European Journal of Special Needs Education

ISSN: 0885-6257 (Print) 1469-591X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rejs20

Understanding teachers attitudes and selfefficacy in inclusive education: implications for

pre-service and in-service teacher education
Hannu Savolainen , Petra Engelbrecht , Mirna Nel & Olli-Pekka Malinen
To cite this article: Hannu Savolainen , Petra Engelbrecht , Mirna Nel & Olli-Pekka Malinen
(2012) Understanding teachers attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive education: implications
for pre-service and in-service teacher education, European Journal of Special Needs Education,
27:1, 51-68, DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2011.613603
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2011.613603

Published online: 01 Sep 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4731

View related articles

Citing articles: 43 View citing articles

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rejs20
Download by: [Universidad De Concepcion]

Date: 27 November 2016, At: 16:56

European Journal of Special Needs Education

Vol. 27, No. 1, February 2012, 5168

Understanding teachers attitudes and self-efcacy in inclusive

education: implications for pre-service and in-service teacher
education
Hannu Savolainena*, Petra Engelbrechtb, Mirna Nelc and Olli-Pekka Malinena
a

Department of Special Education, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland;

Faculty of Education, Canterbury Christ Church University, Canterbury, UK; cSchool of
Education Sciences, North West University, Vaal Triangle Campus, South Africa
b

(Received 21 March 2011; nal version received 14 July 2011)

Although there are clear differences in national policies regarding inclusive education, the international debate has not fully considered their impact on implementation within different countries, for example on teacher education. This
paper reports on results from a comparative study of in-service teachers attitudes and self-efcacy in implementing inclusive practices in South Africa and
Finland and its implications for teacher education in these countries. A sample
of 319 South African and 822 Finnish primary and secondary education teachers
completed a questionnaire containing a scale measuring sentiments, attitudes
and concerns on inclusive education as well as a scale measuring teachers selfefcacy in implementing inclusive practices. A comparative analysis indicated
that whereas the overall sentiments towards disabilities were positive in both
countries, teachers had many concerns about the consequences of including children with disabilities in their classrooms. While the most positive aspect of selfefcacy among the South African teachers was their self-efcacy in managing
behaviour, the Finnish teachers saw this as their weakest point. Self-efcacy, in
particular efcacy in collaboration, was clearly related to overall attitudes
towards inclusion. The implications of these ndings for pre-service and in-service teacher education are discussed.
Keywords: inclusive education; attitudes; self-efcacy

Introduction
Including students with diverse educational needs in mainstream schools is now at
the heart of education policy and planning throughout the world and this emphasis
on education for all within inclusive schools has served as a catalyst for the transformation of schools. While there is universality to the underlying view that inclusive education is a fundamental way of realising quality education for all, there are
clear differences in national policies and the transformation of schools. The international debate on the implementation of inclusive education has not fully considered
the impact of these policies and the way in which context and culture interact in
the implementation of inclusive education within and across different countries
(Kozleski et al. 2007; Ungar 2010). It is, therefore, important to note that compar-

*Corresponding author. Email: hannu.savolainen@uef.

ISSN 0885-6257 print/ISSN 1469-591X online
2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2011.613603
http://www.tandfonline.com

52

H. Savolainen et al.

ing and transplanting educational practices across countries without considering the
issues of context and culture has no real hope of success and as a result this
research project is based on a cultural-historical framework as suggested by Artiles
and Dyson (2005). A comparative analysis that takes cultural-historical factors into
account will enable the researchers to develop an understanding of variations and
identify patterns in the ways in which inclusive education, including teachers perspectives and their roles in inclusive education around the globe, is shaped by societal, political, economic and cultural forces. It will also enable the researchers to
discover what can contribute to improved policy and classroom practices; in other
words, learning from and with one another will enable researchers to contribute to
the improvement of teacher education programmes in the development of inclusive
education (Artiles and Dyson 2005). Stronger attention to the implications of differences and similarities can also lead to improved cross-cultural dialogue as well as
the promotion of new forms of partnerships and new modalities in research on
inclusive education (Crossley and Watson 2003). Furthermore, a comparative
perspective can enable participants to challenge their own assumptions and
parochial concepts; making the strange familiar and the familiar strange
(Booth 2000).
According to Kozleski et al. (2007) the basic premise of inclusive education is
that schools are about belonging, nurturing and educating all students regardless of
their differences in ability, culture, gender, language, class and ethnicity. Schools
and teachers, therefore, need to commit to the transformation of their school communities for the implementation of inclusive education to be successful. Regarding
the importance of the role of teachers, research indicates that teachers play a critical
role in the implementation of inclusive education (Forlin et al. 2010). The ways in
which teachers accept inclusive values impact, for example, on students adaptive
academic and behavioural functioning at school. Students who like and trust teachers, and who are liked and trusted by their teachers, are more motivated and better
supported to engage at school, behave pro-socially and succeed academically (Theron and Engelbrecht forthcoming).
One prominent strand of research on teachers value systems is the study of
teachers attitudes towards inclusive education. Attitudes are usually seen as relatively stable constructs containing cognitive, affective and behavioural elements
(Bizer et al. 2003), but ndings also show that even short-term training can have
positive effects on attitudes (Campbell et al. 2003; Shade and Stewart 2001).
Another important nding is that teachers attitudes towards inclusion are often not
based on ideological arguments, but rather on practical concerns about how inclusive education can be implemented (Burke and Sutherland 2004; Scruggs and Mastropieri 1996). More recently there has been a growing interest of studying this
pragmatic side of teaching by measuring teachers feelings of self-efcacy in implementing inclusive education (Sharma et al. forthcoming). Teacher efcacy can be
dened as teachers belief or conviction that they can inuence how well students
learn, even those who may be considered difcult or unmotivated (Guskey and
Passaro 1994). The importance of teacher efcacy emerges from is its cyclical nature: prociency in a performance creates a new mastery experience, which then
effects the efcacy beliefs. (Tschannen-Moran et al. 1998). Furthermore, there is
evidence to support the idea that there is a positive relationship between teacher
self-efcacy and attitudes toward inclusive education (Meijer and Foster 1988; Soodak et al. 1998; Weisel and Dror 2006). In summary, teachers are at the forefront of

European Journal of Special Needs Education

53

the transformation of schools to become more inclusive and in order for them to
lead reform efforts they need to be offered expanded and enriched professional
development opportunities (Oswald 2007).
The focus of this paper is on a cross-cultural analysis of teachers attitudes and
self-efcacy in inclusive education and its implications for pre-service and in-service teacher education in Finland and South Africa. Finland and South Africa represent two very different cultural-historical contexts and approaches to inclusive
education. In South Africa, legislation and policies concerning inclusive education
have been formulated in the era of the post-apartheid state and, therefore, they possess a strong emphasis on equality and human rights. The Finnish approach to
inclusive education could be described as pragmatic. To adopt, or not to adopt an
inclusive approach to education is usually seen primarily as a pedagogical issue,
and human rights rhetoric is quite seldom used in Finnish discussion on inclusive
education. As discussed earlier, in developing an understanding of a global phenomenon like inclusive education one should take cultural and historical contexts in
which inclusive education developments take place into account. Therefore, we will
rst provide a short description of the historical background and current status of
inclusive education in both countries (Artiles and Dyson 2005).
Inclusive education in South Africa
The establishment of a democratic government in South Africa in 1994 had a wideranging impact on the education system and specically for learners experiencing
diverse barriers to learning (e.g., disabilities, socio-economic deprivation, underresourced schools, inappropriate language of instruction). Education provision and
support under the apartheid government operated along racial lines and separate
education departments existed for designated population of groups and was characterised by vast disparities in terms of funding, resources, educational rights, opportunities and expectations. Special needs education was furthermore fragmented not
only by these apartheid laws that enforced educational separation along racial lines
but also by policy that separated so-called normal students from those that were
categorised as having special needs (Swart and Pettipher 2005; Engelbrecht 2006;
Stole and Green 2007). The new Constitution of 1996 included a Bill of Rights
that ensured the right of all South Africans to a basic education. The White Paper
6: Special Needs Education: Building an Inclusive Education and Training System
was presented in 2001 (Department of Education [DoE] 2001). One of the main
issues addressed in this White Paper was the recommendation to move away from
labelling terminology such as special needs and disabilities (DoE 2001). Consequently, learners experiencing barriers to learning was determined as the new
accepted vocabulary, in a calculated move away from a medical model approach
(DoE 2001, 24).
The main focus of White Paper 6 was to afrm the right to equal access to education for all learners despite any disability, language or learning difculty (Engelbrecht et al. 2006). However, addressing a wide range of diverse needs through
inclusive education created many serious challenges for the South African government concerning funding and physical as well as human resources. An attempt
through advocacy and information programmes, research and pilot projects as well
as in-service training programmes by ofcials of the National Department of Education, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), parents and researchers have focused

54

H. Savolainen et al.

on changing and implementing policies and, changing attitudes, and training

teachers (Engelbrecht 2006; Stole and Green 2007; Wildeman and Nomdo. 2007).
Draft documents and policies have been generated to put White Paper 6 into practice including the publication of conceptual and operational guidelines for implementation and in-service teacher education as well as a national strategy for
screening, identication and assessment. However, despite all of these attempts to
implement inclusive education successfully many of the challenges mentioned previously still remain 10 years after the inception of White Paper 6 (Engelbrecht
2006; Engelbrecht and Green 2007; Oswald 2007; Stole and Green 2007).
Inclusive education in Finland
The adoption of comprehensive schools in the 1970s was a major turning point in
the Finnish educational system (Halinen and Jrvinen 2008; Savolainen 2009). This
reform was quite radical and aimed at increasing socio-cultural, geographical and
gender equity (Kivirauma et al. 2006) by combining the two streams the grammar
school and the civic school into one nine-year comprehensive school. Nevertheless the comprehensive school retained some aspects of streaming in the comprehensive school until 1985. For example, students who chose the lowest level
courses were not allowed to continue their studies in the academically oriented
upper secondary education school (Halinen and Jrvinen 2008). Part-time special
education was introduced into schools as part of the reform and the removal of all
streaming was reected clearly in the increase in the numbers of students receiving
part-time special education.
Although there have not been major changes in the Finnish education system
since the 1990s, special education has continued to expand. Today about 22% of
students receive part-time special education and more than 8% of students are identied as having special educational needs (Statistics Finland 2010). From todays
perspective, it is evident that special education support has been used to respond to
the increased diversity in classrooms. This has been made possible by the unanimous support from most political parties (Rossi 2007). At the same time special
education continues to be highly valued as a teaching profession.
During the last few years, however, there has been a systematic attempt to
change both the rhetoric and services of special education towards a more inclusive
direction through a new Special Education Strategy (Ministry of Education of Finland 2007), related additions in the Act on basic education (Finnish Law 642/2010;
http://www.nlex.//laki/alkup/2010/20100642)
and
Curriculum
guidelines
(National Board of Education 2010).
One interesting feature in the debate on reforming Finnish education has been
an understanding that making inclusive education run smoothly requires many
nancial resources. This argument is backed up both by the Trade Union of Education in Finland (TUEF 2009) and Municipalities Association, but is in direct contradiction of the efciency/economy discourse identied by Dyson (1999) and clearly
lobbied by many international organisations such as UNESCO (2009).
Research questions
The current study is part of a wider comparative research project. The purpose of
the project is to produce a knowledge base that sheds light on how the development

European Journal of Special Needs Education

55

of inclusive education looks from a teachers perspective in different countries

including Finland, South Africa, Slovenia, Lithuania, China and England. This section of the project aimed to answer the following four research questions:
(1) Are there any differences between Finnish and South African teachers in
their proles of attitudes towards inclusive education?
(2) Are there any differences between Finnish and South African teachers in
their proles of self-efcacy for inclusive practices?
(3) Does self-efcacy for inclusive practices correlate with attitudes towards
inclusive education?
(4) Which type of self-efcacy is the best predictor of attitudes towards inclusive
education?
Method
The research reported here is the rst part of a research project with a sequential
mixed-methods research design (Creswell 2003; Mertens 2005) focused on a crosscultural analysis of teachers roles in inclusive education in South Africa and Finland. Data collection in this phase of the project focused on a survey approach
using a questionnaire.

Participants and context

The context of the Finnish sample
The Finnish data were collected from six small to medium-sized municipalities in
the Eastern Finland region and from one big municipality in the south-west region
in Finland. Three of the Eastern Finland municipalities are regional city centres but
all also have rural areas. The other three municipalities are smaller semi-urban centres that border respective regional centres. The schools included comprehensive
schools which were either primary schools (grades 16), lower secondary comprehensive schools (grades 79) or unied comprehensive schools (grades 19). No
special schools were included in the sample, but many schools had special classes
for students dened as having special educational needs. All schools had part-time
special education teachers among the staff and they also responded to the questionnaire, as well as the school principals.
Schools in Finland are quite homogenous in their resources and educational programmes, and internationally the variance of student performance explained by
between-school differences in Finland is among the smallest (OECD 2006). Some
differences between schools exist, especially in bigger cities, between socio-economically different suburban areas, but in this sample the schools represented well
this minor variety in the school contexts.
The questionnaires were piloted with about 20 teachers and some modications
were made to the order of questions in the questionnaire. The Eastern Finland questionnaires (n = 295) were collected as a part of ongoing research and development
project from all the schools participating in the study and the south-western city
data (n = 560) were collected by the local education authority from all schools that
agreed to participate. Exact return rate of questionnaires (total n = 855) was not
received, but can be estimated to be around 60%.

56

H. Savolainen et al.

The context of the South African sample

The South African sample was drawn from the Vaal Triangle area, which consists
of parts of the Gauteng Province as well as the Free State Province. A method of
convenience sampling was used, with special emphasis on the objective that schools
from different socio-economic and cultural contexts would be included in the study.
The Vaal Triangle is an industrial area where people migrate from all over the country to nd work, which results in quite a diverse population of ethnic groups, languages and various levels of socio-economic well-being. The schools involved in
this study were located in well-to-do and advantaged urban areas as well as semiurban areas that are characterised by poverty. Huge disparities in nancial resources
still exist between so-called advantaged and disadvantaged schools, especially those
in semi-urban and rural areas. Poverty in all its manifestations can be singled out as
the most salient characteristic of these school communities (Engelbrecht 2011). The
schools in the higher socio-economic areas have learners from various ethnic groups
and cultures, but the teachers are mainly white and Afrikaans- or English-speaking
and the language of instruction is either English or Afrikaans. The more disadvantaged schools mainly consist of black learners and teachers. Their home languages
differ, but the language of instruction is English.
Primary and secondary mainstream schools with a diversity of learners were
mainly included in this sample; however, a few of these schools had separate special classes for learners who were mildly cognitively challenged. One special school
for students with severe mental handicap also took part in the study. Continuous
campaigns and workshops have been conducted to train in-service teachers in inclusive education. Consequently, it is assumed that all teachers have knowledge about
what inclusive education entails. However, teachers still report that they are not adequately trained to support learners who experience barriers to learning (Oswald
2007; Stole and Green 2007).
The questionnaire was also translated in Afrikaans. It was piloted with 22 mainstream teachers who were either Afrikaans- or English-speaking. After the pilot
some changes regarding ambiguous questions were made to the questionnaire in
consultation with the Finnish research team. The questionnaires were then handdelivered to schools and at district cluster meetings, completed and collected. Of
the 500 questionnaires that were handed out 322 (64%) were returned.
Demographic information of the samples
A summary of the most important demographic information of the samples from
the two countries is listed in Table 1 and shows that the samples are quite similar
Table 1. Demographics of the Finnish and South African samples.
Type of data
Gender (% female)
Years of teaching experience (mean SD)
Level of professional degree (%)
Masters degree
Bachelors degree or equivalent
Teacher diploma
Secondary school or equivalent

Finland

South-Africa

78.3
16.98 9.41

82.1
19.18 10.81

82.4
14.9
2.3
0.3

2.4
35.9
58.5
3.1

European Journal of Special Needs Education

57

by gender distribution and average numbers of years of service as a teacher. However, there is a big difference in the levels of professional degrees of teachers
between the two countries.

Data collection method

Questionnaire
Teachers attitudes were measured with the Sentiments Attitudes and Concerns
about Inclusive Education (SACIE) scale (Loreman et al. 2007). The SACIE scale
consists of 15 statements which are assessed by using a Likert-type scale with four
response anchors strongly agree, agree, disagree, and strongly disagree. The
sum score of the whole scale has been used to measure overall attitudes towards
inclusion (Forlin et al. 2010). The scale also contains three specic sub-scales that
measure different aspects of attitudes toward inclusive education. The sentiments
sub-scale includes items that measure attitudes towards persons with disabilities; the
attitude sub-scale has items related to attitudes towards inclusion or students with
disabilities and/or special needs in mainstream classes; and the concerns sub-scale
contains items that relate to respondents personal concerns about including students
with disabilities and/or special needs in their own class.
Items in the present study were scored so that higher SACIE and sub-scale
scores indicate more positive attitudes.
Teachers self-efcacy was measured with the Teacher Efcacy for Inclusive
Practices (TEIP) scale (Forlin et al. 2010). The TEIP scale is designed for measuring perceived teacher efcacy to teach in inclusive classrooms. The version of the
scale used in the present study had 18 statements assessed by a Likert-type scale
with 6 response anchors of strongly disagree, disagree, disagree somewhat,
agree somewhat, agree, and strongly agree. The higher the score on the TEIP
scale the higher is respondents efcacy to implement inclusive practices. Sharma
et al. (forthcoming), who validated the TEIP scale with pre-service teachers from
four countries, suggest that the scale can be divided into three six-item sub-scales
namely: efcacy to use inclusive instructions; efcacy in collaboration; and efcacy in managing behaviour. In addition to the scales, questions concerning the
teachers personal characteristics and the context of the school were included in the
questionnaire.
The questionnaires were formulated in English by the researchers from different
countries. The nal versions were then translated to local languages (Afrikaans,
Finnish) by the researchers. The translated versions of the scales were then proofread by authorised language translators and corrections were agreed between the
local researchers and the language expert to guarantee maximum similarity with the
original items.

Data analysis
To establish the structural validity and reliability of the SACIE and TEIP scales, an
exploratory factor analysis was rst carried out on the Finnish data. The scales were
modied on the basis of factor analysis results, aggregate variables were formed
and the nal scales were tested for reliability. The nal models were then run similarly in the South African data.

Note: Principal axis factoring, with Oblimin rotation; items with loading < 0.30 were omitted.

0.71

0.64

0.72

0.78
0.57
0.54
0.52
0.40

0.68
0.89
0.47

0.71
0.64
0.55

I am afraid to look a person with a disability straight in the face.

I nd it difcult to overcome my initial shock when meeting people with severe physical disabilities.
I tend to make contacts with people with disabilities brief and I nish them as quickly as possible.
Students who need an individualised academic program should be in regular classes.
Students who frequently fail exams should be in regular classes.
Students who are inattentive should be in regular classes.
Students who have difculty expressing their thoughts verbally should be in regular classes.
Students who require communicative technologies (for example Braille/sign language) should be in regular
classes.
I am concerned that my workload will increase if I have students with disabilities in my class.
I am concerned that I will be more stressed if I have students with disabilities in my class.
I am concerned that I do not have the knowledge and skills required to teach students with disabilities.
I am concerned that it will be difcult to give appropriate attention to all students in an inclusive classroom.
Cronbachs alpha of sub-scale

0.74

0.68
0.68
0.63
0.46
0.50

SA

Fin

Fin

Item description

SA

Attitudes

Sentiments

0.75
0.73
0.63
0.45
0.75

Fin

0.63
0.60
0.35
0.59
0.67

SA

Concerns

Table 2. The factor model, loadings and reliabilities of Sentiments Attitudes and Concerns about Inclusive Education sub-scale items in the Finnish
(Fin) and South African (SA) data.

58
H. Savolainen et al.

European Journal of Special Needs Education

59

The three-factor model of SACIE suggested by earlier studies (Loreman et al.

2007) could be found in the Finnish teacher data. The attitudes factor was replicated as in the earlier studies, but in the concerns factor one item (item 1 I am
concerned that students with disabilities will not be accepted by the rest of the
class) had a small loading and was removed. It is worth noting that this item was
the only one addressing teachers concern for the acceptance of disabled students
by their peers. The remaining four variables all address the concerns the teacher has
on consequences of inclusion to his/her work. The sentiments factor was more
problematic and seemed to divide in to two separate factors. The best solution was
when two items (item 2 I dread the thought that I could eventually end up with
a disability; and item 9 I would feel terrible if I had a disability) were removed
from the model. These two items measure sentiments by asking the person to consider their feelings towards becoming disabled themselves. The remaining three
items describe sentiments towards interacting with other persons with disabilities
and thus form a theoretically sound construct. Final factor loadings and sub-scale
reliabilities are presented in Table 2. Factor analyses with similar adjustments were
made in the South African data and the three-factor solution was replicated. The
overall reliability of the SACIE scale was acceptable in both countries (Finland
alpha = 0.74; South Africa alpha = 0.66).
The factor analyses of the TEIP scale showed a clear structure of three expected
factors, i.e., efcacy to use inclusive instructions, efcacy in collaboration, and
efcacy in managing behaviour. However, two items (item 12 I can make my
expectations clear about student behaviour; and item 6 I am condent in my
ability to get students to work together in pairs or in small groups) were removed
as their loading to the respective factors was low. The loading of different TEIP
items into their respective factors and sub-scale reliabilities is shown in Table 3.
The same factor structure of the TEIP scale was found in the South African data,
with the minor exception of one item (Designing individualised learning tasks),
which loaded on two factors. Nevertheless, the reliabilities for the sub-scales (see
Table 3) were good in both countries, and the reliabilities of the total TEIP scale
were excellent (Finland alpha = 0.88; South Africa alpha = 0.91).

Results
Finnish and South African teachers proles of attitudes towards inclusive
education
The Finnish teachers overall attitudes toward inclusion clustered close to the neutral mid-point of the SACIE scale (2.51 of a scale ranging from 1 to 4), with narrow condence interval ranges, indicating that in general the teachers on average
did not express extreme attitudes for or against inclusion. The Finnish teachers attitudes varied across the three sub-dimensions as indicated by the non-overlapping
99% condence intervals across the sub-scale dimensions. The most positive attitudes they had were on the general sentiments towards interacting persons with disabilities (mean = 3.71). Their attitudes towards including children with disabilities
in mainstream classes were close to the neutral mid-point of the scale (mean =
2.45). However, the Finnish teachers had considerable concerns about what would
happen if children with disabilities were included in their own class, as shown by
the clearly lower overall score on the concerns sub-scale (mean = 1.88).

0.86

0.83

Note: Principal axis factoring, with Oblimin rotation; items with loading < 0.32 were omitted.

0.70
0.52
0.23
0.35
0.23

0.61
0.57
0.54
0.52
0.52

Using variety of assessments

Providing alternative explanations
Designing individualised learning tasks
Ability to gauge student comprehension
Working with very capable students
Assisting families to help their children
Work jointly with professionals
Involving parents in school activities
Making parents feel comfortable
Collaborating with professionals
Informing others about laws and policies
Ability to prevent disruptive behaviour
Controlling disruptive behaviour
Ability to calm a disruptive student
Getting children to follow classroom rules
Dealing with physically aggressive students
Cronbachs alpha of sub-scale

SA

FIN

Item description

Factor 1

0.83

0.63
0.62
0.78
0.67
0.71
0.49

FIN

Factor 2

0.89

0.49
0.75
0.75
0.48
0.80
0.80

SA

0.75
0.90
0.84
0.66
0.42
0.75

FIN

Table 3. The factor model and loadings of Teacher Efcacy for Inclusive Practices scale items in the Finnish and South African data.
Factor 3

0.87
0.90
0.79
0.70
0.50
0.73

0.68

SA

60
H. Savolainen et al.

European Journal of Special Needs Education

61

The overall attitudes toward inclusion of South African teachers was slightly
below the neutral mid-point of the SACIE scale (2.39). Similar to the teachers in
Finland, their attitudes were most positive on general sentiments towards persons
with disabilities (mean = 3.14). However, a clear difference between the Finnish
teachers and South African teachers proles can be found in the two remaining
sub-scales. South African teachers had a similar level of attitude toward including
children in mainstream classes and concerns related to inclusion of children with
disabilities in their own classrooms (both means = 2.10). There was, however, a statistically signicant difference between the sentiments score and the attitudes and
concern scores of South African teachers, as indicated by the non-overlapping
99% condence intervals.
Comparison of 99% condence intervals of the mean scores, furthermore, shows
that the differences between the Finnish and South African teachers responses were
statistically signicant (at the level of p < 0.01) on the overall SACIE score and all
the SACIE sub-scales. Finnish teachers had slightly more positive overall attitudes,
and they were more positive on their sentiments and attitudes toward including children with disabilities to mainstream classes. However South African teachers
showed signicantly less concern regarding including children with disabilities in
their own classrooms.
Finnish and South African teachers proles of self-efcacy for inclusive practices
Finnish teachers overall self-efcacy on inclusive practices was at a relatively high
level (mean = 4.53 on the TEIP scale ranging from 1 to 6). Their average level of
self-efcacy varied statistically signicantly across the three sub-dimensions of selfefcacy, as indicated by the non-overlapping 99% condence intervals. Finnish
teachers level of self-efcacy was highest in implementing inclusive instruction
(mean = 4.60), while they were least condent in managing behaviour (mean =
4.28). Similarly, South African teachers had relatively high overall self-efcacy
(4.63) and their self-efcacy beliefs also varied statistically signicantly across the
three dimensions, as indicated by the 99% condence intervals. Their self-efcacy
prole was, however, different from that of Finnish teachers. South African teachers
had the strongest self-efcacy beliefs in managing behaviour (mean = 4.87) and
lowest in collaboration (mean = 4.33).

Table 4. Sentiments Attitudes and Concerns about Inclusive Education (SACIE) scale
overall scores and sub-scale scores and 99% condence intervals (CI) of means in Finnish
and South African data the signicance values are implied by the non-overlapping
condence intervals.
Finnish teachers

SACIE
Sentiments
Attitudes
Concerns

South African teachers

Mean

Lower CI

Upper CI

Mean

Lower CI

Upper CI

2.51
3.71
2.45
1.88

2.48
3.67
2.40
1.82

2.55
3.75
2.50
1.95

2.39
3.14
2.10
2.10

2.33
3.05
2.01
2.00

2.44
3.23
2.19
2.19

Sig.
p
p
p
p

<
<
<
<

0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

62

H. Savolainen et al.

Table 5. Teacher Efcacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) scale overall scores and sub-scale
scores and 99% condence intervals (CI) of means in Finnish and South African data.
Finnish teachers

TEIP all
Collaboration
Managing
behaviour
Inclusive instruction

South African teachers

Mean Lower
CI

Upper
CI

Mean Lower
CI

Upper
CI

Sig.

4.53
4.50
4.28

4.48
4.44
4.20

4.58
4.57
4.35

4.63
4.33
4.87

4.53
4.19
4.75

4.73
4.47
4.99

ns
p < 0.05
p < 0.01

4.60

4.54

4.66

4.68

4.57

4.80

ns

Note: ns, not signicant.

Comparison of 99% condence intervals of the mean scores also shows that
Finnish teachers had higher self-efcacy beliefs in collaboration, while South
African teachers had higher self-efcacy beliefs in managing behaviour. The differences in the overall self-efcacy or self-efcacy for inclusive instruction were not
statistically signicant.
Correlation between attitudes and self-efcacy for inclusive practices
Finnish teachers overall self-efcacy beliefs correlated statistically signicantly
with both the overall attitudes (p < 0.01) and its three sub-dimensions (p < 0.01)
(Table 4). Correlation was the highest between the two full scales, but in addition
the overall self-efcacy beliefs had a strong correlation with concerns (r = 0.384)
among the Finnish teachers. Of the three sub-dimensions of self-efcacy beliefs,
self-efcacy in collaboration had strongest relationship with the SACIE scales, with
correlations raging between 0.225 and 0.391 with the three sub-dimensions of attitudes and a correlation of 0.455 with overall attitudes. Efcacy beliefs in managing
behaviour correlated especially with concerns (r = 0.278) as did the efcacy of
inclusive instruction (r = 0.311).
Among South African teachers, overall self-efcacy beliefs correlated with overall SACIE score (r = 0.194) but the relationship was somewhat weaker than among
Finnish teachers. In addition to the whole scale, self-efcacy correlated with sentiments (r = 0.214) and concerns (r = 0.155), while the correlation with attitudes (r =
0.077) was non-signicant. Out of the three sub-dimensions of self-efcacy, the efcacy in collaboration was clearly the best predictor of beliefs among South African
teachers, with modest correlations with overall beliefs (r = 0.259), sentiments (r =
0.128) and concerns (r = 0.268). In addition to this, self-efcacy in managing
behaviour and self-efcacy in inclusive instruction had a positive correlation with
sentiments (r = 0.196 and r = 0.216 respectively).
Relative importance of different types of self-efcacy as predictors of attitudes
The relative importance of the three different types of self-efcacy as predictors of
overall attitudes towards inclusion was tested by regression analyses. In addition to
the three self-efcacy variables as independent variables the effect of two demographic variables (teaching experience and level of professional training) were con-


0.347
0.514
0.756
0.194
0.259
0.095
0.137

0.406

0.298
0.292
0.214
0.128
0.196
0.216

Sentiments
0.716
0.123

0.040
0.077
0.096
0.013
0.084

Attitudes
0.768
0.144
0.338

0.155
0.268
0.059
0.061

Concerns
0.420
0.190
0.289
0.384

0.838
0.814
0.835

TEIP all
0.455
0.225
0.353
0.391
0.819

0.475
0.572

Collaboration

0.295
0.085
0.176
0.278
0.793
0.470

0.598

Managing behaviour

0.309
0.154
0.211
0.311
0.775
0.541
0.471

Inclusive instruction

Notes: correlations from the Finnish data are in the upper diagonal, correlations from the South African data are in the lower diagonal; p < 0.05 level (two-tailed);
< 0.01 level (two-tailed).

SACIE all
Sentiments
Attitudes
Concerns
TEIP all
Collaboration
Managing behaviour
Inclusive instruction

SACIE all

Table 6. Pearson correlations between Sentiments Attitudes and Concerns about Inclusive Education (SACIE) and Teacher Efcacy for Inclusive
Practices (TEIP) scales.

European Journal of Special Needs Education

63

64

H. Savolainen et al.

Table 7. Regression models predicting overall attitudes toward inclusion in Finland and
South Africa.
Finland
Std Beta
Efcacy in collaboration
Efcacy in managing
behaviour
Efcacy to use inclusive
instructions
Teaching experience
Level of professional
training
Model statistics
R2
Notes: p < 0.05;

p < 0.01;

0.401
0.073

t-value
10.543
2.034

Std Beta

t-value

0.289
0.031

4.070
0.675

0.062

1.623

0.001

0.013

0.068
0.013

2.029
0.379

0.155
0.061

2.587
1.019

F5,841 = 50.175
0.23

South-Africa

F5,273 = 6.066
0.10

p < 0.001.

trolled for. All variables were entered simultaneously to the model and the results
(Table 7) show that in both countries efcacy in collaboration remained the most
powerful predictor of overall attitudes (std Beta = 0.401 in Finland; std Beta =
0.289 in South Africa). In addition to this, efcacy in managing behaviour predicted
more positive attitudes in Finland (std beta = 0.073). While teaching experience
predicted attitudes negatively in both countries (std Beta = 0.068 in Finland; std
Beta = 0.155 in South Africa), teachers with less teaching experience were more
positive towards inclusion. Teachers educational background did not have any
effect on attitudes. The overall prediction of level of attitudes was somewhat higher
in Finland (R2 = 0.23) than in South Africa (R2 = 0.10).

Discussion
The purpose of this rst part of a wider research study was to explore possible differences and similarities in proles of attitudes towards inclusive education and self-efcacy in implementing inclusive practices between Finnish and South African
teachers. We found that the two instruments used in the study the SACIE scale and
the TEIP scale had a valid structure and were also reliable measures in both countries and that the structures of these instruments were replicated in both countries
similarly as in original studies (Loreman et al. 2007; Sharma et al. forthcoming).
The overall attitudes towards inclusion were relatively neutral in both countries,
but we found that there were some differences between the attitude proles of Finnish and South African teachers. Finnish teachers sentiments toward interacting with
persons with disabilities were very positive and more positive than those of the
South African teachers, who until recently in general did not have children with disabilities in their mainstream classrooms. The general attitudes toward including children with disabilities in mainstream classes were also more positive in Finland but
even there they were slightly below the neutral mid-point of the scale. In contrast,
South African teachers were less concerned regarding including children with disabilities in their classes than their Finnish counterparts. An interesting difference is
that whereas South African teachers showed no difference in the general idea of
inclusion and the concrete idea of recognising human rights by including children

European Journal of Special Needs Education

65

with disabilities in their own classrooms, the Finnish teachers gave a clear
indication of being more critical towards the idea of concretely including children
with disabilities in their own classrooms. One implication for both contexts of these
ndings is that there is much to be done in teacher education to introduce principles
and practical implementation strategies of inclusive education for future teachers. At
a general level teachers seem to have positive sentiments towards persons with disabilities but are more critical towards teaching children with disabilities in mainstream schools.
There were also differences in the self-efcacy proles of teachers in the two
countries, even though the overall level of self-efcacy was relatively high in both
countries. The most remarkable difference was that whereas South African teachers
saw their ability to manage behaviour as their strongest aspect of self-efcacy, the
Finnish teachers saw it as their weakest point. This nding is in line with the overall atmosphere towards inclusive education as reected, for example, in the comments of the TUEF, which represents all teacher organisations. TUEF (2009) placed
special emphasis on the idea that after the reform there was still a need to retain
special classes for children with challenging behaviour.
Pre-service and in-service teacher education efforts in South Africa have focused
in recent years on the development of classroom skills, with specic reference to
skills in behaviour management in classrooms with diverse groups of students. The
results, therefore, seem to indicate that teachers now in general have a stronger
belief in their ability to manage diverse needs and behaviours in their classrooms.
The relatively low belief in self-efcacy to collaborate successfully, however, has
clear implications for teacher education. Parents, teachers and support professionals
have historically participated in a system that divided and separated, which is essentially incompatible with the notion of shared responsibilities in inclusive classrooms
and wider school communities. To collaborate successfully and establish collaborative partnerships teachers will need to develop skills in problem solving and interpersonal communication, in order to develop the shared decision-making approach
needed for collaboration (Oswald 2007).
The study also showed that self-efcacy beliefs are indeed connected to attitudes, as indicated by some earlier studies (Meijer and Foster 1988; Soodak et al.
1998; Weisel and Dror 2006). The more teachers believe they are able to implement
inclusive practices on a concrete and pragmatic level, the more positive their attitudes towards inclusion are. Although the present study showed only modest correlations, the ndings nevertheless suggest that attitudes may be changed gradually
by offering newly trained teachers more concrete tools to meet diverse needs in
their classrooms. It was also an interesting nding that self-efcacy in collaborating
with other teachers and parents seems to be the best predictor of attitudes in both
countries. These ndings clearly indicate that in the future pre- and in-service teacher education programmes might need to place more emphasis on collaboration
skills in addition to courses on pedagogy and behaviour management.
Limitations
The present study has a few obvious limitations. First, the samples were drawn
using convenience sampling and although efforts were made to include variance of
socio-economic contexts of schools in the respective regions, the ndings cannot be
generalised to the overall situation in the two countries. However, the relatively

66

H. Savolainen et al.

large sample sizes increase the credibility of the ndings and generalisations can be
made with caution. Secondly the ndings are based on a cross-sectional analysis
and, therefore, the correlations between self-efcacy and attitudes must be
interpreted with caution. Third, although the questionnaires work well psychometrically, they cannot provide full answers to explain why teachers have the attitudes
they do. This would require in-depth qualitative analysis of teachers perceptions.
Fourth, the study used questionnaires developed in other language and cultural contexts and their translations proved to be a difcult exercise. For example, the translation of the phrase children with disabilities could not be made into Finnish
verbatim, as the corresponding word for disabled does not t the educational context
in Finland. Instead a translation of the phrase children with special education needs
was used in some items, increasing their relevance in the Finnish context. Although
adapting instruments from one culture to another is a limitation, we believe our ndings can be compared to the ndings of others using these instruments.
Future directions
Given the limitations of the current study, a clear future direction is to collect qualitative and longitudinal data on the development and change of teachers sense of
self-efcacy and attitudes toward inclusion. Longitudinal data would make it possible to test with a cross-lagged prediction model whether it is self-efcacy that predicts attitudes, or whether attitudes predict self-efcacy. Furthermore, the impact of
existing contextual factors could be estimated more reliably when prediction is
based on prior knowledge of the context collected now and on the possible changes
in the context observed in the follow-up.
As mentioned previously there is a need to increase our understanding of teachers specic attitudes, their sense of self-efcacy in the implementation of inclusive
education in their own classrooms and the role that cultural-historical factors play
in this regard. The next part of this research project will be qualitative in nature
and will enable the researchers to broaden the dimensions and scope of the project
providing the opportunity for a more probing and in-depth exploration of the quantitative research results.
Conclusion
As discussed in the introduction, there are multiple and partial understandings of
the inclusive education agenda including what the roles of teachers are within
diverse contexts (Artiles and Dyson 2005; Singh 2009). Developing an appreciation
for culture and context across countries can contribute to a more comprehensive
understanding of the role of teachers in the implementation of inclusive education
and can contribute to the effective restructuring of schools to accommodate the
diverse needs of students in mainstream classrooms. Teacher education programmes
are now obliged to focus on new policies and to close the gap between policy formulation and the successful implementation of these policies in schools and classrooms. Teacher education programmes need, therefore, to address teachers
perspectives and values in this regard. Most of the research on teachers attitudes
towards inclusive education highlights mainstream teachers perceptions of inadequate knowledge and skills to address diverse needs appropriately (Swart and Pettipher 2005). In this research project a more positive picture of attitudes and sense of

European Journal of Special Needs Education

67

self-efcacy across cultures has emerged but it is clear that more attention needs to
be paid to teachers perceived lack of condence in establishing collaborative
support networks and the role their contexts play in teacher education programmes.
Using a comparative framework will enable us to develop an understanding of the
complex local conditions in which inclusive education is being implemented and
will also enable us to discern regularities and differences across national contexts
that could be of benet to both countries.
References
Artiles, A., and A. Dyson. 2005. Inclusive education in the globalization age. The promise
of comparative cultural-historical analysis. In Contextualizing inclusive education, ed. D.
Mitchell, 3762. London: Routledge.
Bizer, G.Y., J.C. Barden, and R.E. Petty. 2003. Attitudes. In Encyclopaedia of cognitive science, 24753. London: Nature Publishing Group.
Booth, T. 2000. Inclusion and exclusion policy in England: Who controls the agenda? In
Inclusive education policy, contexts and comparative perspectives, ed. F. Armstrong, D.
Armstrong, and D. Barton, 7898. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Burke, K., and C. Sutherland. 2004. Attitudes toward inclusion: Knowledge vs. experience.
Education 125: 16372.
Campbell, J., L. Gilmore, and M. Cuskelly. 2003. Changing student teachers attitudes
towards disability and inclusion. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability
28: 36979.
Creswell, J.W. 2003. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approach. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Crossley, M., and K. Watson. 2003. Comparative and international research in education:
Globalization, context and difference. London: Routledge.
Department of Education. 2001. Special needs education: Building an inclusive education and
training system. Education white paper 6. Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printer.
Dyson, A. 1999. Inclusion and inclusions: Theories and discourses in inclusive education. In
Inclusive education. World yearbook of education 1999, ed. H. Daniels and P. Garner,
3653. London: Kogan Page.
Engelbrecht, P. 2006. The implementation of inclusive education in South Africa after ten
years of democracy. European Journal of Psychology of Education 21, no. 3: 25364.
Engelbrecht, P. 2011. Equity in inclusive education in South Africa. In Equity in inclusive
education, ed. A. Artiles, and E. Kozleski. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Engelbrecht, P., and L. Green. 2007. An introduction to inclusive education. In Responding
to the challenges of inclusive education in southern Africa, ed. P. Engelbrecht and L.
Green, 210. Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik.
Engelbrecht, P., M. Oswald, and C. Forlin. 2006. Promoting the implementation of inclusive
education in primary schools in South Africa. British Journal of Special Education 33,
no. 3: 1219.
Forlin, C., I. Cedillo, S. Romero-Contreras, T. Fletcher, and H. Hernndez. 2010. Inclusion
in Mexico: Ensuring supportive attitudes by newly graduated teachers. International
Journal of inclusive education 14, no. 7: 72339.
Guskey, T.R., and P.D. Passaro. 1994. Teacher efcacy: A study of construct dimensions.
American Educational Research Journal 31, no. 3: 62743.
Halinen, I., and R. Jrvinen. 2008. Towards inclusive education: The case of Finland. Prospects 38: 7797.
Kivirauma, J., K. Klemel, and R. Rinne. 2006. Segregation, integration, inclusion the ideology
and reality in Finland. European Journal of Special Needs Education 21, no. 2: 11733.
Kozleski, E., A. Artiles, T. Fletcher, and P. Engelbrecht. 2007. Understanding the dialectics
of the local and the global in education for all: A comparative study. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Practice 8: 1934.
Loreman, T., C. Earle, U. Sharma, and C. Forlin. 2007. The development of an instrument
for measuring pre-service teachers sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive
education. International Journal of Special Education 22, no. 2: 15059.

68

H. Savolainen et al.

Meijer, C.J.W., and S.F. Foste. 1988. The effect of teacher self-efcacy on referral change.
Journal of Special Education 22, no. 3: 37885.
Mertens, D.M. 2005. Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Ministry of Education of Finland. 2007. Special education strategy. Reports of the Ministry
of Education, Finland, no. 47. Helsinki, Finland: Ministry of Education of Finland.
National Board of Education. 2010. Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteiden muutokset ja tydennykset. Helsinki, Finland: National Board of Education.
OECD. 2006. PISA 2006. Science competencies for tomorrows world. Vol. 1, Analysis.
Paris: OECD.
Oswald, M. 2007. Training teachers to become inclusive professionals. In Responding to the
challenges of inclusive education in southern Africa, ed. P. Engelbrecht, and L. Green,
14058. Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik.
Rossi, J. 2007. Erityisopetusdiskurssin mrittyminen koulutuspoliittisessa valtiopivkeskustelussa vuosina 19632002 [The determination of special educations discourse in parliamentary sessions during 19632002]. Masters diss., University of
Joensuu, Finland.
Shade, R.A., and R. Stewart. 2001. General education and special education preservice
teachers attitudes toward inclusion. Preventing School Failure 46: 3741.
Sharma, U., T. Loreman, and C. Forlin. Forthcoming. Measuring teacher efcacy to implement inclusive practices: An international validation. Journal of Research in Special
Educational Needs.
Scruggs, T.E., and M.A. Mastropieri. 1996. Teacher perceptions of the mainstreaming/inclusion, 19581995. A research synthesis. Exceptional Children 63: 5974.
Singh, R. 2009. Meeting the challenges of inclusion from isolation to collaboration. In
Inclusive education across cultures: Crossing boundaries, sharing ideas, ed. M. Alur,
and V. Timmons, 1229. London: Sage.
Savolainen, H. 2009. Responding to diversity and striving for excellence: The case of Finland. Prospects 39: 28192.
Statistics Finland. 2010. Erityisopetus [Special education]. Statistics Finland. http://www.stat.
/til/erop/2009/index_en.html
Soodak, L.C., D.M. Podell, and L.R. Lehman. 1998. Teacher, student, and school attributes
as predictors of teachers responses to inclusion. The Journal of Special Education 31,
no. 4: 48097.
Stole, S.Y., and L. Green. 2007. Inclusive education in South Africa. In Responding to the
challenges of inclusive education in southern Africa, ed. P. Engelbrecht, and L. Green,
5266. Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik.
Swart, E., and R. Pettipher. 2005. A framework for understanding inclusion. In Addressing
barriers to learning: A South African perspective, ed. E. Landsberg, 321. Pretoria,
South Africa: Van Schaik.
Theron, L., and P. Engelbrecht. Forthcoming. Caring teachers: Teacheryouth transactions to
promote resilience. In The social ecology of resilience: Culture, context, resources and
meaning, ed. M. Ungar.
Trade Union of Education in Finland. 2009. Statement 10.2.2009. TUEF. http://www.hare.
vn./mAsiakirjojenSelailu.asp?h_iId=14143&a_iId=134267
Tschannen-Moran, M., A. Woolfolk Hoy, and W.K. Hoy. 1998. Teacher efcacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research 68, no. 2: 20248.
UNESCO. 2009. Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Paris: UNESCO.
Ungar, M. 2010. What is resilience across cultures and contexts? Advances to the theory of
positive development among individuals and families under stress. Journal of Family
Psychotherapy 21: 116.
Weisel, A., and O. Dror. 2006. School climate, sense of efcacy and Israeli teachers attitudes toward inclusion of students with special needs. Education, Citizenship and Social
Justice 1, no. 2: 15774.
Wildeman, R.A. and C. Nomdo. 2007. Implementation of inclusive education: How far are
we? Idasa Occasional Paper. http://www.idasa.org/media/uploads/outputs/les/Inclusive%
20Education%20Occasional%20Paper%202007.pdf