Home > What are Teachers' Attitudes Towards Inclusion in the General Education Classroom

What are Teachers' Attitudes Towards Inclusion in the General Education Classroom

Running head: TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS INCLUSION������������� 1

What are Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion in the General Education Classroom?

Gilbert Berry

Tiffany Berst

Amber-Starr Jund

Michael Overton

Andrea Rondina

Maria Tate

California State University, San Bernardino


Abstract

The purpose of this study is to find teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in the general education classroom. The method that was used to evaluate the feelings of both regular and special education teachers was a 14-statement Likert-type scale along with three open-ended short answer questions. Inclusion is a vast growing practice that is popular in special education classrooms.� The survey was conducted so the researchers could get an unbiased view of how educators from general and special education view inclusion.� There were six qualitative as well as six quantitative reviews of literature that focused on the different facets of inclusion.�� Important laws, dates and key terms were defined to assist the reader in understanding inclusion.� Overall, it was found that teachers have positive attitudes towards inclusion.� However, they do feel that they need more training and support within the inclusive environment. Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are the main purpose of the study. However, being able to identify and interpret the results of the survey play a more important role in figuring out how to make recommendations to change the opinion of non-supporters.


What are Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion in the General Education Classroom?

Introduction

General Statement of the Problem �������������

������������� As services for students with disabilities evolve, general education and special education teachers are expected to provide inclusionary services. Upon research, many teachers have negative attitudes towards inclusion. Teachers’ attitudes are critical to maintain a successful inclusion program. There are many factors that contribute to the development of the positive and negative attitudes. It is important to know what creates the attitudes in order to give teachers the support they need to implement inclusion to its full potential.

Review of Literature

������������� Many researchers have found that inclusion is beneficial to students with disabilities and helps them to grow in all developmental areas. However, it is believed by some theorist that a teacher must develop self-efficacy to believe that they have the ability to teach students successfully. Lack of efficacy may be a factor that creates concern for teachers regarding inclusive education because of their lack of training and education on inclusion. Teachers may feel effective in inclusive classrooms if they have had opportunities to experience some success in these settings through training and education. Researching teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion is important because it can tell schools the areas that teachers need support to help them implement inclusive education effectively and successfully (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Scheer, 1999).
������������� One article, A Survey of General and Special Education Teachers' Perceptions and In-service Needs Concerning Inclusion, examines factors that contribute to teachers’ ability to meet the educational needs of students with disabilities within inclusive settings. This study explores teachers’ perceptions towards inclusion and their needs for supports and resources to successfully implement an inclusive setting (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Scheer, 1999).
������������� Overall, all the teachers expressed that they are in need of supports that they do not have to successfully integrate a student with disabilities into the general education classroom. Of the general education teachers, 79% reported not having adequate class size, 78% needs in-service training, and 73% report needing, but not having time to meet with families. Forty-nine percent of the special education teachers reported they needed but did not have appropriate class-size and 48% reported that they needed in-service workshops with the general education teachers. The only areas that teachers reported to feel that their needs were being met were in the areas of receiving support from the principal and teaming with a specialist (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Scheer, 1999).
������������� The author discusses the importance that teachers must feel supported and empowered for inclusive practices to successfully address the individual needs of students. By looking at the areas that teachers feel they need more supports, better in-service trainings can be implemented for teachers. However, the author does point out that efficacy in teachers is not only developed through trainings and gaining knowledge, but also through successful personal experiences and contextual practices. In order to help promote more efficacy in teachers, the schools need to encourage more teacher participation in decision making and practices that concern their students and inclusion within the classroom (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Scheer, 1999).

������������� The study by Horne & Timmons (2009), found that overall most teachers were in favor of inclusion. Most felt they got needed support from the principal. However, teachers did feel that they lacked the adequate training needed to implement inclusion successfully. They also felt they were not given sufficient time to prepare and they needed more support in the form of smaller class size and assistance with modifying the curriculum (Horne & Timmons, 2009).

