Early Childhood Education Journal (2021) 49:725–737

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01108-7

Early Childhood Educators’ Perceptions of Inclusion for Children

with Autism Spectrum Disorder
Sophia R. D’Agostino1   · Sarah N. Douglas2

Published online: 3 September 2020

© Springer Nature B.V. 2020

Abstract
Children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are being increasingly included in early childhood settings. As such early
childhood teachers need pre-service training to support their knowledge of ASD and preparation to implement evidence-
based practices. Mentor teachers and administrators of pre-service clinical sites play an important role in this pre-service
training. As such we conducted an explanatory sequential mixed method study to understand how pre-service early childhood
teachers’ knowledge of ASD, attitudes towards inclusion of children with ASD, perceptions of challenging behaviors, and
familiarity with intervention practices was influenced by the amount of coursework completed, number of field experiences,
and mentor teacher/administrator perspectives. The study included surveys and follow up interviews with a subset of survey
participants. Findings provide important insights into the pre-service preparation of early childhood teachers to support the
inclusion of children with ASD including the importance of mentor teachers’ and administrators’ attitudes towards inclusion,
the need to educate pre-service teachers about evidence-based practices, and provide clinical placements that are inclusive
of children with ASD. Limitations, practical implications, and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Keywords  Autism spectrum disorder · Pre-service teacher preparation · Inclusion

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a developmental dis-
ability that includes deficits in social communication and
interaction as well as the presence of restricted patterns of
behavior, interests, or activities (American Psychiatric Asso-
ciation 2013). Prevalence of ASD has risen with 1 in 59 chil-
dren identified (Baio et al. 2018). Young children with ASD
are often educated in inclusive preschool classrooms serving
children with and without disabilities in the same setting. In
fact, nearly 40% of preschool children with disabilities are
educated in inclusive preschool classrooms for some portion
of their school day (U.S. Department of Education 2018).
Pre-service early childhood teachers are likely to educate
children with ASD in their future classrooms, which may
be a challenge considering the expertise needed for chil-
dren with ASD to be successful (Eldar et al. 2010). Sev-
eral important teacher factors have been identified for the
successful inclusion of children with ASD including: (a)
knowledge of the disorder, (b) attitudes toward inclusion, (c)
perceptions of classroom behaviors, and (d) knowledge of
effective classroom practices (Segall and Campbell 2012).
The preparation provided by institutions of higher education
may influence these factors and impact inclusion quality.
Importance of Teacher Knowledge
and Attitudes

Teachers should have knowledge of ASD and use that

* Sophia R. D’Agostino
dagostino@hope.edu knowledge to determine individual educational needs (Jor-
dan 2005). Likewise, teachers should hold knowledge of
Sarah N. Douglas
sdouglas@msu.edu evidence-based practices related to ASD to support their
progress in inclusive classroom settings (Suhrheinrich et al.
1
Department of Education, Hope College, 100 East 8th St., 2014). Further, attitudes and beliefs impact the success of
Holland, MI 48824, USA inclusion (Horrocks et al. 2008). Positive experiences with
2
Human Development and Family Studies, Michigan State children with ASD are associated with positive attitudes
University, 1C Human Ecology, East Lansing, MI 48824, toward their inclusion (Praisner 2003). Teachers’ perceptions
USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

