Preschool and primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education in Egypt: The role of experience and self-efficacy

Mahmoud Mohamed Emam; Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed

SciVerse ScienceDirect PrOC6d ¡0

Social and Behavioral Sciences

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 29 (2011) 976 - 985 —

International Conference on Education and Educational Psychology (ICEEPSY 2011)

Preschool and primary school teachers' attitudes towards inclusive education in Egypt: The role of experience and self-

efficacy

Mahmoud Mohamed Emam1* Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed2*

*Psychology Dept., College of Education, Sultan Qaboos University, Oman; Assiut University, Egypt

Abstract

Inclusive Education (IE) in Egypt has recently received a momentum by the reauthorization of the Child Act in 2008 and the issuing of IE Mandates in 2009, and 2011. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and teacher attitudes toward the inclusive classroom. Research studies have demonstrated that teachers' sense of self-efficacy directly impacts student performance. We investigated the association between teachers' perception of self-efficacy and their attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) at preschool and primary settings. In addition, we explored whether experience had an effect on teachers' attitudes and sense of self-efficacy. The Opinions Relevant to Integration of Students with Disabilities (ORI) and Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (TES) were administered to 95 primary school teachers and 71 preschool teachers. Results showed that scores on the ORI could predict scores on the TES for both preschool and primary school teachers. Teachers with more experience had more positive attitudes than teachers with less experience whereas experience had no effect on teachers' sense of self efficacy in teaching pupils with SEN. No differences were found between preschool and primary school teachers' attitudes, whereas primary school teachers showed a higher sense of self-efficacy than did preschool teachers regarding the management and teaching of pupils with SEN. The results of the study are discussed in relation to international literature on IE, reflecting on the implications of the study in relation to the policies of IE in Egypt.

1. Introduction

Inclusive Education (IE) has become the cliché of modern educational systems both in developed and developing countries (Farrell, Dyson, Hutcheson, & Gallannaugh, 2007). Egypt has recently endeavoured to legalize IE by issuing the Inclusion Mandates in 2009 and 2011 (Ministry of Education, 2009, 2011). Since then schools

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: mamer@aun.edu.eg

ELSEVIER

have had to respond to the mandates by admitting a number of pupils with special educational needs (SEN) both in preschool and primary school settings. Concerns were raised, however, about the need of pupils with SEN to receive high quality education which may be difficult within the currently staggering education system. The education system in Egypt has been a topic of criticism by both politicians and scholars due to the lack of facilities, equipment, and qualified teaching staff in addition to the absence of model curricula that can embrace diverse pupils. Within such system a welcoming context for IE can hardly be realized. Hence, the education system in Egypt fell in the dilemma of quality versus quantity of education which modern education system similarly experienced when they adopted IE (Dyson, 2001). This dilemma holds the admission of more pupils with SEN at one pole and assuring quality by raising attainment standards at the other pole (e.g. Kalambouka, Farrell, Dyson & Kaplan, 2007; Ainscow, Booth & Dyson, 2006).

In both cases, teachers' attitudes towards IE and their sense of self-efficacy in managing pupils with SEN have been argued to play crucial role in approaching new challenges such as that of IE (O'Shea, 2006). The work related to teachers' attitudes toward inclusion originated from the theoretical framework developed by Fazio (1986) who viewed attitudes as having an evaluative component. Foreman (2005) defined inclusion as the 'philosophy that schools should, without question, provide for the needs of all the children in their communities, whatever the level of their ability or disability' (p. 12). Supported by the human rights perspective, inclusion has developed into IE which referred to the right of every child to reach the optimal level of learning and development in formal education settings by removing barriers to learning to all pupils in schools (Wedell, 2005).

It is suggested that understanding of the attitudes toward children with SEN could contribute to maintain a good relationship between teachers and students, which is crucial effective inclusive practices (Pianta, 2004). The success of IE is thus reliant on teachers' attitudes (Salend, 2001; Van Reusen, Shosho, & Bonker, 2000). Teachers may have different attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN based on their years of experience, their training, and their self-efficacy beliefs (Gilmore, Campbell & Cuskelly, 2003; Hastings, & Oakford, 2003). The majority of the teachers believed that the regular classroom is not the best resource for children with SEN and their opinions of inclusion became more negative as their teaching experience increased (Gilmore et al., 2003). A number of research studies suggest that teachers' attitudes (Forlin, 2001; Pivik, McComas & Laflamme, 2002; Parasuram, 2006), and teachers' sense of efficacy (Avramidis, Bayliss & Burden, 2000; Avramidis and Norwich, 2002) have been imperative factors for IE.

