Educational Research

ISSN: 0013-1881 (Print) 1469-5847 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20

Changing attitudes to inclusion in preservice

teacher education: a systematic review

Franziska Lautenbach & Anke Heyder

To cite this article: Franziska Lautenbach & Anke Heyder (2019) Changing attitudes to inclusion
in preservice teacher education: a systematic review, Educational Research, 61:2, 231-253, DOI:
10.1080/00131881.2019.1596035

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2019.1596035

Published online: 02 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 105

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rere20
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
2019, VOL. 61, NO. 2, 231–253
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2019.1596035

Changing attitudes to inclusion in preservice teacher education:

a systematic review
a
Franziska Lautenbach and Anke Heyderb
a
Department of Sport and Sport Science, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany; bDepartment of
Psychology, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Background: A positive attitude towards inclusion has been con- Received 16 April 2018
sidered as one of the most influential success factors for inclusive Accepted 13 March 2019
education in school. Thus, improving attitudes to inclusion in pre- KEYWORDS
service teachers has gained interest in research and teacher educa- Inclusion; preservice
tion practice. teachers; attitude change;
Purpose: In this study, we systematically reviewed intervention stu- intervention; university;
dies that aimed to improve preservice teachers’ attitudes towards teacher education
inclusion within the university context. We aimed to investigate
whether, in the reviewed studies, preservice teacher-training inter-
ventions led to a more positive attitude towards inclusion and also
determine what kinds of preservice teacher-training interventions
might lead to a more positive attitude change towards inclusion.
Design and methods: The review of literature sought to identify and
describe intervention studies that focused on changing attitudes
towards inclusion in preservice teachers. The search focused on
studies that assessed preservice teachers’ attitudes quantitatively, at
least twice, with a planned and structured intervention in between.
Original research published in English in international peer-review
journals was included.
Results: In total, 23 studies were identified. Within these, it was
evident from the findings that studies of different type indicated
positive change: both information-based cognitive interventions
(n = 10) as well as interventions with a combination of information
and practical field experience (n = 11) were reported to lead to
more positive attitudes towards inclusion.
Conclusions: The research draws attention to the importance of
understanding, in greater depth, the attitudes that are conducive to
the implementation of inclusive education. For theoretical and meth-
odological reasons, results must be interpreted with caution and
cannot be taken to imply a causal relationship between various
approaches and attitudes towards inclusion. Implications for future
research are given in terms of theoretical as well as methodological
considerations.

Introduction
Inclusive education has been defined as ‘an ongoing process aimed at offering quality
education for all, while respecting diversity and the different needs and abilities,

CONTACT Franziska Lautenbach [email protected]

© 2019 NFER
232 F. LAUTENBACH AND A. HEYDER

characteristics and learning expectations of the students and communities’ (United

Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization 2008, 18). Thereby, it follows
that inclusive teaching ‘is not just a matter of physical integration but rather social,
cultural and emotional integration, allowing the children to participate on the basis of
their own abilities’ (Moen, Nilssen, and Weidemann 2007, 284). In order to foster
children’s abilities, principles such as the Universal Design for Learning have been
applied to inclusive classrooms (e.g. Narkon and Wells 2013). Apart from developing
and evaluating teaching methods, research with respect to inclusive education and
especially the preparation of preservice teachers has progressed immensely over the
last three decades (see Qi and Ha 2012). Modifications in teacher education programmes
have become necessary in order to prepare preservice teachers to work in inclusive
settings, as this requires new or additional skills, behaviours and beliefs (Bransford,
Darling-Hammond, and LePage 2005). A positive attitude towards inclusion has been
considered to be one of the most influential factors, or even a prerequisite, for successful
inclusive education (e.g. Avramidis and Norwich 2002; Forlin and Lian 2008). However,
a systematic analysis of interventions focusing exclusively on attitude change towards
inclusion in preservice teachers is needed, as well as greater understanding about the
most beneficial ways for university interventions to be structured (Kim 2011). Both of
these are highly relevant for the design and implementation of effective teacher
education that prepares future teachers for the (perceived) barriers and challenges
attached to inclusive education. Therefore, the aim of this review is twofold: first, to
summarise research on the impact of preservice teacher education on attitudes towards
inclusion; and second, to explore specifically what kinds of preservice teacher education
may lead to a more positive attitude change towards inclusion.

The impact of teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion on inclusive teaching

In general, an attitude can be defined as ‘an evaluative disposition towards some object
based upon cognitions, effective reactions, behavioral intentions and past behaviors’
(Zimbardo and Leippe 1991). Following this definition, a more positive attitude towards
inclusion would be accompanied by more positive cognitive and emotional reactions, as
well as stronger behavioural intentions, such as a greater willingness to make adjustments
to teach all students in the context of inclusive education. The theory of planned behaviour
proposes that an attitude towards a behaviour, subjective norms and perceived behavioural
control predict the intentions to perform certain behaviour (Ajzen 1991), such as teaching
inclusively. In this vein, a positive teacher attitude is often perceived as a prerequisite, or
catalyst, for inclusive education (e.g. Antonak and Larrivee 1995; Avramidis and Norwich
2002); teachers themselves believe this (Symeonidou and Phtiaka 2009). This might be one
of the main reasons why (preservice) teachers’ attitude towards inclusion has gained an
increasing amount of research interest (see reviews by Avramidis and Norwich 2002; de
Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2011; Qi and Ha 2012) and dominates this research area (see review
by Wilhelmsen and Sørensen 2017).
Empirical support for the predictive validity of attitudes for future behaviour stems
not only from general meta-analyses (e.g. Kraus 1995) but also from recent qualitative
and quantitative studies that focused on inclusive education. For instance, a strong,
positive correlation between teachers’ attitudes and teachers’ inclusive classroom
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 233

practices, such as using a variety of instructional strategies to engage all students, was
found in an observational study (Sharma and Sokal 2016). In addition, in physical
education (PE) classes, research suggests that teachers who state a more positive
attitude towards inclusion based on questionnaire data (Combs, Elliott, and Whipple
2010) or interviews (Ammah and Hodge 2005; Grenier 2006), incorporated in their
teaching several different teaching styles that are considered to be more beneficial for
inclusive processes. Further, research has indicated quantitatively that attitudes towards
inclusion predicted 20% variance of self-reported intention to carry out inclusive beha-
viour (Martin and Kudlácek 2010).
In summary, in line with general theoretical models (Ajzen 1991) and empirical evi-
dence (Kraus 1995), teachers’ attitude towards inclusion has been shown to impact on
their teaching behaviour (e.g. Yeo et al. 2014) and is, thus, considered to be one of the
most influential factors for successfully implementing inclusion (Avramidis and Norwich
2002). Universities and colleges are, in consequence, faced with the question of how to
prepare preservice teachers effectively for inclusive education, and how to foster positive
attitudes towards inclusive education. Therefore, this review focuses on interventions
aimed at changing preservice teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in university classes.

