June 2023 – Special Educator e-Journal

Background to the Problem

The success and failure of special education laws hinge on the knowledge and attitudes teachers portray in the inclusive classroom (Ross?Hill, 2009).  According to Odongo and Davidson (2016), the attitudes, perceptions, and concerns of teachers influence their commitment to the implementation and success of inclusive practices.  As noted by Zaretsky (2005), teachers with a clear understanding of their perspectives toward inclusion are better able to establish classrooms with full inclusion and provide students with disabilities an education equal to their peers.  The successful education of all students requires everyone within schools to make changes, to not only the way students are taught, but how they are perceived as successful learners (Pearman, Barnhart, Huang, & Mellblom, 1992).  Assessing how educators in a school district perceive disabled students could be utilized in the implementation of evidence-based inclusive practices.

The horns effect is a bias where individuals see one attribute of someone which predisposes them to prejudge and be likely to interpret additional information in a way that supports their conclusion.  The horns effect may be impacting the inclusive environment because some teachers still believe students with disabilities cannot learn or will be a distraction in general education classes.  In overcoming bias the first step is acknowledging the problem (Hubbard, 2014).  The current culture within special education allows for and, in some instances, supports this type of bias, creating a pattern of exclusion.

Rationale for the Study

In the study by Cope and Ward (2002), teacher perceptions impacted the integration of learning technology into classrooms.  Teachers are expected to provide inclusive services, however some general educators do not believe they have the needed skills and this uncertainty will impact their efficacy (Gregory & Noto, 2018).  Although the movement for inclusive education is part of a broad human rights agenda, many educators have serious reservations about implementing full inclusion.  Lambe and Bones (2006) posited positive attitudes towards inclusion by practitioners will be essential to ensuring successful implementation. 

Jordan, Schwartz, and McGhie-Richmond (2009) asserted teachers who believe students with special needs are their responsibility tend to be more effective with all their students.  Challenges arise when teachers have the perception that a student with a disability is the primary responsibility of the special education teacher only.  Horne and Timmons (2009) noted teachers must look beyond the disability and see the child for the positive qualities s/he has to offer.  Another way of stating this would be looking at students with disabilities for what they can do, applying the human capability theory.

Theoretical Constructs

The objective of many K-12 schools is achieving higher scores on standardized assessments to create a viable workforce for the economy.  Current educational thinking stems from the human capital development agenda that “gauges the merit and worth of a person by his or her capacity to contribute to economic productivity” (Lashley, 2013, p. 54).  The problem with the current educational system is it is designed for standardization (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008).  The education system in the United States is built on the concept of standardization from the time of the industrial revolution and impacts the way teachers are trained, students are grouped, and curriculum is designed.  Under this model, only those with average to above average intelligence can succeed, which often ignores the needs of minority and underserved populations.

According to Sailor, McCart, and Choi (2018), the perception of individuals with disabilities is shifting from the medical model based on deficit theory, of what individuals could not do, to the human capability theory, of what individuals with disabilities are capable of doing.  Nussbaum (2000) described human capabilities as “what people are actually able to do and be, in a way informed by an intuitive idea of life that is worthy of the dignity of the human being” (p. 222).  The perspective under this approach is to respect and accept others’ abilities not an attitude of condescension because of their inabilities.

Human capability theory calls for a shift away from focusing problems of learning on the individual and instead examining the learning context in its entirety (Sailor et al., 2018).  This theory is related to the principle of normalization, which posits making available to all people with disabilities patterns of life and conditions of everyday living that are as close as possible to the regular circumstances and ways of life or society (Wolfensberger, 1980).  Allowing all students to be educated together would need a concerted system of support to ensure all students are receiving what they need.  

Under deficit theory, students reflecting measured deficits in content areas are assumed to have a structural problem within themselves, which needs to be addressed through an extraordinary intervention.  This theory was the impetus behind removing students from the general education curriculum to remediate their weaknesses.  According to Taylor (1988), “both P.L. 94-142 statute and regulations legitimate segregated educational settings and envision instances in which removal of handicapped children from the regular educational environment may be justified” (p. 223).  These basic assumptions have guided the delivery model of special education for many decades (Burrello, Tracy, & Schultz, 1973).  This model has proven ineffective for individuals with disabilities, thus providing the impetus for the inclusive movement.

There is a tendency to place students in specialized classrooms because of a misunderstanding of the continuum of services where “intensity of service is often confused with segregation” (Haines & Turnbull, 2013, p. 73).  This has been a long-held belief that fuels deficit theory resulting in the separation of disabled students from their peers.  The National Commission on Excellence in Education noted in 1983 that educationally disadvantaged students may require special curriculum materials, smaller classes, or individual tutoring to help them master the material presented.  Their intent was to distinguish the need to improve education for the benefit of all, but it may have further segregated students with disabilities because it appears to favor individualized instruction (Pugach & Sapon-Shevin, 1987).

