Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [The UC Irvine Libraries]On: 02 November 2014, At: 07:17Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Disability & SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdso20
Variables that affect teachers’attitudes towards disability andinclusive education in Mumbai, IndiaKala Parasuram aa Shreyas Trust , IndiaPublished online: 20 Aug 2006.
To cite this article: Kala Parasuram (2006) Variables that affect teachers’ attitudes towardsdisability and inclusive education in Mumbai, India, Disability & Society, 21:3, 231-242
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09687590600617352
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Disability & SocietyVol. 21, No. 3, May 2006, pp. 231–242
ISSN 0968-7599 (print)/ISSN 1360-0508 (online)/06/030231–12© 2006 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09687590600617352
Variables that affect teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive education in Mumbai, IndiaKala Parasuram*Shreyas Trust, IndiaTaylor and Francis LtdCDSO_A_161716.sgm10.1080/09687590600617352Disability and Society0968-7599 (print)/1360-0508 (online)Original Article2006Taylor & Francis213000000May [email protected]
Teacher attitude is one of the most important variables in the education of children with disabilities.Attitudes of general educators in the city of Mumbai, India, toward disabilities and inclusion ofstudents with disabilities into regular schools were studied through the usage of two attitude scales.The study investigated whether variable background characteristics such as age, gender, incomelevel, education levels, years of teaching experience, acquaintance with a person with a disability,having a family member with a disability, frequency of contact and closeness to a person withdisability affect the attitudes of teachers towards people with disabilities and towards inclusion ofstudents with disabilities into regular schools. The analyses revealed that while some of the variablesof interest did affect teachers’ attitudes towards disabilities, the only variable that affected teachers’attitudes towards inclusion was prior acquaintance with a person with a disability.
The concept of attitude is probably the most distinctive and indispensable concept incontemporary social psychology (Oskamp, 1991). In the Dictionary of Psychology,Corsini (1999) defined attitude as a learned and stable predisposition to react to agiven situation, person or other set of cues in a consistent way. Allport (1967), oneof the founders of the field of attitude studies, said that when a group is established,stereotypical beliefs are attached to the group since stereotyping effects are inevitableproducts of human cognitive processing. People with disabilities fall into a group, andpowerful stereotypes are held toward them (Dalal et al., 1996). Attitudes towarddisabilities reflect beliefs about people with disabilities and as such guide behaviourtowards individuals with disabilities (Roberts & Smith, 1999).
Education of children with disabilities has seen a shift from segregated specialschools to inclusion in general education schools and classrooms. Educating childrenwith disabilities in mainstream schools is an important goal for many countries today.Inclusion is the name given to the process of change in education and support services
*2E/16, Shreyas, Chhedanagar, Chembur, Mumbai – 400 089, India. Email: [email protected]
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
UC
Irv
ine
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
7:17
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
232 K. Parasuram
needed to achieve this goal (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-ment, 1999). In India, the human rights movement has shifted the attention of policymakers from the mere provision of charitable services for people with disabilities toprotecting their basic right to equal opportunities, dignity and self-respect. In June1994, India was one of the 92 countries that signed the Salamanca Declaration, inSalamanca, Spain. The statement endorsed inclusive education and stated that inclu-sion and participation are essential to human rights (UNESCO, 1995). The Govern-ment of India has launched a number of programmes such as the Project IntegratedEducation Development (PIED), Integrated Education for Disabled Children(IEDC) and District Primary Education Programme (DPEP), which promote inclu-sive education. A view of the Indian scenario shows that there is a growing interest ininclusion (Alur, 1998). Although special schools are still the more popular option forthe education of all children with disabilities (Jangria, 1995; Alur & Natarajan, 2000),the movement towards including children with disabilities into general educationschools and classrooms has commenced.