������������� Similar results were found in Hammond, H., & Ingalls, L. (2003). Teachers did not feel that they had enough training or collaborative teaching opportunities. However, their results showed a more negative outlook on inclusion. Understanding the current knowledge and concerns of elementary school teachers on the subject of inclusion could help develop remedies and supportive procedures that can be implemented to improve inclusion programs (Hammond, & Ingalls, 2003).
������������� The purpose of this study was to determine if teachers are generally supportive or non-supportive of implementing inclusive programs. It also determined if general patterns of responses are evident in the teachers’ attitudes and made recommendations to address teachers’ attitudes (Hammond, & Ingalls, 2003).
������������� The majority of teachers stated they had inclusionary programs in their schools. A high percentage of teachers had either negative or uncertain attitudes toward inclusion. Teachers were not fully committed to the concept of inclusion. They were uncertain of or disagreed with the benefits of inclusion. Teachers had concerns regarding the lack of collaborative opportunities and believed they did not have sufficient training for providing inclusionary services (Hammond, & Ingalls, 2003).
������������� It is important that teachers involved in inclusion programs have a positive attitude about the concept of inclusion. Also, educators need to realize the legal justifications for inclusion and the positive impact inclusionary programs can have on students’ academic and social development. Another conclusion addressed is that educators need to voice their concerns and be actively involved in generating solutions to improve inclusion programs which are similar to the recommendations made in Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Scheer, (1999). However, the data revealed teachers had limited commitment, various levels of uncertainty, and negative attitudes toward inclusion and that school administrators’ commitment would be needed in order for the program to succeed (Hammond, & Ingalls, 2003).
������������� According to de Boer, Pijl Sip, & Minnaert (2011), teachers in this study were also negative or undecided on their beliefs about inclusion and do not consider themselves as knowledgeable about educating students with special needs. They do not feel confident in teaching students with special needs and would more often reject students with special needs than regular students. Also, the authors concluded that years of teaching experience, experience in inclusive education, and training in special education have an effect on teachers’ attitudes.

