University of Wollongong

Research Online
Faculty of Social Sciences - Papers Faculty of Social Sciences

2013

Trainee teachers' attitudes towards students with

specific learning disabilities
Stuart Woodcock
University of Wollongong, [email protected]

Publication Details
Woodcock, S. (2013). Trainee teachers' attitudes towards students with specific learning disabilities. Australian Journal of Teacher
Education, 38 (8), 16-29.

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library:
[email protected]
Trainee teachers' attitudes towards students with specific learning
disabilities
Abstract
Policies on the inclusion of students with special educational needs in mainstream classrooms have focused
attention on how general education teachers perceive these students. Furthermore with specific learning
disabilities forming a large group of diverse students, and teachers' attitudes often not changing over the career
span, preparing teachers for inclusive education is vitally important. This study aimed to identify the attitudes
of trainee1 teachers towards students with specific learning disabilities and differentiation of the curriculum.
Significant differences were found between the attitudes of primary and secondary school trainee teachers,
and the influence of training. There were no differences in attitudes according to experience with students
with specific learning disabilities. The findings have implications for teacher training programs.

Keywords
attitudes, towards, students, trainee, specific, teachers, learning, disabilities

Disciplines
Education | Social and Behavioral Sciences

Publication Details
Woodcock, S. (2013). Trainee teachers' attitudes towards students with specific learning disabilities.
Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38 (8), 16-29.

This journal article is available at Research Online: http://ro.uow.edu.au/sspapers/482

Australian Journal of Teacher Education
Volume 38 | Issue 8 Article 2

2013

Trainee Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Students With

Specific Learning Disabilities
Stuart Woodcock
University of Wollongong, [email protected]

Recommended Citation
Woodcock, Stuart (2013) "Trainee Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Students With Specific Learning Disabilities," Australian Journal of
Teacher Education: Vol. 38: Iss. 8, Article 2.
Available at: http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol38/iss8/2

This Journal Article is posted at Research Online.

http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol38/iss8/2
Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Trainee Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Students With Specific Learning

Disabilities

Stuart Woodcock
University of Wollongong

Abstract: Policies on the inclusion of students with special

educational needs in mainstream classrooms have focused attention
on how general education teachers perceive these students.
Furthermore with specific learning disabilities forming a large group
of diverse students, and teachers’ attitudes often not changing over the
career span, preparing teachers for inclusive education is vitally
important. This study aimed to identify the attitudes of
trainee1 teachers towards students with specific learning disabilities
and differentiation of the curriculum. Significant differences were
found between the attitudes of primary and secondary school trainee
teachers, and the influence of training. There were no differences in
attitudes according to experience with students with specific learning
disabilities. The findings have implications for teacher training
programs

Introduction

Recent moves towards the inclusion of students with special educational needs in
inclusive classrooms have focused attention on how teachers perceive these students, what
constitutes educational success for children with special educational needs in inclusive
classrooms, and the ability of teachers to provide effective instruction for them. Limitations
in funding and appropriate material resources and support add to the difficulties faced by
teachers. These issues foreground a need to understand the beliefs and attitudes that teachers
hold about their role as practitioners generally and in relation to students in their classrooms
who have difficulty learning.
Teachers’ past experiences as learners are powerful in shaping conceptions and
expectations about teaching students, and form beliefs about the process of teaching during
their preservice training, and once a belief has been held for a long time it becomes difficult
to change (Woolfolk-Hoy & Spero, 2005). Preservice training is a critical period during
which beliefs and attitudes are more likely to be influenced by external sources.
Consequently, there is a critical need to explore trainee teachers’ perceptions and attitudes in
relation to students with specific learning disabilities (SLD). This study aimed to provide an
in-depth exploration of trainee, primary and secondary teachers’ attitudes about students with
SLD.

Literature Review

As inclusive education continues to gain strength, it is important to understand how

educators perceive the academic outcomes of students with diverse needs and abilities
(Hemmings & Woodcock, 2011). Students with SLD form the largest group of students with

Vol 38, 8, August 2013 16

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

diverse needs and abilities in inclusive classrooms (Clark & Artiles, 2000). Specific learning
disability is defined as a neurological disorder that is manifested by “significant difficulties in
acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical
skills…intrinsic to the individual, presumed to be due to central nervous system dysfunction,
and may occur the life span” (NJCD, 1998, p. 1).
A significant influence on students’ classroom performance is teacher attitudes,
(Forlin, Loreman, Sharma & Earle, 2007; Winter, 2006). For example, research has shown
that negative attitudes can lead to low expectations of a person (Campbell, Gilmore &
Cuskelly, 2003; Palmer, 2006). On the other hand, positive attitudes can lead to higher
expectations of a person (Angelides, 2008).
The influence of teacher attitudes is powerful. For example, negative attitudes and
low expectations by teachers can result in reduced opportunities for students to learn. This, in
turn, may impair students’ self-beliefs causing them to reduce their expectations and leading
to a deficit cycle (Westwood, 1995). However, positive attitudes can enhance opportunities
for students to learn, which may improve their performances, self-expectations and self-
esteem (Palmer, 2006; Woolfson, Grant & Campbell, 2007). Therefore in order for inclusion
to be successful (particularly for those with SLD), it is critical that teachers have positive
attitudes towards students (Angelidis, 2008; Winter, 2006).