In a comprehensive review of literature conducted by Avramidis and Norwich (2002) on teachers' attitudes toward the inclusion of pupils with SEN it was shown that the majority of teachers tend to have positive attitudes. In addition, Avramidis and Norwich (2002) found that there are some factors which have an impact on teachers' attitudes toward inclusion of pupils with SEN. These factors were: (a) those related to teachers such as gender, age, teaching experience, and training; (b) those related to children such as the severity of the child's disability; and (c) those related to environment such as the availability of personnel and financial support. A number of research studies reported that teachers' perceived levels of efficacy had an impact on their attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN (e.g. Forlin 1998; Soodak, Podell, & Lehman, 1998). Brownell and Pajares (1999) posited that teachers' possession of knowledge about disabilities helps them build confidence, increase their levels of efficacy, and promote positive attitudes toward the inclusion of children with SEN.

Self-efficacy was defined by Bandura (1977) as "beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments" (p. 3). It is believed that self-efficacy is considered as future-oriented belief concerning the level of competence an individual might display in a certain situation and which could affect thought and emotions (Bandura, 1977). Teachers' self-efficacy was considered a vital factor which has a significant impact on their attitudes towards inclusion. A number of research studies concluded that teachers' with more confidence in inclusive classrooms tend to exhibit more positive attitudes toward inclusion (Bradshaw & Mundia, 2006; Subban & Sharma, 2006). The higher the sense of personal efficacy, the more positive attitudes toward inclusion teachers will have and the more willing to teach pupils with SEN they become (Lifshitz, Glaubman, & Issawi, 2004). Teachers who have low personal efficacy believe that pupils with SEN will jeopardize the learning of general education pupils (Lopez, Monteiro, Sil, Rutherford, & Quinn, 2004).

Teaching experience in general and experience of teaching in inclusive settings in particular were among several factors that were shown to impact teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN (Cook, 2001; Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Regular and special education teachers in the US with 13 or more years of teaching experience were less supportive of inclusion than teachers with less years of experience (Leyser & Tappendorfk, 2001). Conducting a thorough and intensive review of literature on teachers' attitudes toward inclusion, Avramidis and Norwich (2002) found similar results and concluded that teachers with more years of teaching experience were

less supportive of inclusion than less experienced teachers. Gilmore et al., (2003) found teachers with fewer years of experiences and younger teachers had more positive attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN in the regular classroom. Taylor, Smiley and Ramasamy (2003) replicated the same conclusion. Ernst (2006) posited that teachers' experience and training is positively related with their support of inclusion. Similarly, a number of research studies concluded that teachers who received training on special education had more positive attitudes toward inclusion than their peers who did not (Avramidis and Kalyva, 2007; Koutrouba, Vamvakari, & Theodoropoulos 2008; Parasuram 2006). Thus, it is the training and experience of working in inclusive settings that are related with positive attitudes rather than the years of teaching experience in general (Avraidis & Norwich, 2002). Avramidis et al., (2000) concluded that teachers had more positive attitudes toward the inclusion of pupils with physical impairment than pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties, reflecting that the type of disability may be a determinant of teachers' attitudes.

There has been an argument in the literature with regard to the explanation of differences in attitudes. Teachers who have positive attitudes towards inclusion consider that pupils with SEN belong to general education classrooms (Burke & Sutherland, 2004). Conversely, teachers with negative attitudes believe that inclusion is a burden on teachers and they should receive special service delivery in special education settings to avoid the negative impact on their typically developing peers in the regular classroom (Zambelli & Bonni, 2004). A number of studies found that general education teachers are not supportive of inclusion. Hammond and Ingalls (2003), for example, concluded that most of the teachers did not support inclusion, albeit their schools had inclusive programs. Burke and Sutherland (2004) found similar results where in-service teachers' attitudes toward inclusion were negative.

Other studies found that general education teachers are less supportive of inclusion (Armstrong, Armstrong, Lynch, & Severin, 2005; De Boer, Pijl, & Minnaert, 2010; De Boer, Pjil, & Minnaert, 2011). Rakap and Kaczmarek (2010) investigated Turkish general education teachers working in public elementary schools regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in their classrooms and their readiness to include students with severe learning disabilities. The results indicated that the teachers had negative attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities into regular education classrooms. Alternatively, a number of researchers argued that teachers had positive attitudes toward inclusion (O'Shea, Stoddard, & O'Shea, 2000). Research studies related to the self-efficacy and attitudes of preschool teachers toward IE were sparse. Sari, Celikoz and Secer (2009) used a sample of preschool teachers and concluded that attitudes of preschool teachers were undecided and that the attitudes of the teachers toward inclusion were affected by their self-efficacy perceptions in terms of teaching dimension. Hsieh and Hsieh (in press) concluded that early childhood teachers' attitudes toward IE were positive.

