Teachers' attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature

Abstract

On the assumption that the successful implementation of any inclusive policy is largely dependent on educators being positive about it, a great deal of research has sought to examine teachers' attitudes towards the integration and, more recently, the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the mainstream school. This paper reviews this large body of research and, in so doing, explores a host of factors that might impact upon teacher acceptance of the inclusion principle. The analyses showed evidence of positive attitudes, but no evidence of acceptance of a total inclusion or 'zero reject' approach to special educational provision. Teachers' attitudes were found to be strongly influenced by the nature and severity of the disabling condition presented to them (child-related variables) and less by teacher-related variables. Further, educational environment-related variables, such as the availability of physical and human support, were consistently found to be associated with attitudes to inclusion. After a brief discussion of critical methodological issues germane to the research findings, the paper provides directions for future research based on alternative methodologies.

Full text

Teachers’ attitudes towards
integration/inclusion: a review of the
literature
ELIAS AVRAMIDIS* AND BRAHM NORWICH†
*University of Bath, UK
†University of Exeter, UK
Address for correspondence:
Dr Elias Avramidis, Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UK.
E-mail: E.Avramidis@bath.ac.uk
ABSTRACT
On the assumption that the successful implementation of any inclusive policy is largely
dependent on educators being positive about it, a great deal of research has sought to
examine teachers’ attitudes towards the integration and, more recently, the inclusion
of children with special educational needs in the mainstream school. This paper reviews
this large body of research and, in so doing, explores a host of factors that might
impact upon teacher acceptance of the inclusion principle. The analyses showed
evidence of positive attitudes, but no evidence of acceptance of a total inclusion or ‘zero
reject’ approach to special educational provision. Teachers’ attitudes were found to
be strongly inuenced by the nature and severity of the disabling condition presented
to them (child-related variables) and less by teacher-related variables. Further,
educational environment-related variables, such as the availability of physical and
human support, were consistently found to be associated with attitudes to inclusion.
After a brief discussion of critical methodological issues germane to the research
findings, the paper provides directions for future research based on alternative
methodologies.
KEYWORDS
Integration, inclusion, teacher attitudes, inclusive education
Eur. J. of Special Needs Education, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2002), pp. 129–147
European Journal of Special Needs Education
ISSN 0885-6257 print/ISSN 1469-591X online © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/08856250210129056

BACKGROUND
Philosophies regarding the education of children with learning difficulties and/or
disabilities have changed dramatically over the past two decades and several countries
have led in the effort to implement policies which foster the integration and, more
recently, inclusion of these students into mainstream environments. Here, although
the movement of inclusive education has gained momentum in recent years, a key
element in the successful implementation of the policy is the views of the personnel
who have the major responsibility for implementing it, that is teachers. It is argued
that teachers’ beliefs and attitudes are critical in ensuring the success of inclusive
practices since teachers’ acceptance of the policy of inclusion is likely to affect their
commitment to implementing it (Norwich, 1994). Based on that assumption, a line
of research has generated important findings that have practical implications for
policy-makers endeavouring to promote inclusion. Although some reviews of this
literature exist (Hannah, 1988; Jamieson, 1984; Salvia and Munson, 1986; Yanito
et al., 1987), these were based mainly on studies conducted in the early 1980s and,
moreover, focused solely on American studies. A more recent attempt to synthesize
the literature was Scruggs and Mastropieri’s (1996) meta-analysis which, albeit
systematic, included only a small number of American studies. In this respect, no
comprehensive research synthesis to date has been completed. The purpose of this
paper is to review the large body of literature on mainstream teachers’ attitudes
towards integration and, more recently, inclusion. In doing so, we hope to elucidate
some of the factors that might impact on the formation of these attitudes. We also
discuss pertinent methodological issues and outline possible directions for future
research on teachers’ attitudes.
SEARCH PROCEDURE
Databases including ERIC (1984–2000), BEI (1986–2000) and PsychINFO
(1984–2000) were searched for articles describing teacher attitudes towards
mainstreaming, integration and inclusion. Reference lists from relevant books (e.g.
Jones, 1984; Yuker, 1988b), literature reviews (e.g. Yanito et al., 1987) and all
identified relevant reports were searched for additional references. Moreover, the
following international journals were hand-searched for relevant reports: British
Journal of Educational Psychology; British Journal of Special Education; Educational
Psychology; European Journal of Special Needs Education; Exceptional Children;
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education; Journal of Learning
Disabilities; and Journal of Special Education. For this synthesis, reports were included
only if their main research focus was on teachers’ attitudes. Not included were articles
that reported student teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion (with the
exception of one study, Ward and Le Dean, 1996), neither were studies conducted
prior to 1980.
Given that teachers’ attitudes towards integration and inclusion have received
unprecedented interest over the past 20 years, the review presented here cannot
possibly be complete. However, where previous efforts have focused solely on
American attitude studies, the one reported here endeavours to present as many
international studies as possible. In doing so, the aim is not to draw rm generalizations
since studies conducted in different countries cannot possibly be comparable given the
differences in their education systems. Moreover, there are variations within countries
in terms of philosophies, policies and systems. However, despite these differences,
there is evidence (Meijer, Pijl and Hegarty, 1994) that in most OECD countries up to
130 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2002)

1 per cent of the school population is taught in special settings (special schools or
classrooms); it is this small group of children with signicant and complex needs that
forms the focus of this literature review and not the much wider percentage of pupils
experiencing learning difculties of a mild to moderate nature commonly placed in
mainstream settings.
A further issue that was taken into account in the presentation of the studies here
is the distinction between those investigating attitudes to integration and those towards
inclusion. Although the two terms are often used interchangeably and it is not at all
clear that they have common meaning across national boundaries, inclusion has
recently superseded integration in the vocabulary of special educators as a more radical
term located within a human rights discourse.
In the UK context, the principle of integration is strongly associated with the
publication of the Warnock Report (1978) where the term was viewed as part of a
wider movement of ‘normalization’ in Western countries. In this report, integration
was seen to take various forms – locational integration (placing children ‘with special
needs’ physically into mainstream schools), social interaction (some degree of social
but not educational interaction between children with ‘special needs’ and their main-
stream peers) to functional integration (some unspecified level of participation
in common learning activities and experiences). However, although the Integration
movement strongly advocated the placement of children in the ‘least restrictive
environment’, there was no expectation that every pupil ‘with special needs’ would
be functionally integrated, but rather that children will be integrated in the manner
and to the extent that is appropriate to their particular ‘needs’ and circumstances.
In this respect, integration was seen as an ‘assimilationist’ process, in the sense of
viewing a full mainstream placement as depending on whether the child can assimilate
to a largely unchanged school environment (Thomas, 1997). However, functional
integration in the context of whole-school policies was clearly intended to change the
school environment.
Inclusion implies a restructuring of mainstream schooling that every school can
accommodate every child irrespective of disability (‘accommodation’ rather than
‘assimilation’) and ensures that all learners belong to a community. Such an argument
locates the discussion in a social-ethical discourse which is strongly focused on values
(see Salamanca Declaration: Unesco, 1994). Some favour the term ‘inclusion’ because
it is thought to embody a range of assumptions about the meaning and purpose of
schools and embraces a much deeper philosophical notion of what integration should
mean. Finally, the term inclusion has come to take on a wider significance and
popularity in linking up with the recent development of the concept of inclusion or
social inclusion as having broader social and political value. Inclusion in this wider
sense is comparable to equality as a social value in relating to all aspects of social
disadvantage, oppression and discrimination. Nevertheless, integration has been the
main focus of research, and it is towards presenting this body of work that we turn
rst.
OVERVIEW OF STUDIES OF TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS
INTEGRATION
Although the movement for ‘inclusive education’ is part of a broad human rights
agenda, many educators have serious reservations about supporting the widespread
placement of pupils with SEN in mainstream schools. Research undertaken in Australia
about professional attitudes towards integration education has provided a range of
information in this area. Studies undertaken between 1985 and 1989 covered the
Teacher attitudes to integration/inclusion 131