726
of the level of disruption caused by behaviors related to chil-
dren with ASD may impact successful inclusion (Segall and
Campbell 2012).
Pre-service teachers are highly influenced by those who
mentor and guide their classroom experiences (Stites et al.
2020). Administrators set the tone for the school’s inclu-
sion philosophy (Praisner 2003) and provide supervision and
modeling to in-service mentor teachers who are the direct
role models to pre-service teachers. Further, administrators
and mentor teachers are responsible for creating the inclu-
sive environment (i.e., attitudes, organizational aspects, col-
laboration) which has been shown to impact the success or
failure of inclusion (Eldar et al. 2010). To that end, the atti-
tudes and beliefs of administrators and teachers towards
the inclusion of young children with ASD impact not only
the success of the inclusion program but also may impact
the perspectives of the pre-service teachers (Horrocks et al.
2008; Praisner 2003).
Prior Research
Early childhood pre-service teachers’ views towards the
inclusion of children with ASD has been a topic of prior
research in several studies. Johnson and colleagues surveyed
pre-service teachers to examine teacher knowledge of ASD
(Johnson et al. 2012). Results indicated that knowledge of
ASD was lacking and was associated with the age, past expe-
rience, and the number of sources from which pre-service
teachers received ASD information. Sanz-Cervera et al.
(2017) also used a survey to compare pre-service general
and special education early childhood teachers’ knowledge,
misconceptions, and gaps related to ASD. Special educa-
tion focused teachers obtained more knowledge and fewer
misconceptions compared to early childhood general educa-
tion teachers. Also, teacher training and field experiences
influenced their knowledge and gaps of ASD suggesting
the importance of including field experiences with children
with ASD in inclusive early childhood settings. Barned and
colleagues used the Autism Inclusion Questionnaire (Segall
2011) to survey pre-service teachers and understand their
knowledge and attitudes regarding the inclusion of young
children with ASD (Barned et al. 2011). Pre-service teachers
held misconceptions and lacked knowledge of ASD but were
open to inclusion despite mixed attitudes about including
children with severe disabilities.
This study was conducted to extend the work of prior
research (Barned et al. 2011) and examined the variables
associated with successful inclusion of young children with
ASD. We compared knowledge of early childhood pre-
service teachers at three time points during their university
training and the perspectives of mentor teachers and admin-
istrators to pre-service teacher perspectives. We sought to
13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2021) 49:725–737
gain valuable insight from the perceptions of pre-service
teachers, mentor teachers, and administrators to evalu-
ate teacher education practices and answer the following
research questions: (a) What are pre-service early childhood
teachers’ level of ASD knowledge, attitudes toward inclusion
of children with ASD, perceptions of challenging classroom
behaviors, and awareness of classroom practices related to
ASD and how do these change during pre-service training?;
(b) Do knowledge of ASD, attitudes toward inclusion, per-
ceptions of challenging classroom behaviors, and awareness
of classroom practices differ among pre-service teachers,
mentor teachers, and administrators?; (c) What recommen-
dations are provided to improve teacher preparation related
to the inclusion of children with ASD?
Method
We conducted a mixed-methods sequential explanatory
design (Creswell and Creswell 2018) to gain an understand-
ing of how pre-service early childhood teachers’ level of
ASD knowledge, attitudes toward the inclusion of children
with ASD, perceptions of challenging classroom behaviors,
and familiarity with intervention practices are influenced by
the amount of coursework and field experiences completed,
and mentor teacher/administrator perspectives. Internal
review board approval was obtained prior to the start of the
study. Based on the research questions, priority was given
to quantitative data collection and analysis followed by a
smaller qualitative component (Ivankova et al. 2006). First,
quantitative survey data were collected, analyzed, and used
to develop the qualitative interview protocol. The second,
qualitative phase, built on the quantitative data and provided
new data regarding the recommendations of participants to
improve teacher preparation related to the inclusion of chil-
dren with ASD. Quantitative and qualitative data were then
compared and integrated during the interpretation of the out-
comes. This design allowed us to understand and explain the
statistical results by exploring the knowledge and views of
participants in more depth.
Participants
Pre‑service Teachers
Early childhood pre-service teachers studying at a mid-west
university lab school dedicated to inclusive practices and edu-
cating children with ASD were asked to complete the Autism
Inclusion Questionnaire (AIQ; Segall and Campbell 2012;
Segall 2011) at three time points during their program. A total
of 81 pre-service teachers completed the AIQ: 47 during their
first field placement, 25 during their second field placement,
and 9 during their final field placement. All 81 pre-service
Early Childhood Education Journal (2021) 49:725–737 727
teachers were female, with 74% reporting their race as white,
6% reporting African American, 5% reporting Asian, and 4%
reporting Hispanic. Pre-service teachers were at various stages
in their degree program, with 20% in their second year, 50%
in their third year, and 30% in their fourth year. In their first
field placement, 60% (n = 28) of pre-service teachers reported
having experiences with children with ASD. By contrast 84%
(n = 21) of pre-service teachers reported experiences with chil-
dren with ASD in their second placement, and 100% (n = 9)
by their third placement. Following completion of the AIQ
and during their final early childhood course, four pre-service
teachers participated in a follow-up interview to provide us
with further information regarding their pre-service prepara-
tion and recommendations for improvement.
Mentor Teachers
Six teachers who were employed by the university’s labora-
tory school and served as mentors to the pre-service teach-
ers during clinical experiences completed the AIQ. All 6
teachers were female, with 50% reporting their race/ethnic-
ity as white, 17% African American, 17% Euro-American
(one did not report their race/ethnicity). Teacher participants
included individuals aged 26–32 years (33%), 33–40 years
(17%), 51–60 years (33%). One participant did not provide
their age. All, but one of the teachers held a master’s degree.
The length of time in their current role as a teacher at the
university laboratory school varied by participant, with one
participant (17%) reporting less than one year, 50% reporting
1–5 years, and 33% reporting 11–15 years. The majority of
the teachers were not certified in special education (67%),
but all reported experience with children with ASD. Two
mentor teachers, one of whom also held an administrative
role, participated in a follow-up interview.
Administrators
Two administrators from the laboratory school also com-
pleted the AIQ. Both were white females and were certified
in special education and had experience with children with
ASD. One administrator was aged 30–40 and one was aged
41–60. One reported their length of time in the position as
1–5 years and one reported 6–10 years. One administrator
participant held a master’s degree and one held a doctoral
degree. Two administrators participated in a follow-up inter-
view, one of whom also held a mentor teacher role.
Procedures
Quantitative Data Collection and Analysis
The first phase of data collection was quantitative data col-
lection utilizing the AIQ. The AIQ is a commonly used and
well-established measure with strong psychometric sup-
port (Harrison et al. 2017). Content validity for the AIQ is
strong, with internal consistency of 0.86 (Segall 2011). The
AIQ contains six sections: (a) Demographic Information,
(b) Knowledge of Autism Spectrum Disorders, (c) Opin-
ions about Inclusive Education, (d) Classroom Behaviors,
(e) Classroom Practices, and (f) Future Research Participa-
tion. Forms were specific to each participant group to allow
different demographic questions (e.g., highest degree and
years of teaching or class standing and current placement
course) and variations to Classroom Practices section for
mentor teachers. The second section contained 14 true/false
statements to measure knowledge of ASD in three areas:
diagnosis/symptomatology, treatment, and etiology (see
Table 1). The third section utilized a five-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to
measure respondents’ opinions and attitudes toward inclu-
sion of children with ASD on 20 items (see Table 2). The
fourth section had respondents rate the level of disruption
within the classroom for 20 behaviors related to ASD (see
Table 3) on a scale from 1 (highly disruptive) to 5 (not at
all disruptive). Section five provided participants with a list
of 31 practices that may be used in an inclusive classroom
including 20 which are considered effective, 8 unclear or
emerging, and 3 ineffective (see Table 4). For each practice,
respondents indicated whether they believed the practice was
effective for the educational inclusion of a child with ASD.
Mentor teachers were also asked if they used the practice in
their classroom. Respondents were also provided with space
to elaborate on their selection. The final section of the AIQ
allowed participants to indicate willingness to participate
in a follow-up interview discussing inclusive education for
students with ASD.
An electronic version of the AIQ was created using
Google Forms. The authors contacted instructors for courses
affiliated with clinical placements and provided a recruit-
ment email to forward to pre-service teachers with a link
to the survey. A recruitment email was also sent to men-
tor teachers and administrators with a link to the survey.
Reminder emails were sent approximately two weeks later.
Survey completion was voluntary, and participants did not
receive compensation for survey completion. Pre-service
teachers (in their final clinical placement), mentor teachers,
and administrators who indicated a willingness to participate
in a follow-up interview were contacted. Interviews were
conducted by a trained research assistant and scheduled
based on participant preference. Interview participants were
compensated $15.
Survey data were analyzed using SPSS statistical pack-
age, version 25. Descriptive statistics were used to present
scores on individual items for each participant group. To
compare participant groups, total scores were created based
on Segall (2011). A Knowledge Total Score was calculated
13