������������� In the past ten years, the percentage of special education students placed in inclusive classrooms has increased considerably; with approximately half of all identified students being educated in general education settings. In the article, Issues and challenges for middle school mathematics teachers in inclusion classrooms, it investigates general education mathematics teachers' beliefs and knowledge of students with learning disabilities and inclusive instruction and to gain an understanding of the process of inclusion as it is' implemented in middle school classrooms. The general educators feel that they were grossly under-prepared during pre-service and in-service for the realities of inclusion teaching. The study provides insights that can be used to enhance pre-service and in-service programs for teachers and underscores the necessity for building teamwork and collaboration among general and special education middle school teachers (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006).
������������� This research reveals that to meet the learning needs of the special educations students, some changes are necessary to enhance both programs and teachers. First, all undergraduate teacher education programs should require pre-service teachers to spend time observing and student teaching in an inclusive classroom. Teacher education programs need to increasingly incorporate strategies for diverse learners in all methods courses, including specific strategies for teaching challenging topics. Second, middle school principals must provide general educators with specific training focused on strategies for teaching difficult topics to diverse students. School principals must afford general educators additional planning time for their inclusive classes, since included students require individualized lesson plans, which involve extra time on the part of the general education teacher. Third, middle school teachers need more information and assistance implementing collaborative teaching arrangements with special education teachers regarding appropriate teaching methods and behavioral plans for included students (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006).
������������� When looking at collaborative teaching for the inclusion model, it is important to determine factors affecting collaborative teaching, including effective strategies that are both valued and used, important teacher preparations, and valued school-based supports (Austin, 2001).
������������� Both general and special educators believe that general education teachers do more work in the inclusive classroom. They also agreed that co-teaching was a worthwhile experience that contributed to their improvement as teachers, and that they generally worked well together (Austin, 2001).
������������� Teachers agreed that they should meet daily to plan lessons, but those who engaged in this practice denied the effectiveness of this practice. The teachers also expressed the importance of shared responsibilities, but did not actually do it in practice (Austin, 2001).
������������� Teachers perceptions toward pre-service courses showed that a larger percentage of special education teachers (46.7%) considered preparation in co-teaching very useful as compared to general education teachers (29.5%). More special education teachers also believed that pre-service special education courses for general education teachers were useful in preparing them for teaching an inclusive classroom (Austin, 2001).
������������� There was a significant difference between the percentage of teachers who consider mutual planning time to be important, and those who actually experience this planning time do not find it to be effective for co-teaching. This was a similar situation in all of the items, most teachers to who have access to these supports do not consider them as valuable as those who do not have access to these supports (Austin, 2001).
������������� Most of the co-teachers found the collaborative teaching experience to be positive. Most of the teachers identified small groups and cooperative learning to be the two most effective instructional techniques that they use. Many also believe that co-teaching has helped support their professional growth (Austin, 2001).
������������� “Co-teaching, though frequently cited as the most beneficial model of inclusive practice, emerged as the least documented method of instruction, with the utilization of consultant teacher models emerging as the most prevalent. Endorsement of the use volunteer support was found to be the second most common support mechanism employed within inclusive classrooms” (Kilanowski-Press, Foote & Rinaldo, 2010, p.47).
������������� Another important aspect to look at with inclusion is the amount and type of training a teacher receives on teaching in an inclusive classroom. Once a course is taken in special education, does the attitude of the pre-service teacher change towards teaching in an inclusive classroom? The article by Shade & Stewart (2001), discusses the theory that should teachers be trained prior to their classroom experience and that they would be better prepared and more willing to be a part of an inclusive classroom (Shade & Stewart, 2001).
������������� The results of the study show that attitudes on numerous subscales were significantly changed in both groups of pre-service educators after taking the special education course. The authors of the study concluded that pre-service teachers must be prepared to teach students with mild disabilities in their classrooms and that their study demonstrated that completion of a single course is beneficial. The authors recommend that teacher training at the pre-service and in-service level must present knowledge and examples of addressing individual student differences and then promote the necessary individual adaptation methods and practice opportunities in these skills (Shade & Stewart, 2001).
������������� The study done by Sosu, Mtika, & Colucci-Gray (2010) was looking at whether the preparational programs are teaching the needed information for the up-and-coming regular education teachers to teach in an inclusive classroom setting (Sosu, Mtika, & Colucci-Gray, 2010).
������������� The following percentage scores reflect faculty perceptions of their own knowledge and skill levels base for preparing teacher candidates to work with student with disabilities in general education settings. Of the teachers, 38% marked fairly extensive or excellent, 25.4% marked generally adequate, and 37% marked somewhat or extremely limited in current base practice. Overall, the preparation courses were not as up to date and informative as they needed to be (Sosu, Mtika, & Colucci-Gray, 2010).
������������� It is surprising that 37% of the teachers who should be highly qualified to teach on inclusive practices marked that they were somewhat or extremely limited in current base practices to teach about inclusion. This truly demonstrates the need for proper training for teaching in an inclusive classroom (Sosu, Mtika, & Colucci-Gray, 2010).
������������� Teachers need to feel confident and develop self-efficacy to properly implement inclusive practices. Reflected in the responses of the surveys from the variety of articles, it seems that teachers are not getting appropriate supports or trainings on inclusion, so it is unlikely that they will develop self-efficacy. Thus inclusion will not be implemented appropriately and students will not gain all of its true benefits.
������������� Although there were a few studies that showed that teachers had negative or undecided attitudes towards inclusion, I still feel that the overall feeling towards the concept of inclusion was positive. Teachers do feel that it is beneficial to students and many seem to like the concept of it, but struggle when putting it into practice. It seems apparent that teachers do not feel that they have appropriate supports to implement inclusion. They mentioned the need for smaller class sizes, supports with modifying curriculum, more time to implement inclusion, and many reports suggested having the teachers be involved in more decision making when it comes to inclusion (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006).
������������� Teachers also found many positives aspects of collaborative teaching, but most did not implement it correctly. They did not distribute responsibilities or make mutual planning times. Collaborative teaching seems to be the preferred method in theory, but it does not seem to actually be used in practice. Teachers tend to use more of a consultation method. Although teachers have found some benefits of co-teaching, they are not actually implementing it in the best way to truly support their students. Teachers should be sharing responsibilities and working together to help their students gain the full benefits of an inclusive classroom (Austin, 2001).
One of the main areas that affected teachers’ attitudes and their ability to implement inclusion effectively was inadequate training. Almost all of the research articles mentioned the need for more training on how to teach in an inclusive classroom. Inclusion requires such a different method and mind-set for teaching that even new and experienced teachers need more training on inclusion. Having appropriate training seems to be the cornerstone to implement inclusion appropriately.
������������� It seems that neither initial nor veteran teachers are comfortable or confident when it comes to inclusion. This causes me to wonder, if we need to change our teacher preparation coursework, especially for general education teachers. They expressed needing more training in topics such as program modification, assessing academic progress, adapting curriculum, managing behaviors, IEPs, and assistive technology. All of these topics are taught to special education teachers in their undergraduate or graduate coursework. I think this shows the need to modify the coursework and requirements for general education teachers, especially if we are expected to include all special education students into the general education setting according to IDEA. (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, & Scheer, 1999).
Assumptions