Teacher attitude is one of the most important variables in the education of childrenwith disabilities (Smith, 2000). Many studies have emphasized the importance ofpositive attitudes of educators toward inclusion (Winzer, 1985; Garvar-Pinhas &Schmelkin, 1989). Attitudes are a factor in one’s daily living and therefore play animportant role in an educator’s daily interactions with students. Teacher beliefsunderlying the philosophy of inclusion are important predictors of the outcomes ofinclusion (Ringlaken & Price, 1981). McEroy, Nordgreist and Cunningham (1998)contended that the effects of teacher attitudes on the children with disabilities couldbe serious. Teachers’ judgements about children with disabilities could have a signif-icant influence on children’s emotional, social and intellectual development. Sincegeneral educators’ willingness to include students with disabilities in their classroomsis critical to the success of inclusion, a number of researchers have stressed the impor-tance of understanding teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward inclusion (Bain &Dolbel, 1991; Roberts & Zubrick, 1992; Forlin & Cole, 1993; Hasazi et al., 1994;Forlin et al., 1996; Smith, 2000).
In India, very little research has been carried out to study the attitudes of teacherstowards education of children with disabilities (Jangria & Mukhopadya, 1991; Jangria& Srinivasan, 1991). Taking into consideration that, for the success of inclusiveeducation, it is important to understand teachers’ attitudes, the purpose of this studyis to investigate the attitudes of general educators in the city of Mumbai, India,towards people with disabilities and towards the inclusion of students with disabilitiesinto general education classrooms.
The research question of interest is whether background characteristic variablessuch as (a) age; (b) gender; (c) income level; (d) level of education level; (e) years ofteaching experience; (f) acquaintance with a person with a disability; (g) having afamily member with a disability; and (h) frequency of contact and closeness to aperson with disability affect the attitudes of teachers towards people with disabilitiesand the attitudes towards inclusion of students with disabilities into regular schools.The study involves teachers employed in schools that currently do not have policies
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
UC
Irv
ine
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
7:17
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive education in India 233
to include children with disabilities. The reason for this is that as the movementtowards inclusion grows, many of these schools will also include students with disabil-ities. Prior to this, as the literature suggests, it would be important to understand theattitudes of general educators in these schools towards disabilities and inclusion.
Method
Subjects
Teachers employed in general education schools in the city of Mumbai were thesubjects of this study. The schools and the teachers employed in the schools wererandomly sampled across Mumbai. The population surveyed totalled 391. Of thistotal population, 340 teachers responded and returned the survey material. Of these,36 completed surveys were responses from teachers who stated that they had astudent with a disability in their classroom. These 36 forms have not been consideredin the analysis. Four forms had to be discarded because the survey responses wereincomplete. Of the remaining 303 forms, three forms were randomly dropped toround the total number to 300.
Materials
Measures obtained through two attitude scales provided the data for analysis in thisstudy. One was the Attitude Toward Disability Scale (ATDP), developed by Berryand Dalal (1996), which measures teachers’ attitudes towards people with disabili-ties. The second scale was the Attitudes Towards Inclusive Education Scale(ATIES), developed by Wilczenski (1992).
The ATDP is one of the scales in the Disability-Attitude-Belief-Behaviour (DABB)survey (Berry & Dalal, 1996; Dalal et al., 1996). Each item is scaled on a range of 1–5, where 1 relates to ‘disagree very much’ and 5 relates to ‘agree very much’. Higherscores imply more positive attitudes. Two of the items (#2 and #6) are negativelyworded and therefore their ratings are to be reversed before adding up all the scores(Dalal et al., 1996).
The ATIES includes 16 items that deal with four categories of mainstreamingaccommodations: physical; social; academic; and behavioural. The ATIES (Likert-type) has responses designated as follows: 6 – ‘strongly agree’; 5 – ‘agree’; 4 – ‘agreesomewhat’; 3 – ‘disagree somewhat’; 2 – ‘disagree’; and 1 – ‘strongly disagree’. A totalscore on the ATIES is the sum total of the raw scores for each item. High scoresindicate more favourable attitudes towards inclusion.
A Personal Information Form that covered the variables of interest was attached tothe survey packet. This included details such as gender, age, education levels, yearsof teaching experience, income level and information such as whether the respondentwas acquainted with a person with a disability or had a family member with a disabil-ity, and if so, the frequency of meeting and closeness shared with the person withdisability.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
UC
Irv
ine
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
7:17
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
234 K. Parasuram
A cover letter explaining the survey purpose and the terms disability and inclusionwas also attached.
