Attitudes of Elementary-Level and Secondary-Level Teachers toward Students with Disabilities by Bekir Celik A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama August 2, 2014 Keywords: Attitudes, Disability, Elementary-Level Teachers, Secondary-Level Teachers, Students with Disabilities Copyright 2014 by Bekir Celik Approved by Marie Kraska, Chair, Mildred Cheshire Fraley Distinguished Professor, Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology Paris Strom, Professor, Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology Caroline Dunn, Professor of Special Education, Rehabilitation, and Counseling Ellen H. Reames, Associate Professor, Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Technology ii Abstract The purpose of the study was to explore teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities in the southeastern United States. Variables such as gender, age, years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers have received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise were explored in terms of how they were good predictors of teacher atitudes. For the purpose of this study, the researcher selected one elementary-level school and one secondary-level school in Alabama. Teachers in those schools were asked to participate in this study and 84 teachers agreed to complete survey forms which includes demographic information sheet, and ?A Survey of Teacher Atitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities?. In terms of the results of the study, teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities were mostly positive. Exploration of the mean scores and standard deviation of the survey results showed that; female teachers, older teachers, elementary school teachers, and teachers who received training related to teaching students with disabilities had received higher scores than the other categories within the variables. Multiple linear regresion method did not yield statisticaly significant results which means that gender, age, years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers have received any training about teaching students iii with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise were not good predictors of the atitudes toward students with disabilities. The age variable was statisticaly significant predictor of atitudes when considered by itself. iv Acknowledgments I would like to expres my sincere appreciation to Dr. Marie Kraska, my advisor and commite chair, for her support, guidance, encouragement, and great help throughout this proces from beginning to end. Her wilingnes to help was phenomenal. I wish to thank the members of my commite: Dr. Paris Strom, Dr. Caroline Dunn, and Dr. Elen H. Reames. I would also like to thank my outside university reader Dr. Elisha Wohleb. I would also like to thank to my family for their encouragement and prayers from overseas, and of course, thanks to my wonderful wife, S?d?ka, for her love and support in al of my endeavors. Finaly, I wish to thank my government (Republic of Turkey) for their financial support to my education. v Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................ iv List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. viii List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Statement of the Research Problem ................................................................................ 5 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 5 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 5 Statement of the Hypotheses ........................................................................................... 7 Definition of the Terms ................................................................................................... 8 Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................... 8 Asumptions of the Study ............................................................................................... 9 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 9 Chapter 2. Review of Literature .................................................................................................. 11 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 11 Legislative History of Inclusion .................................................................................... 11 Prevalence and Definition of Common Disabilities ..................................................... 16 Terminology Asociated with Disabilities .................................................................... 25 Atitudes toward Students with Disabilities .................................................................. 28 vi Teacher Chalenges and Inclusion ................................................................................ 39 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 41 Chapter 3. Methods of Study and Instrumentation ................................................................... 44 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 44 Design of Study ............................................................................................................ 44 Population ..................................................................................................................... 45 Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 45 Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................................... 46 Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................. 47 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 49 Chapter 4. Data Analysis and Results ....................................................................................... 50 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 50 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 50 Results for Research Question One .............................................................................. 51 Results for Research Question Two ................................................................................ 5 Results for Research Question Three .............................................................................. 56 Results for Research Question Four ............................................................................... 57 Results for Research Question Five ................................................................................ 58 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 65 Chapter 5. Summary and Conclusion ....................................................................................... 67 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 67 Overview of the Study .................................................................................................. 68 Summary of the Results ................................................................................................. 69 vii Limitations .................................................................................................................... 74 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 74 Implications and Future Research ................................................................................. 75 Summary ....................................................................................................................... 7 References ................................................................................................................................. 78 Appendix A. IRB Approval Leter from Auburn University .................................................... 89 Appendix B. Leter of Permision to use ?A Survey of Teacher Atitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities? ........................................................................................... 91 Appendix C. Information Leter to Participants ....................................................................... 93 Appendix D. Demographic Questions for Participants ............................................................. 96 Appendix E. A Survey of Teacher Atitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities .................................................................................................................................. 98 Appendix F. Leter of Permision to Collect Data at Phenix City High School ..................... 101 Appendix G. Leter of Permision to Collect Data at Loachapoka Elementary School .......... 104 vii List of Tables Table 1. Number of Children Ages 3-21 Served under IDEA in Selected Years ..................... 16 Table 2. Frequency of Disabilities in General Education Clasrooms in the United States ..... 17 Table 3. Frequency, Percent, Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Teacher Atitudes ..... 53 Table 4. Minimum, Maximum, and Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Item ............... 61 ix List of Abbreviations ADA Americans with Disabilities Act IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act IDEIA Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act IEP Individualized Education Program LRE Least Restrictive Environment NCES National Center for Educational Statistics NCERI National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion NICHCY National Disemination Center for Children with Disabilities REI Regular Education Initiative 1 Chapter 1 Introduction Teacher atitudes toward inclusion of students with disabilities in general education schools has been the subject of many studies since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted in 1975. Although many of those studies focused on teachers? atitudes toward the concept of inclusion and least restrictive environment, there are not many studies specificaly focused on teachers? atitudes towards students with disabilities. Changes in the legislation over years had a great influence on the number of students with disabilities in educational facilities, especialy in general education clasrooms. In 1972, about the half of al students with disabilities were not receiving any educational services (Douvanis & Hulsey, 2002) and by 2009 about 95% of students with disabilities were served in regular schools (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013). Increases in the number of students with disabilities in general education clasrooms changed the environment of the general clasrooms, and required some additional works on teachers and administrators previous duties. These changes might have sen as ?problematic? for some teachers and administrators and the cause might be atitudes of the teachers in general education schools. The combination of beliefs, felings, and the intention to act are considered as the ingredients of atitudes (Breckler, 1984). As Ajzen & Fishbain (2005) mentioned 2 atitudes are a strong determinant of people?s behavior, and changes in atitudes can have a great influence on behaviors towards people with disabilities as positive atitudes toward students with disabilities can lead to positive behaviors toward students with disabilities and their education. Inclusion requires teachers to expect new roles in schools serving students with disabilities and other special needs in schools (Guterman, 1995). In view of the fact that the atitudes are directly related to behaviors, teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities and the concept of inclusion may have a direct influence on their efective teaching and responsibility taking behaviors for achievement of al students asigned to their clasrooms. The literature has revealed that the atitudes of general education teachers is one of the most important predictors of succesful integration of students with disabilities in the regular education clasrooms (Bacon & Schultz, 1991; Semel, Albernathy, Butera & Lesar, 1991; Van Reusen, Shoho, & Barker, 2000), and many studies indicated that the clasroom teachers have more negative atitudes than other school staf such as administrators and advisers (Forlin, 1995; Garvar-Pinhas & Schmelkin, 1989; Norwich, 1994). In addition to that, the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular schools has consistently been reported as problematic for teachers and it is related to negative teacher atitudes (Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley, 2007). Therefore the atitudes of general school teachers toward students with disabilities have a significant role on including students with disabilities in regular education clasrooms. It can be said that the teacher is a key factor for students? achievement in schools whether the student has a disability or not, and their atitudes is one of the important predictor of the achievement. 3 There are various variables that influence teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities such as teachers? year of experience, knowledge about inclusion and students with disabilities, training teachers received on teaching students with disabilities, extent of contact with people with disabilities, grade level taught, age, and gender (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Al of these variables, in diferent levels, contribute to teacher?s atitude of students with disabilities and one of the purposes of this study is to ascertain how good predictors they are. In several studies, the relationship betwen teachers? years of experience in field of education and their atitudes toward students with disabilities has been explored. In those studies, researchers compared teachers with diferent years of experiences in the education, and they have found that the les experience the teacher had, the more favorable atitudes they held toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education clasrooms (Leyser, Kapperman & Keler, 1994; Soodak, Podel & Lehman, 1998; Wilczenski, 1994). And Forlin (1995) also found similar results as more experienced teachers were les acepting to students with disabilities, although les experienced teachers were more acepting to those children with disabilities. Shoho, Katims, and Wilks (1997) argued that increasing teachers? knowledge about inclusion of students with disabilities in regular schools and those students? needs in terms of their education may minimize negative teacher atitudes toward inclusion and students with disabilities. In another study, it is discussed that the ability of teachers to instruct students with disabilities may be a significant determinant of positive teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). Extent of contact with people with disabilities can be another important variable 4 that influences teacher atitudes towards inclusion and students with disabilities (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). Although Leyser, Kapperman, & Keler (1994) found that having more experience yields more positive atitudes, Mclesky & Waldron (1996) found that extended contact with individuals with disabilities does not significantly improve teacher atitudes towards individuals with disabilities. Several studies have focused on grade level taught and its influence on teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities. Teachers in higher grade levels had les positive atitudes toward inclusion than teachers in lower grade levels (Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995). Personal characteristics of teachers such as age and gender might be other factors that can influence teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities in general education schools. Although, age has been reported as a significant predictor of the atitudes of teachers, gender was not a significant predictor of the atitudes of teachers (Leyser, Kapperman, & Keler, 1994). As summarized, there might be many factors that influence teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities. In this study the level of those various factors? contribution to the prediction of teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities wil be explored. The result of the study can provide good information about how to build positive atitudes toward students with disabilities. Results of this study can also be used to plan educational programs for teachers or teacher candidates. For example, if extent of contact with individuals with disabilities is a strong predictor of teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities, additional activities can be included in the pre- or in-service training programs to increase teachers? extent of contact with students with disabilities. 5 Statement of the Research Problem Most of the studies conducted on the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular education clasrooms found that teachers have negative atitudes toward these students (D'Alonzo & Ledon, 1992). Hasting, Hewes, Lock & Witing (1996) suggested that student teachers who experience high levels of interaction with individuals with disabilities have more positive atitudes toward people with disabilities than teachers who do not experience high levels of interaction with individuals with disabilities. The focus of this research is the lack of information related to atitudes of teachers toward students with disabilities in the inclusive clasroom. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to investigate atitudes of teachers toward students with disabilities in a large school district in the Southeastern United States. Teachers? atitudes wil be examined in relation to selected demographic variables such as gender, age, years of teaching experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers have received any training for teaching students with disabilities, and teachers perceptions toward their own level of expertise. Research Questions 1. What are the mean scores and standard deviations for the ?A Survey of Teacher Atitudes Relative the Serving Students with Disabilities? based on participants? (a) gender, (b) age, (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers have received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of 6 expertise? 2. To what extent can teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities be predicted by (a) gender, (b) age, (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers have received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise? 3. To what extent do personal atributes of teachers such as (a) gender, and (b) age contribute to prediction of teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities? 