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

net/publication/233216962

Student Teachers' Attitudes Towards the Inclusion of Children

with Special Needs

Article  in  Educational Psychology · January 2003

DOI: 10.1080/01443410303223

CITATIONS READS

130 401

2 authors, including:

Richard P Hastings
The University of Warwick
339 PUBLICATIONS   11,444 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

PALACES project View project

mental health GAP action Programme View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard P Hastings on 11 November 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Warwick]
On: 07 April 2014, At: 01:56
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Psychology: An
International Journal of Experimental
Educational Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Student Teachers' Attitudes Towards the

Inclusion of Children with Special Needs
a a
RICHARD P. HASTINGS & SUZANNA OAKFORD
a
Department of Psychology , University of Southampton , UK
Published online: 02 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: RICHARD P. HASTINGS & SUZANNA OAKFORD (2003) Student Teachers' Attitudes
Towards the Inclusion of Children with Special Needs, Educational Psychology: An International
Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 23:1, 87-94, DOI: 10.1080/01443410303223

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410303223

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 Educational Psychology, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2003

Student Teachers’ Attitudes Towards the

Inclusion of Children with Special Needs
Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 01:56 07 April 2014

RICHARD P. HASTINGS & SUZANNA OAKFORD, Department of Psychology,

University of Southampton, UK

ABSTRACT Previous research has suggested that teachers’ attitudes are crucial to the success
of inclusion programs for children with special needs. In the present study, the impact of special
needs category (intellectual disabilities versus emotional and behavioural problems) and student
teachers’ training (being trained to work with either younger or older children) on their
attitudes towards inclusion were explored. Ninety three student teachers completed a new
measure of attitudes towards inclusion: the Impact of Inclusion Questionnaire (IIQ). Results
showed that student teachers were more negative about the impact of children with emotional
and behavioural problems on other children, teachers, and the school environment than they
were about children with intellectual disabilities. There was little support for the effects of
training background or student teachers’ previous experience of special needs on their attitudes.
Implications for inclusion programs and future research are briefly discussed.

Introduction
In many countries throughout the world, children with special needs are increasingly
being educated in mainstream school environments. In this context, research focusing
on factors that may facilitate or impede efforts to include children with special needs is
salient. In particular, researchers over several decades have concluded that teachers’
attitudes are one of the most crucial variables in the success of inclusion schemes
(Chow & Winzer, 1992; Hayes & Gunn, 1988; Williams & Algozine, 1977). Overall,
teachers have been found to express positive attitudes towards the inclusion of children
with special needs in mainstream educational environments (Scruggs & Mastropieri,
1996). In some cases, teachers are more positive than parents of children with special
needs (Stoiber, Gettinger, & Goetz, 1998). Thus, research studies have explored
factors that lead to variations in teachers’ attitudes (see recent reviews by Farrell, 1997;
Salend & Duhaney, 1999; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996).
Multiple factors have been found to affect teachers’ attitudes (Salend & Duhaney,

ISSN 0144-3410 print; ISSN 1469-046X online/03/010087-08  2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0144341022000022951
 88 R. Hastings & S. Oakford

1999) including child, teacher, and school variables (Soodak, Podell, & Lehman,
1998). Each of these three general classes of variables will be reviewed briefly in turn.
First, the key child variable explored in existing research relates to the nature of the
child’s special needs. Various studies have found that children with less severe special
needs, who are also less demanding in terms of teachers’ input, are generally viewed
more positively as candidates for inclusion than children with severe disabilities. In
particular, children with intellectual disabilities or emotional and behavioural problems
are typically rated less positively by samples of teachers and student teachers
(Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000; Soodak et al., 1998; Stoiber et al., 1998).
Teacher variables found to impact on their inclusion attitudes include contact or
experience with people with special needs, and amount of teaching experience. Attitude
research in the special needs field in general has found that experience or contact with
special needs typically has a positive effect on attitudes in a wide variety of samples
(Beh-Pajooh, 1991; Hastings & Graham, 1995). In keeping with this pattern of
Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 01:56 07 April 2014