Disability was defined using the same definition used by Berry and Dalal (1996) intheir original instrument. It explained disability as ‘having a mental or physicalimpairment (difference) that limits one or more life activities, having a record of suchan impairment or being regarded as having such an impairment (this includesphysical, mental and emotional disabilities)’.
Inclusive education was defined as ‘the placement of students with disabilities inchronological, age-appropriate, home/neighbourhood schools and classes, whileproviding the necessary supports to students to allow successful participation inevents and activities offered to and expected of classmates without disabilities’(Falvey et al., 1995).
The survey packet was translated into the regional languages, Hindi and Marathi,by professional translators who had prior experience in translation for researchpurposes. They did not mention any specific difficulties encountered in translatingthe survey. The translated instruments were given only to the teachers who could notuse the English instruments.
Procedure
Schools were randomly approached and permission was sought from the schoolprincipals of state and private-aided schools and the heads of the municipal schoolsfor conducting the survey. Following this, the survey was handed over randomly tosome of the teachers of the schools. The teachers were approached individually andthe aim of the survey was explained to them. The teachers completed the survey andhanded it back to the researcher either on the same day or within one week after thesurvey was given to them.
Results
The total score analysis of all the 300 respondents indicated an overall mean of 3.0on all the statements on the ATDP. This indicated that the overall attitude fell in themiddle of the response scale where 1 indicated more negative attitudes towardspeople with disabilities and 5 indicated more positive attitudes towards people withdisabilities.
The overall mean of all the respondents on all the statements of the ATIES was 3.3.A mean of 3.3 indicated an attitude towards inclusion as falling between responsenumbers 3 and 4; that is, between ‘agree somewhat’ and ‘disagree somewhat’, butleaning more towards response number 3, namely ‘disagree somewhat’.
For analysis in this study, the ATIES average scores, which were based on a 6-pointLikert response scale, were normalized to 5. Mean attitude scores were obtained andone-way ANOVA analyses were conducted on each of the variable characteristicswith both the ATDP and the ATIES score means, to investigate whether the demo-graphic variables affected the attitudes of teachers towards people with disabilities
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
UC
Irv
ine
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
7:17
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive education in India 235
and inclusion. Follow-up tests were conducted using the Tukey posteriori test ofcontrast.
Age
Of the total number of participants (N = 300), 62 (20.7%) were between the ages of20 and 30, 125 (41.7%) were between the ages of 31 and 40, 86 (28.7%) werebetween the ages of 41 and 50, and 27 (9%) were between the ages of 51 and 60.
On the ATDP scores, a one-way ANOVA on the means yielded a statisticallysignificant difference (F (3, 296) = 5.5; p < .05). On the ATIES, the differencebetween the means was not statistically significant. The results of the posterioricontrast analysis (i.e., Tukey test) on the ATDP scores revealed that (a) the attitudescores of age category 20–30 years (M = 3.18, SD = .56) were significantly higherthan those of age category 40.1–50 years (M = 2.86, SD = .59); and (b) the attitudescores of age category 50.1–60 years (M = 3.30, SD = .68) were significantly higherthan age category 40.1–50 years.
Gender
Of the total number if participants, 241 (80.3%) were females and 59 (19.7%)were males. A one-way ANOVA conducted to check whether there was a statisti-cally significant difference between the mean scores of males and females yielded anon-significant difference between the two means on both the ADTP and theATIES.
Income
The income categories were divided as per the Rupee (Rs) value. The currencyconversion is GBP 1 = Rs 82. Of the total number of participants, 124 were in theincome bracket of less than Rs 10,000, 85 were in the income bracket of Rs10,00 20,000, 42 were in the income bracket of Rs 20,00 30,000, 26 were in theincome bracket of Rs 30,00 40,000 and 23 were in the income bracket of more thanRs 40,001.
