Even though the survey data analyzed in the present study was collected from teacher candidates in countries other than Canada, the data provides useful insights into the inclusive education delivered in Canadian B.Ed. programs and post-degree certificate programs in special education that also serve international teacher candidates and educators. Several Canadian studies have reported teacher candidates’ concerns over inclusion and urged the need to improve teacher candidates’ beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge of inclusive education (Frankel, Hutchinson, Burbidge, & Minnes, 2014; Hutchinson et al., 2015). Teacher candidates are frequently required to take only one special education course for their B.Ed. degrees. Our results are aligned with these studies on Canadian teacher education, suggesting that teacher candidates should be offered sufficient learning opportunities for their own professional development on inclusive education for diverse special education populations, especially for visual and hearing
impairments, intellectual disabilities, and HIV/AIDS. Furthermore, our findings also offer empirical evidence to teacher educators which should help determine internationally trained teacher candidates’ needs for teacher training in inclusive education that supports and responds to students’ specific special needs. As our findings suggest that teacher candidates’ beliefs toward inclusion may differ by different types of special needs, we urge teacher educators to review and revisit the use of holistic approaches that lump all disabilities into one widely diverse group.
A large number of researchers have pointed out that the major barrier to creating more inclusive learning environments is inadequate teacher education in special education (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2009; Frankel, Hutchinson, Burbidge, & Minnes, 2014; Malak, 2013; Romi & Leyser, 2006; Sharma & Sokal, 2015; Shillingford & Karlin, 2014; Silverman,
2007). It is recommended that teacher candidates’ professional capacities should be enhanced through courses infused with a variety of effective inclusion strategies that will help future educators better understand individual needs, by using differentiated pedagogies, assessments, and curricula, as well as collaborating with a professional team and families. Several studies have compared pre-service teachers’ inclusion beliefs and attitudes both before and after teacher training (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2009; McCray & McHatton, 2011; Shade &
Stewart, 2001; Sharma & Sokal, 2015; Taylor & Ringlaben, 2012). In general, they found that participants’ attitudes toward inclusion were improved, that concerns about inclusion declined, and that teachers also became more confident in working with students with special needs in the regular classroom.
Conclusion
The present study investigates teacher candidates’ beliefs about the inclusion of students with diverse special needs, including learning disabilities, emotional and behavioural disorders, physical disabilities, and neurological disorders. Overall, we found that teacher candidates in the U.S. and Taiwan were generally positive about teaching students with special needs in the general classroom. Teacher candidates in the U.S. held stronger beliefs about inclusion than those in Taiwan. In particular, a majority of teacher candidates believed that students with speech and language disorders can be educated in the regular classroom, although some pre-service teachers disagreed with the inclusion of students with other types of special needs, including intellectual disabilities, visual and hearing impairments. Our results suggest that teacher
candidates’ beliefs about inclusion may vary by different types of special needs and they may not believe that an inclusive education can be provided to all students with diverse special needs.
The findings of the present study call for further efforts in Canadian teacher education and professional development for internationally trained teachers as well as future research on Canadian teacher candidates in terms of the inclusion of different types of disabilities in an inclusive learning environment.
References
Ahsan, M. T., Sharma, U., & Deppeler, J. M. (2012). Exploring pre-service teachers' perceived teaching-efficacy, attitudes and concerns about inclusive education in
Bangladesh. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 8(2), 1-20.
Ajuwon, P. M., Lechtenberger, D., Griffin-Shirley, N., Sokolosky, S., Zhou, L., & Mullins, F. E.
(2012). General Education Pre-Service Teachers Perceptions of Including Students with Disabilities in Their Classrooms. International Journal of Special Education, 27(3), 100-107.
Alghazo, E. M., Dodeen, H., & Algaryouti, I. A. (2003). Attitudes of pre-service teachers towards persons with disabilities: Predictions for the success of inclusion. College Student Journal, 37(4), 515-522.
Armstrong, D., Price, D., & Crowley, T. (2015). Thinking it through: a study of how pre-service teachers respond to children who present with possible mental health
difficulties. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 20(4), 381-397. doi:
10.1080/13632752.2015.1019248
Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & 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 education authority. Educational Psychology, 20(2), 191-211.
Bhatnagar, N., & Das, A. (2014a). Attitudes of secondary regular school teachers toward inclusive education in New Delhi, India: A qualitative study. Exceptionality Education International, 24(2), 17-30.
Bhatnagar, N., & Das, A. (2014b). Regular School Teachers' Concerns and Perceived Barriers to Implement Inclusive Education in New Delhi, India. International Journal of Instruction, 7(2), 89-102.
Crowson, H. M., & Brandes, J. A. (2014). Predicting pre-service teachers’ opposition to inclusion of students with disabilities: a path analytic study. Social Psychology of Education, 17(1), 161-178. doi: 10.1007/s11218-013-9238-2
De Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2010). Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(3), 331-353.
Di Gennaro, D. C., Pace, E. M., Iolanda, Z. & Aiello, Z. (2014). Teacher capacity building through critical reflective practice for the promotion of inclusive education. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 60, 54-65.
