This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney]

On: 31 August 2014, At: 05:46

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Inclusive

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20

Attitudes of pre-service mainstream

teachers in Singapore towards
people with disabilities and inclusive
education
a a
Thana Thaver & Levan Lim
a
Early Childhood and Special Needs Education Academic Group,
National Institute of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University,
Singapore, Singapore
Published online: 24 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Thana Thaver & Levan Lim (2014) Attitudes of pre-service mainstream teachers
in Singapore towards people with disabilities and inclusive education, International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 18:10, 1038-1052, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2012.693399

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.693399

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 to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and 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 Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial 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
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014
 International Journal of Inclusive Education, 2014
Vol. 18, No. 10, 1038–1052, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.693399

Attitudes of pre-service mainstream teachers in Singapore

towards people with disabilities and inclusive education
Thana Thaver∗ and Levan Lim

Early Childhood and Special Needs Education Academic Group, National Institute of
Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
(Received 29 August 2011; final version received 12 January 2012)
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014

2004 has come to be seen by many in Singapore as a watershed year with the shift in
the position of the government towards encouraging greater integration of students
with disabilities in mainstream settings. This study investigated the attitudes of
1538 mainstream pre-service teachers towards disability and inclusive education
during this period of policy change. Analysis of the data indicated that the pre-
service teachers had little or no knowledge and experience with disability, and
generally possessed negative attitudes towards people with disabilities. They
evinced ambivalent feelings towards inclusive education, and expressed a
preference for special school placements for students with disabilities. While
they were open to the inclusion of students with social or communication
difficulties, they were not favourable to including students with physical
disabilities, sensory impairment, learning disabilities and behavioural problems
in mainstream settings. Implications of these findings were discussed and
recommendations were made for the inclusion of training in special education at
both pre-service and in-service levels.
Keywords: integration; disability; teacher training; pre-service teacher attitude;
Singapore

Introduction
In August 2004, in his inauguration speech as Prime Minister of Singapore, Mr Lee
Hsien Loong unveiled a vision that was to result in greater integration of children
with disabilities within the mainstream education system. He shared his vision of a
‘government that will be open and inclusive in its approach, towards all Singaporeans,
young and old, disabled and able-bodied . . . ’ (Ibrahim 2004); and a month later, called
for greater efforts to integrate people with disabilities into mainstream society, begin-
ning with the integration of students with disabilities into mainstream schools (Teo
2004). This call was accompanied by a promise to commit S$55 million a year till
2008 to improve special education in mainstream and special schools (The Straits
Times 2004). This change in policy towards greater acceptance of and provisions for
children with disabilities within the mainstream was seen in Singapore as akin to the
Berlin wall tumbling down as prior to this policy, the government was staunch in its
stand that the needs of students with disabilities were better met in a separate schooling
system if they were unable to cope with the demands of a mainstream setting (Lim

∗
Corresponding author. Email: thana.thaver@nie.edu.sg

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1039

2004). This decades-long stance had the result of creating a dual system of education in
Singapore, that of mainstream and special education schools, with the Ministry of Edu-
cation (MOE) taking charge of mainstream education and the Ministry of Community
Development, Youth and Sports and the National Council of Social Service overseeing
the special education sector. While this was the stand taken, exceptions had been made
over the years for students with sensory impairment and physical disabilities who had
proven themselves able to cope with mainstream curriculum (Report of the Advisory
Council on the Disabled 1988). Accommodation, in terms of special resources, facili-
ties and resource teachers, had been made for these students in a small number of main-
stream schools specially designated by MOE to take in these students (Mathi 1996;
Quah 2004).
Beyond this, the position taken was that any further efforts at integrating students
with disabilities would be left to the discretion of mainstream schools which would
need to make their own school-based arrangements to accommodate these students
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014

(Report of the Advisory Council on the Disabled 1988). The consequence of this
stance had been the general exclusion of students with disabilities from mainstream
schools (Lim and Tan 1999). Until 2004, it appeared that this situation would con-
tinue, and inclusion would not be part of mainstream education discourse even
though the reality was that students with disabilities could be found in mainstream
settings.
In 2005, PM Lee’s pledge of integration and MOE’s acknowledgement of the
increase in numbers of students with learning disabilities enrolling in mainstream
schools were acted upon. Two forms of specialist support were proposed by MOE to
aid mainstream teachers in this effort who, because of the patchy history of teacher
training in special needs in Singapore (Lim and Thaver 2008a), had not been trained
to accommodate students with disabilities or how to create more inclusive classrooms.
The first form of support was the creation of a cadre of new personnel in mainstream
schools, known as Special Needs Officers (renamed Allied Educators, Learning and
Behavioural Support (AED LBS) in 2009) to support mainstream teachers working
with students with mild to moderate dyslexia and high functioning autism spectrum
disorder (ASD). The second form involved identifying a selected group of teachers
in designated mainstream schools to undergo training to become Teachers Trained in
Special Needs to act as resource persons in supporting students with disabilities in
their schools (Ministry of Education 2005). The target of MOE was to have 10% of
its teaching workforce in schools trained in special needs. This was revised in 2008
to 20% of teachers in secondary school, Junior College and Centralised Institute
levels by the year 2012 (The Straits Times 2007).
It is very clear from these support schemes that the task of catering to the needs of
the student with disabilities would lie squarely with the mainstream teacher. The
promise of specialist support in the form of the AED LBS does not translate into a per-
manent teacher aide in their classrooms nor can mainstream teachers devolve the
responsibility for the students with disabilities to these officers as there would be, on
the average, one AED LBS per designated school (Chan 2005; Ministry of Education
2008).
This plan to make Singapore a more inclusive society through the policy decision of
sanctioning the integration of students with mild disabilities into mainstream schools
has to be explored further in terms of its implications and chances for success. For
this vision to become a reality, according to Tharp and Gallimore (1988) schools
have to act as ‘educating communities’ where teachers consciously help their students
to learn and practise the values, attitudes and skills to include diverse individuals, par-
ticularly their peers with disabilities. If schools and classrooms are considered
 1040 T. Thaver and L. Lim

microcosms of society, it might then be concluded therefore that how inclusive society
finally is might hinge, to a large extent, on how inclusive schools and teachers are.
As this responsibility comes to rest on the shoulders of all mainstream teachers in
Singapore, there is an assumption that these teachers themselves possess the requisite
beliefs, values and skills to facilitate the development of inclusivity in their students and
that they welcome and believe in the inclusion of students with disabilities in main-
stream schools. This, however, may be an unfounded assumption, for two reasons;
first, the patchy and erratic history of training in special needs for mainstream teachers
in Singapore and, second, the socialisation of Singapore mainstream teachers into
believing in the benefits and efficacy of a dual system of education. An examination
of the extant literature on the attitudes of mainstream teachers towards students with
disabilities and inclusion may give us a clue of how this policy of integration may
be received, and its chances of successful implementation.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014