A one-way ANOVA yielded a significant difference between the means on theATDP scores (F (4, 295) = 3.97, p < .05), but a non-significant difference on theATIES scores. The results of the posteriori contrast analysis on the ATDP scoresrevealed that the attitude scores of respondents in income category Rs 20,001–30,000(M = 3.25, SD = .58) were significantly greater than the scores of respondents in theincome category of less than Rs 10,000 (M = 2.90, SD = .60).
Level of education
Of the total number of participants, 23 did not answer this demographic question.Forty-five participants (15%) had an education level of Higher Secondary Certificate
1̃ 1̃1̃
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
UC
Irv
ine
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
7:17
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
236 K. Parasuram
(HSC) or below, 161 (53.7%) had a Bachelor’s degree and 71 (23.7%) had aMaster’s degree. A one-way ANOVA between the means scores yielded a significantdifference between the means on the ATDP scores (F(2, 274) = 10.42, p < .05),while a non-significant difference between the means was shown on the ATIESscores. The results of the posteriori contrast analysis on the ATDP scores revealedthat the attitude scores of respondents with a Master’s Degree (M = 3.3, SD = .57)were significantly greater than the scores of respondents with the Higher SecondaryCertification (M = 2.85, SD = .44) as well those of the respondents who had aBachelor’s degree (M = 2.97, SD = .61).
Certificate in Education. Teachers in Mumbai typically hold a certificate in the fieldof Education. The certificate levels of Education are (a) Diploma in Education(D.Ed.), where the candidate is required to hold at least a Secondary SchoolCertificate to enrol in the programme; (b) Bachelor’s degree in Education (B.Ed.),where the candidate needs to hold a basic Bachelor’s degree (in any subject area)degree in order to enrol; (c) Master’s in Education (M.Ed.), where the candidateneeds to hold a basic B.Ed. in order to enroll.
Of the total number of participants, 14 (4.67%) did not respond to this demo-graphic question. Four participants, who were Arts/Crafts and Physical Educationteachers in private schools, did not hold an Education degree or diploma but an alter-nate specific diploma in their subject area. Among the respondents, 95 (31.7%) hada D.Ed. diploma; 176 (58.7%) had a B.Ed. degree; and 11 (3.7%) had an M.Ed.degree.
A one-way ANOVA between the means yielded a significant difference between themeans on the ATDP scores (F (2, 279) = 6.24, p < .05) but a non-significant differ-ence between the means on the ATIES scores. The results of the posteriori contrastanalysis on the ATDP scores revealed that the attitude scores of respondents with aB.Ed. degree (M = 3.11, SD = .60) were significantly higher than the scores of therespondents with a D.Ed. degree (M = 2.87, SD = .57). Further, the attitude scoresof respondents with an M.Ed. degree (M = 3.33, SD = .85) were also significantlyhigher than the scores of the respondents with a D.Ed. degree.
Years of teaching experience
Of the total number of participants, 74 (24.7%) had less than five years of experience;82 (24.3%) had between 5.1–10 years of experience; 58 (19.3%) had 10.1–15 yearsof experience; 37 (12.3 %) had 15.1 – 20 years of experience; 35 (4.1 %) had 20.1–25 years of experience; and 14 (4.7 %) had 25.1–30 years of experience.
A one-way ANOVA between the means yielded a significant difference between themeans on the ATDP scores (F (5, 294) = 4.77, p < .05), but a did not indicate signif-icance between the means on the ATIES scores. The results of the posteriori contrastanalysis on the ATDP scores revealed that the attitude scores of respondents with lessthan five years’ experience (M = 3.27, SD = .58) were significantly greater than the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
UC
Irv
ine
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
7:17
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive education in India 237
scores of respondents with 5.1–10 years’ experience (M = 2.98, SD = .55); 10.1–15years’ experience (M = 2.96, SD = .64); 15.1–20 years’ experience (M = 2.85, SD =.65); and 20.1–25 years’ experience (M = 2.88, SD = .52).
