Content uploaded by Davey Young
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Davey Young on Aug 27, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Environment and Social Psychology (2024) Volume 9 Issue 8
doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
1
research article
Investigating English language teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and
concerns about inclusive education
Davey Young
Department of English Studies, Sophia University
* Corresponding authors: Davey Young, dyoung@sophia.ac.jp
ABSTRACT
While general and special education teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education have
been extensively researched in recent years, little is known about English language teachers’ views on inclusive education.
This is a critical research gap, as students with disabilities can face many unique barriers to learning a foreign language
compared to other subject areas, and teachers’ views on inclusive education impact their ability to teach inclusively.
However, many English language teachers have reported feeling unprepared to teach students with disabilities. Using
postsecondary English language teachers in Japan as a case, the present research employed a modified version of the
Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education Revised Scale (SACIE-R; N = 239). Respondents had a
generally positive view of including students with disabilities in their instruction but were concerned about lacking
knowledge and skills to teach inclusively and giving appropriate attention to all students in an inclusive classroom.
Predictive factors included previous interactions with people with disabilities and inclusive practices self-efficacy, though
both were overshadowed by the relationship that participation in pre- and in-service training to teach students with
disabilities had with teachers’ views. The results have implications for how to best prepare English language teachers to
teach inclusively, particularly as pertains to in-service training.
Keywords: EFL; higher education; inclusive education; teacher training; TESOL
1. Introduction
Equitable and inclusive education is a human right[1]. In an effort to safeguard this right worldwide, the
United Nations included Sustainable Development Goal 4 in its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,
though there remains a need to properly train teachers to teach inclusively[2]. In the fields of general and special
education, a number of studies have shown that teachers’ views on inclusive education and students with
disabilities (SWDs) impact their ability to teach inclusively. Furthermore, these views can be influenced by a
variety of factors from gender to policy awareness and teacher training[3-5]. However, there have been no large-
scale investigations into the preparedness of English language teachers (ELTs) to teach inclusively. This is an
important research gap to fill for several reasons.
Firstly, language learning presents many unique barriers to SWDs, especially those with specific learning
difficulties (SLDs). Language learners with SLDs can have difficulties with cognitive aspects of language
ARTICLE INFO
Received: 16 April 2024 | Accepted: 30 May 2024 | Available online: 26 August 2024
CITATION
Young D. Investigating English language teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education. Environment and Social
Psychology 2024; 9(8): 2761. doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
COPYRIGHT
Copyright © 2024 by author(s). Environment and Social Psychology is published by Arts and Science Press Pte. Ltd. This is an Open Access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), permitting
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is cited.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
2
learning like working memory, phonological retention, automatization of language forms, processing written
and/or spoken input, and producing written and/or spoken output[6]. There is also evidence demonstrating that
these cognitive factors interact with affective factors of language learning, particularly anxiety, for students
with SLDs[6-11]. Anxiety can then further influence learning of and performance in a foreign language[12-13].
This interplay between cognitive and affective factors in language learning can create a vicious cycle for
students with SLDs, spiraling to negatively affect language learning motivation, acquisition, and
achievement[6-7]. The relationship between anxiety and achievement in language learning can also take the
form of a feedback loop in which anxiety and achievement negatively reinforce each other[8,14]. Students’ self-
worth or self-esteem may also be negatively impacted, and this can extend beyond the language learning
classroom[6,15]. Despite these barriers, many if not most ELTs lack training in special education or inclusive
practices and sizable percentages of them have reported feeling unprepared to teach SWDs[16-25], though little
is known about how ELTs as a group view such students or their inclusion in English language learning
environments.
Teacher education and involvement are vital components of the success of inclusive education in any
given context. There is a wide body of research spanning decades that has shown how important teachers’
views on inclusive education are to their perceived and actual ability to implement inclusive practices, and that
these views can be influenced by a variety of factors such as training in special or inclusive education and
inclusive practices self-efficacy[26-28]. The Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education
Revised Scale (SACIE-R)[4] is a commonly used instrument for measuring the three psychometric constructs
listed in its name. These constructs are “central to the rationale underlying a teacher’s beliefs and support for
and engagement with inclusive practices”[4] (p. 59). The first factor, sentiments, is defined by Forlin et al. as
“sentiments about engaging with people with disabilities”[4] (p. 59). The attitudes subscale captures
“acceptance of learners with different support needs”[4] (p. 59). Concerns are defined simply as “concerns
about inclusive education”[4] (p. 59).
Several factors have been identified as having correlative and/or predictive relationships with these three
constructs in previous administrations of the SACIE-R among general educators. Teachers who report a higher
degree of confidence teaching SWDs, for instance, also have more positive views of inclusive education as
measured by the SACIE-R[29-37], as do teachers with more experience teaching SWDs[5,32,37-39], more previous
interactions with people with disabilities[5,31,33-35,40], higher inclusive practices self-efficacy[5,41-42], and
knowledge of local legislation[30,33-35,37]. Several studies using the SACIE-R among general education teachers
have also noted the effect that pre- and in-service teacher training in inclusive practices have on improving
respondents’ views of inclusive education[4-5,33-34,37,39-40,43-45].
As with teachers in general education, ELTs’ views on inclusive education have some relationship with
their ability and self-efficacy to teach inclusively[25,46-48], and inclusive practices self-efficacy has been
associated with ELTs’ readiness to teach SWDs[25,49]. However, no large-scale survey of such teachers’ views
of inclusive education and the factors which may influence them has been conducted. In order to help gain
such an understanding, the present research inquiry was undertaken in an attempt to answer the following
research question: what are ELTs’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education, and what
factors may influence them?
