Specht

This article was downloaded by: [Higher Colleges of Technology]
On: 04 August 2015, At: 00:16

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
International Journal of Inclusive

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20
Teaching in inclusive classrooms:

efficacy and beliefs of Canadian
preservice teachers
a b c
Jacqueline Specht , Donna McGhie-Richmond , Tim Loreman , Pat
d e e f
Mirenda , Sheila Bennett , Tiffany Gallagher , Gabrielle Young ,
g h i j
Jamie Metsala , Lynn Aylward , Jennifer Katz , Wanda Lyons ,
j a
Scott Thompson & Sarah Cloutier
a
Faculty of Education, Western University, London, Canada
b
Educational Psychology and Leadership Studies, University of
Click for updates Victoria, Victoria, Canada
c
Faculty of Education, Concordia University College of Alberta,
Edmonton, Canada
d
Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada
e
Faculty of Education, Brock University, St. Catharines, Canada
f
Faculty of Education, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St.
John's, Canada
g
Faculty of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax,
Canada
h
School of Education, Acadia University, Wolfville, Canada
i
Faculty of Education, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
j
Faculty of Education, University of Regina, Regina, Canada
Published online: 10 Jul 2015.
To cite this article: Jacqueline Specht, Donna McGhie-Richmond, Tim Loreman, Pat Mirenda,
Sheila Bennett, Tiffany Gallagher, Gabrielle Young, Jamie Metsala, Lynn Aylward, Jennifer Katz,
Wanda Lyons, Scott Thompson & Sarah Cloutier (2015): Teaching in inclusive classrooms: efficacy
and beliefs of Canadian preservice teachers, International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI:
10.1080/13603116.2015.1059501
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1059501

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
Downloaded by [Higher Colleges of Technology] at 00:16 04 August 2015
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1059501
Teaching in inclusive classrooms: efficacy and beliefs of Canadian

preservice teachers

Jacqueline Spechta , Donna McGhie-Richmondb, Tim Loremanc, Pat Mirendad,
Sheila Bennette, Tiffany Gallaghere, Gabrielle Youngf, Jamie Metsalag,
Lynn Aylwardh, Jennifer Katzi, Wanda Lyonsj, Scott Thompsonj and
Sarah Cloutiera
a
Faculty of Education, Western University, London, Canada; bEducational Psychology and
Leadership Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada; cFaculty of Education,
Concordia University College of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada; dFaculty of Education,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; eFaculty of Education, Brock
University, St. Catharines, Canada; fFaculty of Education, Memorial University of
Newfoundland, St. Johns, Canada; gFaculty of Education, Mount Saint Vincent University,
Halifax, Canada; hSchool of Education, Acadia University, Wolfville, Canada; iFaculty of
Education, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada; jFaculty of Education, Universityof
Regina, Regina, Canada
(Received 21 January 2015; accepted 1 June 2015)
This study provides a Canada-wide snapshot of the self-efficacy and beliefs of 1490
preservice teachers in relation to inclusive teaching using the Teacher Efficacy for
Inclusive Practice and the Beliefs about Learning and Teaching Questionnaire. At
the time of data collection, these preservice teachers were in the final stages of their
teacher education programmes. Based on the results of surveys in 11 Faculties of
Education, men have higher self-efficacy than women for managing behaviour in
the classroom, elementary preservice teachers have higher self-efficacy
in collaboration than those teaching in secondary schools, those enrolled in the
1-year post-degree programme show lower self-efficacy than those enrolled in
programmes of other durations, and those who have experience with people with
special education needs show higher self-efficacy than those who do not.
Differences illustrated that women were more inclusive than men, 1-year post-
degree preservice teachers were less inclusive than others, and those who have
experience with people with special education needs are more inclusive than
those who do not. Recommendations for teacher education and limitations
surrounding the practical significance of the findings are discussed.
Keywords: preservice teachers; inclusion; self-efficacy; beliefs about teaching and
learning
Teaching in inclusive classrooms: efficacy and beliefs of Canadian preservice

teachers
According to Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
inclusive education is based on the principle that all children should learn together,
wherever possible, regardless of difference (Lattanzio, Andrews, and Wilson 2015).
This definition implies that all students belong and are valued members of their

