Globalization and Diversity: What Does
It Mean for Teacher Education in Canada?
© 2019 by Authors
The copyright for each piece in the collection stays with the respective authors.
The authors assign a non-exclusive right to publication to the Canadian Association for Teacher Education and a non-exclusive license to educational and non-profit institutions and to
individuals to use their piece in this publication for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the pieces are used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. Any other usage is prohibited without the expressed permission of the authors.
Cover Art: Jan Buley
Copy Editor: Rebecca Mueller
Editors: Mueller, Julie & Nickel, Jodi
Acknowledgements
We would like to share our appreciation for the generosity of our 2017 Working Conference hosts at Mount Saint Vincent University in Halifax, especially Dr. Mary Jane Harkins and Zhanna Barchuk. The November conference weekend of professional collaboration and warm Nova Scotian hospitality was both productive and enjoyable.
The Working Conference opened with an inspiring keynote focused on in-service teacher education with our opening keynote by Dr. Steven Van Zoost, a classroom teacher, part-time professor, and curriculum writer. We thank him for the provocation and inspiration to consider the diversity of students and teachers across Canadian and global teacher education.
We also thank the contributing authors of this volume, who as participants in the 9th CATE working conference, served as both writers and reviewers instrumental to the publication of the book.
Thank you to the CATE executive and membership for their continued support of the Working Conference. We also thank CSSE for their support of the conference in the form of Short-Term Funding for a Scholarly Event.
We would like to thank Rebecca Mueller for her thorough job of copyediting and concise summaries of chapter content; Dr. Nathalie Pender and Dr. Mimi Masson for their French
translation work; and, Dr. Jan Buley for her creative and original artwork for the cover of the book.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Part I. Diversity of Teachers: Who is teaching?
1. Equitable admissions in Canadian teacher education: Where we are now, and where we might go Michael Holden, University of Calgary, & Julian Kitchen, Brock University, p. 23
2. Teacher tourism: Framing internationalization of teaching in a legislated limiting context for new Ontario teachers Nancy Maynes, Blaine E. Hatt, Anna-Liisa Mottonea, &
John Allison, Nipissing University, p. 61
3. Exploring diversity in initial teacher education through polyethnography Sabrina Bava,
Victoria Marsh, & Rupert Collister, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education/University of Toronto, p. 85
4. Challenges & barriers to fostering teacher diversity: Implications for teacher education
Lynn Lemisko & Laurie-Ann M. Hellsten, University of Saskatchewan, p. 114
5. Indigenous teacher education in Canada: Acknowledging the past and forging the future Carla DiGiorgio, Acadia University, p. 135
Part II. Diversity of Students: How are we preparing teachers for
globalization and diversity?
6. Globalization and teacher education: Exploring teacher candidates’ experiences of teaching and learning in a global society Zhanna Barchuk & Mary Jane Harkins, Mount Saint
Vincent University, p. 159
7. Inquiring into teachers’ relational capacities: Attending to the meeting of the diverse lives of children, families, communities, teachers, and teacher educators Joanne Farmer,
Nathalie Reid, Claire Desrochers, Sue McKenzie-Robblee, & Janice Huber, Centre for Research for Teacher Education and Development & Department of Elementary Education, Faculty of Education, University of Alberta, p. 184
8. Anti-oppressive pedagogy in methods classes: Aspiring to Miyo Valerie Mulholland &
9. Teacher educators’ perspectives on preparing mainstream teacher candidates for linguistically diverse classrooms Jeff Bale, Antoinette Gagné, Julie Kerekes, University of
Toronto, p. 238
10. Using Foucault to analyze and interrupt the production of teacher candidate identity in the context of K-8 mathematics education Paul Betts & Lee Anne Block, University of
Winnipeg, p. 268
11. Are we doing it right?: Diversity, curriculum making, and teacher education Darlene
Ciuffetelli Parker, William Sarfo Ankomah, Faculty of Education, Brock University, p. 290
12. Humanizing literacy instruction for refugee newcomers: Implications for teacher education M. Kristiina Montero, Wilfrid Laurier University, p. 316
13. Exploring change & diversity in teacher education: “Nobody puts baby in a corner”
Adrienne Vanthuyne, University of Western Ontario, p. 354
14. The potential of school-based research centers for advancing pre and in-service teacher education for global citizenship Mira Gambhir, Chandaria Research Centre - Branksome
Hall, David Montemurro, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Angela Vemic, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto & The Eureka! Research Institute - @ University of Toronto Schools, Kathy Broad, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, p. 384
Part III. Globalization: What do we learn with international experiences?