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Instrument
The SACIE-R was selected for the present research for a number of reasons. Firstly, it has an established
reliability across multiple languages and cultural environments. The SACIE-R has been widely used in general
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
3
and special education, and translated versions have been validated in a number of different languages[4-5,29-30,32-
37,39-40,42-45,50-57]. However, the SACIE-R has been used to a far lesser extent in postsecondary education[38,41,55],
and no studies using the SACIE-R for language education specifically could be located. Secondly, Ewing et
al.[3] found in a review of nine questionnaires designed to capture primary teachers’ views on inclusion that
the SACIE-R was one of only two such instruments that adequately addressed the cognitive, affective, and
behavioral aspects of teachers’ attitudes. Navarro-Mateu et al.[39] also assert that the SACIE-R has the highest
degree of academic support among the various instruments used around the world for assessing teachers’ views
of inclusive education. Finally, the neutral nature of the three psychometric constructs—sentiments, attitudes,
and concerns—means that meaningful results for one subscale can be considered so long as it has an acceptable
degree of inter-item reliability regardless of the reliability of the other two subscales. This was an essential
consideration in selecting the SACIE-R for the present research purposes because the items related to the
attitudes factor required modification owing to several differences between general L1 education, for which
the original SACIE-R was created, and postsecondary language learning environments. These revisions are
captured below in Table 1, which precedes a rationale for the revisions. All items on both versions of the
SACIE-R are answered on a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. There are fifteen
items total with five items per factor.
Table 1. Comparison of attitudes factor items in the original and revised SACIE-R.
Item number
Original SACIE-R
Revised SACIE-R
1
Students who have difficulty expressing
their thoughts verbally should be in regular
classes.
Students who have excessive difficulty
comprehending English-language input should receive
accommodations in their English-language classes.
2
Students who frequently fail exams
should be in regular classes.
Students who have excessive difficulty producing
English-language output should receive accommodations in
their English-language classes.
3
Students who are inattentive should be
in regular classes.
Students who are inattentive should receive
accommodations in their English-language classes.
4
Students who need an individualized
academic program should be in regular
classes.
Students who disclose a disability to their school
should receive accommodations in their English language
classes.
5
Students who require communicative
technologies (for example Braille and sign
language) should be in regular classes.
Students who require communicative technologies
(e.g. Braille and sign language) should receive
accommodations in their English-language classes.
The term “regular classes” in the SACIE-R is problematic for higher educational contexts because there
are no segregated, special education classes in higher education as there are in primary and secondary education.
Rather, SWDs either receive accommodations or do not based on whether or not they have self-identified to
their institution and requested them. In addition, the term “regular classes” could be interpreted by language
teachers to mean content classes (i.e., classes that do not aim to improve proficiency in a second or foreign
language). Therefore, the term “should be in regular classes” from the SACIE-R was replaced with “should
receive accommodations in their English-language classes” for all five items comprising the attitudes subscale.
The term “accommodations” was selected because it evokes relevant local and international policy language,
specifically Japan’s Act on the Elimination of Disability Discrimination and the UN’s Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
4
In addition, language teachers are often unable to determine whether low language proficiency is related
to an SLD owing in part to the array of cognitive and affective factors that complicate language learning for
students with SLDs[6,58]. As language learners universally experience difficulty expressing their thoughts
verbally in the target language at one time or another, the phrasing of attitudes item 1 on the SACIE-R was
deemed unfit for use in the present research context. Regarding attitudes item 2, language teachers may
interpret “exams” as placement tests, proficiency tests, or summative assessments, and this ambiguity would
reduce the item’s validity by allowing respondents to answer differently depending on how they interpreted
the term. Attitudes item 4 was revised because individual education plans are rare in Japanese higher education,
whereas “reasonable accommodations” for self-identified SWDs are common and can encompass individual
education plans.
2.2. Case context
Legal requirements for service provision to SWDs vary from country to country and by level of education,
and awareness of these requirements has been shown to correlate with or predict teachers’ sentiments, attitudes,
and concerns about inclusive education in previous administrations of the SACIE-R[30,32-37,42,54]. Additionally,
it has been proposed that differences in educational systems across countries can impact results of the SACIE-
R[56]. To control for the influence of local and international policy, postsecondary education in Japan, which
has different policy guidance compared to compulsory education, was selected as a case for this research
inquiry.
Based on World Bank benchmarks for equity policies in higher education, Japan is considered to still be
developing[59]. There is also evidence to suggest that institutional policy, which should in theory comply with
national legal requirements, is not always clearly communicated to ELTs[25,60]. The rights of postsecondary
SWDs in Japan are protected by the Act for Eliminating Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities
(AEDPD), which has been in effect since April 1, 2016. The AEDPD primarily covers discrimination in
business and government, though there are some provisions covering higher education institutions. However,
the original wording of the AEDPD is rather insufficient in its guidance, stating only that SWDs be provided
with “reasonable accommodations,” a term borrowed from the international policy guidance but not clearly
defined in the AEDPD itself[61]. Until the AEDPD, higher education institutions had no legal obligation to
provide education or support to SWDs in any way[62]. Universities in Japan also have a policy of selective
inclusion wherein SWDs only receive support if they officially disclose their disability to the school and
request accommodations[63]. For the 2022 academic year, the Japan Student Services Organization reported the
highest ever number of self-disclosed SWDs: 49,672, or 1.53% of the total postsecondary student population
nationwide[64].
2.3. Data collection and analysis
For reasons detailed above, ELTs working in this case context were recruited using a combination of
convenience and snowball sampling by contacting local chapters and special interest groups of the Japan
Association for Language Teaching and 61 postsecondary English language programs for which contact
information could be located, as well as by posting to two relevant Facebook groups for ELTs in Japan. All
respondents gave informed consent. The final number of eligible respondents was 239, exceeding the
recommended range of 100-200 respondents for narrowly defined scales of 20 items or fewer, as well as the
recommended response-to-item ratio of between five and ten to one for such scales[65].