Corresponding author. Email: jspecht@uwo.ca
# 2015 Taylor & Francis

2 J. Specht et al.
classroom and school communities (Specht and Young 2010). It further implies that all
students attend neighbourhood schools in age-appropriate, regular education class-
rooms where they are supported to participate, learn, and contribute to school life
(Inclusion BC 2015).
Estimates of the number of students identified with special education needs in
Canada range from 9% to 15% (Canadian Council on Learning 2009; Timmons
2006). Reviews of the literature indicate that inclusion is effective for the social and
academic outcomes of all students, not just those identified with special education
needs (Canadian Council on Learning 2009; Kalambouka et al. 2007; Timmons and
Wagner 2008). Settings that promote inclusion are more successful at promoting learn-
ing for all students the ultimate goal of education.
In spite of research attesting to the positive effects of inclusion, a large percentage of
students with special education needs continue to be excluded from regular classrooms
(Canadian Council on Learning 2007). Despite differences in the definition of
inclusion, the education required to become a teacher, and many other contextual
factors, there is consensus that the perception of teachers is that they are not adequately
prepared to teach in inclusive classrooms (Gokdere 2012; MacBeath et al. 2006).
Teachers attitudes and beliefs about inclusion have been linked directly to the
implementation of inclusive classroom practices (Avramidis and Norwich 2002).
From the research, it is evident that in order for inclusive education to be effective, tea-
chers need to believe that all students belong in regular classrooms, feel confident in
teaching all students in those classrooms, and have the knowledge and skills to do
so (Florian and Black-Hawkins 2011; Jordan, Glenn, and McGhie-Richmond 2010).
Over 80% of students with special education needs in Canada spend at least 50% of
their day in regular classrooms. Preservice teacher education programmes have a
responsibility to graduate teachers who can teach in those classrooms. One way to
determine that this is occurring is to assess their feelings of self-efficacy with regard
to implementing inclusive practices. It is also paramount to determine whether or not
preservice teachers believe that all students belong in regular classrooms. It is possible
that they may feel well prepared to teach all students, but still hold beliefs that students
with special education needs should not be in regular classrooms (Silverman 2010).
Teacher self-efficacy and beliefs about learning

Teacher self-efficacy (i.e. the belief that one is a capable teacher) is a key competency
for educators in inclusive classrooms. Bandura (1994) defined self-efficacy as peoples
beliefs about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance that exer-
cise influence over events that affect their lives. These characteristics apply to teachers
with respect to their work. Teachers with high self-efficacy work harder and persist
longer to assist students in difficulty (Woolfolk Hoy, Hoy, and Davis 2009).
Teachers beliefs about their abilities affect how they work with all students in their
classrooms. Those who believe that ability is a learned and dynamic trait, rather than a
static one, tend to have students who achieve better in school (Jordan, Glenn, and
McGhie-Richmond 2010). It is imperative that Faculties of Education develop gradu-
ating teachers who believe that all students belong and can be educated in regular class-
rooms. Given the importance of attitudes, knowledge, skills, and confidence for the
success of practicing teachers, it is important to understand the extent to which preser-
vice programmes are successful in graduating teachers who are ready to practice in
inclusive classrooms.
International Journal of Inclusive Education 3
Although there is research around the world investigating newly graduated teachers,
it is typically regional or has involved only a few institutions (e.g. Florian and Linklater
2010; Forlin et al. 2010; Killoran, Woronko, and Zaretsky 2014; Peebles and Menda-
glio 2014; Theoharis and Causton-Theoharis 2011). Few studies have focused on the
self-efficacy, and teaching beliefs of preservice teachers for inclusion (Peebles and
Mendaglio 2014) especially with a comprehensive look at the variables that contribute
to beliefs about teaching and learning, and self-efficacy within the same large
population.
Present study
This study adds to the existing body of knowledge and provides a clear picture of the
Canadian context of graduating teachers. Although Canada (with the exception of

Aboriginal education) does not regulate education federally, the current mandate
for all Canadian provinces and territories is to ensure equitable access to education
for all students. In order to have a truly Canadian understanding of the beliefs of
graduating teachers, it is essential that we investigate the different programmes that
exist across Canada to determine the picture of our graduating teachers. Specifically,
in searching the literature we found a number of variables that may influence preser-
vice teachers self-efficacy and beliefs. Lancaster and Bain (2010) found that course
work that is practically oriented influences self-efficacy; therefore, one might expect
longer programmes to have more practically oriented opportunities. Length of time on
practicum may also be important. As differences in beliefs about teaching and learn-
ing have been noted between elementary and secondary schoolteachers (McGhie-
Richmond et al. 2013), we investigated differences by grades they were planning
to teach. Potential sex differences have also been found with respect to attitudes
towards inclusion and may influence beliefs and self-efficacy (Ernst and Rogers
2009). Finally, as research has shown that those with experience with people with dis-
abilities have higher self-efficacy, in general, we asked about their experience with
family, friends, work, and volunteering with people with disabilities (Peebles and
Mendaglio 2014).
The study provides a Canada-wide snapshot of the self-efficacy and beliefs about
inclusive teaching of graduating teachers as they leave their respective Faculties of
Education. Specifically, this study examines what demographic variables impact
Canadian preservice teacher beliefs and perceptions of self-efficacy for inclusive
practice.
Method
Participants
Participants consisted of 1490 students completing the in-faculty component of their
preservice programme in 11 Faculties of Education across Canada. The preservice pro-
grammes differed by length (i.e. consecutive 1- or 2-year post degree; 4- and 5-year
concurrent degree) and length of practicum experience.
The participants ranged in age from 20 to 56 years of age (M = 25.9 years; SD =
5.4). The sample consisted of 25.8% men and 74.2% women. The length of edu-
cation programme varied as follows: 40.7% were enrolled in a 1-year post-degree
programme; 30% enrolled in a 2-year post-degree programme; 11.1% were enrolled
4 J. Specht et al.
in a 4-year first-degree programme and 18.2% were enrolled in a 5-year first-degree