Theoretical approaches to forming and changing attitudes

Attitudes and attitude change represent core topics in (social) psychology (e.g. Bohner and
Dickel 2011). Accordingly, there are various theoretical approaches on forming and chan-
ging attitudes in psychological research (for summaries, see e.g. Bohner and Dickel 2011; for
review see Paluck and Green 2009; Petty, Wegener, and Fabrigar 1997). However, this
review will focus on three approaches that appear relevant to the topic of attitudes in
inclusive settings, based on the impact in the field and the applicability to this field of
research. The associative-propositional evaluation (APE) model (Gawronski and
Bodenhausen 2006) states that two qualitatively distinct but interacting processes form
an attitude. Presented with a stimulus (e.g. the idea of teaching inclusively), an individual
has an immediate spontaneous affective reaction (i.e. implicit attitude). In another step, the
propositional process that operates based on internally logical validation of information will
confirm or disconfirm this associative process and its resultant so-called ‘gut feeling’. In
other words, the evoked emotional reaction ‘will be regarded as valid unless it is incon-
sistent with other information’ (Gawronski and Bodenhausen 2006, 66).
The APE model predicts that a change in attitude can be accomplished by directly
influencing either associative or propositional processes, as this can lead to an indirect
change in the other (Gawronski and Bodenhausen 2006). First, a direct influence on
propositional process can be achieved by new information or by the retrieval of previously
acquired information. This information can lead to creating new associations – for example,
by confirmatory hypothesis testing – and, thereby, indirectly influence associative
processes. Second, a direct influence on associate processes relies on forming new positive
associations that need to be activated in a particular context. In other words, this suggests
that preservice teachers should experience first-hand how successful inclusive education
can be provided and, moreover, should be part of it. The indirect influence on propositional
processes can, however, only be accomplished if the new active associations are consistent
with other relevant beliefs. The APE model thus provides a theoretical basis for attitude
234 F. LAUTENBACH AND A. HEYDER

changes by delivering two approaches changing attitudes towards inclusion by targeting

either (a) cognitive processes (i.e. propositional processes) or (b) emotional processes (i.e.
associative processes).
Other theoretical models or approaches for changing attitudes can also be assigned
to these categories. For instance, Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) Elaboration Likelihood
Model elaborates how and when information leads to attitude change by targeting
cognitive processes. Also, Allport’s (1954) contact theory, which posits that providing
contact opportunities can elicit positive or negative emotions, might be considered with
approaches targeting attitudes by changing emotional processes.
Based on the theoretical underpinning of the APE model, interventions that aim to have
a positive impact on attitudes towards inclusion can be put into three categories. The first
category includes information-based cognitive interventions targeting cognitive processes
that mainly provide preservice teachers with information on legislation, laws, heterogeneity
categories (such as gender, migration, mental and/or physical disabilities) or introductions
on how to plan inclusive teaching. The second form of intervention is practical field
experience. This can be argued primarily to target the associative processes in accordance
to Gawronski and Bodenhausen (2006), and has been mainly based on the aforementioned
contact theory by Allport (1954) in previous intervention research. Contact theory states that
direct contact under appropriate conditions (see Allport 1954 for details) can reduce
prejudice and foster positive attitudes. The third category represents a combination of
targeting both the previously stated processes by providing information as well as practical
field experience. So far, it is unclear which type of intervention may lead to a more positive
attitude towards inclusion in preservice teachers.

Purpose of the literature review

The purpose of undertaking this literature review was to place a specific focus on preservice
teacher education seminars in the university context. We aimed to investigate whether the
reviewed research indicates that preservice teacher-training interventions may lead to
a more positive attitude towards inclusion and, second, what the research suggests about
the kinds of preservice teacher-training interventions (i.e. information-based cognitive,
contact intervention or a combination) that are more likely to lead to a more positive
attitude change towards inclusion. This review offers a contribution to the literature by
addressing a relevant topic in teacher education and extending prior research by focusing
exclusively on preservice teachers (Kurniawati, de Boer, Minnaert and Mangunsong 2014),
and by structuring the intervention content based on a theoretical approach (Gawronski
and Bodenhausen 2006).

Method
Search procedure
In terms of time frame, this literature review investigated intervention studies focusing
on changing attitudes towards inclusion in preservice teachers after 1994 – i.e. those
published after the Salamanca statement (United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization 2008) was signed, as within the statement a framework for action
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 235

on special needs education was agreed upon. Articles published up to October 2017
were included.
‘EBSCO host Complete’ was the database used for the literature search, as it comprises
a range of relevant databases including ERIC, MEDLINE, Psych ARTICLES, Psych INFO or Soc
INDEX. The terms ‘attitude change’/‘changing attitudes’ AND ‘pre-service teacher’/‘preser-
vice teacher’ were combined with ‘inclusi*’, ‘integra*’, ‘intervention’ and ‘training’. It is
recognised that ‘inclusion’ and ‘integration’ are not to be used interchangeably. However,
as ‘the two notions are frequently mixed’ (Vislie 2003, 17), both terms were used in the
research process. We followed the PRISMA guidelines (Liberati et al. 2009) by first removing
duplicates (n = 181), and then, based on the selection criteria, the authors of this review
independently included or excluded articles sequentially. The inclusion criteria were based
on the PICOS approach (Liberati et al. 2009): Original research had to be (1) published in
English and (2) in international peer-reviewed journals. Studies had to include (3) preservice
teachers whose (4) attitude towards inclusion had to be (5) assessed quantitatively at least
twice (pre and post) with (6) a planned and structured intervention in between. Thus,
studies not fulfilling the six inclusion criteria were excluded from the review.
In total, 30 articles fulfilled these criteria and became the subject for further analysis. After
initial reading, 10 articles had to be excluded, as they were: qualitative in nature (n = 4);
focused on attitude towards a different topic (n = 2); had implemented a cross-sectional
design (n = 4); or were untraceable (n = 1). Two articles (i.e. Sharma, Forlin, and Loreman
2008; Forlin et al. 2009) used the same data set and thus, only one was used for further
analysis. We chose to use the study by Sharma, Forlin, and Loreman (2008) on the basis of
the relevance of their specific research question, which focuses on increasing attitude
towards inclusion via university lectures. Additionally, two articles relevant to the aim of
the review were identified by references in other full-text articles, and two were detected in
a previous review by Kurniawati et al. (2014). This resulted in a total of 23 articles for detailed
analysis. Figure 1 presents a flowchart detailing the study selection process.

Findings
Characteristics of the studies, together with the findings from the studies, are sum-
marised in Tables 1–4. The sections below draw together description and analysis of the
studies in relation to the research purpose of the literature review.

Description and analysis of the studies

Theoretical background: Overall, all studies included in the review were underpinned
by the notion that a positive attitude towards inclusion is important in teacher
education, as it is one of the most influential factors for inclusive teaching. One
study explicitly mentioned the theory of reasoned action as an underpinning theory
of the importance of modifying attitude (Hodge et al. 2002). However, only one
study provided theoretical background on how attitudes towards inclusion can be
changed (i.e. contact theory; Gürsel 2007).
Participants: All the participants were preservice teachers. Sample sizes varied
considerably. For example, at the lower end, a small descriptive study was included
(Burton and Pace 2009). Although it had a small sample size and presented
236 F. LAUTENBACH AND A. HEYDER

Figure 1. Flowchart of study selection.

