Preventing School Failure, 56(2), 7581, 2012 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1045-988X print

/ 1940-4387 online DOI: 10.1080/1045988X.2011.565386

Changes in Preservice Teacher Attitudes Toward Inclusion

KRISTINE D. SWAIN, PHILIP D. NORDNESS, and ELIZABETH M. LEADER-JANSSEN
University of Nebraska-Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA

Despite federal mandates to educate students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment, teachers continue to have mixed feelings about their own preparedness to educate students with disabilities in the general education setting. However, research has demonstrated that teachers with more positive attitudes toward inclusion are more apt to adjust their instruction and curriculum to meet individual needs of students and have a more positive approach to inclusion. The purpose of this study was to examine the change in preservice teachers beliefs and attitudes about inclusive practices following an introductory special education course, paired with a 24-hr practicum. Results suggest that a special education course paired with a eld experience working with students with disabilities can signicantly inuence preservice teachers attitudes toward inclusion. Keywords: attitudes, inclusion, preservice teachers

It has been almost 35 years since the special education law P.L. 94-142 stated that students with disabilities were to be provided Free Appropriate Public Education in the least restrictive environment, but the debate about where and how to best educate individuals with disabilities has continued to draw the attention of researchers (Crockett & Kauffman, 1998; Dupre, 1997; Gliona, Gonzales, & Jacobson, 2005). Although the mandate of least restrictive environment was written into law in the 1970s, it has taken much longer for it to be implemented as intended in school settings. In the mid to late 1970s, individuals with disabilities were primarily educated in separate settings away from their same age peers and rarely encountered students without disabilities in school. In the 1980s the philosophy of mainstreaming allowed individuals with disabilities to participate in courses such as art, music, physical education, and content area classes (e.g., math, English) when they were able to keep up with traditional academic content expectations with little or no additional supports in the general education classroom. In the 1990s and today, the philosophy of inclusion is being practiced more frequently, and students with disabilities are being educated to the maximum extent possible in the general education classroom with accommodations and adaptations provided in that setting. A major consideration of teacher preparation programs must be how to effectively prepare all teachers for the diverse population of students that will be served in their inclusive classrooms. Inclusionary practices adhere to the least restrictive environment mandate by promoting the belief that all stuAddress correspondence to Kristine D. Swain, Roskens Hall 512, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE 68182, USA. E-mail: kswain@unomaha.edu

dents with disabilities should be fully integrated into the general education community, and that instruction should be planned to meet their individual needs (Hallahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2009). People who advocate for inclusion contend that all or most supports for students with disabilities can be provided effectively within the general education setting. In addition, if students cannot meet the curriculum expectations within the general curriculum, then the expectationsnot the students placementshould be changed (Friend & Bursuck, 2009). Friend and Bursuck (2009) described three dimensions of inclusive education. First, students with disabilities must be placed in the same classroom as their nondisabled peers and removed only when it is necessary. Second, peer and teacher relationships should be nurtured and promoted within the classroom setting. Last, students with disabilities should be taught using the same evidenced-based curriculum used for students without disabilities and adjusted to meet the needs of the exceptional learner. Because the majority of school districts are implementing inclusionary practices, teacher training programs must consider courses and eld experiences that allow preservice teachers to experience a variety of inclusionary placements rsthand. Given that the ultimate goal of inclusion is to create schools with prepared teachers that recognize all students have a right to participate in all aspects of the school community environment, teacher training institutions must provide the education necessary for effective implementation of inclusionary practices. The intent of the special education law has always been to provide special education and related services in the least restrictive environment. Unfortunately, the least restrictive environment for many students with disabilities has often meant that they