2. The Current Study

The topic of the inclusion of children with disabilities into the regular classroom is relatively new and has not received an adequate attention in Egypt. The purpose of the current study is to investigate the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and teacher attitudes toward the inclusive classroom. The following questions guided the study:

• "What is the relationship between teachers' perceived efficacy and their attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN?"

• How well does teachers' perceived efficacy predict their attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN?

• What is the effect of teachers' experience of teaching on their perceived efficacy and attitudes towards inclusion of pupils with SEN?"

• "What is the difference between preschool teachers and primary school teachers in their sense of efficacy and attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN?

3. Methods

The Opinions Relevant to Integration of Students with Disabilities (ORI) (Antonak and Larrivee, 1995) and the Teacher Efficacy Scale (TES) (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) were administered to 71 preschool teachers and 95 primary school teachers. The chosen scales were adapted using consecutive and back translation methods by the authors.The ORI is a 6-point Likert scale containing 25 questions. The possible responses vary from disagree very much, disagree pretty much, disagree a little, to agree a little, agree pretty much, and agree very much. Teachers selected which response best answered the question based on their own perceptions concerning their

attitudes towards the benefits of inclusion (BoI), their attitudes toward classroom management (CM), their perceived ability to teach special needs learners (PA), and their stance on inclusive classrooms versus separate classrooms (IE vs. SE). Antonak and Larrivee (1995) stated on the scoring instrument that scores of 0-150 were possible. Scores above the mean score of 75 indicated a more favorable attitude towards inclusion while scores below the mean indicated a more unfavorable attitude. The TES (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) was used to determine teacher efficacy. The short form consists of 12 questions that are spread among three factors: (a) efficacy for instructional strategies (EIS), (b) efficacy for classroom management (ECM), and (c) efficacy for student engagement (ESE). The scale is set up with a Likert type scale ranging from one to nine. The scale ranges from a response of "1= nothing" to "5= a great deal". The collected data and statistical analyses were handled using SPSS software (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences; release 16.0). All variables were graphically inspected to assess their distribution.

Reliability of the Measures

After preparing the Arabic versions of the ORI and TES the reliability and validity issues were tested. The employed evaluation methods included principal component analysis, scale reliability analyses (Cronbach's a and split half reliability). To obtain a measure of scale reliability, internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach alphas) were calculated for the subscales of the ORI and TES.

Table 1 Reliability Analysis of the ORI and TES Subscales_

Intraclass Correlation Coefficients

95% Confidence F test with true value of .70

Interval

ORI Subscales Average Intraclass Lowe Upper Value df1 df2 Sig

Measures Correlation Bound Bound

BoI .928c .894 .955 4.184 50 350 .01

CM .887c .835 .928 2.666 50 450 .01

PA .792c .669 .874 1.441 50 100 .06

IE vs. SE .815c .715 .886 1.618 50 150 .01

TES Subscales Average

Measures

ECM*** .885c .826 .928 2.606 50 200 .01

ESE .831c .740 .896 1.778 50 150 .004

EIS .825c .722 .895 1.719 50 100 .01

*** BoI: Benefits af In/lus-an; CM: Class Management; PA: Pcerc-BiP Ab-l-ty; IE «s. SE: In/lus-Bc EPu/ot-an vs. dpc/-ol EPu/ot-an; ECM: Eff-ro/y fae Closseaam Management; ESE: Eff-rory fae dtuPent Engagement; EIS: Eff-ro/y fae Insteu/t-anol dteotcg-cs