Assumptions that surfaced when regarding inclusion in regular and special education classroom settings were as followed. Once teachers buy into inclusion it will be a positive influence. As soon as the problems in the classroom are fixed with inclusion the teacher’s attitudes will change. Inclusion works, but teachers do not enforce it in their classrooms.

Research Question(s), Hypothesis, or Foreshadowed Problems
������������� The purpose of this study is to find what are teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in the general education classroom. Our hypothesis is that in the current educational systems most teachers have negative attitudes towards inclusion in the general education classroom. A potential problem with conducting research based on surveys is that there would not be enough responses.
Definition of Terms and Special Education Laws

Inclusion – Inclusion in education is an approach to educating students with special educational needs, where students with special needs spend most or all of their time with non-disabled students. Inclusion is about the child’s right to participate and the school’s responsibility to accept the child, and a premium is placed upon participation by students with disabilities and upon respect for their social, civil, and educational rights.
Self Efficacy – The belief in one's capabilities to achieve a goal or an outcome. Students with a strong sense of efficacy are more likely to challenge themselves with difficult tasks and be intrinsically motivated.
Collaborative teaching – Method of teaching where two educators take responsibility for planning, teaching, and monitoring the success of all learners in a class.
Least restrictive environment – The environment in which a student who has a disability should have the opportunity to be educated with non-disabled peers, to the greatest extent appropriate.
Children with disabilities – Politically correct terms used instead of handicapped.
Individualized Education Program (IEP) – Mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), also called Individual Education Plan, is designed to meet the unique educational needs of one child in the least restrictive environment.

Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP) – A special needs based plan that revolves around the family, because the family is the constant in a child's life. It includes outcomes targeted for the family, as opposed to focusing only on the eligible child. It includes the notion of natural environments, which encompass home or community settings such as parks, child care, and gym classes.
Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) – An educational program that is individualized to a specific child, designed to meet that child's unique needs, provides access to the general curriculum, meets the grade-level standards established by the state, and from which the child receives educational benefit.
Typical student – Term used instead of the name normal to describe students without a disability. This is done so students with disabilities are not looked at as non-normal.
Constant comparative method – process in which any newly collected data is compared with previous data that was collected in one or more earlier studies. A continuous ongoing procedure, because theories are formed, enhanced, confirmed, or even discounted as a result of any new data that emerges from the study.
Q Methodology – A research method used to study people's "subjectivity", or viewpoint.
Likert Scale – A psychometric scale commonly used in questionnaires, and is the most widely used scale in survey research, such that the term is often used interchangeably with rating scale.
1965 – Congress adds Title VI to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 creating a Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (today OSEP).
1975 – The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA or EHA, or Public Law (PL 94-142) was enacted by the United States Congress in 1975. This act required all public schools accepting federal funds to provide equal access to education for children with physical and mental disabilities.
1986 – The EAHCA is amended with the addition of the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act. This amendment makes clear that students and parents have rights under EAHCA (now IDEA) and Section 504.

1990 – The Americans with Disabilities Act – School Districts were now required to look at outcomes and assisting students with disabilities in transitioning from high school to postsecondary life.

1997 – IDEA reauthorized – This amendment calls for students with disabilities to be included in on state and district-wide assessments. Also, General Education Teachers are now required to be a member of the IEP team.
2002 – No Child Left Behind- This law calls for all students, including students with disabilities, to be proficient in math and reading by the year 2014.
2004 – IDEA reauthorized- There are several changes from the 1997 reauthorization. The biggest changes call for more accountability at the state and local levels, as more data on outcomes is required. Another notable change involves school districts providing adequate instruction and intervention for students to help keep them out of special education.