4. To what extent do profesional characteristics of teachers such as (a) years of experience, (b) grade level taught, (c) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (d) whether or not teachers have received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (e) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise predict teacher atitudes above and beyond (f) gender, and (g) age? 5. To what extent do (a) gender, and (b) age predict teacher atitudes above and beyond profesional characteristics of teachers such as (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers have received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise? 7 Statement of the Hypotheses The following null hypotheses were formulated to respond to research questions two, three, four, and five. Ho 1 : (a) gender, (b) age, (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers have received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise are not statisticaly significant predictors for teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities. Ho 2 : (a) gender and (b) age are not statisticaly significant contributors on prediction of teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities. Ho 3 : (a) years of experience, (b) grade level taught, (c) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (d) whether or not teachers have received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (e) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise are not statisticaly significant predictors above and beyond (f) gender, and (g) age. Ho 4 : (a) gender and (b) age are not statisticaly significant predictors above and beyond profesional characteristics of teachers such as (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers have received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise. 8 Definition of Terms Atitude: ?Any belief or opinion that includes a positive or negative evaluation of some target (an object, person, or event) and that predisposes us to act in a certain way toward that target? (Plotnik, 1996, p. 19). Child with disability: Acording to IDEA a child with a disability means that a child was evaluated and found as having mental retardation, a hearing impairment (including deafnes), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindnes), a serious emotional disturbance, an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindnes, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services (Department of Education, 2006). Inclusion: The term ?inclusion? was neither used in federal nor state law but National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (NCERI, 1995) developed a comprehensive definition: ?Providing to al students, including those with significant disabilities, equitable opportunities to receive efective educational services, with the needed supplementary aids and support services, in age appropriate clasrooms in their neighborhood schools, in order to prepare students for productive lives as full members of society? (p.15). Limitations and Delimitations 1. The sample for this study was limited to teachers who are currently employed in general public elementary and secondary schools located in the southeastern United States. 2. Results of this study were limited by the self-reported nature of the 9 responses. 3. The results may not be representative of teachers at other general public elementary and secondary schools throughout the United States since the sample for this study was obtained from one public elementary and one secondary schools in the southeastern United States. Asumptions of the Study 1. Teachers participating in this study are representative of the population of teachers who are currently employed in general public elementary and secondary schools in the State of Alabama. 2. Participants in this study wil respond honestly to al items on the inventory. 3. Profesional characteristics of the teachers may vary based on (a) gender, (b) age, (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers have received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise. Significance of the Study Research on teacher atitudes of students with disabilities is important because teachers? atitudes are one of the important variables in the succes of educating students with disabilities (Hastings & Oakford, 2003). There have been contradictory results about teachers? atitudes toward inclusion. It is found that teachers hold positive atitudes toward the idea of inclusion. It is also reported that teachers have been found to be averse to having students with disabilities in 10 their clasrooms (Avramidis, Baylis & Burden, 2000). The existing research mainly focused on inclusion and teachers? atitude about inclusion. It is not clearly reported whether teachers hold difering atitudes about students with disabilities based on personal atributes and profesional characteristics of teachers and how atitudes can be predicted acording to those variables. 11 Chapter 2 Review of Literature Introduction This chapter was divided into five sections and presents a review of literature relevant to atitudes of teachers toward students with disabilities and the variables that are related to atitudes of teachers such as gender, age, years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers had received any training related to teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise. First, a brief overview of the legislative history of inclusion was provided. Second, common types of disabilities were listed and brief information about them was given. Third, the importance of teacher atitudes on inclusion was discussed. Fourth, review of literature about variables that are related to teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities were provided. Finaly, teachers? chalenges with students with disabilities in general education schools were discussed. Legislative History of Inclusion Inclusion of the students in general education clasrooms is one of the controversial topics in the education over years. People widened their views about disabilities and inclusion of students with disabilities in regular education clasrooms with al of those debates and discussions over years. Laws and regulations took place along with the changes in the approaches to the education of students with disabilities. 12 The emphasis on the problems of students with disabilities first took place in 1960s and 1970s. Changes in social climate and educational legislations in these years highlighted the importance of educating people with disabilities. Legislation mandated the free and appropriate public education of individuals with disabilities; therefore, the number of the students with disabilities in public schools significantly increased (Martin, Martin, & Terman, 1996). First, funding isues of educating students with disabilities were in discussion. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (P. L. 89-10) gave appropriate federal funding to state and local education agencies to facilitate educational opportunities for students with disabilities with the following statement: ? the establishment, maintenance, and operation of programs, including the lease or construction of necesary facilities and the acquisition of necesary equipment, designed to enrich the programs of local elementary and secondary schools and to offer a diverse range of educational experience to persons varying talents and needs by providing supplementary educational services and activities such as ? specialized instruction and equipment for students interested in studying advanced scientific subjects, foreign languages, and other academic subjects which are not taught in the local schools or which can be provided more eficiently on a centralized basis, or for persons who are handicapped? (p.41) The importance of equal aces to education was clearly highlighted in this act and it was an important step for the appropriate education of students with disabilities. After this act, students with disabilities had opportunity to benefit from public school education with no cost. More amendments and regulations followed and improved this 13 act in the following years. Although students with disabilities had started to get into the general schools, there were stil problems with some diferent disabilities such as intelectual disability. After the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, in 1971 and 1972, court decisions in Pennsylvania and District of Columbia established the right of al children with mental retardation to free and appropriate education, and court decisions made it much more dificult for students with disabilities to be excluded from public education. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in 1973 emphasized that no one could be discriminated against based on having a disability (Stainback, Stainback, & Bunch, 1989). Education for Al Handicapped Children Act (P. L. 94-142) was enacted in 1975 and shaped inclusive practices of students with disabilities in public schools more than any previous act and regulation. This act required al educational facilities to create appropriate educational plans for students with disabilities in order to receive federal funding and secure the free appropriate education of students with disabilities. The purpose of the Education for Al Handicapped Children Act was (1) to provide a free appropriate public education of the individuals with disabilities which emphasizes special education and related services designed to met their unique needs, (2) to asure that the rights of handicapped children and their parents or guardians are protected, (3) to asist States and localities to provide for the education of al handicapped children, and (4) to ases and asure the efectivenes of eforts to educate handicapped children. This act included eligible disability categories for inclusion and extended special education services to students ages three to 21. The Education for Al Handicapped 14 Children Act also required unbiased testing and asesment procedures and child-find activities to identify children who needed special education. After identification, a multidisciplinary team should determine the most appropriate services for the children with disabilities (Fagan & Warden, 1996). Before the Education for Al Handicapped Children Act in 1975, about 1,000,000 children with disabilities were not receiving any school education. Although another 4,000,000 children with disabilities were in educational facilities, they were not receiving the necesary support (Friend & Reising, 1993). The Education for Al Handicapped Children Act (1975) had a great influence on providing appropriate education to the students with disabilities and their aceptance in general education clasrooms; therefore the number of students with disabilities kept increasing in general education clasrooms over the years. The Education for Al Handicapped Children Act was modified in 1986, 1990, 1997, and 2004 and is currently caled ?Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted in 1990 and additional changes were made on the previous legilation. These changes were mainly about the transition services for students with disabilities (Duran, 2006). After the changes in legislation, school districts were required to strengthen the transition services for students with disabilities for students? life after graduating from high school (IDEA, 1990). In 1997, IDEA was adjusted again and school districts were required to include students with disabilities in state asesments. General education teachers were also required to be a part of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) (IDEA, 1997). IDEA of 1997 had strengthened the rights of individuals with disabilities and individuals from 15 minorities by (1) improving the role of parents, (2) warranting aces to the general education curriculum and reforms, (3) focusing on teaching and learning while reducing unnecesary paperwork requirements, (4) asisting education agencies in addresing the costs of improving special education and related services to children with disabilities, (5) giving increased atention to racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity to prevent inappropriate identification and mislabeling, (6) ensuring that schools are safe and conducive to learning, and (7) encouraging parents and educators to work out their diferences using non-adversarial means (Yel & Shriner, 1997). In December 2004, the IDEA was reauthorized as The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) and was signed into law. Then it became efective in July 1, 2005. Although there were some areas that had changed, IDEIA remains paralel to previous laws as highlighting the free and appropriate public education of the individuals with disabilities. Individuals with disabilities were still eligible for evaluation through the school system at no cost to their parents. IDEIA mainly encouraged the cooperation betwen parents and school system for students? sake. Individualized Education Programs (IEP) stil should be provided by public schools as highlighted in IDEA in 1997. Main administrative duties stil remained the same as reporting documents or certain forms etc. Other than the similarities with the previous acts, IDEIA clarified certain special education terms. In the previous acts, teachers and school administrators had to endue a burden of an extended notification proces, but with the IDEIA, much of the paperwork was eliminated. Non-English speakers had taken consideration in IDEIA and their education was warranted without labeling them with learning disabilities. Additionaly, IDEIA stresed the need of the measurement of special 16 and general education students consistently and comparably. IDEIA in 2004 was the last main regulation on education of individuals with disabilities. Over the years, with the increased awarenes of the problems of students with disabilities, so many changes had been made on the regulations, and al of those legislations tried to warrant the free and appropriate education of the students with disabilities. Prevalence and Definition of Common Disabilities Changes on the perspective of educating individuals with disabilities with the requirements of including students with disabilities in general schools increased the number of students with disabilities, as wel as the kind of disabilities in the schools over the years. Table 1 displays the number of children three to 21 years old served under IDEA in the selected years (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2013). Acording to NCES (2013), about 6.4 milion (12.9 percent) children were reported to have a disability among those 50 milion school-aged children in the United States in 2011-2012. Table 1 Number of children ages 3-21 served under IDEA in selected years School Year Children served (in thousands) 1976 ? 1977 3,694 1980 ? 1981 4,144 1990 ? 1991 4,710 2000 ? 2001 6,296 2011 ? 2012 6,401 17 Twelve diferent categories of disabilities were listed in the report of National Center for Education Statistics in 2013 with the other and multiple disabilities. They were reported in terms of their frequency among students in general school clasrooms and their frequency within students with disabilities. Table 2 displays the various kinds of disabilities by number, and percent of total enrollment for the academic year of 2011- 2012 acording the National Center for Education Statistics (2013) reports. Table 2 Frequency of disabilities in general education classrooms in the United States Disability Number of students served in 2011-2012 (in thousands) Percent of Total Enrolment Specific learning disabilities 2,303 4.7 Speech or language impairments 1,373 2.8 Other health impairments 743 1.5 Autism 455 0.9 Intelectual disability 435 0.9 Developmental delay 393 0.8 Emotional disturbance 373 0.8 Hearing impairments 78 0.2 Orthopedic impairments 61 0.1 Visual impairments 28 0.1 Traumatic brain injury 26 0.1 (table continues) 18 Table 2 (continues) Disability Number of students served in 2011-2012 (in thousands) Percent of Total Enrolment Deaf-blindnes 2 0.0004 Multiple disabilities 132 0.3 Total 6,401 12.9 Among the reported students with disabilities in 2011-2012, specific learning disabilities were the most frequently reported disabilities. The reported number of students with specific learning disabilities was about 2.3 milion, which was 4.7 percent of al students enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools. Specific learning disabilities is defined by IDEA (2004) as ?disorder in one or more of the basic psychological proceses involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or writen, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spel, or do mathematical calculations? (Sec. 602-30). This category of disabilities includes individuals with perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia; and does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage (IDEA, 2004). Speech or language impairments were the second common disability in the academic year of 2011-2012 with more than 1.3 milion students in United States (NCES, 2013). IDEA (2004) defines speech or language impairment as ?a communication 19 disorder, such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language impairment, or a voice impairment, that adversely afects a child's educational performance? (sec. 300.8-9). The National Disemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY) (2011a) lists main characteristics of these disabilities as: producing sounds incorrectly; disruption on child?s flow of speech by sounds, syllables, and words; abnormal quality to voice of child?s pitch, resonance, or loudnes; and problems on expresing needs, ideas, or in understanding what others say. Another category of common disability in clasrooms is the category of ?other health impairments.? The number of the students with other health impairments was more than 700,000 in the United States in the school year of 2011-2012. Acording to IDEA (2004), other health impairment is: ?having limited strength, vitality, or alertnes, including a heightened alertnes to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertnes with respect to the educational environment, that is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, atention deficit disorder or atention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle cel anemia, and Tourete syndrome, and adversely afects a child?s educational performance. (Sec. 300.8-9) Combination of other health impairments was the third common disability group among students in general education clasrooms in the United States in the 2010-2011 school year. Because this category does not include one kind of category of disabilities, it is important to have knowledge about those specific disabilities, in order to provide the appropriate education to those individuals with those disabilities. As mentioned in the 20 IDEA?s definition for ?other health impairments?, there are many disabilities that fal under this category. The National Disemination Center for Children with Disabilities (2012a) provides the definition of those disabilities: Atention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: This disorder makes it hard for children to sit stil, control behavior, and pay atention to the other people. Usualy starts before age of seven but it harder to diagnose in earlier ages. Diabetes: The body of people with diabetes does not properly convert sugar, starches, and other food into