Elik, N., Wiener, J., & Corkum, P. (2010). Pre‐service teachers’ open‐minded thinking
dispositions, readiness to learn, and attitudes about learning and behavioural difficulties in students. European Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 127-146.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, attitudes, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Florian, L. (2008). Special or inclusive education: Future trends. British Journal of Special Education, 35(4), 202-208.
Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Earle, C. (2009). Demographic differences in changing pre‐service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive
education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(2), 195-209. doi:
10.1080/13603110701365356
Frankel, E. B., Hutchinson, N. L., Burbidge, J., & Minnes, P. (2014). Preservice early childhood educators’ and elementary teachers’ perspectives on including young children with
developmental disabilities: A mixed methods analysis. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 35(4), 373-391.
Fu, S. M. (2001). Program delivery methods of inclusive education [融合教育的實施模式研究]. In National Taichung University of Education (Ed.), Symposium on Special Education (pp.
141-155). Taichung, Taiwan: National Taichung University of Education.
Hambleton, R. K., & Jones, R. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12, 38-47.
Hastings, R. P., & Oakford, S. (2003). Student teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special needs. Educational psychology, 23(1), 87-94. doi:
10.1080/01443410303223
Ho, L. B., & Hwang, H. R. (2002). Philosophy and policy of inclusive early childhood education [學前融合教育的理念與政策]. Elementary Education, 42 (5), 23-30.
Hutchinson, N., Minnes, P., Burbidge, J., Dods, J., Pyle, A., & Dalton, C. J. (2015). Perspectives of Canadian teacher candidates on inclusion of children with developmental disabilities: A mixed-methods study. Exceptionality Education International, 25(2), 42-64.
IBM Corp. (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
about including students with special needs in their regular elementary classrooms. Exceptionality Education Canada, 14(2–3), 25–46.
Kennedy, C. A., Wilson, M. R. Draney, K., Tutunciyan, S., & Vorp, R. (2008). ConstructMap v4.4.0. The Berkeley Evaluation & Assessment Research (BEAR) Center.
Lin, P. Y., & Lin, Y. (2015a). What teachers believe about inclusive assessment in Canada: An empirical investigation. In L. Thomas & M. Hirschkorn, (Eds.), Change and progress in Canadian teacher education: Research on recent innovations in teacher preparation in Canada (pp. 492-525). E-book published by the Canadian Association for Teacher Education.
Lin, P. Y., & Lin, Y. C. (2015b). Identifying Canadian teacher candidates' needs for training in the use of inclusive classroom assessment. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19 (8), 771-786.
Malak, M. (2013). Inclusive education reform in Bangladesh: Pre-service teachers' responses to include students with special educational needs in regular classrooms. International Journal of Instruction, 6(1), 195-214.
Markova, M., Pit-Ten Cate, I., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Glock, S. (2016). Preservice teachers' attitudes toward inclusion and toward students with special educational needs from
different ethnic backgrounds. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(3), 554-578. doi:
10.1080/00220973.2015.1055317
Marshall, J., Stojanovik, V., & Ralph, S. (2002). ‘I never even gave it a second thought’: PGCE students' attitudes towards the inclusion of children with speech and language
impairments. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 37(4), 475-489. doi: 10.1080/1368282021000008892
McCray, E. D., & McHatton, P. A. (2011). "Less afraid to have them in my classroom":
understanding pre-service general educators' perceptions about inclusion. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(4), 135-155.
McCrimmon, A. W. (2015). Inclusive education in Canada: Issues in teacher preparation. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50(4), 234–237.
McGhie-Richmond, D., Irvine, A., Loreman, T., Cizman, J. L. & Lupart, J. (2012). Teacher perspectives on inclusive education in rural Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of Education 36(1), 195-239.
Mdikana, A., Ntshangase, S., & Mayekiso, T. (2007). Pre-service educators' attitudes towards inclusive education. International Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 125-131.
Pearson, S. (2009). Using activity theory to understand prospective teachers' attitudes to and construction of special educational needs and/or disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 559-568. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.011
Reeve B. B., & Fayers, P. (2005). Applying item response theory modeling for evaluating questionnaire item and scale properties. In P. Fayers, R. D. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: Methods of practice (2nd ed., pp. 55–73). Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Romi, S., & Leyser, Y. (2006). Exploring inclusion preservice training needs: A study of variables associated with attitudes and self‐efficacy beliefs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(1), 85-105. doi:10.1080/08856250500491880
Rouse, M. (2008). Developing inclusive practice: A role for teachers and teacher education?
Education in the North, 1(16), 1-20.
Ryan, T. G. (2009). Inclusive attitudes: a pre‐service analysis. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 9(3), 180-187.
Shade, R. A., & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education preservice teachers' attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 46(1), 37-41. doi:10.1080/10459880109603342
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Loreman, T., & Earle, C. (2006). Pre-service teachers' attitudes, concerns and sentiments about inclusive education: An international comparison of novice pre-service teachers. International journal of special education, 21(2), 80-93.