attitudes of headteachers (Center et al., 1985), teachers (Center and Ward, 1987),
psychologists (Center and Ward, 1989) and pre-school administrators (Bochner
and Pieterse, 1989), and demonstrated that professional groups vary considerably
in their perceptions of which types of children are most likely to be successfully
integrated. (Summary data from these studies were presented by Ward, Center and
Bochner, 1994.) These studies suggested that attitudes towards integration were
strongly inuenced by the nature of the disabilities and/or educational problems being
presented and, to a lesser extent, by the professional background of the respondents.
The most enthusiastic group were those responsible for pre-school provision and the
most cautious group were the classroom teachers, with heads, resource teachers and
psychologists in between. A similar level of caution was reected in another Australian
study involving prospective teachers (Ward and Le Dean, 1996) who, although positive
towards the general philosophy of integration, differentiated between different types
of needs.
Other studies have indicated that school district staff who are more distant from
students, such as administrators and advisers, express more positive attitudes to
integration than those closer to the classroom context, the class teachers. Headteachers
have been found to hold the most positive attitudes to integration, followed by special
education teachers, with classroom teachers having the most negative attitudes
(Garvar-Pinhas and Schmelkin, 1989; Norwich, 1994). Similarly, Forlin (1995) found
that teachers from the Education Support Centres (special centres that cater for the
educational needs of children with SEN requiring limited or extended support) were
more accepting of a child with intellectual and physical disability than educators
from regular mainstream primary schools which co-existed on the same site. Forlin
concluded that special education resource teachers tend to have a more positive attitude
to inclusion than their mainstream counterparts. This difference was also re ected in
a sample of Greek mainstream and special teachers (Padeliadou and Lampropoulou,
1997).
Bowman (1986), in her 14-nation Unesco study of approximately 1,000 teachers
with experience of teaching children with SEN, reported a wide difference in teacher
opinions regarding integration. The countries surveyed were Egypt, Jordan, Colombia,
Mexico, Venezuela, Botswana, Senegal, Zambia, Australia, Thailand, Czechoslovakia,
Italy, Norway and Portugal. The teachers were found to favour different types of
children for integration into ordinary classes. Interestingly, Bowman noted that in
countries which had a law requiring integration, teachers expressed more favourable
views (ranging from 47 to 93 per cent). Teachers from countries which offered the most
sophisticated segregated educational provision were less supportive to integration
(ranging from 0 to 28 per cent).
Leyser, Kapperman and Keller (1994) undertook a cross-cultural study of teacher
attitudes towards integration in the USA, Germany, Israel, Ghana, Taiwan and the
Philippines. Their ndings showed that there were differences in attitude to integration
between these countries. Teachers in the USA and Germany had the most positive
attitudes. Positive attitudes in the USA were attributed to integration being widely
practised there as the result of Public Law 94-142. The positive views expressed by
the German teachers were seen as surprising because, at the time of the investigation,
Germany had no special education legislation, their teachers were not provided
with special education training, their children with SEN were educated in segregated
settings and integration was being practised only on an experimental basis. This nding
goes against a simple relationship between legislative system and inclusive attitudes
as Bowman’s study had suggested. The authors speculated that the positive views
expressed by the German teachers represented an overall sensitivity of Germans
towards minorities and, thus, towards disabled people. Teacher attitudes were
132 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2002)

signicantly less positive in Ghana, the Philippines, Israel and Taiwan. The authors
reasoned that this could probably be due to limited or non-existent training for teachers
to acquire integration competencies; the limited opportunities for integration in some
of these countries; and the overall small percentage of children who receive services
at all (none of these countries had a history of offering children with SEN specially
designed educational opportunities).
Other attitude studies from the USA have suggested that general educators have
not developed an empathetic understanding of disabling conditions (Berryman,
1989; Horne and Ricciardo, 1988), nor do they appear to be supportive of the place-
ment of special needs learners in their regular classrooms (Bacon and Schulz,
1991; Barton, 1992). This can be explained by the fact that integration had often
been effected in an ad hoc manner, without systematic modications to a school’s
organization, due regard to teachers’ instructional expertise or any guarantee of
continuing resource provision. Center and Ward’s (1987) Australian study with
regular teachers indicated that their attitudes to integration reected lack of condence
both in their own instructional skills and in the quality of support personnel available
to them. They were positive about integrating only those children whose disabling
characteristics were not likely to require extra instructional or management skills on
the part of the teacher.
However, a UK study by Clough and Lindsay (1991), which investigated the
attitudes of 584 teachers towards integration and to different kinds of support,
revealed a wider positive view of integration. Their research provided some evidence
that attitudes had shifted in favour of integrating children with SEN over the past ten
years or so. They argue that this was partly the result of the experiences teachers had
had: whether they had developed some competence and if they had not been
‘swamped’, as some had feared at the time of publication of the Warnock Report
(1978). Nevertheless, again responses appeared to vary according to the educational
needs presented.
Finally, Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) in their meta-analysis of American attitude
studies, which included 28 survey reports conducted from at least 1958 through 1995,
reported that although two-thirds (65 per cent) of the teachers surveyed (10,560 in
total) agreed with the general concept of integration, only 40 per cent believed that
this was a realistic goal for most children and responses, again, appeared to vary
according to disabling conditions. Another important nding was that there was no
correlation between positive attitudes towards inclusion and date of publication,
suggesting that teachers’ views have not substantially changed over the years.
OVERVIEW OF STUDIES OF TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS
INCLUSION
More recent studies have been of teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Early American
studies on ‘full inclusion’ reported results which were not supportive of a full placement
of pupils with SEN in mainstream schools. A study carried out by Coates (1989), for
example, reported that general education teachers in Iowa did not have a negative
view of pullout programmes, nor were they supportive of ‘full inclusion’. Similar
findings were reported by Semmel et al. (1991) who, after having surveyed 381
elementary educators in Illinois and California (both general and special), concluded
that those educators were not dissatised with a special education system that operated
pullout special educational programmes.
Another American study by Vaughn et al. (1996) examined mainstream and
special teachers’ perceptions of inclusion through the use of focus group interviews.
Teacher attitudes to integration/inclusion 133