As shown in table 1 results of the reliability analysis for the ORI subscales, BOI subscale indicated a Cronbach's alpha of .92 which was significantly different [F (50,350) = 4.184. p < .01] from the test value of .70 established by Kaplan and Saccuzzo (2009). CM subscale indicated a Cronbach's alpha of .88 which was significantly different [F (50,450) = 2.66 p < .01] from the test value of .70. PA indicated a Cronbach's alpha of .79 which was not significantly different [F (50,100) = 1.44. p = .06] from the test value of .70 we assumed that the collected data for this subscale was reliable. IE vs. SE subscale indicated a Cronbach's alpha of .81 which was significantly different [F (50,150) = 1.61 p < .01] from the test value of .70. For the TES subscales, ECM subscale indicated a Cronbach's alpha of .88 which was significantly different [F (50,200) = 2.60 p < .01] from the test value of .70. ESE subscale indicated a Cronbach's alpha of .83 which was significantly different [F (50,150) = 1.77 p < .004] from the test value of .70. EIS subscale indicated a Cronbach's alpha of .82 which was significantly different [F (50,100) = 1.71 p < .01] from the test value of .70.

In order to verify the proposed factorial structure of the 25 ORI and 12 TES items a confirmatory factor analysis with varimax rotation was carried out. For the ORI , after rotation of the four extracted factors with initial eigenvalues greater than 1, the resulting pattern of main loadings was an identical replication of the original ORI subscales except for item13 which was loaded by the CM factor in the original ORI whereas it was loaded by the IE

vs. SE factor in the Arabic version. Loadings higher than .30 were considered. A number of items had more than one loading over .30 and therefore they were grouped according to the highest loading they had. The same procedure was obtained for the TES. The resulting pattern of main loadings was similar to that of the original scale except for item 11 which was loaded by the ECM in the original TES whereas it was loaded by the EIS in the Arabic version. Table 2 shows the item loadings for both scales.

Table 2 Factor structure and original scales of the ORI and TES (N = 161- factor solution using Varimax Rotation with Kaiser Normalization; Loadings greater than .30 are shown in boldface)._

Extracted Factor Bol CM PA SE vs. IE ESE EIS ECM

Initial 11.929 1.964 1.167 .962 6.123 1.025 .763

eigenvalue

Explained 47.716 7.858 4.666 3.849 51.022 8.543 6.357

variance

(initial)

Explained 21.799 21.723 11.767 8.801 27.106 25.142 13.675

variance

(rotated)

Item14 .547 .010 .319 .505 .724 .341 -.019-

Item7 . 721 . 185 .133 .159 .867 .216 .193

Item3 . 706 . 184 .406 .022 .497 .408 .439

Item11 . 607 . 184 .029 .158 .688 . 304 .290

Item20 . 603 . 341 -.032- .331 .244 .642 .448

Item24 . 842 . 280 .134 .039 .447 .598 .117

Item17 . 682 . 107 .243 .260 T .156 .755 .087

Item4 . 203 . 771 .107 .103 M in .260 .793 .152

Item13 . 366 . 670 .292 .283 . 107 .261 . 778

Item9 . 321 . 452 .191 .439 . 245 .165 . 729

Item25 .388 .590 .029 .200 . 342 .348 . 622

Item12 .269 . 734 .151 .152 . 423 .171 . 692

Item1 .379 .433 .421 .108

Item16 .230 . 788 . 127 .143

Item15 .242 . 752 . 091 .129

Item6 . 289 . 711 .109 .272

Item22 . 258 . 677 .366 .187

Item2 . 407 .233 . 648 .110

Item10 .495 .264 .497 .120

Item19 .468 .256 .492 .286

Item8 . 185 .217 .341 . 762

Item5 . 186 .488 .246 . 578

Item23 . 283 .263 .196 . 572

Item21 .309 . 005 .137 . 795

Item18_.426 .143 .155 .662

4. Results

To answer the question "What is the relationship between teachers' perceived efficacy and their attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN?" we examined the interaction between the TES subscales and the ORI subscales. As shown in table 3, there were several statistically significant correlations. Specifically there was a statistically significant correlation between the Bol and each of the ECM, EIS, and ESE (r = 0.60, 0.52, 0.56 respectively, p < 0.01). In addition there was a statistically significant correlation between PA and each of the ECM, EIS, and ESE (r = 0.51, 0.54, 0.58 respectively, p < 0.01).