Acquaintance with a person with a disability
This variable measured any present or prior contact with a person with a disability.This was a yes/no question. One hundred and thirty-eight participants (46%) saidthat they knew a person with a disability, while 162 (54%) said that they were notacquainted with a person with a disability. A one-way ANOVA yielded a significantresult in both the ATDP mean scores (F (1, 298) = 5.60, p < .05) and the ATIESmean scores (F (1, 298) = 7.71, p < .05). This indicated that the teachers whowere acquainted with a person with a disability had significantly more positive atti-tudes towards people with disabilities (M = 3.13, SD = .63) and towards inclusion(M = 2.84, SD = .63) than the teachers who were not acquainted with a personwith a disability.
Person with a disability in the family
Of the 138 participants who knew a person with a disability, 36 (12%) said that theyhad a family member who had a disability, while 102 (34%) responded that they didnot have a family member with a disability. Both immediate and extended familieshave been considered under this category.
A one-way ANOVA, conducted to check whether the two means were signifi-cant, yielded a non-significant result in both the ATDP and the ATIES meanscores. This meant that among the respondents who knew a person with a disabil-ity, there was no difference between the attitudes of teachers who had a familymember with a disability and those teachers who did not have a family memberwith a disability.
Frequency of contact
Participants who said that they knew a person with a disability (N = 138) rated thefrequency of their contact with this person. Frequency of contact was rated as (a) lessthan once a month; (b) once a month; (c) weekly; or (d) daily. Fifty-one participants(17%) answered that the frequency of their contact their acquaintance with a disabil-ity was less than once a month, 30 (10.3%) said that the frequency of contact wasonce a month, 25 (8.6%) said that the frequency was weekly, and 32 (11.3%) saidthat the frequency of contact was daily.
A one-way ANOVA conducted to check the significance between the meansyielded a non-significant result on both the ATDP and the ATIES mean scores. Thismeant that among the respondents who knew a person with a disability, the frequencyof contact with the person with a disability did not affect the teachers’ attitudestowards people with disabilities or towards inclusive education.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
UC
Irv
ine
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
7:17
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
238 K. Parasuram
Closeness of relationship
Participants who said that they knew a person with a disability rated the closeness oftheir personal relationship, regardless of frequency of contact, with this person.Closeness of personal relationship was rated on a Likert scale from ‘Not at all close’(which had a rating of 1) to ‘very close’ (which had a rating of 6). Thirty-one partic-ipants (10.3%) rated their contact as 1; 21 (7%) rated their contact as 2; 34 (11.3%)rated their contact as 3; 26 (8.7%) rated their contact as 4; 11 (3.7%) rated theircontact as 5; and 17 (5.7%) rated their contact as 6.
A one-way ANOVA conducted to check the significance between the meansyielded a non-significant result on both the ATDP and the ATIES mean scores. Thismeant that among the respondents who knew a person with a disability, the closenessof contact with the person with a disability did not affect the teachers’ attitudestowards people with disabilities or towards inclusion.
Discussion
Attitudes of general educators toward people with disabilities
Analyses of the age variable indicate more positive attitudes in the age group of 20–30 years than in the age group of 40.1–50 years. They also show more positive atti-tudes in the age group of 50.1–60 than in the age group of 40.1–50 years. AlthoughYuker (1994) states that age is not an important variable, this study shows otherwise.This finding is interesting because it shows most positive attitudes in the youngestand the oldest teacher groups.
In a developing city like Mumbai, the younger generation has witnessed and expe-rienced sweeping changes such as globalization, the rise of information technology,and exposure to the world via the Internet and media. This could be a possible reasonfor the existence of more positive attitudes towards disabilities in the 20–30 years agegroup.
The results of the analyses show that gender does not make a difference to teachers’attitudes towards disabilities. Yuker and Block (1986) mention that the effect ofgender on attitudes towards disabilities is diminishing, however, there have beenstudies that found gender to be a significant variable. McQuillein Harris (1990) foundthat among college students, women’s attitudes towards people with disabilities weresignificantly more favourable than men’s, and Cowardin (1986) found that adoles-cent girls had more favourable attitudes than boys. Mumbai, a metropolis, has aculture of participation of both genders in industry, the corporate sector, social sectorand other professional groups. This may be a contributing factor to the lack of differ-ence between the responses of the two genders.