Wolfensberger (2013) posited individuals with disabilities are not given valued social roles in society, and are therefore devalued.  Wolfensberger (2013) noted devalued individuals are often viewed as objects of pity, and, therefore, people want to make things easier for the afflicted.  This devaluing of individuals with disabilities eventually leads to fewer demands on those individuals for performance, learning, or growth (Wolfensberger, 2013).  This type of thinking is what led to individuals with disabilities being placed in institutions because it was thought to be in their best interest (Wolfensberger, 1989).  This thinking can be described as ableism, which is the belief that it is better or superior to not have a disability and to do things in a way that nondisabled people do (Storey, 2007).  Ableism has been historically present in schools and society and is tied in part to the medical model that seeks to fix people with disabilities (Longmore, 1995).

According to Carrington and Elkins (2002), inclusive education personifies an attitude of accepting, valuing, and respecting all students.  This attitude is indicative of the culture and climate of an organization and whether it is embraced  Horne and Timmons (2009) noted teachers must look beyond the disability and see the child for the positive qualities that s/he has to offer.  This is another way of emphasizing the human capability theory by seeing students with disabilities for what they can do.

Methods

A nonexperimental design was utilized with the variables of gender, experience, and amount of special education courses completed by an educator.  The dependent variable for this study is teacher attitudes, positive or negative, of serving all students, disabled and nondisabled, in an inclusive environment in the general education classroom.  The independent variables of college (or higher) courses completed in special education and experience are ordinal, whereas gender is a nominal scale of measurement.  The dependent variable is an interval scale of measurement because the data came from the Likert scale provided by the survey and will indicate whether an educator has a negative or positive attitude towards serving all students, disabled and nondisabled.

Research Questions

1. Is there a significant relationship in a teacher’s gender and their attitudes and perceptions of serving all students, disabled and nondisabled, in an inclusive environment in the general education classroom?
   1. Is there a difference, based on gender, in teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of serving all students, disabled and nondisabled, in an inclusive environment in the general education classroom?
2. Is there a significant relationship in a teacher’s years of experience in the profession and their attitudes and perceptions of serving all students, disabled and nondisabled, in an inclusive environment in the general education classroom?
   1. Is there a difference, based on years of experience in the profession, in teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of serving all students, disabled and nondisabled, in an inclusive environment in the general education classroom?
3. Is there a significant relationship in the number of college (or higher) courses completed in special education by a teacher and their attitudes and perceptions of serving all students, disabled and nondisabled, in an inclusive environment in the general education classroom?
4. What concerns do teachers have about implementing an inclusive environment in the general education classroom?
5. What incentives do teachers perceive could positively influence their attitudes and perceptions in serving all students, disabled and nondisabled, in an inclusive environment in the general education classroom?
6. What is an individual educator’s view/definition of disability? 
7. What is the school district’s view/definition of disability, as identified by participant perceptions?

Survey Instrument

            The Attitudes Towards Teaching All Students (ATTAS-mm) survey is a nine-item scale with strong reliability and validity that measures educator attitudes (Gregory & Noto, 2018), was used for the quantitative part of the study.  The full-scale measure was utilized to determine an educators’ attitude level and provided a raw score based on their responses.  The lower the raw score on the ATTAS-mm indicates a positive attitude toward teaching all students, while a higher raw score indicates a negative attitude towards teaching all students.  The ATTAS-mm has three components:

• The cognitive component includes thoughts, ideas, or beliefs, such as stereotyping.
• The affective aspect of attitude includes feelings or an emotional response to something or someone.
• The behavioral component describes the tendency to act in a way towards something.

While the three components are not independent, they are measurably distinct constructs (Gregory & Noto, 2012).

            The ATTAS-mm was input into Qualtrics to deliver to participants via email.  The results were directly collated by the system as participants completed the survey.  There were open-ended questions added to the survey to delve deeper into participant responses.  A question was added to elicit participation in the interview portion of the research.

            An element of potential concern was related to the cognitive submeasure where the factor loadings are strong, but the alpha is low.  To mitigate these issues a couple of qualitative questions were added to identify participants’ experience of social cognition to see if themes relate to the measurement of interest as a means of ensuring validity beyond the psychometrics. 

The interviews were used to elicit additional details from responses in the survey to verify an accurate understanding of participants’ responses.  Participants were asked to volunteer to be interviewed, after completing the survey, it was hoped at least five individuals would volunteer to take part in the interview.  This enabled participants to share their personal experiences and opinions regarding the inclusion of children with disabilities in the general education classroom. 