A data treatment plan was devised in advance, beginning with generating descriptive statistics of
background information and SACIE-R results, followed by checking internal reliability of the SACIE-R. It is
important to note that concerns items 4 and 5 were removed during confirmatory factor analysis in the current
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
5
administration of the SACIE-R due to their low factor loadings and to improve goodness of fit. Cronbach’s
alphas of the final version were .675 for sentiments, .816 for attitudes, .667 for concerns, and .785 for the total
scale. These values are at the midpoint of reported alphas for both the total scale and the subscales of sentiments
and concerns compared to other identified studies that used the SACIE-R[4-5,29-45,50-56]. The alpha for the revised
attitudes subscale is higher than average. This administration of the SACIE-R was therefore deemed to have
sufficient inter-item reliability and goodness of fit for the present data set.
Confirmatory factor analysis was to then be performed to check the factor loadings of the modified
attitudes items and goodness of fit. Additional descriptive statistical analysis to generate mean scores and
standard deviations for the revised SACIE-R and its subscales would then be conducted. Spearman’s
correlations were then to be calculated to gain a better overall view of the data and determine the strength and
significance of relationships between all ordinal background variables, the latent factors for inclusive practices
self-efficacy, and sentiments, attitudes, and concerns. Spearman’s rho was selected over Pearson’s in advance
because the background items on the 5-point Likert scale 4-point items on the SACIE-R should all be treated
as ordinal and not continuous due to their small number and the possible disparity in respondents’ variation in
interpreting these values.
Individual one-way ANOVAs between the categorical responses on gender, age by group, and nationality
and the respondents’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns were to be calculated to determine if there was a
significant difference on these subscales by the groups contained within these categories. Similarly, t-tests
were to be used to determine if there were significant differences in mean scores for sentiments, attitudes, and
concerns according to what qualifications, pre-service training, and in-service training respondents had
received. Welch’s t-tests were ultimately selected owing to the disproportionality between the sizes across
groups.
Finally, and if its assumptions had not been violated, multiple linear regression analysis (MLR) was to be
performed to determine if and to what extent the ordinal background variables and inclusive practices self-
efficacy could predict sentiments, attitudes, and concerns. Most of these background variables were included
due to their correlational or predictive value as independent variables on teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and
concerns in previous administrations of the SACIE-R. These included respondents’ degree of interactions with
people with disabilities, knowledge of local legislation and policy for teaching SWDs, confidence teaching
SWDs, and experience teaching SWDs based on a review of the relevant literature. Knowledge of global policy
was included on the basis that such policy guides postsecondary policy in Japan, and with consideration for
the international representation among respondents. Additionally, the latent factor of inclusive practices self-
efficacy was included on the basis that, in several other studies using the SACIE-R, self-efficacy implementing
inclusive practices was shown to correlate with[5,41,43] or predict[42] teachers’ views on inclusive education. This
factor combined three background items on respondents’ self-reported knowledge of, confidence using, and
experience using inclusive practices.
It should be noted that the MLR treated these background items as continuous scale items rather than
ordinal. However, the decision to conduct the MLR was made in order to compare the current results with a
selection of other studies using this approach with the SACIE-R, specifically Agavelyan et al.[29], Tahsein and
Ahsan[36], and Poon et al.[34], and to a lesser extent Li and Cheung[43], who used a hierarchical linear regression
in their data treatment. Additionally, the derivation of the three factors of sentiments, attitudes, and concerns
through principle component analysis abstracted responses from the original ordinal scale represented by the
survey items on the SACIE-R, thus precluding ordinal logistic regression.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
6
The assumptions of an MLR were first checked by conducting scatterplot analysis within Stata to confirm
the linear relationship between each independent variable with each of the dependent variables. This also
suggested good homoscedasticity overall. Additional testing for heteroskedasticity after a regular MLR
revealed high homoscedasticity for sentiments and questionable levels of heteroskedasticity for attitudes and
concerns. As the Spearman’s correlation matrix between these variables showed no correlation coefficients
with a magnitude above .8, however, the sample had sufficiently low multicollinearity to justify the MLR. A
robust MLR was run to compensate for the presence of outliers and correct for nonnormality.
3. Results
3.1. Background information
Of the 239 eligible respondents, 94 (39.3%) were female, 136 (56.9%) were male, three (1.3%) were
nonbinary, and five (2.1%) preferred not to say; four (1.7%) were aged 20-29, 60 (25.1%) were aged 30-39,
70 (29.3%) were aged 40-49, 74 (30.1%) were aged 50-59, and 40 (16.7%) were 60 or older. The respondents
also represented a wide diversity of nationalities, with the greatest representation coming from the United
States (n = 102, 42.7%). There were also 49 respondents from the United Kingdom (20.5%), 26 from Japan
(10.9%), 18 from Canada (7.5%), 15 from Australia (6.3%), eight from New Zealand (3.3%), six from Ireland
(2.5%). Eighteen other countries were also represented by three or fewer respondents each, and fifteen
respondents reported dual- or multi-citizenship.
The most common listed qualification held was an MA in TESOL, Applied Linguistics, or similar (n =
129, 54%), followed by TEFL/TESL certification or diploma (e.g. CELTA, DELTA, DipTESOL (n = 81,
33.9%), other MA (n = 48, 20.1%), MA in education or similar (n = 35, 14.6%), PhD/EdD in TESOL, Applied
Linguistics, or similar (n = 35, 14.6%), other PhD (n = 18, 7.5%), PhD/EdD in education or similar (n = 17,
7.1%), or none of those listed (n = 9, 3.8%). A total of 203 (84.9%) of respondents reported no training to
teach SWDs when receiving any of their listed qualifications, while 108 (45.2%) reported never participating
in in-service professional development to teach SWDs. The most commonly reported form of such training
was doing independent reading or research (n = 76, 31.2%), followed by training conducted within the
workplace (n = 52, 21.8%), attending conference presentations, workshops, or talks (n = 49, 20.5%), and
engaging in a community of practice such as a special interest group dedicated to serving SWDs (n = 17, 7.1%).