the energy. Common symptoms include frequent urination, excesive thirst, extreme hunger, weight loss, fatigue, irritability, and blurry vision. Epilepsy: This disorder is related brain cels and symptoms include ?blackouts? or periods of confused memory, involuntary movement of arms and legs, distorted perceptions, and feling of fear that cannot be explained. Hearth conditions: Problems with hearts that significantly afect the one?s health. Lead poisoning: This disorder caused by extensive lead in the body. Common symptoms include irritability, loss of appetite, weight loss, sluggishnes, abdominal pain, vomiting and learning dificulties. Leukemia: When the bone marrow produces too many abnormal white blood cels this ilnes occurs. Common symptoms include tirednes, shortnes of breath during physical activity, pale skin, mild fewer or night sweats, and aches in bones. Nephritis: This ilnes happens when kidneys does not work properly in the body. Common symptoms include high levels of protein in the blood, les frequent urination, and weight gain. 21 Even though specific disorders were not very common in general schools, combination of al of those disabilities had a significant percentage in the schools. Intelectual disability was the fourth common disability among students with disabilities in the educational year of 2011-2012 with the number about 435,000. Even though the term ?intelectual disabilities? has been used interchangeably with the term ?mental retardation?, recently ?intelectual disabilities? is more commonly used. IDEA (2004) defines intelectual disability as ?significantly sub-average general intelectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period, that adversely afects a child?s educational performance? (Sec. 300.8-9). Students with intelectual disability have certain limitations in intelectual functioning such as limitations in reasoning, learning and problem solving. They also have limitations in adaptive behaviors, which include a range of everyday social and practical skils (National Disemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 2011b). The cause of intelectual disabilities is not wel known. The causes that are known can be clasified into genetic conditions, problems during pregnancy, problems related to birth, and poverty and cultural deprivation. Genetic conditions include genetic disorders and abnormalities in the genes. For example, Down syndrome is one of the genetic disorders, which causes intelectual disability. Pregnant mother?s use of alcohol or drugs, or dificulties in the birth proces such as temporary oxygen deprivation can cause the intelectual disabilities. Also some childhood diseases can cause intelectual disability such as whooping cough, measles, and chicken pox. In addition to those causes, some environmental factors can cause the intelectual disabilities like malnutrition or receiving 22 inadequate health care (The Arc, 2011). Acording the National Center for Education Statistics (2013), almost one student in every hundred students had autism in the education year of 2011-2012. Autism is a disability that significantly afects children?s verbal and nonverbal communication skils and social interactions with others. Students with autism can also engage in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements as wel as resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines. Autism does not apply if the children?s educational performance is adversely afected primarily because the child has an emotional disturbance (IDEA, 2004). Even though The American Psychiatric Asociation lists diagnostic categories of autism as autism, pervasive developmental disorder, Asperger?s syndrome, Ret?s disorder, and childhood disintegrative disorder in the fourth edition of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (2010), the listed disabilities are combined under one diagnosis as Autism Spectrum Disorder in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (2013). Emotional disturbance is other common disability in schools. About eight in 1,000 students had emotional disturbance in the educational year of 2011-2012 in United States. IDEA (2004) defines emotional disturbance by: Emotional disturbance means a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely afects a child's educational performance: (1) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intelectual, sensory, or health factors. (2) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers. (3) Inappropriate types of behavior or felings under normal circumstances. (4) A 23 general pervasive mood of unhappines or depresion. (5) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears asociated with personal or school problems (Sec. 300.8-9). IDEA (2004) also makes the distinction as ?emotional disturbance includes schizophrenia but the term does not apply to children who are socialy maladjusted, unles it is determined that they have an emotional disturbance? (Sec. 300.8-9). The term emotional disturbance includes disabilities such as anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, conduct disorder, eating disorder, obsesive-compulsive disorder and psychotic disorders. Although al of these disabilities have diferent diagnosis criteria, they have some common characteristics. These characteristics include hyperactivity (short atention span, impulsivenes), aggresion or self-injurious behavior (acting out, fighting), withdrawal (not interacting socialy with others, excesive fear or anxiety), imaturity (inappropriate crying, temper tantrums, poor coping skils), and learning dificulties (academicaly performing below grade). Many children may have some of these listed behaviors, but in order to diagnose children with a specific disability, these behaviors continue over long periods of time (NCHCY, 2010). The cause of the emotional disturbances has not been known yet, but there are some possible causes such as biological factors (ex: genes), family factors (ex: domestic violence), school factors (ex: failure to acommodate for individual needs), and cultural factors (ex: peer group) and al of these factors may contribute to emotional disturbances (Kauffman, 2001). Developmental delay is another common disability among students; eight of 1000 students were diagnosed with developmental delay in the education year of 2011-2012, which was about 373,000 students. IDEA (2004) gives the definition of the 24 developmental delay: The term ?child with a disability? for a child aged 3 through 9 (or any subset of that age range, including ages 3 through 5), may, at the discretion of the State and the local educational agency, include a child? (i) experiencing developmental delays, as defined by the State and as measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures, in 1 or more of the following areas: physical development; cognitive development; communication development; social or emotional development; or adaptive development; and, (ii) who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services (Sec. 300.8-9). The developmental evaluation of the child requires finding the child?s strengths and weakneses across the range of five areas, which are physical development (fine motor skils, gross motor skils), cognitive development (intelectual abilities), communication development (speech and language), social or emotional development (social skils, emotional control), adaptive development (self-care skils) (NICHCY, 2012). Hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, visual impairments, and traumatic brain injuries are other common disabilities. Although these disabilities are not as common as the other disabilities, cumulative percentage of these disabilities was about 0.5 per cent in the educational year of 2011-2012 in the United States. Acording to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (n.d), a considerable numbers of babies are born with a hearing loss in the United States. Often the cause is unknown, but common causes are genetic factors, maternal infections during pregnancy, complications after birth, and head trauma. Hearing loss can be in any part of 25 the ear. Hearing loss is categorized in terms of which part of the ear causes the hearing loss: conductive hearing losses (caused by diseases or obstructions in the outer or middle ear), sensorineural hearing losses (result from damage to the delicate sensory hair cels of the inner ear or the nerves that supply it), mixed hearing loss (combination of conductive and sensorineural loss) and central hearing loss (caused by damage of the nerves of central nervous system) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). The numbers of students with disabilities in schools are relatively high and those diferent categories of disabilities have diferent characteristics and should be treated diferently. Inclusion of those students with disabilities in regular education clasrooms would help them to fel as a part of the community and be productive individuals. Related terminologies about those students with disabilities in general schools are defined in the next section. Terminology Asociated with Disabilities The terminology used in reference to inclusion in education changed through the decades and at some points that caused confusion to parents and educators (Bartlet, Weisenstein, & Etscheidt, 2002). Primary terms referenced in the literature based on the inclusion of students in public schools are mainstreaming, least restrictive environment (LRE), regular education initiative (REI), and inclusion, and al of these terms share the same goal of providing education to students with disabilities with their peers in general education clasrooms. Mainstreaming and Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) In the late 1970s and early 1980s, as schools had started to provide fre public education to students with disabilities by mainstreaming, the most appropriate way of 26 including students with disabilities in general education schools was researched by many researchers. Diferent approaches to the education of students with disabilities were taken in consideration and one of them was mainstreaming. Integration of selected students with disabilities in general education clasrooms for part of a school day was caled mainstreaming (Bateman, 2006). People who proposed mainstreaming usualy believed that a student must earn his or her chance to be mainstreamed through the ability to keep up with the work asigned by the teacher to the other students in the clas (Bartlet, Weisenstein, & Etscheidt, 2002). Mainstreaming required including students with disabilities in the general education clasroom for specific clases based on those students? skil levels, such as music, art, etc. (Koutrouba, Vamvakari, & Steliou, 2006). Acording to Bartlet et al. (2002), the concept of mainstreaming is now clearly inappropriate and students with disabilities can not be required to demonstrate specific skils in order to be placed in regular education clasrooms. A series of court decisions betwen 1989 and 1994, as wel as the 1997 IDEA mendments, have provided a clear perspective that student with disabilities are not required to earn the opportunity to be placed in a regular education clas (Bartlet et al., 2002) and its their right to be educated in general clasrooms. In 1975, The Education for Al Handicapped Children Act used the term ?least restrictive environment? (LRE) which sometimes is used interchangeably with mainstreaming in later researches (ex: Leyser, Kapperman, & Keler, 1994). IDEA (2004) defined LRE as: ?to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with 27 children who are not disabled, and special clases, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular clases with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (Sec. 612) Acording to Gordon (2006), least restrictive environment made it possible to match students? individual needs with specific educational services, although it was not a placement for students with disabilities as thought. The main idea is to include students with disabilities into the general education clasrooms to maximum extent appropriate. The placement of students with disabilities starts with the least restrictive environment then it takes its shape acording to students? abilities those with disabilities. Regular Education Initiative (REI) and Inclusion In 1980s, Madeline Wil, an asistant secretary of education, mentioned the shared responsibility of regular and special education programs toward students with disabilities, and a movement caled ?Regular Education Initiative? (REI) was begun (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2004). Wil (1986) proposed that special and regular education programs should work together for integrating students with mild and moderate disabilities into regular education clasrooms. The inclusion movement is often referred to as the regular education initiative so that special and regular education systems could work together to find ways to serve students with disabilities (Bartlet et al., 2002). Recently, the movement of integrating students with disabilities in general education clasrooms is caled inclusion (Smith, Polloway, Paton, & Dowdy, 1998). Inclusion, as a term, is neither used in federal nor state law but the National Center on 28 Educational Restructuring and Inclusion (NCERI, 1994) developed a comprehensive definition of it: Providing to al students, including those with significant disabilities, equitable opportunities to receive efective educational services, with the needed supplementary aids and support services, in age appropriate clasrooms in their neighborhood schools, in order to prepare students for productive lives as full members of society. (p.15) Although the term ?inclusion? has not been used in legislation, it is very much used in the literature to explain the appropriate integration of the students with disabilities into regular education clasrooms. Attitudes toward Students with Disabilities Including students with disabilities in general education clasrooms and the problems that arose with the inclusion have been discussed and researched by many researchers for decades. In 1972, about the half of al students with disabilities were not receiving any educational services (Douvanis & Hulsey, 2002) and by Fal 2011 about 95 percent of students with disabilities were served in regular schools (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013). Legislation changes increased the number of students with disabilities in educational facilities, especialy in general education clasrooms. Although the percentage of the students with disabilities in individual schools is not huge, there are stil considerable numbers of students with disabilities in general education schools. The inclusion movement merged special and general education eforts for the succes of students with disabilities. As mentioned before, general education teachers have to include more students with severe disabilities in clasroom setings with the laws 29 (Henley, Ramsey, & Algozzine, 2006), like The Education for Al Handicapped Children Act (P. L. 94-142). At the same time, the overal student population is becoming more diverse in terms of ethnicity, language, and poverty (Brownel, Yeager, Sindelar, vanHover, & Riley, 2004). The diversity in clasrooms requires general school teachers to be more responsible for each of the student?s learning by diferent approaches or instruction methods. Specificaly with the inclusion of students with disabilities made clasrooms more diverse and brought specific dificulties for the general school teachers. The belief behind inclusion is that al students with disabilities should be fully integrated into the general education community, and the instruction should be designed to met their individual needs with their nondisabled peers in the same environment (Halahan, Kauffman, & Pullen, 2009). If a student cannot met the current curriculum expectations, the expectations of current curriculum should be changed without changing the students? placement (Friend & Bursuck, 2009). Atitudes are latent or referred psychosocial proceses that are present and inactive in al people unles evoked by specific referents (Antonak & Livneh, 2000). Combination of beliefs, felings, and the intention to act are considered as the ingredients of atitudes (Breckler, 1984). Attitudes help us to make sense of the world, and also serve the same function as stereotyping and categorization of people or events (Loreman, Deppeler, & Harvey, 2005). Tervo, Palmer, and Redinius (2004) defined positive atitudes toward disabilities as: ? a belief that those with disability can be productive community members, decide what is their own self-interest, and lead a normal life. At the afective level, it suggests sensitivity toward positive atributes and liking the person. At the behavioral 30 level, it implies fashioning conditions to help an individual actualize their creative capacity toward self-suf?ciency and contribute to the community (p. 908?909). Inclusion requires teachers to expect new roles in schools as serving students with disabilities and other special needs in schools (Guterman, 1995). In view of the fact that the atitudes are directly related to behaviors, teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities and the concept of inclusion may have a direct influence on their efective teaching and responsibility taking behaviors for achievement of al students asigned to their clasrooms. The literature has revealed that the atitudes of general education teachers is one of the most important predictors of succesful integration of students with disabilities in the regular clasroom (Semel, Albernathy, Butera & Lesar, 1991). Van Reusen, Shoho, & Barker (2000) discussed that succesful education of students with disabilities is dependent upon the atitudes of teachers and the support they receive during the education year about teaching students with disabilities. The inclusion of students with disabilities in regular schools has consistently been reported as problematic for teachers and it is related to negative teacher atitudes (Cook, Cameron, & Tankersley, 2007). Several studies indicated that clasroom teachers have more negative atitudes than other school staf such as administrators and advisers. As reported by the researchers the teacher is a key factor for students? achievement in schools whether student has a disability or not, and teachers? atitudes is one of the important factors on education (Forlin, 1995; Garvar-Pinhas & Schmelkin, 1989; Norwich, 1994). Bender, Vail, and Scott (1995) found that teachers? atitudes toward inclusion influence their use of efective teaching strategies in clasroom; as teachers having les 31 than positive atitudes toward inclusion resulted with les frequent utilization of efective strategies in clasrooms. Teachers who had more positive atitudes toward inclusion consistently utilized efective strategies