Table 3 Intercorrelation between TES subscales and ORI subscales

ECM EIS ESE BoI CM PA

EIS .652**

ESE .721** .727**

BoI .600** .520** .567**

CM .482** .537** .523** .710**

PA .514** .547** .581** .594** .766**

IE vs. SE .434** ** .454** .478** .671** .832** .767**

m < 2.29, Pcoesan raeeclot-an racff-r-cnts (p-voluc; twa-to-lcP)

To answer the question "How well does teachers' perceived efficacy predict their attitudes towards the

inclusion of pupils with SEN?, a multiple regression analysis was carried out. Before conducting the regression analysis, an overall Teacher Self Efficacy Composite score was derived from the single items on the TES by summing the responses for the 12. The same procedure was carried out for the ORI. A reliability analysis for the TES entire scale generated a Cronbach's a of .891 whereas the Cronbach's a for the ORI entire scale was .91. Split half reliability was also computed for both scales. For the TES the Guttman split-half coefficient was .85 whereas it was .86 for the ORI. Both reliability measures exceeded the value of .70 (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009), thus suggesting that the TES and ORI scores could be summated to produce reliable total scores. After assessing the basic parametric assumptions for regression including normality, linearity, and multicollinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), the regression analysis as carried out having the ORI composite score as the predictor variable and the TES composite score as the outcome variable. This produced a statistically significant regression equation (TES= .247xAttitude score + 23.988, [R = .651, R2 = .424, F= 120.61, p < .01). Using the online statistical calculator (Soper, 2010) the effect size for the regression was (f2) =0.736111. Furthermore, we examined the effect of the dimensions of the ORI as predictors of the TES composite score through conducting a stepwise regression analysis using the ORI dimensions as independent variables and the TES composite score as dependent variable. Table 4 shows that BoI alone explained 62% of the variance in TES composite score (P= .62, F= 107.20, p < 0.01. Adjusted R Square = .39.). But when the PA was added to the model the BoI accounted for 41% and the PA accounted for 36% of the TES score (F= 76.06, p < 0.01. Adjusted R Square = .47). Using the online statistical calculator the effect size attributable to the addition of PA was 0.17.

Table 4 Regression coefficients for ORI in predicting TES

Predictor variables B SE B P (Beta) T-value p value

ORI Composite Score .247 .022 .651 10.983 .01

Step 1 Const 25.02 1.79

BoI .691 .067 .629 10.35 .01

Step 2 Const 22.91 1.71 .01

BoI .450 .077 .410 5.854 .01

PA .950 .181 .368 5.250 .01

To answer the question "What is the effect of teachers' experience of teaching on their perceived efficacy and attitudes towards inclusion of pupils with SEN?" A one-way ANOVA was used to test for attitude differences among three categories of experience (<5, from 5-10, >10 years). As shown in table 5 Attitudes towards inclusion of pupils with SEN differed significantly across the three categories, F (2, 163) = 8.36, p= .05. Tukey post-hoc comparisons of the three groups indicate that the 10> group (M = 67.34, 95% CI [62.60, 72.09]) gave significantly lower attitude ratings than the 5-10 group (M = 82.04, 95% CI [75.48, 88.59]), and the <5 group (M = 81.52, 95% CI [74.64, 88.59]) p = .05. Comparison between the 5-10 group (m = 82.04, 95% CI [75.48, 88.59]) and, >10 group (M = 81.52, 95% CI [74.64, 88.59]) was not statistically significant at p < .05. As for teacher perception of their teaching efficacy, the one way ANOVA analysis showed that differences in teachers' perceived efficacy among the three categories of experience were not significant, F (2, 163) =.64, p < .05

Table 5 One way NOVA analysis for the effect of experience of teaching on ORI and TES scores

Attitude Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 8287.096 2 4143.548 8.363 .05

Within Groups 80759.609 163 495.458

Total 89046.705 165

Self-efficacy Between Groups 100.164 2 50.082 .643 .527

Within Groups 12704.198 163 77.940

Total 12804.361 165

To answer the question "What is the difference between preschool teachers and primary school teachers in their sense of efficacy and attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN?" differences between preschool and primary school teachers in ORI and TES composite scores were examined using independent sample T-test. As shown in table 6 there were no differences between preschool teachers (79.64±23.08) and primary school teachers (73.34±23.08) on the ORI composite score; whereas primary school teachers (45.95±6.10) showed better sense of self-efficacy in relation to the management and teaching pupils with SEN than did preschool teachers (38.57±10.03).

Table 6 Differences in ORI and TES scores between preschool and primary school teachers_

_Preschool (N=71)_Primary School (N=95) _

Mean SD Mean SD TP value ORI Composite Score 79.64 23.08 73.34 23.09 1.73 .084 TES Composite Score_38.57_1003_45.95_6.10 -5.86-_.01

5. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between teachers' self-efficacy and attitudes toward the inclusion of pupils with SEN. A related purpose was to explore whether teachers' experience had an impact on their attitudes and sense of self-efficacy. Attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN could predict both preschool and primary school teachers' self-efficacy. Teachers who were more experienced had more positive attitudes than teachers with less experience whereas teaching experience had no effect on teachers' sense of self-efficacy in teaching pupils with SEN. We found that there are no differences between preschool and primary school teachers' attitudes, whereas primary school teachers showed a higher sense of self-efficacy than did preschool teachers regarding the management and teaching of pupils with SEN.