Research on teacher attitudes towards disability and integration/inclusion

Research conducted on teacher attitudes towards disability and inclusion or integration
clearly indicates that the success of any policy of inclusion is highly dependent on the
attitudes and beliefs of teachers (e.g. Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden 2000; Scruggs
and Mastopieri 1996; Soodak, Podell, and Lehman 1998; Wilczenski 1993). It
would, thus, be quite erroneous to assume that just because a policy of integration/
inclusion existed, accommodations would be made by mainstream teachers to meet
the needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms or effort expended to
ensure the full participation and social acceptance of these students (Bender, Vail,
and Scott 1995; Carroll, Forlin, and Jobling 2003; Opdal, Wormnaes, and Habayeb
2001). The study of West et al. (2004) on the experiences of Singaporean students
with visual impairment integrated into a mainstream secondary school gives credence
to this claim within the context of Singapore. Despite the long history of integration of
students with visual impairment within mainstream settings in Singapore, the findings
indicated that the students felt that little accommodation had been made to meet their
specific needs, and that they were expected to adapt to the practices of the teachers
in the mainstream classes they were in. Bender, Vail, and Scott (1995) found that
when teachers possessed less-than-favourable attitudes towards the inclusion of stu-
dents with disabilities, fewer attempts were made to use more inclusive instructional
strategies.
Indifferent or even negative attitudes on the part of mainstream teachers can have
damaging repercussions on students with disabilities, and lead to feelings of alienation,
psycho-social distress and a deepening sense of being ‘lesser’ because of their disability
(Hogan, McLellan, and Bauman 2000; Holzbauer 2004; McDougall et al. 2004;
Tregaskis 2000), and provide justification for students without disabilities to exhibit
attitudes of non-acceptance, discrimination and exclusion of their peers with disabilities
(Holzbauer and Conrad 2010; Shakespeare and Watson 1997). The Singaporean stu-
dents with visual impairment in West et al.’s (2004) study touched on similar issues,
expressing a desire for both their teachers and peers to acknowledge their abilities
and feelings, and for teachers to facilitate their social integration.
Research (Alghazo, Dodeen, and Algaryouti 2003; Avramidis and Kalyva 2007;
Avramidis and Norwich 2002; Hastings and Oakford 2003; Lambe and Bones 2006;
Romi and Leyser 2006; Scruggs and Mastopieri 1996; Sharma, Moore, and Sonawane
2009) continues to provide evidence that teachers, both pre-service and those in service,
still have reservations about the inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream
settings, and seem to favour the traditional system of educating students with
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1041

disabilities in segregated settings. Where there is support for the general concept of
inclusion, the acceptance seems conditional and linked to the type and severity of
their students’ disability.
In general, research reveals that teachers are more positive about the inclusion of
students with medical conditions, physical disability or sensory impairment than
those with intellectual disabilities, learning disabilities, emotional behavioural difficul-
ties or those with more complex needs as they are seen as less demanding in terms of
time, management and instruction, and posing fewer problems (Avramidis and
Norwich 2002; Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden 2000; Hastings and Oakford 2003;
Heflin and Bullock 1999; Johnson and Fullwood 2006; Soodak, Podell, and Lehman
1998; Stoiber, Gettinger, and Goertz 1998; Vanderfaeillie, De Fever, and Lombaerts
2003). Similar observations had been made in studies conducted in the 1970s and
1980s in Singapore. Quah et al. (1982) in the 1970s found that Singaporean mainstream
teachers saw children with learning and intellectual disabilities in their classrooms as
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014

frustrating, an impediment to the progress of the class as a whole and not belonging
to the mainstream. The study of Eng et al. (1982) in the early 1980s of the views of
mainstream teachers of students channelled into the lowest ability stream, the Monolin-
gual Stream, revealed that most of them preferred not to teach these students because of
their low intellectual ability, lack of motivation and their learning and behavioural
problems.
Aside from student-related characteristics such as the nature and severity of the dis-
ability, it appears that teacher-related characteristics such as gender, age, educational
qualifications and contact with people with disability could also influence attitudes
towards people with disabilities and inclusive education. However, the evidence of
their impact on attitudes towards people with disability and inclusive education still
seem inconsistent.
With regard to gender, while some studies report that female teachers seem more
open towards people with disabilities (Tait and Purdie 2000) and the inclusion of stu-
dents with disabilities than male teachers (Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden 2000;
Chong, Forlin, and Au 2007; Romi and Leyser 2006), there have been studies that
point to a lack of significant effect on attitudes towards people with disabilities
(Alghazo, Dodeen, and Algaryouti 2003; Beattie, Anderson, and Antonak 1997;
Carroll, Forlin, and Jobling 2003) or inclusion (Hastings and Oakford 2003; Rao,
Lim, and Nam 2001). Similarly, for the variable of age, just as there are studies that
indicate that younger teachers are more positive in their attitudes towards inclusion
(Avramidis and Norwich 2002; Leyser, Kapperman, and Keller 1994), there are
others which found no significant relationships (Avramidis, Bayliss, and Burden
2000; Beattie, Anderson, and Antonak 1997; Carroll, Forlin, and Jobling 2003;
Forlin et al. 2009; Hastings and Oakford 2003).
There also appears to be conflicting findings for the variable of educational quali-
fications, with some studies reporting no significant effect on attitudes towards disabil-
ity or inclusion (e.g. Beattie, Anderson, and Antonak 1997), and others indicating that
pre-service teachers with undergraduate degrees held more positive attitudes than those
with postgraduate degrees (e.g. Forlin et al. 2009). This same inconsistency emerges in
studies on the influence of contact with disability, with some suggesting that more
favourable attitudes emerged with greater contact (e.g. Forlin et al. 2009; Vanderfaeil-
lie, De Fever, and Lombaerts 2003) and others finding no significant impact on either
attitudes towards people with disabilities (e.g. Alghazo, Dodeen, and Algaryouti 2003;
Beattie, Anderson, and Antonak 1997; Marshall, Stojanovik, and Palmer, 2002; Rao,
Lim, and Nam 2001; Tait and Purdie 2000) or inclusion (Hastings and Oakford
2003; Marshall, Stojanovik, and Palmer, 2002). In fact, there is indication that
 1042 T. Thaver and L. Lim