for clasrooms which include students with disabilities (Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995). Sharma, Forlin, Loreman, & Earle (2006) and Rojewski & Pollard (1993) conducted studies and reached similar conclusion as the Bender and colleagues? research; teachers are more likely to modify and change their instruction and curriculum to met the needs of individual students with a range of abilities if they hold more positive atitudes toward students with disabilities. Wilczenski (1994) mentioned that atitudes held by both regular and special educators towards students with disabilities determine the succes or the failure of students in an included clasroom. If educators hold a positive atitude towards persons with disabilities, this alows and encourages the establishment of policies that guarante the students? rights to be educated in regular clasrooms, whereas negative atitudes towards persons with disabilities in al aspects limits their opportunities to be integrated into regular clasrooms (Jamieson, 1984). Scruggs & Mastropieri (1996) noted that, it is generaly agreed that the administrators and teachers in the school are directly responsible for the efectivenes of the inclusion. Teachers typicaly have positive atitudes toward the general concept of inclusion. Cook, Tankersley, Cook, & Landrum (2000) proposed that teachers? atitudes toward their actual students with disabilities represent a stronger and more appropriate predictor of the quality of education for students with disabilities, rather than teachers? atitudes toward general concept of inclusion. So it is important to highlight that positive atitudes toward the concept of inclusion would not be enough for beter education of 32 students with disabilities, but teacher atitudes toward individuals with disabilities would change many things in students? education. Acording to literature review done for this study, there are various variables that may have an influence on teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities such as teachers? year of experience, knowledge about inclusion and students with disabilities, training teachers received on teaching students with disabilities, extent of contact with people with disabilities, grade level that they taught, age, and gender (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). The literature was reviewed for these specific variables and reported in the following sections. Attitudes Related to Teachers? Years of Experience Years of experience can make so many changes in teachers? life and profesion; they became more experienced, and can handle problems easier than the first years of the experience. Years in the profesion can also make some ideas to be become stronger and teachers may become hard believers of their ideas. At this point Leyser, Kapperman, & Keler (1994) reported that ?teacher?s years of experience? is related to teacher?s atitude towards students with disabilities. General literature about teachers? years of teaching experience in relation to their atitudes toward students with disabilities was in the similar direction as teacher atitudes are related to their years of experience in the field of education. As reported in the following paragraphs, teachers who had les experience mainly hold more positive atitudes toward inclusion and students with disabilities. Forlin (1995) did a study in United States that compared three groups of teachers? atitude scores in terms of their years of experience (les than six years of experience, six to ten years of experience, and more than eleven years of experience) and found that 33 more experienced teachers were les acepting to students with disabilities, although les experienced teachers were more acepting to those children with disabilities. Leyser and his friends (1994) surveyed 3639 teachers among six nations (USA, Taiwan, Philippines, Germany, Ghana, and Israel) using an atitude scale and a demographic questionnaire. They compared teachers? atitudes toward inclusion in terms of teachers? years of teaching experience. They reported that teachers who have 14 years or les teaching experience had significantly higher positive atitudes than teachers who have more than 14 years of teaching experience. The diferences betwen three groups ? one to four years, five to 9 years, and nine to 14 years ? were not significant in terms of their atitudes towards inclusion. Wilczenski (1994) conducted a study with 229 undergraduate pre-service teachers of a smal college in the northeastern United States and found that the les experience the teacher had, the more favorable atitudes they held toward the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education clasrooms. Soodak, Podel, & Lehman (1998) surveyed 188 general educators and found similar results as Wilczenski (1994) as teachers being more experienced they hold les positive atitudes toward inclusion of students with disabilities in their clasrooms regardles of type of disabilities. Soodak, et. al. (1998) explained one of the reasons of this as teachers work with students with disabilities sometimes experience failure and they do not reach the desired performance with those students with disabilities, therefore their wilingnes to work with students with disabilities decreases. Most studies reported the results that teachers who had les experience in the field of education hold more positive atitudes toward students with disabilities. There are 34 might be various reasons about why les experienced teachers hold more positive atitudes toward students with disabilities; such as current teacher preparation programs might provide beter understanding of students with disabilities, or in-service training might have an influence on this particular variable. In terms of the purpose of this study, experience was considered as a potential predictor of teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities. Teacher Training and Attitudes toward Disabilities It has been reported by many researchers that many teachers do not have adequate knowledge about disabilities and especialy students with disabilities. Kraska (1996) conducted a study to examine the knowledge of trade and industrial teachers? knowledge related to special populations; and it was reported that 40 percent of trade and industrial teachers had inadequate knowledge about people with disabilities. One way of increasing teachers? knowledge about teaching individuals with disabilities is in-service trainings. In a study, Leyser, Kapperman, & Keler (1994) compared teachers? atitude scores in terms of how much training they received previously on teaching individuals with disabilities (very much, much, some, and no training), and reported that teachers who had received ?very much? training significantly get higher atitude scores than those teachers who received leser training. Shoho, Katims, and Wilks (1997) argued that increasing teachers? knowledge about inclusion of students with disabilities in regular schools and those students? needs in terms of their education may minimize the negative teacher atitudes toward inclusion and students with disabilities. In another study, it is discussed that the ability of teachers to instruct students with disabilities may be a significant determinant of positive teacher 35 atitudes toward students with disabilities (Schumm & Vaughn, 1995). In other studies, it is also found that teacher resistance and aceptance to the inclusion of students with disabilities into general education clasrooms is related to teachers? knowledge base and experience about teaching individuals with disabilities (Stoler, 1992; Taylor, Richards, Goldstein, & Schilit, 1997). Therefore, it can be said that teachers? knowledge about inclusion and teaching students with disabilities is an important predictor of the teacher attitudes toward students with disabilities. In addition to previous reported research, Bender, Vail, and Scott (1995) found that atitudes toward inclusion is positively correlated with the number of courses taken previously on teaching students with disabilities, which means that more course work taken in the past increased the positive atitudes toward inclusion. Educating teachers about disability is one of the most efective variables that change teacher atitudes toward inclusion (Sharma, Forlin, & Loreman, 2008). Moreover, Swain, Nordnes, & Leader-Janssen (2012) conducted research on changes in pre-service teacher atitudes toward individuals with disabilities and concluded that providing students with a variety of experiences on teaching students with special needs may reduce the misperceptions of special education and complexities of the disabilities. Avramidis, Baylis, & Burden (2000) surveyed teachers about their atitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities and found that teachers who have been implementing the inclusion programs in schools, and therefore have an active experience with students with disabilities, have more positive atitudes toward inclusion. It is also found that teachers who had substantial training in the area of special education held 36 significantly higher positive atitudes than those who had litle or no training about inclusion and teaching students with disabilities. Acording to literature, teachers? knowledge on students? with disabilities and also knowledge on teaching strategies may have a great influence on teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities. Other than knowledge about individuals with disabilities extent of contact can be another variable that may have an influence on teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities. In the following part literature review about how one?s extent of contact is related to ones atitudes toward students with disabilities wil be reported. Attitudes and Extent of Contact with Individuals with Disabilities Extent of contact with people with disabilities is one of the important variables in shaping teacher atitudes towards inclusion and students with disabilities (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). The hypothesis behind the influence of the variable of ?contact with people with disabilities? comes from that higher extent of contact increase the positive atitudes of people toward individuals with disabilities. Acording to Olson and Zanna (1993) atitudes are learned knowledge structures and prone to change. Therefore the extent of contact of teachers with students with disabilities may influence their atitudes in a negative or positive way. There are many studies that explored the influence of extent of contact with individuals with disabilities on people?s atitudes toward individuals with disabilities. In one of those studies, Leyser, Kapperman, & Keler (1994) compared teachers? atitude scores in terms of having diferent levels of experience (very much, litle, some, litle, none) with students with disabilities and they found have an influence on teachers? 37 atitudes toward inclusion, by having more experience yielding more positive atitudes. In contrast, Mclesky & Waldron (1996) found that staf development programs and extended contact with individuals with disabilities does not significantly improve teacher atitudes towards individuals with disabilities. Van Reusen, Shoho, and Barker (2000) found that high school teachers who reported higher levels of special education training or experience in teaching students with disabilities have more positive atitudes toward including students with disabilities in regular education clasrooms. Similar results reported by Cook (2002) and Rojewski & Pollard (1993) as the lack of experience and training in the field of special education can have a negative efect on teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities. Alghazo, Dodeen, & Algaryouti (2003) surveyed 597 pre-service teachers and found varying atitude scores toward individuals with disabilities in terms of the amount of contact with persons with disabilities. Even though the group of pre-service teachers who selected their extent of contact as ?at least one contact per month? received the higher atitude scores than the other groups, the analysis showed no statisticaly significant diference betwen groups. Krah? and Altwaser (2006) conducted a study to find out how an intervention program influences participants? atitudes toward people with physical disabilities. They created two treatment groups ? one received cognitive intervention and other received cognitive-behavioral intervention ? and one control group which took no intervention. Although the control group did not receive any intervention, participants in cognitive intervention group received lectures about people with disabilities. Cognitive-behavioral intervention included personal contact with people with disabilities in addition to 38 cognitive intervention. In the results, Krah? and Altwaser (2006) found that cognitive- behavioral intervention can significantly reduce negative atitudes towards people with physical disabilities. Krah? and Altwaser (2006) have also found that participants who had previous contact with people with disabilities had more positive atitudes towards people with disabilities. It can be said that extended contact with people with disabilities can have an influence on atitudes in a positive way. Attitudes toward Disabilities based on Age and Gender Teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities vary by their age. Acording to Leyser, Kapperman, and Keler (1994) younger teachers hold more positive atitudes toward inclusion than their older colleagues. In a similar way, Avramidis, Baylis, & Burden found no significant diference betwen atitudes of teachers toward inclusion of students with disabilities in general education clasrooms in terms of the age. Most of the previous research about the influence of age on teacher atitudes did not found significant results. Gender might be another predictor of teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities. There are not so many studies worked on gender variable in the past. However, Leyser, Kapperman, & Keler (1994) conducted an analysis to se if ?gender? have an influence on teacher atitudes toward inclusion, and the diferences betwen males and females were not significant in terms of their atitude scores. Alghazo, Dodeen, & Algaryouti (2003) surveyed 227 males and 270 females and compared their atitude scores toward individuals with disabilities. Even though they found females? scores a litle bit higher, the diference was not statisticaly significant. Pearman, Huang, Barohart, & Meliblom (1992) found a significant diference betwen males and females in terms of 39 their atitudes toward inclusion; but Jobe, Rust, & Brisie (1996) reported no statistical significant diference betwen males and female. Attitudes and Grade Levels Taught Several studies have focused on grade level taught and its influence on teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities. Teachers in higher grade levels had les positive atitudes toward inclusion than teachers in lower grade levels (Bender et al., 1995). Leyser, Kapperman, & Keler (1994) surveyed 3639 teachers among six nations (USA, Taiwan, Philippines, Germany, Ghana, and Israel) via an atitude scale and a demographic questionnaire. Researchers compared atitude scores of participants in terms of their grade level taught, and found that scores of teachers at the senior high school level were significantly higher than those of teachers at the junior high school and elementary school levels. Scores of teachers at the junior high school were higher than teachers at the primary level (Leyser et al., 1994). Bender et al. (1995) found that high school teachers have les positive atitudes and are more resistant toward the additional responsibilities that come with the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular education clasrooms. Salvia and Munson (1986) explained the relationship betwen grade level taught and teacher atitudes. They noted that as children?s age increased, teacher atitudes became les positive to integration because in higher grades teachers? tend to be concerned about subject-mater and concerned les with individual diferences. So, they mostly have chalenges with managing the clasroom activities. In the following part teacher chalenges wil be summarized in term of including students with disabilities in 40 general school clasrooms. Teacher Challenges and Inclusion The number of the general education teachers, who had received a litle training about educating students with disabilities, was increased with the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Campbel, Dobson, & Bost, 1985). Various problems arose with including students in general education clasrooms because of the diferent characteristics of the new students and presure on teachers? to change usual teaching instruction methods. Each student in the clasroom needs specific instruction because of the uniquenes of being a human. This is not an easy task for one teacher since there are usualy so many students in each clasroom. Adding students to the regular clasroom who have learning disorders or developmental isues makes teaching more chalenging for general education teachers, since each student has diferent needs in terms of learning and completing educational tasks. Teachers often fel the lack of specific information or knowledge to respond to students? needs when there are students with disabilities (Brownel, Yeager, Sindelar, vanHover, & Riley, 2004). Similar results found by DeSimone and Parmar (2006) about how wel undergraduate and graduate school experiences prepared them for inclusive teaching. Al of the participants in the study believed that their undergraduate and graduate schools did not prepare them to efectively teach inclusion students. Lack of the specific instructional information about included students with disabilities makes teaching chalenging for regular clasroom teachers. General education teachers, many with litle or no special education training, have been asigned the responsibility of teaching students with disabilities with the increasing 41 number of the inclusion students (DeSimone & Parmar, 2006). Many of beginner general education teachers are chalenged by the needs of students with disabilities, as those teachers are often les prepared to make acommodations for individual students (Kagan, 1992), although more experienced teachers have more knowledge and skils (Munby, Russel, & Martin, 2001). Idol (2006) interviewed educators for a study and those interviewed teachers indicated that more profesional development related to inclusion was needed. General education teachers? experiences with inclusion of students are researched by Kent-Walsh and Light (2003) and they have reported three diferent types of school- related barriers from the analysis of the interview of teachers: (1) The physical condition of the clasrooms, which is the lack of necesary adjustment for students with disabilities; (2) schools? tendency to stick prety close to the legalities while providing service to the students with disabilities, without necesarily meting the educational needs of these students; and (3) including large number of students with disabilities in regular clasrooms, which is reported in the study as teachers cannot help those students as much as they should because of having so many students with disabilities in the same clasroom. Kent-Walsh & Light (2003) also reported some team-related barriers such as collaboration/communication isues among school teams and lack of home support and participant teachers? concerns about not actively involving in the proces of developing individualized educational goals for students who have disabilities included in their clasrooms. Parents and teachers had diferent expectations in terms of the education of students with disabilities in the included seting (Kent-Walsh & Light, 2003). 