728 Early Childhood Education Journal (2021) 49:725–737

Table 1  Knowledge of ASD items answered correctly

Item Pre-service Teacher placement Mentor Admin-
teachers istrators
First (n = 47) Second (n = 25) Final (n = 9) Totals (N = 81) (N = 6) (N = 2)

ASDs are developmental disorders (%) 70 81 89 75 100 50

ASDs exist only in childhood (%) 100 100 100 100 100 100
Children with ASDs are very similar to one another 96 88 100 94 100 100
(%)
Most children with ASDs have cognitive abilities in 48 58 77 53 77 50
the intellectually disabled range (%)
Most children with ASDs have special talents or abili- 15 17 22 20 33 100
ties (%)
The core deficits in ASDs are socialization, communi- 100 100 100 100 100 100
cation, and behavior (%)
Early intervention demonstrates no additional benefit 93 100 100 96 100 100
to children with ASD (%)
If an intervention works for one child with ASD, it 98 100 100 99 100 100
will
definitely work for another child with an ASD (%)
Medication can alleviate the core symptoms of ASDs 61 58 55 59 100 100
(%)
Behavior therapy is an intervention most likely to be 98 85 100 94 100 100
effective for children with ASDs (%)
With proper intervention, most children with an ASD 89 81 100 88 100 100
will eventually “outgrow” the disorder (%)
In many cases, the cause of ASDs is unknown (%) 83 88 89 86 100 100
Traumatic experience very early in life can cause an 87 73 67 80 100 100
ASD (%)
Genetic factors play an important role in the causes of 67 81 78 73 100 50
ASDs (%)
Mean correct score (%) 78 80 83 80 93 89

by summing the number of correct responses to the 14
knowledge items (see Table 1) and a Percent Correct Knowl-
edge Score was calculated by dividing the Knowledge Total
Score by 14 and multiplying by 100. Mean scores were cal-
culated for the Opinions about Inclusive Education section.
Seven items (see Table 2) comprised an Attitudes toward
ASD Inclusion Total Score, which could range from 7 to
35 with higher scores reflecting more positive attitudes.
Negatively worded items were reverse scored. A Disrup-
tive Behavior Total Score was calculated by summing the
20 items in the Classroom Behaviors section (see Table 3).
Total scores could range from 20 to 100 with lower scores
reflecting perceptions of listed classroom behaviors as more
disruptive. An Awareness of Practices Total Score was cal-
culated by summing the number of effective and emerg-
ing/unclear practices (see Table 4) for which participants
indicated would be effective for supporting inclusion of a
child with ASD. Total scores could range from 0 to 28. To
compare possible differences between pre-service clinical
placement groups, Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric analysis
of variance tests were used since one group was less than
10 (i.e., final placement group) and groups were uneven.
Mentor teacher and administrator groups were combined for
comparison to each of the three pre-service teacher’s place-
ment groups. An independent samples t-test was used to
test for group differences bootstrapping as well as a Bonfer-
roni correction was used to limit the possibility of getting a
statistically significant result since three tests were run per
total score.
Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis
Following the completion of quantitative data collection and
initial analysis, an interview protocol was created to guide
subsequent qualitative data collection through interviews.
Interviews were semi structured and included open-ended
questions to verify details on the participant’s survey (e.g.,
Can you verify your age and ethnicity/race?), understand
their perceptions related to the inclusion of young children
with ASD (e.g., Describe a successful inclusive setting for
a child with ASD; What benefits occur when children with
ASD are in inclusive settings?), and explore their pre-service
training/mentoring experiences (e.g., In what ways do you
feel your program has prepared you to work with children