A logical approach was utilized in comparing the findings in this study to the deficit and human capability theories available on inclusion.  Once the data were collected and reviewed, it was determined whether the educators in the study were aligned with the human capability theory or deficit theory.

The survey used in this study was utilized with permission from the author who reported an overall Cronbach’s alpha of ? = .833 for the nine Likert scale questions (Gregory & Noto, 2012).  The survey was employed to measure the overall scale construct and then three subscales.  The overall scale construct measured educator’s attitude level toward teaching all students and revealed an alpha of ? =.854, which indicated a strong internal consistency (see Table 1). 

The first subscale of the ATTAS-mm was used to examine educator attitudes toward believing all students can succeed in general education classrooms.  The second subscale was used to examine educator attitudes toward developing personal and professional relationships. The third subscale was used to examine educator attitudes toward creating an accepting environment for all students to learn.  The reliability of each subscale and indicated alpha are listed (see Table 1).

Table 1

Reliability Statistics for the Administration of ATTAS-mm

	Cronbach’s Alpha	Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items	N of Items
Full Scale	0.854	0.863	9
1st Subscale	0.794	0.795	3
2nd Subscale	0.749	0.751	3
3rd Subscale	0.785	0.826	3

           

Results

            There was a total of 66 educators in three Northeast Tennessee school districts who completed the ATTAS-mm.  A total of 17 participants chose multiple responses on the Likert scale questions.  This caused a coding problem with the Likert scale questions which was attributed to how it was input into Qualtrics.  The decision was made to average those responses that had more than one selection to correctly identify the participant’s choice.  One participant had selected all Likert scale choices, but later indicated on one of the open-ended questions their desired response.  This response was corrected since the participant identified the item they had intended to select.

The full-scale measure for the ATTAS-mm provided results based on participant input on the nine Likert scale items.  The full-scale measure of the ATTAS-mm offered insight in regard to an educator’s attitude toward teaching all students.  The lower a participant’s raw score on the full-scale measure indicates an educator is more likely to have a positive attitude toward teaching all students.  Conversely, the higher the raw score on the full scale measure an educator is likely to have a negative attitude toward teaching all students.

            A point-biserial correlation was run on the data from the first research question to determine if there was a significant relationship between an educator’s gender and their attitude, positive or negative, toward teaching all students in the inclusive classroom.  The assumption of normality was not violated when p > .05.  The variables were found to be normally distributed, males p = .628 and females p = .158.  There was a significant correlation between educator gender and their attitude level toward teaching all students r?_b(64) = -.247, p = .045 (see Table 2).  The data indicated an educator’s attitude towards teaching all students was significant based on gender with the results indicating a significant relationship between females and a positive attitude toward teaching all students (see Table 2).

Table 2

Point-Biserial Correlation for ATTAS-mm by Gender
		What is your gender?	ATTASmm
What is your gender?	Pearson Correlation	1	-.247*
	Sig. (2-tailed)		.045
	N	66	66
ATTASmm	Pearson Correlation	-.247*	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	.045
	N	66	66
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

A t-test was run on sub research question 1a to determine if a significant difference existed between these two variables.  The results from the t-test indicated there was no significant difference between an educator’s gender and their attitude, positive or negative, towards teaching all students.  The mean for educators having a positive attitude toward teaching all students appears lower in female educators (M = 26.58, SD = 7.10) than male educators (M = 32.14, SD = 12.73).  The data indicated there was not a statistical significance in mean attitudes towards teaching all students between males and females, t(11.275) = 1.405, p = .187.

These results correspond with the study of Ahsan, Deppeler, and Sharma (2013) where it was found female preservice teachers showed more positive attitudes towards inclusive education.  The research done by Saloviita (2020) also found female teachers were more positive towards inclusion than their male counterparts.  The meta-analysis completed by Van Steen and Wilson (2020) suggested men hold more negative attitudes towards inclusion than women.  The research indicated the results based on gender are inconclusive, which may be because most studies have samples that include more females than males.  The prior research samples, as well as the sample in this study, appear typical because females generally outnumber males in the profession, but this could also skew the results in a study.  The significance found in this study may be skewed due to the disproportionate number of males who participated in the study in which only 17% of the sample self-identified as male.

            A Spearman’s Rank Order Correlation was conducted for the second research question to assess if a relationship existed between the amount of experience an educator has in the profession and their attitude, positive or negative, toward teaching all students.  Preliminary analysis showed the relationship to be monotonic, based on the visual evidence indicated by a scatterplot.  The data indicated that there was no significant correlation between educator experience and a an educator’s attitude, positive or negative, toward teaching all students, r?(64) = .077, p = .539 (see Table 3).   