76
were segregated from their peers without disabilities and not viewed as members of the school community (Lipsky & Gartner, 1998). In addition, students who received instruction in more restrictive settings have not had adequate access to the general education curriculum and have had few opportunities to interact with peers without disabilities (Turnbull, Huerta, & Stowe, 2006). This inadequate access to the academic and social resources available in the general education setting has resulted in a substandard education with high rates of course failure, poor test scores, and exceedingly high dropout rates for students with disabilities (Kochhar-Bryant & Greene, 2009). In response, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act has mandated that to the maximum extent possible, students with disabilities have access to and be educated in the general education settings (Turnbull et al., 2006). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires that the rst educational placement considered for students with disabilities be the general education classroom (U.S. Department of Education, 2000). This mandate has proven effective, as the proportion of students with disabilities aged 617 years included in general education classrooms (dened as having spent greater than 79% of their time in a general education classroom) increased by 28% from 1995 to 2004 (U.S. Department of Education, 2006). However, just because there has been a drastic increase of students participating in general education, it does not mean that general educators have fully embraced the idea of inclusion (Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008). As the number of students educated in inclusive settings has increased over the past decade, many educators have reported serious reservations about their ability to support the inclusive placement of students with disabilities in their classrooms (Cook, 2004; Friend & Bursuck, 2009). Preservice teachers have often reported that their teacher preparation and instruction skills do not adequately prepare them to facilitate an inclusive classroom adapting for students with disabilities (Cook, 2002). This is consistent with previous research in which Goodland and Field (1993) interviewed university, school district, and preservice teachers regarding their ability to serve students with disabilities. The results from the study suggested that general education teachers believe that they are insufciently prepared to teach students with disabilities. Furthermore, Rojewski and Pollard (1993) conducted a national survey of 473 secondary teachers and found that more than two thirds of undergraduate respondents had no preparation to teach students with disabilities. As research has noted (Cook, 2002; Goodland & Field, 1993; Rojewski & Pollard, 1993), the lack of special education experience and training included in teacher preparation programs and courses can have a profoundly negative effect on teacher attitudes toward inclusion and students with disabilities. Attitudes are often recognized as precursors to behavior, and research has demonstrated that teachers with more positive attitudes toward inclusion are more

Swain, Nordness, and Leader-Janssen

apt to modify and adjust their instruction and curriculum to meet the needs of individual students with a range of abilities (Rojewski & Pollard, 1993; Sharma, Forlin, Loreman, & Earle, 2006). In addition, these teachers can often have a more positive inuence on their peers attitudes toward including students with disabilities. Research suggests that disability education is one of the most inuential variables in changing teacher attitudes toward inclusion (Sharma et al., 2008; Sharma et. al., 2006) and many preservice teacher education programs now require a separate course in special education to prepare teachers for inclusive settings. However, research on disability education and its effect on teacher attitudes have been mixed. Shippen, Crites, Houchins, Ramsey, and Simon (2005) found that an introductory course on exceptionality had a positive effect on the attitudes of preservice teachers. Similarly, Shade and Stewart (2001) found a statistically signicant improvement in preservice teacher attitudes toward inclusion upon completion of an introductory special education survey course. However, Rojewski and Pollard (1993) found that while graduate training enhanced teacher perceptions toward students with disabilities, teachers who completed a graduate-level course on students with exceptional needs perceived greater barriers to inclusion, were less like to view students with disabilities as their responsibility, and reported lower levels of condence in their ability to teach students with disabilities. In examining the link between university coursework and preservice teacher attitudes toward students with disabilities, Kirk (1998) found that coursework did not increase positive attitudes or a desire to work with students with disabilities. In light of these disparate ndings, more research is needed to consider what type of program may be most effective to improve preservice teacher attitudes toward inclusion. For instance, Sharma et al. (2008) found that preservice teachers who have direct contact with students with disabilities as part of their course program are more likely to feel positive about including students with disabilities in their classroom when compared with their counterparts who did not have direct contact. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the change in preservice teachers beliefs and attitudes about inclusive practices following an introductory special education course, paired with a 20-hour practicum experience observing and working with students with disabilities in a variety of special education settings.

Method
Instrument The survey was conducted using a modied version of the Attitude Toward Inclusion Instrument (Yates, 1995). The original instrument is a 38-item survey that was developed to assess the attitudes of administrators, special education