15. Teacher education in a globalized world Ratna Ghosh, Faculty of Education, McGill
University, p. 416
16. From Canada to the World: Initial teacher education and attention to international teaching in Atlantic Canadian universities Carri Grey, Paula Kristmanson, Jeff Landine,
Alan Sears, Mark Hirschkorn, University of New Brunswick, Marcea Ingersoll, St. Thomas University, & Lamia Kawtharani-Chami, University of New Brunswick, p. 444
18. Practice under tension: Exploring teaching and learning in the international teaching landscape Christine L. Cho & Julie K. Corkett, Nipissing University, Schulich School of
Education, p. 504
19. “It never is: it is always becoming”: Transformative learning in Canadian teacher candidates during an international practicum in Germany Laura Sokal & Deb Woloshyn,
University of Winnipeg, p. 533
20. Intégrer le bénévolat international dans la formation des enseignants canadiens: enjeux et défis en contexte francophone minoritaire Eva Lemaire, University of Alberta, p. 559
Part IV. Globalization: How does international teacher education inform?
21. International teacher education and globalization: A comparative analysis of program structure in Canada, Malaysia and England Mark Hirschkorn, University of New Brunswick,
Marcea Ingersoll, St. Thomas University, Lamia Kawtharani-Chami, Alan Sears, Jeff Landine, & Carri Gray, University of New Brunswick, p. 586
22. Teacher candidates’ beliefs about inclusion in two countries and their implication for Canadian teacher education Pei-Ying Lin, University of Saskatchewan, Yu-Cheng Lin, Roy
Teacher Candidates’ Beliefs about Inclusion in Two Countries and
Their Implication for Canadian Teacher Education
Pei-Ying Lin
University of Saskatchewan, Canada
Yu-Cheng Lin Roy Chen
University of Texas- Rio Grande Valley, U.S.A.
Chiu-Hsia Huang
National Pingtung University, Taiwan
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that teachers’ beliefs about inclusion have a powerful influence on their teaching practices (e.g., Avramidis et al., 2000; Di Gennaro, et al., 2014; Rouse, 2008). This study seeks to gain a better understanding of teacher candidates’ beliefs about the inclusion of students with varied special needs in the general classroom from an international perspective. A total of 131 respondents from teacher education programs in public universities in Taiwan and the U.S. were surveyed. Our findings suggest that pre-service teachers’ beliefs about inclusion were generally positive but differed with regard to different types of special needs, especially for visual and hearing impairments, and intellectual disabilities. Moreover, we found that teacher candidates in the U.S. held stronger beliefs about inclusion than those in Taiwan. Finally,
educational implications for Canadian teacher education and professional development in special education are also discussed in this paper.
Résumé
Des études antérieures ont montré que les convictions des enseignants concernant l’inclusion exercent une influence déterminante sur leurs pratiques d’enseignement (par exemple, Avramidis et al., 2000; Di Gennaro et al., 2014; Rouse, 2008). Cette étude vise à mieux comprendre les convictions des enseignants-professeurs concernant l’inclusion des élèves ayant des besoins spéciaux variés dans la classe en général, dans une perspective internationale. L’enquête a porté sur 131 participants à des programmes de formation d’enseignants dans des universités publiques de Taïwan et des États-Unis. Nos résultats suggèrent que les croyances des enseignants en
Teacher Candidates’ Beliefs about Inclusion in Two Countries and
Their Implication for Canadian Teacher Education
Introduction
With the increasing trends in internationalization in Canadian teacher education programs, an increasing number of international teachers seek to be certified by provincial professional institutes that govern, regulate, and license the teaching profession in each province, such as the Saskatchewan Professional Teachers Regulatory Board (SPTRB). The SPTRB has received a high number of requests for teacher certification from internationally educated teachers over the years. For instance, the SPTRB responded to 129 applicants who hold undergraduate degrees in education overseas and who wish to teach in pre-K to 12 schools in Saskatchewan (Wallin, 2017). The number of applications is expected to grow in the near future. It is well-recognized that inclusion is defined and practised differently in different countries and special education is one of the major areas of study for Canadian teacher education and certification (McCrimmon, 2015). It is therefore imperative to research what teacher candidates trained in different
international contexts and continents believe about providing education to varied student populations with disabilities in the general classroom. Although the teaching philosophy of social inclusion and justice advocate providing equitable and accessible education for all students representing a wide spectrum of diversity in schools (e.g., gender, social class, race, ethnicity, religion), we focus on the inclusion of students with disabilities in the present study.