Factors Influencing Teachers’ and Trainee Teachers’ Attitudes towards Students with Special
Educational Needs

Over the past few decades the notion of inclusion has gained more momentum and the
majority of classrooms now include students with diverse needs and abilities. When inclusion
(previously termed as ‘mainstreaming’) was more sporadic and was beginning to gain
momentum, teachers’ attitudes towards students with diverse needs and abilities (at the time
described as disabilities) were not very positive (Siegel, 1992). Teachers were very
apprehensive about these students and the quality of work that they were capable of
producing. In particular, empirical data by Aloia, Maxwell and Aloia (1981) showed that
teachers possessed low academic expectations in relation to students with special educational
needs. They were also concerned about their lack of knowledge and training for the inclusion
of students with disabilities (Siegel & Jausovec, 1994).
However, more recently, studies have suggested that there has been a move towards
more positive attitudes for students with diverse needs and abilities. For example, a study by
Fields (2006) surveyed general education teachers enrolled in an in-service course in special
education at a regional university in Queensland. The teachers in the study were presented
with 14 case study descriptions of students with varying characteristics, behaviours and
special needs in the form of vignettes. They were asked questions in response to the vignettes
presented. Part of the results indicated that teachers were more hostile towards including
students with behavioural disorders than those who are gifted and talented or have
communication disorders. The study is consistent with previous studies (such as Soodak,
Podell & Lehman, 1998) which found that teachers had more positive attitudes towards
students with social and physical disabilities than academic or behavioural. Avramidis and
Norwich (2002) reviewed a large body of research which explored a host of possible factors
that impact upon teacher attitude and acceptance of inclusion between 1984 and 2000. Their
findings revealed that teachers’ attitudes towards students with disabilities in inclusive
settings have become more positive over recent years. More specifically, they found that not
only were teachers more receptive to including students with sensory and physical
impairments than those with SLD but that general education teachers were less encouraging,

Vol 38, 8, August 2013 17

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

showed less tolerance and understanding towards students with SLD than did special
educators. Avramidis and Norwich concluded from their study that there is an inconsistency
in regards to positive attitude towards full inclusion for students with disabilities (2002).
These results have since been supported by Lancaster and Bain (2007), and Romi and Leyser
(2006).
Further research exists supporting the notion that teachers have preferences when
accepting students with different types of disabilities (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). For
example, Loreman and colleagues (2005) found that teachers were mixed in their attitudes
towards students with diverse needs and abilities with the least positive response towards
students with behaviour, and particularly physically aggressive behaviour problems.
Moreover, Alghazo and Gaad (2004), and Englebrecht and colleagues (2003), concluded
from their studies that teachers found students with an intellectual disability as being more
difficult to support than students with other types of disabilities. Dupoux, Wolman and
Estrada (2005) compared the attitudes of teachers toward inclusion of students with diverse
needs and abilities in Haïti and the United States. One hundred-fifty-two high school teachers
in Haïti and 216 high school teachers in the United States completed the Opinions Relative to
the Integration of Students with Disabilities Scale (Antonak & Larrivee, 1995). The
researchers concluded that teachers in both countries created a hierarchy of attitudes when
accommodating the severity of disabilities. They found that students with SLD engendered
the most positive attitudes towards accommodating their needs while those with emotional
and behavioural difficulties caused the least positive attitudes towards accommodating their
needs. Avramidis, Bayliss and Burden (2000) found that while the majority of teachers
agreed with the inclusion policy, most were only willing to accept the inclusion of students
with mild disabilities. As DeSimone and Parmar (2006) have stated, research thus far has
shown that elementary and middle school teachers generally do not feel responsible for
differentiating instruction to meet diverse learning needs. Thus the research suggests that
modifying and differentiating instruction is not a skill that comes easily for any teacher
(novice or experienced).

Attitude and Instruction

The relationship between teacher attitude, and behaviour and instructional practice
has become more evident in recent research (Woolfson et al., 2007). Woolfson and
colleagues (2007) claimed that the connection between teacher beliefs and their behaviours in
the classroom are linked to personally-based beliefs, values and principles. Studies by the
European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education (2003) and Leung and Liu
(2003) have demonstrated that pedagogy is affected by teacher attitudes. Research has also
shown correlations between negative attitudes and poor or ineffective instructional strategies
(Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Palmer, 2006). Biddle (2006) investigated the types of
instructional strategies that general education teachers used in inclusive classrooms. Eighty-
nine general education teachers (teaching Years 9-12) completed a self-evaluation of
instructional strategies they used in their inclusive classrooms and their attitudes towards
inclusion of students with diverse needs and abilities. Biddle found that teachers who were
more positive in their attitude towards inclusion of such students utilised effective
instructional strategies more consistently than those teachers who had a more negative
attitude. Moreover, the more exposure and experience teachers had with students with
disabilities, the more positive their attitude towards them (Lambe & Bones, 2006). Similar
results were found by Hastings and colleagues (1996) in research with trainee teachers.