Table 3

Spearman’s Correlations of ATTAS-mm by Years of Educator Experience
			How many years of experience do you have as an educator?	ATTASmm
Spearman’s rho	How many years of experience do you have as an educator?	Correlation Coefficient	1.000	.077
		Sig. (2-tailed)	.	.539
		N	66	66
	ATTASmm	Correlation Coefficient	.077	1.000
		Sig. (2-tailed)	.539	.
		N	66	66

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized for sub research question 2a to compare means of the groups of educators based on experience.  The data indicated there was not a significant difference between these two variables.  Participants were classified into five ordinal groups:  0-4 years (n=6), 5-9 years (n=13), 10-14 years (n=14), 15-19 years (n=10), and 20 years or more (n=23) (see Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1. Educator Experience by Years

Image available in PDF.

In the table labeled ANOVA of ATTAS-mm (see Table 5) the value in the column labelled Sig. is greater than .05 which indicates there are no differences between educator attitudes towards educating all students and the different groups of educator’s experience, F(3,61) = .468, p = .759. 

Table 5

ANOVA of ATTAS-mm by Years of Educator Experience
	Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Between Groups	137.539	4	34.385	.468	.759
Within Groups	4485.989	61	73.541
Total	4623.527	65

The research breaks down experience into length of service in the profession and experience working with students with disabilities (SWD).  This study focused on length of service in the profession when assessing for experience.  Similar studies indicated teachers new to the profession with little experience were found to have significantly more positive attitudes toward inclusion (Boyle, Topping, & Jindal-Snape, 2013; Parasuram, 2006; Supriyanto, 2019).    A total of 71% of the participants in this study had 10 years or more of experience, which may have influenced the results.  A more diverse sample of educators with less experience may have resulted in similar findings as previous studies.

A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was used for research question three because it provides an indication of strength of the linear relationship between two continuous variables (Gliner, Morgan, & Leech, 2017).  Preliminary analyses showed the relationship to be linear with both variables normally distributed when p > .05.  The correlation was run to assess the relationship between the number of college (or higher) courses completed in special education and an educator’s attitude, positive or negative, toward teaching all students.  The analysis indicated there was no statistically significant relationship found between the number of college (or higher) courses completed in special education and having a positive or negative attitude toward teaching all students: r(64) = -.14, p = .265.  The closer to zero an r value is, indicates no association.  The data indicated there was no statistically significant relationship between these variables since p > 05.

A Spearman’s rank order correlation was run next to further assess the relationship between an educator’s attitude toward teaching all students and how many college (or higher) courses completed in special education.  Preliminary analysis showed the relationship to be monotonic, based on the visual evidence indicated by a scatterplot.  It was found that there was no significant correlation between how many college (or higher) courses in special education completed and an educator’s attitude toward teaching all students, r?(64) =  -.162, p = .195 (see Table 8).  These results further confirm the results found from running Pearson’s Correlation on these variables.

According to Boyle et al. (2013), it was found that completing a course in special education significantly increases an educator’s positive attitude towards inclusion.  Teachers who are new to the profession with little experience were found to have significantly more positive attitudes toward inclusion (Boyle et al., 2013; Parasuram, 2006).  This could be the result of the preservice training now expected in many pre-service undergraduate programs, where coursework in special education is required for all subject area teachers.  As with the previous research question, a larger and more diverse sample may have yielded more significant results.  It appears the sample in this study, which consisted of educators with considerable experience, may have limited the generalizability.

The qualitative component of the study consisted of two parts, the interview portion, and the open-ended questions added to the survey.  Educators volunteered for the interview portion by indicating their willingness to participate on one of the open-ended survey questions.  Seven individuals indicated a willingness to take part in the interview portion of the study, but only six participated.  The interviews were used to elicit additional details from responses in the survey to verify an accurate understanding of participants’ responses.  This enabled participants to share their personal experiences and opinions regarding the inclusion of children with disabilities in the general education classroom.  The list of interview questions are as follows:

            1. What concerns you about having to implement a more inclusive environment?

            2. What training do you feel you need to be more effective in an inclusive classroom?

3. What supports are needed to properly support disabled students in the inclusive classroom?

4. Why do you feel the support of your building administrator is pertinent to the success of an inclusive classroom?

5. How would you define the term disability?

6. How do you perceive your school district defines the term disability?

A logical approach was utilized in comparing the findings in this study to the deficit and human capability theories available on inclusion.  Once the data were collected and reviewed, it was determined whether the educators in the study were aligned with the human capability theory or deficit theory.

The quantitative data were combined with the qualitative data to provide triangulation to the mixed methods analysis.  The raw score and standard deviation participants received on the survey were included and gave further evidence of where an educator was, in terms of their attitude, positive or negative, towards serving all students.  The descriptive statistics indicate a M = 27.50 and SD = 8.43.  The lower the raw score on the ATTAS-mm indicated a participant is more likely to have a positive attitude towards serving all students.