The Purpose of this Study
teachers’ beliefs toward inclusive education. In particular, we examined three main research questions: (1) What were teacher candidates’ beliefs about inclusion? (2) Did teacher candidates hold positive inclusion beliefs about certain types of special needs while they held negative beliefs about the other types of special needs? and (3) Is there a significant difference in teacher candidates’ inclusion beliefs between the U.S. and Taiwan? Based on the findings, we discuss the implications for B.Ed. programs and post-degree special education certificate programs in the national landscape.
Literature Review
Teachers’ Beliefs toward Inclusion.
found that teachers were more concerned about placing students with emotional and behavioural disorders in an inclusive classroom setting than they were about students with severe learning difficulties (e.g., Autism, Down’s syndrome). With this in mind, it is important to measure teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education to provide a starting point for enhancing teacher education and in-service professional development (Avramidis et al., 2000; Di Gennaro, Pace, Iolanda, & Aiello, 2014; McGhie-Richmond, Irvine, Loreman, Cizman, & Lupart, 2012; Rouse, 2008).
Inclusive Education in a Canadian Context.
According to Specht et al. (2016), more than 80% of Canadian students with special needs are educated in the general classroom for at least 50% of their school day. Among 1,409 teacher candidates in 11 Faculties of Education across Canada, it was found that teacher education programs prepare pre-service teachers for inclusive education in Specht et al.’s study. The participating teacher candidates believe that all students can be taught in the inclusive classroom setting (Specht et al., 2016); even though teacher candidates in Canada are positive about
inclusion, teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs about inclusion may vary by teachers’
characteristics (gender, grade level taught, experience with persons with disabilities) and the length of teacher education programs and internship placement. Similarly, another study conducted in rural Alberta also found that the grade level and subjects taught by teaches may influence their positive attitudes toward inclusion (McGhie-Richmond, Irvine, Loreman,
Ontario teacher education program were found to hold positive beliefs about inclusive classroom assessments even though they may have some misconceptions about the use of adaptions for classroom assessments (Lin & Lin, 2015b).
In a study by Ryan (2009), Ontario teacher candidates expressed positive beliefs about inclusion and also believed that the prerequisite teacher training and knowledge prepared them for inclusion. Given that the teacher candidates held positive inclusion beliefs, several challenges and concerns have been raised in this study, including personnel, time, resources and facilities. Moreover, teacher candidates in Ontario are more likely to report that they will implement effective teaching strategies and adapt their instruction for students with learning and behavioural difficulties if they are motivated to learn about these students (Elik, Wiener, & Corkum, 2010). Frankel, Hutchinson, Burbidge, and Minnes (2014) investigated early childhood and elementary teachers’ perspectives on including young children with developmental
disabilities in the general classroom in Ontario. Their findings suggest that similar challenges faced by two groups of teachers include differentiated instruction or curriculum, team
collaboration, and increasing student participation. In addition to these challenges, teacher candidates in Ontario also express concerns about their sense of efficacy in managing
challenging and inattentive behaviours, implementing an individualized education plan (IEP), and being accountable for learning outcomes of all learners (Hutchinson et al., 2015).
specialized programming in the form of postgraduate certificate programs…such as autism spectrum disorder, within an IE [inclusive education] classroom” (p. 236).