findings, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of children with special needs have been
found to be positively associated with their nonwork experience of special needs
(Harvey, 1985). However, those with more years of teaching experience have been
found to express more negative inclusion attitudes (Center & Ward, 1987; Soodak et
al., 1998).
Finally, school factors have been found to be associated with teachers’ inclusion
attitudes. Of particular relevance to the present study is that the age group of the
children in the teachers’ school or classroom appears to be a significant variable.
However, results are mixed in that several studies have found that inclusion of children
at lower grades in the school system is viewed more positively (Scruggs & Mastropieri,
1996), but some others have suggested that teachers working with older children are
more positive (Balboni & Pedrabissi, 2000). It could be argued that this variable is
simply a factor related to the child. However, we believe that it is significant because of
its relationship to the nature of the school environment. In particular, younger children
tend to spend more time with a single teacher or smaller numbers of teachers than do
children later in their school careers. The impact of a child with special needs on the
teacher in these two circumstances may be quite different.
The main aim of the present study was to explore two issues that have not been
adequately addressed in previous research. First, although previous studies have sug-
gested that teachers’ attitudes toward children with more severe special needs are more
negative than towards other diagnostic groups, there has not been a clear differentiation
within this subgroup. In particular, we explored attitudes towards the inclusion of
children with intellectual disabilities and children with emotional and behavioural
problems. Second, there have been mixed results relating to the effects of the school
environment as indexed by the age of the children educated in the school. We explored
the effect of this variable in the present research, both as an effect in its own right, but
also in interaction with the nature of the children’s special needs.
Due to the nature of these research questions, several existing measures of teachers’
attitudes towards inclusion were inappropriate for the present study. In particular,
many existing scale items focus on categories of special needs (Berryman, Neal, &
Robinson, 1980; Wilczenski, 1995) and thus cannot be used to explore the impact of
defined diagnostic categories on teachers’ attitudes. Other scales have focused more on
dimensions of attitudes (Chow & Winzer, 1992), but in reviewing these scales for their
potential use in the present research, we concluded that the dimensions measured did
not give a comprehensive picture. Therefore, we devised a brief attitude scale that
 Attitudes Towards Inclusion 89

focused on the impact of including children with special needs on the children
themselves, other children in the school, the teacher, and the school and classroom
environment.
Teacher variables that may affect their attitudes were addressed in the present
research in two ways. First, in order to control for any potential effects of amount of
teaching experience the sample were student teachers rather than qualified practi-
tioners. Research on student teachers is also important as the attitudes they form during
training are likely to affect their behaviour during their teaching careers. Second, the
student teachers’ previous experience of special needs was measured in order that it
may be controlled for in statistical analyses if found to be related to their attitudes.

Method
Participants
Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 01:56 07 April 2014

Ninety three university students studying for professional teaching qualifications partic-
ipated in the present research. Sixty participants were being trained to work with
children of 4–11 years of age, and 33 participants were being trained to work with
children and adolescents 11–19 in age. Of the total sample, 79 participants were female
and 14 were male. Their mean age at the time of the study was 26.47 (SD ⫽ 6.31).
Thirty one participants had previous experience of working with children with special
needs in a voluntary or paid capacity, and 26 participants had social contact with
individuals with special needs (family members, friends, contacts made through leisure
pursuits).

Survey Instrument
Data were gathered using a self-report questionnaire containing two sections. In the
first section, participants were asked for demographic information about themselves,
and their experience of special needs (see participants above). Previous experience of
special needs was measured in two ways (previous work and nonwork contact) as each
potentially could have different effects on attitudes towards inclusion. The second
section contained a rating scale designed for the present study: the Impact of Inclusion
Questionnaire (IIQ). The IIQ was developed to allow comparisons to be made between
different special needs groups. Twenty four items were developed in total with six items
in each of four potential impact domains: the child with special needs themselves, other
children in the classroom, the teacher, and the school or classroom environment. These
items were based on issues raised in existing research literature relating to the inclusion
of children with special needs in mainstream classrooms, and through pilot interviews
with teachers. Each item is rated on a seven point agreement scale ranging from “very
strongly agree” to “very strongly disagree”.
The items in the child with special needs domain included the impact upon accept-
ance/rejection by classmates, their personal development, and their academic develop-
ment. Items in the other children domain included the impact upon contact time with
the teacher, children’s behaviour problems, and their learning opportunities. Items in
the teacher domain included the impact upon stress, tiredness, and workload. Finally,
items in the school or classroom environment domain included the impact upon school
finances, classroom routines, and parent and community perceptions of the school.
The IIQ is scored by generating summed scores for each of the domains described
 90 R. Hastings & S. Oakford