The majority of these teachers, who were not currently participating in inclusive
programmes, had strong, negative feelings about inclusion and felt that decision-
makers were out of touch with classroom realities. The teachers identified several
factors that would affect the success of inclusion, including class size, inadequate
resources, the extent to which all students would benet from inclusion and lack of
adequate teacher preparation.
However, in studies where teachers had active experience of inclusion, contradictory
ndings were reported; a study by Villa et al. (1996) yielded results which favoured
the inclusion of children with SEN in the ordinary school. The researchers noted that
teacher commitment often emerges at the end of the implementation cycle, after the
teachers have gained mastery of the professional expertise needed to implement
inclusive programmes. This nding was also reected in the Sebastian and Mathot-
Buckner’s (1998) case study of a senior high and a middle school in Washington School
District, Utah, where students with severe learning difculties had been integrated. In
this study, 20 educators were interviewed at the beginning and end of the school year
to determine attitudes about inclusion. The educators felt that inclusion was working
well and, although more support was needed, it was perceived as a challenge. Similar
findings were reported by LeRoy and Simpson (1996) who studied the impact
of inclusion over a three-year period in the state of Michigan. Their study showed
that as teachers’ experience with children with SEN increased, their condence to
teach these children also increased. The evidence seems to indicate that teachers’
negative or neutral attitudes at the beginning of an innovation such as inclusive
education may change over time as a function of experience and the expertise that
develops through the process of implementation. This conclusion was also reported
in a recent UK survey of teachers’ attitudes in one LEA, where teachers who had been
implementing inclusive programmes for some years held more positive attitudes than
the rest of the sample, who had had little or no such experience (Avramidis, Bayliss
and Burden, 2000). However, there have been no studies which show the move
towards more positive attitudes to inclusion, leading to widespread acceptance of full
inclusion.
FACTORS INFLUENCING TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES
Research has suggested that teachers’ attitudes might be inuenced by a number of
factors which are, in many ways, interrelated. For example, in the majority of inte-
gration attitude studies reviewed earlier, responses appeared to vary according to
disabling conditions. In other words, the nature of the disabilities and/or educational
problems presented have been noted to inuence teachers’ attitudes. Following the
typology developed by Salvia and Munson (1986), these factors could be termed as
‘child-related’ variables. Moreover, demographic and other personality factors and
their inuence on teachers’ attitudes have been examined and this group of variables
could be classied under the heading ‘teacher-related’ variables. Finally, the specic
context/environment has also been found to inuence attitudes and these variables can
be termed ‘educational environment-related’. This framework of synthesizing research
ndings has been adopted here for the presentation of the existing literature.
Child-related Variables
Several early integration studies have been concerned with determining teachers’
attitudes towards different categories of children with SEN and their perceived
134 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2002)

suitability for integration (it is worth emphasizing here that these studies were
investigating teachers’ attitudes towards integration not inclusion, since the latter does
not differentiate by category). Teachers’ concepts of children with SEN normally
consist of types of disabilities, their prevalence and the educational needs they exhibit
(Clough and Lindsay, 1991). Generally, teachers’ perceptions could be differentiated
on the basis of three dimensions: physical and sensory, cognitive and behavioural-
emotional.
Forlin (1995) found that educators were cautiously accepting of including a child
with cognitive disability and were more accepting of children with physical disabilities.
The degree of acceptance for part-time integration was high for children considered
to have mild or moderate SEN. The majority of educators (95 per cent) believed that
mild physically disabled children should be integrated part-time into mainstream
classes, and only a small number of educators (6 per cent) considered full-time
placement of children with severe physical disability as acceptable. Similarly, the
majority of educators (86 per cent) believed that only children with mild intellectual
disability should be integrated part-time into mainstream classes. A very small number
of educators (1 per cent) considered full-time placement of children with intellectual
disabilities viable because of their belief that it would be more stressful to cope with
children with SEN full-time than part-time. Forlin’s  ndings indicated that the degree
of acceptance by educators for the placement of children with SEN in mainstream
classes declined rapidly with a converse increase in the severity of the disability across
both physical and cognitive categories, and placement should be part-time rather than
full-time.
Ward et al. (1994) assessed teacher attitudes towards inclusion of children with SEN
whose disabling conditions or educational difficulties were defined behaviourally
rather than categorically. With the cooperation of senior staff from New South Wales
Department of School Education, Australia, they produced a list of 30 disabling
conditions which they then dened behaviourally (see ibid., p. 37, for a list of these
disability conditions). They felt that this type of operational denition would have
relevance for school practitioners, since traditional category grouping does not
necessarily reect the child’s actual educational needs. In general, teachers in their
study showed little disagreement about the inclusion of children with SEN perceived
as having mild difculties, since they were not likely to require extra instructional or
management skills from the teacher. Included in this group of children were those
with mild physical and visual disabilities and mild hearing loss. There was a common
uncertainty about the suitability of including children with disabling conditions that
in various ways posed additional problems and demanded extra teaching competencies
from teachers. Included in this group were children with mild intellectual disability,
moderate hearing loss and visual disability and hyperactivity. The teachers were
unanimous in their rejection of the inclusion of children with severe disabilities
(regarded as being too challenging a group and, at the time of the study, normally
educated in special schools). This group consisted of those with profound visual and
hearing impairment and moderate intellectual disability. Children with profound
sensory disabilities and low cognitive ability (mentally retarded) were considered to
have a relatively poor chance of being successfully included.
In the Clough and Lindsay (1991) study, the majority of teachers surveyed ranked
the needs of children with emotional and behavioural difculties as being most difcult
to meet, followed by children with learning difculties. Third in the ranking were
children with visual impairments, and fourth were children with a hearing impairment.
Clough and Lindsay attributed the low ranking of children with sensory and physical
impairments to the relatively infrequent existence at that time of these children in
mainstream classes.
Teacher attitudes to integration/inclusion 135

Bowman’s (1986) Unesco study indicated that teachers tend to favour different
types of children with SEN for integration. Most favoured for integration were children
with medical (75.5 per cent) and physical difculty (63 per cent). These children were
considered easiest to manage in the classrooms. Half of the teachers involved in the
study felt children with specic learning difculty (54 per cent) and speech defects
(50 per cent) were suitable for integration. Around a third felt that children with
moderate learning difficulties (31 per cent) and severe emotional and behavioural
difculties (38 per cent) were suitable for integration. A quarter of teachers perceived
children with sensory impairments, visual (23.5 per cent) and hearing (22.5 per cent),
could be integrated in mainstream classes, and very few of the teachers considered
that children with severe mental impairments (2.5 per cent) and multiple handicaps
(7.5 per cent) could be taught in mainstream classes. There was a wide range between
individual countries: this indicates wide differences of teacher attitudes on the suit-
ability of children with various types of SEN for integration in mainstream settings.
The greatest differences of attitude between countries were about the integration of
children with sensory impairments (visual and hearing) and the lowest were for the
integration of children with moderate learning difculties. Contrary to the evidence
reported in most attitude studies (see Salvia and Munson’s, 1986, and Jamieson’s,
1984, reviews), children with moderate learning difculties and with severe emotional
and behaviour problems were more favoured for integration generally than those with
sensory (deaf and blind) impairments.
In conclusion, even though in Bowman’s (1986) study the opposite was true,
teachers seem generally to exhibit a more positive attitude towards the integration of
children with physical and sensory impairments than to those with learning difculties
and emotional-behavioural dif culties (EBD). This evidence is also consistent with
Chazan’s (1994) review, and it is especially relevant in the UK context where there has
been a dramatic rise in the exclusions from schools of students with EBD.
Teacher-related variables
A great deal of research regarding teacher characteristics has sought to determine the
relationship between those characteristics and attitudes towards children with special
needs. Researchers have explored a host of specic teacher variables, such as gender,
age, years of teaching experience, grade level, contact with disabled persons and other
personality factors, which might impact upon teacher acceptance of the inclusion
principle. A synthesis of these ndings is presented below.
Gender
With regard to gender, the evidence appears inconsistent; some researchers noted that
female teachers had a greater tolerance level for integration and for special needs
persons than did male teachers (Aksamit, Morris and Leunberger, 1987; Eichinger,
Rizzo and Sirotnik, 1991; Thomas, 1985). Harvey (1985), for example, found that
there was a marginal tendency for female teachers to express more positive attitudes
towards the idea of integrating children with behaviour problems than male teachers.
Others (Beh-Pajooh, 1992; Berryman, 1989; Leyser et al., 1994), however, did not
report that gender was related to attitudes (see also reviews by Jamieson, 1984, and
Hannah, 1988).
136 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2002)