The results of the first question supplemented previous research which found a significant relationship between teachers' self-efficacy and attitudes towards the inclusion of pupils with SEN (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Lifshitz et al., 2004; Weisel & Dror, 2006). Teachers' low self-efficacy may hinder the learning of pupils with SEN in general education settings (Lopez et al., 2004). It has also been concluded that teachers with more confidence in inclusive classrooms show more positive attitudes toward inclusion (Bradshaw & Mundia 2006; Subban & Sharma, 2006). We also found no differences between preschool and primary teachers' attitudes toward inclusion. Primary school teachers were found to show higher self-efficacy than preschool teachers. These results are promising since some research studies posited that teachers who have negative attitudes and

lower self-efficacy toward the inclusion of pupils with SEN do so because they do not have enough experience in IE.

The level of experience had no significant effect on teachers' self-efficacy. Alternatively, experience was shown to play a role in teachers' attitudes. Teachers with more years of teaching experience showed less positive attitudes than teachers with fewer years of experience. These results are consistent with previous research studies (Balboni & Pedrabissi, 2000; de Boer et al., 2010). In the current study, the <5 group of teachers scored higher on the ORI than the 5-10 and >10 groups. It is not surprising that teachers with less experience had higher attitudes as they began their career while inclusion was being a buzz word. De Boer (2010) argued that more years of teaching experience are not enough for teachers to have positive attitudes towards IE as they become "stale" in their career. What matters for attitudes, however, is the training and experience with IE. Teachers with such experience are likely to hold more positive attitudes. Since IE has been recently introduced to Egypt, the results seem reasonable as teachers with more years of experience were shown as being less supportive of IE than teachers with fewer years of experience.

We also found no differences between preschool and primary school teachers in the attitudes toward the inclusion of pupils with SEN whereas primary school teachers showed better self-efficacy in relation to the management of and teaching of SEN pupils. This finding can also be attributed to the fact that primary school teachers receive more training than preschool teachers. The IEM 94 and 264 have allowed primary schools to admit more pupils with SEN in their classrooms than in preschool settings. This has been coupled with more training to primary school teachers. There is also a parental focus on the education of children when they reach the primary school age compared to earlier education settings. No studies investigated the difference between preschool and primary school teachers regarding the self-efficacy and attitudes toward the inclusion of pupils with SEN. This contradicts with what Turgul, Ustun, Akman, Erkan, and Sendogdu (2002; cited in Sari et al., 2009) found. They concluded that preschool teachers had favourable attitudes toward IE. Results of the studies on IE in Turkey (Avci & Ersoy, 1999, cited in Sari et al., 2009) and other countries such as USA and England found that preschool teachers have positive attitudes toward IE. We posit that if either pre-service preschool or primary school teachers take enough coursework in the college about IE, their self-efficacy and attitudes may increase and will be positive even before they get involved in profession. Other reasons that might contribute to the lower self-efficacy and attitudes toward inclusion include the insufficient working conditions inside the classroom, lack of physical equipments, class density, teachers' burnout because of stress and lack of motivation, lack of professional and qualified personnel in general education settings which embrace IE.

6. Implications for policy and practice

The current study includes a number of significant implications on the level of policy and practice. First, Egyptian colleges of Education do not have special programs for teacher preparation with regard to pupils with SEN. Despite IE is presented in a few college coursework, still the topics covered are limited in scope and do not actually provide pre-service teachers with sufficient preparation to work in inclusive settings. Such coursework should focus on such topics as the human rights perspective on IE, the support and outreach services in IE, the expected social, emotional and academic outcomes of IE for all pupils including those with SEN, the international trends in IE. Orientation workshops about IE should be organized in schools and local education authorities training centers for in-service and novice teachers in order to allow teachers to develop their skills regarding the management of inclusive classrooms. Such development is expected to promote teachers' positive attitudes and sense of efficacy regarding the inclusion of pupils with SEN in regular schools. In addition, the amount of funding and logistic support including equipment, resources and support staff that inclusive schools receive from local education authorities could be a crucial element in this respect. This may empower teachers and facilitate the issues surrounding the management of pupils with SEN in inclusive settings.