3.2. Descriptive analysis
Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to generate mean scores and standard deviations for each
item on the revised SACIE-R. These are displayed in Table 2. As reverse coding was performed on all
observed variables for the constructs of sentiments and concerns, all subscales became positively geared.
Therefore, any mean score above 2.5 can be viewed as positive in terms of the sample’s views on inclusive
education for SWDs. The mean score of the total SACIE-R was 2.98 (SD = 0.98). For the subscales, the mean
was 3.23 (SD = 0.92) for sentiments, 3.24 (SD = 0.84) for attitudes, and 2.59 (SD = 0.92) for concerns. It can
be said, then, that the respondents in the data set had positive sentiments towards persons with disabilities, as
well as positive views about their inclusion in English language education. However, they were more neutral
regarding their concerns about inclusive education.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
7
Table 2. Mean scores of individual items on the SACIE-R.
Factor and item
number
Item (5-point Likert scale; an asterisk indicates the item was reverse coded)
M
SD
Sentiments item 1
I find it difficult to overcome my initial shock when meeting people with severe
physical disabilities.*
3.55
0.65
Sentiments item 2
I am afraid to look a person with a disability straight in the face.*
3.74
0.55
Sentiments item 3
I tend to make contacts with people with disabilities brief and I finish them as
quickly as possible.*
3.46
0.7
Sentiments item 4
I would feel terrible if I had a disability.*
2.67
0.97
Sentiments item 5
I dread the thought that I could eventually end up with a disability.*
2.72
1.02
Attitudes item 1
Students who have excessive difficulty comprehending English-language input
should receive accommodations in their English-language classes.
3.13
0.86
Attitudes item 2
Students who have excessive difficulty producing English-language output should
receive accommodations in their English-language classes.
3.38
0.73
Attitudes item 3
Students who are inattentive should receive accommodations in their English-
language classes.
2.61
0.85
Attitudes item 4
Students who require communicative technologies (e.g. Braille and sign language)
should receive accommodations in their English-language classes.
3.63
0.64
Attitudes item 5
Students who disclose a disability to their school should receive accommodations
in their English language classes.
3.47
0.68
Concerns item 1
I am concerned that my workload will increase if I have students with disabilities
in my class.*
2.57
0.94
Concerns item 2
I am concerned that it will be difficult to give appropriate attention to all students
in an inclusive classroom.*
2.27
0.91
Concerns item 3
I am concerned that I will be more stressed if I have students with disabilities in
my class.*
2.92
0.92
Concerns item 4
I am concerned that students with disabilities will not be accepted by the rest of
the class.*
2.56
0.96
Concerns item 5
I am concerned that I do not have knowledge and skills required to teach students
with disabilities.*
2.11
0.91
3.3. Correlation analysis
Spearman’s correlations were calculated to gain a better overall view of the data and determine the
strength and significance of relationships between all ordinal background variables and respondents’
sentiments, attitudes, and concerns (see Table 3). Cronbach’s alpha for inclusive practices self-efficacy was
0.94, p < .001.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
8
Table 3. Spearman’s correlations (r = 237) of ordinal variables and latent factors.
Previous
interactions with
people with
disabilities (1)
Knowledge
of local laws
(2)
Knowledge
of global
policy (3)
Confidence
teaching
SWDs (4)
Experience
teaching
SWDs (5)
Inclusive
practices
self-efficacy
(6)
Sentiments
(7)
Attitudes
(8)
Concern
s (9)
1.0000
.27***
.000
1.000
.272***
.000
.563***
.000
1.000
.376***
.000
.386***
.000
.394***
.000
1.000
.541***
.000
.335***
.000
.35***
.000
.558***
.000
1.000
.444***
.000
.407***
.000
.532***
.000
.566***
.000
.527***
.000
1.000
.285***
.000
.11
.09
.221***
.001
.178**
.006
.228***
.000
.294***
.000
1.000
.084
.195
.089
.173
.07
.283
.14*
.03
.125
.054
.144*
.026
.242***
.000
1.000
.137*
.035
.217**
.001
.225***
.000
.225***
.001
.179**
.006
.258***
.000
.398***
.000
.145*
.025
1.000
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01, and ***p < .001.