Vol 38, 8, August 2013 18

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Research demonstrates that increased experience and contact with students with
special educational needs in conjunction with knowledge and training, results in more
positive attitudes (Akiba, 2011; Lambe & Bones, 2006; Sharma, Forlin, Loreman & Earle,
2006; Winter, 2006). Moreover, research has shown that teachers’ negative attitudes towards
students with special educational needs are a function of lack of training and development
and, teachers with more training about students with special educational needs should have
more favourable attitudes and emotional reactions towards them (Avramidis et al., 2000;
Carroll, Forlin & Jobling, 2003; Mungai & Thornburg, 2002).
Teacher education programs are criticised for doing too little to prepare trainee
teachers to work with children with special educational needs. However, research has found
that attempts to improve trainee teachers’ attitudes only had a small impact (Brown, Walsh,
Hill & Cipko, 2008; Forlin et al., 2007; Tait & Purdie, 2000).
Winter (2006) asked 203 teachers in Northern Ireland about their professional training
in preparing them to meet the challenges of inclusive education. Winter found that 89% did
not feel their training had prepared them. DeSimone and Parmar (2006) conducted a study in
19 states across the United States and concluded that respondents (75%) were not prepared
enough to meet the needs of their students with special educational needs. These findings are
consistent with findings from Bradshaw and Mundia (2006), and, Subban and Sharma (2006),
which show that the majority of their respondents claimed that their preservice teacher
training programs did not equip them with the necessary skills to face the challenges and
difficulties of teaching students with SLD.
Moreover, researchers have also concluded that special education courses have little
(if any) impact on changing perceptions and attitudes towards students with special
educational needs (Brown et al., 2008; Stella, Forlin & Lan, 2007). For example, Stella,
Forlin and Lan (2007) studied 213 trainee teachers in Hong Kong who completed pre- and
post-surveys on a compulsory special education module. This was to compare their attitudes
and concerns towards inclusive education. They found that although the results were
significant, the differences in attitudes and concerns from completing the compulsory special
education module were not substantial. This supported earlier research by Forlin and
colleagues (1999) who had previously found that those trainee teachers who had taken an
elective subject in special education as part of their course indicated less discomfort and more
positive attitudes than those who had not done so. However, Forlin and colleagues found that
compulsory special education subjects had minimal impact upon influencing trainee teachers’
attitudes and beliefs (1999). Conversely, Ellins and Porter (2005) found that training in
special education was found to enhance the formation of positive attitudes.
Additionally, it has been claimed that trainee teachers’ pre-existing beliefs and past
school experiences are powerful in shaping conceptions about teaching diverse students and
are unlikely to change over time (Woolfolk-Hoy & Spero, 2005). This reinforces the
importance of preservice teacher training although some research suggests these do not
change trainee teachers’ preconceptions about teaching students with diverse needs and
abilities (Bradshaw & Mundia, 2006; Subban & Sharma, 2006).

Attitudes toward Students with SLD

Although there is limited research on teachers’ attitudes towards students with SLD, it
suggests teachers do not always respond positively to students with SLD within inclusive
classrooms (Tait & Purdie, 2000). DeSimone and Parmar (2006) examined teacher beliefs
where 228 Year six, seven and eight mathematics teachers completed the ‘Survey on
Teaching Mathematics to Students with [Specific] Learning Disabilities’ across 19 states in

Vol 38, 8, August 2013 19

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

the United States. They followed this up with telephone interviews from 26 of the
respondents who completed the survey. One of their striking, yet disappointing, findings was
that the majority of respondents did not see any distinction between a student with SLD and a
low-performing student. Consequently, the respondents believed that the modifications that
they used for low-achieving students were adequate and sufficient for students with SLD
(DeSimone & Parmar, 2006).
DeSimone and Parmar’s study supports previous work, such as that of Siperstein and
Goding (1985) who concluded that there is a strong misconception of students with SLD
among teachers. They hypothesised from this that teachers have low expectations of children
with SLD. This can in turn manifest into teachers’ different treatment of children with SLD.
Siperstein and Goding (1985) contended that teachers’ responses to children with SLD were
triggered more by the label that they wore than their actual behaviour.
In summary, research demonstrates that the attitudes of teachers are to some extent
influenced by the amount of training and knowledge they have received (Burke & Sutherland,
2004; Winter, 2006), although often limited). However, researchers have concluded that the
most important factors on teachers’ attitudes were exposure and experience with students
with special educational needs (Akiba, 2011; Brown et al., 2008; Lambe & Bones, 2006).
Specific research questions for this study were:
i. What are the similarities and significant differences in regards to attitudes towards
students with SLD and differentiating the curriculum to meet their needs between:
a. primary and secondary trainee teachers;
b. trainee teachers at the beginning and end of their training course;
c. male and female trainee teachers; and,
d. experience and exposure to students with SLD?

Methodology

This study examined trainee teachers’ attitudes towards students with SLD, and to
what extent they differed according to school context, gender, training, and experience with
those with SLD.

Participants

The participants in this study were trainee teachers drawn from three varied
universities across New South Wales, including urban, suburban, and rural areas.
Respondents were undertaking a one year diploma of education in either primary education
(n=494) or secondary education (n=158). Of the 652 participants, 22% were male and 78%
were female trainee teachers, a similar ratio to that of male and female primary/secondary
teachers in Australia (Anderson, 2004; Callan, 2004). Participants were either near the
beginning (n=275) or near the end (n=377) of their training course. In the one year training
course, trainee teachers commence their teaching program after the completion of a general
undergraduate degree course.