Once the interviews were completed, they were transcribed and uploaded into QDA Miner™ to code.  The process of coding is central to qualitative research in making sense of the text collected (Creswell & Poth, 2018).  The coding report identified four emergent themes from the six questions that were asked educators.  The four primary themes from the coding report were concerns, training, supports, and mindset.

Research question four asked what concerns an educator had in implementing a more inclusive environment.  The data were sorted under the theme concerns and broken down into six secondary codes: concern add staff, concern money related, concern nondisabled students, concern disabled students, pace/ standards, and behavioral concerns.  The first secondary code dealt with educator concern about not having additional staff in the classroom, such as a paraprofessional or a special education teacher to assist in serving all students in the inclusive classroom.  Participants’ noted concerns about the short period of time that additional staff are in the inclusive classroom and the frustration of waiting on getting another special education teacher hired due to shortages in the profession.  There were eight cases that came under the secondary code of concern, add staff.

The concerns noted under the secondary code of additional staff was related to the need for more certified special education teachers as well as teaching assistants or aides to support SWD’s in the inclusive classroom.  Avramidis and Norwich (2002) found school factors, like availability of support in the classroom including learning support assistants, special education teachers, and speech therapists have been found linked to teachers’ inclusion attitudes.  The data from the interviews in this study would seem to support that finding and would appear to be an influential factor in assisting educators develop a positive attitude toward serving all students in the inclusive classroom.  The next secondary code that emerged out of the interviews was money related concerns.  The secondary code was similar to the first because educators’ responded similarly by noting schools and districts are not providing the funding to hire additional staff to support SWD’s in the general education classroom.  Funding shortages to provide needed support could be used as justification by school systems to avoid implementing inclusive classrooms.

The second secondary code dealt with concerns related to money, where educators alluded to concerns regarding the school district not providing the finances to provide the resources, they perceive are needed to implement an inclusive classroom.  Participants’ noted shortages, and issues related to budget shortcomings leading to limited resources.  There were nine cases that emerged under this secondary code within the data.

The third secondary code dealt with concerns of nondisabled students, where educators mentioned their concerns about nondisabled students being distracted by disabled students or not being challenged properly in an inclusive classroom.  Participant #4 asked the rhetorical question “What about those highfliers” referencing nondisabled students with average to above average ability, wondering if they would be properly challenged in the inclusive classroom.  There were three cases that emerged in the data under this secondary code.

The fourth secondary code dealt with concerns of disabled students, where educators voiced their concerns about disabled students not receiving the support they need.  There was a total of ten cases that emerged in the data under this category.  Participants’ noted, “being at a loss to help everybody” alluding to not being able to properly accommodate for disabled students in the inclusive classroom.  One participant also asked a rhetorical question “what is going to happen when they go to high school and are still reading at a first-grade level” alluding to a disabled student not achieving the same level of progress as nondisabled students. 

The fifth secondary code dealt with concerns of pace/standards, where educators noted

their concerns about not being able to maintain a challenging pace to ensure meeting all the state standards.  Participant #3 noted how “overwhelming” it is to have a disabled child in the general education classroom because of the “different things they have to focus on” making it difficult to maintain a pace to meet the standards.  There was a total of eight cases that emerged in the data under this secondary code.

The sixth secondary code dealt with behavioral concerns educators voiced about students with disabilities misbehaving in the inclusive classroom.  Participants’ referenced “behavioral IEP’s” how it becomes a problem for the rest of the class because of disruptions from the “exceptional child”.  A similar theme emerged to educator response to an effective classroom.  It was not by educators discipline is needed in an effective classroom.  Educators referred to overall classroom management and the daily structure when describing an effective inclusive classroom.  Participants noted under this subheading there is “great classroom management” and “discipline is enforced”.  There were six cases that emerged in the data under this secondary code.  Educators often noted concerns about the behaviors of SWD’s in the general education classroom and how that can distract from peers in the classroom.  This secondary code is a good example of how triangulation was utilized in this study to add richness and validity of the data (Patton, 2015).  Under the secondary code of discipline Case #26 wrote a statement “One in which there is respect and discipline is enforced” in response to the open-ended prompt of describing in detail the effective classroom.  The raw score on the ATTAS-mm was added to the table responses to provide additional depth.  The raw score on the ATTAS-mm for the participant noted under Case #26 was 56.5, indicating an educator with a negative attitude towards teaching all students which provides additional insight into this participant’s response.