13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2021) 49:725–737 729

­ SDa
Table 2  Attitudes and opinions towards inclusion of children with A
Item Pre-service Teacher placement Mentor Administrator (N = 2)
teacher
First (n = 47) Second (n = 25) Final (n = 9) Total (N = 81) (N = 6)

Children with an ASD should be integrated in 4.3 (0.75) 4.4 (0.58) 4.7 (0.71) 4.4 (0.69) 4.6 (0.52) 4.5 (0.71)
general education ­settingsb
Paraeducator support is an important factor in suc- 4.7 (0.56) 4.7 (0.56) 4.8 (0.44) 4.7 (0.54) 4.2 (0.75) 4.0 (1.4)
cessful inclusion of a child with ASD
The academic ability of the child is an important 3.6 (1.2) 3.1 (0.97) 2.9 (0.78) 3.4 (1.1) 2.7 (1.5) 3.0 (1.4)
factor in the successful inclusion of a child with
an ASD
The severity of disability is an important factor in 4.1 (0.86) 4.0 (0.71) 3.6 (1.0) 4.0 (0.84) 2.8 (1.2) 4.5 (0.71)
the successful inclusion of a child with ASD
The child’s personality is an important factor in the 3.4 (1.1) 3.5 (0.96) 3.0 (1.0) 3.4 (1.1) 2.8 (1.7) 4.0 (0.00)
successful inclusion of a child with ASD
All children with ASD should be educated in 3.7 (1.1) 3.4 (1.2) 3.8 (0.83) 3.6 (1.1) 3.0 (0.89) 3.0 (1.4)
inclusive settings
Children with special educational needs should be 4.3 (0.85) 4.1 (0.75) 4.7 (0.50) 4.3 (0.79) 4.5 (0.55) 4.0 (0.00)
educated in inclusive settings
One on one intervention is an important factor in 4.2 (0.74) 4.0 (0.61) 4.2 (0.83) 4.2 (0.71) 3.8 (0.98) 4.0 (1.4)
the successful inclusion of a child with ASD
Encouraging child with ASD to interact with typi- 4.4 (0.69) 4.5 (0.65) 4.9 (0.33) 4.5 (0.65) 4.8 (0.41) 5.0 (0.00)
cally developing peers is an important factor in
the successful inclusion of a child with ASD
Medication and drug therapy is an important factor 2.6 (1.1) 2.7 (0.69) 2.3 (0.71) 2.6 (0.93) 1.3 (0.52) 2.5 (0.71)
in the successful inclusion of a child with ASD
The attitude of the staff is an important factor in 4.8 (0.52) 4.6 (0.57) 4.9 (0.33) 4.7 (0.52) 4.8 (0.41) 5.0 (0.00)
the successful inclusion of a child with special
needs
Only teachers with extensive special education 2.4 (1.3) 2.5 (1.3) 1.9 (1.1) 2.4 (1.3) 1.8 (0.98) 1.5 (0.71)
experience can be expected to deal with children
with ASD in inclusive educational settings
Inclusive education enhances the learning experi- 4.2 (0.76) 4.4 (0.71) 4.6 (0.73) 4.3 (0.74) 4.2 (0.75) 4.5 (0.71)
ence of children with ­disabilitiesb
The severity of disability is an important factor 3.9 (0.91) 3.7 (0.61) 3.9 (0.78) 3.8 (0.81) 4.2 (0.75) 4.5 (0.71)
in the
successful inclusion of a child with special needs
Children with severe autism are too impaired to 2.2 (1.1) 1.9 (0.73) 1.6 (0.73) 2.0 (0.95) 1.8 (0.75) 2.0 (0.00)
benefit from the activities of a regular educa-
tional ­settingsb
A good early childhood teacher can do a lot to help 4.2 (0.82) 4.4 (0.76) 4.4 (0.73) 4.3 (0.78) 4.3 (0.52) 4.5 (0.71)
a child with ­ASDb
No discretionary financial resources should be allo- 2.4 (1.1) 1.8 (1.0) 2.6 (1.6) 2.2 (1.2) 1.5 (0.55) 1.5 (0.71)
­ SDb
cated for the inclusion of children with A
Children without disabilities can benefit from 4.6 (0.68) 4.8 (0.41) 5.0 (0.00) 4.7 (0.58) 4.8 (0.41) 5.0 (0.00)
contact with children with ­ASDb
Special educational settings specifically designed 3.2 (0.99) 3.1 (1.0) 2.7 (1.0) 3.2 (1.0) 2.7 (1.2) 1.5 (0.71)
for their needs are the most appropriate place-
ment for children with ASD
It is important for children with ASD to receive 3.9 (0.82) 4.0 (0.61) 4.2 (0.83) 4.0 (0.76) 4.5 (0.55) 3.5 (0.71)
special education services at ­schoolb