Significance of the Proposed Study
������������� The current attitudes of teachers toward inclusion of students with learning disabilities in regular education classrooms could help develop remedies and supportive procedures that can be implemented to improve inclusion programs’ outcomes. Understanding if a teacher does not have proper training or support to work in an inclusive setting, they may not have positive attitudes towards inclusion. In turn, this may affect their ability to teach in an inclusive environment and affect students’ success. This study will provide some information regarding teachers’ current feelings, challenges and concerns regarding inclusion. There are two main purposes of this study; first, to determine if teachers are supportive or non-supporting of inclusionary programs, and second, to make recommendations addressing teachers’ attitudes.

Design and Methodology

Subjects and/or Case
������������� In this research study, we distributed surveys to 60 teachers. Of those teachers, 45 completed and returned the surveys. We distributed surveys to a variety of school districts within the Inland Empire. The surveys were randomly distributed to general education and special education teachers. A portion was given to elementary school teachers, middle school teachers, and high school teachers. We received 26 surveys from general education teachers and 19 back from special education teachers.

The surveys were randomly put into the school teachers boxes along with a cover letter of the directions of how to complete the survey and an envelope to place it in when completed. The teachers then placed the sealed envelopes into the surveyor’s box when completed. They surveys were kept anonymous as to not skew the teachers responses.

Instrumentation /Data Collection
������������� The survey questions were developed by our research group based on determining teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. The survey was composed of 14-statements with a Likert-type scale. The scale ranged from; 1- Strongly Agree, 2- Agree Somewhat, 3- Disagree Somewhat, and 4- Strongly Disagree. There were also 3 open ended questions that addressed their training, experiences, and supports on inclusion. The statement questions developed address different areas that may affect teacher attitudes toward inclusion. For instance, the statements address whether inclusion has positive impacts on the educational system, are teachers provided with enough training, time, and supports to implement inclusion, the effects on inclusion on implementing the curriculum, and effects on the learning environment in the general education setting. Of the 14 questions, 8 were developed to have a positive outlook toward inclusion and 6 were developed to have a negative outlook on inclusion. The purpose of this design was to not influence the teachers completing the survey toward or against inclusion, but allow them to answer without bias.


Data Treatment Procedures

Mean

Median

Mode

+/-

1

1.75

2

2

+

2

2.3

2

2

+

3

3.25

3.5

3

-

4

3.25

3

2

+

5

2

2

2

+

6

3.3

3

4

-

7

3.3

3.3

2

-

8

2

2

2

+

9

2.25

2

2

+

10

3

3.5

4

-

11

2

2

2

+

12

2.75

3

2

+

13

2

2

2

-

14

2.25

2.5

2

-


������������� For qualitative data an interpretive research analysis was conducted. Often interpretive research purpose is to understand the setting for social action from the perspective of the participants. Responses to the open ended questions were typed verbatim and separate critical research analysis was conducted. Most critical theorists would regard their data as incumbent on the investigator to be concerned with how knowledge is used and also does not require the investigator to maintain complete objectivity about the study. Collected data was treated as follows: inclusion surveys were passed out to each individual teacher, and then teachers completed the surveys and were randomly selected for completion of the open ended survey portion.
������������� The type of logic that was applied was inductive reasoning, because data was gathered first and then synthesized inductively to generate generalizations. As opposed to deductive where researchers formulate a hypothesis, the emergent design procedure was related to this study because inclusion was the concept that was being investigated. Our initial idea evolved from a survey and progressed to open ended questions as. We did not have a concise research method; our conclusions had to emerge from our chart and data collection before we could continue on to the open ended questions.
Presentation of Findings
������������� Responses to the Inclusion survey revealed that the majority of the teachers had positive attitudes toward inclusion. Almost all teachers agreed that inclusion will lead to positive changes in the educational programs. Furthermore, most teachers described their experiences in inclusive classrooms as satisfactory and disagreed that modifying instruction to meet the students’ needs is difficult. Although most of the teachers consider having appropriate training, the majority would like to have more support in the form of resources to address students’ specific needs, well trained instructional assistants, knowledgeable administration, and appropriate collaboration time. Despite of having a general positive attitude toward inclusionary programs, teachers feel that the behaviors of some students with disabilities take away from instructional time and they do not have the time to implement inclusion effectively. In conclusion, the responses obtained from regular and special education teachers from a variety of school districts within the Inland Empire revealed that our hypothesis was rejected; we found that in the current educational systems most teachers have positive attitudes towards inclusion in the general education classroom.
Limitations of Design
������������� Some of the limits of the design of this research was that the sampling procedures. One limitation was that the number of subject utilized in the sample was too small, Forty-five subjects, considering that the survey was distributed throughout a variety of schools K-12 within the Inland Empire, Forty-five subjects is not a significant representation of teachers in inclusive classrooms within the Inland Empire.
������������� Another limitation was that there were not equal amounts of general and special education teachers surveyed. This study surveyed 26 regular education teachers and 19 special education teachers, this distribution of the sample limits the findings of the study and does not allow differentiation of results between regular and special education teachers’ attitudes. Other variables that should have been considered to obtain more specific results are: age of teachers and years of teaching experience.