programme. Overall, 10% of our population self-identified as having a special
education need.
Measures
Along with gathering some demographic information on age, sex, educational back-
ground, length of programme, and experience with people with special education
needs, the measures included (a) The Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practice question-
naire (TEIP, see Sharma, Loreman, and Forlin 2011) and (b) The Beliefs about Learn-
ing and Teaching Questionnaire (BLTQ, see Jordan and Glenn 2008). The TEIP scale
was used to determine preservice teachers feelings of self-efficacy as they completed
their teacher education programme. The TEIP is an 18-item questionnaire answered on

a 6-point Likert scale (scores close to 6 represent high self-efficacy) with three factors:
Efficacy to use Inclusive Instruction which refers to the use of strategies that promote
the inclusion of all learners; Efficacy in Collaboration which refers to perceptions of
working with parents and other professionals; and Efficacy in Managing Behaviour
which refers to dealing with disruptive behaviours in the classroom. Each scale has
excellent internal consistency with a coefficients of .93, .85, and .85, respectively.
The BLTQ was used to assess participants beliefs about their roles and responsibilities
for including students with disabilities and for teaching students at risk for academic
failure. It is a 20-item questionnaire answered on a 6-point Likert scale (scores close
to 6 represent high scores) and has been shown to have adequate reliability and validity
in preliminary evaluations with practicing teachers. As the BLTQ had not been used
with preservice teachers, an analysis of its psychometric properties was first completed
prior to further evaluations. The same 4-factor structure emerged, but the questionnaire
was reduced to 16 items. The four scales are: Teacher Controlled with high scores
representing beliefs that teachers are to transmit information to students; Entity-Incre-
ment with high scores representing the belief that ability of students is a fixed trait that
cannot be improved with good instruction; Student Centred with high scores represent-
ing a focus on the process of learning as key rather than simply getting the correct
answer; and Attaining Standards with high scores representing a belief that getting
high grades and other external rewards is what motivates students. With respect to posi-
tive inclusive beliefs, one would expect high scores on Student Centred scale and low
scores on Entity-Increment, Teacher Controlled, and Attaining Standards scales.
Internal consistencies are presented with a coefficients of .66, .73, .64, and .70, respect-
ively. These coefficients are adequate given the large sample size and the preliminary
use of the measure (Bacon 2004).
Procedures
Participants were surveyed during one of the last classes in their preservice teacher pro-
gramme. They were provided time in class to complete the surveys. The person admin-
istering the survey was either a different instructor or a graduate student. Information
about the research projects goals and procedures was read to the participants.
Printed copies of the survey package were distributed to the participants and they
were provided 30 minutes to complete the surveys. The regular instructor left the
room while participants completed the surveys. People who did not wish to participate,
returned blank surveys or left the room.
Results
For each of the two questionnaires (BLTQ and TEIP) MANOVAs were performed for
each demographic variable. If significant, ANOVAs were then conducted, with follow-
up post hoc tests as required. This process protected against Type 1 error given the
number of possible comparisons. As there were many analyses, only statistically sig-
nificant differences are presented here. Degrees of freedom changed across analyses,
as some data were missing for certain questions and only cases for which all data
were present were entered into each analysis. With respect to the questionnaires,
means scores for each subscale are reported resulting in possible scores of 16
(higher scores are close to 6 for all subscales).
Beliefs about learning and teaching questionnaire

Sex differences
There was a statistically significant difference in subscales of the BLTQ based on
participants sex, Wilks L = .94, partial h2 = .06, F (4,1319) = 21.38, p = .0004.
Subsequent ANOVAs indicated significantly higher scores for men on the
Teacher Controlled, Entity-Increment, and Attaining Standards subscales; and
higher scores for women on the Student Centred subscale (see Table 1). Overall,
women showed more inclusive beliefs than men, although the effect sizes were
small.
Grade intended to teach

For the purposes of this research, we compared participants who intended to teach Kin-
dergarten to Grade 6 (elementary grades) to those who intended to teach Grades 912
(secondary grades). We omitted those in Grades 78 in order to insure distinct cat-
egories, since in some Canadian provinces these two grades are in elementary
schools and in others, one or more of these grades are in secondary schools. There
was a statistically significant difference in subscales of the BLTQ based on the grade
intended to teach, Wilks L = .91, partial h2 = .09, F (4,939) = 24.3, p = .0004. Sub-
sequent ANOVAs indicated significantly higher scores for elementary school candi-
dates on the Student Centred subscale; and higher scores for secondary school
candidates on the Teacher Controlled, Entity-Increment, and Attaining Standards sub-
scales (see Table 1). Overall, preservice candidates who planned to teach in the elemen-
tary school grades had more inclusive beliefs than their secondary school counterparts,
although the effect sizes were small.
Programme length
There was a statistically significant difference in subscales of the BLTQ based on the
length of participants preservice teacher education programme, Wilks L = .04,
partial h2 = .02, F (12,3651) = 6.88, p = .0004. Subsequent ANOVAs indicated sig-
nificant differences on the Teacher Controlled and Attaining Standards subscales
(see Table 1). Post hoc tests revealed that participants in 1-year post-degree pro-
grammes scored significantly higher than those in 2-year post-degree and both 4-
and 5-year first-degree programmes on both subscales. Conversely, those in 4-year
first-degree programmes scored significantly lower on both subscales, compared to
6 J. Specht et al.
Table 1. BLTQ subscale ANOVA results.

