo

(2017). “My attitude, my responsibility”: Investigating the attitudes and intentions of pre-service teachers toward inclusive education between teacher preparation cohorts in Melbourne and Pretoria. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21, 441-461. doi:10.1080/13603116.2016.1197322

46.

Swanson

Wanzek

McCulley

Stillman-Spisak

Vaughn

Simmons

. . . Hairrell

(2016). Literacy and text reading in middle and high school social studies and English language arts classrooms. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 32, 199-222. doi:10.1080/10573569.2014.910718

47.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

48.

Taber

K. S.

(2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 1273-1296. doi:10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

49.

Tavakol

Dennick

(2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55. doi:10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

50.

Varcoe

Boyle

(2014). Pre-service primary teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Educational Psychology, 34, 323-337. doi:10.1080/01443410.2013.785061

51.

Washburn

E. K.

Binks-Cantrell

E. S.

Joshi

R. M.

Martin-Chang

Arrow

(2016). Preservice teacher knowledge of basic language constructs in Canada, England, New Zealand, and the USA. Annals of Dyslexia, 66, 7-26. doi:10.1007/s11881-015-0115-x

52.

Weisel

Dror

(2006). School climate, sense of efficacy and Israeli teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of students with special needs. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1, 157-174. doi:10.1177/1746197906064677

53.

Woolfolk Hoy

Hoy

W. K.

Davis

H. A

. (2009). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. In Wentzel

Miele

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 627-653). New York, NY: Routledge.