42 Some other barriers related to inclusion of students with disabilities were also discussed by Kent-Walsh & Light (2003) such as limited training on teaching students with disabilities and required skils in order to achieve efective teaching, time constraints which result in inadequate planning and preparation for the clas, negative teacher atitudes, and teacher ?burnout?. Idol (2006) highlighted that noticeable eforts were being made to educate students with disabilities in general education programs. For example, every school used cooperative teaching (i.e., special education teacher in the general education clasroom). The majority of the educators interviewed in Idol?s (2006) study liked the cooperative teaching approach but the concern was that most clasroom teachers needed a cooperative teacher; yet ordinarily this is not financialy possible and this stands as a barrier to the efective teaching of students. An increased behavioral chalenge in the clasroom is another problem with the inclusion of students with disabilities in general school clasrooms. So many general school teachers and special education teachers reported that the student behavior is the biggest disruption in their clasrooms (Merret & Wheldal, 1993). Summary After the legislations that mandated schools to educate students with disabilities and provide free and appropriate education the number of students with disabilities increased in the general education clasrooms. Therefore, many researchers studied teacher atitudes toward the concept of mainstreaming and inclusion, and they tried to explain how atitudes influence teachers? behavior toward students with disabilities. Factors that are related to teachers? atitudes towards students with disabilities 43 have varied among researchers. The literature review done for this study focused on the variables such as teachers? year of experience, knowledge about inclusion and students with disabilities, training teachers received on teaching students with disabilities, extent of contact with people with disabilities, grade level that they taught, age, and gender. Even though, for some variables studies showed paralel results, some others researchers reported contrary results to each other. 44 Chapter 3: Methods of Study and Instrumentation Introduction The focus of this research study was general education teachers? atitudes towards students with disabilities. Chapter I provided an introduction for this study, statement of the research problem, purpose of the study, research questions, hypotheses, definition of terms, significance of the study, limitations, and asumptions of the study. Chapter II included a review of literature related to teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities and the variables that may have an influence on teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities. This chapter, chapter III, includes the design of the study, sources of data, data collection procedures, student and teacher numbers in schools selected for this study, privacy and confidentiality of participant teachers, instrumentation, and method of procedure. Design of Study This was a survey research study to explore teachers? atitudes towards students with disabilities in an elementary-level and secondary-level school in southeastern United States. The dependent variable was teachers? atitude score on the ?A Survey of Teacher Atitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities?. Independent variables were (a) gender, (b) age, (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers have received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of 45 expertise. Population The target population for this study was clasroom teachers in the southeastern United States. This study took place in two schools located in the southeastern United States. One of the schools was Loachapoka Elementary School in Loachapoka, Alabama and the other was Central High School in Phenix City, Alabama. The student enrollment of the Loachapoka Elementary School was 332 (Alabama State Department of Education, 2014) and acording to school?s web-page (http:/loachapoka.lce.schoolinsites.com) the number of full time teachers was 39 in the educational year of 2013-2014. Student enrollment of the Central High School in Phenix City was 1346 (Alabama State Department of Education, 2014), and acording to school?s web-page (http:/ww.pcboe.net/chs/) full time teacher number were 78 in the educational year of 2013-2014. Al of the teachers in both schools were asked to complete two questionnaires relative to their atitudes toward students with disabilities: one relative to their perception toward students with disabilities and one relative to their demographic information. Instrumentation The data were gathered using a two-part inventory. Part I of the inventory was addresed questions asking about (a) gender, (b) age, (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers have received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise. Part II of the inventory included the ?A Survey of Teacher Atitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities? questionnaire. The original questionnaire was 46 developed by Larrive and Cook (1979) to measure teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities who were in elementary -level schools. This original instrument was later updated and revised by Kraska (2003) to measure atitudes of university faculty members toward students with disabilities. Larrive and Cook (1979) reported the split-half reliability coeficient for the original instrument as .92. Kraska (2003) reported the Cronbach alpha reliability coeficient for the revised instrument as .89. The researcher was granted permision by the author for using the instrument and also received permision to replace the word ?faculty? with ?teacher? (se Appendix B). Participants were asked to respond to a paper copy of the 30-item questionnaire on a Likert-type scale ranging from 5 for, ?Strongly agree,? to 1 for ?Strongly disagree.? Sample items include statements such as, ?Inclusion of students with disabilities wil require significant changes in clasroom procedures,? and ?Inclusion of students with disabilities wil necesitate extensive re-training of teachers.? A total inventory score ranges from 30 to 150, with a higher score indicating a more favorable atitude toward students with disabilities. Data Collection Procedures Permision to conduct the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects of Auburn University. The researcher also secured permision from both Loachapoka Elementary School in Loachapoka and Central High School in Phenix City to conduct the study. Copies of these permisions are in the appendices. Information leter for participants prepared by the researcher, which has the information about the research, the survey instrument, risks of the study, as participation 47 being volunter basis, and the confidentiality of the data being collected during the study. Contact information of researcher was provided for any questions about the study. Copy of the information leter is in Appendix C. The researcher prepared individual survey packets for each of the participants. Each packet included an information leter for participants, a 7-item demographic questionnaire, and the 30-item ?A Survey of Teacher Atitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities? survey form. Packages, including total of five pages, were put in a closed envelope. The survey was administered during a staf development workshop in both schools. Prior to distribution of the survey packets, the researcher read the statement of the purpose of the study and the instructions to the participants. Their participation in the study was on a volunter basis and this information was highlighted in the instructions. Participants were instructed to return all forms in the original envelope. Teachers who did not want to participate in the study were asked to return the survey package uncompleted. The researcher collected al of the completed and uncompleted survey forms. Data Analysis Procedures The analysis was completed by using IBM-SPS (version 22) for Windows. Participants? responses to the questions entered into an SPS spreadsheet one by one by the researcher and checked for the mistakes that might occur during the entering data. Descriptive statistics computed to respond to the first research question. Null hypotheses for research questions two, three, four, and five were tested at the .05 level using multiple regresion procedures. The first null hypotheses included all predictor variables. The first null hypotheses 48 responds to the second research question, ?To what extent can teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities be predicted by (a) gender, (b) age, (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers have received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise?? The third research question was answered, ?To what extent do personal atributes of teachers such as (a) gender, and (b) age contribute to prediction of teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities?? by the second null hypotheses to test the efect of gender and age on scores for the atitudes toward students with disabilities. The third and fourth null hypotheses tested for ordered sets of variables as stated in research questions four and five respectively. The third null hypothesis tested personal variables (gender and age group), while controlling for profesional characteristics (years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers have received any training related to teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise). The fourth null hypothesis tested al profesional variables (years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers have received any training related to teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise), controlling for personal variables (age and gender). Summary This chapter discussed the methodology used in this study. The sources of data, data collection procedures, teacher and student numbers in the selected schools, privacy 49 and confidentiality of the teachers whom data were collected, instrumentation, and the method of data analysis were presented. The results of the analysis are presented in chapter IV. 50 Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Results Introduction Chapter I provided an introduction and theoretical framework for this study, statement of the research problem, purpose of the study, research questions, hypotheses, definition of terms, significance, limitations and asumptions of the study. The purpose of this study was to investigate atitudes of teachers toward students with disabilities in an elementary-level and secondary-level school in the Southeastern United States. For the purpose of this study, teachers defined as those individuals currently employed in one of the general elementary school or secondary school in the state of Alabama. Chapter II presented a review of related literature relevant to atitudes of teachers toward students with disabilities and its linkage with gender, age, years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise. Chapter III discussed the design of the study, sources of data, profiles of schools used in this study, data collection procedures, teachers? privacy and confidentiality, instrumentation, and method of procedure. Chapter IV focuses on the results of the data analysis. Data Analysis Descriptive data were calculated by using SPS (version 22) and summarized for gender, age, years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals 51 with disabilities, whether or not teachers had received any training related to teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise. Research question one was answered by using demographic information. Results for Research Question One The first research question was: What are the mean scores and standard deviations for the ?A Survey of Teacher Atitudes Relative the Serving Students with Disabilities? based on participants? (a) gender, (b) age, (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers had received any training related to teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise? Demographic Characteristic for Teachers and Descriptive Information Mean scores and the standard deviations of the teachers? atitude scores were summarized in terms of gender, age, years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers had received any training related to teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise. The total number of teachers who participated in this study was 84; 22 from elementary-level school (26.2%), 62 from secondary-level school (73.8%). The mean scores of the elementary-level school teachers (mean = 99.14) were slightly higher than the secondary-level school teachers (mean = 94.18) in terms of their scores from ?A Survey of Teacher Atitudes Relative the Serving Students with Disabilities?. The majority of the teachers were female with the percentage of 70.2 (n = 59). Female teachers? mean score from atitude survey were higher than the male teachers 52 mean score, 96.61 and 92.80 respectively. Number of participants in each age group was fairly evenly distributed. The most selected age category was 30-39 and the least selected age category was 20-29. Mean scores of younger teachers scores were lower than the older teachers. In terms of the years of experience that teachers had in the teaching field, the number of the teachers in each years of experience category was almost evenly distributed. Most of the participants had six to 10 years of experience. The least number of years of experience was zero to five years. The mean score of the teachers who had 16 to 20 years of experience was the highest (mean = 98.06) and the mean score of teachers who had 5 years or les experience was the lowest (mean = 91.93). The variable for teachers? time spent with students with disabilities included four categories. The number of participants in each category was almost evenly distributed. For the variable, teachers who selected ?litle? for the time spent with students with disabilities received the highest mean scores (mean = 99.74). For the training variable, 92.9% of the teachers had received training for teaching students with disabilities (n = 78). Teachers who received training had higher mean score from the atitude survey (mean = 95.82) than the teachers who did not receive any training. In terms of the teachers? perception about their own level of expertise, the distribution of the number of participants in each category was very close to one other, with almost 55% of the teachers perceiving an adequate to high level of expertise; and approximately 45% perceiving no level of expertise to a minimal level of expertise. Each group?s mean scores were almost same to each other. These data are reported in Table 3. 53 Table 3 Frequency, Percent, Mean Scores and Standard Deviation for Teacher Atitudes Variable Frequency Percent Atitude Scores Mean SD Gender Male 25 29.8 92.80 11.84 Female 59 70.2 96.61 14.55 Age 20 ? 29 12 14.3 92.08 14.45 30 ? 39 28 33.3 93.54 12.71 40 ? 49 24 28.6 94.08 16.23 49+ 20 23.8 101.90 10.43 Experience 0 ? 5 14 16.7 91.93 15.04 6 ? 10 20 23.8 92.90 12.83 11 ? 15 17 20.2 97.35 11.35 16 ? 20 18 21.4 98.06 16.51 21+ 15 17.9 97.00 13.65 (table continues) 54 Table 3 (continues) Variable Frequency Percent Atitude Scores Mean SD Grade Level K - 8 22 26.2 99.14 12.81 9 ? 12 62 73.8 94.18 14.06 Time spent None to Almost none 17 20.02 93.65 13.73 Little 23 27.4 99.74 13.21 Some 31 36.9 93.58 11.68 Most to Almost al 13 15.5 94.85 19.06 Training No 6 7.1 91.00 6.20 Yes 78 92.9 95.82 14.22 Perceived Expertise None to Minimal 38 45.2 95.63 13.66 Adequate to High 46 54.8 95.35 14.14 Null hypotheses for research questions two, three, four, and five were tested at the .05 level using multiple regresion procedures. The first null hypothesis was formulated to answer first research question and included al demographic variables. 