a
 Data are presented as mean (standard deviation); Likert Score 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)
b
 Item coded for attitude score

with ASD in inclusive settings?; Are there any adjustments
you think should be made to the program to better support
pre-service teachers?). Interviews took an average of 16 min
(range 9–19 min), were conducted via secure video confer-
ence (i.e., Zoom), and were recorded and transcribed for
later analysis.
Qualitative interviews were analyzed using a constant
comparative approach (Fram 2013). The first and the sec-
ond author read through and familiarized themselves with
the data and developed a draft of potential themes. Themes
were then compared and a sample code book was created.
Then, each author conducted an independent analysis of a

13

730 Early Childhood Education Journal (2021) 49:725–737

Table 3  Ratings of disruptive classroom ­behaviorsa

Classroom behavior Pre-service Teacher placement Mentor Admins (N = 2)
teacher
First (n = 47) Second (n = 25) Final (n = 9) Total (N = 81) (N = 6)

Aggression 1.9 (1.1) 1.7 (0.72) 1.6 (0.73) 1.8 (0.93) 1.8 (0.75) 1.0 (0.00)
Aloofness 3.0 (0.81) 2.8 (0.75) 3.1 (0.93) 3.0 (0.80) 3.3 (1.5) 4.0 (1.4)
Difficulty in reciprocal conversation 3.2 (0.98) 2.9 (0.91) 3.4 (0.53) 3.2 (0.93) 3.5 (1.0) 3.5 (0.71)
Eye contact avoidance 3.7 (1.1) 3.9 (1.1) 4.3 (0.71) 3.8 (1.1) 4.3 (0.52) 4.5 (0.71)
Fear of harmless objects 3.1 (0.96) 2.6 (1.0) 2.6 (1.1) 2.9 (1.0) 3.8 (0.41) 2.5 (0.71)
High levels of activity 2.6 (0.74) 2.4 (1.0) 2.8 (0.97) 2.5 (0.87) 2.3 (0.52) 2.5 (2.1)
Inappropriate emotions 2.3 (0.98) 2.3 (0.80) 2.3 (1.0) 2.3 (0.92) 2.8 (0.75) 2.0 (0.00)
Lack of peer relations 3.4 (1.1) 3.5 (0.87) 3.7 (0.50) 3.4 (0.97) 3.8 (0.75) 3.5 (0.71)
Non-compliance to teacher authority 1.8 (0.74) 1.9 (1.1) 1.9 (0.60) 1.8 (0.83) 2.3 (0.82) 1.5 (0.71)
Off-task behavior 2.1 (0.92) 2.2 (0.94) 2.6 (1.3) 2.2 (0.98) 3.0 (1.1) 3.0 (1.4)
Poor peer relations 3.0 (1.1) 2.9 (1.2) 3.2 (0.83) 3.0 (1.1) 4.2 (0.75) 3.0 (0.00)
Preoccupation with particular object/toy 3.0 (1.1) 2.9 (1.0) 3.6 (0.73) 3.0 (1.0) 3.2 (0.98) 3.5 (2.1)
Problems with non-verbal behavior 2.9 (0.91) 2.8 (0.87) 3.4 (0.53) 2.9 (0.88) 3.7 (1.0) 2.5 (0.71)
Preoccupation with objects/people 2.9 (1.1) 2.2 (0.96) 2.3 (0.87) 2.7 (1.1) 3.0 (0.89) 2.0 (0.00)
Repetitive, bizarre, or echolalic speech 2.6 (1.0) 2.5 (0.92) 2.8 (0.83) 2.6 (0.97) 3.8 (0.98) 2.5 (0.71)
Resistance to changes in the schedule 2.0 (0.93) 2.6 (1.0) 2.7 (0.87) 2.3 (0.99) 3.0 (0.89) 1.5 (0.71)
Rudeness in making requests 2.5 (1.0) 2.9 (0.99) 3.3 (0.71) 2.7 (1.0) 3.7 (1.2) 2.5 (0.71)
Screaming, crying, or tantrum 1.5 (0.72) 1.7 (1.0) 1.7 (0.71) 1.6 (0.82) 2.3 (1.0) 1.0 (0.00)
Sensitivity to sounds 3.0 (0.90) 3.1 (1.0) 2.8 (0.83) 3.0 (0.93) 3.5 (0.55) 2.5 (0.71)
Strange or unusual body movements 3.0 (1.0) 3.0 (1.0) 3.7 (0.50) 3.0 (0.99) 3.7 (0.52) 3.5 (2.1)
a
 Data are presented as mean (standard deviation); Likert Score 1 (highly disruptive) to 5 (not at all disruptive)

data using the established themes. Results were compared
and discussed until agreement was reached. Themes were
adjusted as necessary during this process to accurately cap-
ture the data. During coding, authors identified and agreed
upon illustrative quotes for themes (see Table 5).
Results
Quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis
results revealed findings related to knowledge of ASD, atti-
tudes and opinions towards the inclusion of children with
ASD, perceptions of behaviors, and awareness of prac-
tices representing each participant group, and comparisons
between groups. Recommendations from participant inter-
views are also presented to support quantitative data.
Knowledge of ASD
Percent Correct Knowledge Scores and percentage of correct
responses to the knowledge items are displayed in Table 1 by
participant group. Overall, pre-service teachers’ knowledge
scores increased as they progressed through the program,
yet a Kruskal–Wallis test showed that there was no signifi-
cant difference between pre-service teacher placement group
Knowledge Total Scores 𝜒 2(2) = 1.888, p = 0.389. Overall,
pre-service teacher Knowledge Total Scores were lower
than mentor teacher and administrator scores. Pre-service
teachers in their first placement (M = 12.88, SD = 0.83) had
significantly lower scores than mentor teachers and admin-
istrator scores combined t(53) = 3.29, p < 0.0167, d = 1.51.
Similarly, pre-service teachers in their second placement
(M = 11.08, SD = 1.15) had significantly lower scores than
mentor teachers and administrators combined t(31) = 4.06,
p < 0.0167, d = 1.78. The third placement pre-service teach-
ers’ scores were lower than mentor and administrators’, yet
they obtained higher levels of knowledge scores (M = 11.67,
SD = 1.00) compared to first and second placement pre-
service teachers and there was no significant difference in
comparison to combined mentor teacher and administrator
Knowledge Total Scores t(15) = 2.68, p = 0.017. Conceptions
and misconceptions for individual items (see Table 1) inte-
grated with qualitative data are presented for knowledge of
ASD in three areas: symptoms and diagnosis, treatment and
intervention, and etiology.
Symptoms and Diagnosis
The majority of pre-service teachers correctly indicated that
ASD is a developmental disorder (75%) and children with

13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2021) 49:725–737 731

Table 4  Ratings of Effective, Unclear/Emerging, and Ineffective Practices

Classroom practice Pre-service Teacher placement Mentor teachers Admins (N = 2)
(N = 6)
First (n = 47) Second (n = 25) Final (n = 9) Totals (N = 81) Awareness Use

Effective practices
 Applied behavior analysis 91% 85% 89% 89% 100% 67% 100%
 Assistive technology 96% 96% 100% 96% 100% 33% 100%
 Augmentative and alternative Communi- 78% 77% 89% 79% 100% – 50%
cation
 Behavior contract 70% 81% 67% 70% 67% 17% 50%
 Choice making (ABI) 91% 96% 100% 94% 100% 33% 50%
 Discrete trial training 59% 62% 67% 60% 83% – 0%
 Edible reinforcement 54% 46% 78% 54% 83% 17% 50%
 Functional behaviour assessment 89% 81% 89% 86% 100% 50% 50%
 Incidental teaching 59% 69% 89% 65% 100% 50% 50%
 List schedule changes within the class- 98% 96% 100% 98% 100% 67% 50%
room (ABI)
 Peer-mediated instruction 91% 92% 100% 93% 100% 83% 50%
 Picture exchange communication system 85% 69% 78% 79% 100% 17% 50%
 Pivotal response training 59% 65% 78% 63% 100% 17% 0%
 Priming (ABI) 76% 69% 78% 74% 100% – 50%
 Prompting techniques 85% 85% 89% 85% 100% 83% 0%
 Scripting 67% 81% 100% 75% 100% 83% 100%
 Social narratives 76% 77% 89% 78% 100% 83% 50%
 Social skills training 89% 96% 89% 91% 100% 83% 100%
 Token economies 61% 50% 67% 58% 83% – 100%
 Verbal reinforcement/praise 89% 92% 100% 91% 100% 100% 100%
Unclear/emerging practices
 Art therapy 98% 96% 100% 98% 83% – 100%
 Educating typically developing children 91% 96% 100% 94% 100% 17% 100%
on ASD
 Play-oriented strategies 85% 93% 100% 89% 100% 100% 50%
 Preferential seating 89% 81% 78% 85% 100% 50% 0%
 Providing child “home base” 96% 96% 100% 96% 100% 33% 0%
 List teacher expectations for in-class 91% 100% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100%
behavior
 Relationship development intervention 80% 81% 89% 81% 83% 17% 50%
 Structured teaching (TEACCH method) 78% 65% 56% 72% 83% – 50%
Ineffective practices
 Facilitated communication 89% 81% 78% 85% 83% 33% 50%
 Floor time 80% 92% 78% 84% 100% 33% 0%
 Sensory integration 89% 85% 100% 89% 100% 83% 50%

Evidence was determined by consulting recent reports and literature reviews (i.e., National Autism Center 2009, 2015, Schlosser and Wendt
2008; Wong et al. 2015)
ABI Antecedent based interventions

ASD are unique from one another (94%). Mentor teachers
and administrators also correctly identified that children
with ASD are unique from one another. One administrator
stated: “Just like people, there’s no child with ASD that’s
the same.” Mentor teachers correctly indicated that ASD is
a developmental disorder while one administrator responded
inaccurately. All pre-service teachers, mentor teachers, and
administrators agreed that ASD does not exist only in child-
hood and the core deficits of ASD included social under-
standing, language difficulties, and sensory impairments.
Furthermore, in the interviews, all of the pre-service teach-
ers, mentor teachers, and administrators correctly noted

13

732 Early Childhood Education Journal (2021) 49:725–737

Table 5  Qualitative themes and sample quotations

Qualitative theme Sample quotation

Experiences with children with ASD
Knowledge of ASD
Attitudes towards inclusion
Perceptions of classroom behavior
Awareness of classroom practices
Participant suggestions for program
improvement
“My experiences with children with ASD, I would say, have been fairly limited.” (pre-service teacher)
“Just like people—there’s no child with ASD that’s the same. There’s lots of similarities between what
they need, but what I found was that they were just very different people.” (administrator)
“Having the one on one and having someone to be able to support that child in that moment is really,
really important. Especially if their needs are really great, so if a program doesn’t have that I think
that would be really hard.” (mentor teacher)
“I think the biggest thing in terms of teachers especially [is] having some kind of behavior plan.” (Pre-
service teacher)
“Using food and tokens can be useful for some children with ASD, but I don’t think it should be gener-
alized to all children with ASD.” (administrator)
“I think there should be more conversations of like, ‘this is when the children come in, this is why, here
are best practices to interact with them.’” (pre-service teacher)

the core deficits of ASD in their own words and noted that
ASD is a spectrum. In the interview one pre-service teacher
stated: “It’s a spectrum disorder because it’s a broad range
of abilities… ASD includes difficulties with social interac-
tion or reading social cues…there is also an issue with com-
munication.” Despite their general knowledge, pre-service
teachers had misconceptions about children with ASD hav-
ing special abilities. The majority of mentor teachers also
held this misconception (67%), although administrators did
not. Similar to some mentor teachers (33%) and administra-
tors (50%), pre-service teachers in their first placement also
believed that most children with ASD have cognitive dis-
abilities –but this misconception decreased over time.
Treatment and Intervention
The majority of pre-service teachers in their first and sec-
ond placement and 100% in their final placement indicated
correctly that behavior therapy is an effective intervention
for children with ASD, that children will not outgrow ASD
with proper intervention, and that early intervention benefits
children with ASD (see Table 1). All of the mentor teach-
ers and administrators also correctly identified these items.
Furthermore, pre-service teachers at each placement level
as well as mentor teachers and administrators correctly indi-
cated that an intervention that works for one child will not
necessarily work for another. By their final placement nearly
half of pre-service teachers (45%) believed medication could
alleviate the core symptoms of ASD, a misconception that
increased over time compared to 39% in the first placement,
42% in second placement. No teachers or administrators held
this belief.
Etiology
Mentor teachers, administrators, and the majority of pre-ser-
vice teachers (86%) correctly indicated the cause of ASD is
unknown. The majority of pre-service teachers believed that
early trauma is not a cause of ASD, yet pre-service teachers
who believed trauma caused ASD increased from their first
(13%) to final placement (33%). This misconception was not
shared with mentor teachers or administrators. The majority
of pre-service teachers (73%) and mentor teachers (100%)
acknowledged the role of genetics in ASD, but administra-
tors were split (50% agreeing, 50% disagreeing).
Attitudes Toward Inclusion of Children with ASD
In general, attitudes of pre-service teachers, mentor teach-
ers, and administrators were favorable toward inclusion
with Attitudes toward ASD Inclusion Total Scores rang-
ing from 28.8 to 31.0 out of a possible total score of 35.0.
Overall, pre-service teacher’s Attitudes toward ASD Inclu-
sion Total Scores increased as they progressed through the
program (i.e., became more positive towards inclusion of
children with ASD), yet a Kruskal–Wallis test showed that
there was not a statistically significant difference between
pre-service teacher placement group scores 𝜒 2(2) = 5.471,
p = 0.065. Similarly, no significant difference was found
between combined mentor teacher and administrators
group (M = 31.00, SD = 2.51) compared to first placement
(M = 28.77, SD = 3.24) t(53) = 1.85, p = 0.069, second place-
ment (M = 30.32, SD = 2.91) t(31) = 0.593, p = 0.558, nor
third placement pre-service teacher’s Attitudes toward ASD
Inclusion Total Scores (M = 30.78, SD = 2.59) t(15) = 0.179,
p = 0.860.
Responses to survey items related to attitudes toward
inclusion of children with ASD are displayed in Table 2.
All participant groups agreed that children with ASD and
special needs should be included and that children with and
without disabilities can benefit from inclusion. Interviews
revealed benefits of inclusion for children with ASD and
children without disabilities. “An inclusive environment in
general is best because there’s a lot that can be learned from

