Go back to titles

METHODS

The subjects for this study were 52 pre-service elementary teachers, at a large mid-western university, who are taking methods courses in the semester before student teaching. All the subjects had previously taken a survey course called “The Exceptional Child.” It is not a methods course; the curriculum deals with the legal aspects and characteristics of the exceptional learner.

The study was conducted the last week in September during the outdoor education program that is collaboration between a public middle school and a large Midwest university’s elementary education program. All activities took place in a special campground environment. Each sixth grade student attended for one day.
Special needs students (including learning disabled, emotionally disturbed, and mentally retarded) also attended on each of the three days. One special education teacher or special education teacher’s aide attended each day and accompanied the special education students.

The pre-service teachers had a one-day training session, based on Project WET (1995) and Project WILD (1992), then planned for instruction of the sixth grade students on one of the three days. Each sixth grader had an opportunity to participate in the activities of all the groups scheduled for the day that s/he attended.

All of the pre-service elementary teachers completed an attitude survey composed of two different surveys. The first was a nine-statement Likert-type attitudinal instrument, adapted from Andrews and Clementson (1997), consisting of a five-point scale (internal consistency reliability of 0.93). The range of possible scores is 9-54, with high scores indicating a more positive attitude. A definition of inclusion (Moisio, 1994) was written at the top of the survey: “the education of all students, both with and without disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, behavioral problems,), in a regular elementary, junior high, or high school classroom. Students attend school with their age and grade peers.” The second survey, by Moran, Miller, & Cronic (1997), was also based on a five-point scale. The composite instrument was given at the beginning of the semester, before the project began. The same survey was administered immediately following the project. The statements encompassed ideas about the benefits and hindrances of inclusion as well as the support provided for implementation of inclusion.

Also included with the final administration were 17 additional statements similar to 17 statements in the composite survey, except that they were specific to the outdoor classroom. The data for complete survey had a reliability of 0.74. In order to address content validity, a special educator, an environmental educator, and a middle level teacher educator examined the survey. All three concurred that the items collectively gave a good representation of the subject matter as intended. Because of the fact that there was no control group, the issue of internal validity needed to be considered. The pre-service teachers involved in the study had no other field experiences between the pre-test and post-test and they had no additional contact with students with special needs. These facts together with the short time between the pre-and post-tests led the researchers to conclude that there were no plausible threats to internal validity.

Go back to titles

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

A series of t-tests for paired samples was used for the data of the pre- and post- surveys to determine if the experiences in the outdoor classroom had an influence on the pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Of the 34 statements that were identical for the pre- and post- surveys, four elicited responses for which there were significant differences in the means (Table 1). The responses to the question involving familiarity with inclusion (statement 1) showed a significant increase in the perception of familiarity with inclusion. This result is consistent with the responses on the same survey by Andrews and Clementson (1997) in which pre-service teachers engaged in simulations and role-playing, as well as participated in field trips to facilities that serve those with disabilities. There are several possible explanations for the pre-service teachers’ perceptions about their knowledge relating to inclusion. In the course “The Exceptional Child” the pre-service teachers have studied about inclusion, but have not been required to apply that information until participating in this outdoor education program. Exposure to special needs children has been limited for many of the pre-service teachers. Anxiety and apprehension are common feelings for those who have not worked with this population prior to the outdoor education program. Therefore, after working with these children their confidence has increased. Andrews and Clemenson (1997) concurred that students need to become involved with students with special needs, not just be provided with information.

The pre-service teachers showed a significant increase in the belief that there is resistance from regular education teachers toward inclusion (statement 2). Due to the fact that the pre-service teachers had the opportunity to experience “including” children with special needs, they generalized their difficulties or time-consuming modifications to perceive that resistance does occur for regular educators.

There was also a significant decrease in the perceived comfort of regular education teachers co-teaching with special education teachers (statement 3) as well as a significant decrease in the idea that special education teachers provide support for all students (statement 4). During the outdoor education program, the special education teachers remained primarily with the students with special needs and did not interact with the regular education students. Therefore, the pre-service teachers did not observe any positive interaction between the two groups. This affected their comfort level and their idea of support they may feel is needed for them to be successful with inclusion as regular educators.
Of the 17 statements that compared inclusion in a regular classroom and an outdoor setting, the data for 4 showed a significant change between the pre- and post-tests (Table 2). The pre-service teachers indicated that they felt it was easier to make minor adjustments in an outdoor education setting than in a regular education setting (statement 1). This could be due to the fact that there is less structure and more flexibility with outdoor education activities. Students conforming to expectations for regular education students are not as critical in an outdoor setting as a formal classroom.