The four secondary codes involving concerns for nondisabled students, disabled students, pace/standards, and behavioral concerns are all related.  Educators noted concern about how nondisabled students would be affected by SWD’s being in the same classroom.  Participants noted additional assistance needed to support SWD’s and behavior issues could become a distraction and have a negative impact on the progress of nondisabled peers.  These concerns are related to the secondary theme of pace/standards where educators noted the difficulty in maintaining a challenging pace to meet state standards with SWD’s in the general education classroom.  Lastly, educators noted concerns for disabled students not receiving the support they need in the inclusive classroom with some participants alluding to SWD’s may be better served in a segregated special education classroom.  These concerns may be linked to an educators’ attitude, positive or negative, towards serving all students in the inclusive classroom.

Research question five asked what incentives do educators’ perceive could positively influence their attitudes and perceptions of serving all students in the inclusive classroom.  This question was not directly asked but could be inferred from participant responses.  Participants seemed to allude to training and supports as incentives that could positively influence educator attitudes in serving all students in the inclusive classroom.  The emergent theme, training, was broken down into three secondary codes of inclusive, differentiation, and coteaching.  The first secondary code of inclusive training indicated when educators referenced a need for training to better serve students with disabilities in the inclusive classroom.  Participants’ noted how they want to help students with disabilities, but do not feel adequately prepared.  Educators’ referenced they do not feel they have the appropriate “tools in their toolbox” to serve students in a nontraditional way.  There was a total of eight cases that emerged in the data under this category.

Through the use of triangulation, additional themes were uncovered from educator responses related to training.  The theme, inclusive strategies, had five secondary codes that included collaborative learning, Universal Design for Learning (UDL)/student centered, differentiation, coteaching, and peer tutor/mentors.  Educators noted the need for further training on inclusive strategies as the data indicated participants had an ATTAS-mm raw score close to the mean indicating a positive attitude towards serving all students in the inclusive classroom.

Educators noted the need to get additional training to assist them in supporting all students in the inclusive classroom.  Ross?Hill (2009) found that teachers expressed they are confident to teach students with special needs when they have adequate training to serve students with diverse needs.  The emergent themes regarding training in this study are consistent with findings throughout the research to develop educator self-efficacy in working with SWD’s (Savolainen, Engelbrecht, Nel, & Malinen, 2012; Supriyanto, 2019; Urton, Wilbert, & Hennemann, 2014; Vaz et al., 2015).  It would seem the findings in this study are consistent with the findings in previous research on how training can be a factor in an educators’ attitudes and perceptions of serving all students in the inclusive classroom. 

Inclusive strategies were noted throughout the responses to the open-ended questions added to the survey.  In responding to the prompt, participants mentioned the importance of providing a kind and loving environment that was equitable in serving all students.  Participants mentioned the need to utilize differentiation and coteaching, cross validating participant responses from the interviews.  In addition, participants mentioned the importance of utilizing collaborative learning, peer tutors and mentors, and universal design for learning.  The findings in the qualitative data from the survey would seem to support the findings in the interviews where training could be a factor in developing a positive attitude to serve all students in the inclusive classroom.

The third emergent theme uncovered in the data were supports, which alludes to the supports educators believe would assist them in successfully implementing an inclusive classroom.  This theme was broken down into two secondary codes which included class size and additional staff.  The first secondary code under supports was class size where educators noted a smaller class would be more conducive to meeting the needs of all students in an inclusive classroom.  There were two cases that emerged in the data under this category but only one participant noted the concern of class size.   This was a divergence in the data, since only one educator referenced a need for a smaller class size.  The participant noted under this secondary code an effective inclusive classroom would have a “low student/teacher ratio.”  The example of the open-ended participant response along with their raw score and z-score provide further evidence of the consistency of these two data sets. 

The secondary code of class size was noted by only one participant in the interview data but was mentioned twice by this same participant.  There was also a singular mention of class size by a different participant in the open-ended survey responses.  The research indicated class size is a concern for educators in order to meet the needs of all students, but does not appear to be a factor in contributing to teacher attitudes and perceptions of SWD’s in the inclusive classroom (Saloviita, 2020; Sargeant & Berkner, 2015).  The current finding of this study on class size seems to be consistent with previous findings in the research.

The next secondary code under the theme of supports was administrative support, where educators noted the support of the building principal or assistant principal would assist them in implementing an inclusive classroom.  Educators noted the importance of administrative support to get “classroom support for valued educational time” as well as believing that any meaningful change is going to come from the top in a “trickle down” type of manner.  There were sixteen cases that emerged in the data under this category.  Educators noted the importance to have the support of their leadership in implementing inclusive classrooms, such as the building principal or district administration who often set policy for the school or the entire district.  The finding in this study is similar to previous findings in the research where teachers need encouragement and administrative support in the implementation of inclusive practices (Sargeant & Berkner, 2015).