The study indicates that the group earning a monthly family income of Rs 21,000–30,100 has more positive attitudes than the lower income groups earning a monthlyfamily income of below Rs 10,000. In Mumbai, a monthly family income of Rs21,000–30,000 would fall into the category of ‘upper middle class’, which is a popu-lation with relatively greater opportunities for exposure to wider social, educational
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
UC
Irv
ine
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
7:17
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive education in India 239
and economic perspectives. On the contrary, a family income of below Rs 10,000would belong to the lower middle-class category, which, depending on family size,not only has limited opportunities but is also forced to be concerned predominantlywith meeting the immediate needs of the family.
In terms of years of teaching experience, the study shows that the new generationof teachers, that is, those with less than five years’ experience, have more positiveattitudes than teachers with 5.1–10 years’ experience, 10.1–15 years’ experience,15.1–20 years’ experience and 20.1–25 years’ experience. The only group whoseattitudes are similar to the younger generation of teachers are the teachers withmost experience (more than 25.1 years of experience). This finding is similar to theresult of the age variable, as both point to the fact that the most positive attitudesare to be found in the new and youngest and the more experienced and oldestteachers.
The analyses reveal that with respect to level of education, the respondents with aMaster’s degree have more positive attitudes than those with a Higher SchoolCertification (HSC) and those with a Bachelor’s degree. This finding is similar tothose of other studies. A study conducted by Paterson (1995) in South India investi-gated the attitudes of community-based rehabilitation workers towards people withdisabilities and found that positive attitudes towards people with disabilities are influ-enced by level of education. According to Yuker (1988) the level of education is posi-tively correlated with positive attitudes towards disabilities.
The education certificate that teachers are required to hold in India is either aDiploma in Education (D.Ed.), Bachelor’s degree in Education (B.Ed.) or Master’sdegree in Education (M.Ed.). The results showed that the teachers holding a B.Ed.or an M.Ed. degree had more positive attitudes than those holding a D.Ed. degree.There was no difference between the attitudes of teachers holding B.Ed. and M.Ed.degrees.
The prerequisite for enrolment in the D.Ed. programme is at least a SecondarySchool Certificate (Grade X), whereas that for the B.Ed. programme is a basicBachelor’s degree (in any subject area) and that for the M.Ed. programme is a B.Ed.certificate. Hence the years spent in education seem to have a bearing on attitudestowards disabilities.
Attitudes of the respondents who were acquainted with a person with a disabilitywere more positive than those who had no acquaintance with a person with a disability.Many studies have stated that contact with people with disability increases positiveattitudes towards disabilities. Yuker (1988) identified contact with persons withdisabilities as the key variable in shaping attitudes towards them. Previous studies havealso found that teachers’ prior contacts with people with disabilities are positively corre-lated with their attitudes towards disabilities (Strohmer et al., 1984; Askamit et al.,1987). Zaromatidis et al. (1999) state that there appears to be significant interactionbetween contact and ethnicity and that contact with persons with disabilities may bea significant variable in one culture but may not be so in another culture. The authorscite a 1970 study by Jacques, Linkowski and Sieka, who found that contact with peoplewith disabilities was significant in a Greek sample but not in an American sample.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
UC
Irv
ine
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
7:17
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
240 K. Parasuram
Of the respondents who were acquainted with a person with disability, there wasno difference in attitudes between those who had a family member with a disabilityand those that did not have a family member with a disability. Likewise, the analysesshowed that both frequency of contact and closeness of relationship were not signifi-cant variables. This shows that the point of significance is the contact and presenceof disability in the family – frequency and closeness of contact are variables that areimmaterial.
Attitudes of general educators toward inclusive education
The analyses indicated that only one of the variable characteristics of generaleducators significantly influenced attitudes towards inclusion. This variable wasacquaintance with a person with a disability.