contact could, conversely, lead to negative views of people with disabilities and inclus-
ive education (e.g. Bradshaw and Mundia 2005; Lampropoulou and Padeliadu 1997;
Soodak, Podell, and Lehman 1998). In their review of literature, Avramidis and Nor-
wich’s (2002) conclusion was that contact in and of itself did not necessarily lead to
positive attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities.

The context of the study

With the increased emphasis on including students with disabilities within mainstream
schools, evidence of its success would hinge on the attitudes of mainstream teachers to
accommodate these learners in their classrooms. The aim of this study is to examine the
attitudes of pre-service mainstream teachers in Singapore towards disability and the
inclusion of students with disabilities in their classrooms. Research in this area is
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014

still lacking in Singapore, and there has been, as yet, no large-scale study conducted
on the attitudes of pre-service mainstream teachers towards disability and inclusion.
The following research questions were examined in the study:

. What were the self-reported attitudes of mainstream pre-service teachers towards

people with disabilities and inclusive education?
. How were the self-reported attitudes of mainstream pre-service teachers towards
people with disabilities and inclusive education influenced by the variables of
gender, age, educational qualifications and contact with persons with disabilities?
. Was there a relationship between the self-reported attitudes of these mainstream
pre-service teachers towards people with disabilities and their attitudes towards
inclusive education?

Method
Participants
The participants were drawn from the cohort of pre-service mainstream teachers, in
their first semester of study at the National Institute of Education (the sole teacher edu-
cation body for mainstream teachers in Singapore), who were taking a compulsory edu-
cation studies course taught by the researchers’ department. The participants came from
three programmes of study, the Postgraduate Diploma in Education Programme,
Secondary (PGDE Sec), PGDE, Primary (PGDE Pri) and the Diploma in Education
Programme (Dip. Ed.). The pre-service teachers from the PGDE Sec and PGDE Pri
programmes were graduates from different disciplines of study while those from the
Dip. Ed. programme generally did not possess degrees and had either the General Cer-
tificate of Education, O-level (GCE ‘O’) or A-level (GCE ‘A’) or were polytechnic
diploma holders.

Instruments
A two-part survey instrument was used to collect demographic information about the
pre-service teachers and to assess their attitudes towards people with disabilities and
inclusive education. Part one of the survey contained the demographic form while
part two consisted of the Attitude towards Disabled People (ATDP-A) (Yuker and
Block 1986) scale and the Attitudes towards Inclusive Education Scale (ATIES)
(Wilczenski 1992). These two instruments were chosen because they were the few
accepted and long-established measures in the field which were widely used. Current
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1043

studies continue to provide evidence of the adequacy and utility of the ATDP scale (e.g.
Herbert 2000; Junco and Salter 2004; Rao 2004) and ATIES (e.g. Gitlow 2001; Koay
2003; Sharma, Ee, and Desai 2003; Sharma et al. 2006).

Demographic form
Pre-service teachers were asked to provide information on their age, gender, educational
qualifications, previous training in special needs/disabilities before entry into the
National Institute of Education and the number of persons with disability they had
come into contact with. They were also asked to gauge their knowledge of different dis-
abilities and to rate their knowledge and skills for teaching students with disabilities, and
their knowledge about special schools in Singapore. Their opinion as to whether students
with disabilities should be educated in mainstream or special schools was also sought.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014

Attitude towards Disabled People scale

This instrument was designed by Yuker and Block (1986) to assess the degree to which
respondents perceived people with disabilities as being similar to people without dis-
abilities, and whether they felt people with and without disabilities should be treated
in the same manner. The more people with disabilities were viewed as normal, the
more positive the attitude of the respondents would be. Items on the scale deal with
characteristics and/or treatment of people with disabilities.
This study used the form ‘A’ ATDP scale which has a six-point Likert-type scale with
‘no’ neutral category. Participants were asked to respond to each item ranging from dis-
agree strongly (23), moderately disagree (22), disagree slightly (21), agree slightly
(+1), moderately agree (+2) to strongly agree (+3). The total score in the 30-item
scale could range from 290 to +90. To eliminate negative values, a constant of 90
was added to the scale. The resulting score arrived at could range between 0 and 180.
High scores on the scale indicated accepting, positive attitudes and low scores indicated
negative, rejecting attitudes. Individual items were not interpreted as Yuker and Block
(1986) stated that only the total ATDP scores were meaningful, not responses to individ-
ual items. According to Yuker and Block (1986), studies that had used the scale tested
four different types of reliability, test –retest, split-half, equivalence, and alpha, and an
overall median for the scale close to 0.80 had been found. Statistical analysis carried
out on the instrument indicated a Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of 0.77.

Attitudes towards Inclusive Education Scale

The second instrument used in the study was the ATIES (Wilczenski 1992), a 16-item
scale designed to measure the attitudes of respondents towards including children with
various types of disabilities in mainstream classrooms. The items in the scale describe
social, physical, academic and behavioural problems which could adversely affect
functioning in a mainstream classroom. Each item in the instrument had a six-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (disagree strongly), 2 (moderately disagree), 3 (dis-
agree slightly), 4 (agree slightly), 5 (moderately agree) to 6 (strongly agree). The
total score on the scale could range from 16 to 96, with higher scores indicating
more favourable attitudes.
Studies which had used the ATIES had reported good reliability indices (Gitlow
2001; Koay 2003). Koay’s (2003) study utilising the scale with teachers from Brunei
Darussalam reported an overall Cronbach alpha of 0.92, with a test –retest reliability
coefficient of 0.85. Statistical analysis carried out in this investigation indicated an
 1044 T. Thaver and L. Lim

overall Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient of 0.88, and sub-scale alphas of 0.76 for
the physical factor, 0.60 for the academic, 0.81 for the behavioural and 0.74 for the
social factor.