References

Ainscow, M., Booth, T. and Dyson, A. (2006). Inclusion and the standards agenda: negotiating policy pressures in England. IvteovatCrval Jruoval rf Inclusive mauoatcrv, 12(4-5), 295-308.

Antonak, R. F., & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of the Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming Scale. Exceptional Chiiaoev, 62, 139-149.

Armstrong, A., Armstrong, D., Lynch, C. and Severin, S. (2005). Special and inclusive education in the Eastern Caribbean: policy, practice and provision. International Jruoval rf Inclusive mauoatcrv, 9(1), 71-87.

Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. muohpeav Jhuoval rf Special Needr mauoatihv, 17, 129-47.

Avramidis, E., & Kalyva, E. (2007). The influence of teaching experience and professional development on Greek teachers' attitudes towards inclusion. muohpeav Jhuoval rf Ppeoial Neear mauoatihv, 22, 367-389.

Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). Student teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaohmg ana Teaoheo mauoatihv, 16(3S, 277-293.

Balboni, G. & Pedrabissi, L. (2000) Attitudes of Italian teachers and parents toward school inclusion of students

with mental Retardation. mauoatihv ana Training in Mental Retaoaatihv ana Develhpнevtal Dirabilitier, 35, 148-159

Bandura, A. (1977). Self efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Mryohrlrgioal Review, 84, 191215.

Bradshaw, L., & Mundia, L. (2006). Attitudes and concerns about inclusive education: Bruneian inservice and preservice teachers. Ivteovatihval Jhuoval rf Ppeoial mauoatirn, 21(1), 35-41.

Brownell, M. T., Pajares, F. (1999). Teacher Efficacy and Perceived Success in Mainstreaming Students With Learning and Behavior Problems. Teaoheo mauoatihv ana Ppeoial mauoatihv, 22(3), 154-164.

Burke, K., & Sutherland, C. (2004). Attitudes toward inclusion: Knowledge vs. Experience. mauoatihv, 125(2), 163172.

Cook, B. G. (2001). A comparison of teachers' attitudes toward their included students with mild and severe disabilities. Jhuoval rf Ppeoial mauoatirn, 34, 203.

De Boer, A.A., Pijl, S.J. & Minnaert, A.E. (2010). Attitudes of parents towards inclusive education: A review of the literature, muohpeav Jhuoval rf Ppeoial Neear mauoatirn, 25(2S, 165-181.

De Boer, A.A., Pijl, S.J. & Minnaert, A.E.M.G. (2011). Regular primary school teachers' attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature, Ivteovatihval Jhuoval rf Induce mauoatihv, 15(3S, 331-353.

Dyson, A. (2001). The Guilford lecture: Special needs in the twenty-first century: Where we've been and where we're going. Boitirh Jhuoval rf Ppeoial Eauoatihv, 28(1), 24-29.

Ernst, C. (2006). High rohrrl teaoheor' attituaer trwaoa ivolurihv rf rtuaentr with rpeoial neear. University of Rhode Island.

Farrell, P., Dyson. A., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G. & Gallannaugh, F. (2007). Inclusion and achievement in mainstream schools. muohpeav Jhuoval rf Ppeoial Neear mauoatihv, 22(2), 31-145.

Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The havabrrk rf нrtivatirv ana orgvitirv: Fruvaatirvr rf rroial behaviro (pp. 204-243). New York: Guilford Press.

Forlin, C. (1998). Teachers' personal concerns about including children with a disability in regular classrooms. Jruoval rf Develrpнevtal anaMhyrioal Dirabilitier,1S(1), 87-110.

Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers. mauoatirval Rereaooh, 43(3S, 235-245

Gilmore, L., Campbell, J., & Cuskelly, M. (2003). Developmental expectations, personality, stereotypes, and attitudes towards inclusive education: Community and teacher view of Down Syndrome. Ivteovatirval Jruoval rf Dirability, Develrpнevt ana ma^atim, 52( 1), 65-76.

Hammond, H., & Ingalls, L. (2003). Teachers Attitudes toward Inclusion : Survey Results from Elementary School Teachers in Three Southwestern Rural School Districts. Ruoal Ppeoial maunUm Quaoteoly, 22(2), 24-30.

Hastings, R.P., & Oakford, S. (2003). Student teachers' attitudes toward the inclusion of children with special needs. mauoatirval Mryohrlrgy, 23(1S, 87-94.