Context

In the one year, trainee teachers across the varied universities spend an initial two-
three weeks in schools at the beginning of their course, and then a four-five week block at the

Vol 38, 8, August 2013 20

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

end of each of the two semesters. The aim of the initial two-three week placement in schools
is to observe and gain an initial understanding of how schools and classrooms run. The four-
five week placement at the end of the first semester is spent observing teaching, team
teaching, teaching parts of lessons to teaching whole class lessons. The final four-five week
placement is similar to the previous one, but extended in that trainee teachers are also
expected to teach complete units of work to a whole class, including assessments.
The structures of the programs at each university seek to engage students in
professional aspects of teaching, including curriculum methods and classroom practice. Of
the number of subjects offered to trainee teachers, all must complete a subject around
inclusive education which focuses on the teaching and meeting the needs of learners with
diverse educational needs, and an emphasis on effective teaching and classroom management
strategies. The compulsory inclusive education subjects offered to the different cohorts of
trainee teachers are similar in content across the varied universities.

Instrumentation

A survey questionnaire was used to gather the data for this study. The instrument
consisted of a number of parts and used a variety of question formats. However, for this part
of the study this paper is only going to focus on the part of attitudes towards students with
SLD. The attitudes questionnaire used Likert-scale questions. Even though the main focus of
this article is the analysis of the Likert-scale responses, it needs to be emphasised that other
sections of the survey questionnaire were used in a more extensive project relating to trainee
teacher views and understanding towards students with SLD.
The Likert-scale items in the survey were drawn from the National Research Centre
for the Gifted and Talented (NRCGT) as part of the ‘Survey of Practices’ (SOP) instrument.
The SOP was created to assess the attitudes and beliefs about academically diverse learners
and differentiated instruction appropriate for meeting their needs. It assessed attitudes
towards gifted learners, SLD learners and issues related to the differentiation of classroom
strategies to meet the needs of academically diverse learners (Tomlinson, Callahan, Moon,
Tomchin, Landrum, Imbeau, Hunsaker, & Eiss, 1995).
The scale used for this study included 15 items e.g., “Students with SLD find it
difficult to work on their own without teacher direction”. Each item requires a response to a
5-point Likert-type classification with response choices ranging from 0 (strongly agree), to 4
(strongly disagree). Some statements were written positively whereas others were stated
negatively. Those responses to negatively written statements were reverse-coded prior to
analysis so that all statement scores were consistent. Thus, the higher the respondent’s score,
the more positive was the attitude of the trainee teacher. As noted by Tomlinson et al. (1995),
the scale also produced scores on two factors, namely, attitudes towards students with SLD;
and, attitudes towards differentiating the curriculum. Tomlinson et al. (1995) have reported
on the adequacy of the scale and its constituent factors.
In the current study, through the use of a principal components extraction and varimax
rotation, factor analysis, it was revealed that two factors could be identified. The two factors
were consistent with the Tomlinson et al. (1995) factors and were labelled accordingly. The
sub-scales were adequate in terms of their internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha results
in the acceptable range (i.e., >.7).

Vol 38, 8, August 2013 21

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Procedure

The instrument was piloted and socially validated with 40 trainee teachers. Minor
revisions were made to the instrument in response to the pilot study. In the present study, all
652 participants were surveyed either in the first few weeks of the course commencing, or, in
the final week of the final semester (just before exams). Participants were approached at the
end of a lecture and the surveys were distributed by colleagues of the researcher. Ethics
approval was obtained by the relevant university committee.

Results

Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted to examine trainee

teachers’ attitudes towards those with SLD and differentiating the curriculum. The
MANOVAs determined whether school context, gender, training, or experience with students
with SLD affected attitudes. MANOVA results are presented in Table 1. The effect sizes used
and measured in this paper reflect upon Cohen’s suggested small, medium, and large effect
sizes where ηp2 sizes are equal to 0.10, 0.25, and 0.40, respectively (Cohen, 1969, cited in
Richardson, 2011).

Comparison Group Analysis Variables Sig. ηp2

Training to Scale Variables Multivariate Test .000* .252
teach:
Primary: Secondary: Between Subjects SLD Att .000* .158
n = 494 n = 158 Diff Att .000* .188

Gender Scale Variables Multivariate Test .000* .135

Male: Female: Between Subjects SLD Att .038 .015
n = 143 n = 509 Diff Att .015 .025

Training. Scale Variables Multivariate Test .000* .219

Between Subjects SLD Att .017 .030
End: Beginning: Diff Att .000* .164
n = 377 n = 275

SLD Exp Scale Variables Multivariate Test .242 .196

Between Subject SLD Att .995 .000
None: Experience: Diff Att .366 .009
n = 169 n = 483

* = Significant at the <.001 level

Table 1: Significant Comparisons of Attitudes Towards Students with SLD and Differentiating the
Curriculum

As Table 1 shows, there were significant differences (small-medium effect size)

between primary and secondary trainee teachers concerning their attitudes towards students
with SLD, F (1, 652) = 54.879, p< .001, ηp2 = .158. Primary school trainee teachers had a
higher positive attitude (M = 2.92) towards students with SLD than their secondary
counterparts (M = 2.52). More specifically, the MANOVA test on the individual SLD
attitude statements shows that statements 1 (F (1, 652) = 57.134, p< .001, ηp2 = .165) and 9 (F
(1, 652) = 58.514, p< .001, ηp2 = .167) resulted in significant differences (small-medium

