Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Document Type
- Article (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- beliefs (2) (remove)
Institute
Teachers’ beliefs are crucial to the success of inclusion programmes and reform efforts for children with special educational needs (SEN). Based on this evidence, one hundred and thirty-nine primary pre-service teachers from one training institution in the Netherlands completed an adapted version of a measure of beliefs towards inclusive education. In contrast to previous studies on pre-service teachers, results of this study showed participants held neutral or negative beliefs towards this matter. In addition, limited time for pupils received the highest rating as a barrier to inclusion, whereas direct teaching experience was the most preferred method of inclusion. The implications of this study for practice and indications for future research are discussed.
Teachers' attitudes toward inclusion are frequently cited as being an important predictor of how successfully a given inclusive school system is implemented. At the same time, beliefs about the nature of teaching and learning are discussed as a possible predictor of attitudes toward inclusion. However, more recent research emphasizes the need of considering implicit processes, such as automatic evaluations, when describing attitudes and beliefs. Previous evidence on the association of attitudes toward inclusion and beliefs about teaching and learning is solely based on explicit reports. Therefore, this study aims to examine the relationship between attitudes toward inclusion, beliefs about teaching and learning, and the subsequent automatic evaluations of pre-service teachers (N = 197). The results revealed differences between pre-service teachers' explicit attitudes/beliefs and their subsequent automatic evaluations. Differences in the relationship between attitudes toward inclusion and beliefs about teaching and learning occur when teachers focus either on explicit measures or automatic evaluations. These differences might be due to different facets of the same attitude object being represented. Relying solely on either explicit measures or automatic evaluations at the exclusion of the other might lead to erroneous assumptions about the relation of attitudes toward inclusion and beliefs about teaching and learning.