Variable M SD df F h2 p
Sex
Teacher Controlled 1,1322 30.95 .023 .0004
Men 3.48 .86
Women 3.19 .83
Entity-Increment 1,1322 21.32 .016 .0004
Men 2.12 .92
Women 1.88 .77
Attaining Standards 1,1322 74.05 .053 .0004
Men 3.25 .87
Women 2.80 .82

Student Centred 1,1322 11.62 .009 .0004
Men 4.98 .66
Women 5.11 .57
Elementary 3.19 .85
Secondary 3.46 .82
Elementary 1.82 .76
Secondary 2.07 .88
Elementary 2.69 .78
Secondary 3.18 .84
Student Centred 1,942 15.53 .016 .0004
Elementary 5.16 .56
Secondary 5.0 .66
Programme length
1-Year post-degree 3.41 .85
4-Year first-degree 2.9 .83
Friends with special needs
Friends with special needs 3.19 .82
No friends with special needs 3.35 .87
(Continued)
Table 1. (Continued).
those in all of the other programme lengths. Overall, participants in 1-year post-
degree programmes had students with less inclusive beliefs, although the effect
sizes were small.
Familiarity with learners with special needs

There was a statistically significant difference in subscales of the BLTQ based on
whether or not participants had a friend with special needs, Wilks L = .97, partial
h2 = .01, F (4,1307 = 4.55, p = .001). Subsequent ANOVAs indicated significantly
lower scores for those who had friends with special needs on the Teacher Controlled,
Attaining Standards, and Entity-Increment subscales (see Table 1). Overall, participants
who had friends with special needs showed more inclusive beliefs than those who did
not, although the effect sizes were very small.
Teacher efficacy for inclusive practice questionnaire

Sex differences
There was a statistically significant difference in subscales of the BLTQ based on par-
ticipants sex, Wilks L = .94, partial h2 = .06, F (3,1173) = 23.42, p = .0004. Sub-
sequent ANOVAs indicated significantly higher scores for men on the Managing
Behaviour subscale (see Table 2). Overall, men had higher self-efficacy in this area,
although the effect sizes were small.

As was the case for the BLTQ, we compared participants who planned to teach Kinder-
garten to Grade 6 (elementary grades) to those who planned to teach Grades 912 (sec-
ondary grades). There was a statistically significant difference in subscales of the TEIP
based on the grade taught, Wilks L = .98, partial h2 = .02, F (3,863) = 7.2, p = .0004.
Subsequent ANOVAs indicated significantly higher scores for elementary school can-
didates on the Collaboration subscale (see Table 2). Thus, preservice candidates who
planned to teach in the elementary school grades were more confident in their ability
to collaborate with others, although the effect sizes were small.
Programme length
There was a statistically significant difference in subscales of the TEIP based on the
length of participants preservice teacher education programme, Wilks L = .95,
8 J. Specht et al.
Table 2. TEIP subscale ANOVA results.

Sex
Managing Behaviour 1,1175 34.83 .029 .0004
Men 4.73 .64
Women 4.49 .60
Collaboration 1,865 16.35 .019 .0004
Elementary 4.8 .61
Secondary 4.6 .66
Programme length

5-year first-degree 4.39 .58
Collaboration 3,1238 4.44 .011 .004
4-year first-degree 4.76 .70
Experience teaching students with special needs
0 Days 4.4 .69
1 30 Days 4.44 .60
More than 30 days 4.67 .60
Collaboration 2,1171 15.24 .025 .0004
0 Days 4.63 .72
Less than 30 days 4.62 .62
Inclusive Instruction 2, 1171 7.86 .011 .0004
0 Days 4.85 .58
Less than 30 days 4.87 .51
Friends with special needs
Collaboration 1,1165 15.58 .013 .0004
Inclusive Instruction 1,1165 7.08 .006 .008
(Continued)
Table 2. (Continued).
Work/volunteer experience with special needs
Work/volunteer experience 4.57 .61
No work/volunteer experience 4.42 .69
Collaboration 1,1172 8.68 .007 .003
Inclusive Instruction 1,1172 8.29 .007 .004
partial h2 = .02, F (9,3008) = 6.79, p = .0004. Follow-up ANOVAs indicated significant

differences on the Managing Behaviour and Collaboration subscales (see Table 2). For
Managing Behaviour, post hoc tests revealed that participants in 1-year post-degree pro-
grammes scored significantly lower than those in 2-year post-degree programmes; those
in 2-year post-degree programmes scored higher than those in 5-year first-degree pro-
grammes. For Collaboration, those in 1-year post-degree programmes scored signifi-
cantly lower than those in 2-year post-degree programmes; those in 2-year post-degree
programmes who scored higher than those in 5-year first-degree programmes. Overall,
participants in 2-year post-degree programmes showed higher self-efficacy for managing
behaviour and collaboration than those in the 1-year post-degree and 5-year first-degree
programmes, although the effect sizes were small.
Experience teaching students with special needs