Vol 38, 8, August 2013 22

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

effect sizes) between primary and secondary trainee teachers. Both statements refer to
students with SLD usually being low achievers, and not doing well in most subjects
(statements 1 and 9 respectively). Primary trainee teachers had a higher positive belief that
students with SLD are not usually low achievers (M = 2.97) and can do well in most subjects
(M = 2.48) than their secondary counterparts (M = 2.49 & M = 1.97 respectively).
Significant differences (small-medium effect sizes) were also found between primary
and secondary trainee teachers in their attitudes towards curriculum differentiation, F (1, 652)
= 63.143, p< .001, ηp2 = .188. Primary trainee teachers had a higher positive attitude (M =
2.93) towards differentiating the curriculum than did their secondary counterparts (M = 2.57).
Moreover, the MANOVA for the individual differentiation attitude statements shows that all
statements resulted in significant differences (small-medium effect sizes). Primary school
trainee teachers had a higher positive attitude towards differentiating the curriculum than
their secondary counterparts. The most significant differentiated statements between primary
and secondary trainee teachers were statements 8 (F (1, 652) = 67.703, p<.001, ηp2 = .192)
and 15 (F (1, 652) = 59.536, p<.001, ηp2 = .182). Primary trainee teachers had a greater
positive attitude towards having students work on varied activities, and mixed ability
groupings in the class, (statements 8 and 15 respectively), to secondary trainee teachers.
As illustrated, there were no significant differences between male and female trainee
teachers’ attitudes towards students with SLD (p> .01), or attitudes towards curriculum
differentiation (p> .01).
The preparation of trainee teachers resulted in no significant differences in trainee
teachers’ attitudes towards students with SLD (p>.01). However, significant differences
(small-medium effect sizes) were found between those who were nearing the end of their
training and those at the beginning in relation to their attitudes towards differentiating the
curriculum, F (1, 652) = 53.507, p< .001, ηp2 = .164. Trainee teachers who were nearing the
end of their training had a higher positive attitude (M = 3.00) towards differentiating the
curriculum than trainee teachers who were at the beginning of their training (M = 2.42).
Moreover, the MANOVA results on the individual differentiation attitude statements show
that all of the statements resulted in significant differences between trainee teachers who
were nearing the end of their training and those at the beginning. The most significant
differentiated statements between trainee teachers at the beginning and those at the end of
their training were statements 10 (F (1, 652) = 57.607, p<.001, ηp2 = .168) and 8 (F (1, 652) =
54.723, p<.001, ηp2 = .166). Trainee teachers who were near the end of their training had a
greater positive attitude towards having students work on different assignments, and varied
activities (statements 10 and 8 respectively), to trainee teachers at the beginning of their
training.
As illustrated in Table 1, there were no significant differences between trainee
teachers’ attitudes and experience or exposure to students with SLD. Thus trainee teachers
who had experience and exposure to students with SLD did not significantly differ in their
attitudes towards students with SLD or differentiating the curriculum compared to those
without any experience or exposure.

Discussion

The trainee stage of a teaching career is seen as an opportune time to intervene and
promote more positive attitudes and beliefs about students and practice (Lambe & Bones,
2006; Nes, 2005; Woodcock, Hemmings & Kay, 2012). This study aimed to build a better
understanding of the attitudes of trainee teachers at the beginning and end of their training