descriptive statistics, it was included in the review as data were described quantita-
tively. In total, 11 studies had more than 100 participants. One study had over one
thousand participants (Tait and Purdie 2000).
Age and gender: In total, 14 studies did not provide information on the age of
the preservice teachers; six studies provided age ranges (between 18 and 47 years).
Three studies gave age averages: 19 years (Gürsel 2007), 21 years (Hodge et al.
2002), and 23 years (Yukins 2015) respectively. Eight of the 23 studies did not
provide information on gender distribution within their sample. In one study, the
majority was female (Yellin et al. 2003). In terms of the remainder of the studies
(n = 14), overall, the number of preservice teachers totalled 4086 and of these, 75%
(3055) were female, with a range from 22% female participants (Hodge et al. 2002)
to 92% female participants (Burton and Pace 2009).
Academic level and study subject: Academic level descriptions varied according
to educational and locational setting. In four studies, participants were undergrad-
uate students (Kirk 1998; Yellin et al. 2003) or Bachelor students (Campbell,
Gilmore, and Cuskelly 2003; Sharma, Forlin, and Loreman 2008). One study included
freshmen to sophomores (Shade and Stewart 2001), another included sophomores
and juniors (Taylor and Ringlaben 2012), and a further study contained under-
graduate and postgraduate students (Tait and Purdie 2000). Overall, 17 studies
provided no information on the academic level of the participants. With regard to
the major or study subject of the preservice teachers, one study focused specifically
Table 1. Overview of information-based cognitive intervention studies in preservice teacher education to increase attitude towards inclusion (N = 10).
Duration of inter-
Study subject; vention Attitude measurement(s) Results
Author(s), year Theoretical approach Country N (% females; Mage) academic level Voluntarily Content of intervention (total hours) Control group (Cronbach’s α) (effect size)
Burton and Pace In-group USA Year 1: 13 math; N/A N/A Year 1: history, 1 semester No 18 self-constructed items (0) descriptively
2009* out-group (92%; N/A) identifying students (N/A) (N/A) no change
phenomena year 2: 8 with low cognitive in year 1
(75%; N/A) ability, instructions, (no statistical
assessment of analyses)(-)
activities for students descriptively
year 2: see year 1 decrease in
+ Piaget’s four stages attitude (no
of mathematics statistical
concept analyses)
development, viewing
documentary videos
on girl with Down
Syndrome
Carroll, Forlin, and N/A AUS 220 N/A; N/A Yes 4 models (framework of 10 weeks: 1 h No IDP (α = .43 – .75) (+) decrease in
Jobling 2003 (75%; N/A) special education; lecture & 2 total score of
individuals first; h tutorial (30) IDP
inclusion as an
educational practice;
classroom practice;
ideological bias,
policies, p. 70)
Johnson and N/A CAN 124 Elementary & N/A “Educational Psychology” 1 semester No 10 self-constructed items (+) increase in
Howell 2009 (90%; 21) secondary (N/A) (N/A) total score
education; N/A (d = 0.88)
Killoran, Woronko, N/A CAN 82 N/A; N/A Yes Mixture of soft inclusion group 1 No ORI-A (N/A) (+) increase in
and Zaretsky (N/A; N/A) and “genuine consecutive: total score for
2014 inclusion”; inclusion 8 days (36) group 2 group 1 & 2
as “humanised” (i.e. concurrent: (N/A)
case studies and 12 weeks (36)
guest speakers); bias
and stereotypes of
disabilities; –
importance of
peers; – Universal
Design for Learning; –
disability as a social
construct; – 5
principles (i.e. right,
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

responsibility and
knowledge,
behaviour, social and
emotional
development,
237

collaboration)

(Continued)
Table 1. (Continued).
Duration of inter-
238

Study subject; vention Attitude measurement(s) Results

Author(s), year Theoretical approach Country N (% females; Mage) academic level Voluntarily Content of intervention (total hours) Control group (Cronbach’s α) (effect size)
Kirk 1998 N/A USA 59 (N/A; N/A) N/A; under- N/A “The Psychology of 1 semester No Our attitudes and beliefs (-) descriptively
graduate Learning (N/A) about people with (no statistical
students Encompassing the Disabilities (N/A) analyses)
Exceptional Learner”
Shade and Stewart N/A USA 194 (N/A; N/A) General and special N/A “Survey of Special group 1 special No 49 self-constructed items (+)
2001 education; Education” (group 1) education: (N/A) increase in total
freshman to “Overview of Special 15 weeks (30) score for group
senior students Education” (group 2) group 2 general 1 & 2 (N/A)
instructional mode of education:
combining brief 2 week (30)
lectures, audiovisual
presentations, small
group discussions,
role-play, and
attitudinal empathy
F. LAUTENBACH AND A. HEYDER

building; tolerance
activities/simulations
Sharma, Forlin, N/A AUS (270); CAN 603 Education; Bachelor Yes N/A 10 weeks (20; in No ATIES (+) increase in
and Loreman (58); (82%; 18–29) students Singapore 30) (α = .89); total
2008 Hong Kong IDP scale for ATIES
(182); (α = .70) for AUS, CAN,
Singapore Hong Kong
(93) (η2 = 0.12–0.62)
decrease in total
scale for IDP
for AUS
(η2 = 0.16–0.33)
Shippen et al. N/A USA 326 General and special N/A Introductory course in 1 semester No PSIS (+)
2005 (75%; N/A) education; N/A special education (N/A) (α = .96) increase in overall
score
Tait and Purdie N/A AUS 1626 Childhood, primary, Yes Management of children 9 week (N/A) No IDP (α = .64–.86) (+) decrease in
2000 (80%; most 19–29) secondary or with special needs total score
adult education; (optional were topics (η2 < 0.02)
undergraduate & on Psychology of
postgraduate Learning and
students Teaching; Human
Development and
Education; Education
in Context)
Taylor and N/A USA 190 (N/A; N/A) N/A; sophomore or Yes “Introduction to Special 15 No ORI-A (0) increase in 4/
Ringlaben junior level Education” weeks (N/A) 30 items
2012 (N/A)

Note: N/A = information not available; * = study 3 is excluded due to qualitative evaluations; AUS = Australia; CAN = Canada; USA = United States of America; ATIES = Attitudes towards Inclusive Education Scale; IDP = Interaction with disabled persons scale
(higher scores indicate greater discomfort in social interaction with people with disabilities); ORI = Options relative to Integration; ORI-A = Option relative to Inclusion; PSIS = Preservice Inclusion Survey.
Table 2. Overview of intervention studies combining information-based cognitive approaches with practical fieldwork experience in preservice teacher’s education
to increase attitude towards inclusion (N = 11).
Duration of interven-
Theoretical N Study subject; Volun tion Attitude measurement(s) Results
Author(s), year approach Country (% females; Mage) academic level tarily Content of intervention (total hours) Control group (Cronbach’s α) (effect size)
Campbell, N/A AUS 274 (N/A; N/A) N/A; 1st year BA N/A Formal instructions & structured 13 weeks:1 h lecture No IDP (+) decrease in all
Gilmore, and fieldwork experiences & 2 h tutorial (39) (N/A) subscales
Cuskelly 2003 (interviewing 2 members of (N/A)
community) & 600 words report
Gartin et al. 2001 N/A USA 78 (N/A; N/A) N/A; N/A N/A “Survey of Exceptionalities” 1 semester No 20 self-constructed items (N/ (+) increase in 13/20
(categories, learning/ (N/A) + 10 hrs field A) items (N/A)
behavioural characteristics, laws, experience incl.
regulations, ethics, instructional observations
and environmental
interventions, attitudes and
beliefs)
Gürsel 2007 Contact Turkey 81 (experimental PE & coaching N/A “Introductory Adapted PE” 14 weeks (42) Yes ATDP (+) increase in
theory group: 53%; 19; and recreation; N/A (experience at local boarding (α = .69) experimental
(Allport control group: school students with physical group
1954) 24%; 19) mental, orthopaedic, auditory,
visual disabilities, prescribing
individual education
programmes, organisation,
administration, assessment,
inclusive education) + field
disabilities experience
Hodge et al. Theory of USA 36 (group 1: 22%; N/A; PE; N/A N/A “Introductory Adapted PE” class (N/ 15 weeks + No PEATID-III (N/A) (0) no change in
2002 reasoned group 2: 29%; N/A) A) + group 1: off-campus group 1: 6 weeks; 8 group 1; (0) no
action practical experience vs. group 2: x 1hr class & 2 hrs change in group
(Ajzen & on campus practical experience observations, & 6 2
Fishbein hrs interactions
2000) (31)
group 2: 6 weeks;
4 × 1 hrs group
activities (19)
Lambe 2007 N/A Northern 108 Art and Design; English; N/A Post-Graduate Certificate in 1 year (N/A) No 7 self-constructed items (+)
Ireland (72%; 21–47) Geography; History; Education (discussions on (validated in Lambe & percentage
Home Economics; beliefs; attitude; organisational Bones 2006; N/A) comparisons
Music; Technology issues; concerns; anxiety, p. 63) per item (N/A)
and Design; PE; N/A + teaching experience at t1
(non-selective school) & t2
(academically selected school)
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

McHatton and N/A USA 56 Elementary & special Yes N/A group 1: elementary No Attitudes Toward Inclusion (+) increase in total
Parker 2013* (group 1: 94%; 18–35; education; N/A education Survey score in group 1
group 2: 76%; group 2: special (α = .91) (N/A); (0) no
18–35) education change in total
1 semester (N/A) score in group 2
239

(N/A)