An earlier international comparative study investigated teacher candidates in four countries, Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, and Singapore, about their concerns and attitudes as well as their anxiety and degree of discomfort with inclusion (Sharma, Forlin, Loreman, & Earle, 2006). Compared with teacher candidates in other countries, Canadian teacher candidates are more positive about inclusion, whereas preservice teachers in the other three countries express more concerns and anxiety.
Inclusive Education in International Contexts.
The present study is aimed at understanding teacher candidates’ beliefs about inclusive education for students with varied special needs. Previous studies on teachers’ beliefs about inclusion for students with special needs were conducted in different countries, such as Australia (Armstrong, Price, & Crowley, 2015), Bangladesh (Ahsan, Sharma, & Deppeler, 2012; Malak, 2013),
Canada, (Elik, Wiener, & Corkum, 2010; Frankel, Hutchinson, Burbidge, & Minnes, 2014; Jordan & Stanovich, 2004), Germany (Markova, Pit-Ten Cate, Krolak-Schwerdt, & Glock, 2016; Urton, Wilbert, & Hennemann, 2014), Hong Kong (Stella, Forlin, & Lan, 2007), India
inclusion of students with special needs in the general classroom, such as having difficulty managing challenging behaviours and implementing Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), increasing workload demands, large class sizes, and being held accountable for all learning outcomes of students with and without special needs (Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000; Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2009; Hutchinson et al., 2015; Sharma, Forlin, Loreman, & Earle, 2006; Malak, 2013; McCray & McHatton, 2011; Marshall, Stojanovik, & Ralph, 2002; Sharma & Sokal, 2015; Stella, Forlin, & Lan, 2007). In addition, several studies also found that teacher candidates hold negative attitudes and beliefs about inclusion (Alghazo, Dodeen, & Algaryouti, 2003; Hastings & Oakford, 2003; Markova, Pit-Ten Cate, Krolak-Schwerdt, & Glock, 2016; Marshall, Stojanovik, & Ralph, 2002; Sharma, Moore, & Sonawane, 2009; Soodak et al., 1998). It is worth noting that teacher candidates often reported a lack of sufficient teacher education courses and programs that prepare them fully for teaching students with special needs in the inclusive classroom (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2009; Frankel, Hutchinson, Burbidge, & Minnes, 2014; Malak, 2013; Sharma & Sokal, 2015; Shillingford & Karlin, 2014).
Given that the findings found in a given country provide useful information for teacher education, international research that investigates teachers’ beliefs about inclusion within an international framework should reveal similar insights into context specific issues or concerns, which may provide useful implications for policy makers and teacher educators as well as teachers expecting to teach in inclusive and diverse classroom settings (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma, & Earle, 2009; Sharma, Forlin, Loreman, & Earle, 2006; Romi & Leyser, 2006).
The Context of the Study.
contexts. In the following section, we give a brief overview of the history of legislation
development for special education as well as teacher education programmes in both countries. In the U.S., inclusive education has, since 1960, been debated and advocated through social and human rights movements, and implemented under the landmark legislations of PL 94-142 (the Education of All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) and IDEA (the Individuals with
intellectual disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, learning disabilities, and/or sensory impairments). Generally speaking, the special education programs in both countries may be different from those in Canada; for example, special education courses offered by the teacher education program at the University of Saskatchewan (UofS) emphasizes inclusive,
differentiated, or holistic practices, rather than a specialization in specific types of disabilities. Pre-service teachers at the UofS often take one introduction course to special education in the B.Ed. program, and may take additional qualification, or Master’s courses in order to be certified as special education teachers in Saskatchewan. As discussed above, significant differences exist in teacher education training regarding inclusive education in the U.S. and Taiwan compared to Canada.
Methods
Participants.
Among the 131 respondents we recruited from concurrent B.Ed. programs in public universities in a southern county of Taiwan and a southern state of the U.S. (n = 75, n = 56, respectively), 92.9% and 84.0% of teacher candidates were females (n = 63, n = 52, respectively). All
respondents were enrolled in their second to fourth year of study. All Taiwanese respondents (n = 75) and 87.5% of teacher candidates in the U.S. (n = 49) were between 18 to 27 years old. A majority of respondents in both countries did not report having a disability (98.7% and 100%) or having a family member with a disability (100% and 78.6%) (Table 1).