Vol 38, 8, August 2013 23

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

course as well as differences and similarities between primary school and secondary school,
male and female, and experienced and inexperienced to SLD trainee teachers.
Overall, results show that primary trainee teachers had a moderately higher positive
attitude to students with SLD than their secondary counterparts. This may have been partly
due to inclusion of students with diverse needs and abilities being applied in primary schools
to a greater extent than secondary schools. Furthermore, the primary trainee teachers also
held a moderately higher positive attitude towards differentiation the curriculum than their
secondary school counterparts. Again, this may be partly due to the challenges faced by
secondary schools in creating inclusively differentiated schools and classrooms (Shaddock,
Giorcelli, & Smith, 2007).
There were no differences found between male and female trainee teachers in this
study. Their attitudes towards students with SLD and differentiation remained the same.
Previous studies have shown that female trainee and inservice teachers are more positive to
inclusion and students with special educational needs (Loreman et al., 2005; Romi & Leyser,
2006; Stella et al., 2007) and have greater tolerance for implementing inclusive education
practices (avramidis et al., 2000; Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Ellis & Porter, 2005).
However, this study contrasts previous studies as there were no significant differences found.
The amount of experience that trainee teachers had with students with SLD did not
influence their attitude towards them, nor did it have any significant influence on their
attitude towards differentiation of the curriculum. This contrasts with previous research,
which concludes that the more experience teachers had with students with SLD, the more
positive was their attitude (Brown et al., 2008; Hastings et al., 1996; Lambe & Bones, 2006;
Sharma et al., 2006; Winter, 2006). However, in these studies the researchers’ terms of
‘experience’ referred to teaching experience, whereas in the present study experience with
trainee teachers referred to their life experience, which may explain part of the discrepancy.
The preservice training played a significant part in changing the trainee teachers’
attitudes towards differentiation, but did not change their attitude towards students with SLD.
Trainee teachers who were nearing the end of their training showed a more positive attitude
towards differentiating the curriculum for diverse learners than did those at the beginning of
their training. As the focus of many preservice training courses and teaching practices focus
on inclusion, this is reflected in the change of attitude towards differentiation. However, the
preparation that trainee teachers go through does not change their beliefs and attitudes
towards students with SLD.
In summary, trainee teachers with the most positive attitude towards students with
SLD were primary trainee teachers. Those with the greatest positive attitude towards
differentiation of the curriculum were primary school trainee teachers nearing the end of their
training. Conversely, those with the least positive attitude towards students with SLD were
secondary school trainee teachers. Those with the least positive attitude towards
differentiation of the curriculum were secondary school trainee teachers at the beginning of
their training. Thus, future research that focuses on secondary trainee teachers’ attitudes,
beliefs, and confidence in inclusive education is warranted. Moreover, evaluation of the
differences between primary and secondary trainee teachers on the influence of teacher
training programs would be a valuable area for future research.
To some extent, the findings in this study support previous research that demonstrated
that the more training undertaken by trainee teachers the more likely it is that there would be
a decrease in negative attitudes and increase in positive attitudes towards differentiation
(Avramidis et al., 2000; Ellis & Porter, 2005; Mungai & Thornburg, 2002). However, the
study also provides some support for previous research in that training had only a small
influence upon trainee teachers’ attitudes (Brown et al., 2008; Stella et al., 2007) as it only
influenced their attitude towards differentiation and not towards students with SLD.

Vol 38, 8, August 2013 24

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Implications

These findings have practical implications for trainee teacher education, professional
preparation for others working with students with SLD, and societal issues. These not only
reflect the theoretical implications but the broader translation of the implications into
classroom practice and the academic arena. In-service teachers are often isolated in the
classroom, lacking support for meeting the needs of these students. Unless tertiary institutions
prepare future teachers for meeting the needs and having more accurate perceptions,
knowledge and expectations about students with SLD, students with SLD may never have
their potential fully recognised. This may be especially so for secondary school trainee
teachers. By providing more comprehensive teacher training, the needs of students with SLD
could begin to be met.
Educators need to understand the impact and relevance that their attitudes and beliefs
in students with SLD can play in reinforcing that their ability level is less than those without
SLD. If educators can understand the indirect messages that they may send to students with
SLD this may then begin to lead to attitudinal changes towards students with SLD. Negative
attitudes can have dangerous consequences leading students with SLD to respond and behave
accordingly, as demonstrated by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968), and later by Eccles and
Wigfield (1985), who claimed the ‘Pygmalion effect’ and ‘Golem effect’ respectively. That
is, if these future teachers have the attitude, and belief, that students do not have the ability to
succeed, then their behaviour towards the student will be reflected in ways that will, more
than likely, bring about future failure. One step towards redressing this situation is for tertiary
institutions to better prepare future teachers with the skills, perceptions and knowledge to
teach students with SLD. As tertiary institutions are governed by the states’ education
departments, changes need to be made by policy makers and those within the departments
across the states to better recognise and meet the specific needs of these students.
If teacher training institutions are to adopt the responsibility to raise trainee teachers’
attitudes towards students with SLD, a common understanding of SLD is essential. As
Woodcock & Vialle (2011) indicated, learning disabilities is variously defined across the
states and territories of Australia, which may be an impediment to concerted national efforts
to improve the attitudes and educational outcomes for students with SLD (DEEWR, 2010).
Therefore, an essential first step is to address this discrepancy and work toward a unified
understanding of SLD as distinct from the more general ‘learning difficulty’ term. Policy
makers, government, and departments across the states of Australia firstly need to address the
concern of SLD being defined and included as ‘learning difficulty’. Learning difficulty is an
extremely broad term used in many of the states in Australia, and covers many types of
students from those with SLD to those in poverty, and those with a moderate intellectual
disability (Elkins, 2002). Thus, SLD needs to have a clearly-defined identity so that
appropriate beliefs, attitudes and understanding of these students can be achieved. One
possibility would be for all states to adopt the current definition of SLD in the Australian
Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act (1992), which describes it as “a disorder or
malfunction which results in the person learning differently from a person without the
disorder or malfunction” (p. 11). If the states’ education departments and government focused
more on SLD, trainee teacher preparation providers would more likely accommodate changes
to the programs to increase awareness, perceptions and expectations towards students with
SLD.
The present study investigated trainee teachers’ attitudes towards students with SLD
and differentiating the curriculum. Further research could also focus on the influence that
attitude towards students with SLD has on instructional strategies (frequency, confidence,
and effectiveness). Moreover, future research of a longitudinal nature, focusing on newly

Vol 38, 8, August 2013 25

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

qualified teachers and in-service teachers as they move through their teaching careers, would
be useful. This would enable a closer look at the process of professional socialisation in
relation to special educational needs.
Further studies in Australia could compare teachers’ and trainee teachers’ perceptions
and expectations of students with SLD. As a final point, the future research studies discussed
here could also be carried out cross-nationally to provide comparative data. Given the present
Australian government’s intention to establish educational consistency at a national level,
such a study would be timely.

Limitations of the study

A limitation to the current study was its cross-sectional design. The results should
only be considered as a period of time snapshot. There could be variances across different
cohorts of trainee teachers that are not reflected in these results, which would be identified in
a longitudinal, prospective study. Future studies could employ a prospective design and
consider a qualitative approach to gathering data which would tap into the underlying issues
in regards to trainee teachers’ attitudes and beliefs about students with SLD.

Conclusion

This study has broadened and added to the research base on SLD. The transformation
of classrooms with inclusive and diverse classes, and the changing views of teaching all
students and meeting everyone’s needs represent significant challenges. The development of
programs for new teachers to address these emerging challenges in relation to students with
SLD is clearly central to the focus of this study. Trainee teachers’ perceptions,
understandings and expectations of students with SLD need to be guided carefully through
their teacher training course and practicum experiences.

References

Akiba, M. (2011). Identifying program characteristics for preparing pre-service teachers for
diversity. Teachers College Record, 113(3), 658-697.
Alghazo, E., Gaad, E. (2004). General Education Teachers in the United Arab Emirates and
their Acceptance of the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities. British Journal of
Special Education, 31, 94-99.
Aloia, G., Maxwell, J., Aloia, S. (1981). Influence of a Child’s Race and the EMR label on
the Initial Impressions of Regular Classroom Teachers. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 85(4), 619-623.
Anderson, Hon, John. (2004). Mark Latham’s Failure on Male Teachers. Media Release,
Minister for Transport and Regional Services.
Angelides, P. (2008). Patterns of Inclusive Education Through the Practice of Student
Teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12(3), 317-329.
Antonak, R., Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric Analysis and Revision of the Opinions
Relative to Mainstreaming Scale. Exceptional Children, 62, 139-149.
Australian Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act. (1992). Disability Discrimination
Act. Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing, Attorney-General’s Department,
Canberra.

Vol 38, 8, August 2013 26

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., Burden, R. (2000). A Survey into Mainstream Teachers’ Attitudes
Towards the Inclusion of Children with Special Educational Needs in the Ordinary
School in One Local Education Authority. Educational Psychology, 20(2), 191-211.
Avramidis, E., Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ Attitudes towards Integration / Inclusion: A
Review of the Literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129-147.
Biddle, S. (2006). Attitudes in Education. The Science Teacher, 1, 52-56.
Bradshaw, L., Mundia, L. (2006). Attitudes and Concerns about Inclusive Education:
Bruneian Inservice and Preservice Teachers. International Journal of Special
Education, 21(1), 35-41.
Brown, K., Walsh, L., Hill, K., Cipko, J. (2008). The Efficacy of Embedding Special
Education Instruction in Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2087-2094.
Burke, K. & Sutherland, C. (2004). Attitudes toward inclusion: Knowledge versus
Experience. Education, 125(2), 163-173.
Callan, S. (2004). Male teacher scholarships back on agenda: The Howard Government is
still determined to discriminate by providing scholarships for male teachers. Sydney:
NSW Teachers Federation.
Campbell, J., Gilmore, L., Cuskelly, M. (2003). Changing Student Teachers’ Attitudes
Towards Disability and Inclusion. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental
Disability, 28(4), 369-379.
Carroll, A., Forlin, C., Jobling, A. (2003). The Impact of Teacher Training in Special
Education on the Attitudes of Australian Preservice General Educators towards
People with Disabilities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 30, 65-79.
Clark, M., Artiles, A. (2000). A Cross-National Study of Teachers’ Attributional Patterns.
The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 77-89.
DEEWR (2010). Review of funding for schooling: Discussion paper and draft terms of
reference. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
DeSimone, J., Parmar, R. (2006). Middle School Mathematics Teachers’ Beliefs about
Inclusion of Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 21(2), 98-110.
Dupoux, E., Wolman, C., Estrada, E. (2005). Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Integration of
Students with Disabilities in Haïti and the United States. International Journal of
Disability, Development and Education, 52(1), 43-58.
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (1985). Teacher expectations and student motivations. In B. Dusek
(Ed.), Teacher Expectancies (pp. 185–217). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Elkins, J. (2002). Learning difficulties/disabilities in literacy. Australian Journal of Language
and Literacy, 25(3), 11–18.
Ellins, J., Porter, J. (2005). Departmental Differences in Attitudes to Special Educational
Needs in the Secondary School. British Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 188-195.
Englebrecht, P., Oswald, M., Swart, E., Eloff, I. (2003). Including Learners with Intellectual
Disabilities: Stressful for Teachers? International Journal of Disability, Development
and Education, 50, 293-308.
European Agency for Development in Special Education. (2003). European Agency for
Development of Special Needs Education in Europe: Special Needs Education in
Cyprus. Accessed 30/5/13, www.european-agency.org.
Fields, B. (2006). Beyond Disabilities: Broadening the View of Special Needs and the
Inclusive Education Challenges Facing Primary Teachers. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Association for Active Educational Researchers, Adelaide.