There was a statistically significant difference in subscales of the TEIP based on the
length of participants experience teaching students with special needs during their pre-
service teacher education programmes, Wilks L = .96, partial h2 = .02, F (6,2338) =
8.41, p = .0004. Follow-up ANOVAs indicated that people with more than 30 days
experience teaching people with special needs had higher scores on all three TEIP sub-
scales, although effect sizes were small (see Table 2).
Friends and/or work/volunteer experience with special needs

There was a statistically significant difference in subscales of the TEIP based on
whether or not participants had a friend with special needs, Wilks L = .99, partial
h2 = .01, F (3,1163 = 5.28, p = .001). Subsequent ANOVAs indicated significantly
higher scores on all three TEIP subscales for those who had friends with special
needs, although the effect sizes were small (see Table 1). Similarly, there was a signifi-
cant difference in subscales of the TEIP based on whether or not participants had
experience working or volunteering with people with special needs, Wilks L = .99,
partial h2 = .01, F (3,1117 = 3.84, p = .009). Again, subsequent ANOVAs indicated
significantly higher scores on all three TEIP subscales for those with work or volunteer
experiences, although the effect sizes were very small (see Table 2).
10 J. Specht et al.
Discussion and recommendations

The biggest issue in the data analyses is that although there were statistically significant
differences in the results, the variances accounted for were very small to small. Cohen
(1988) indicates that effect sizes of .02 are small. Clearly, there are many more factors
at play than the categories that we have provided. Nonetheless, it is useful to understand
that there are issues that Faculties of Education may want to consider in delivering their
preservice teacher education programmes based on the statistical and practical signifi-
cance of the findings.
Sex differences
Women tended to report more inclusive beliefs while men reported higher self-efficacy
on managing behaviour. This finding is one that has shown varied results in the litera-
ture (Ernst and Rogers 2009). It may be that depending on the types of questions asked
in the survey, different results emerge. From the present study, we suggest that Fac-
ulties of Education consider providing women with the skills necessary to manage dif-
ficult behaviour or at least help them to recognise the skills that they have. With respect
to beliefs, we may want to emphasise more student-centred approaches to men or have
them examine why they are less likely to espouse inclusive beliefs. Given that more
women tend to teach at the elementary system than men, it may also be that there is
an overlap with sex and grade taught. This distinction may be useful to tease out in
future research.
Grade taught
Elementary teachers indicate more inclusive beliefs and more efficacy in the area of col-
laboration. The beliefs of elementary teachers tend to be more inclusive (McGhie-Rich-
mond et al. 2013) so it is not too surprising that we see such a difference at the
preservice level. Teachers in elementary schools teach the same students all day and
are responsible for all aspects of their schooling. Secondary teachers share the
student with other teachers and do not have total responsibility for all curricular
areas and courses of study. These differences may lead to a sense that students are in
their classrooms to learn a certain subject and nothing more. Such feelings can foster
a belief that if the students cannot handle the curriculum as presented, they should
be elsewhere. It may be that preservice teachers in the elementary panel have had
more experience in collaborating with parents and other educators by the very nature
of the elementary system. Given that collaboration is a key to successful inclusion
and a topic in which most Faculties of Education do not provide instruction (Harvey
et al. 2010), it may be useful to address such issues, especially at the secondary level
where the teachers may feel more isolated. Such collaboration could also promote
greater collective responsibility for students within the secondary system.
Programme length
The results for this variable showed that preservice teachers in the 2-year post-degree
programme had higher self-efficacy in the areas of managing behaviour and collabor-
ation (although collaboration did not show to be practically significant). Those in the
1-year post-degree programme tended to show less inclusive beliefs. Given the
complexities of contemporary classrooms, it is not too surprising that an eight-month

programme does not lend itself to adequately preparing confident teachers. At the
time of this study, only two provinces (Ontario and British Columbia) had 1-year
post-degree programmes. As of September 2015, Ontario is moving to a 16-month pro-
gramme which is double the length as the 1-year programme was actually 8 months. It
would seem that this change will be worthwhile in terms of graduating teachers who
have more inclusive beliefs and greater confidence for teaching in inclusive classrooms.
Familiarity with learners with special education needs

Familiarity helps with higher beliefs in inclusion and higher self-efficacy. On the
demographic page of the survey, participants could indicate whether their experience
involved themselves, friends, work or volunteering. Interestingly, not all experiences