55 Results for Research Question Two The second research question was: To what extent can teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities be predicted by (a) gender, (b) age, (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers had received any training related to teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise? The first null hypothesis was formulated to answer the second research question: Ho 1 : (a) gender, (b) age, (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise are not statisticaly significant predictors for teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities. Entering al predictors (gender, age, years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise) into the regresion model did not yield a statisticaly significant regresion model [F (7, 76) = 1.31, p = .26]. When considered together, al predictors acounted for only 11% of the variance in teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities. Examination of the beta coeficients for the individual predictors revealed that none of the predictors were statisticaly significant at the .05 level of significance. However, it is noteworthy that the age variable was statisticaly significant at the .06 56 level. For this reason, the researcher investigated the influence of age on the teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities. Therefore, the researcher conducted a bivariate linear regresion procedure using only the ?age? variable as a predictor. Results of the bivariate linear regresion using only age as a predictor revealed statisticaly significant results [F (1, 82) = 4.53, p = .04]. The age variable acounted for 5% of the variance in the scores on the atitudes toward students with disabilities scale. The beta coeficient for the age variable was 3.15, suggesting that for every increase in age by one year, the scores on the ?Survey of Teacher Atitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities? increased by 3.15 points. Results for Research Question Thre The second null hypotheses was formulated to answer the third research question and tested the efect of gender and age on scores for the atitudes toward students with disabilities. The third research question was: To what extent do personal atributes of teachers such as (a) gender, and (b) age contribute to prediction of teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities? The second null hypothesis was stated as follows: Ho 2 : (a) gender and (b) age are not statisticaly significant contributors on prediction of teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities. Entering the variables gender and age into the multiple linear regresion equation did not result in a statisticaly significant regresion model [F (2, 81) = 2.88. p = .06], even though the combination of age and gender acounted for 7% on the variance in the scores of the atitudes toward students with disabilities scale. For this model, the beta coeficient for age was 3.10 with a .04 level of significance, indicating that for every 57 increase in age by one year, the scores on the ?Survey of Teacher Atitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities? increase by 3.10 points. Research questions four and five were addresed by third and fourth null hypothesis. The third and fourth null hypotheses tested for ordered sets of variables. The third null hypothesis was formulated for research question four and tested personal variables (gender and age group), while controlling for profesional characteristics (years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers had received any training related to teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise). Results for Research Question Four The fourth research question was: To what extent do profesional characteristics of teachers such as (a) years of experience, (b) grade level taught, (c) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (d) whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (e) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise predict teacher atitudes above and beyond (f) gender, and (g) age? The third nul hypothesis was formulated to answer the fourth research question: Ho 3 : (a) years of experience, (b) grade level taught, (c) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (d) whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (e) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise are not statisticaly significant predictors above and beyond (f) gender, and (g) age. Result of the multiple linear regresion procedure for ordered sets revealed that 58 profesional characteristics (years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise) contributed only four percent of the variance in the scores on the atitudes toward students with disabilities scale above and beyond the personal atributes (gender and gender). Neither the model using only personal atributes nor the model testing efects of profesional characteristics above and beyond personal atributes was statisticaly significant [F (2, 81) = 2.87, p = .07] and [F (5, 76) = .71, p = .62] respectively. Even though the prediction model including only gender and age did not yield statisticaly significant results at .05 significance level, the model was significant at the .07 significance level. As reported previously, age was a statisticaly significant predictor by itself in the bivariate linear regresion model. [F (1, 82) = 4.53, p = .04]. Seven percent of the variance in the scores on the atitudes toward students with disabilities can be atributed to the personal atributes (gender and age). When the profesional characteristics were included in the model, an addition 4 percent of the variance can be acounted for. Results for Research Question Five Research question five was addresed by the fourth null hypotheses. The fourth null hypothesis tested profesional variables (years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers had received any training related to teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise), controlling for personal variables (age and gender). 59 The fifth research question was: To what extent do (a) gender, and (b) age predict teacher atitudes above and beyond profesional characteristics of teachers such as (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise? The fourth null hypothesis was formulated to respond to the fifth research question: Ho 4 : (a) gender and (b) age are not statisticaly significant predictors above and beyond profesional characteristics of teachers such as (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise. Result of the multiple linear regresion procedure for ordered sets revealed that personal atributes (age and gender) contributed only five percent of the variance in the scores on the atitudes toward students with disabilities scale above and beyond the profesional characteristics (years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise). Neither the model using only profesional characteristics nor the model testing efects of personal atributes above and beyond profesional characteristics was 60 statisticaly significant [F (5, 78) = 1.00, p = .42] and [F (2, 76) = 2.02, p = .14] respectively. Six percent of the variance in the scores on the atitudes toward students with disabilities scale can be atributed to the profesional characteristics; however, when the personal variables (gender and age) were included in the model, an addition five percent of the variance can be acounted for. To further probe responses on the atitudes toward students with disabilities scale, the researcher calculated minimum and maximum scores, mean scores and standard deviations for each item for al participants. The rationale for these calculations is based on results of the multiple linear regresion procedures, which revealed non significant prediction models (except for the bivariate model using the age variable). Therefore, the researcher decided that an item-by-item analysis could be helpful in geting a closer view of the data. The item-by-item analysis showed that more of the items have a mean score above three, which means that teacher selected ?strongly agree? and ?agree? more often than the other choices. Items 15 (mean = 3.89), 9 (mean = 3.74), and 30 (mean = 3.71) have the highest mean scores and items 3 (mean = 2.14), 2 (mean = 2.39), 13 (mean = 2.58) have the lowest means scores. The items received the higher scores were about students with disabilities being a good example for other students and decrease the discrimination. The ones with the lowest scores were about separating students with disabilities from their peers in order to beter education, students with disabilities as requiring more on patience from teachers, and inclusion of students with disabilities as 61 requiring significant changes in clasroom procedures. Average scores, minimum and maximum scores, and standard deviations of the scores are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 Minimum, Maximum, and Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Item Items Min. Max. Mean SD 1. Many of the things teachers do with regular students in a clasroom are appropriate for students with disabilities. 1 5 3.55 0.99 2. The needs of students with disabilities can be best served through special, separate programs. 1 5 2.39 1.03 3. Clasroom behavior of students with disabilities generaly requires more patience from teachers than does the behavior of students without disabilities. 1 5 2.14 1.23 4. The chalenge of being in a regular clasroom wil promote the academic growth of students with disabilities. 1 5 3.31 0.90 5. The extra atention students with disabilities require wil be to the detriment of the other students. 1 5 2.82 1.08 (table continues) 62 Table 4 (continues) Items Min. Max. Mean SD 6. Acommodation offers mixed group interaction which wil foster understanding and aceptance of diferences. 1 5 3.67 0.77 7. It is dificult to maintain order in a clas that includes students with disabilities. 2 5 3.31 1.09 8. Teachers posses a great deal of expertise necesary to work with students with disabilities. 1 5 2.92 1.08 9. The behavior of students with disabilities wil set a bad example for other students. 1 5 3.74 1.01 10. Isolation in a clas has a negative efect on the social and emotional development of students with disabilities. 1 5 3.45 1.05 11. Students with disabilities wil probably develop academic skils more rapidly in a separate program than in a regular clasroom. 1 5 2.8 0.92 (table continues) 63 Table 4 (continues) Items Min. Max. Mean SD 12. Most students with disabilities do not make an adequate atempt to complete their asignments. 1 5 3.24 1.20 13. Inclusion of students with disabilities wil require significant changes in clasroom procedures. 1 5 2.58 1.11 14. Most students with disabilities are wel- behaved in the clasroom. 1 5 3.19 0.96 15. The contact other students have with students with disabilities may be harmful to those without disabilities. 2 5 3.89 0.92 16. Clasroom teachers have sufficient training to teach students with disabilities. 1 5 3.39 1.03 17. Students with disabilities wil monopolize teacher time. 1 5 3.1 1.00 18. Acommodations for students with disabilities wil promote their social independence. 2 5 3.37 0.88 (table continues) 64 Table 4 (continues) Items Min. Max. Mean SD 19. It is likely that a student with a disability wil exhibit behavior problems in the clasroom seting. 1 5 3.19 0.94 20. Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching is beter done in special programs by tutors than by regular clasroom teachers. 1 5 3.04 0.94 21. The inclusion of students with disabilities can be beneficial for al other students. 1 5 3.42 0.97 22. Students with disabilities need to be told exactly what to do and how to do it. 1 5 2.62 0.96 23. Acommodations are likely to have a negative efect on the emotional development of students with disabilities. 1 5 3.49 0.84 24. Increased freedom in the clasroom creates too much confusion. 1 5 2.79 1.12 25. Students with disabilities wil be socialy isolated by other students. 1 5 3.54 0.95 (table continues) 65 Table 4 (continues) Items Min. Max. Mean SD 26. Parents of students with disabilities present no greater problem for teachers than parents of students without disabilities. 1 5 3.21 1.07 27. Inclusion of students with disabilities wil necesitate extensive retraining of teachers. 1 4 2.7 0.94 28. Students with disabilities should be given every opportunity to function in an included clasroom seting when possible. 1 5 3.56 1.07 29. Students with disabilities are likely to create confusion in the clasroom. 1 5 3.36 1.04 30. The presence of students with disabilities wil promote aceptance of diferences on the part of other students. 1 5 3.71 0.90 Summary This chapter discussed the results of the data analysis. Descriptive data presented in this chapter summarized the demographic characteristics of the teachers who participated in this study. The results of the multiple linear regresion procedures using 66 al variables did not yield any statisticaly significant model for predicting teacher perceptions toward students with disabilities. Even though age was not a statisticaly significant predictor in the prediction model using al variables, it was statisticaly significant when analyzed with bivariate linear regresion procedures. An overview of this study, summary of results, limitations, implications, conclusion, recommendations for practical applications, and summary are presented in Chapter V. 67 Chapter 5 Summary and Conclusions Chapter I provided an introduction and theoretical framework for this study, statement of the research problem, purpose of the study, research questions, hypotheses, definition of terms, significance, limitations and asumptions of the study. The purpose of this study was to investigate atitudes of teachers toward students with disabilities in an elementary-level and secondary-level school in the Southeastern United States. For the purpose of this study, teachers defined as those individuals currently employed in one of the general elementary school or secondary school in the state of Alabama. Chapter II presented a review of related literature relevant to atitudes of teachers toward students with disabilities and its linkage with gender, age, years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers have received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise. Chapter III discussed the design of the study, sources of data, profiles of schools used in this study, data collection procedures, teachers? privacy and confidentiality, instrumentation, and method of procedure. Chapter IV focuses on the results of the data analysis. This chapter presented an overview of the study, summary of results, limitations, implications, conclusion, recommendations for practical applications, and summary. 68 Overview of the Study Many researchers have studied teacher atitudes over the years. Atitudes are defined as ?the way you think and fel about someone or something; a feling or way of thinking that afects a person?s behavior? (Merriam-Webster.com, 2014). As mentioned in the definition of the atitudes, atitudes are directly related to one?s behavior. In education, atitudes are important since they are vital predictor of the quality of education, especialy for teaching students with disabilities (Rojewski & Pollard, 1993; Bender, et. al., 1995; Sharma, et. al, 2006). Even though the relationship betwen atitudes of teachers and their teaching strategies have been explored by many researchers, there are not many studies that explored the relationship betwen personal and profesional characteristics of teachers and their atitudes. The focus of this study was to investigate teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities in a large school district in the Southeastern United States. Atitudes of teachers were examined in relation to their personal atributes (gender and age) and profesional characteristics (years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers had received any training related to teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise). In this study, teachers from both elementary-level and secondary-level schools were included. The data for the study were collected from Loachapoka Elementary School (Loachapoka, Alabama) and Central High School (Phenix City, Alabama). Individual survey packages were used to gather data. Survey packets included a leter of consent form for participants, a 7-item demographic questionnaire, and the 30-item ?A Survey of 69 Teacher Atitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities? survey form. Completed survey packets were received from 22 elementary-level school teachers and 62 secondary-level school teachers. This study may add to the current body of knowledge on teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities, especialy whether teachers hold difering atitudes toward students with disabilities based on their personal atributes and profesional characteristics, and whether we can predict teacher atitudes by looking at personal atributes and profesional characteristics. Summary of the Results The following research questions were investigated in this study: (1) What are the mean scores and standard deviations ?A Survey of Teacher Atitudes Relative the Serving Students with Disabilities? based on participants? personal atributes and profesional characteristics? (2) To what extent can teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities be predicted by (a) gender, (b) age, (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers had received any training related to teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise? (3) To what extent do personal atributes of teachers such as (a) gender, and (b) age contribute to prediction of teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities? (4) To what extent do profesional characteristics of teachers such as (a) years of experience, (b) grade level taught, (c) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (d) whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (e) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise predict teacher atitudes above and beyond (f) gender, and (g) age? (5) To what 70 extent do (a) gender, and (b) age predict teacher atitudes above and beyond profesional characteristics of teachers such as (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise? The first research question addresed participants? mean scores and standard deviations from ?A Survey of Teacher Atitudes Relative the Serving Students with Disabilities? based on teachers? personal atribute and profesional characteristics. Of the 84 teachers 70.2% were females and 29.8% were males and females received higher scores on the survey of atitudes. In terms of the age, there were four categories (0-5, 6- 10, 11-15, 16-20, and 21+) and teachers who are in the higher age group received higher scores from the atitude scale. The mean score was higher in the category of teachers who have 16 to 20 years of experience and the mean was lowest at zero to five years of experience. Among 84 teachers, 26.2% were elementary-level teachers and their mean score from the atitude scale was 99.14; and 73.8% were secondary-level teachers and their mean score from the atitude scale was 94.18. Teachers who spent litle time with individuals with disabilities received higher mean score (mean = 99.74). Most of the teachers had received training about teaching students with disabilities (92.9%) and their mean score was higher than the teachers who did not receive any training. Teachers? mean scores were almost same in terms of their perceived level of expertise related serving students with disabilities. The second research question investigated the extent to which teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities can be predicted in terms of their (a) gender, (b) age, (c) 71 years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers had received any training related to teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise. The following hypothesis was developed to addres this research question: Ho 1 : (a) gender, (b) age, (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise are not statisticaly significant predictors for teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities. Result of the analysis of prediction model, when including al variables, was not statisticaly significant at the .05 significance level. Examination of beta coeficients for the individual predictors revealed that only the ?age? variable was significant at the .06 level. For this reason, bivariate linear regresion analysis was conducted for the ?age? variable and it was found that ?age? was a statisticaly significant predictor at the .05 level and acounted for 5% of the variance in the scores on the atitudes toward students with disabilities