(Continued)
 240

Table 2. (Continued).
Duration of interven-
Theoretical N Study subject; Volun tion Attitude measurement(s) Results
Author(s), year approach Country (% females; Mage) academic level tarily Content of intervention (total hours) Control group (Cronbach’s α) (effect size)
Andrews and N/A USA 67 N/A; N/A N/A ‘Introduction to Education and 1 semester (N/A) No 9 items (modified version of (+) increase in 5/9
Clementson (N/A; N/A) Special Education’ (simulation, an instrument used by items
awareness activities, role playing, Moisio,1994; N/A)
problem solving, open-ended
discussions, p. 7) + field trips
Stella, Forlin, and N/A China 151 Secondary school; Yes “Inclusive education” class 10 weeks (20) + No ATIES (+) increase in total
Lan 2007 (78%; 19–29) language; English (historical development; 1 day fieldwork (α = .79) score (N/A) and
language; N/A debates of inclusive education; IPD 15/16 items on
catering for needs of the (α = .67) ATIES, decrease in
students, p. 165) + direct total score in IPD,
F. LAUTENBACH AND A. HEYDER

contact with students with mild

intellectual disabilities
Swain, Nordness, N/A USA 777 Elementary, secondary Yes Introductory course in special 1 semester + 20 hrs No Modified version of Attitude (+) increase in total
and Leader- (76%; N/A) education, speech- education (laws, litigation, of fieldwork (N/A) Towards Inclusion score (N/A) and
Janssen 2012 language pathology; disability categories, adapting Instrument (α = .84) 14/20 items
N/A and modifying instructions,
behaviour management) + field
experience
Tournaki and N/A USA 174 Special and general Yes “Introduction to Inclusion” 1 semester (N/A) No TIAQ (N/A) (+) increase in total
Samuels (32%; N/A) education; N/A (legislation, spirit of the law, score (N/A)
2016* practice of inclusion, issues of
inclusion based students’
classification, role of parents) +
20 hrs of fieldwork
Yukins 2015 N/A USA 17 General secondary Yes Lecture + fieldwork (N/A) 1 semester + 37.5 hrs No TATIS (N/A) (0) no change
(82%; 23) education (math, of contact + 75
English, social studies; hrs of work
general elementary outside of class
education, early (N/A)
childhood education,
or dual license: deaf
and general
education; N/A)

N/A = information not available; * the third measurement point of the study is not included in the results; AUS = Australia; USA = United States of America ; ATDP = Attitude Toward Disabled Person Scale; ATIES = Attitudes towards Inclusive Education Scale;
IDP = Interaction with disabled persons scale (higher scores indicate greater discomfort in social interaction with people with disabilities); PEATID-III = Physical Educators’ Attitude Toward Teaching Individuals with Disabilities-III; TATIS = Teacher Attitudes
Toward Inclusion Scale; TIAQ = Teacher Integration Attitudes Questionnaire; PE = Physical Education.
Table 3. Information on the intervention study in preservice teacher’s education to increase attitude towards inclusion by focusing on contact (N = 1).
N Study Duration of
Theoretical Coun (% subject; Volun intervention Control Attitude measurement(s) Results
Author(s), year approach try females; Mage) academic level tarily Content of intervention (total hours) group (Cronbach’s α) (effect size)
Ivey and N/A USA 52 Elementary N/A Practical outdoor camp (Project 1 day (N/A) No Modified version of (0)
Reinke 2002 (N/A; N/A) education; WET; Project WILD) Attitude Scale (α = .74) increase in 4/34
N/A statements
N/A = information not available; USA = United States of America
EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
241
 242

Table 4. Information on the intervention study in preservice teachers’ education to increase attitude towards inclusion by comparing information-based
cognitive approaches and practical fieldwork experience (N = 1).
Attitude Results
F. LAUTENBACH AND A. HEYDER

Theoretical Coun N Study subject; aca- Volun Duration of intervention Control measurement(s) (effect
Author(s), year approach try (% females; Mage) demic level tarily Content of intervention (total hours) group (Cronbach’s α) size)
Yellin et al. 2003 N/A USA 55 (‘majority Elementary N/A Group 1 & 2: traditional group 1, 2, 3: 1 semester No ORI (α = .83) (0) no
females’; education; format; group 3: field-based (N/A) group 3: 300 hrs change
most undergraduate format (Excellence in of fieldwork (N/A)
20–22) students Collaborative Experiential
Learning in an elementary
school: observed classes,
worked with small groups
of students, tutored special
education students, assisted
teachers)
N/A = information not available; USA = United States of America; ORI = Options relative to Integration
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 243

on preservice teachers studying mathematics (Burton and Pace 2009), another PE

(Hodge et al. 2002), and a further study PE as well as coaching and recreational
education majors (Gürsel 2007). In seven studies, no information on the major of
the participants was provided, whereas in the remainder of the studies, there was
a combination of general, special, elementary and/or secondary education majors.
Origin of study: Fourteen studies were conducted in the USA, three in Australia, two
in Canada, one in China, one in Northern Ireland and one in Turkey. One study was
based on data from interventions undertaken internationally – Australia, Canada,
Hong Kong and Singapore (Sharma, Forlin, and Loreman 2008).
Participants’ voluntariness: Three studies explicitly stated that the universities’ ethics
committee or Review Board approved of the study (Killoran, Woronko, and Zaretsky
2014; Tournaki and Samuels 2016; Yukins 2015). Six studies indicated that participants
were informed that participation was on a voluntary basis (Carroll, Forlin, and Jobling
2003; McHatton and Parker 2013; Sharma, Forlin, and Loreman 2008; Stella, Forlin, and
Lan 2007; Tait and Purdie 2000; Taylor and Ringlaben 2012). The remainder of the
studies (n = 14) did not give detailed information of this nature in the written article
itself.
Materials/measurements – questionnaires: Studies were each based on a single
questionnaire except for those undertaken by Sharma, Forlin, and Loreman (2008)
and Stella, Forlin, and Lan (2007), who used two questionnaires to assess attitudes.
Most commonly, self-constructed questionnaires were used (n = 5).This is followed
by the use of the IDP (Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale; n = 4), the ORI
(Options Relative to Integration; n = 3; twice in an adapted version), the ATIES
(Attitudes towards Inclusive Education Scale; n = 2), and the Attitudes
Towards Inclusion Survey (n = 2; once in a modified version). The ATDP (Attitude
Towards Disabled Person Scale; Gürsel 2007), the PEATID-III (Physical Educators’
Attitude Towards Teaching Individuals with Disabilities-III; Hodge et al. 2002), the
TATIS (Teacher Attitudes Towards Inclusion Scale; Yukins 2015), the TIAQ (Teacher
Integration Attitudes Questionnaire; Tournaki and Samuels 2016), the PSIS
(Preservice Inclusion Survey; Shippen et al. 2005), the Our Attitudes and Beliefs
about People with Disabilities (Kirk 1998) and the Attitudes towards Inclusion
Survey (McHatton and Parker 2013) have been used in one study each. Three
studies adapted existing questionnaires (Andrews and Clementson 1997; Ivey and
Reinke 2002; Swain et al. 2012). Out of the 23 studies, 10 studies report reliability
measurements of the existing questionnaires based on the study sample.
Intervention type: All studies focused on whether a certain intervention within the
university context can lead to a positive change in attitude towards inclusion. Ten
studies specifically used information-based cognitive interventions (see Table 1), one
study focused solely on practical experience (i.e. Ivey and Reinke 2002; see Table 3), 11
studies used a combination of information and practical field experience (see Table 2)
and one study compared an information-based cognitive intervention with an interven-
tion combining information with practical field experience (Yellin et al. 2003; see
Table 4).
Intervention content: Information was provided to the students via lectures or seminars,
in all studies, except for that undertaken by Ivey and Reinke (2002), where outdoor activities
were conducted. The content that was presented to the preservice teachers and mentioned
244 F. LAUTENBACH AND A. HEYDER