seem to show differences. Previous research (e.g. Peebles and Mendaglio 2014)
created categories of experience or no experience with people with special education
needs but did not investigate if the type of experience (i.e. a family member or
through work) influenced self-efficacy. While the present findings indicated statisti-
cally reliable differences, all h2 were less than .02. Statistical differences indicate
that having a friend is related to more inclusive beliefs and higher self-efficacy
and working with someone is related to higher self-efficacy. Given what we know
in the literature on attitudes (e.g. Avramidis and Norwich 2002), it is not surprising
that people who are familiar with others with special education needs view inclusion
differently. Positive personal experiences with people in marginalised groups tend to
decrease stereotypical views of that group. Given the discrepancy in our large-scale
study with some other literature employing smaller sample sizes, the familiarity vari-
able is one that might be worth further investigation especially with respect to how
we might provide those experiences to people within our Faculties of Education so
that they may be more likely to view their students as individuals and not as a homo-
geneous group.
Experience teaching
Although there were no differences in beliefs about learning and teaching, preservice
students who had been on a practicum placement for more than 30 days showed
higher self-efficacy for teaching in inclusive classrooms. Given that we know direct
experience teaching students with special education needs increase self-efficacy
especially in one-on-one instruction (Peebles and Mendaglio 2014), it may be that
the longer preservice teachers are in the classroom, the more likely they are to have
such experiences. Future research should investigate the types of positive and negative
experiences preservice teachers have in teaching students with special education needs
during their practicum. These experiences could be investigated to determine how they
influenced their beliefs about teaching and their self-efficacy. In addition, it is rec-
ommended that teachers be given the opportunity to volunteer in effective inclusive
classes in order to gain such experience.
Conclusion
The results of this study demonstrate that across Canada, Faculties of Education are pre-
paring teachers who express confidence in educating students with special education
12 J. Specht et al.
needs. Further, these teachers believe that students with special education needs have
the ability to learn and they, as teachers, have the skills and ability to teach within
the inclusive classroom. Even with the statistically and practically significant differ-
ences in the findings, the scores on these measures indicate that we are graduating tea-
chers who believe that all students belong in the regular education classroom.
Perhaps, this finding is not too surprising given the work of Boyle, Topping, and
Jindal-Snape (2013) and Gokdere (2012) who determined that new teachers seem to
be more positive about inclusion than those with years of experience. In a retrospective
study, in-service teachers suggest that their preservice teacher preparation did not equip
them with necessary skills and knowledge to meet the needs of diverse learning popu-
lations (DeSimone and Parmar 2006). Future research should examine the issue long-
itudinally to determine why the change occurs. Although the profession of teaching,
like all other professions, is one that will benefit from experience on the job, it is
still the case that more could be done in the initial preparation to increase beginning
teachers understanding and skills in addressing the learning needs of diverse students,
which in turn would increase their opportunity for success in the inclusive classroom.
The need to tailor preservice teacher preparation to ensure an entry level to the pro-
fession is paramount and has been called for repeatedly in the literature (e.g. Booth
2011; Kozleski et al. 2013). It is necessary to ensure that our preservice teacher edu-
cation programmes have courses that provide the knowledge and skills that beginning
teachers will need in their diverse classrooms, that instructors adhere to providing these
knowledge and skills, and that preservice teachers are learning these knowledge and
skills. There are pockets of concerted effort around the globe, but more need to occur.
The research study reported here has significance for teacher education programmes
in universities across the country and internationally. Knowledge of the various demo-
graphic differences found in Canadian preservice teacher education can assist adminis-
trators in adjusting programmes to suit the demographic needs of their respective
students.
Funding
This research was supported in part by a grant from Western University Internal SSHRC com-
petition (2012 2013) and Western Faculty of Education Research Committee (2012 2103).
Notes on contributors
Jacqueline Specht is a Professor at Western University. She teaches in the area of educational
psychology and special education in both the pre-service and graduate programmes. Currently
she is the director of the Canadian Research Centre on Inclusive Education and teaches in both
the pre-service and graduate programs. Her research interests encompass pedagogical issues sur-
rounding the participation of children in the school system.
Donna McGhie-Richmond is an Associate Professor at the University of Victoria. Her research
focuses on the role of universal design for learning and instruction and assistive technologies in
enabling teaching and learning. She has established collaborative connections with school dis-
tricts in BC and ministry of education-supported services such as Provincial Integration Support
Program; and SET-BC.
Tim Loreman is a Professor at Concordia University College of Alberta. His research interests
are school inclusion, childhood and pedagogical issues along with pre-service teacher education.
He has partnered with provincial and regional agencies, such as Getting Ready for Inclusion
Today (GRIT) and Pembina Hills Regional School Division 7.
Pat Mirenda is a Professor at the University of British Columbia. In 2009, she became Director
of The Centre for Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration in Autism at UBC. Her primary
areas of interest are autism/developmental disabilities, augmentative and alternative communi-
cation, positive behavior support, inclusive education, and literacy development.
Sheila Bennett is a Professor at Brock University. She works in the area of policy and practical
issues in the field. Through her research work, publications, and speaking engagements, she has
collaborative relationships with universities, school boards, and community associations (e.g.,
Six Nations Aboriginal Community Consortium; Ontario Brain Injury Association) across
Canada.
Tiffany Gallagher is an Associate Professor at Brock University. She specializes in survey
design and case study methods. Within the past few years, she has worked closely with two
school boards in the Niagara region of Ontario as a consultant researcher for projects that
these school boards were implementing in the areas of professional development, and literacy
for struggling students.