Age-teaching experience
Teaching experience is another teacher-related variable cited by several studies as
having an inuence on teachers’ attitudes. Younger teachers and those with fewer
years of experience have been found to be more supportive to integration (Berryman,
1989; Center and Ward, 1987; Clough and Lindsay, 1991). Forlin’s (1995) study, for
example, showed that acceptance of a child with a physical disability was highest
among educators with less than six years of teaching and declined with experience for
those with six to ten years of teaching. The most experienced educators (greater than
11 years of teaching) were the least accepting. Forlin also obtained a similar result
for the integration of a child with intellectual disability. His study seemed to indicate
that as educators gained experience in teaching, they became less accepting of inte-
gration.
Leyser et al. (1994) also found that, in general, teachers with 14 years’ or less
teaching experience had a significantly higher positive score in their attitude to
integration compared with those with more than 14 years. They found no signicant
differences in attitudes to integration among teachers whose teaching experience was
between one and four years, ve and nine years and ten and 14 years (no mention was
made based on individual country). Another study by Harvey (1985) compared the
willingness of teacher trainees and primary teachers to accept children with SEN in
their classes. His ndings indicated that there was a clear reluctance on the part of the
more experienced primary teachers compared to teacher trainees in their willingness
to integrate such children. In this respect, it would not be unreasonable to assume that
newly qualied teachers hold positive attitudes towards integration when entering the
professional arena.
However, although the above studies indicated that younger teachers and those
with fewer years of experience are more supportive of integration, other investigators
have reported that teaching experience was not significantly related to teachers’
attitudes (Avramidis et al., 2000; Leyser, Volkan and Ilan, 1989; Rogers, 1987;
Stephens and Braun, 1980).
Grade level taught
The variable grade level taught and its influence on teachers’ attitudes towards
integration has been the focus of several studies. Leyser et al.’s (1994) international
study found that senior high school teachers displayed significantly more positive
attitudes towards integration than did junior high school and elementary school
teachers, and junior high school teachers were significantly more positive than
elementary school teachers (again, no mention was made based on individual country).
Other American studies revealed that elementary and secondary teachers differed
in their views of integration and the kinds of classroom accommodations they make
for students who are integrated (Chalmers, 1991; Rogers, 1987), with elementary
teachers reporting more positive views of integration and its possibilities than did
their secondary counterparts (Savage and Wienke, 1989). Salvia and Munson (1986),
in their review, concluded that as children’s age increased, teacher attitudes became
less positive to integration, and attributed that to the fact that teachers of older children
tend to be concerned more about subject-matter and less about individual children
differences. This was also supported by Clough and Lindsay (1991) who claimed that,
for teachers more concerned with subject-matter, the presence of children with SEN
in the class is a problem from the practical point of view of managing class activity.
In this, it could be argued that primary school ethos is more holistic/inclusive, while
Teacher attitudes to integration/inclusion 137

secondary is subject-based, and that might impinge on teachers’ attitudes. Although
there are studies which have not found a relationship between grade and attitude
(see Jamieson’s, 1984, and Hannah’s, 1988, reviews), it is generally believed that an
emphasis on subject-matter af liation is less compatible with inclusion than is a focus
on student development.
Experience of contact
Experience of contact with children with SEN or disabled persons was mentioned
by several studies as an important variable in shaping teacher attitudes towards
integration. Here, the ‘contact hypothesis’ suggests that as teachers implement inclusive
programmes and therefore get closer to students with signi cant disabilities, their
attitudes might become more positive (see Yuker’s, 1988a, comprehensive review of
the research on the effects of personal contact on attitudes towards persons with
disabilities).
Janney et al. (1995) found that experience with low ability children was an
important contributing factor to their eventual acceptance by teachers:
Already wary of reforms and overloaded with work, general education
teachers’ initial balancing of the anticipated high cost of integration against
its uncertain benefit created hesitation or resistance. Following their
implementation experiences, teachers re-evaluated the balance between
the cost of teachers’ time and energy as compared to the benefit for
students, and judged the integration effort successful. (p. 436)
Leyser et al. (1994) found that, overall, teachers with much experience with disabled
persons had signicantly more favourable attitudes towards integration than those
with little or no experience. Findings of several other studies conducted in the USA
(Leyser and Lessen, 1985; Stainback, Stainback and Dedrick, 1984), Australia
(Harvey, 1985; McDonald, Birnbrauer and Swerissen, 1987) and the UK (Shimman,
1990) have also stressed the importance of increased experience and social contact with
children with SEN, in conjunction with the attainment of knowledge and speci c skills
in instructional and class management, in the formation of favourable attitudes
towards integration. These studies seem to suggest that contact with students with
signicant disabilities, if carefully planned (and supported), results in positive changes
in educators’ attitudes. These studies, coupled with more recent ones on teachers’
attitudes towards inclusion presented earlier, indicate that as experience of mainstream
teachers with children with SEN increases, their attitudes change in a positive direction
(LeRoy and Simpson, 1996).
However, it is important to note here that social contact per se does not lead to
favourable attitudes. Stephens and Braun (1980), for example, found no signicant
correlation between reported contact with students with signicant disabilities and
teachers’ attitudes towards integrating these students into regular classrooms. Another
study by Center and Ward (1987) showed that primary teachers were more tolerant
of integration if no special class or unit was attached to their school: they claimed
that contact experience with children with SEN did not result in the formation of
more positive attitudes. Surprisingly, there is evidence in the literature that social
contact could even produce unfavourable attitudes; Forlin’s (1995) study, for example,
indicated that there were differences between teachers who were currently involved
with the policy of inclusion and those who were not. Those not involved (but who were
aware of the concept of inclusion) believed that coping with a child with SEN and with
138 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2002)