Attitudes Toward Inclusion

teachers, and regular education teachers toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular education settings. The Attitude Toward Inclusion Instrument used a 4point Likert scale to elicit subject responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). The 38 items of the instrument were based on a thorough review of the literature pertaining to attitudes toward inclusion. In addition, input on the 38-items was solicited from professionals in the eld of education and from individual students who would complete the survey to assess readability, understanding, and item appropriateness. Data from the pilot study on the original Attitude Toward Inclusion Instrument found it to have adequate reliability and validity (Yates, 1995). To reduce the time required to complete the survey and to make it applicable for preservice teachers, the Attitude Toward Inclusion Instrument was modied for the current study.First, the authors selected items that matched the background of preservice teachers who were enrolled in an introductory special education course. Items were omitted that appeared redundant or did not apply to the characteristics of the preservice teachers. This resulted in the exclusion of 18 items from the original survey. Second, minor wording changes were made to some items in order to reect current educational terminology such as replacing normal students with students without disabilities and traditional classrooms with general education classrooms. Third, to assess content validity, a draft of the modied 20-item survey was shared with special education teachers, general education teachers, and administrators who were facilitating inclusion within the local school district. Last, a pilot group of students (n = 122) who were enrolled in the introductory special education course during the Spring 2004 semester completed the survey and provided feedback on the modied survey items. The feedback from the local professionals and the pilot study resulted in a 20-item survey. The survey instrument was analyzed for internal consistency, and a Cronbachs alpha (Cronbach, 1951) of .84 was obtained. In correlational research, a reliability coefcient above .80 is generally considered adequate for internal consistency (Nunnally, 1978). In addition, an open-ended question was added at the end of the survey, which asked the preservice teachers to reect on the changes in their attitudes toward inclusion on the basis of the pre- and postsurvey results. Participants Undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory special education course were asked to complete the survey as a pre- and postinstruction measure. All students in the course had been admitted to the College of Education, passed the Preprofessional Skills Test and had completed an introduction to education course and a human growth and learning course. The introductory special education course included ve sections each semester that used the same syllabus, course

77
objectives, textbook and major course projects. The course covered content related to special education laws and litigation, the disability categories supported by Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, adapting and modifying instruction for the inclusion of students with disabilities and behavior management. In addition to the introductory course, all preservice teachers were involved in a 20-hr eld experience in which they were able to observe and work with students with disabilities in a variety of general and special education settings. During this experience preservice teachers observe inclusionary practices such as collaboration, universal design for learning principles, and a variety of behavior management techniques with a mentor teacher. One major project that was required during the eld experience was the completion of a case study on the basis of experiences during their special education eld experiences. Students were required to collect data related to the classroom behaviors they observed during the eld experience and write a case study about what they had learned. Throughout the duration of the study, the course and practicum requirements remained the same. Participants were enrolled between Fall 2004 and Spring 2008 and included a combination of elementary (54%), secondary (38%), and speech-language pathology (5%) majors. Of the students, 15% were double majors who were majoring in special education in addition to elementary or secondary education. The majority of the students were in their junior (45%) or senior (39%) year, but the study did include sophomores (4%), special undergraduates, (12%) and graduate students (<1%). The students classied as special undergraduates had already completed an undergraduate degree outside of the education eld. Graduate students were speech-language pathology majors who were required to take the course as part of their program of study. Of the 1,212 students enrolled in the introductory special education course during the time the survey was implemented (20042008), 1,002 (82.7%) students responded to the presurvey, postsurvey, or both. Students who did not respond to the pre- and postsurvey (n = 225) were excluded from the analysis. Therefore, the responses of the 777 students (76% female and 24% male) who responded to the pre- and postinclusion survey were included in the analysis. Procedure The Inclusion survey used was available online during the rst 2 weeks of the semester. Students were instructed to complete the survey by the end of the second week of the semester. The same survey was available on-line during the last 2 weeks of the semester with responses to the rst survey unavailable until the second survey had been submitted. After completing the second survey, students were able to view their responses to both surveys and compare their responses. Students were asked to respond to an openended question and reect on any changes that occurred in

78
their attitudes toward inclusion from the beginning of the semester to the end of the semester.

Swain, Nordness, and Leader-Janssen

classroom, it is feasible to teach students with disabilities, students who are gifted, and students without disabilities in the same class with minor changes within the classroom), 4 (support personnel such as special education teachers, speech-language pathologists, and paraeducators should take their services into a general classroom), 5 (many of the activities teachers do with students without disabilities are also appropriate for students with disabilities), and 10 (classroom teachers possess the expertise to work with children with disabilities. To provide additional support for the change in preservice teachers attitudes, the open-ended question at the end of postsurvey was transcribed. The data were analyzed using the merging theme analyses of constant comparative analysis and latent content analysis (Glasser & Strauss, 1967; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Constant

Results
Survey items A repeated measures t test from pre- to postsurvey (t = 2.05, df = 776, p < .05) showed a statistically signicant difference on the total score response from the survey participants. Individual items were analyzed from pre- to postsurvey with statistically signicant differences from pre- to postsurvey found in 14 of the 20 items (see Table 1). Across the survey items, the most signicant change in attitude scores was for Items 3 (given the current structure of the
Table 1. Inclusion Survey Results, by Item