in the studies is a mixture of information on history, laws, legislation and politics (n = 7), on
disability categories (n = 5) and educational inclusive practice/behaviour and classroom
management (n = 8). In a few studies, lectures discussed administrative and organisational
issues (n = 2) as well as attitudes, beliefs and/or stereotypes (n = 4). One study also focused
on the role of the parents (Tournaki and Samuels 2016). Two stated that they used case
studies (Burton and Pace 2009; Killoran, Woronko, and Zaretsky 2014), and a further two
studies implemented role-playing or simulations in order to build empathy and tolerance
(Shade and Stewart 2001; Andrews and Clementson 1997). In the case of studies imple-
menting information-based cognitive interventions (n = 10), all but one provided informa-
tion about the course content: five mentioned the name of the course and four provided
more detailed information on the content. For studies combining information and field
experience (n = 10), one study mentioned the name of the course, six studies provided more
details on the content of the class/course and three studies did not provide this type of
information. For the practical field experience, students had to conduct interviews and write
reports (Campbell, Gilmore, and Cuskelly 2003), go on a field trip (Andrews and Clementson
1997; Stella, Forlin, and Lan 2007), collect field experience (Gürsel 2007), or observe (Gartin
et al. 2001). In the study that compared two types of intervention, although information on
the content of the course/lecture was not apparent, detailed information on the field
experience was provided (Yellin et al. 2003).
Intervention time: Overall, as would be expected, given that all studies were set in the
university context, almost all had a timeframe of one semester between pre- and post-
testing. The exceptions were Ivey and Reinke (2002) (one day) and Lambe (2007)
(one year). Specifically, studies with a focus on information-based cognitive interven-
tions that provided detailed information were either interventions that lasted 30 h
(Carroll, Forlin, and Jobling 2003; Shade and Stewart 2001; for Singapore: Sharma,
Forlin, and Loreman 2008) or 20 h (Sharma, Forlin, and Loreman 2008). In four studies,
the intervention was one semester long; one study had a nine-week (Tait and Purdie
2000) and another a 15-week intervention (Taylor and Ringlaben 2012). Finally, preser-
vice teachers in the study of Killoran, Woronko, and Zaretsky (2014) were in a class that
either lasted 12 weeks (i.e. concurrent group) or eight days (i.e. consecutive group) –
each with a total of 36 h. Studies combining lectures/seminars and practical field
experience were also set up for one semester (with the exception of the Lambe
2007 year-long study). Studies that specifically gave details on the length of the practical
field experience suggested that the practice period lasted between 4 and 8 h (Hodge
et al. 2002; Stella, Forlin, and Lan 2007), 10 h (Gartin et al. 2001), 20 h (Swain, Nordness,
and Leader-Janssen 2012) or 112.5 h (Yukins 2015). In the case of the study that
compared two types of intervention (information based vs. combination of information
and practical experience), students spent one semester in class, with an additional 300 h
of field experience for the combined intervention group (i.e. information and practical
experience; Yellin et al. 2003).
Study design: Due to the inclusion criteria, all studies within this review imple-
mented a pre-post design. However, two studies also had a third measurement
point (McHatton and Parker 2013; Tournaki and Samuels 2016). Only one study
(Gürsel 2007) implemented an actual control group: i.e. with control group defined
as a group that receives no treatment and functions as a baseline measure in
intervention studies (e.g. Shadish, Cook, and Campbell 2001). Additionally, three
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 245

studies implemented different groups comparing the effects of different kinds of

information-based cognitive intervention (i.e. consecutive vs. concurrent seminars:
Killoran, Woronko, and Zaretsky 2014), different kinds of field experience (off- vs.
on-campus practicum: Hodge et al. 2002) or different kinds of intervention type (i.e.
information-based cognitive intervention vs. combination of information and prac-
tical field experience: Yellin et al. 2003) on preservice teachers’ attitudes. The
allocation to groups was based on the class that the preservice teachers took
(Killoran, Woronko, and Zaretsky 2014; Hodge et al. 2002) or on the university at
which they studied (Gürsel 2007; Killoran, Woronko, and Zaretsky 2014). In one
study, preservice teachers had to apply for the group in which information and
practical field experience was combined (Yellin et al. 2003). Based on their grades
and an interview, they were then chosen for this group (Yellin et al. 2003, 15).
Overall, it is important to note that even where comparison or control groups were
established, students were not randomly assigned to the groups in any of the
studies.
Intervention success: Eight out of the 10 studies that implemented an information-based
cognitive intervention and provided inferential statistical analyses reported a positive change
in preservice teachers’ attitude. Most of them (n = 7) used one or two previously validated
questionnaires (i.e. IDP: n = 3; ORI-A: n = 2; PSIS, AITES, Our Attitudes and Beliefs about people
with Disabilities: n = 1) and used subscales or overall scales of such questionnaires to detect
the change in attitude. However, in one study, a comparison on item level was performed
(Taylor and Ringlaben 2012). The effect sizes are presented in three of the nine studies,
ranging from very small (η2 < .02 using IDP in Tait and Purdie 2000) to medium and large
(d = 0.88 using a self-constructed questionnaire in Johnson and Howell 2009; η2 = 0.12–0.62
for ATIES subscales; η2 = 0.16–0.33 for IDP in Sharma, Forlin, and Loreman 2008). In an
additional two studies, we calculated effect sizes based on the descriptive statistic presented
(Carroll, Forlin, and Jobling 2003; Shippen et al. 2005). Effect sizes were: medium (d = 0.43 in
Carroll, Forlin, and Jobling 2003 using IDP; d = 0.61 in Shippen et al. 2005 using PSIS).
A combination of information and field experience reportedly led to a significant increase
in attitude in eight studies and in one group (i.e. group of elementary education preservice
teachers) in one additional study (McHatton and Parker 2013). The ATIES, the ATDP, the IDP
and the Attitude towards Inclusion Survey were used to detect such changes, each in one
study. Two studies which recorded a significant increase in attitude used self-constructed
questionnaires (Gartin et al. 2001; Lambe 2007) or adapted existing questionnaires
(Andrews and Clementson 1997) by comparing single items. Two of the 11 studies that
focused on a combination of information and field experience found no changes in attitude
towards inclusion (i.e. independent of group in Hodge et al. 2002 using PEATID-III; Yukins
2015 using the TATIS). None of the studies reported effect sizes. However, for six of the
studies, we were able to calculate effect sizes post hoc. Self-calculated effect sizes for the six
studies ranged from very small (d = 0.01 in Swain, Nordness, and Leader-Janssen 2012) and
medium (d = 0.67 in Gürsel 2007; d = 0.52 in Yukins 2015) to large (d = 1.67 in Andrews and
Clementson 1997). Even within studies the range of (self-calculated) effect sizes is reflected:
IPD: d = 0.17; ATIES: d = 0.27–0.65 (Stella, Forlin, and Lan 2007) and group 1: d = 0.19–0.35;
group 2: d = 017–0.67 (Hodge et al. 2002). Finally, Yellin et al. (2003) detected no change in
attitude in either intervention group, using the ORI.
246 F. LAUTENBACH AND A. HEYDER

Discussion
The aim of this systematic review was to apply a specific focus on teacher-training
interventions within the university context and their effects on preservice teachers’
attitude towards inclusion. Following the PRISMA guidelines (Liberati et al. 2009),
a total of 23 articles was reviewed following a selection process. Ten studies
applied a cognitive-based intervention, and an additional 11 studies implemented
a combination of information and practical field experiences. One study compared
an information-based cognitive intervention with a combination of information and
field experience, whereas one study focused purely on practical field experience.
Overall, the results paint a picture of a positive change in attitude towards
inclusion. In particular, studies focusing on information-based cognitive interven-
tions found a significant increase in attitude in seven out of the ten studies,
whereas in two studies no change was detected (on a descriptive level, in year
one in Burton and Pace 2009; Taylor and Ringlaben 2012); and in one study,
attitudes towards inclusion decreased on a descriptive level (Kirk 1998). In eight
out of the eleven studies combining information and field experience, a significant
increase was evident based on item comparisons (Gartin et al. 2001; Andrews and
Clementson 1997), percentage comparison per item (Lambe 2007), subscale com-
parison (Campbell, Gilmore, and Cuskelly 2003) or total score comparison (see Table
2), whereas only two studies reported no significant change in attitude (Hodge
et al. 2002; Yukins 2015). Further, studies that compared different approaches of
information-based or combined interventions indicated that it does not seem to be
of consequence whether the information-based intervention was consecutive or
concurrent within a semester (Killoran, Woronko, and Zaretsky 2014) or whether the
practical intervention was off- or on-campus (Hodge et al. 2002). The study that
compared two types of intervention (i.e. information-based cognitive intervention
vs. combination of information and field experience) found no change in attitude
(Yellin et al. 2003), independent of the intervention. All of the reviewed studies
contribute insight into attitudes towards inclusion: it is hoped that by bringing the
body of work together in this systematic review, it may be possible to shed light on
the research question in a way that can help inform preservice teacher training.
However, caution must be applied to the application of research findings, as there
are inevitably theoretical and methodological issues and limitations that need to be
recognised.