a mainstream child was equally stressful. Those who were involved considered the
stress of coping with the child with SEN to be greater than for dealing with a
mainstream child. Thus this study indicated that experience of a child with SEN might
not promote favourable acceptance for inclusion, due to the stress factor.
Training
Another factor which has attracted considerable attention is the knowledge about
children with SEN gained through formal studies during pre- and in-service training.
This was considered an important factor in improving teachers’ attitudes towards the
implementation of an inclusive policy. Without a coherent plan for teacher training
in the educational needs of children with SEN, attempts to include these children in
the mainstream would be difcult.
The importance of training in the formation of positive attitudes towards
integration was supported by the ndings of Beh-Pajooh (1992) and Shimman (1990),
based on teachers in colleges. Both studied the attitudes of college teachers in the UK
towards students with SEN and their integration into ordinary college courses. Their
ndings showed that college teachers who had been trained to teach students with
learning difculties expressed more favourable attitudes and emotional reactions to
students with SEN and their integration than did those who had no such training.
Several other studies conducted in the USA (Buell et al., 1999; Van-Reusen, Shoho
and Barker, 2000), Australia (Center and Ward, 1987) and the UK (Avramidis et al.,
2000) tend to reinforce the view that special education qualifications acquired
from pre- or in-service courses were associated with less resistance to inclusive
practices.
Dickens-Smith (1995), for example, studied the attitudes of both regular and
special educators towards inclusion (not integration). Her respondents were given an
attitude survey before and after staff development. Both groups of respondents
revealed more favourable attitudes towards inclusion after their in-service training
than they did before, with regular education teachers showing the strongest positive
attitude change. Dickens-Smith concluded that staff development is the key to the
success of inclusion.
Teachers’ beliefs
More recently, Canadian research has identified another factor that influences
not only teachers’ reported attitudes towards inclusion, but their actual teaching
styles and adaptations in heterogeneous classrooms; that is, their views about their
responsibilities in dealing with the needs of students who are exceptional or at risk.
Jordan, Lindsay and Stanovich (1997) found that teachers holding a ‘pathognomonic’
perspective, in which the teacher assumes that a disability is inherent in the individual
student, differed in their teaching instruction from those closer to an ‘interventionist’
perspective, in which the teacher attributes student problems to an interaction between
student and environment. Teachers with the most pathognomonic perspectives
demonstrated the least effective interaction patterns, whereas those with interventionist
perspectives engaged in many more academic interactions and persisted more in
constructing student understanding.
This finding was further reinforced by another study by Stanovich and Jordan
(1998), which attempted to predict the performance of teacher behaviours associated
with effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms. This investigation was more
Teacher attitudes to integration/inclusion 139

sophisticated than previous ones because it was not only based on self-reports and
interviews, but also on observation of actual teaching behaviours. The results revealed
that the strongest predictor of effective teaching behaviour was the subjective school
norm as operationalized by the principal’s attitudes and beliefs about heterogeneous
classrooms and his or her pathognomonic/interventionist orientation. Moreover,
teachers’ responses on the pathognomonic/interventionist interview scale were also
found to be important predictors of effective teaching behaviour.
The above studies have provided evidence that the school’s ethos and the teachers’
beliefs have a considerable impact on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion which, in
turn, are translated into practice. It can be said that teachers who accept responsibility
for teaching a wide diversity of students (recognizing thus the contribution their
teaching has on the students’ progress), and feel condent in their instructional and
management skills (as a result of training), can successfully implement inclusive
programmes (see the study by Soodak, Podell and Lehman, 1998, where receptivity
towards inclusion was associated with higher teacher efcacy).
Teachers’ socio-political views
There have been a few studies of integration attitudes in relation to educators’ wider
personal beliefs (political outlook, socio-political views) and attitudes. Stephens and
Braun (1980), in a US study, found that attitudes to integration were more positive
when teachers believed that publicly funded schools should educate exceptional
children. Feldman and Altman (1985), in another US study, found that classroom
teachers with abstract conceptual systems held more positive integration attitudes
depending on the ethnic origin of the integrated child. Teachers with abstract
conceptual systems showed less need for order, less pessimism and less interpersonal
aggression, characteristics which have been related to low levels of authoritarianism.
In his comparative study of educators in Devon, England, and Arizona, USA, Thomas
(1985) found that educators with low scores on conservatism tended to have less
negative attitudes to integration.
More recently, Norwich (1994), in his comparative study of educators in rural and
urban areas in Pennsylvania, USA, and Northamptonshire, England, compared the
relationships of integration attitudes to political outlook, socio-political views and
other situational factors (contact with disability, professional position). In this study,
integration attitudes were related to socio-political views only in the UK sample.
Norwich concluded that while educators’ socio-political or ideological beliefs and
values have some relation to integration, attitudes cannot be considered as a strong
predictor alone and other situational factors (provision in the two areas and cultural
issues) needed to be taken into consideration.
Educational Environment-related Variables
A number of studies have examined environmental factors and their inuence in the
formation of teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion. One factor that has
consistently been found to be associated with more positive attitudes is the availability
of support services at the classroom and the school levels (Center and Ward, 1987;
Clough and Lindsay, 1991; Myles and Simpson, 1989). Here, support could be seen
as both physical (resources, teaching materials, IT equipment, a restructured physical
environment, etc.) and human (learning support assistants, special teachers, speech
therapists, etc.).
140 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2002)

Janney et al. (1995) found that the majority of teachers in their study were hesitant
initially to accept children with SEN in their classes, because they anticipated a worst-
case scenario where both they and the children with SEN would be left to fend for
themselves. Later, these teachers were receptive towards these children after having
received necessary and sufcient support. Respondents acknowledged that the support
received from the relevant authorities was instrumental in allaying their apprehension
that part-time integration would result in extraordinary workloads. A significant
restructuring of the physical environment (making buildings accessible to students
with physical disabilities) and the provision of adequate and appropriate equipment
and materials were also instrumental in the development of these positive attitudes.
Besides those mentioned by Janney et al., other forms of physical support, such as
availability of adopted teaching materials (LeRoy and Simpson, 1996; Center and
Ward, 1987) and smaller classes (Bowman, 1986; Center and Ward, 1987; Clough
and Lindsay, 1991; Harvey, 1985), have also been found to generate positive attitudes
towards inclusion.
Another type of support, that of the continuous encouragement from the head-
teacher, has also been mentioned in several studies as being instrumental in the creation
of positive attitudes to inclusion. In the Janney et al. study (1995), the enthusiastic
support from headteachers was an attributing factor to the success of the part-
time integration programme in the schools they studied. Chazan (1994), in his review
of relevant literature, concluded that mainstream teachers have a greater tolerance
of integration if headteachers are supportive. Similarly, Center and Ward’s (1987)
study reported that mainstream teachers whose headteachers had provided some
form of support for the integration programme exhibited a more positive attitude
towards its implementation than those who had not received any (see also Thomas,
1985).
Support from specialist resource teachers was also identied as an important factor
in shaping positive teacher attitudes to inclusion (Kauffman, Lloyd and McGee, 1989).
Janney et al. (1995) found that one of the factors cited by their respondents that had
contributed to the success of the part-time integration programme they were
implementing was the existence of effective support, both interpersonal and task-
related, provided by the school’s special education teachers. Clough and Lindsay
(1991) argued that special education specialist teachers are important co-workers in
providing advice to subject specialist teachers on how to make a particular subject
accessible to children with SEN. Center and Ward (1987) found that children with a
mild sensory disability integrated in mainstream classes did not cause anxiety to
mainstream teachers because of the condence generated by the presence of itinerant
teachers for these children. Their study showed that experience of working with
itinerant teachers positively affected teachers’ attitudes.
The importance of support from specialist resource teachers was also highlighted
in another study conducted in the USA (Minke et al., 1996), which compared the
attitudes towards inclusion and the perceptions of self-efcacy, competence, teaching
satisfaction and judgements of the appropriateness of teaching adaptation of regular
education teachers who co-taught with resource teachers in inclusive classrooms and
their counterparts in traditional classrooms. Regular teachers in inclusive classrooms
reported positive attitudes towards inclusion and high perceptions of self-efcacy,
competence and satisfaction. Regular teachers in traditional classrooms held less
positive perceptions and viewed classroom adaptations as less feasible, and less
frequently used, than did teachers in classrooms with the protected resource of two
teachers.
Other aspects of the mainstream school environment have also been identified
in the above studies as being obstacles that have to be surmounted in order for
Teacher attitudes to integration/inclusion 141