Gabrielle Young is an Assistant Professor at Memorial University of Newfoundland. Her research
interests include the use of universal design for learning and differentiated instruction to support
the inclusion of students with exceptionalities in the general education classroom. She has connec-
tions with the community, the school board, and the Department of Education in Newfoundland.
Jamie Metsala is a Professor at Mount St. Vincent University. She is the Gail and Stephen
Jarislowsky Chair in Learning Disabilities (appointed July 1, 2011). She collaborates with repre-
sentatives from the Nova Scotia Department of Education concerning both children with learn-
ing disabilities and early reading acquisition.
Lynn Aylward is an Associate Professor at Acadia University. She collaborates with community
advocacy groups (e.g., People First, Learning Disabilities Association). Her research is in the
areas of teacher education and postsecondary education with a focus on how we construct the
category of dis/ability.
Jennifer Katz is an Associate Professor at the University of Manitoba. She is the developer of the
Three Block Model of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Dr. Katz has established partner-
ships in teacher and school administrative associations as well as the Manitoba First Nations
Education Resource Council.
Wanda Lyons is an Associate Professor at the University of Regina. She researches inclusive
education policy, teacher and principal education, and the role of educational assistants. Dr.
Lyons has collaborated with provincial and national stakeholder and advocacy groups.
Scott Thompson is an Associate Professor at the University of Regina. He is broadly interested
in the area of diversity and inclusive education. He is engaged in the Canadian Disability Policy
Alliance.
Sarah Cloutier is a Ph.D. student in the Faculty of Education, Western University. Prior to enter-
ing the doctoral program, she completed her Masters of Science, focusing on childrens
language development in the field of Child and Youth Health, Health and Rehabilitation
Sciences at Western University. During her Masters, she dedicated her time to the local learning
disability association.
References
Avramidis, E., and B. Norwich. 2002. Teachers Attitudes Towards Integration/ Inclusion: A
Review of the Literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education 17 (2): 129 147.
doi:10.1080/08856250210129056.
Bacon, D. R. 2004. The Contributions of Reliability and Pretests to Effective Assessment.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 9 (3). Accessed November 23, 2014. http://
PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9andn=3.
Bandura, A. 1994. Self-efficacy. In Encyclopedia of Human Behaviour, edited by V. S.
Ramachaudran, Vol. 4, 71 81. New York, NY: Academic Press.
14 J. Specht et al.
Booth, T. 2011. The Name of the Rose: Inclusive Values into Action in Teacher Education.
Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education 41 (3): 303 318. doi: 10.1007/
s11125 011 9200-z.
Boyle, C., K. Topping, and D. Jindal-Snape. 2013. Teachers Attitudes Towards Inclusion in
High Schools. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 19 (5): 527 542. doi:10.
1080/13540602.2013.827361.
Canadian Council on Learning. 2007. Equality in the Classroom: The Educational Placement
of Children with Disabilities. Lessons in Learning. Accessed February 26, 2014. http://
www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/LessonsInLearning/May-01 07-Equality-classroo.pdf.
Canadian Council on Learning. 2009. Does Placement Matter? Comparing the Academic
Performance of Students with Special Needs in Inclusive and Separate Settings. Lessons
in Learning. Accessed March 26, 2013. http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/LessonsInLearning/
03_18_09E.pdf.
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

DeSimone, J. R., and R. S. Parmar. 2006. Middle School Mathematics Teachers Beliefs about
Inclusion of Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice 21 (2): 98 110. doi:10.1111/j.1540 5826.2006.00210.x.
Ernst, C., and M. R. Rogers. 2009. Development of the Inclusion Attitude Scale for High
School Teachers. Journal of Applied School Psychology 25 (3): 305 322. doi: 10.1080/
15377900802487235.
Florian, L., and K. Black-Hawkins. 2011. Exploring Inclusive Pedagogy. British Educational
Research Journal 37 (5): 813 828.
Florian, L., and H. Linklater. 2010. Preparing Teachers for Inclusive Education: Using
Inclusive Pedagogy to Enhance Teaching and Learning for All. Cambridge Journal of
Education 40 (4): 369 386. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2010.526588.
Forlin, C., I. Garca Cedillo, S. Romero-Contreras, T. Fletcher, and H. J. Rodrguez Hernandez.
2010. Inclusion in Mexico: Ensuring Supportive Attitudes by Newly Graduated Teachers.
International Journal of Inclusive Education 14 (7): 723 739. doi: 10.1080/
13603111003778569.
Gokdere, M. 2012. A comparative Study of the Attitude, Concern, and Interaction Levels of
Elementary School Teachers and Teacher Candidates Towards Inclusive Education.
Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 12 (4): 2800 2807.
Harvey, M. W., N. Yssel, A. D. Bauserman, and J. B. Merbler. 2010. Preservice Teacher
Preparation for Inclusion: An Exploration of Higher Education Teacher-Training
Institutions. Remedial and Special Education 31 (1): 24 33. doi: 10.1177/
0741932508324397.
Inclusion BC. 2015. What is Inclusive Education. Accessed April 10, 2015. http://www.
inclusionbc.org/our-priority-areas/inclusive-education/what-inclusive-education.
Jordan, A., and C. Glenn. 2008. The Measurement of Teacher Beliefs: The Development of the
Beliefs about Learning and Teaching Questionnaire. Unpublished Manuscript.
Jordan, A., C. Glenn, and D. McGhie-Richmond. 2010. The Supporting Effective Teacher
(SET) Project: The Relationship of Inclusive Teaching Practice to Teachers Beliefs
about Disability and Ability and about their Roles as Teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education 26 (2): 259 266.
Kalambouka, A., P. Farrell, A. Dyson, and I. Kaplan. 2007. The Impact of Placing Pupils with
Special Educational Needs in Mainstream Schools on the Achievement of their Peers.
Educational Research 49 (4): 365 382.
Killoran, I., d. Woronko, and H. Zaretsky. 2014. Exploring Preservice Teachers Attitudes
Towards Inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education 18 (4): 427 442.
doi:10.1080/13603116.2013.784367.
Kozleski, E. B., T. Gonzalez, L. Atkinson, C. Mruczek, and L. Lacy. 2013. Teacher
Education in Practice: Reconciling Practices and Theories in the United States
Context. European Journal of Special Needs Education 28 (2): 156 172. doi:10.1080/
08856257.2013.778114.
Lancaster, J., and A. Bain. 2010. The Design of Pre-service Inclusive Education Courses and
their Effects on Self-efficacy: A Comparative Study. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher
Education 38 (2): 117 128. doi: 10.1080/13598661003678950.
Lattanzio, R., K. Andrews, and J. Wilson. 2015. Whats the Law: Legal and Policy
Implications of Service Provision and Inclusion? Presented at how to meet the diversity
challenge in the classroom, Kingston, Canada, March 31.
MacBeath, J., M. Galton, S. Steward, A. MacBeath, and C. Page. 2006. The Costs of Inclusion.
Cambridge: Victoria Press.
McGhie-Richmond, D., A. Irvine, T. Loreman, J. L. Cizman, and J. Lupart. 2013. Teacher
Perspectives on Inclusive Education in Rural Alberta, Canada. Canadian Journal of
Education 36 (1): 195 239.
Peebles, J. L., and S. Mendaglio. 2014. The Impact of Direct Experience on Preservice
Teachers Self-efficacy for Teaching in Inclusive Classrooms. International Journal of
Inclusive Education 18 (12): 1321 1336. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2014.899635.
Sharma, U., T. Loreman, and C. Forlin. 2011. Measuring Teacher Efficacy to Implement
Inclusive Practices. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs 12 (1): 12 21.
doi:10.1111/j.1471 3802.2011.01200.x.
Silverman, S. K. 2010. What is Diversity? An Inquiry into Preservice Teacher Beliefs.