scale. The third research question examined to what extent personal atributes such as (a) gender and (b) age contribute to prediction of teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities. Following null hypothesis was developed to answer this question: Ho 2 : (a) gender and (b) age are not statisticaly significant contributors on prediction of teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities. Even though the combination of age and gender acounted for 7% on the variance in the scores of the atitudes toward students with disabilities scale, entering the variables 72 gender and age into the multiple linear regresion equation did not result in a statisticaly significant regresion model. The fourth research question explored to what extent profesional characteristics of teachers such as (a) years of experience, (b) grade level taught, (c) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (d) whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (e) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise predict teacher atitudes above and beyond (f) gender, and (g) age. The following null hypothesis was used to answer this question: Ho 3 : (a) years of experience, (b) grade level taught, (c) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (d) whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (e) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise are not statisticaly significant predictors above and beyond (f) gender, and (g) age. The findings of the multiple linear regresion analysis showed that profesional characteristics of teachers (years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise) contributed only four percent of the variance in the scores on the atitudes toward students with disabilities scale above and beyond the personal atributes (gender and gender). Both of the models, one using only profesional variables and one using only personal variables was not statisticaly significant. The fifth research question investigated to what extent personal atributes (gender and age) predict teacher atitudes above and beyond profesional variables (years of 73 experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers had received any training related to teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise). In order to addres the fifth research question, following null hypothesis was developed: Ho 4 : (a) gender and (b) age are not statisticaly significant predictors above and beyond profesional characteristics of teachers such as (c) years of experience, (d) grade level taught, (e) extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, (f) whether or not teachers had received any training about teaching students with disabilities, and (g) teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise. Model testing efects of personal atributes above and beyond profesional characteristics was not statisticaly significant. Although profesional characteristics contributed only six percent of the variance in the scores on the atitudes toward disabilities, when the personal variables included in the model, an additional five percent was acounted. Further exploration of the survey responses showed that items 15, 9, and 30 received the highest mean scores, while 3, 2, and 13 received the lowest mean scores. The items received the higher scores were about students with disabilities being a good example for other students. The ones with the lowest scores were about separating students with disabilities from their peers, students with disabilities as requiring more patience from teachers, and inclusion of students with disabilities as requiring significant changes in clasroom procedures. 74 Limitations The results of this study were based on general education teachers in the Southeastern United States; therefore, the results may not be representative of teachers at other general public elementary and secondary schools throughout the United States. Another limitation of this study is the smal sample size (n=84). A larger sample could yield diferent results. The results must be interpreted with caution because of the self- reported nature of the responses. This method of data collection depends on the ability and wilingnes of the respondent to provide acurate and honest input to the questions. Therefore, some possibility existed that participants responded to questions in a manner that reflected socialy aceptable answers. Conclusions The present study surveyed teachers in one elementary-level school and one secondary-level school in Alabama and the percentages were 26.2% and 73.8% respectively. The majority of the participants were female (70.2%). Those teachers who participated in this study mostly received training related to education of students with disabilities (92.9%). Other categories were almost evenly distributed within the variables. Based on the distribution and mean calculation of the data, female teachers? scores were higher than the male teachers. Previous research about diferences betwen males and females in terms of their atitude toward students with disabilities vary; even though some researchers found significant diference betwen them, some others did not find the significant difference. It is noteworthy that females received higher scores than males in terms of their atitude scores, and this was paralel to some previous researchers? findings (Alghazo, Dodeen, & Algaryouti, 2003; Leyser, Kapperman, and Keler, 1994; 75 Pearman, Huang, Barohart, & Meliblom, 1992). In terms of the grade level taught, the mean score of secondary-level school teachers were higher than elementary-level school teachers, as concurred with the results of Bender et al. (1995) who found that high school teachers have les positive atitudes. In terms of the ?age? variable, it can be said that teachers who were in the older age category received higher scores than the ones in the younger categories. This result did not match with Leyser, Kapperman, and Keler?s (1994) findings that they found younger teacher holding more positive atitudes toward inclusion. Age was also found to be a significant predictor of atitudes when separating it from other variables. In comparison to the teachers who did not receive any training, teachers who previously received training related to teaching students with disabilities had higher scores on the atitude scale. The important finding of this study was that gender, age, years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers had received any training related to teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise were not statisticaly significant predictors of atitudes toward students with disabilities. They contribute to the atitudes of teachers in some ways, but their contribution was not statisticaly significant. Implications and Future Research This study was designed to ases atitudes of teachers toward students with disabilities and the variables that could help us to predict teachers? atitudes; however, it does not directly ases teachers? skils in actualy instructing and teaching students with disabilities. Therefore, future research can focus on investigating if the level of teachers? confidence and preparednes to work with students with disabilities has an influence on 76 teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities. Within the same study teachers? atitude scores can be compared in terms of their instructional models that they actualy posses in the clasrooms. The information gathered from such study wil alow teacher preparation programs and in-training sesions to design beter curricula to met the need of general education teachers. It wil also help school districts determine how to best support teachers in the clasroom. The findings of this study indicated that teachers mainly hold positive atitudes toward students with disabilities. It can be implied that teachers? positive atitude wil lead to significant change in the education of students with disabilities. Although none of the prediction models were statisticaly significant (except the age variable in the bivariate linear regresion), selected variables somehow influenced the teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities. The current study did not inform or instruct participants about specific disabilities, and they asked to answer survey questions without any bias toward any category of disability. It is likely that teachers answered questions based on what they thought and believed fair for the students with disabilities. If they were instructed toward one specific disability category their answers would have been diferent and therefore their scores would be diferent. Another study can be conducted for specific group of disabilities. In the current study, schools were selected from the state of Alabama, the study can be replicated with a larger group of participants and in a diferent region. Also teachers can be categorized in terms how many students with disabilities have in their clasrooms. The training category can be also specified with specific trainings such as in- service training or college course that they took, or even self-education from diferent 77 sources such as books, internet, etc. This might give us important information about how to increase positive teacher atitudes toward students with disabilities and its relation to specific kinds of trainings. Summary The focus of this study was to explore teachers? atitudes in a large school district in southeastern United States. The results of this study showed that gender, age, years of experience, grade level taught, extent of contact with individuals with disabilities, whether or not teachers had received any training related to teaching students with disabilities, and teachers? perceptions toward their own level of expertise were not significant predictors of the teachers? atitudes toward students with disabilities except the age variable by itself. In terms of the exploration of the mean scores of the specific categories, it is found that older teachers comparing to younger ones, female teachers in comparison to male teachers, and teachers? who received training in comparison to one?s who did not receive any training hold more positive atitudes toward students with disabilities. 78 References Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of atitudes on behavior. In D. Albarrac?n, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173-221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Alabama State Department of Education. (2014). Alabama State Department of Education Public Data Reports. Retrieved from: http:/web.alsde.edu/PublicDataReports/Default.aspx Alghazo, E. M., Dodeen, H., & Algaryouti, I. A. (2003). Atitudes of pre-service teachers towards persons withdisabilities: Predictions for the succes of inclusion. College Student Journal, 37(4), 515-522. American Psychiatric Asociation. (2010). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders:DSM-IV-TR (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Asociation. American Psychiatric Asociation. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-V (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publication. Antonak, R. F., & Livneh, H. (2000). Measurement of atitudes towards persons with disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 22(5), 211-224. ?Atitude.? (n.d.). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from http:/ww.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/atitude Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' atitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129-147. doi:10.1080/08856250210129056 79 Avramidis, E., Baylis, P., & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers' atitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in one local education authority. Educational Psychology, 20(2), 191-211. Bacon, E.H., & Schultz, J.B. (1991). A survey of mainstreaming practices. Teacher Education and Special Education, 14(2), 144-149. Bartlet, L. D., Weisenstein, G. R., & Etscheidt, S. (2002). Succesful Inclusion for Educational Leaders. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril Prentice Hal. Bateman, D. (2006). A principal?s guide to special education (2nd ed.). Arlington: VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Bender, W., Vail, C., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers' atitudes to increased mainstreaming: Implementing efective instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning, 28, 87-94. Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of afect, behavior, cognition as distinct componenets of atitude. Journal of Personality, 47(6), 1191-1205. Brownel, M. T., Yeager, E. A., Sindelar, P. T., vanHover, S., & Riley, T. (2004). Teacher learning cohorts: A vehicle for supporting beginning teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27(2), 174-189. Campbel, N. J., Dobson, J. E., & Bost, J. M. (1985). Educator Perceptions of Behavior Problems of Mainstreamed Students. Exceptional Children, 51(4), 298- 303. 80 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Hearing loss in children: Types of hearing loss. Retrived from: http:/ww.cdc.gov/ncbddd/hearingloss/types.html Cook, B. G. (2002). Inclusive atitudes, strengths, and weakneses of preservice general educators enrolled in a curriculum infusion teacher preparation program. Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 262-277. Cook, B. G., Cameron, D. L., & Tankersley, M. (2007). Inclusive teachers' atitudinal ratings of their students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 40(2), 230-238. Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum, T. J. (2000). Teachers' atitudes toward their included students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 115- 135. D'Alonzo, B. J., & Ledon, C. (1992). Succesful inclusion of children with disabilities with nondisabled peers in early intervention and preschool setings. The Transdisciplinary Journal, 2, 277-283. DeSimone, J. R., & Parmar, R. S. (2006). Issues and chalenges for middle school mathematics teachers in inclusion clasrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 106(8), 338-348. DeSimone, J. R., & Parmar, R. S. (2006). Middle school mathematics teachers' beliefs about inclusion of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 98-110. Douvanis, G., & Hulsey. D. (2002). The least restrictive environment mandate: How has it been defined by the courts? ERIC Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted 81 Education Arlington, VA. Retrieved March 10, 2013, from http:/ww.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED469442.pdf Duran, E. (2006). Teaching English Learners in Inclusive Classrooms. Springfield, IL: Charles Thomas Publishers. Education for al Handicapped Children Act of 1975. P.L. No. 94-142, 79 Stat. 27 (1975). Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. P.L. 89-10. 79 Stat. April 11, 1965. H. R. 2362. Fagan, T. K., & Warden, P. G. (1996). Historical encyclopedia of school psychology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group. Forlin, C. (1995). Educators? beliefs about inclusive practices in Western Australia. British Journal of Special Education, 22, 179-185. Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. (2009). Including students with special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Friend, M., & Reising, M. (1993). Co-teaching: An overview of the past, a glimpse at the present, and considerations for the future. Preventing School Failure, 37(4), 6-11. Garvar-Pinhas, A. & Schmelkin, L. P. (1989). Administrators and teachers? atitudes towards mainstreaming. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 38?43. Gordon, S. (2006). Making sense of the inclusion debate under IDEA. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 1, 189-225. Guterman, B. R. (1995). The validity of categorical learning disabilities services: The consumer view. Exceptional Children, 62, 111-124. Halahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., & Pullen, P. C. (2009). Exceptional learners: Introduction to special education (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. 82 Hastings, R.P., Hewes, A., Lock, S. & Witing, A. (1996). Do Special Educational Neds courses have any impact on student teachers' perceptions of children with severe learning dificulties? British journal of special education, 23(3), 139-144. Hastings, R.P & Oakford, S. (2003). Student teachers? atitudes towards the inclusion of children with special needs. Educational Psychology, 23 (1), 87-94. Henley, M., Ramsey, R., & Algozzine, R. F. (2006). Characteristics of and strategies for teaching students with mild disabilities. Boston: Pearson. Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of sepcial education students in general education: a program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77- 94. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990, PL 101-476, U.S.C. (1990). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments (IDEA) of 1997, U.S.C., Title 20, ? 1400 et seq. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004, U.S.C., Title 20, ?? 1400 et seq. Jamieson, J. D. (1984). Atitudes of educators toward the handicapped. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Atitude and attitude change in special education: Theory and practice (pp. 206-222). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Jobe, D., Rust, J. O., & Brisie, J. (1996). Teacher atitudes toward inclusion of students with disabilities into regular clasrooms. Education, 117(1), 148-154. Kagan, D. M. (1992). Profesional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62, 129-169. 83 Kauffman, J. M. (2001). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merril Prentice Hall. Kent-Walsh, J. E., & Light, J. C. (2003). General Education Teachers? Experiences with Inclusion of Students who use Augmentative and Alternative Communication. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 19(2), 104-124. Koutrouba, K., Vamvakari, M., & Steliou, M. (2006). Factors correlated with teachers? atitudes towards the inclusion of students with special educational needs in Cyprus. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(4), 381-394. Krah?, B., & Altwaser, C. (2006). Changing negative atitudes towards persons with pysical disabilities: An experimental intervention. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16, 59-69. doi:10.1002/casp.849 Kraska, M. (1996). Trade and industrial teachers' knowledge related to special populations. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 33(2), 44-53. Kraska, M. (2003). Postsecondary students with disabilities and perceptions of faculty members. The Journal for Vocational Special Needs Education, 25(2-3), 11-19. Larrivee, B., & Cook, L. (1979). Mainstreaming: A study of the variables afecting teacher atitude. The Journal of Special Education, 13, 313-324. Leyser, Y., Kapperman, G., & Keler, R. (1994). Teacher atitudes toward mainstreaming: a cross-cultural study in six nations. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9, 1-15. Loreman, T., Deppeler J., & Harvey, D. (2005). Inclusive education: A proactical guide to supporting diversity in the classroom. London: Routledge Falmer. 84 Martin, E. W., Martin, R., & Terman, D. L. (1996). The legislative and litigation history of special education. The Future of Children, 6(1), 25-39. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E. (2004). The inclusive classroom: Strategies for efective instruction (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merril Prentice Hal. McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N. (1996). Responses to questions teachers and administrators frequently ask about inclusive school programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(2), 150- 156. Merret, F., & Wheldal, K. (1993). How do teachers learn to manage clasroom behavior? A study of teachers? opinions about their initial training with special reference to clasroom behaviour management. Educational Studies, 19, 91- 105. Munby, H., Russel, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers? knowledge and how it develops. In R. V., Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 877-904). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Asociation. National Center on Educational Restructuring and Inclusion. (1995). National Study of Inclusive Education. New York: City University of New York. National Disemination Center for Children with Disabilities (2010). Intelectual Disabilities: NICHCY disability fact sheet, no: 5. Retrieved from http:/nichcy.org/disability/specific/emotionaldisturbance National Disemination Center for Children with Disabilities (2011a). Speech and language impairments: NICHCY disability fact sheet, no: 11. Retrieved from http:/nichcy.org/disability/specific/speechlanguage#ref1 85 National Disemination Center for Children with Disabilities (2011b). Intelectual Disabilities: NICHCY disability fact sheet, no: 8. Retrieved from http:/nichcy.org/disability/specific/intelectual National Disemination Center for Children with Disabilities (2012a). Other Health Impairment: NICHCY disability fact sheet, no: 15. Retrieved from http:/nichcy.org/wp-content/uploads/docs/fs15.pdf National Disemination Center for Children with Disabilities (2012b). Developmental Delay: NICHCY disability fact sheet, no: 9. Retrieved from http:/nichcy.org/wp- content/uploads/docs/fs9.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from http:/nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_204.30.asp Norwich, B. (1994). The relationship betwen atitudes to the integration of children with special educational needs and wider socio-political views: a US?English comparison. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9, 91?106. Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Atitudes and atitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 117-154. Pearman, E. L., Huang, A. M., Barohart, M. W., & Meliblom, C. (1992). Educating al student in school: Atitudes and beliefs about inclusion. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 176-182. Plotnik, R. (1996). Introduction to psychology (4th ed.). Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole. 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, 330-341. 86 Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Geting reading for inclusion: Is the stage set? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10(3), 169-179. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming inclusion, 1958?1995: a research synthesis, Exceptional Children, 63, 59?74. Semel, M. I., Abernathy, T. V., Butera, G., & Lesar, S. (1991). Teacher perceptions of the Regular Education Initiative. Exceptional Children, 58, 9-24. Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on preservice teachers? atitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23(7), 773-785. Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Loreman, T., & & Earle, C. (2006). Pre-service teachers? atitudes, concerns and sentiments about inclusive education: An international comparison of the novice pre-service teacher. International Journal of Special Education, 21, 80?93. Shoho, A., Katims, D., & Wilks, D. (1997). Perceptions of alienation among students with learning disabilities in inclusive and resource setings. The High School Journal, 81(1), 28-36. Smith, T. E., Polloway, E. A., Paton, J. R., Dowdy, C. A. (1998). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive setings (2nd ed.). Nedham Hieghts, MA: Alyn and Bacon. Soodak, L. C., Podel, D. M., & Lehman, L. R. (1998). Teacher, student, and school atributes as predictors of teachers' responses to inclusion. The Journal of Special Education, 31(4), 480-497. 87 Stainback, W., Stainback, S., & Bunch, G. (1989). Introduction and Historical Background. In S. Stainback, W. Stainback, & M. Forest, Educating Al Students in the Mainstream of Regular Education (pp. 3-14). Baltimore, Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Stoler, R. (1992). Perceptions of regular education teachers toward inclusion of al handicapped students in their clasrooms. Clearing House, 66(1), 60-62. Swain, K. D., Nordnes, P. D., & Leader-Janssen, E. M. (2012). Changes in preservice teacher atitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure, 56(2), 75-81. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2011.565386 Taylor, R., Richards, S., Goldstein, P., & Schilit, J. (1997). Teacher perceptions of inclusive setings. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29(3), 50-54. Tervo, R. C., Palmer, G., & Redinius, P. (2004). Health profesional student atitudes towards people with disability. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18(8), 908-915. The Arc (2011). Causes and prevention of intelectual disabilities. Retrieved from: http:/ww.thearc.org/page.aspx?pid=2453 Van Reusen, A. K., Shoho, A. R., & Barker, K. S. (2000). High school teacher atitudes toward inclusion. High School Journal, 84(2), 7-17. Wilczenski, F. L. (1994). Changes in atitudes toward mainstreaming among undergraduate education students. Educational Research Quarterly, 17(1), 5-17. Wil, M. C. (1986). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52(5), 411-415. 88 Yel, M. L., & Shriner, J. G. (1997). The IDEA amendments of 1997: Implications for special and general education teachers, administrators, and teacher trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 30(1), 1-19. 89 APENDIX A IRB Approval Leter from Auburn University 90 91 APENDIX B Leter of Permision to use ?A Survey of Teacher Atitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities? 92 From: Marie Kraska KRASKMF@auburn.edu Subject: RE: Survey of Teacher Attitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities Date: February 26, 2014 at 10:45 PM To: Bekir Celik bzc0012@tigermail.auburn.edu Bekir, Certainly, you have my permission to use "A Survey of Faculty Attitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities? for your doctoral research. Also, you may use the word, ?teacher? instead of ?faculty? in the survey. Dr. Kraska Marie Kraska, Ph.D., M. C. Fraley Distinguished Professor, Research and Statistics Dept. of Educ. Found., Leadership, & Tech. 4064 Haley Center Auburn University, AL 36849-5512 From: Bekir Celik [bzc0012@tigermail.auburn.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:10 PM To: Marie Kraska Subject: Survey of Teacher Attitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities Dear%Dr.%Kraska, ! I%am%conducting%my%dissertation%on%general%school%teacher%attitudes%toward%students%with disabilities.%I%would%like%to%use%your%survey%called%?%A%Survey%of%Faculty%Attitudes%Relative%to Serving%Students%with%Disabilities?%with%your%permission.%May%I%please%use%the%word ?teacher?%instead%of%?faculty?? ! Thank%you, ! Bekir%Celik Educational%Psychology,%Ph.D.%Candidate Auburn%University bzc0012@auburn.edu 93 APENDIX C Information Leter to Participants 94 95 96 APPENDIX D Demographic Questions for Participants 97 Demographic Questions for Teacher Attitudes of Students with Disabilities 1. Please indicate your gender. Male Female 2. Which range includes your age? 20 ? 24 25 ? 29 30 ? 34 35 ? 39 40 ? 44 45 ? 49 50 ? 54 55 ? 59 60 ? 64 65 or older 3. How many years of experience do you have in the education field? 0 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 and more 4. What grade level do you teach? Kindergarten 1 - 3 4 - 6 7 - 9 10 ? 12 5. How much of your free time do you spend with people with disabilities? Almost all Most Some Little Almost none None 6. Have you ever received training for teaching students with disabilities? Yes No 7. How do you perceive your level of expertise related to serving individuals with disabilities? None Minimal Adequate High 98 APENDIX E A Survey of Teacher Atitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities 99 Survey Teacher Attitudes & Students with Disabilities Page 1 of 2 ! A Survey of Teacher Attitudes Relative to Serving Students with Disabilities Marie Kraska Copyright 1998 Directions: Please circle the letter that best describes your agreement or disagreement with the following statements. There are no correct answers. The best responses are those that reflect your honest attitudes. Thank you for your participation. Use the following scale for your responses. SA = Strongly agree A = Agree U = Undecided D = Disagree SD = Strongly Disagree SA A U D SD 1. Many of the things teachers do with regular students in a classroom are appropriate for students with disabilities. SA A U D SD 2. The needs of students with disabilities can be best served through special, separate programs. SA A U D SD 3. Classroom behavior of students with disabilities generally requires more patience from teachers than does the behavior of students without disabilities. SA A U D SD 4. The challenge of being in a regular classroom will promote the academic growth of students with disabilities. SA A U D SD 5. The extra attention students with disabilities require will be to the detriment of the other students. SA A U D SD 6. Accommodation offers mixed group interaction which will foster understanding and acceptance of differences. SA A U D SD 7. It is difficult to maintain order in a class that includes students with disabilities. SA A U D SD 8. Teachers possess a great deal of expertise necessary to work with students with disabilities. SA A U D SD 9. The behavior of students with disabilities will set a bad example for other students. SA A U D SD 10. Isolation in a class has a negative effect on the social and emotional development of students with disabilities. SA A U D SD 11. Students with disabilities will probably develop academic skills more rapidly in a separate program then in a regular classroom. SA A U D SD 12. Most students with disabilities do not make an adequate attempt to complete their assignments. 100 Survey Teacher Attitudes & Students with Disabilities Page 2 of 2 ! SA A U D SD 13. Inclusion of students with disabilities will require significant changes in classroom procedures. SA A U D SD 14. Most students with disabilities are well-behaved in the classroom. SA A U D SD 15. The contact other students have with students with disabilities may be harmful to those without disabilities. SA A U D SD 16. Classroom teachers have sufficient training to teach students with disabilities. SA A U D SD 17. Students with disabilities will monopolize teacher time. SA A U D SD 18. Accommodations for students with disabilities will promote their social independence. SA A U D SD 19. It is likely that a student with a disability will exhibit behavior problems in the classroom setting. SA A U D SD 20. Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching is better done in special programs by tutors than by regular classroom teachers. SA A U D SD 21. The inclusion of students with disabilities can be beneficial for all other students. SA A U D SD 22. Students with disabilities need to be told exactly what to do and how to do it. SA A U D SD 23. Accommodations are likely to have a negative effect on the emotional development of students with disabilities. SA A U D SD 24. Increased freedom in the classroom creates too much confusion. SA A U D SD 25. Students with disabilities will be socially isolated by other students. SA A U D SD 26. Parents of students with disabilities present no greater problem for teachers than parents of students without disabilities. SA A U D SD 27. Inclusion of students with disabilities will necessitate extensive retraining of teachers. SA A U D SD 28. Students with disabilities should be given every opportunity to function in an included classroom setting when possible. SA A U D SD 29. Students with disabilities are likely to create confusion in the classroom. SA A U D SD 30. The presence of students with disabilities will promote acceptance of differences on the part of other students. 101 APPENDIX F Letter of Permission to Collect Data at Phenix City High School 102 RE: Permission to Collect Data at Phenix City High School Page 1 of2 RE: Permission to Collect Data at Phenix City High School Coleman,Lisa [Icoleman@pcboe.net] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 1:20 PM To: Marie Kraska Cc: Vickers,Thomas [tvickers@pcboe.net]; Johns,Lara Beth [Ibjohns@pcboe.net]; Coleman,Lisa [Icoleman@pcboe.net]; Hinton,Rod [rhinton@pcboe.net] Hello Dr. Kraska, I have received this request and I will be able to approve this data collection opportunity in Phenix City Schools. The site for the data collection is Central High School in Phenix City, Alabama. Central High School serves grades 10-12, it has a student population of 1400 and 85 certified staff members. The window of the data collection is May 5,2014- May 16, 2014 and the method of collection is a paper survey. The survey distribution will be facilitated by Mr. Thomas Vickers, Principal of Central High School, or his designee. Mr. Vickers and I look forward to receiving a copy of the results from your study. If you should need any other assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. "It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men." Frederick Douglass Director of Curriculum/Instruction & Federal Programs 1212 Ninth Avenue P.O. Box 460 Phenix City, Alabama 36868 Office - 334-298-0534 Ext. J45 Fax - 334-298-6690 From: Marie Kraska [mailto:KRASKMF@auburn.edu] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 1:57 PM To: Coleman,Lisa Subject: Permission to Collect Data at Phenix City High School Good afternoon, Ms. Coleman, I am requesting permission for my student, Bekir Celik, to collect data from teachers at a high school under your supervision (Central High School) in Phenix City, AL. The data are to be used for his doctoral research. We have two instruments: one is a brief demographic questionnaire and the other is a brief inventory related to teacher perceptions of individuals with disabilities. Both instruments should take no longer than approximately 15 minutes. Collecting information on teacher perceptions related to students with disabilities is important in helping us to better plan curriculum and courses at the university. Also, such information is useful for teacher in-service programs. We have the packets ready to go. Each packet has a demographic form, an inventory, and an information letter to potential participants. Participation by your teachers will be completely voluntary and anonymous. Only aggregated https:llcas.aubum.eduiowal?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAAVLqXWYM%2fLQat6hbFMt... 4/21/2014 103 104 APENDIX G Leter of Permision to Collect Data at Loachapoka Elementary School 105 RE: Collecting data at Loachapoka School Page 1 of2 RE: Collecting data at Loachapoka School Marie Kraska Sent: Friday, April 18, 201412:13 PM To: Cox, Stan [Cox.stan@lee.k12.al.us] Thanks Mr. COX, I appreciate your positive response to my email. Dr. Kraska Marie Kraska, Ph.D., M. C. Fraley Distinguished Professor, Research and Statistics Dept. of Educ. Found., Leadership, & Tech. 4064 Haley Center Auburn University, AL 36849-5512 From: Cox, Stan [Cox.Stan@lee.k12.al.us] Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 12:10 PM To: Marie Kraska; Ellen Reames Subject: RE: Collecting data at Loachapoka School Yes, I granted permission for Dr. Reams to deliver survey packets that include a short demographic data sheet, a short survey instrument and an information letter to teachers in Loachapoka Elementary School. Thank you, Stan Cox Stan Cox, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Lee County Schools 2410 Society Hill Road Opelika, AL 36804 334-705-6000 - Voice 334-745-9795 - Fax From: Marie Kraska [mailto:KRASKMF@auburn.edu] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 10:40 AM To: Cox, Stan Subject: Collecting data at Loachapoka School Hello Mr. Cox, This email is to confmn that you have granted permission for Dr. Reames to deliver https:1Icas.auburn.eduJowal?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAA VLqXWYM%2fLQat6... 4/18/2014 106 RE: Collecting data at Loachapoka School Page 2 of2 survey packets, which include a short demographic data sheet, a short survey instrument, and an Infonnation Letter to teachers in Loachapoka. In turn, the packets will be distributed by you are a designated individual and once completed, Dr. Reames will pick up the completed packets. The survey instrument asks questions about teacher perceptions of students with disabilities. Such infonnation will be helpful to us in curriculum and program planning. My student, Bekir Celik, who is a doctoral candidate will use results of the survey for his doctoral research. All infonnation collected from teachers will be anonymous and only aggregated data will be analyzed and reported. Teacher participation is totally voluntary. The only thing I ask is that all who receive a packet, return one, whether or not they choose to participate in the study. No identifying infonnation will be on any of the packets. Also, I understand that we may collect the data between April 20 (which is impossible since I must get IRB approval fust) up to May 31. Mr. Cox, your support of this research and cooperation in helping us to obtain the data we need is much appreciated. Thank you very much for your time. I need a reply from you (even a brief one) so that I can assure the IRB of the proper procedures that I have written here and answer any questions you may have. This email and your reply are simply to spell out in detail the study and to make it easier for the IRB to access that you are giving pennission. Thank you most kindly. Marie Kraska Marie Kraska, Ph.D., M. C. Fraley Distinguished Professor, Research and Statistics Dept. ofEduc. Found., Leadership, & Tech. 4064 Haley Center Auburn University, AL 36849-5512 https:/Icas.auburn.edulowaJ?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAAA VLqXWYM%2fLQat6... 4118/2014