Presurvey M 1. Inclusion is generally a desirable practice. 2. Students with disabilities should have the right to be in general classrooms. 3. Given the current structure of the classroom, it is feasible to teach students with disabilities, students who are gifted, and students without disabilities in the same class with minor changes within the classroom. 4. Support personnel such as special education teachers, speech-language pathologists, and paraeducators should take their services into a general classroom. 5. Many of the activities teachers do with students without disabilities are also appropriate for students with disabilities. 6. The needs of students with disabilities can best be served through special classes. 7. The opportunity of being in a general education classroom will promote the academic growth of the student with a disability. 8. The extra attention students with disabilities require will be to the detriment of the other students. 9. Inclusion offers mixed group interaction, which will foster understanding and acceptance of the differences in individuals. 10. Classroom teachers possess the expertise to work with children with disabilities. 11. Isolation in a special class has a negative effect on the social and emotional development of students with disabilities. 12. Most students with a disability do not make an adequate attempt to complete their tasks. 13. Inclusion of students with disabilities will require signicant changes in regular classroom procedures. 14. The contact students without disabilities have with students with disabilities may be harmful. 15. Students with disabilities will likely monopolize the teachers time. 16. Inclusion of students with disabilities will promote their social independence. 17. Parents of students with disabilities will present more challenges for a teacher than those of children without disabilities. 18. Students with disabilities should be given every opportunity to function in the general education setting. 19. The inclusion of students with disabilities can be benecial for students in the general education setting. 20. Students with disabilities will probably develop academic skills more rapidly in a special education classroom.

Postsurvey M 3.30 3.50 3.02 3.21 3.22 2.55 3.23 2.11 3.51 2.57 3.00 1.70 2.44 1.67 2.05 3.28 2.00 3.49 3.53 2.45 SD 0.86 0.87 0.89 0.86 0.85 0.74 0.81 0.79 0.87 0.74 0.90 0.96 0.78 0.97 0.80 0.84 0.87 0.87 0.89 0.72 t 3.07 2.95 9.09 5.15 6.61 3.55 2.61 4.34 2.01 5.42 0.084 0.10 4.38 0.78 3.57 1.23 2.03 3.12 1.34 1.67

SD 0.77 0.82 0.80 0.84 0.83 0.68 0.76 0.74 0.84 0.71 0.84 0.86 0.75 0.90 0.74 0.77 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.71

3.19 3.39 2.69 3.02 2.97 2.66 3.13 2.25 3.43 2.40 3.01 1.67 2.59 1.64 2.17 3.24 2.07 3.37 3.48 2.50

p < .05.

Attitudes Toward Inclusion

comparative analysis involves three processes, which are unitizing, dening categories and categorizing, bringing the information together. The latent content of a text is determined by a subjective evaluation of the overall content of the narrative (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). To validate the ndings triangulation was used, as all three authors coded the data and developed themes. Following the coding process, four themes emerged. The themes related to inclusion were as follows: (a) lack of preservice teacher knowledge and understanding of special education, (b) shift in amount of time needed to provide accommodations, (c) inclusion must be based on individual students least restrictive environment, and (d) it would improve socialization and peer relationships for all students. The rst theme centered on lack of preservice teachers knowledge and understanding of special education. At the beginning of the course, many students had a vague understanding and little to no experience working with individuals with disabilities; therefore, completing the survey was difcult on the basis of such little knowledge. Without understanding what the terms inclusion and least restrictive environment were, it was difcult to infer what would be best practice. The second theme identied was a shift in students beliefs regarding the amount of time that is necessary to provide accommodations. Over the course of the semester, students began to understand the importance of their role in providing accommodations for students with disabilities. They stated that they gained a better understanding of accommodations and that they do not necessarily see accommodations as taking a signicant amount of time to implement. One preservice teacher commented, I realized that most of the time, a teacher can accommodate a child with a disability with very simple things that are not time consuming. The third theme was that inclusion in the general education class must be based on the least restrictive environment for each students individual needs. Students with disabilities should receive instruction in the setting that meets their academic and social needs most effectively, and that does not always mean the general education classroom. The fourth theme was that inclusion is an effective way to improve socialization and peer relationships for students with and without disabilities. The preservice teachers stated it is important for all students to understand differences and begin to accept people who are not exactly like them, which, in turn, fosters acceptance.