Procedure
The surveys were administered during the first tutorial of the education studies course
by the tutor assigned to teach the class and collected upon completion. Participation
was voluntary, and the pre-service teachers were assured of their anonymity. The par-
ticipants took between 10 and 15 min to respond to the surveys. The completed surveys
were returned to the researchers on the day of the administration itself.

Results
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014

Demographics
Although 1769 pre-service teachers participated in the study, only 1538 (86.9%) surveys
were finally used in the analysis because of missing data. The final dataset consisted of
720 (46.8%) pre-service teachers from the PGDE Sec programme, 380 (24.7%) from the
PGDE Pri programme and 438 (28.5%) from the Dip. Ed. There was a higher proportion
of female pre-service teachers, 66.7% (N ¼ 1026), than male, 33.3% (N ¼ 512). 6.3%
(N ¼ 97) of the participants were ≤20 years old, 55.2% (N ¼ 849) of the participants
were between 21 and 25 years of age, 29.3% (N ¼ 451) were between the ages of 26
and 30, 6.6% (N ¼ 102) between the ages of 31 and 35 and 2.5% (N ¼ 39) between
the ages of 36 and 40. In terms of educational qualifications, a large proportion of the par-
ticipants were graduates. 69.2% (N ¼ 1064) of the participants possessed an under-
graduate degree and a further 4.2% (N ¼ 65) had a postgraduate degree. 15.9% (N ¼
245) of the pre-service teachers held a diploma, 9% (N ¼ 139) the GCE ‘A’ Level certi-
ficate and 2% (N ¼ 25) the GCE ‘O’ Level certificate.
Many of the pre-service teachers appeared to have had little or no contact with people
with disabilities, with 14.8% (N ¼ 228) reporting no contact at all and 59.9% (N ¼ 921)
reporting that they had encountered between one and five persons with disabilities thus
far in their lives. Most of them (93.4%, N ¼ 1437) had not attended any form of training
in special needs or disabilities. In the seven types of disabilities surveyed, it appeared that
the lack of knowledge was greater in the areas of intellectual disability (77.8%, N ¼
1197), ASD (77.7%, N ¼ 1194), emotional and/or behavioural difficulties (77.1%, N
¼ 1186), learning disabilities (74%, N ¼ 1139), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(70.4%, N ¼ 1083) as compared to that of sensory impairment (63.7%, N ¼ 980) and
physical disabilities (60.9%, N ¼ 937). When asked to rate their knowledge and skills
for teaching students with special needs, 79.6% (N ¼ 1225) of the pre-service teachers
rated their knowledge as lacking, and 82.4% (N ¼ 1267) rated their skills as insufficient.
The findings from the two questions on the setting students with special needs/dis-
abilities should be educated in surfaced ambivalent feelings. 57.5% (N ¼ 885) of the
pre-service teachers felt that students with disabilities should be placed in mainstream
classrooms. Yet, when asked about special school placement, a larger percentage,
77.7% (N ¼ 1195), were of the opinion that they should be placed in special schools
although 82.7% (N ¼ 1273) of the pre-service teachers professed to having little or
no knowledge or understanding of special schools.

Attitudes towards persons with disabilities and inclusive education

The mean score of the participants (N ¼ 1538) on the ATDP scale was 110 (SD ¼
15.4, mean score range: 42–159), indicating generally negative attitudes towards
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1045

people with disabilities. The overall mean score of the participants on the ATIES was
58.5 (SD ¼ 11.56, mean score range: 16–96) while the mean score was 3.66 (SD ¼
0.52, mean score range: 2.89–4.12), revealing attitudes towards inclusive education
that were ambivalent and bordered on the unfavourable. A mean score value of 4
suggests slight agreement with the inclusion of students with disabilities into main-
stream settings.
The participants’ scores on each of the four factors of the ATIES were also ana-
lysed. It appeared that pre-service teachers were more open to the inclusion of students
who exhibited social needs (those who were shy and withdrawn or had communication
difficulties) (M ¼ 4.12, SD ¼ 0.53, mean score range: 3.62–4.86). They evinced less
favourable attitudes towards those who had physical needs (those with physical disabil-
ities or sensory impairment) (M ¼ 3.66, SD ¼ 0.54, mean score range: 3.15–4.32),
those who required academic accommodations (those with learning disabilities or intel-
lectual disability) (M ¼ 3.55, SD ¼ 0.52, mean score range: 2.89–4.11) and were least
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014

positive to those who with behavioural needs (disruptive students or those who dis-
played verbal or physical aggression) (M ¼ 3.24, SD ¼ 0.37, mean score range:
2.78–3.67).