above and also a total attitude score. Scores on negatively phrased items are reversed
so that higher totals on each of the five IIQ scores indicate more positive attitudes.
Thus, scores on the IIQ domains range from 6 to 42 (5–35 for other child), and total
IIQ scores range between 23 and 161. Preliminary psychometric properties of the IIQ
were explored via estimates of internal consistency of each of the scales using Cron-
bach’s alpha. One item in the other children domain was found not to correlate with
the total score on that scale and it was removed from subsequent analyses. Thus, the
other child domain contained only five items in the final version of the IIQ. All of the
domains of the IIQ (child with special needs,
⫽ 0.74; other children,
⫽ 0.65;
teacher,
⫽ 0.73; and school or classroom environment,
⫽ 0.81), and the total scale
score (
⫽ 0.92) were found to have good levels of internal consistency.

Procedure
Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 01:56 07 April 2014

Student teachers were invited to participate in the research by one of their university
tutors. One hundred and fifty questionnaires were given to tutors training students to
work with either younger or older children. The raw response rate of 62% was likely to
have been affected by a number of important factors. First, the tutors approached their
students in lectures and also on an individual basis. These two methods were likely to
lead to differing response rates. Second, the response rate from students training to
work with older children (approximately 44%) was substantially lower than from
students training to work with younger children (approximately 80%). Thus, it is
unlikely that the former group were representative. Third, the survey was completed
anonymously and so it was not possible to issue reminders.
Two versions of the questionnaire were distributed on a random basis to the
participating groups. One version asked respondents to focus on children with intellec-
tual disabilities (generalised learning difficulties, mental retardation) and to consider
the impact of including children with these special needs within their schools when they
had finished training and were working in an education setting. Similarly, the second
version asked respondents to consider the impact of including children with emotional
and/or behavioural problems in mainstream school environments.

Results
In order to generate some information about the suitability of IIQ data for parametric
statistical analysis, one sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests were used to compare the
distributions of IIQ scores to a normal distribution. The results of these tests were
nonsignificant, indicating that the data were reasonably normally distributed. Mean
scores for participants, subdivided by their training group status (younger vs older
children) and the special needs they were asked to consider (intellectual disability vs
emotional/behavioural problems), are displayed in Table I. These mean scores indicate
potential effects of both training group status and also special needs category.
Before conducting the main statistical analyses, relationships between demographic
variables and IIQ scores were explored. Previous research has suggested especially that
gender (Hastings & Graham, 1995) and experience (see above) are typically related to
attitudes toward people with special needs. The effects of gender, previous work
experience with children with special needs (scored dichotomously), and previous
social experience of children with special needs (scored dichotomously) were explored
using t-tests. No significant effects were observed for any of the IIQ scores. Associations
 Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 01:56 07 April 2014

TABLE I. Mean scores on IIQ domains subdivided by training group status and special needs category

Training group/special IIQ special needs IIQ other children IIQ teacher IIQ school/class IIQ total score
needs category child environment
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Intellectual disability 27.29 (3.53) 21.23 (3.73) 24.83 (4.21) 25.92 (4.47) 99.27 (13.99)
Younger children 27.39 (3.19) 20.58 (3.96) 24.48 (4.01) 25.26 (4.60) 97.71 (14.06)
Older children 27.12 (4.18) 22.41 (3.02) 25.47 (4.61) 27.12 (4.06) 102.18 (13.82)
Emotional/behavioural 25.33 (5.45) 19.07 (4.66) 21.62 (5.04) 21.80 (5.48) 87.82 (18.15)
problems
Younger children 24.55 (4.91) 17.14 (3.63) 21.00 (5.22) 21.21 (5.72) 83.90 (17.07)
Older children 26.75 (6.23) 22.56 (4.35) 22.75 (4.64) 22.88 (5.03) 94.94 (18.40)
Younger children 26.02 (4.32) 18.92 (4.15) 22.80 (4.92) 23.30 (5.52) 91.03 (16.95)
Older children 26.94 (5.20) 22.48 (3.67) 24.15 (4.76) 25.06 (4.97) 98.64 (16.35)
Attitudes Towards Inclusion
91
 92 R. Hastings & S. Oakford