This is very similar to the findings of two previous studies. Al-Marsouqi (1980) andAl-Muslat (1987), in studies that investigated educators’ attitudes towards inclusionin Saudi Arabia, also found that contact with persons with disabilities was the onlydemographic variable that showed influence on educators’ attitudes towards inclu-sion of children with disabilities into regular schools. In the USA, research projectshave investigated attitudes as a direct function of contact or experience with personswith disabilities and have found more positive attitudes with previous contact(Askamit et al., 1987).
An important point to consider here is that the teachers in this study did not havechildren with disabilities in their classrooms. Inclusion is new to India and theseteachers are potential teachers for future students who would be included. Villa,Thousand, Meyers and Nevin (1996) state that the actual experience of practisinginclusive education develops educators’ abilities and hence their belief in educating aheterogeneous class of students.
Proposed future intervention and research
The results of this study lead towards a few areas of potential intervention: in-serviceawareness programmes and attitude-change workshops for teachers, especially thosebelonging to target groups such as teachers with a D.Ed. certificate, teachers whobelong to the lower-income group and teachers in the middle-age group.
Since research concerning attitude change towards people with disabilities andtowards inclusive education is completely lacking in India, attitude-change work-shops with pre- and post-tests would be very helpful indicators to guide educators andadvocates who are working towards inclusion.
This study has shown that contact is an important variable in the attitude ofteachers towards disabilities and towards inclusive education. Since inclusion is newto India, this result would be most pertinent in the pre-inclusion stage. Teacherscould have planned contacts with students and adults with disabilities before astudent is included in their classroom. Such measures would increase the success ofinclusion.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
UC
Irv
ine
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
7:17
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
Teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive education in India 241
Future research is warranted to examine this variable systematically and extend thesubject population from teachers to others in the community. If results continue toshow the significance of contact, community programmes could include persons withdisabilities, with the vision of more positive attitudes in the community.
References
Allport, G. W. (1967) Attitudes, in: M. Fishbein (Ed.) Readings in attitude theory and measurement(New York, John Wiley & Sons).
Al-Marsouqi, H. Q. (1980) A facet theory analysis of attitudes toward handicapped individuals in SaudiArabia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.
Al-Muslat, Z. (1987) Educators attitudes toward the handicapped in Saudi Arabia. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Indiana University.
Alur, M. (1998) Invisible children: a study of policy exclusion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of London.
Alur, M. & Natarajan, P. (2000) Developing sustainable educational inclusion policy and practice: UK,South Africa, Brazil and India: an international research project – final report (Mumbai, SpasticsSociety of India).
Askamit, D., Morris, M. & Leuenberger, J. (1987) Preparation of student services professionalsand faculty for serving learning disabled college students, Journal of College Student Personnel,28(1), 53–59.
Bain, A. & Dolbel, S. (1991) Regular and special education principals perceptions of an integra-tion program for students who are intellectually handicapped, Education and Training inMental Retardation, 26(1), 33–42.
Berry, J. W. & Dalal, A. (1996) Disability – attitude – belief – behavior study: report on an internationalproject in community based rehabilitation (Kingston, Ontario, Queen’s University, InternationalCenter for the Advancement of Community Based Rehabilitation).
Corsini, R. J. (1999) The dictionary of psychology (Ann Arbor, MI, Braun–Brumfield).Cowardin, N. W. (1986) Adolescent characteristics associated with acceptance of handicapped
peers, Adolescence, 21, 931–940.Dalal, A., Pande, M., Dhawan, N., Durjendra, S. & Berry. J. (1996) Disability – attitude – belief –
behavior study (Allahabad, University of Allahabad).Falvey, M. A., Grenot-Scheyerr, M., Coots, J. J. & Bishop, K. D. (1995) Services for students with
disabilities: past and present, in: M. A. Falvey (Ed.) Inclusive and heterogeneous schooling(Baltimore, MD, Paul H. Brooks).
Forlin, C. & Cole, P. (1993) Attributions of the social acceptance and integration of children withmild intellectual disabilities, Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities,19, 11–23.
Forlin, C., Douglas, G. & Hattie, J. (1996) Inclusive practices: how accepting are teachers,International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 43(2), 119–133.