inclusive programmes to be successfully implemented; for example, more often than
not, teachers report overcrowded classrooms, insufficient pre-prepared materials
(differentiated packages), insufcient time to plan with learning support team, lack
of a modified/flexible timetable, inadequately available support from external
specialists and lack of regular INSET (Avramidis et al., 2000). In particular, the need
for more non-contact time so they can plan collaboratively has been stressed in a
number of American studies (Diebold and von Eschenbach, 1991; Semmel et al., 1991).
In the Myles and Simpson (1989) investigation, for example, 48 out of 55 teachers
(87.2 per cent) reported their perceived need for 1 hour or more of daily planning
time for inclusion. It could be said that mainstream teachers feel that implementing
an inclusive programme would involve a considerable workload on their part, as a
result of increased planning for meeting the needs of a very diverse population. In this
respect, human and physical support can be seen as important factors in generating
positive attitudes among mainstream teachers towards the inclusion of children with
SEN.
SOME CONCLUSIONS/HYPOTHESES EMERGING FROM THE
LITERATURE REVIEW
The research synthesis presented above reveals that teachers, although positive
towards the general philosophy of inclusive education, do not share a ‘total inclusion’
approach to special educational provision. Instead, they hold differing attitudes about
school placements, based largely upon the nature of the students’ disabilities. Teachers
are more willing to include students with mild disabilities or physical/sensory
impairments than students with more complex needs. In particular, there is enough
evidence to suggest that, in the case of the more severe learning needs and behavioural
difculties, teachers hold negative attitudes to the implementation of inclusion. Given
the consistency of this trend both across countries and across time, governments
wishing to promote inclusive education have a difcult task convincing their educators
about the feasibility of the policy. Consequently, it seems imperative that the process
is carefully planned and well supported, so that teachers’ initial reservations or
concerns are overcome. That would require, in turn, a careful and exible allocation
of the available resources based on the severity of needs represented in the inclusive
settings.
Another conclusion of this review is that the evidence regarding teacher-related
variables is inconsistent and none of them alone could be regarded as a strong predictor
of educator attitudes. On the other hand, there is sufficient consistency regarding
educational environment-related variables, which suggests that a signicant restruc-
turing in the mainstream school environment should take place before students with
signicant disabilities are included. Again, it seems reasonable to conclude here that
with the provision of more resources and support, teachers’ attitudes could become
more positive. The primary implication for practice is the setting of appropriate
external support systems (and the expansion and reorganization of the existing ones)
operating across schools, and the setting of learning support teams within the schools,
supporting individual teachers who request guidance over a teaching concern relating
to special educational needs.
Further, the provision of extensive opportunities for training at the pre- and in-
service levels should be seen as a top priority for the policy-makers. The assumption
here is that if teachers receive assistance in mastering the skills required to implement
an innovation such as ‘inclusion’, they will become more committed to the change (and
more effective) as their effort and skill increase. In this respect, it could be concluded
142 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2002)

here that while teachers are likely to show initial resistance to any innovative policy,
their attitudes might become more positive later on, as they develop the necessary
expertise to implement the policy and experience the success of their efforts. This
hypothesis also emerged from an Australian study (Harvey, 1990) which compared
the attitudes of an 1984 sample of teachers, teachers-in-training and non-teachers in
Victoria, Australia, to corresponding groups six years later. In 1990 the teacher groups
expressed more positive responses than had their counterparts in 1984. Further, while
the teacher groups in 1984 were less positive than the non-teachers, in 1990 this
difference had disappeared. The author concluded that after six years of experience
with an integration policy (what Harvey calls a ‘no choice policy’), teachers’ attitudes
were more positive. This evidence indicates the necessity of adopting a gradual
approach in the implementation of inclusion, and for this reorganization to succeed,
careful planning, monitoring and review of the process is required. However, as
indicated earlier in this review, there have been no studies which show the move
towards more positive attitudes to inclusion leading to widespread acceptance of full
inclusion.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES
Many researchers investigating teachers’ attitudes towards integration have used
Likert-type inventories in attempting to ascertain the extent to which respondents
agree or disagree with the general concept of integration as related to a range of
disabling conditions. In this, much of the previous research has thus far been primarily
represented by acceptance/rejection issues reflecting the traditional categories of
disability, without much effort directed at uncovering the factors that may underlie
particular attitudes. However, the use of labels or categories of disability, such as
‘physically disabled’, ‘Down’s syndrome’ or ‘autistic’, raises the issue that the
respondents in a population may have multiple interpretations for the same label; that
occurs when teachers attribute different characteristics to a label based on their
experience, or lack of it, which could be positive or negative and be largely
unpredictable across a population of teachers. The problem of multiple interpretations
can be alleviated by providing specic descriptions (in the form of vignettes) of the
behaviours and characteristics of persons with disabilities, rather than referring to a
group of persons by a disabling condition.
Moreover, in this line of research, paper-and-pencil measures prevailed in
the methodologies and few attempts were made to include other sources of data, such
as teacher interviews, or other unobtrusive measures to validate the measurements
taken. Further, the signicance of these studies lies in the assumption that the reported
attitudes will be expressed in behaviour. Given the fact that ‘integration’ and, more
recently, ‘inclusion’ are politically correct ideas, there is always the danger of the
respondents giving socially desirable answers that have little or no correspondence with
their everyday behaviour. Teachers may endorse general statements in favour of having
children with difculties in regular classrooms, but it is another matter entirely how
willing they are to make specic adaptations for these children. For this reason, it is
recommended that observations of teachers’ actual classroom behaviour and inter-
actions with the integrated child are conducted. One limitation of direct observations,
of course, is that the person being observed may alter his or her behaviour during the
observation period. However, one is more likely to observe samples of true behaviour
over periodic observations, rather than by relying solely on questionnaire data.
Furthermore, the present review highlights the need for adopting alternative
research designs for the study of teachers’ attitudes. As Eiser (1994) reminds us,
Teacher attitudes to integration/inclusion 143