Relationship between demographic variables and attitudes towards people with

disabilities and inclusive education
A Pearson’s product moment correlation was conducted to examine the relationship
between the pre-service teachers’ demographic variables and their attitudes towards
people with disabilities and the inclusion of students with disabilities with different
educational needs. From Table 1, it can be seen that there were no relationships
between their attitudes towards people with disabilities and the variables of gender (r
¼ 0.026, N ¼ 1528, p ¼ 0.303), age (r ¼ 20.059, N ¼ 1528, p ¼ 0.021) and edu-
cational qualifications (r ¼ 20.042, N ¼ 1528, p ¼ 0.101). There was a statistically
significant positive relationship between amount of contact with disability and attitudes
towards people with disability (r ¼ 0.112, N ¼ 1528, p ¼ 0.000). The effect size of
this relationship, however, was extremely small. The proportion of variation in attitudes
towards people with disability explained by contact was only 1.3% (R2 ¼ 0.013),
leaving a significant amount of variability in attitudes towards people with disability
unaccounted for.
In examining the relationship between the pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards
inclusive education and the demographic variables, what appeared to be significant
relationships were found. Statistically significant correlations were found between
gender and attitudes towards the inclusion of students with behavioural needs (r ¼
0.072, N ¼ 1528, p ¼ 0.005) and social needs (r ¼ 0.081, N ¼ 1528, p ¼ 0.002),
between age and attitudes towards the inclusion of students with behavioural needs
(r ¼ 20.079, N ¼ 1528, p ¼ 0.002) and social needs (r ¼ 20.086, N ¼ 1528, p ¼
0.001), between educational qualifications and attitudes towards the inclusion of stu-
dents with physical needs (r ¼ 0.093, N ¼ 1528, p ¼ 0.000) and behavioural needs
(r ¼ 20.082, N ¼ 1528, p ¼ 0.001), and contact and attitudes towards the inclusion
of students with social needs (r ¼ 0.077, N ¼ 1528, p ¼ 0.002). However, the
values of these correlations were less than +0.1, indicating negligible effect sizes
and, thus, little association between the variables.
There was a significant positive correlation between contact and pre-service tea-
chers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students who required physical accommo-
dations (r ¼ 0.130, N ¼ 1528, p ¼ 0.000), indicating that greater contact with
people with disability was associated with more positive attitudes towards the inclusion
 1046
T. Thaver and L. Lim
Table 1. Pearson correlations between pre-service mainstream teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusion and demographic variables.
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗ ∗∗
1 ATDP r – 0.285 0.216 0.160 0.257 0.026 20.059 20.042 0.112∗∗
p – 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.303 0.021 0.101 0.000
2 ATIES r 0.285∗∗ – 0.500∗∗ 0.347∗∗ 0.511∗∗ 20.023 20.004 0.093∗∗ 0.130∗∗
Physical p 0.000 – 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.373 0.869 0.000 0.000
3 ATIES r 0.216∗∗ 0.500∗∗ – 0.477∗∗ 0.521∗∗ 0.026 20.052 20.050 0.021
Academic p 0.000 0.000 – 0.000 0.000 0.300 0.040 0.049 0.624
4 ATIES r 0.160∗∗ 0.347∗∗ 0.477∗∗ – 0.653∗∗ 0.072∗∗ 20.079∗∗ 20.082∗∗ 0.034
Behaviour p 0.000 0.000 0.000 – 0.000 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.187
5 ATIES r 0.257∗∗ 0.511∗∗ 0.521∗∗ 0.653∗∗ – 0.081∗∗ 20.086∗∗ 0.000 0.077∗∗
Social p 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 – 0.002 0.001 0.995 0.002
6 Gender r 0.026 20.023 0.026 0.072∗∗ 0.081∗∗ – 20.259∗∗ 20.152∗∗ 0.000
p 0.303 0.373 0.300 0.005 0.002 – 0.000 0.000 0.992
7 Age r 20.059 20.004 20.052 20.079∗∗ 20.086∗∗ 20.259∗∗ – 0.318∗∗ 20.012
p 0.021 0.869 0.040 0.002 0.001 0.000 – 0.000 0.639
8 Educational qualifications r 20.042 0.093∗∗ 20.050 20.082∗∗ 000 20.152∗∗ 0.318∗∗ – 20.077∗∗
p 0.101 0.000 0.049 0.001 0.995 0.000 0.000 – 0.002
9 Contact r 0.112∗∗ 0.130∗∗ 0.012 0.034 0.077∗∗ 0.000 20.012 20.077∗∗ –
p 0.000 0.000 0.624 0.187 0.002 0.992 0.639 0.002 –

N ¼ 1528.
∗∗
p ¼ 0.01, two-tailed.
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1047

of students with physical disabilities and sensory impairment. However, the proportion
of variation in attitudes towards the inclusion of these students explained by the vari-
able of contact was extremely small (R2 ¼ 0.017), only 1.7% of variation.
Significant, albeit small, correlations were found between pre-service teachers’ atti-
tudes towards people with disabilities and their attitudes towards inclusive education.
The attitudes towards people with disabilities were positively correlated to the attitudes
of pre-service teachers to the inclusion of students with physical (r ¼ 0.285, N ¼ 1528,
p ¼ 0.000), social (r ¼ 0.257, N ¼ 1528, p ¼ 0.000), academic (r ¼ 0.216, N ¼
1528, p ¼ 0.000) and behaviour (r ¼ 0.160, N ¼ 1528, p ¼ 0.000) needs although
it appeared that the association was much weaker when it came to students with behav-
ioural needs.

Discussion
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014

It is apparent from the results of the study that the pre-service mainstream teachers in
Singapore possessed generally negative attitudes towards people with disabilities and
ambivalent, bordering on unfavourable, attitudes towards the inclusion of students
with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. These findings are similar to what has
been reported in the literature internationally (Avramidis and Kalyva 2007; Bradshaw
and Mundia 2005; Hastings and Oakford 2003; Lambe and Bones 2006; Romi and
Leyser 2006) and consistent with the findings of other research studies conducted on
attitudes of mainstream pre-service teachers in Singapore which found that pre-
service teachers in Singapore were uncomfortable with people with disabilities
(Sharma, Ee, and Desai 2003; Sharma et al. 2006), and that while they ideologically
supported the concept of inclusion, they still felt that students with disabilities were
best educated in special schools (Rao, Lim, and Nam 2001).
These attitudes of the pre-service teachers are perhaps understandable given the
sociocultural context of Singapore where there has been a history of limited partici-
pation of people with disabilities in the life of mainstream community and segregated
education (Lim and Tan 1999; Lim and Thaver, 2008b), and a belief within the main-
stream education community that students with disabilities are best educated in special
schools (Lim and Nam 2000). This belief – that students with disabilities are best
served in special schools – is clearly found to be held on the part of the majority of
the pre-service teachers in this study. This belief of a separate educational placement
for students with disabilities may not have a basis in informed experience given the
fact that many of the pre-service teachers in the study reported having had few or no
encounters with people with disabilities and little or no knowledge of special
schools. However, perhaps, what might also explain these responses could be feelings
arising from a sense of lack of competency as most of the pre-service teachers had rated
their knowledge and skills for teaching students with special needs/disabilities as
insufficient.
The results indicated that the pre-service teachers were more prepared to make
accommodations for students with social needs, those who were shy, withdrawn or
had communication difficulties, in mainstream classrooms. They were not as favour-
able to the inclusion of students with physical disabilities and sensory impairment
even though there had been a longer history of integration of these two groups of stu-
dents within mainstream settings in Singapore. Of the disabilities surveyed, more of the
pre-service teachers had professed to having knowledge of physical disabilities and
sensory impairment. It appears perhaps that greater knowledge may not necessarily
translate to more positive attitudes. An explanation for this less-than-favourable
response might be the lack of awareness or experience in efforts to integrate these
 1048 T. Thaver and L. Lim