3.4. Factor analysis
The following groups had more positive sentiments about engaging with people with disabilities:
• Respondents who reported previous interactions with people with disabilities, R2 = .04, F(2, 236)
= .000, p = .003
• Respondents with higher inclusive practices self-efficacy, R2 = .08, F(6, 232) = .001, p = .018
• Respondents who received training to teach SWDs while receiving an MA in TESOL, Applied
Linguistics, or similar (n = 13), t(22.1) = 3.31, p = .003
• Respondents who received training to teach SWDs while receiving a PhD/EdD in Education or similar
(n = 2), t(14.8) = 3.69, p = .002
• Respondents who received training to teach SWDs by attending conference presentations, workshops,
or talks (n = 77), t(217.8) = 4.99, p < .001
• Respondents who received training to teach SWDs by engaging in a community of practice (n = 37),
t(88.6) = 4.3, p < .001
• Respondents who received training to teach SWDs by doing independent reading or research (n = 85),
t(216.4) = 3.5, p = .001
The following groups had more positive attitudes about accepting learners with different support needs:
• Respondents who held an MA in TESOL, Applied Linguistics, or similar (n = 129), t(193.7) = 1.99, p
= .048
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
9
• Respondents who received training to teach SWDs while receiving an MA in TESOL, Applied
Linguistics, or similar (n = 15), t(35) = 3.18, p = .003
• Respondents who received training to teach SWDs while receiving a PhD/EdD in TESOL, Applied
Linguistics, or similar (n = 10), t(25.4) = 2.41, p = .023
• Respondents who received training to teach SWDs by attending conference presentations, workshops,
or talks (n = 77), t(178.9) = 2.59, p = .01
• Respondents who received training to teach SWDs by doing independent reading or research (n = 85),
t(206.1) = 3.4, p = .001
The following groups had more positive concerns (i.e., smaller actual concern) about implementing
inclusive education:
• Respondents who received training to teach SWDs while receiving an MA in TESOL, Applied
Linguistics, or similar (n = 13), t(13.8) = 2.34, p = .035
• Respondents who received training to teach SWDs while receiving a PhD/EdD in TESOL, Applied
Linguistics, or similar (n = 10), t(19.5) = 2.21, p = .039
• Respondents who received training to teach SWDs while receiving a PhD/EdD in Education or similar
(n = 2), t(15.9) = 4.08, p = .001
• Those who received training to teach SWDs in any of the listed qualifications (n = 36), t(46.3) = 2.97,
p = .005
• Those who received training to teach SWDs by attending conference presentations, workshops, or
talks (n = 77), t(150.2) = 3.15, p = .002
• Those who received training to teach SWDs by engaging in a community of practice (n = 37), t(52.4)
= 2.06, p = .045
• Those who received training to teach SWDs by doing independent reading or research (n = 85), t(176.5)
= 2.83, p = .005
One group, respondents who held an MA in TESOL, Applied Linguistics, or similar had more negative,
actual concern about implementing inclusive education, (n = 129), t(226.4) = 2.03, p = .044.
4. Discussion
The present research inquiry set out to determine ELTs’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about
inclusive education, as well as what factors might influence them. The descriptive analysis reveals that the
respondents in the data set had positive sentiments towards people with disabilities, as well as positive attitudes
about accepting learners with different support needs in English language education. However, they were more
neutral regarding their concerns about implementing inclusive education. The only two survey items with a
mean score below the midpoint were concerns item 2 (“I am concerned that it will be difficult to give
appropriate attention to all students in an inclusive classroom”, M = 2.27, SD = 0.91) and concerns item 5 (“I
am concerned that I do not have knowledge and skills required to teach students with disabilities”, M = 2.11,
SD = 0.91), and so bearing in mind that the concerns subscale was reverse coded, these are obvious concerns
among the data set regarding including SWDs in their instruction. The concern about lacking inclusive
knowledge and skills parallels several previous studies in which ELTs reported feeling unprepared to teach
students with disabilities[16-25], and accords with at least two other studies using the SACIE-R in general
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
10
education that showed a lack of inclusive teaching skills to be respondents’ biggest concern[31,51]. It should be
remembered, however, that concerns items 4 and 5 were removed from the model in the present study due to
their low factor loading and to improve goodness of fit. Respondents were somewhat neutral regarding their
concerns about an increasing workload and additional stress if they were to teach SWDs, while they were least
concerned about such students being accepted by their peers.
Respondents overall also had positive attitudes about SWDs’ inclusion in English language education,
here defined as “acceptance of learners with different support needs”[4] (p. 59). The mean score (M = 3.24, SD
= 0.84) for the modified attitudes subscale was higher than all but one[57] previous administration of the SACIE-
R which reported subscale means, though this should be largely discounted considering that every item on the
attitudes subscale for the present administration was revised to suit the current research context. Still, ELTs
may be more accommodating of students with SLDs in particular because the struggles that those students may
have often resemble common difficulties learning a foreign language, and/or because of an increased
sensitivity to linguistic diversity[66], two factors which might help account for the very positive attitudes
towards including learners with different support needs reported here. It is interesting to note, however, that
attitudes item 3 (“Students who are inattentive should receive accommodations in their English-language
classes”, (M = 2.61, SD = 0.85) had a mean score only slightly above the midpoint. This might be because
teachers in the sample data set do not associate inattentiveness with a disability, because they generally believe
that a student’s attention in class is their own responsibility or results from low motivation, some unknown
reason or reasons, or a combination therein. Regardless, the descriptive analysis shows that the current pool of
respondents has a generally positive view of including students with different support needs in their English
language instruction.
The Spearman’s correlation analysis suggests the importance of confidence teaching SWDs, experience
teaching SWDs, and inclusive practices self-efficacy in relation to ELTs’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns.
Additionally, previous interactions with people with disabilities and knowledge of both local and global policy
had statistically significant correlations with sentiments and concerns, but not the modified attitudes subscale.
While most of the background variables that correlated with the subscales in the present study were not found
to be predictive through the robust MLR, previous interactions with people with disabilities and inclusive
practices self-efficacy did predict sentiments. Several previous studies using the SACIE-R found the same
correlative or predictive power for the importance of confidence teaching SWDs[29-37], experience teaching
SWDs[5,32,37-39], inclusive practices self-efficacy[5,41-42], previous interactions with people with disabilities[5,31,33-
35,40], and knowledge of local legislation[30,33-35,37], but not knowledge of global policy.
Several previous administrations of the SACIE-R among general education teachers have noted the
importance of both pre-[4-5,33-34,37,39-40,43-45] and in-service teacher training[5,33-34,39,44]. The current findings have
important implications for both forms of teacher training.
First of all, holders of an MA in TESOL, Applied Linguistics, or similar had more positive attitudes and
negative concerns. However, such MA holders who did receive training to teach SWDs while earning their
degree had more positive sentiments and concerns, meaning fewer actual concerns. There was no such
divergence observed for any other form of pre-service teaching qualification in the current administration of
the SACIE-R. Teachers who received training to teach SWDs while completing either a PhD in TESOL or
Education had higher sentiments and attitudes and lower concerns, though these findings are likely because
receiving such training at the doctoral level suggests a high degree of specialization in special or inclusive
education. The discrepancy between holders of an MA in TESOL, Applied Linguistics, or similar and other
respondents, as well as between those MA holders who received training to teach SWDs while earning their
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
11
degree and those who did not, underscores the need for MA TESOL and TESOL-related programs to better
prepare their teacher trainees to effectively teach SWDs.