American Education Research Journal 47 (2): 292 329.
Specht, J. A., and G. Young. 2010. How Administrators Build Schools as Inclusive
Communities. In Leadership for Inclusion: A Practical Guide, edited by Allan Edmunds
and Robert Macmillan, 65 72. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Theoharis, G., and J. Causton-Theoharis. 2011. Preparing Pre-service Teachers for Inclusive
Classrooms: Revising Lesson Plan Expectations. International Journal of Inclusive
Education 15 (7): 743 761. doi: 10.1080/13603110903350321.
Timmons, V. 2006. Impact of a Multipronged Approach to Inclusion: Having all the Partners
on Side. International Journal of Inclusive Education 10 (4 5): 469 480. doi:10.1080/
13603110500392726.
Timmons, V., and M. Wagner. 2008. Inclusive Education Knowledge Exchange Initiative: An
Analysis of the Statistics Canada Participation and Activity Limitation Survey. Accessed
May 24, 2013. http://www.ccl-cca.ca/CCL/Research/FundedResearch/201009Timmons
InclusiveEducation.html
Woolfolk Hoy, A., W. K. Hoy, and H. Davis. 2009. Teachers Self-efficacy Beliefs.
In Handbook of Motivation in School, edited by Kathryn Wentzel and Allan Wigfield,
627 654. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Specht

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Specht

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

This article was downloaded by: [Higher Colleges of Technology]

On: 04 August 2015, At: 00:16

International Journal of Inclusive

Teaching in inclusive classrooms:

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1059501

substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

Teaching in inclusive classrooms: efficacy and beliefs of Canadian

Teaching in inclusive classrooms: efficacy and beliefs of Canadian preservice

# 2015 Taylor & Francis

Teacher self-efficacy and beliefs about learning

Canadian context of graduating teachers. Although Canada (with the exception of

in a 4-year first-degree programme and 18.2% were enrolled in a 5-year first-degree

their teacher education programme. The TEIP is an 18-item questionnaire answered on

Beliefs about learning and teaching questionnaire

Grade intended to teach

Table 1. BLTQ subscale ANOVA results.

Women 2.80 .82

Familiarity with learners with special needs

Teacher efficacy for inclusive practice questionnaire

Grade intended to teach

Table 2. TEIP subscale ANOVA results.

Managing Behaviour 3,1238 16.34 .038 .0004

No work/volunteer experience 4.82 .53

partial h2 = .02, F (9,3008) = 6.79, p = .0004. Follow-up ANOVAs indicated significant

Experience teaching students with special needs

Friends and/or work/volunteer experience with special needs

Discussion and recommendations

complexities of contemporary classrooms, it is not too surprising that an eight-month

Familiarity with learners with special education needs

involved themselves, friends, work or volunteering. Interestingly, not all experiences

for struggling students.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Silverman, S. K. 2010. What is Diversity? An Inquiry into Preservice Teacher Beliefs.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai