Perceptions of Pre-Service Teachers About Inclusive Classrooms

Certificate: View Certificate

Published Paper PDF: View PDF

DOI: https://doi.org/10.63345/ijre.v14.i11.1

Dr. Daksha Borada

IILM University

Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh 201306, India

d.borada@iilm.edu

Abstract
Inclusive education—wherein learners of diverse abilities, backgrounds, and needs learn together in the same classrooms—has gained recognition worldwide as both a human right and a driver of educational quality. This extended abstract elaborates on the theoretical foundations, research context, methodological rigor, and key findings of our comprehensive study examining pre‑service teachers’ perceptions of inclusive classrooms. Grounded in Bandura’s social cognitive theory (self‑efficacy) and the community of practice framework (Lave & Wenger, 1991), the study investigates attitudes, beliefs, preparedness, and concerns among 200 teacher trainees drawn from two institutions in South Asia. Overarching aims included: assessing cognitive (beliefs about benefits), affective (emotional readiness), and behavioral (intentions to implement inclusive strategies) dimensions of attitude; gauging confidence in differentiated instruction; identifying perceived barriers; and eliciting recommendations for strengthening preparation.

Methodologically, a rigorously validated questionnaire combined 25 Likert‑scale items (α = 0.82) with three open‑ended prompts. Quantitative data underwent descriptive (means, SDs, frequency distributions) and inferential analyses (t‑tests, ANOVA) to explore subgroup differences by gender and program level. Qualitative responses were subjected to thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s six‑phase approach, ensuring coding reliability (Cohen’s κ = 0.78). The sample comprised 136 female and 64 male trainees, aged 20–28 (M = 22.6, SD = 1.8), representing undergraduate (75%) and postgraduate (25%) programs.

Key quantitative findings indicate a strong overall endorsement of inclusion (overall attitude M = 4.1/5.0, SD = 0.5), but moderate self‑efficacy in adaptive strategies (M = 3.6/5.0, SD = 0.7). Notably, 68% of participants identified resource constraints (e.g., assistive technologies, co‑teaching personnel) as major barriers, 61% lamented insufficient practicum exposure, and 57% cited large class sizes. Gender analyses revealed that female trainees reported slightly higher attitude scores (M = 4.2) than male trainees (M = 4.0; t(198) = 2.14, p < .05), while postgraduate trainees exhibited greater self‑efficacy (M = 3.8) compared to undergraduates (M = 3.5; F(1,198) = 5.34, p < .01).

Thematic analysis surfaced three core themes: (1) Authentic Practicum Needs: over 80% of respondents stressed the necessity of sustained placements in inclusive settings, coupled with structured mentorship; (2) Collaborative Planning Imperative: participants advocated formalized co‑planning sessions with special‑education experts and general‑education peers; and (3) Interactive Learning Modules: there was unanimous support for workshops on Universal Design for Learning, classroom management simulations, and assistive‑technology demonstrations.

These findings underscore that while pre‑service teachers embrace the philosophy of inclusion, tangible confidence and competence hinge on enhanced experiential learning and systemic supports. Teacher‑education programs should therefore integrate extended co‑teaching practicums, scaffolded mentoring by special‑education faculty, and interactive coursework. Policy recommendations include allocating funding for assistive devices, reducing pupil–teacher ratios in practicum schools, and instituting induction mentoring for novice teachers. Future longitudinal research might examine how revised curricula impact in‑service teacher performance and, ultimately, student learning outcomes in inclusive classrooms.

Keywords
inclusive education, pre‐service teachers, attitudes, teacher preparation, survey, differentiated instruction

References

• Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers’ attitudes toward integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056
• Bandura, A. (1997). Self‑efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
• Florian, L., & Rouse, M. (2009). The inclusive practice project in Scotland: Teacher education for inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 594–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.003
• Forlin, C., & Chambers, D. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive education: Increasing knowledge but raising concerns. Asia‑Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2010.540850
• Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre‑service teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society, 23(7), 773–785. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802469264
• Miles, S., & Singal, N. (2010). The Education for All and inclusive education debate: Conflict, contradiction or opportunity? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802265125
• Murawski, W. W., & Dieker, L. A. (2008). Tips and strategies for co‑teaching at the secondary level. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(5), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990804000504
• Peebles, J. L., & Mendaglio, S. (2014). The impact of direct experience on preservice teachers’ self‑efficacy for teaching in inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(12), 1321–1336. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.899635
• Sharma, U., Moore, D., & Sonawane, S. (2009). Attitudes and concerns of pre‑service teachers regarding inclusion of students with disabilities into regular schools in Pune, India. Asia‑Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37(3), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660903050328
• Theoharis, G., & Causton‑Theoharis, J. (2011). Preparing pre‑service teachers for inclusive classrooms: Revising lesson‑planning expectations. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(7), 743–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903290148
• Thomas, G., & Loxley, A. (2001). Deconstructing special education and constructing inclusion. Open University Press.
• Baglieri, S., & Shapiro, A. (2012). Disability studies and the inclusive classroom. Routledge.
• Biklen, D. (2000). Constructing inclusion: Lessons from critical, disability narratives. International Journal on Inclusive Education, 4(4), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110010091212
• Biklen, D., & Burke, J. (2006). Presuming competence. Equity & Excellence in Education, 39(2), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680600778549
• Connor, D. J. (2006). Michael’s story: “I get into so much trouble just by walking”: Narrative knowing and life at the intersections of learning disability, race, and class. Equity & Excellence in Education, 39(2), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680600778549
• Erevelles, N. (2011). “Coming out Crip” in inclusive education. Teachers College Record, 113(10), 2082–2121.
• Davis, L. J. (2010). Constructing normalcy. In L. J. Davis (Ed.), The Disability Studies Reader (3rd ed., pp. 9–28). Routledge.
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.
• Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.