Vol 38, 8, August 2013 27

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U., Earle, C. (2007). Demographic Differences in Changing
Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes, Sentiments, and Concerns about Inclusive Education.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1, 1-15.
Forlin, C., Tait, K., Carroll, A., Jobling, A. (1999). Teacher Education for Diversity: Teacher
Attitudes Towards People with Disabilities. Queensland Journal of Educational
Research, 15(2), 207-225.
Hastings, R., Hewes, A., Lock, S., Witting, A. (1996). Do Special Educational Needs Courses
Have Any Impact on Student Teachers’ Perceptions of Children with Severe Learning
Difficulties? British Journal of Special Education, 23(3), 139-144.
Hemmings, B., Woodcock, S. (2011). Preservice teachers’ views of inclusive education: A
content analysis. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 35(2), 103-116.
Lambe, J., Bones, R. (2006). Student Teachers’ Perceptions about Inclusive Classroom
Teaching in Northern Ireland Prior to Teaching Practice Experience. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 21(2), 167-186.
Lancaster, J., & Bain, A. (2007). The design of inclusive education courses and the self-
efficacy of preservice teacher education students. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 54, 245–256.
Leung, E., Liu, T. (2003). Teacher Training Needs, Job Satisfaction and Retention. Hong
Kong Special Education Forum, 6(1), 26-51.
Loreman, T., Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Earle, C. (2005). Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes and
Concerns Regarding Inclusive Education. Paper presented at the International Special
Education Conference, Glasgow.
Mungai, A., Thornburg, D. (2002). Pathways to Inclusion. Encounter, 15(4), 44-53.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1998). Operationalizing the NJCLD
Definition of Learning Disabilities for Ongoing Assessment in Schools. Asha, 40
(Suppl. 18).
Nes, K. (2000, July). The inclusive school and teacher education: About curricula and
cultures in initial teacher education. Paper presented at the International Special
Education Congress 2000, Manchester, UK.
Palmer, D. (2006). Durability of Changes in Self-Efficacy of Preservice Primary Teachers.
International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 655-171.
Richardson, J. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in
educational research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 135–147.
Romi, S., Leyser, Y. (2006). Exploring Inclusion Preservice Training Needs: A Study of
Variables Associated with Attitudes and Self-Efficacy Beliefs. European Journal of
Special Needs Education, 21(1), 85-105.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Shaddock, A., Giorcelli, L., Smith, S. (2007). Students with disabilities in mainstream
classrooms: a resource for teachers. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Earler, C. (2006). Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes,
Concerns and Sentiments about Inclusive Education: An International Comparison of
the Novice Pre-Service Teachers. International Journal of Special Education, 21(2),
80-93.
Siegel, J. (1992). Regular education teachers’ attitudes toward their mainstreamed students.
ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED354653.
Siegel, J., Jausovec, N. (1994). Improving Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Students with
Disabilities. Paper Presented at the International Council on Education for Teaching
Conference. ERIC Document (No: ED374120).

Vol 38, 8, August 2013 28

Australian Journal of Teacher Education

Siperstein, G., Goding, M. (1985). Teachers’ Behavior Toward LD and Non-LD Children: A
Strategy for Change. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18(3), 139-144.
Soodak, L., Podell, D., Lehman, L. (1998). Teacher, Student, and School Attributes as
Predictors of Teachers’ Responses to Inclusion. The Journal of Special Education,
31(4), 480-497.
Stella, C., Forlin, C., Lan, A. (2007). The Influence of an Inclusive Education Course on
Attitude Change of Preservice Secondary Teachers in Hong Kong. Asia- Pacific
Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 161-179.
Subban, P., Sharma, U. (2006). Primary School Teachers’ Perceptions of Inclusive Education
in Victoria, Australia. The International Journal of Special Education, 21(1), 42-52.
Tait, K., Purdie, N. (2000). Attitudes Towards Disability: Teacher Education for Inclusive
Environments in an Australian University. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 47, p25-38.
Tomlinson, C., Callahan, C., Moon, T., Tomchin, E., Landrum, M., Imbeau, M., Hunsaker,
S., Eiss, N. (1995). Preservice Teacher Preparation in Meeting the Needs of Gifted
and Other Academically Diverse Students. Virginia, National Research Center on the
Gifted and Talented.
Westwood, P. (1995). Teachers’ Beliefs and Expectations Concerning Students with
Learning Disabilities. Australian Journal of Remedial Education, 27(2), 19-21.
Winter, E. (2006). Initial Teacher Education: Preparing New Teachers for Inclusive Schools
and Classrooms. Support for Learning, 21(2), 85-91.
Woodcock, S., Hemmings, B., Kay, R. (2012). Does study of an inclusive education subject
influence pre-service teachers’ concerns and self-efficacy about inclusion? Australian
Journal of Teacher Education, 37(6), 1-12.
Woodcock, S., Vialle, W. (2011). Are we exacerbating students’ learning disabilities? An
investigation into preservice teachers’ attributions of the educational outcomes of
students with learning disabilities? Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 223-241.
Woolfolk-Hoy, A., Spero, R. (2005). Changes in Teacher Efficacy During the Early Years of
Teaching: A Comparison of Four Measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21,
343-356.
Woolfson, L., Grant, E., Campbell, L. (2007). A Comparison of Special, General and Support
Teachers’ Controllability and Stability Attributions for Children’s Difficulties in
Learning. Educational Psychology, 27(2), 295-306.

Vol 38, 8, August 2013 29