with participants’ age were explored using Spearman’s rank correlations because a
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test indicated that there was not a normal distribution of age in
the present sample. Again, no significant relationships were found. Therefore, these
demographic and experience variables were not included as covariates in the analyses
reported below.
Potential effects of the independent variables were explored using 2 ⫻ 2 between
subjects analyses of variance. These analyses revealed a significant main effect of special
needs category on the IIQ other children (F(1, 89) ⫽ 4.04, P ⬍ 0.05), teacher (F(1,
89) ⫽ 9.55, P ⬍ 0.01), and school or class environment (F(1, 89) ⫽ 14.84, P ⬍ 0.001)
domains, in addition to the total score (F(1, 89) ⫽ 9.39, P ⬍ 0.01). In each case,
participants rating children with intellectual disabilities reported more positive attitudes
than participants rating children with emotional/behavioural problems (see Table I). A
significant main effect of the participants’ training group was also found for the IIQ
other children domain (F(1, 89) ⫽ 19.63, P ⬍ 0.001), and for the total score (F(1,
89) ⫽ 5.08, P ⬍ 0.05). In each case, those training to work with older children reported
Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 01:56 07 April 2014

more positive attitudes (see Table I). No other main effects were found to be significant
at the 0.05 level.
The analyses of variance also identified one significant interaction effect on the IIQ
other children domain (F(1, 89) ⫽ 4.82, P ⬍ 0.05). The nature of this effect was
explored using Scheffé’s post hoc multiple comparison test. This revealed that those
participants training to work with younger children who rated children with emotional/
behavioural problems reported more negative attitudes than all other groups (see Table
I). No other interaction effects were found to be significant at the 0.05 level.

Discussion
The results of the present study revealed that the majority of the domains of student
teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion measured by the IIQ were affected by the nature
of the special needs of children considered as candidates for inclusion. Children with
emotional and behavioural problems were rated as likely to have a more negative
impact on other children, the teacher, and the school and classroom environment.
Results relating to the effect of training background of the student teachers were much
less clear. Those training to work with older children were less negative about the
impact of including children with special needs on other children in the school.
However, this effect is also qualified by the fact that a significant interaction was found
here. It was only for the target children with emotional and behavioural problems that
students training to teach younger children were more negative than those training to
teach older children.
Thus, the main finding of the present study was that student teachers expressed more
negative attitudes towards the inclusion of children with behavioural and emotional
problems than they did towards children with intellectual disabilities. Effects of teacher
experience of special needs and the nature of the school environment (younger versus
older children) were not found to be important factors. The new measure of attitudes
toward inclusion, the IIQ, was found to have good reliability and the differing pattern
of results across domains of potential impact reinforced the value of a measure that can
be scored to take into account attitude dimensions rather than simply a total attitude
score. Reliance on total attitude scores only in the present study would have led to the
conclusion that student teachers’ training background was as important as the chil-
dren’s special needs category in determining attitudes towards inclusion.
 Attitudes Towards Inclusion 93

The implications of the present research are related to three main issues. First, it is
clear from previous research that teachers’ attitudes are not the only factors that
determine the success of inclusion programs for children with special needs. Therefore,
the fact that teachers may hold more negative attitudes towards a particular group of
children with special needs does not preclude successful inclusion for the children
concerned. In particular, teachers and education managers themselves identify supports
and appropriate resources as key factors in successful inclusion (Bennett, DeLuca, &
Bruns, 1997; Cook, Semmel, & Gerber, 1999). Therefore, more research is needed that
addresses a broad range of child, teacher and school variables and the interactions
between them in terms of their impact upon inclusion for children with special needs.
Second, focusing on the issue of teachers’ attitudes, previous research has suggested
that teacher training courses have little impact upon student teachers’ attitudes towards
children with special needs (Hastings, Hewes, Lock, & Witting, 1996). Therefore,
other methods of making an impact on teachers’ attitudes are needed. In particular, it
Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 01:56 07 April 2014