The third secondary code under the theme of supports was additional staff where educators noted the support of additional staff in the classroom, such as a paraprofessional or special education teacher, in implementing an inclusive classroom.  Participants noted the need to have “just extra people to help” in supporting all students in the classroom.  They also noted how the “flow of the class goes smoother” with the additional staff member in the classroom.  There were fifteen cases that emerged in the data under this category.

Additional staff is a secondary code that was noted previously under concerns by participants and appears again as a needed support.  Educators noted the necessity of having additional staff, such as a special education teacher or aide, in the inclusive classroom to adequately support SWD’s.  It would appear educators see additional staff as an important component to the inclusive classroom and a factor in developing a positive attitude of serving all students in the inclusive classroom.

Research question six asked educators’ their definition of disability and research question seven asked how they perceived their district defines the term disability.  These two research questions were intended to provide insight into an educator’s mindset and the perceived mindset of their district.  The fourth emergent theme uncovered from the data were mindset.  This theme alludes to the perceived mindset of participants and fellow colleagues.  Based on the responses, it appears they are aligned with either the human capability theory, a proinclusive mindset or deficit theory, a mindset based on the old medical model which often led to segregating students with disabilities.  The two secondary codes were named for each of these theories under this theme. 

The first secondary code under human capability theory is where educators noted in their responses a proinclusive mindset.  Participant #3 noted how they “wish everybody could see that it’s beneficial for everyone” when describing their experience of an inclusive classroom.  Participant #5 noted how much progress has been made to include students with disabilities but acknowledged that “we’re still fighting that battle” to include all students. There were seventeen cases that emerged in the data under this category. 

Further evidence was uncovered through triangulating the data with the question related to educator behavior.  Under educator behavior was the theme mindset/human capability theory, participants responses were aligned with the human capability theory which advocates all students are capable of learning and achieving success.  Participants described ideal educator behavior as believing “all students have the ability to learn”.  They also described an environment where “every student is accepted and supported in the pursuit of learning”.  There was a total of 19 cases that emerged in the data under this secondary code.

The next secondary code under the theme of mindset was deficit theory.  This is where educators noted in their responses a mindset aligned with the old medical model of separating students to remediate their deficits.  Participant #3 noted how in their school the model is “based off of old methods” alluding to separating students with disabilities from being with their same age peers in the general education classroom.  Participant #4 questioned why they are “not putting them together in class where the aid can meet their needs” alluding to serving those students in a self-contained special education classroom.  There were 21 cases that emerged in the data under this category with examples of participant responses related to this secondary code listed. Under this secondary code participant responses were aligned with the deficit theory where the belief is that disabled students have a structural problem within themselves that requires remediation to overcome.

Research questions six and seven were related, as the purpose was to elicit information to help determine educator mindsets and how their mindset was developed.  These two research questions asked for participants to define the term disability and to relate what they perceive is their school districts definition of disability.  The two secondary codes that arose out of the emergent themes from the interview data as well as the data from the open-ended questions were related to the human capability theory and deficit theory.  The intent was to relate participant responses to these two theories to get a clearer understanding of participants mindset as it relates to the inclusive classroom. 

Individuals answered these last two research questions directly in the interview portion of the study.  The six individuals who were interviewed had various responses, but there was a noticeable difference in the individual educators’ definition of disability and what they perceived as their school or districts’ definition of disability.  Four of the six participants’ definition of disability was akin to the human capability theory, a philosophy based on how a SWD can benefit from the provision of specialized educational supports and services (Sailor et al., 2018).      One of the participant’s responses was problematic, as it appeared biased since she alluded in her response that this was how the district wanted her to respond.  The participant was reassured all responses were confidential and would not link back to the individual nor school.  It would appear in this instance, this participant was influenced by how her district would like her to respond, which impacted this participant’s mindset of serving all students.  The final participant’s definition of disability was related to deficit theory.  Each of the six participants’ responses regarding the perception of the school districts definition of disability all fell under deficit theory.  Educators appear more closely aligned to the human capability theory when it comes to attitudes regarding the inclusive classroom, whereas school districts seem to be coming from a different perspective related to deficit theory, based on a participant’s perception of the district’s policy.  It would seem these differing views could negatively impact an educator’s attitude towards serving all students in the inclusive classroom over time.

Participant responses through the interview and open-ended questions indicated human capability theory relates to a proinclusive mindset.  Participants noted the advantages of inclusivity are beneficial for everyone.  The mixed methods analysis with the survey data indicated how a low raw score on the ATTAS-mm, which indicates a positive attitude of serving all students, seems to correlate with the human capability theory with the proinclusive responses.  These areas of convergence increase confidence in the findings (Patton, 2015).  Educator responses noted the importance of high expectations for all students.  There was a total of 19 cases that emerged in the survey data and 17 cases that emerged in the interview data under the secondary code of human capability theory, indicating most educators in this study appear to have a proinclusive mindset.