The pre-service teachers thought that regular education teachers have primary responsibility for students with special needs in an outdoor setting more than in a regular classroom setting (statement 2). This may be due to the fact that the pre-service teachers reported that they felt it was easier to include these students and therefore, can be accountable and are more self-assured in the outdoor setting.

According to the pre-service teachers gifted students are more likely to be neglected in inclusive regular classrooms than in outdoor classrooms (statement 3). In the course “The Exceptional Child” pre-service teachers are taught that children can be gifted in a variety of areas such as music, art, etc. This particular outdoor education experience was multidisciplinary (reading, math, science, arts, social studies) as opposed to the single-discipline classrooms.
The final question for which the data showed a statistically significant difference between the regular and outdoor classrooms involved the support of families for inclusive classrooms (statement 4). The results showed that families were thought of as more supportive in the outdoor classrooms. This could be due to the fact that parents attended the outdoor program and were seen participating and interacting with students. The pre-service teachers had not participated in many traditional classroom situations involving parents.

Although there have been some studies (Wilczenski, 1991; Jamieson, 1984; Barryman & Barryman, 1981) in which actual experience with inclusion can lead to more negative attitudes, the results of this study suggest that some experiences in outdoor settings can positively influence attitudes toward inclusion of students with disabilities. However, this was only one experience in a fairly controlled environment. More research is needed to explore other environments in a variety of time frames.

There is much concern about how teachers feel regarding inclusion of children with special needs in various learning environments. Although there is no doubt about the importance of examining the attitudes of teachers, one must be aware of the reality that attitudes are also being formed in the teacher education experiences of pre-service teachers. They cannot be omitted from our investigations. In addition, our education efforts must incorporate all aspects of inclusion. This study helped to illuminate some of the influences on attitudes of pre-service teachers toward inclusion by examining a learning environment that is not normally explored. This has potential for improving teacher education. The insights suggested by this research can give direction to educating future teachers about the possibilities for educating all children.

Go back to titles

REFERENCES

Andrews, S. & Clementson, J. (1997). Active learning’s effect upon preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 410 217).

Berryman, J. & Berryman, C. (1981). Use of the Attitude toward Mainstreaming Scale with rural Georgia teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, CA. (ERIC Document Reproductions Service No. ED 201 420).

Hammerman, D. (1994). Teaching in the outdoors (4th ed.). Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers.

Houck, C. (1992). Special education integration-unification initiative for students with specific learning disabilities: An investigation of program status and impact. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 352 786)

Jamieson, J. (1984). Attitudes of educators toward the handicapped. In R.L. Jones (Ed.). Attitudes and attitude change in special education: Theory and practice (pp.206-222). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Lobosco, A., & Newman, D. (1992). Teaching special needs populations and teach job satisfaction: Implications for teacher education and staff development. Urban Education, 27 (1), 21-31.

Lombari, T. (1990, April). Special education students at risk: Findings from a national study. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Council for Exceptional Children, Toronto, Canada.

Marks, J. (1990). We have a problem. Parents, 65, 57-61.

Moisio, M. (1994). A survey of attitudes of undergraduate education majors toward inclusion. Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 376 688)

Monaham, R., Miller, R., & Cronic, D. (1997). Rural teachers’, administrators’, and counselors’ attitudes about inclusion. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 406 099)

Phillips, W., Allred, K., Brulle, A., & Shank, K. (1990). REI: The will and skill of regular educators. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 320 323)

Schumm, J., & Vaughn, S. (1992). Plans for mainstreamed special education students: Perceptions of general education teachers. Exceptionality, 3(2), 81-96.

Semmel, M., Abernathy, T., Butera, G., & Lesar, S. (1991). Teacher perceptions of the regular education initiative. Exceptional Children, 58(1), 9-24.

Shepard, L. (1987). The new push for excellence: Widening the schism between regular and special education. Exceptional Children, 53, 327-329.

Siegel, J. (1992). Regular education teachers’ attitudes toward their mainstreamed students. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 653)

Thompson, J. (1992). Developing and implementing an in-service program designed to change teacher attitudes toward mainstreamed learning disabled students at the secondary level. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 351 1811)

Thompson, R., White, K., & Morgan, D. (1982). Teacher-student interaction patterns in classrooms with mainstreamed mildly handicapped students. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 220-236.

Wilczenshi, F. (1994). Use of the “Attitude toward mainstreaming scale” with undergraduate education students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the New England Educational Research Organization, Portsmouth, NH. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 332 992)

Ysseldyke, J., Algozzine, B., Shinn, M., & McGue, M. (1982). Similarities and differences between low achievers and students labeled as learning disabled. The Journal of Special Education, 16, 73-85.

Go back to titles

Table 1. Statements with Statistically Significant Means

Go back to titles

Table 2. Statements Comparing Regular and Outdoor Classrooms

Go back to titles