79
observed teachers facilitating the inclusion of students with disabilities through differentiated instruction and modifying routine lessons for students with disabilities in their classroom. Another theme that was identied with signicant positive change was the belief that general education classroom teachers have the expertise to work with students with disabilities (e.g., Item 10). Although some preservice teachers noted in their reections the need for more training, students were overall more condent from the beginning to the end of the semester. These comments would suggest that the introductory course in special education paired with the eld experience might not only enhance teacher attitudes but also their belief in their ability to facilitate inclusion in the general education setting. Vaughn, Klingner, and Hughes (2000) stated that there are three factors that inuence teacher practicewhich are teacher knowledge, teacher attitudes and beliefs, and contextual factorsso by understanding preservice teachers perceptions of students with disabilities, it will allow teacher preparation programs to assist future educators in developing positive attitudes and effective research-based practices to include students with disabilities in their classrooms. Many preservice teachers in their written reections noted that they had a number of misperceptions regarding the eld of special education with most misperceptions including a narrow view of the eld of special education. The eld experience that accompanied the introduction to special education class provided opportunities for students to expand their knowledge about special education services and share this information with their fellow preservice teachers. A comment from a student reects the misperceptions:
There were hardly any questions that I answered the same the second time through as the rst time. I think this is because I learned in class that there are so many types of disabilities, and they affect the curriculum differently. A student with a learning disability is completely different from a student with an emotional disorder and before taking this class, I never thought about the different kinds of disorders. I was thinking severe disabilities only.

Discussion
Through the analysis of the survey items and the reections, themes were identied that showed the most change. The attitudes that showed the most signicant positive change were related to the feasibility of teaching students with disabilities in the general education classroom (e.g., Items 3, 4, and 5). A number of the preservice teachers commented in their reections that through their eld experience they

Providing students with a range of experiences in special education may reduce the misperceptions surrounding special education and the complexities of the disabilities. One preservice teacher stated: My opinions seem to have changed drastically. I had mostly negative views of inclusion before and now realize that in many ways it can be benecial not only for students with disabilities, but also for students without disabilities. Shade and Stewart (2001) documented the effect that a course had on the attitudes of preservice teachers toward inclusion; however, the effect of a course with a eld experience had not been examined. For many students the eld experience had a signicant effect on their overall beliefs regarding inclusionary practices. Some students began the semester thinking inclusion would be positive for all students, but following the semester long

80
class and eld experience, the students appeared to obtain a more realistic understanding of the pros and cons of inclusion. This realistic view allows them to understand the importance and signicance of individualized instruction. This is precisely the knowledge and understanding teacher education programs must consider when designing effective experiences for preservice teachers. Limitations and future research Despite our positive ndings from the survey and reections, there are a number of limitations and suggestions for additional research. First, the participants were drawn from a single university, thus limiting external validity. Additional research is needed to compare this programmatic approach to that of other university programs to determine the effectiveness of the program when compared with others. Second, although the effect of the eld experience was noted during student reections of their beliefs, the number of students who added special education as a major was not researched. Future research should examine the relation between changes in attitudes toward special education and the likelihood of preservice teachers taking more courses in special education or majoring in special education. Given that many states currently face teacher shortages in the eld of special education (Boe, 2006; McLeskey, Tyler, & Saunders Flippin, 2004); such research may provide insight to addressing the continuing shortage of special education teachers. Third, although we are encouraged by the ndings from this study, some of the statistically signicant differences in preservice teacher attitudes were relatively small (.07). Given that the course and surveys were administered over a 4-month period after taking one course in special education, future research should be conducted to determine if there would be a greater change in teacher attitudes by taking more courses in special education or completing a longer, more intensive practicum. Fourth, because of the nature of the course requiring all sections to complete a eld experience, it was not possible to have a control group in order to determine whether the course alone would result in signicant changes in attitudes toward inclusion. Future research across universities would possibly allow for this important comparison. Last, of the 225 (19%) students who did not respond to both surveys and therefore not included in the analysis, 81 students enrolled in four sections of the course were not reminded by the instructor to complete the survey at the end of the semester. The other 144 students who did not complete both surveys were distributed over the nine semesters that the survey was implemented and represent no discernable pattern. Implications The results of this study suggest that preservice teacher perceptions can be positively impacted by observing and working in inclusive schools with teachers who are

Swain, Nordness, and Leader-Janssen

effectively accommodating students with disabilities in the general education setting. When planning an introductory special education course, teacher education programs should consider incorporating a eld experience within an inclusionary setting. Critical to the success of these eld experiences is the mentorship by current practitioners. Coursework on inclusion or educating students with disabilities is most effective when paired with eld experiences (Conderman & Johnston-Rodriguez, 2009). Furthermore, teachers who provide mentorship for preservice teachers during their eld experiences must be qualied to model inclusionary practices that will prepare preservice teachers for a collaborative work environment that facilitates inclusion. In light of research that has demonstrated that teachers with more positive attitudes toward inclusion are more likely to meet the needs of individual students with a range of needs, providing preservice teachers with opportunities to observe students with disabilities early in their educational programs may improve special education service delivery in inclusive settings. In addition, current practitioners may benet from additional professional development that creates opportunities for teachers to develop a variety of strategies to facilitate inclusion through peer mentoring, co-teaching, and inservice training. As universities consider eld experiences for preservice teachers, they should consider experiences that provide an adequate amount of time for teacherstudent interaction, allow preservice teachers opportunities to witness collaborative practices that facilitate inclusion, and observe teachers using universal design for learning principles.