mainstream psychological research on attitudes has taken the ‘individual self’ as both
the starting-point and the focus of analysis, resulting often in a ‘psychologizing’ about
social issues without articulating how social interaction makes psychological processes
the way they are. Indeed, the great majority of the studies reviewed above employed
traditional quantitative research designs (survey) and investigated ‘individualistic’
experiences of inclusion. However, as Eiser argues, there is an interdependence of
the ‘individual’ and the ‘social’; in other words, attitudes should not be viewed
as solely personal, but as arising out of interactions with others in the system (e.g.
school). Given this social constructivist view of attitude as context dependent and
responsive to factors within a particular sociocultural environment, future research
would benet from employing alternative methods, such as life history, narrative or
autobiography, to examine teachers’ attitudes. These methods focus on participants’
own narratives (the so-called ‘emic’ perspective) and can lead to an improved
understanding of the complex and interrelated processes of personal experiences,
attitudes and practices.
Directions for Future Research
Although research on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion has been on the increase
in the last few years, research is needed to examine additional factors which inuence
the formation of positive attitudes towards inclusion. For example, more specific
information should be gathered about the quality of the training opportunities that
teachers had in implementing inclusion with regard to their duration, content and
intensity, as well as about the quality of their experiences with different groups of
exceptional learners. For example, if training, whether at the pre- or in-service level
is indeed an important factor in modifying teachers’ attitudes, how can we prepare our
future teachers and, at the same time, facilitate the professional development of those
currently in schools, so that they feel more confident in implementing inclusive
programmes? Similarly, if ‘experience’ of inclusion promotes positive attitudes, how
can we support teachers (the main agents of the implementation of the policy) as
schools become more inclusive, so their experiences are positive? Other school factors
that impinge on attitudes and school practices, such as ethos, policies, organization,
instructional arrangements and the utilization of resources, need to be explored. Future
research could also focus on more ‘longitudinal’ qualitative case studies of teachers’
attitudes and practices as schools move towards more inclusive education. These
studies could examine transformation across time and allow for a more thorough
investigation of teachers’ attitudes towards the process. Studies of this nature (see
Avramidis, Bayliss and Burden, in press) carry the potential of deepening our
understanding of the complexities of inclusion, and provide directions for change or
continuity of provision as appropriate.
REFERENCES
AKSAMIT, D., MORRIS, M. and LEUNBERGER, J. (1987). ‘Preparation of student services,
professionals and faculty for serving learning disabled college students’, Journal of College
Student Personnel, 28, 53–59.
AVRAMIDIS, E., BAYLISS, P. and BURDEN, R. (2000). ‘A survey into mainstream teachers’
attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary
school in one local educational authority’, Educational Psychology, 20, 193–213.
AVRAMIDIS, E., BAYLISS, P. and BURDEN, R. (2000). ‘Inclusion in action: an in-depth
144 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2002)

case study of an effective inclusive secondary school in the south-west of England’,
International Journal of Inclusive Education 6, 38–43.
BACON, E. H. and SCHULZ, J. B. (1991). ‘A survey of mainstreaming practices’, Teacher
Education and Special Education, 14, 144–149.
BARTON, M. L. (1992). Teachers’ opinions on the implementation and effects of
mainstreaming; ERIC Document No. ED 350 802.
BEH-PAJOOH, A. (1992). ‘The effect of social contact on college teachers’ attitudes towards
students with severe mental handicaps and their educational integration’, European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 7, 231–236.
BERRYMAN, J. D. (1989). ‘Attitudes of the public toward educational mainstreaming’,
Remedial and Special Education, 10, 44–49.
BOCHNER, S. and PIETERSE, M. (1989). ‘Preschool directors’ attitudes towards the
integration of children with disabilities into regular preschools in New South Wales’,
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 36, 133–150.
BOWMAN, I. (1986). ‘Teacher-training and the integration of handicapped pupils: some
ndings from a fourteen nation Unesco study’, European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 1, 29–38.
BUELL, M., HALLAM, R., GAMEL-McCORMICK, M. and SCHEER, S. (1999). ‘A
survey of general and special education teachers’ perceptions and in-service needs
concerning inclusion’, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education,
46, 143–156.
CENTER, Y. and WARD, J. (1987). ‘Teachers’ attitudes towards the integration of disabled
children into regular schools’, Exceptional Child, 34, 41–56.
CENTER, Y. and WARD, J. (1989). ‘Attitudes of school psychologists towards the
integration of children with disabilities’, International Journal of Disability, Development
and Education, 36, 117–132.
CENTER, Y., WARD, J., PARMENTER, T. and NASH, R. (1985). ‘Principals’ attitudes
toward the integration of disabled children into regular schools’, Exceptional Child, 32,
149–161.
CHALMERS, L. (1991). ‘Classroom modi cation for the mainstreamed student with mild
handicaps’, Intervention in School and Clinic, 27, 40–42.
CHAZAN, M. (1994). ‘The attitudes of mainstream teachers towards pupils with emotional
and behavioural dif culties’, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9, 261–274.
CLOUGH, P. and LINDSAY, G. (1991). Integration and the Support Service. Slough: NFER.
COATES, R. D. (1989). ‘The regular Education Initiative and opinions of regular classroom
teachers’, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 532–536.
DICKENS-SMITH, M. (1995). The Effect of Inclusion Training on Teacher Attitude towards
Inclusion; ERIC Document No. ED 332 802.
DIEBOLD, M. H. and VON ESCHENBACH, J. F. (1991). ‘Teacher educator predictions of
regular class teacher perceptions of mainstreaming’, Teacher Education and Special
Education, 14, 221–227.
EICHINGER, J., RIZZO, T. and SIROTNIK, B. (1991). ‘Changing attitudes toward people
with disabilities’, Teacher Education and Special Education, 14, 121–126.
EISER, J. R. (1994). Attitudes, Chaos and the Connectionist Mind. Oxford: Blackwell.
FELDMAN, D. and ALTMAN, R. (1985). ‘Conceptual systems and teacher attitudes toward
regular classroom placement of mentally retarded students’, American Journal of Mental
Deciency, 89, 345–351.
FORLIN, C. (1995). ‘Educators’ beliefs about inclusive practices in Western Australia’,
British Journal of Special Education, 22, 179–185.
GARVAR-PINHAS, A. and SCHMELKIN, L. P. (1989). ‘Administrators and teachers’
attitudes towards mainstreaming’, Remedial and Special Education, 10, 38–43.
HANNAH, M. E. (1988). ‘Teacher attitudes toward children with disabilities: an ecological
analysis’. In: YUKER, H. E. (Ed.) Attitudes toward Persons with Disabilities. New York:
Springer, pp. 154–171.
HARVEY, D. H. (1985). ‘Mainstreaming: teachers’ attitudes when they have no choice about
the matter’, Exceptional Child, 32, 163–173.
HARVEY, D. H. (1990). ‘Integration in Victoria: teachers’ attitudes after six years of a
Teacher attitudes to integration/inclusion 145