Hsieh, W.-Y., & Hsieh, C.-M. (in press). Urban early childhood teachers attitudes towards inclusive education. maoly Chila Develrpнevt ana Caoe.

Kalambouka, A., Farrell, P., Dyson, A., & Kaplan, I. (2007). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. mauoatirvalRereaooh, 49(4), 365-382.

Kaplan, R., & Saccuzzo, D. (2009). Student workbook for Kaplan /Saccuzzo's psychological testing: Principles, applications and issues. New York: Wadsworth Publishing.

Koutrouba, K., Vamvakari, M., & Theodoropoulos, H. (2008). SEN students' inclusion in Greece: factors influencing Greek teachers' stance, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 23(4) 413-421

Leyser Y, Tappendorf k. 2001. Are attitudes and practices regarding mainstreaming changing? A case of teachers in two rural school districts. Education, (29 (4),751-761.

Lifshitz, H., Glaubman, R., & Issawi, R. ( 2994). Attitudes towards inclusion: The case of Israeli and Palestinian regular and special education teachers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 99, (7(-(92.

Lopes, J. A., Monteiro, I., Sil, V., Rutherford, R. B., & Quinn, M. M. (2004). Teachers' perceptions about teaching problem students in regular classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 394-419.

Ministry of Education (2009). The inclusion Mandate 94. Cairo: Egypt

Ministry of Education (2011). The inclusion Mandate 264 reformed. Cairo: Egypt

O'Shea, M. (2006). Student perception of teacher support: Effect on student achievement. PhD dissertation, Graduate College of Bowling Green, Bowling Green, OH.

O'Shea, L. J., Stoddard, K., & O'Shea, D. J. (2000). IDEA '97 and educator standards: Special educators' perceptions of their skills and those of general educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 23, 125-141.

Parasuram, K. (2006). Variables that affect teachers' attitudes towards disability and inclusive education in Mumbai, India. Disability and Society, 29, 231-42.

Pianta, R.C. (2004). Patterns of relationships between children and kindergarten teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 32,5-31.

Pivik, J., McComas, J., & Laflamme, M. (2002). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education. Exceptional Children, 69(9), 97-107.

Rakap, S., & Kaazнaoek, L. (22(2). Teachers. attitudes towards inclusion in Turkey. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 25, 59-75

Salend, S. J. (2001). Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices (4th ed.). Upper Saddler River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Sari, H., Celikoz, N., & Secer, Z. (2009). An analysis of preschool teachers' and students teachers' attitudes to inclusion and their self-efficacy. International Journal of Special Education, 24(3), 29-44.

Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M., Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, Student, and School Attributes as Predictors of Teachers' Responses to Inclusion. The Journal of Special Education, 3( (4), 480-497.

Soper, D.S. (2010). The free statistics calculators website. Retrieved March 10, 2011 from: http://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc.

Subban, P. & Sharma, U (2006) Primary school teachers perceptions of inclusive education in Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Special Education, 29(1), 42-52.

Tabachnick, G. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA. Belmont, CA: Duxbury.

Taylor, R.L., Smiley, L.R., & Ramasamy, R. (2003). Effects of educational background and experience on teacher views of inclusion. Educational Research Quaoteoly,26C3), 3-96.

Tschannen-Moran, M. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive concept. Teaching and Teacher Education 17, 783-805.

Van Reusen, A. K., Shoho, A. R., & Barker, K. S. (2000). High school teacher attitudes toward inclusion. The High

School Journal, 84, 7-20.

Wedell, K. (2005). Dilemmas in the quest for inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 32, 3-11.

Weisel, A. & Dror, O. (2006). School climate, sense of efficacy and Israeli teachers' attitudes toward inclusion of students with special needs. SAGE publications, 9(2), 157-174.

Zambelli, F., & Bonni, R. (2004). Beliefs of teachers in Italian schools concerning the inclusion of disabled students: A Q-sort analysis. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 99(3), 351-364.

Preschool and primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education in Egypt: The role of experience and self-efficacy Academic research paper on "Educational sciences"

Abstract of research paper on Educational sciences, author of scientific article — Mahmoud Mohamed Emam, Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed

Similar topics of scientific paper in Educational sciences , author of scholarly article — Mahmoud Mohamed Emam, Ahmed Hassan Hemdan Mohamed

Academic research paper on topic "Preschool and primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education in Egypt: The role of experience and self-efficacy"