may be that teachers’ attitudes are moderated by factors likely to reduce the perceived
negative impact of inclusion programs or possibly those that enhance the perceived
benefits of such programs. These factors are likely to include the provision of appropri-
ate supports and resources for teachers.
Finally, the IIQ seems to be a promising addition to measurement instruments
designed to assess teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. The measure clearly needs
more work in terms of the exploration of its psychometric properties, but preliminary
data reported here are encouraging. Furthermore, assessing teachers’ attitudes across a
number of domains may well prove significant. Further research could address which
dimensions of teachers’ attitudes are crucial to their acceptance of children with special
needs in their classrooms and also to the success of inclusion programs. If it proves
useful in this respect, the IIQ could then be used to monitor change achieved in
teachers’ perceptions as a result of training or support schemes designed to facilitate
inclusion for children with special needs.

Correspondence: Dr Richard Hastings, School of Psychology, University of Wales Ban-

gor, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG Wales, UK (e-mail: r.hastings@bangor.ac.uk).

REFERENCES
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of
children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16,
277–293.
Balboni, G., & Pedrabissi, L. (2000). Attitudes of Italian teachers and parents toward school inclusion
of students with mental retardation: The role of experience. Education and Training in Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 148–159.
Beh-Pajooh, A. (1991). The effect of social contact on college students’ attitudes toward severely
handicapped students and their educational integration. Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 35,
339–352.
Bennett, T., DeLuca, D., & Bruns, D. (1997). Putting inclusion into practice: Perspectives of teachers
and parents. Exceptional Children, 64, 115–131.
Berryman, J.D., Neal, W.R., & Robinson, J.E. (1980). The validation of a scale to measure attitudes
toward the classroom integration of disabled students. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 199–203.
Center, Y., & Ward, J. (1987). Teachers’ attitudes towards the integration of disabled children into
regular schools. The Exceptional Child, 34, 41–52.
 94 R. Hastings & S. Oakford

Chow, P., & Winzer, M.M. (1992). Reliability and validity of a scale measuring attitudes towards
mainstreaming. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 223–227.
Cook, B.G., Semmel, M.I., & Gerber, M.M. (1999). Attitudes of principals and special education
teachers toward the inclusion of students with mild disabilities: Critical differences of opinion.
Remedial and Special Education, 20, 199–208.
Farrell, P. (1997). The integration of children with severe learning difficulties: A review of recent
literature. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 10, 1–14.
Harvey, D.H.P. (1985). Mainstreaming: Teachers’ attitudes when they have no choice about the
matter. The Exceptional Child, 32, 163–175.
Hastings, R.P., & Graham, S. (1995). Adolescents’ perceptions of young people with severe learning
difficulties: The effects of integration schemes and frequency of contact. Educational Psychology, 15,
149–159.
Hastings, R.P., Hewes, A., Lock, S., & Witting, A. (1996). Do special educational needs courses have
any impact on student teachers’ perceptions of children with severe learning difficulties? British
Journal of Special Education, 23, 139–144.
Hayes, K., & Gunn, P. (1988). Attitudes of parents and teachers toward mainstreaming. The
Exceptional Child, 35, 31–39.
Downloaded by [University of Warwick] at 01:56 07 April 2014

Salend, S.J., & Duhaney, L.M.G. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and without
disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 114–126.
Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–
1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59–74.
Soodak, L.C., Podell, D.M., & Lehman, L.R. (1998). Teacher, student, and school attributes as
predictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion. Journal of Special Education, 31, 480–497.
Stoiber, K.C., Gettinger, M., & Goetz, D. (1998). Exploring factors influencing parents’ and early
childhood practitioners’ beliefs about inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 107–124.
Wilczenski, F.L. (1995). Development of a scale to measure attitudes toward inclusive education.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 291–299.
Williams, R.J., & Algozine, B.C. (1977). Differential attitudes toward mainstreaming: An investigation.
The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 23, 207–212.

View publication stats