Sharma, U., Moore, D., & Sonawane, S. (2009). Attitudes and concerns of pre-service teachers regarding inclusion of students with disabilities into regular schools in Pune, India. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 319-331. doi:10.1080/13598660903050328 Sharma, U., & Sokal, L. (2015). The impact of a teacher education course on pre‐service
teachers' beliefs about inclusion: an international comparison. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15(4), 276-284.
Shillingford, S., & Karlin, N. (2014). Preservice teachers’ self efficacy and knowledge of emotional and behavioural disorders. Emotional and behavioural difficulties, 19(2), 176-194.
Silverman, J. (2007). Epistemological beliefs and attitudes toward inclusion in pre-service teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30(1), 42–51.
doi:10.1177/088840640703000105
Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student, and school attributes as predictors of teachers' responses to inclusion. Journal of Special Education, 31(4), 480-497.
Specht, J., McGhie-Richmond, D., Loreman, T., Mirenda, P., Bennett, S., Gallagher, T., … Cloutier, S. (2016). Teaching in inclusive classrooms: Efficacy and beliefs of Canadian preservice teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(1), 1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1059501
Stella, C. S. C., Forlin, C., & Lan, A. M. (2007). The influence of an inclusive education course on attitude change of pre‐service secondary teachers in Hong Kong. Asia‐Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 161-179.
Taylor, R. W., & Ringlaben, R. P. (2012). Impacting pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Higher Education Studies, 2(3), 16-23.
Urton, K., Wilbert, J., & Hennemann, T. (2014). Attitudes towards inclusion and self-efficacy of principals and teachers in German primary schools. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 12(2), 151-168.
Wilson, M. R. (2004). Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wallin, D. (2017). Undergraduate programs Committee meeting (Unpublished meeting report).
College of Education, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon.
Table 1
Demographics of Participating Teacher Candidates
Taiwan United States
Characteristics n % n %
Country 75 57.3 56 42.7
Gender Female 63 92.9 52 84.0
Male 12 7.1 4 16.0
Level of Education Sophomore 54 72.0 2 3.6
Junior 20 26.7 6 10.7
Senior 1 1.3 48 85.7
Having a disability Yes 1 1.3 0 0.0
No 74 98.7 56 100.0
Age 18-27 years old 75 100.0 49 87.5
28-37 years old 0 0.0 6 10.7
More than 38 years old 0 0.0 1 1.8
Have a family member with a disability
Yes 0 0.0 12 21.4
No 75 100.0 44 78.6
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of the Participating Teacher Candidates
Taiwan (%) US (%) Total (%)
Learning Disabilities Strongly Disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0
Disagree 16.0 0.0 9.2
Hearing Impairments Strongly Disagree 4.0 1.8 3.1
Disagree 32.0 7.1 21.4
Neutral 24.0 14.3 19.8
Agree 29.3 42.9 35.1
Strongly Agree 10.7 33.9 20.6
Visual Impairments Strongly Disagree 4.0 1.8 3.1
Disagree 34.7 8.9 23.7
Mobility Disabilities Strongly Disagree 1.3 0.0 .8
Disagree 14.7 5.4 10.7
Taiwan (%) US (%) Total (%)
Agree 33.9 46.7 41.2
Strongly Agree 26.8 14.7 19.8
Developmental Disabilities
Strongly Disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0
Disagree 14.7 3.6 9.9
Neutral 45.3 23.2 35.9
Agree 33.3 46.4 38.9
Strongly Agree 6.7 26.8 15.3
Speech and Language Impairments
Strongly Disagree 0.0 0.0 0.0
Disagree 0.0 2.7 1.5
Neutral 17.9 28.0 23.7
Agree 35.7 42.7 39.7
Strongly Agree 46.4 26.7 35.1
Table 3
Item Intercorrelation Matrix for Teacher Candidates in the U.S. and Taiwan
Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Learning disabilities − .412** .542** .615** .481** .260* .140 .335** .448** .369**
2. Emotional and behavioral disorders .650** − .414** .447** .423** .435** .199 .376** .469** .487**
3. Hearing impairments .610** .688** − .832** .625** .329** .117 .217 .372** .342**
4. Visual impairments .586** .708** .842** − .481** .410** .121 .246* .455** .407**
5. Intellectual disabilities .507** .732** .735** .673** − .475** .217 .337** .614** .384**
6. Mobility disabilities .424** .289* .471** .429** .575** − .367** .460** .647** .385**
7. HIV/AIDS .142 .225 .327* .356** .514** .411** − .596** .457** .527**
8. Neurological disorders .532** .654** .626** .533** .611** .532** .151 − .561** .574**
9. Developmental disabilities .585** .632** .648** .585** .604** .519** .399** .643** − .487**
10. Speech and language impairments .561** .476** .519** .481** .415** .580** .272* .479** .731** − Note. Intercorrelations for participants in the U.S. (n = 140) are presented below the diagonal, and intercorrelations for participants in Taiwan are presented above the diagonal (n = 191). All correlation coefficients are significant at *p < .05 or **p < .01.