With regard for in-service training, Welch’s t-tests found statistically significant relationships between
almost all forms of in-service training to teach SWDs and at least one subscale. Two forms of in-service
training—attending conference presentations, workshops, or talks and doing independent reading or
research—had such relationships with sentiments, attitudes, and concerns. Receiving relevant training
conducted within the workplace, however, did not have a significant relationship with any of the subscales.
Viewed in total, these findings highlight the importance of teacher agency in participating in in-service training
on teaching SWDs.
5. Conclusion
As this was the first modification of the SACIE-R for use among postsecondary ELTs, and because the
respondents in the current sample represented such an international body, replication is needed. This need is
made more acute through the consideration that differences in findings using the SACIE-R have been attributed
to differences in educational systems and teacher training from country to country[56], and so repeat
administrations with other groups of postsecondary ELTs, including in countries other than Japan, would
further validate this modified version of the scale and add confidence to the findings reported here. As concerns
items 4 and 5 were removed from the initial model to improve goodness of fit, alternative items capturing more
common concerns among ELTs about implementing inclusive education could also be added during replication.
In addition, future studies could investigate teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns in relation to other
constructs, most notably self-efficacy, for example using the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices Scale,
as knowledge of inclusive education and self-perceived preparedness to implement inclusive practices has
been shown to have a positive effect on the efficacy of inclusive practices in several mainstream teaching
contexts[4,67-69].
There were also several limitations to the current study. Convenience sampling allowed for sampling bias,
selection bias, and positivity bias, and so the findings may not be generalizable. The sample size and reduction
of observable variables in the concerns subscale during the confirmatory factor analysis may have also resulted
in overfitting the model. Finally, and crucially, the reliability of self-reporting on the SACIE-R has been
questioned before, as some teachers may be unwilling to report beliefs that could be considered negative[54].
The results of the present study should be interpreted with these limitations in mind until further studies can
corroborate or refute them.
Nevertheless, the findings discussed above demonstrate that the ELTs in the current data set have
generally positive views about including SWDs, and also that training to teach such students plays a critical
role in forming these views. As such, these findings can be added to a growing chorus of similar studies that
have similarly called for more awareness-raising of the barriers that SWDs face in language learning, as well
as more robust training in inclusive education and practices for ELTs worldwide. Graduate programs in
TESOL and Applied Linguistics should provide more comprehensive training to teach English to students with
a variety of support needs, and in-service ELTs should both seek out and demand more professional
development opportunities related to inclusive teaching. It is hoped that the findings reported above will help
future practitioners in English language education, especially teacher trainers and those in leadership positions,
to make better informed decisions about preparing both pre- and in-service ELTs to implement inclusive
education in their courses and classrooms.
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
12
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2016). General comment No. 4.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/crpd/pages/gc.aspx
2. Hunt, P. F. (2019). Inclusive education as global development policy. In M. J. Schuelka, C. J. Johnstone, G.
Thomas, & A. J. Artiles (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of inclusion and diversity in education. (pp. 116-129).
SAGE.
3. Ewing, D. L., Monsen, J. J., & Kielblock, S. (2017). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A critical
review of published questionnaires. Educational Psychology in Practice, 34(2), 150-165.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2017.1417822
4. Forlin, C., Earle, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U. (2011). The sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive
education revised (SACIE-R) scale for measuring pre-service teachers’ perceptions about inclusion. Exceptionality
Education International, 21(3), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v21i3.7682
5. Yada, A., Tolvanen, A., & Savolainen, H. (2018). Teachers' attitudes and self-efficacy on implementing inclusive
education in Japan and Finland: A comparative study using multigroup structural equation modelling. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 75, 343-355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.07.011
6. Kormos, J. (2017). The second language learning processes of students with specific learning difficulties.
Routledge.
7. Liu, M., & Huang, W. (2011). An exploration of foreign language anxiety and English learning motivation.
Education Research International. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/493167
8. Piechurska-Kuciel, E. (2008). Input, processing, and output anxiety in students with symptoms of developmental
dyslexia. In J. Kormos & E. H. Kontra (Eds.), Language Learners with Special Needs. (pp. 86-109). Multilingual
Matters.
9. Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (1991). Foreign language learning differences: Affective or native language
aptitude differences? Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 3-16. https://doi.org/10.2307/329830
10. Sparks, R. L., Humbach, N., & Javorsky, J. (2008). Individual and longitudinal differences among high- and low-
achieving, LD, and ADHD L2 learners. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 29-43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.07.003
11. Sparks, R. L., Javorsky, J., & Philips, L. (2005). Comparison of the performance of college students classified as
ADHD, LD, and LD/ADHD in foreign language aptitude. Language Learning, 55(1), 151-177.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2005.00292.x
12. Chen, T., & Chang, G. B. Y. (2008). The relationship between foreign language anxiety and learning difficulties.
Foreign Language Annals, 37(2), 279-289. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02200.x
13. Javorsky, J., Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (1992). Perceptions of college students with and without specific
learning disabilities about foreign language courses. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7(1), 31–44.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-25264-001
14. Horwitz, E. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21, 112-126.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190501000071
15. Horwitz, E., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. The Modern Language
Journal, 70(2), 125-132. https://doi.org/10.2307/327317
16. Ali, A. D. (2018). Identifying training needs of in-service EFL teachers in inclusive schools in Egypt. Arab World
English Journal, 9(1), 163-183. https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no1.12
17. Cimermanová, I. (2017). English language pre-service and in-service teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes towards
integration of students with learning difficulties. Journal of Language and Cultural Education, 5(1), 20-38.
https://doi.org /10.1515/jolace-2017-0002
18. Fernández-Portero, I. (2022). Measuring preservice foreign language teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education
through a newly developed scale. Foreign Language Annals, 55(4), 1188-1211. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12660
19. Hale, C. C., & Ono, S. (2019). Second language learning for students with special needs: Perceptions of Japanese
secondary school teachers. Accents Asia, 11(2), 78-83. http://www.issues.accentsasia.org/issues/11-2/hale_ono.pdf
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
13
20. Lowe, R. J., Schaefer, M. & Turner, M. (2021). Uncovering diverse perspectives and responses to working with
English learners with special educational needs. In D. Banegas, G. Beacon, & M. Berbain (Eds.), International
perspectives on diversity in ELT. (pp. 229-245). Palgrave Macmillan.