Participant responses through the interview and open-ended questions may indicate deficit theory relates to a mindset that is less positive towards the inclusive environment.  One participant response noted “total frustration and exhaustion”.  This statement along with the triangulation from the ATTAS-mm raw score of 56.5 indicated this individual appears to have a negative attitude towards serving all students.  This provides further evidence in the findings with this convergence of data.  Participants mentioned old methods in responses under this secondary code referring to when SWD’s were segregated into specialized classrooms confirming the connection to deficit theory.

Discussion

            There were seven research questions along with two sub research questions that guided this mixed methods study.  A total of 66 educators from three Northeast Tennessee school districts participated in the study by completing the Attitudes Towards Teaching All Students survey (ATTAS-mm).  The nine item Likert scale questions were utilized to answer the three quantitative research questions.  There were two open ended questions added to the survey to elicit further information from participants.  Those results were coded into emergent themes and used in a mixed methods analysis with the survey data to cross validate between the qualitative and quantitative data sets through triangulation.  Participants were asked in the survey to volunteer to participate in the interview portion of the study.  Seven participants originally volunteered for the interviews with six choosing to participate.  The interview data were transcribed and then coded and analyzed into emergent themes.     

Limitations

            The research in this study may have been impacted by the following limitations:

• The number of participants in the sample and the disproportionate number of males to females.  A larger and more diverse sample may have led to more significant findings. 
• The influence social desirability could have on the results.  Socially desirable responding is defined as the tendency to give answers that make the respondent look good (Paulhus & Reid, 1991).  The recent popularity in educational research regarding attitudes towards inclusive education has found social desirability to have a negative impact on studies (Lüke & Grosche, 2018).    

Implications for Practice

Including educators in the process of implementing a more inclusive environment appears to be linked to the success of the initiative.  Educators generally have positive attitudes towards the philosophy of the inclusive classroom but often have difficulty with how it is implemented (Gonzalez, 1999).  Pearman et al. (1992) noted that all too often more inclusive settings are planned and implemented, but building administrators and teachers are not involved in this process. 

A participant in this study noted the importance of support from their building administrator because those decisions affect their daily life as an educator.  The participant shared how their building principal determines class sizes, supplies, and professional development training.  Another participant noted leadership decisions are made from the top and then trickle down to those working in the classrooms.  According to Darling and Nurmi (2009), strategic leadership is not just delegating the strategy from top to bottom but, collecting data and information that emerges from within the organization.  Including all stakeholders in the process of implementing a more inclusive environment would be beneficial in collecting input from all levels within an organization.

  The adaptive leadership approach could be a useful leadership model to assist in implementing an inclusive environment because it is follower centered.  Adaptive leadership focuses on the adaptations required of individuals in response to the changes being undertaken within an organization and the support a leader can provide during the transition (Northouse, 2016).  Heavyweight teams can be incorporated into the process, as noted previously.  Christensen et al. (2008) noted heavyweight teams are tools to create new ways of working together, made up of members throughout the organization that have collective responsibility to figure out a better way to meet the organization’s goals.  This process can be instrumental in establishing common beliefs throughout the organization (DeHartchuck, Kruse, & Whittaker, 2019).

Recommendations for Future Research

            The development of a quantitative assessment to measure an educator’s mindset as it relates to the human capability theory or deficit theory would be helpful for districts to develop a baseline of their staff.  A quantitative assessment would be quick and easy for school districts to assess educator mindset and then create professional development to assist educators to align with a proinclusive mindset and the human capability theory.  It may be beneficial to explore further if a relationship exists between an educator’s mindset and the integration of evidence based inclusive practices.  Further research may be beneficial on developing a mindset aligned with the human capability theory in educators and determining the variables that influence that mindset to better integrate an inclusive environment.  The hope is further research in this area could lead to a theoretical framework to outline the steps in developing a proinclusive mindset aligned with the human capability theory.

Conclusion

            The findings of this study indicate consistency with previous findings in the research.  This study indicated such things as supports and training on inclusive practices can have a positive influence on educator attitudes toward the inclusive classroom.  Participants indicated a need for further training to assist them in serving all students effectively.  It was also found that educators value the support of additional staff in the classroom as well as the administrative support of building principals and district leaders.  Lastly, it was found in this study there is a significant relationship between gender and having a positive attitude toward serving all students.

            An additional finding unique to this study is the relationship between the proinclusive mindset and the human capability theory, through the use of triangulation.  The development of a mindset aligned to the human capability could be beneficial in the implementation of a more inclusive environment.  Individuals who espouse this perspective recognize the issue is not with the individual with a disability but in the need to accommodate the learning to adapt the needs of the individual.