students because of the small numbers involved and the fact that students with sensory
impairment who are assessed as being able to cope in mainstream settings are usually
posted by MOE to certain designated schools with resources to cater to their needs.
The results that these pre-service teachers were even less open to the inclusion of
those with learning disabilities and least so to those who posed behavioural problems
come as little surprise. Previous studies had surfaced this resistance of mainstream tea-
chers to the inclusion of these students, particularly those who exhibited emotional be-
havioural problems, as they were perceived as being more difficult to manage and
placing greater demands on teachers in terms of time and energy (Avramidis,
Bayliss, and Burden 2000; Hastings and Oakford 2003; Sharma et al. 2006).
These feelings were shared by mainstream teachers in Singapore in the studies con-
ducted in the 1970s and 1980s (Eng et al. 1982; Quah et al. 1982), and do not seem to
have changed in the intervening decades as these were concerns raised in a more recent
study (Tam et al. 2006). These attitudes of mainstream teachers in Singapore are prob-
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014

ably fuelled by the constraints within the Singapore education system which they
believe militate against the inclusion of students with disabilities, such as the competi-
tive outcomes-oriented culture, issues with support structures, class sizes, time and
expectations (Lim and Tan 1999; Lim and Thaver 2008a; Tam et al. 2006). Awareness
and familiarity with the demands and constraints within the Singapore education
system could probably have influenced the thinking of the pre-service teachers in the
study in a like manner, hence the less-than-favourable responses.
Little association was found between the attitudes of the pre-service teachers
towards people with disabilities and inclusive education and the demographic vari-
ables of gender, age and educational qualifications. Similar to findings in some
studies (e.g. Forlin et al. 2009; Vanderfaeillie, De Fever, and Lombaerts 2003),
contact or exposure to people with disabilities appeared to encourage more positive
attitudes towards people with disabilities and the inclusion of students although in
the case of this study, it appeared to be only towards students with physical disabilities
or sensory impairment. An interesting finding that emerged from the study was the
positive relationship between pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards people with dis-
abilities and their attitudes towards inclusion, indicating that possibly with greater
understanding of people with disability came greater openness to the idea of inclusive
education.

Conclusion
These findings have definite implications for teacher educators and education auth-
orities in Singapore. With evidence from research indicating that the success of the inte-
gration of students with disabilities is highly dependent on teacher attitudes, there is a
need to address the ambivalent and negative attitudes of Singaporean pre-service tea-
chers towards disability and inclusion. The findings from this study and the existing
studies on the integration of students with disabilities in Singapore from the various
perspectives of students, pre-service teachers, teachers in service and principals (Eng
et al. 1982; Lim and Thaver 2008a; Quah et al. 1982; Rao, Lim, and Nam 2001;
Sharma, Ee, and Desai 2003; Sharma et al. 2006; Tam et al. 2006; West et al. 2004)
suggest the necessity of regular or mainstream pre-service teacher training in special
needs if pre-service teachers are to feel competent in catering to the needs of students
with disabilities and facilitating their social inclusion. Extant literature (e.g. Avramidis,
Bayliss, and Burden 2000; Bender, Vail, and Scott 1995; Forlin 2001; Van Reusen,
Shoho, and Barker 2001; Villa et al. 1996) further indicates that this training in
special needs could contribute to the formation of more positive attitudes towards
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1049

disability in mainstream teachers, which may, in turn, result in more favourable

attitudes to inclusive inclusion.
Given the broadening dimension of mainstream teachers’ professional responsibility
to an increasingly diverse population of students in mainstream settings in Singapore, it is
imperative that space be found in pre-service teacher education to not only to increase
pre-service teachers’ knowledge base of different disabilities and awareness of the ped-
agogies they can employ with these students, but also to actively engage them in con-
fronting their discomfort, misconceptions and attitudes about disability and inclusion.
Pre-service training should raise to their awareness how their beliefs can influence
their attitudes and the pedagogies they adopt in their classrooms with students with
disabilities, and their impact on students who require greater support (Bibou-Nakou,
Stogiannidou, and Kiosseoglou 1999; Soodak and Podell 1994).
This preparation might allay pre-service teachers’ fears to some extent, and increase
their feelings of confidence in working with their students with disabilities while also
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014

nurturing in them a disposition open, if not committed, to inclusion. Serious consider-

ation should also be given to ensuring that all mainstream teachers undergo professional
development in special needs, as the onus of catering to students with disabilities in
their classrooms will lie with them. With the increasing number of students with
various disabilities entering mainstream schools, it is likely that many mainstream
teachers will also increasingly encounter students with disabilities in their classrooms
and schools.
In the light of this trend and the National Institute of Education being the sole teach-
ing institute for all mainstream teachers in Singapore, teacher education plays a very
significant role in promoting more positive teacher attitudes towards including students
with disabilities within mainstream school environments across the whole country.
Such efforts will help Singapore realise its vision of becoming an inclusive society
in the future.

Notes on contributors
Thana Thaver is a Senior Lecturer in the Early Childhood and Special Needs Education Aca-
demic Group, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
Levan Lim is an Associate Professor and Head of the Early Childhood and Special Needs
Education Academic Group at the National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological
University, Singapore.