Limitations and future research

In almost all studies (one exception being Gürsel 2007), the theoretical underpinning
about how attitudes can be changed was limited, both in terms of theoretical starting
points and theoretical interpretations of the data. Theoretical reflection is necessary in
order to foster further theoretical and empirical work so that we can understand better,
on a theoretical level, how attitudes towards inclusion can be changed in the context of
university education. Previous reviews on reducing prejudice and enhancing inclusion in
early childhood showed that interventions that are ‘explicitly informed by a theory were
stronger than ones informed by good intentions, or only implicitly by theory’ (Aboud
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 247

et al. 2012, 333). We believe that there are theoretical approaches for changing attitude
that can be utilised, such as the widely established APE model by Gawronski and
Bodenhausen (2006), contact theory (Allport 1954), or the Elaboration Likelihood
Model by Petty and Cacioppo (1986), which has also been mentioned in a systematic
review by Aboud et al. (2012). These and other models (see e.g. Paluck and Green 2009)
might provide valuable insights into how to design an intervention, in order to change
preservice teachers’ attitudes effectively. Thus, we follow Donaldson’s suggestion (1980),
presented over three decades ago, to place a stronger emphasis on theory and reference
to existing empirical evidence when designing and implementing interventions in order
to change (preservice teachers’) attitudes (see also Paluck and Green 2009).
As has been mentioned earlier, almost all studies were limited in terms of the information
given about participants, material and/or statistics. Perhaps the most important methodo-
logical limitation within the studies analysed for this review was that only one study (Gürsel
2007) implemented an actual control group. This contributes to an undesirable situation in
that no causal relationships can be established regarding the effects of the interventions on
preservice teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Of course, from an ethical perspective, it
could be argued that an implementation of a control group creates a dilemma, because
treatment is declined (see also Ekern 2015) and in addition there may be other reasons why
the use of a control group is not appropriate or feasible in a given setting or situation.
However, ‘when no current proven intervention exists, or when the participants will not be
at risk of serious or irreversible harm’ (Harriss and Atkinson 2013), control groups are
considered as highly valued elements of research designs (Kalleberg et al. 2006). Overall,
in terms of future research, we reiterate the emphasis by Paluck and Green (2009) support-
ing the use of ‘more rigorous evaluation methods’ (361), for example by using stronger
research designs such as (quasi-) experiments or, if not possible, at least by improving one-
group-pretest-posttest designs as suggested by Shadish, Cook, and Campbell (2001).
Finally, as most studies we reviewed were from Western countries with a majority
from the USA and Australia, which has also been found in previous reviews (see Qi and
Ha 2012), generalisability with respect to other cultures or educational systems is, of
course, limited. The dominance of American studies might perhaps be explained by their
less strong tradition in special education schooling and higher inclusion rates compared
to other European countries such as Germany (for a comparison between the USA and
Germany, see Powell 2009). Due to the limited information on the intervention context
provided by the studies reviewed, as well as the limited variance in countries of origin, it
remains a relevant task for future research to shed more light on the cultural and
contextual effects in the context of inclusive attitude formation.
Conducting research in university settings presents challenges. The voluntariness of
student participation is an important issue with the potentially dependent relationship
between student and lecturer in mind. This is not only due to ethical issues (e.g. Ary
et al. 2018; Behi and Nolan 1995) but also in terms of the reduction of the risk of socially
desirable responses and in order to ensure the validity of the data collected. Getting
course credits, or not, might also affect the effectiveness of the interventions and should,
thus, be explicitly stated.
The present review has two main limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, we
only focused on explicit attitudes as the dependent variable. This was because, on the one
hand, explicit attitudes have predictive value for behaviour (Ajzen 1991) and, on the other
248 F. LAUTENBACH AND A. HEYDER

hand, explicit attitudes are the most dominantly researched variable in the field of inclusive
education (e.g. Wilhelmsen and Sørensen 2017). Nevertheless, other dependent variables,
such as ‘implicit attitude’ – which is defined as ‘a spontaneous gut response that is in line
with the valance of [a concept]’ (Gawronsik and Bodenhausen 2006, 189) such as inclusion,
self-efficacy (e.g. an intervention study by Taliaferro, Hammond, and Wyant 2015), as well as
stress and anxiety that have been associated with attitudes (e.g. Hutzler, Zach, and Gafni
2005, Lautenbach in press), have been considered in recent reviews (Kurniawati et al. 2014)
and should also be considered in future reviews in more detail. Second, this review did not
include results from unpublished and qualitative studies, even though there has been an
increase in qualitative research (see Wilhelmsen and Sørensen 2017). As this review was
focused on intervention studies which aimed to increase positive attitudes, this was not
within scope. However, in order to better categorise the content of intervention studies,
future research should take qualitative analyses into account. In addition, in order to reduce
potential publication bias, unpublished studies, such as dissertations, reports or conference
papers, could also be included within a review (Song, Hooper and Loke 2013). However, not
only can locating unpublished research ‘be difficult [. . .], the discovered studies may not be
representative of the results or biases of the full set of unpublished studies’ (Song et al. 2013,
76), and they can also sometimes lead to an increase in publication bias (for further
discussion please see Ferguson and Brannick 2012; Song et al. 2013).
In sum, while the present review acknowledges the achievements of the work and the
effort that has been put into it, it also demonstrated that the research within the last
21 years focusing on changing preservice teachers’ attitude within university classes has
still provided only limited empirical evidence on their effectiveness, which is mainly related
to methodological considerations in the studies. Therefore, actual conclusions are hard to
reach. However, we suggest several issues that could be addressed in future research. We
encourage future research to provide (1) a theoretical background for both the specific goal
as well as the characteristics of the intervention, as well as (2) detailed information on
participants, the selection process including ethical information, the material including
psychometric data on questionnaires, and the intervention content – for example, in an
appendix or as supplementary material. Further, we advocate (3) the implementation of
research designs with a control group and finally, (4) the provision of all the necessary
statistical information to grasp fully the nature of the change in preservice teachers’
attitudes.
Finally, an important and quite fundamental question for research on inclusive
education is what an attitude that fosters the implementation of inclusive education
actually looks like. Within this review and the studies cited, there seems to be an
implicit understanding that the higher preservice teachers score on an attitude scale,
the better. However, hypothetically, extremely positive attitudes might also possibly
reflect superficial, naive beliefs, a lack of knowledge about the challenges attached to
inclusive education and experiences with inclusive education, or might reflect socially
desirable answers (see Lautenbach and Antoniewicz 2018). Thus, in future research,
we suggest that the attitude status that is anticipated to be achieved by interventions
with preservice teachers should be defined more precisely. All of these factors are key
considerations for future research which aims to bring about greater understanding
of inclusion in education.
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 249

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Jana Bergmann for her support in organising the literature. Finally, we
would like to thank the group Sport Didactic within the Department of Sport and Sport Science of
the TU University for fruitful discussions.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
The current research is part of the project Dortmund Profile for Inclusion-Oriented Learning and
Teacher Training – DoProfiL. DoProfiL is part of the ‘Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung’, a joint
initiative of the Federal Government and the Länder, which aims to improve the quality of teacher
training. The programme is funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research
[Bundesministerium für Forschung und Bildung; #01JA1630]. The authors are responsible for the
content of this publication.