Conclusion

������������� The purpose of this study is to find teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in the general education classroom, and according to our research, it has been found that the inclusion model is mostly viewed as favorable amongst both general education and special education teachers.� The positive attitude of both sets of teachers was discovered by using a 14-statement Likert-type scale along with three open-ended short answer questions. The survey conducted helped researchers gain the unbiased opinion of the educators about teaching in inclusive classrooms.� Though teachers say that they feel that they would not mind teaching in an inclusive classroom, the consensus is that all teachers feel that they would need proper pre-service and in-service training in order to run a successful inclusive classroom.

Recommendations for Further Research

������������� The study of this topic of researched yielded several findings including the need to look at the areas of research. In our study, we looked at the attitudes of all teachers on the idea of inclusion and on the resources that they felt were necessary for successful implementation. Another area that we need to examine is how the level of experience affects the teacher’s perspective. The rational behind this question is the fact that we have noticed that there is a correlation between years of experience and views on inclusion. It seems that many of the “more experienced” teachers are set in their ways and see inclusion as another trend that may either pass or that is not for them to consider. While at the same time, teachers new to the profession see inclusion as more of a responsibility to all involved in the education of students.
������������� Another element of inclusion that deserves a closer look is how political and economic factors contribute to the lack of support for inclusion. Since the No Child Left Behind act of 2001, a new focus on standardized testing has been at the forefront of lesson planning in the classroom. This has led to a competitive, score orientated education system in which our students with special needs are viewed as an unfortunate problem instead of an asset to the classroom. The benefit to all in the inclusive classroom is therefore discounted if not ignored in most situations. We believe that research in this element can be productive in changing the attitudes of some involved in teaching, and more importantly in the mind of law makers in the future. We believe if school funding was based more on social development instead of standardized testing, inclusion and social awareness would we both easier achieved and beneficial to all involved. �������������


References

Austin, V. L. (2001). Teachers' beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22(4), 245-255.

Bennett, T., & Deluca, D. (1997). Putting inclusion into practice: Perspectives of teachers and parents. Exceptional Children, 64(1), 115-131.

Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M., & Scheer, S. (1999). A survey of general and special education teachers' perceptions and inservice needs concerning inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46(2), 143-156.

de Boer, A., Pijl Sip, J., & Minnaert, A. (2011). Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(3), 331-353.

DeSimone, J., & Parmar, R. (2006). Issues and challenges for middle school mathematics teachers in inclusion classrooms. School Science & Mathematics, 106(8), 338-348.

Hammond, H., & Ingalls, L. (2003). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion: Survey results from elementary school teachers in three southwestern rural school districts. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 22(2), 24-30.

Horne, P. E. & Timmons, V. (2009). Making it work: Teachers' perspectives on inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(3), 273-286.

Kilanowski-Press, L., Foote, C. J., & Rinaldo, V. J. (2010). Inclusion classrooms and teachers: A survey of current practices. International Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 43-56. �������������

Peck, C., Staub, D., Gallucci, C., & Schwartz, I. (2004). Parent perception of the impacts of inclusion on their nondisabled child. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(2), 135-143.

Shade, R.A., & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education preservice teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 46(1), 37-40.

Sosu, E. M., Mtika, P., & Colucci-Gray, L. (2010). Does initial teacher education make a difference? The impact of teacher preparation on student teachers' attitudes towards educational inclusion. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 36(4), 389-405.

Set Home | Add to Favorites

All Rights Reserved Powered by Free Document Search and Download

Copyright © 2011
This site does not host pdf,doc,ppt,xls,rtf,txt files all document are the property of their respective owners. complaint#downhi.com
TOP