21. Razmjoo, S. A., & Sabourianzadeh, N. (2018). An exploration of practices adopted by EFL teachers for learners
with low-incidence disabilities in inclusive classes. Applied Research on English Language, 7(1), 89-110.
http://dx.doi.org/10.22108/are.2018.110687.1283
22. Smith, A. M. (2006). Inclusion in English language teacher training and education. [PhD Thesis, Lancaster
University]. http://www.eltwell.co.uk/docs/Inclusion-In-English-Language-Teacher-Training-and-Education.pdf
23. Smith, A. M. (2008). Inclusive education within TEFL certificate courses. In J. Kormos & E. H. Kontra (Eds.),
Language Learners with Special Needs. (pp. 214-233). Multilingual Matters.
24. Sowell, J., & Sugisaki, L. (2020). An exploration of EFL teachers’ experience with learning disability training.
Latin American Journal of Content & Language Integrated Learning, 13(1), 114-134.
https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2020.13.1.7
25. Yphantides, J. (2022). EFL teachers’ experiences with neurodiverse students and self-efficacy for inclusive
practice in Japanese universities. The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL, 11(2), 125-139.
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2731481035?pq-origsite=primo
26. Dignath, C., & Rimm-Kaufman, S., van Ewijk, R., & Kunter, M. (2022). Teachers’ beliefs about inclusive
education and insights on what contributes to those beliefs: a meta-analytical study. Educational Psychology
Review, 34, 2609-2660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09695-0
27. Guillemot, F., Lacroix, F., & Nocus, I. (2022). Teachers’ attitude towards inclusive education from 2000 to 2020:
An extended meta-analysis. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 3, 100175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100175
28. Ieridou, N. L. (2017). Teachers’ perceptions on inclusive education: The effect of knowledge and experience. In I.
H. Amzat & N. Padilla-Valdez (Eds.), Teacher professional knowledge and development for reflective and
inclusive practices (pp. 157-167). Routledge.
29. Agavelyan, R. O., Aubakirova, S. D., Zhomartova, A. D., & Burdina, E. I. (2020). Teachers’ attitudes towards
inclusive education in Kazakhstan. Integratsiya obrazovaniya, 24(1), 8-19. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-
9468.098.024.202001.008-019
30. AlMahdi, O., & Bukamal, H. (2019). Pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education during their
studies in Bahrain Teachers College. SAGE Open, July-September 2019, 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019865772
31. Li, X., Xu, S., Xiang, Y., & Potměšil, M. (2016). Pre-service teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about
inclusive education in Chongqing, China. e-Pedagogium, 16(2), 133-141. https://doi.org/10.5507/epd.2016.022
32. Opoku, M. P., Nketsia, W., Odame, L., & Agyei-Okyere, E. (2021). Predictors of the attitudes of preservice
teachers toward teaching students with Down syndrome in regular schools in Ghana. Journal of Policy and
Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 18(3), 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12379
33. Özokçu O. (2018a). Investigating classroom teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Inonu University Journal of the
Faculty of Education, 19(3), 418-433. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.472639
34. Poon, K. K., Ng, Z., Wong, M. E., & Kaur, S. (2016). Factors associated with staff perceptions towards inclusive
education in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(1), 84-97.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.922047
35. Stavroussi, P., Didaskalou, E., Greif Green, J. (2021). Are teachers’ democratic beliefs about classroom life
associated with their perceptions of inclusive education? International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 68(5), 627-642. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1716961
36. Tahsein, S. S., & Ahsan, M. T. (2016). Four-year B.Ed. (honours) students’ attitude towards inclusive education in
Bangladesh. Primary Education Journal, 9(1), 31-53.
https://nape.portal.gov.bd/sites/default/files/files/nape.portal.gov.bd/page/f4896617_7264_4889_aa0b_407214291
9fb/journal2016.pdf
37. Tuncay, A. A., & Kizilaslan, A. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ sentiments, attitudes and concerns about inclusive
education in Turkey. European Journal of Special Needs Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.1873524
38. Emmers, E., Baeyens, D., & Petry, K. (2020). Attitudes and self-efficacy of teachers towards inclusion in higher
education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(2), 139-153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1628337
39. Navarro-Mateu, D., Franco-Ochoa, J., Valero-Moreno, S., & Prado-Gascó, V. (2020). Attitudes, sentiments, and
concerns about inclusive education of teachers and teaching students in Spain. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article
521. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00521
40. Kunz, A., Luder, R., & Kassis, W. (2021). Beliefs and attitudes toward inclusion of student teachers and their
contact with people with disabilities. Frontiers in Education, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.650236
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
14
41. Ayub, U., Shahzad, S., & Ali, M. S. (2019). University teachers’ attitude towards inclusion, efficacy and intention
to teach inclusive classrooms in higher education. Global Sciences Review, IV(I), 365-372.
http://dx.doi.org/10.31703/gssr.2019(IV-I).47
42. Özokçu O. (2018b). The relationship between teacher attitudes and self-efficacy for inclusive practices in Turkey.
Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(3), 6-12. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets. v 6 i 3 3034
43. Li, K. M., & Cheung, R. Y. M. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy in implementing inclusive education in
Hong Kong: The roles of attitudes, sentiments, and concerns. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 68(2), 259-269. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1678743
44. Mouchritsa, M., Romero, A., Garay, U., & Kazanopoulos, S. (2022). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive
education at Greek secondary education schools. Education Sciences, 12, 404.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060404
45. Romero-Contreras, S., Garcia-Cedillo, I., Forlin, C., & Abril, K. (2013). Preparing teachers for inclusion in
Mexico: How effective is this process? Journal of Education for Teaching, 39(5), 509-522.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2013.836340
46. Cohen, I. (2011). Teacher-student interaction in classrooms of students with specific learning difficulties learning
English as a foreign language. Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders, 2(2), 271-292.
https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.v2i2.271
47. Firman, F., Tersta, F. W., Riantoni, C., & Sekonda, F. A. (2020). Teachers’ attitudes to special needs students in
English language teaching. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 8(2), 37-45.
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2020.82e03
48. Nyikes, N. N. (2019). Integrating students with specific learning differences in the EFL classroom. WoPaLP, 13,
14-32. http://langped.elte.hu/WoPaLParticles/W13NagyneNyikesN.pdf
49. Damayanti, A., Lintangsari, A. P., Kusumawardani, I. N. (2022). Teachers’ efficacy in inclusive teaching: A study
on EFL pre-service teachers. Indonesian Journal of Disability Studies, 9(2), 253-263.
https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.ijds.2022.009.02.09
50. Aiello, P., Sharma, U., Di Gennaro, D. C., Dimitrov, D. M., Pace, E. M., Zollo, I., & Sibilio, M. (2017). A study
on Italian teachers’ sentiments, attitudes and concerns towards inclusive education. CQIA RIVISTA, 20, 10-24.
http://hdl.handle.net/11386/4682089
51. Aubakirova, S., & Mukatayeva, K. (2017). Studying the attitude of future teachers towards inclusive education in
the Republic of Kazakhstan. Journal of Exceptional People, 2(11), 97-105.
52. Gallego-Ortega, J. L., & Rodríguez-Fuentes, A. (2021). Teaching attitudes towards students with disabilities.
Mathematics, 9, 16-37. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9141637
53. Kis, A. (2016). Adaptation of the sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education (SACIE-R) scale
on a Turkish population. Academic Research International, 7(1), 123-134.
54. Main, S., Chambers, D. J., & Smith, P. (2016). Supporting the transition to inclusive education: Teachers’ attitudes
to inclusion in the Seychelles. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(12), 1270-1285.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1168873
55. Murdaca, A. M., Patrizia, O., & Costa, S. (2016). Evaluating the perception of disability and the inclusive
education of teachers: the Italian validation of the SACIE-R (Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive
Education – Revised Scale). European Journal of Special Needs Education, 33(1), 148-156.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1267944
56. Vogiatzi, X-A., Charitaki, G., & Kourkoutas, E. (2021). Assessing psychometric properties of the Sentiments,
Attitudes and Concerns about Inclusive Education Scale in a Greek‑speaking sample of in‑service teachers.
Technology, Knowledge and Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09554-x
57. Yada, A., & Savolainen, H. (2017). Japanese in-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education and self-
efficacy for inclusive practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 222-229.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.005
58. Smith, A. M. (2018). Inclusive practices. Oxford University Press.
59. Salmi, J. (2018). All around the world – Higher education equity policies across the globe.
https://worldaccesshe.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/All-around-the-world-Higher-education-equity-policies-
across-the-globe-.pdf
60. Ruddick, M., Pryor, S., & Diaz, M. (2021). English language teaching faculty members’ knowledge and awareness
of special educational needs at universities in Japan: A qualitative study. English as a Foreign Language
International Journal, 1(3), 46-65. https://doi.org/10.56498/822562021
61. Boeltzig-Brown, H. (2017). Disability and career service provision for students with disabilities at institutions of
higher education in Japan: An overview of key legislation, policies, and practices. Journal of Postsecondary
Education and Disability, 30(1), 61-81. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1144616
Environment and Social Psychology | doi: 10.59429/esp.v9i8.2761
15
62. Kondo, T., Takahashi, T., & Shirasawa, M. (2015). Recent progress and future challenges in disability student
services in Japan. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(4), 421-431.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1093579
63. Young, D. (2024). The emergence and development of inclusive education in Japan: Local to global and back
again. In A. Burke, D. Young, & M. L. Cook (Eds.), Barrier-free instruction in Japan: Recommendations for
teachers at all levels of schooling (pp. 22-64). Candlin & Mynard. http://doi.org/10.47908/30/1
64. JASSO. (2023). Ryō wa 4-nendo (2022-nendo) daigaku, tankidaigaku oyobi kōtō senmon gakkō ni okeru shōgai
no aru gakusei no shūgaku shien ni kansuru jittai chōsa kekka hōkoku-sho [AY2022 fact-finding survey report on
study support for students with disabilities at universities, junior colleges and colleges of
technology]. https://www.jasso.go.jp/statistics/gakusei_shogai_syugaku/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2023/08/29/2022_hou
koku_1.pdf
65. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in scale development. Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
66. Pfingsthorn, J., & Giesler, T. (2022). Specific preferences vs. inclusive foreign language education: (Pre-service)
teachers’ implicit attitudes towards varieties of English. In M. Callies & S. Hehner (Eds.), Pedagogical
Implications and Innovative Approaches to Language Teaching (pp. 91-112). Routledge.
67. Loreman, T., Earle, C., Sharma, U., & Forlin, C. (2007). The development of an instrument for measuring pre-
service teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education. International Journal of Special
Education, 22(2), 150-159. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ814498
68. Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers’ attitudes and concerns
about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23(7), 773-785.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802469271
69. Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices.
Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 12, 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x