Measures.
consists of ten questions regarding what respondents think with respect to educating students with special needs in the general education classroom (e.g., “Do you think students with learning disabilities can be educated in general education classrooms?”). Each of the ten statements addresses one particular student population, including learning disabilities (LD), emotional and behavioural disorders (EBD), hearing impairments (HI), visual impairments (VI), intellectual disabilities (ID), physical (mobility) disabilities (MD), HIV/AIDS, neurological disorders (ND), developmental disabilities (DD), and speech language impairments (SLI). The respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement by using a 5-point Likert scale of response options (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly agree). Respondents’ background information was also collected through this survey, including age, sex, level of education, whether or not they have a disability, and have a family member with a disability (Ahsan, Sharma, & Deppeler, 2012; Ajuwon et al., 2012; Frankel, Hutchinson, Burbidge, & Minnes, 2014; Sharma, Moore, & Sonawane, 2009; Sharma & Sokal, 2015).
Data Analysis
Descriptive Statistics.
Mann-Whitney Tests: Country comparisons.
The current study seeks to compare and contrast teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education for different groups of students with special needs in two countries. A Mann-Whitney test was performed to analyze our study results, because the data violates the assumptions of ANOVAs that the error variances of dependent variables should be equal across groups.
Results
(24.61%). For both countries, a small but noticeable number of participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with inclusive education for other groups of students with special needs, ranging from 0.71% for learning disabilities to 12.77% for hearing impairments in the U.S; 1.57% for speech and language disorders and 14.14% for learning disabilities in Taiwan.
Discussion
The results from our data analyses suggest that teacher candidates are generally positive toward inclusion, especially for the inclusion of students with speech and language disorders. Generally speaking, our findings are consistent with previous studies on positive inclusion beliefs (Ajuwon et al., 2012; Avramidis, Bayliss, & Burden, 2000; Mdikana, Ntshangase, & Mayekiso, 2007; Silverman, 2007; Ryan, 2009; Taylor & Ringlaben, 2012). This study also produced results which corroborate the findings of a great deal of the previous work in the field of inclusive education in Canada (Lin & Lin, 2015a, 2015b; McGhie-Richmond, Irvine, Loreman, Cizman, & Lupart, 2012; Ryan, 2009; Sharma, Forlin, Loreman, & Earle, 2006; Specht et al., 2016).
However, we also found results that have not previously been reported. Our results differ from an earlier finding of Marshall, Stojanovik, and Ralph (2002), who reported that there were concerns about teaching children with speech and language disorders in the general classroom. It is a common practice for students with communication needs to work with speech language pathologists in school or clinical settings in the U.S. and Taiwan, and teacher candidates may perceive the supports from these professionals positively and believe that these students can be taught in an inclusive learning environment. In addition, our results from the Mann-Whitney test found significant differences in pre-service teachers’ beliefs about inclusion between two
countries. While teacher candidates in both countries had positive beliefs toward inclusion in general, pre-service teachers in the U.S. held stronger inclusion beliefs than their counterparts in Taiwan.
Implications for Canadian Teacher Education
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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 Neutral 41.3 12.5 29.0 Agree 34.7 48.2 40.5 Strongly Agree 8.0 39.3 21.4 Emotional and Behavioral Disorders Strongly Disagree 1.3 1.8 1.5 Disagree 9.3 5.4 7.6 Neutral 44.0 16.1 32.1 Agree 37.3 46.4 41.2 Strongly Agree 8.0 30.4 17.6
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 Neutral 28.0 26.8 27.5 Agree 24.0 33.9 28.2 Strongly Agree 9.3 28.6 17.6 Intellectual Disabilities Strongly Disagree 1.3 1.8 1.5 Disagree 30.7 14.3 23.7 Neutral 42.7 25.0 35.1 Agree 18.7 30.4 23.7 Strongly Agree 6.7 28.6 16.0
Mobility Disabilities Strongly Disagree 1.3 0.0 .8
Disagree 14.7 5.4 10.7
Neutral 26.7 28.6 27.5
Agree 40.0 26.8 34.4
Strongly Agree 17.3 39.3 26.7
HIV/AIDS Strongly Disagree 2.7 3.6 3.1
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
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