Author notes
Kristine D. Swain is an associate professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her research interests include examining collaborative practices that affect academic interventions for students with disabilities, exploring attitudes of special and general education preservice teachers toward special education practices, and implementing and monitoring research-based interventions. Philip D. Nordness is an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. His current research interests are the use of technology to facilitate learning for students with disabilities, and alternatives to functional behavioral assessment. Elizabeth M. Leader-Janssen is an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her current research interests include researchbased interventions for students struggling in the areas of reading and writing, preservice teachers perceptions of inclusive and collaborative practices, and distance education delivery models.

References
Boe, E. E. (2006). Long-term trends in the national demand, supply, and shortage of special education teachers. Journal of Special Education, 40, 138150.

Attitudes Toward Inclusion

Conderman, G., & Johnston-Rodriguez, S. (2009). Beginning teachers views of their collaborative roles. Preventing School Failure, 53, 235244. Cook, B. G. (2002). Inclusive attitudes, strengths, and weaknesses of preservice general educators enrolled in a curriculum infusion teacher preparation program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 262277. Cook, B. G. (2004). Inclusive teachers attitudes toward their students with disabilities: A replication and extension. Elementary School Journal, 104, 307320. Crockett, J. B., & Kauffman, J. M. (1998). Taking inclusion back to its roots. Education Leadership, 5(2), 7477. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefcient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297334. Dupre, A. P. (1997). Disability and the public schools: The case against inclusion. Washington Law Review, 72, 775 858. Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. (2009). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Glasser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Gliona, M. F., Gonzales, A. K., & Jacobson, E. S. (2005). Dedicated, not segregated: Suggested changes in thinking about instructional environments and the language of special education. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), The illusion of full inclusion: A comprehensive critique of a current special education bandwagon (2nd ed., pp. 135146). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Goodland, J. I., & Field, S. (1993). Teachers for renewing schools. In J. I. Goodlad & T. C. Lovitt (Eds.), Integrating general and special education (pp. 229252). New York, NY: Merrill. Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2009). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special education (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Kirk, R. (1998). The link between university course work and pre-service teachers attitudes toward students with special learning needs. College Student Journal, 32, 153160. Kochhar-Bryant, C. A., & Greene, G. (2009). Pathways to successful transition for youth with disabilities: A developmental process. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Lincoln, Y. A., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

81
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1998). Taking inclusion into the future. Educational Leadership, 56, 7881. McLeskey, J., Tyler, N. C., & Saunders Flippin, S. (2004). The supply of and demand for special education teachers: A review of research regarding the chronic shortage of special education teachers. Journal of Special Education, 38(1), 521. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Rojewski, J. W., & Pollard, R. R. (1993). A multivariate analysis of perceptions held by secondary academic teachers toward students with special needs. Teacher Education and Special Education, 16, 330341. Shade, R. A., & Stewart, R. (2001). General education and special education pre-service teachers attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 46(1), 3741. Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman. (2008). Impact of training on preservice teachers attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23, 773785. Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Loreman, T., & Earle, C. (2006). Pre-service teachers attitudes, concerns and sentiments about inclusive education: An international comparison of the novice pre-service teacher. International Journal of Special Education, 21, 8093. Shippen, M. E., Crites, S. A., Houchins, D. E., Ramsey, M. L., & Simon, M. (2005). Pre-service teachers perceptions of including students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 1421. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Turnbull, R., Huerta, N., & Stowe, M. (2006). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act as amended in 2004. Upper Saddle Creek, NJ: Pearson Education. U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Twenty-eighth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Vaughn, S., Klingner, J., & Hughes, M. (2000). Sustainability of researchbased practices. Exceptional Children, 66, 163171. Yates, C. M. (1995). Attitudes of school personnel in south Mississippi toward inclusion of students with disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57. (UMI No. 9615286)

Copyright of Preventing School Failure is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.