no-choice policy’, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 39,
33–45.
HORNE, M. D. and RICCIARDO, J. L. (1988). ‘Hierarchy of responds to handicaps’,
Psychological Reports, 62, 83–86.
JAMIESON, J. D. (1984). ‘Attitudes of educators toward the handicapped’. In: JONES, R. L.
(Ed.) Attitude and Attitude Change in Special Education: Theory and Practice. Reston,
Va.: The Council for Exceptional Children, pp. 206–222.
JANNEY, R. F., SNELL, M. E., BEERS, M. K. and RAYNES, M. (1995). ‘Integrating
children with moderate and severe disabilities into general education classes’, Exceptional
Children, 61, 425–439.
JONES, R. L. (Ed.) (1984). Attitudes and Attitude Change in Special Education: Theory and
Practice. Reston, Va.: The Council for Exceptional Children.
JORDAN, A., LINDSAY, L. and STANOVICH, P. J. (1997). ‘Classroom teachers’
instructional interactions with students who are exceptional, at risk and typically
achieving’, Remedial and Special Education, 18, 82–93.
KAUFFMAN, J. M., LLOYD, J. D. and McGEE, K. A. (1989). ‘Adaptive and maladaptive
behavior: teachers’ attitudes and their technical assistance needs’, Journal of Special
Education, 23, 185–200.
LeROY, B. and SIMPSON, C. (1996). ‘Improving student outcomes through inclusive
education’, Support for Learning, 11, 32–36.
LEYSER, Y., KAPPERMAN, G. and KELLER, R. (1994). ‘Teacher attitudes toward
mainstreaming: a cross-cultural study in six nations’, European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 9, 1–15.
LEYSER, Y. and LESSEN, E. (1985). ‘The efcacy of two training approaches on attitudes of
prospective teachers towards mainstreaming’, Exceptional Child, 32, 175–183.
LEYSER, Y., VOLKAN, K. and ILAN, Z. (1989). ‘Mainstreaming the disabled from an
international perspective – perspectives of Israeli and American teachers’, International
Education, 18, 44–54.
McDONALD, S., BIRNBRAUER, J. and SWERISSEN, H. (1987). ‘The effect of an
integration program on teacher and student attitudes to mentally-handicapped children’,
Australian Psychologist, 22, 313–322.
MEIJER, C. J., PIJL, S. J. and HEGARTY, S. (1994). New Perspectives in Special Education:
A Six Country Study of Integration. London: Routledge.
MINKE, K. M., BEAR, G., DEEMER, S. A. and GRIFFIN, S. M. (1996). ‘Teachers’
experiences with inclusive classrooms: implications for special education reform’, Journal
of Special Education, 30, 152–186.
MYLES, B. S. and SIMPSON, R. L. (1989). ‘Regular educators’ modification preferences
for mainstreaming mildly handicapped children’, Journal of Special Education, 22, 479–491.
NORWICH, B. (1994). ‘The relationship between attitudes to the integration of children with
special educational needs and wider socio-political views: a US–English comparison’,
European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9, 91–106.
PADELIADOU, S. and LAMPROPOULOU, V. (1997). ‘Attitudes of special and regular
education teachers towards school integration’, European Journal of Special Needs
Education, 12, 173–183.
ROGERS, B. G. (1987). A Comparative Study of the Attitudes of Regular Education
Personnel toward Mainstreaming Handicapped Students and Variables Affecting those
Attitudes; ERIC Document No. ED 291196.
SALVIA, J. and MUNSON, S. (1986). ‘Attitudes of regular education teachers toward
mainstreaming mildly handicapped students’. In: MEISEL, C. J. (Ed.) Mainstreaming
Handicapped Children: Outcomes, Controversies, and New Directions. London:
Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 111–128.
SAVAGE, L. B. and WIENKE, W. D. (1989). ‘Attitudes of secondary teachers toward
mainstreaming’, High School Journal, 73, 70–73.
SCRUGGS, T. E. and MASTROPIERI, M. A. (1996). ‘Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming-
inclusion, 1958–1995: a research synthesis’, Exceptional Children, 63, 59–74.
SEBASTIAN, J. P. and MATHOT-BUCKNER, C. (1998). ‘Including students with severe
disabilities in rural middle and high school’; ERIC Document No. ED 417911.
146 European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2002)

SEMMEL, M. I., ABERNATHY, T. V., BUTERA, G. and LESAR, S. (1991). ‘Teacher
perceptions of the Regular Education Initiative’, Exceptional Children, 58, 9–24.
SHIMMAN, P. (1990). ‘The impact of special needs students at a further education college: a
report on a questionnaire’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 14, 83–91.
SOODAK, L. C., PODELL, D. M. and LEHMAN, L. R. (1998). ‘Teacher, student, and school
attributes as predictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion’, Journal of Special Education,
31, 480–497.
STAINBACK, S., STAINBACK, W. and DEDRICK, V. L. (1984). ‘Teachers’ attitudes toward
integration of severely handicapped students into regular schools’, Teacher Education, 19,
21–27.
STANOVICH, P. J. and JORDAN, A. (1998). ‘Canadian teachers’ and principals’ beliefs
about inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching in heterogeneous classrooms’,
Elementary School Journal, 98, 221–238.
STEPHENS, T. and BRAUN, B. L. (1980). ‘Measures of regular classroom teachers’ attitudes
toward handicapped children’, Exceptional Children, 46, 292–294.
THOMAS, D. (1985). ‘The determinants of teachers’ attitudes to integrating the intellectually
handicapped’, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 251–263.
THOMAS, G. (1997). ‘Inclusive schools for an inclusive society’, British Journal of Special
Education, 24, 251–263.
UNESCO (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs
Education. Paris: Unesco.
VAN-REUSEN, A. K., SHOHO, A. R. and BARKER, K. S. (2000). ‘High school teacher
attitudes toward inclusion’, High School Journal, 84, 7–20.
VAUGHN, J. S., SCHUMM, J., JALLAD, B., SLUSHER, J. and SAUMELL, L. (1996).
‘Teachers’ views of inclusion’, Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 96–106.
VILLA, R., THOUSAND, J., MEYERS, H. and NEVIN, A. (1996). ‘Teacher and
administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education’, Exceptional Children, 63, 29–45.
WARD, J., CENTER, Y. and BOCHNER, S. (1994). ‘A question of attitudes: integrating
children with disabilities into regular classrooms?’, British Journal of Special Education,
21, 34–39.
WARD, J. and LE DEAN, L. (1996). ‘Student teachers’ attitudes towards special educational
provision’, Educational Psychology, 16, 207–218.
WARNOCK REPORT. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1978). Special
Educational Needs: Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of
Handicapped Children and Young People. London: HMSO.
YANITO, T., QUINTERO, M. C., KILLORAN, J. C. and STRIEFEL, S. (1987). ‘Teacher
attitudes toward mainstreaming: a literature review’; ERIC Document No. ED 290290.
YUKER, H. E. (1988a). ‘The effects of contact on attitudes toward disabled persons: some
empirical generalisations’. In: YUKER, H. E. (Ed.) Attitudes toward Persons with
Disabilities. New York: Springer, pp. 262–274.
YUKER, H. E. (1988b). Attitudes towards Persons with Disabilities. New York: Springer.
Teacher attitudes to integration/inclusion 147