ORCID
Franziska Lautenbach http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0603-6552

References
Aboud, F. E., C. Tredoux, L. R. Tropp, C. S. Brown, U. Niens, and N. M. Noor. 2012. “Interventions to
Reduce Prejudice and Enhance Inclusion and Respect for Ethnic Differences in Early Childhood:
A Systematic Review.” Developmental Review 32 (4): 307–336. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2012.05.001.
Ajzen, I. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 50 (2): 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Ajzen, I., and M.Fishbein.(2000). Attitudes and the Attitude-behavior Relation: Reasonedand auto-
matic processes. In Stroebe and M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 1–
33). New York: John Wiley & Sons
Allport, F. H. 1954. “The Structuring of Events: Outline of a General Theory with Applications to
Psychology.” Psychological Review 61 (5): 281–303. doi:10.1037/h0062678.
Ammah, J. O., and S. R. Hodge. 2005. “Secondary Physical Education Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices
in Teaching Students with Severe Disabilities: A Descriptive Analysis.” The High School Journal 89
(2): 40–54. doi:10.1353/hsj.2005.0019.
Andrews, S., and J. J. Clementson. 1997. “Active Learning’s Effect upon Preservice Teachers’
Attitudes toward Inclusion.” https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED410217.pdf
Antonak, R. F., and B. Larrivee. 1995. “Psychometric Analysis and Revision of the Opinions Relative
to Mainstreaming Scale.” Exceptional Children 62: 139–149. doi:10.1177/001440299506200204.
Ary, D., L. C. Jacobs, C. K. S. Irvine, and D. Walker. 2018. Introduction to Research in Education.
Boston: Cengage Learning.
Avramidis, E., and B. Norwich. 2002. “Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Integration/Inclusion: A Review
of the Literature.” European Journal of Special Education 17 (2): 129–147. doi:10.1080/
08856250210129056.
Behi, R., and M. Nolan. 1995. “Ethical Issues in Research.” British Journal of Nursing 4 (12): 712–716.
doi:10.12968/bjon.1995.4.12.712.
Bohner, G., and N. Dickel. 2011. “Attitudes and Attitude Change.” Annual Review of Psychology 62:
391–417. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131609.
250 F. LAUTENBACH AND A. HEYDER

Bransford, J., L. Darling-Hammond, and K. LePage. 2005. Preparing Teachers for a Changing World.
San Francisco. doi:10.5860/choice.43-1083.
Burton, D., and D. Pace. 2009. “Preparing Pre-Service Teachers to Teach Mathematics in Inclusive
Classrooms: A Three-Year Case Study.” School Science and Mathematics 109 (2): 108–115.
doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2009.tb17943.x.
Campbell, J., L. Gilmore, and M. Cuskelly. 2003. “Changing Student Teachers’ Attitudes Towards
Disability and Inclusion.” Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 28 (4): 369–379.
doi:10.1080/13668250310001616407.
Carroll, A., C. Forlin, and A. Jobling. 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 (3): 65–79.
Combs, S., S. Elliott, and K. Whipple. 2010. “Elementary Physical Education Teachers’ Attitudes
Towards the Inclusion of Children with Special Needs: A Qualitative Investigation.” International
Journal of Special Education 25 (1): 114–125.
de Boer, A., S. J. Pijl, and A. Minnaert. 2011. “Regular Primary Schoolteachers’ Attitudes Towards
Inclusive Education: A Review of the Literature.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 15:
331–353. doi:10.1080/13603110903030089.
Donaldson, J. 1980. “"Changing Attitudes toward Handicapped Persons: A Review and Analysis of
Research."Exceptional Children 46 (7): 504–514.” doi.org/ 10. 1177/001440298004600702.
Ekern, L. 2015. “Placebo.” The Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees, September 17.
Accessed 9 April 2018. https://www.etikkom.no/en/library/introduction/methods-and-
approaches/placebo/
Ferguson, C. J., and M. T. Brannick. 2012. “Publication Bias in Psychological Science: Prevalence,
Methods for Identifying and Controlling, and Implications for the Use of Meta-Analyses.”
Psychological Methods 17: 120–128. doi:10.1037/a0024445.
Forlin, C., and M. G. J. Lian, Eds. 2008. Reform, Inclusion and Teacher Education: Towards a New Era
of Special Education in the Asia-Pacific Region. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203895313.
Forlin, C., T. Loreman, U. Sharma, and C. Earle. 2009. “Demographic Differences in Changing Pre-
Service Teachers’ Attitudes, Sentiments and Concerns about Inclusive Education.” International
Journal of Inclusive Education 13 (2): 195–209. doi:10.1080/13603110701365356.
Gartin, B. C., S. Rao, C. McGee, and E. Jordan. 2001. “Perceptions of Pre-Service Teachers about
Inclusion.” Catalyst for Change 31 (1): 20–25.
Gawronski, B., and G. V. Bodenhausen. 2006. “Associative and Propositional Processes in
Evaluation: An Integrative Review of Implicit and Explicit Attitude Change.” Psychological
Bulletin 132 (5): 692–731. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692.
Grenier, M. 2006. “A Social Constructionist Perspective of Teaching and Learning in Inclusive
Physical Education.” Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly 23 (3): 245–260. doi:10.1123/
apaq.23.3.245.
Gürsel, F. 2007. “Attitudes of Physical Education Majors in Turkey Towards Disability are
Changed by Adaptive Physical Education Training.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 104 (1):
166–170. doi:10.2466/pms.104.1.166-170.
Harriss, D. J., and G. Atkinson. 2013. “Ethical Standards in Sport and Exercise Science Research:
2014 Update.” International Journal of Sports Medicine 34 (12): 1025–1028. doi:10.1055/s-0033-
1358756.
Hodge, S. R., R. Davis, R. Woodard, and C. Sherrill. 2002. “Comparison of Practicum Types in
Changing Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes and Perceived Competence.” Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly 19 (2): 155–171. doi:10.1123/apaq.19.2.155.
Hutzler, Y., S. Zach, and O. Gafni. 2005. “Physical Education Students’ Attitudes and Self-Efficacy
Towards the Participation of Children with Special Needs in Regular Classes.” European Journal
of Special Needs Education 20 (3): 309–327. doi:10.1080/08856250500156038.
Ivey, J. K., and K. Reinke. 2002. “Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes toward Inclusion in a Non-
Traditional Classroom.” Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education 1 (6): 4.
Johnson, G. M., and A. J. Howell. 2009. “Change in Pre-Service Teachers Attitudes toward
Contemporary Issues in Education.” International Journal of Special Education 24 (2): 35–41.
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 251