References
Alghazo, E.M., H. Dodeen, and I.A. Algaryouti. 2003. Attitudes of pre-service teachers towards
persons with disabilities: Predictors for the success of inclusion. College Student Journal 37,
no. 4: 515 – 22.
Avramidis, E., P. Bayliss, and R. Burden. 2000. Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion
of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school. Teaching and Teacher
Education 16, no. 2: 277 –93.
Avramidis, E., and E. Kalyva. 2007. The influence of teaching experience and professional
development on Greek teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. European Journal of Special
Needs Education 22, no. 4: 367– 89.
Avramidis, E., and B. Norwich. 2002. Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A
review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education 17, no. 2: 129 –47.
Beattie, J.R., R.J. Anderson, and R.F. Antonak. 1997. Modifying attitudes of prospective
educators towards students with disabilities and their integration into regular classrooms.
The Journal of Psychology 131, no. 3: 245 – 59.
Bender, W.N., C.O. Vail, and K. Scott. 1995. Teachers’ attitudes toward increased mainstream-
ing: Implementing effective instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities 28, no. 2: 8 –24.
 1050 T. Thaver and L. Lim

Bibou-Nakou, I., A. Stogiannidou, and G. Kiosseoglou. 1999. The relation between teacher
burnout and teachers’ attributions regarding school behaviour problems. School
Psychology International 20, no. 2: 209 –17.
Bradshaw, L., and L. Mundia. 2005. Understanding pre-service teachers’ construct of disability:
A metacognitive process. Disability and Society 20, no. 5: 563 –74.
Carroll, A., C. Forlin, and A. Jobling. 2003. The impact of teacher training in special education
on the attitudes of Australian preservice general educators towards people with disabilities.
Teacher Education Quarterly 30, no. 3: 65– 79.
Chan, S.S. 2005. Reply by Mr Chan Soo Sen, Minister of State, Ministry of Education on
resources in schools, special education, pre-school education and education hub, March
9. http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2005/sp20050309d.htm (accessed September
22, 2010).
Chong, S.K.S., C. Forlin, and M.L. Au. 2007. The influence of an inclusive education course on
attitude change of pre-service secondary teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Teacher Education 35, no. 2: 161– 79.
Eng, S.P., Wong, L., Chew, J., Lui, E., Chuah, T.C., and Teo, S.K. 1982. Principals’ and tea-
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014

chers’ views on teaching monolingual classes (Occasional Paper No. 9). Singapore: Institute
of Education.
Forlin, C. 2001. Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers. Educational
Research 43, no. 3: 235– 45.
Forlin, C., T. Loreman, U. Sharma, and C. Earle. 2009. Demographic differences in changing
pre-service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive education.
International Journal of Inclusive Education 13, no. 2: 195 –209.
Gitlow, L. 2001. Occupational therapy faculty attitudes towards the inclusion of students with
disabilities in their education programs. The Occupational Therapy Journal of Research 21,
no. 2: 115 – 31.
Hastings, R.P., and S. Oakford. 2003. Student teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of
children with special needs. Educational Psychology 23, no. 1: 87 – 94.
Heflin, L.J., and L.M. Bullock. 1999. Inclusion of students with emotional/behavioural
disorders: A survey of teachers in general and special education. Preventing School Failure
43, no. 3: 103–11.
Herbert, J.T. 2000. Therapeutic adventure staff attitudes and preferences for working with
persons with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 34, no. 3: 211 – 26.
Hogan, A., L. McLellan, and A. Bauman. 2000. Health promotion needs of young people with
disabilities: A population study. Disability and Rehabilitation 22, no. 8: 352– 57.
Holzbauer, J.J. 2004. Disability harassment of students in transition from school to work:
Implications for rehabilitation counseling. Journal of Rehabilitation Counseling 35, no. 4:
3– 7.
Holzbauer, J.J., and C.F. Conrad. 2010. A typology of disability harassment in secondary
schools. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals 33, no. 3: 143– 54.
Ibrahim, Z. 2004. Let us shape our future together. The Straits Times (Singapore), August 13,
Prime News section.
Johnson, H.L., and H.L. Fullwood. 2006. Disturbing behaviours in the secondary classroom:
How do general educators perceive problem behaviours? Journal of Instructional
Psychology 33, no. 1: 20 –39.
Junco, R., and D.W. Salter. 2004. Improving the campus climate for students with disabilities
through the use of online training. NASPA Journal 41, no. 2: 263– 76.
Koay, T.L. 2003. A study of the attitudes and perceptions of learning assistance and regular
teachers towards inclusive education. PhD diss. University of Queensland.
Lambe, J., and R. Bones. 2006. Student teachers’ perceptions about inclusive classroom teach-
ing in Northern Ireland prior to teaching practice experience. European Journal of Special
Needs Education 21, no. 2: 167– 86.
Lampropoulou, V., and S. Padeliadu. 1997. Teachers of the deaf as compared with other groups
of teachers: Attitudes toward people with disabilities and inclusion. American Annals of the
Deaf 142, no. 1: 21 –33.
Leyser, Y., G. Kapperman, and R. Keller. 1994. Teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming: A
cross-cultural study in six nations. European Journal of Special Needs Education 9, no.
1: 1 – 15.
Lim, L. 2004. Don’t call me PM, Mr Lee will do: Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong marked his
100th day in office yesterday. The Straits Times (Singapore). November 20. http://w3.nexis.
com.libproxy.nie.edu.sg/new/search/homesubmitForm.do (accessed September 27, 2010).
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 1051

Lim, L., and S.S. Nam. 2000. Special education in Singapore. Journal of Special Education 34,
no. 2: 104 – 409.
Lim, L., and J. Tan. 1999. The marketization of education in Singapore: Prospects for inclusive
education. International Journal of Inclusive Education 3, no. 4: 339 – 51.
Lim, L., and Thaver, T. 2008a. Coping with diverse abilities in mainstream schools. Technical
report. Singapore: National Institute of Education.
Lim, L., and T. Thaver. 2008b. Exploring disability in Singapore: A personal learning journey.
Singapore: McGraw Hill Education (Asia).
Marshall, J., V. Stojanovik, and S. Palmer. 2002. ‘I never even gave it a second thought’: PGCE
students’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with speech and language impairments.
International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 37, no. 4: 475 – 89.
Mathi, B. 1996. 20 schools have facilities for disabled. The Straits Times (Singapore). February 11.
http://w3.nexis.com.libproxy.nie.edu.sg/new/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=truea
ndrisb=21_T10108618444andformat=GNBFIandsort=BOOLEANandstartDocNo=1a
ndresultsUrlKey=29_T10108618447andcisb=22_T10108618446andtreeMax=trueandtree
Width=0andcsi=144965anddocNo=7 (accessed September 14, 2010).
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014