Garvar-Pinhas, A. & Schmeltin, L. P. (1989) Administrators’ and teachers’ attitudes towardsmainstreaming, Remedial and Special Education, 10(4), 38–43.
Hasazi, S. B, Johnston, A. P., Ligget, A. M. & Schattman, R. A. (1994) A qualitative policy studyof the least restrictive environment provision of the IDEA, Exceptional Children, 60, 491–507.
Jangria, N. K. (1995) Rethinking teacher education, Prospects, 25(2), 261–272.Jangria, N. K & Mukhopadya (1991) Special education: a trend report, in: M. B. Buch (Ed.)
Fourth survey of research in education (Delhi, National Council of Educational Research andTraining).
Jangria, N. K. & Srinivasan, A. (1991) Attention of educational administrators and teachers towardseducation of disabled children, Indian Journal of Disability and Rehabilitation, July–December.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
UC
Irv
ine
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
7:17
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
242 K. Parasuram
McEroy, M. A., Nordquist, V. M & Cunningham, J. L. (1984) Regular and special educationteachers’ judgments about handicapped children in an integrated setting, American Journal ofMental Deficiency, 89, 167–173.
McEvoy, M. A., Nordquist, V. M. & Cunningham, J. L. (1984) Regular and special educationteachers’ judgements about handicapped children in an integrated setting, American Journal ofMental Deficiency, 89, 167–173.
McQuilkin, J. I. & Harris, J. I. (1990) Attitudes of college students toward handicapped persons,Journal of College Student Development, 31, 17–22.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1998) Inclusive education at work:students with disabilities in mainstream schools (Paris, Organization for Economic Cooperationand Development).
Oskamp, S. (1991) Attitudes and opinion (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall).Paterson, J. A. (1995) The attitudes of community-based rehabilitation workers toward people with
disabilities in South India. Unpublished master’s thesis, Queen’s University at Kingston.Ringlaken, R. P. & Price, J. R. (1981) Regular classroom teachers’ perception of mainstreaming
effects, Exceptional Children, 47, 302–304.Roberts, C. M & Smith, P. R. (1999) Attitudes and behavior of children towards peers with
disabilities, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46(1), 35–51.Roberts, C. & Zubrick, S. (1992) Factors influencing the social status of children with mild
academic disabilities in regular classroom, Exceptional Children, 59(3), 193–202.Smith, M. (2000) Secondary teachers perception toward inclusion of students with severe disabili-
ties, National Association of Secondary School Principals (NASSP) Bulletin, 84(613), 54–60.Strohmer, D. C., Grand, S. A. & Purcell, M. J. (1984) Attitudes toward persons with disability: an
examination of demographic factors, social context and specific disability, RehabilitationPsychology, 29, 131–145.
UNESCO (1995) World conference on special needs education access and quality (Paris, UNESCO).Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Meyers, H. & Nevin, A. (1996) Teachers and administrator perceptions
of hetrogeneous education, Exceptional Children, 63, 29–45.Wilczenski, F. L. (1992) Measuring attitudes towards inclusive education, Psychology in the
Schools, 29(4), 306–312.Winzer, M. (1985) Teacher attitudes towards mainstreaming: an appraisal of the research, British
Columbia Journal of Special Education, 9, 149–161.Yuker, H. (1994) Variables that influence attitudes toward people with disabilities: conclusions
from the data, Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9(5), 3–22.Yuker, H. E. (1988) The effects of contact on attitudes toward disabled persons: some empirical
generalizations, in: H. E. Yuker (Ed.) Attitudes toward persons with disabilities (New York,Springer Publishing Company).
Yuker, H. E. & Block, J. R. (1986) Research with the attitude toward disabled people scales: 1960–1985(Hempstead, NY, Hofstra University Center for the Study of Attitudes Toward People withDisabilities).
Zaromatidis, K., Papadaki, A. & Glide, A. (1999) A cross-cultural comparison of attitudes towardpersons with disabilities: Greeks and Greek-Americans, Psychological Reports, 84, 1189–1196.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
The
UC
Irv
ine
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
7:17
02
Nov
embe
r 20
14