Kalleberg, R., A. Balto, A. Cappelen, A. H. Nagel, H. S. Nymoen, H. Rønning, and H. W. Nagell. 2006.
Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Law and the Humanities. Norway: National
Committees for Research Ethics in Norway.
Killoran, I., D. Woronko, and H. Zaretsky. 2014. “Exploring Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes Towards
Inclusion.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 18 (4): 427–442. doi:10.1080/
13603116.2013.784367.
Kim, J. 2011. “Influence of Teacher Preparation Programmes on Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes
toward Inclusion.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 15 (3): 355–377. doi:10.1080/
13603110903030097.
Kirk, R. 1998. “The Link between University Course Work and Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes
toward Students with Special Learning Needs.” College Student Journal 32 (1): 153.
Kraus, S. J. 1995. “Attitudes and the Prediction of Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of the Empirical
Literature.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21: 58–75. doi:10.1177/0146167295211007.
Kurniawati, F., A. A. de Boer, A. E. M. G. Minnaert, and F. Mangunsong. 2014. “Characteristics of
Primary Teacher Training Programmes on Inclusion: A Literature Focus.” Educational Research 56
(3): 310–326. doi:10.1080/00131881.2014.934555.
Lambe, J. and R. Bones. 2006. "Student Teachers' Attitude to Inclusion: Implications for Initial
Teacher Education in Northern Ireland". International Journal of Inclusive Education 10: 511–527.
Lambe, J. 2007. “Northern Ireland Student Teachers’ Changing Attitudes Towards Inclusive
Education during Initial Teacher Training.” International Journal of Special Education 22 (1):
59–71.
Lautenbach, F., and F. Antoniewicz. 2018. “Ambivalent Implicit Attitudes Towards Inclusion in
Preservice PE Teachers: The Need for Assessing Both Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Towards
Inclusion.” Teacher and Teaching Education 72: 24–32. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2018.01.003.
Lautenbach, F. in press. “The Main Predictor of Preservice Physical Education Teachers' Attitude
toward Inclusion is Stress Appraisal.” International Journal of Physical Education.
Liberati, A., D. G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P. C. Gøtzsche, J. P. Ioannidis, M. Clarke,
P. J. Deveraux, J. Kleijnen, and D. Moher. 2009. “The PRISMA Statement for Reporting
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies that Evaluate Health Care Interventions:
Explanation and Elaboration.” PLoS Medicine 6 (7): e1000100. doi:10.1371/journal.
pmed.1000100.
Martin, K., and M. Kudlácek. 2010. “Attitudes of Preservice Teachers in an Australian University
Towards Inclusion of Students with Physical Disabilities in General Physical Education
Programs.” European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity 3 (1): 30–48. doi:10.1007/s11274-015-
1903-5.
McHatton, P. A., and A. Parker. 2013. “Purposeful Preparation: Longitudinally Exploring Inclusion
Attitudes of General and Special Education Pre-Service Teachers.” Teacher Education and Special
Education 36 (3): 186–203. doi:10.1177/0888406413491611.
Moen, T., V. Nilssen, and N. Weidemann. 2007. “An Aspect of a Teacher’s Inclusive Educational
Practice: Scaffolding Pupils through Transitions.” Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 13:
269–286. doi:10.1080/13540600701299783.
Narkon, D. E., and J. C. Wells. 2013. “Improving Reading Comprehension for Elementary Students
with Learning Disabilities: UDL Enhanced Story Mapping.” Preventing School Failure: Alternative
Education for Children and Youth 57: 231–239. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2012.726286.
Paluck, E. L., and D. P. Green. 2009. “Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment
of Research and Practice.” Annual Review of Psychology 60: 339–367. doi:10.1146/annurev.
psych.60.110707.163607.
Petty, R. E., D. T. Wegener, and L. R. Fabrigar. 1997. “Attitudes and Attitude Change.” Annual Review
of Psychology 48: 609–647. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.609.
Petty, R. E., and J. T. Cacioppo. 1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology 19: 123–205. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2.
Powell, J. J. W. 2009. “To Segregate or to Separate?: Special Education Expansion and Divergence
in the United States and Germany.” Comparative Education Review 53: 161–187. doi:10.1086/
597816.
252 F. LAUTENBACH AND A. HEYDER

Qi, J., and A. S. Ha. 2012. “Inclusion in Physical Education: A Review of Literature.” International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education 59 (3): 257–281. doi:10.1080/
1034912X.2012.697737.
Shade, R. A., and R. Stewart. 2001. “General Education and Special Education Preservice Teachers’
Attitudes toward Inclusion.” Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and
Youth 46 (1): 37–41. doi:10.1080/10459880109603342.
Shadish, W. R., T. D. Cook, and D. T. Campbell. 2001. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs
for Generalized Causal Inference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Sharma, U., C. Forlin, and T. Loreman. 2008. “Impact of Training on Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes
and Concerns about Inclusive Education and Sentiments about Persons with Disabilities.”
Disability and Society 23 (7): 773–785. doi:10.1080/09687590802469271.
Sharma, U., and L. Sokal. 2016. “Can Teachers’ Self-Reported Efficacy, Concerns, and Attitudes
toward Inclusion Scores Predict Their Actual Inclusive Classroom Practices?” Australasian Journal
of Special Education 40: 21–38. doi:10.1017/jse.2015.14.
Shippen, M. E., S. A. Crites, D. E. Houchins, M. L. Ramsey, and M. Simon. 2005. “Preservice Teachers’
Perceptions of Including Students with Disabilities.” Teacher Education and Special Education 28
(2): 92–99. doi:10.1177/088840640502800202.
Song, F., L. Hooper, and Y. Loke. 2013. "Publication Bias: Qhat Is It? How do we measure it?
How do we avoid it?." Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials 5: 71–81. doi:org/10.2147/OAJCT.
S34419
Stella, C. S. C., C. Forlin, and A. M. Lan. 2007. “The Influence of an Inclusive Education Course on
Attitude Change of Pre-Service Secondary Teachers in Hong Kong.” Asia-Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education 35 (2): 161–179. doi:10.1080/13598660701268585.
Swain, K. D., P. D. Nordness, and E. M. Leader-Janssen. 2012. “Changes in Preservice Teacher
Attitudes toward Inclusion.” Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and
Youth 56 (2): 75–81. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2011.565386.
Symeonidou, S., and H. Phtiaka. 2009. “Using Teachers’ Prior Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs to
Develop In-Service Teacher Education Courses for Inclusion.” Teaching and Teacher Education
25: 543–550. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.001.
Tait, K., and N. Purdie. 2000. “Attitudes toward Disability: Teacher Education for Inclusive
Environments in an Australian University.” International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education 47 (1): 25–38. doi:10.1080/103491200116110.
Taliaferro, A. R., L. Hammond, and K. Wyant. 2015. “Preservice Physical Educators’ Self-Efficacy
Beliefs toward Inclusion: The Impact of Coursework and Practicum.” Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly 32 (1): 49–67. doi:10.1123/apaq.2013-0112.
Taylor, R. W., and R. P. Ringlaben. 2012. “Impacting Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes toward
Inclusion.” Higher Education Studies 2: 16–23. doi:10.5539/hes.v2n3p16.
Tournaki, N., and W. E. Samuels. 2016. “Do Graduate Teacher Education Programs Change
Teachers’ Attitudes toward Inclusion and Efficacy Beliefs?” Action in Teacher Education 38 (4):
384–398. doi:10.1080/01626620.2016.1226200.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2008. International Conference on
Education, 48th Session, Geneva, 25–28 November: Final Report. http://www.ibe.unesco.org/filead
min/user_upload/Policy_Dialogue/48th_ICE/ICE_FINAL_REPORT_eng.pdf
Vislie, L. 2003. “From Integration to Inclusion: Focusing Global Trends and Changes in the Western
European Societies.” European Journal of Special Needs Education 18 (1): 17–35. doi:10.1080/
0885625082000042294.
Wilhelmsen, T., and M. Sørensen. 2017. “Inclusion of Children with Disabilities in Physical
Education: A Systematic Review of Literature from 2009 to 2015.” Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly 34 (3): 311–337. doi:10.1123/apaq.2016-0017.
Yellin, P. G., D. Yellin, P. L. Claypool, K. Mokhtari, R. Carr, T. Latiker, L. Risley, and S. Szabo. 2003. “I’m
Not Sure I Can Handle the Kids, Especially, The, Uh, You Know Special Ed Kids.” Action in Teacher
Education 25 (1): 14–19. doi:10.1080/01626620.2003.10463288.
 EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 253

Yeo, L. S., W. H. Chong, M. F. Neihart, and V. S. Huan. 2014. “Teachers’ Experience with Inclusive
Education in Singapore.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 36 (sup1): 69–83. doi:10.1080/
02188791.2014.934781
Yukins, C. 2015. “Attitudes of Pre-Service Teachers toward Inclusion for Students Who are Deaf.”
Deafness and Education International 1–12. doi:10.1179/1557069X15Y.0000000003.
Zimbardo, P. G., and M. R. Leippe. 1991. The Psychology of Attitude Change and Social Influence.
New York, NY, England: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.