McDougall, J., D.J. DeWit, G. King, L.T. Miller, and S. Killip. 2004. High school-aged youths’
attitudes towards their peers with disabilities: The role of school and student interpersonal
factors. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education 51, no. 3:
287– 313.
Ministry of Education. 2005. Greater support for students with disabilities in selected schools in
2006. http://www.moe.gov.sg/press/2005/pr20050520 (accessed January 27, 2009).
Ministry of Education. 2008. Enhanced learning support programme has benefited pupils. January.
http://www.moe.gov.sg/press/2008/01/enhanced-learning-support-prog.php (accessed January
27, 2009).
Opdal, L.R., S. Wormnaes, and A. Habayeb. 2001. Teachers’ opinions about inclusion: A pilot
study in a Palestinian context. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education 48, no. 2: 143 –62.
Quah, M.L., Lui, E., Tan, E., and Yip, K. 1982. Interdisciplinary approach in helping school
pupils with learning problems (IE Research Monograph 2). Singapore: Institute of
Education.
Quah, M.M. 2004. Special education in Singapore. In Educating learners with diverse abilities,
ed. L. Lim and M.M. Quah, 29 – 61. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.
Rao, S. 2004. Faculty attitudes and students with disabilities in higher education: A literature
review. College Student Journal 38, no. 2: 191 –98.
Rao, S.M., L. Lim, and S.S. Nam. 2001. Beliefs and attitudes of pre-service teachers towards
teaching children with disabilities. In Challenges facing the Singapore education system
today, ed. J. Tan, S. Gopinathan and W.K. Ho, 189– 206. Singapore: Prentice-Hall.
Report of the Advisory Council on the Disabled. 1988. Opportunities for the disabled.
Singapore: Advisory Council on the Disabled.
Romi, S., and Y. Leyser. 2006. Exploring inclusion pre-service training needs: A study of vari-
ables associated with attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs. European Journal of Special Needs
Education 21, no. 1: 85 –105.
Scruggs, T.E., and M.A. Mastopieri. 1996. Teachers perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion,
1958 – 1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children 63, no. 1: 59 –74.
Shakespeare, T., and N. Watson. 1997. Defining the social model. Disability and Society 12, no.
2: 293 – 300.
Sharma, U., J. Ee, and I. Desai. 2003. A comparison of Australian and Singaporean preservice
teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive education. Teaching and Learning 24, no. 2:
207– 17.
Sharma, U., C. Forlin, T. Loreman, and C. Earle. 2006. Pre-service teachers’ attitudes, concerns
and sentiments about inclusive education: An international comparison of the novice pre-
service teachers. International Journal of Special Education 21, no. 2: 80– 93.
Sharma, U., D. Moore, and S. Sonawane. 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, no. 3: 319– 31.
Soodak, L.C., and D.M. Podell. 1994. Teachers’ thinking about difficult-to-teach students.
Journal of Educational Research 88, no. 1: 44– 51.
Soodak, L.C., D.M. Podell, and L.R. Lehman. 1998. Teacher, student and school attributes as
predictors of teachers’ responses to inclusion. Journal of Special Education 31, no. 4:
480– 97.
 1052 T. Thaver and L. Lim

Stoiber, K.C., M. Gettinger, and D. Goertz. 1998. Exploring factors influencing parents’ and
early childhood practitioners’ beliefs about inclusion. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly 13, no. 1: 107 –24.
Tait, K., and N. Purdie. 2000. Attitudes towards disability: Teacher education for inclusive
enviroments in an Australian university. International Journal of Disability, Development
and Education 47, no. 1: 25 –38.
Tam, K.Y.B., R. Seevers, R. Gardner III, and M.A. Heng. 2006. Primary school teachers’
concerns about the integration of students with special needs in Singapore. Teaching
Exceptional Children Plus 3, no. 2, Article 3. http://journals.cec.sped.org/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1259&context=tecplus (accessed May 23, 2012).
Teo, L. 2004. $220m school aid for disabled kids. The Straits Times (Singapore), September 19.
In the News section.
Tharp, R.G., and R. Gallimore. 1988. Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling
in the social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
The Straits Times. 2004. ‘So much more’ at new centre. September 19. In the News section.
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/scholastic/documm:e0n4tf?fdc5093f/0dcaa20a8bd7d02I79l8..&
Downloaded by [University of Sydney] at 05:46 31 August 2014

(accessed January 27, 2009).

The Straits Times. 2007. More teachers to be trained for special-needs kids. December 30. http://
w3.nexis.com.libproxy.nie.edu.sg/new/results/docview/docview.do?doc LinkInd¼trueand
risb¼21_T10204863646 andformat¼GNBFIandsort¼BOOLEANandstartDocNo¼1and
resultsUrlKey¼29_T1020 4863653andcisb¼22_T10204 863652andtreeMax¼trueand
treeWidth¼0andcsi¼144965anddocNo¼21 (accessed January 27, 2009).
Tregaskis, C. 2000. Interviewing non-disabled people about their disability-related attitudes:
Seeking methodologies. Disability and Society 15, no. 2: 343– 53.
Vanderfaeillie, J., F. De Fever, and K. Lombaerts. 2003. First year university students of edu-
cational sciences on inclusive education: Attitudes and convictions in Flanders. European
Journal of Teacher Education 26, no. 2: 265– 77.
Van Reusen, A.K., A.R. Shoho, and K.S. Barker. 2001. High school teacher attitudes toward
inclusion. High School Journal 84, no. 2: 7 – 20.
Villa, B.A., J.S. Thousand, H. Meyers, and A. Nevin. 1996. Teachers and administrator percep-
tions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children 63, no. 1: 29 – 45.
West, J., S. Houghton, M. Taylor, and K.L. Phua. 2004. The perspectives of Singapore
secondary school students with vision impairments towards their inclusion in mainstream
education. Australasian Journal of Special Education 28, no. 1: 18– 27.
Wilczenski, F.L. 1992. Measuring attitudes toward inclusive education. Psychology in the
Schools 29, no. 4: 306– 12.
Wilczenski, F.L. 1993. Changes in attitudes towards mainstreaming among undergraduate
education pre-service teachers. Education Research Quarterly 17, no. 1: 5– 17.
Yuker, H.E., and J.R. Block. 1986. Research with attitudes toward disabled persons scale
(ATDP) 1960 –1985. Hampstead, NY: Hofstra University Center for the Study of
Attitudes Toward Disabilities.