13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2021) 49:725–737 733
typically developing children…and vice versa…There’s a
lot of shared skills that can happen between those children”
(Pre-service teacher). All participant groups agreed that it is
important for children with ASD to receive special education
services at school. Interviews provided additional insight
and revealed that pre-service teachers felt that children with
ASD should not be isolated and should spend more time
in inclusive settings. “I don’t really see how it could ever
be negative to have an entirely inclusive classroom” (Pre-
service teacher). Pre-service teachers, mentor teachers, and
administrators agreed that good early childhood teachers can
do a lot to help a child with ASD and all participants agreed
that discretionary financial resources should be allocated to
support the inclusion of children with ASD. One pre-service
teacher emphasized in her interview: “I think that an ineffec-
tive program would probably not be given any resources.”
Opinions Toward Inclusion of Children with ASD
Responses to opinions towards inclusion of children with
ASD are displayed in Table 2. All pre-service teachers and
mentor teachers held the opinion that the attitude of staff is
an important factor of successful inclusion with adminis-
trators in strong agreement. Opinions regarding the sever-
ity of disability and personality of the child with ASD had
more varied responses. As pre-service teachers progressed
through the program, opinions changed that severity and
personality were important factors and were more in line
with administrator beliefs, yet mentor teachers were neutral
on both topics. Participants were more neutral in their belief
that academic ability is an important factor in successful
inclusion, and this belief waned among pre-service teachers
as they progressed through the program to levels closer to
mentor teachers and administrators. Pre-service teachers and
mentor teachers were generally neutral in the belief that set-
tings should be specially designed for the needs of children
with ASD. However, administrators largely disagreed with
the use of specially designed settings for children with ASD.
All participants disagreed that only teachers with extensive
special education experience can be expected to work with
children with ASD in inclusive educational settings with
administrators disagreeing at a stronger level.
Furthermore, all participant groups held the opinion
that paraeducator support and one-on-one intervention are
important factors in successful inclusion of a child with
ASD. In interviews, participants indicated the importance
of adult supports for successful inclusion, yet only two
specified that the adult should be specific for the child with
ASD. However, one interviewee noted that one-on-one adult
support might contribute to an unsuccessful inclusive class-
room. “If that paraeducator acts as a barrier between her or
himself and the other children so it doesn’t facilitate peer to
peer interactions, that would be an unsuccessful classroom.”
During interviews, participants discussed their opinions
on the importance of involving children’s families, yet items
related to family involvement were not included in the AIQ.
Interviewees (43%, n = 3) commented that having resources
for families was important and the majority of participants
(86%, n = 6) specifically mentioned that communication with
families was important for successful inclusion. One pre-
service teacher stated: “I think ideally being able to partner
with the parents is the most important thing and having an
open line of communication with them is probably what is
going to be the most helpful.” Communication and team
cohesion of all of the child’s educators was also identified as
an important factor for successful inclusion. One participant
stated: “I think making sure that everyone is on the same
page and engaged and knowing how to best support that
child [is important].” Another said: “I think that it shouldn’t
just be the teacher’s responsibility to provide inclusiveness
in the classroom, I think that other people, other roles in the
school should also help with that too.”
Perceptions of Classroom Behaviors
Participants rated the level of disruptiveness of common
classroom behaviors seen among children with ASD (see
Table 3). Overall, ratings of disruptiveness were similar for
pre-service teachers across each placement and based on
a Kruskal–Wallis test, Disruptive Behavior Total Scores
were not statistically significant between pre-service
teacher placement groups 𝜒 2(2) = 1.661, p = 0.436. Mentor
teacher and administrator Disruptive Behavior Total Scores
were higher (i.e., behaviors viewed as less disruptive) than
pre-service teacher group scores. Yet. compared to com-
bined mentor teacher and administrator scores (M = 62.00,
SD = 11.45), no significant difference was found between
Disruptive Behavior Total Scores of first placement pre-
service teachers (M = 53.61, SD = 1.17) t(15) = 0.180,
p = 0.86, second placement pre-service teachers (M = 52.76,
SD = 11.97) t(31) = 1.92, p = 0.064, nor third placement
pre-service teachers (M = 57.67, SD = 7.79) t(15) = 0.922,
p = 0.371.
Table 3 displays ratings of disruptive classroom behaviors
by participant group. Eye contact avoidance was the behav-
ior considered least disruptive to all participant groups. Con-
versely, all participant groups rated aggression and scream-
ing, crying, or tantrums in the highly disruptive to disruptive
range. Similarly, noncompliance to teacher authority and
high levels of activity were rated disruptive to all partici-
pant groups. Overall, ratings from mentor teachers and
administrators reflected more tolerance for preoccupation
with object or toy and strange and unusual body movements
compared to pre-service teachers. Although behaviors were
viewed as disruptive in survey ratings, in interviews only
one participant mentioned implementing behavior supports
13

734
to ensure successful inclusion, stating: “I think the biggest
thing in terms of teachers especially [is] having some kind
of behavior plan.”
Behaviors related to language skills (i.e., nonverbal
behaviors and repetitive and echolalic speech) were viewed
as disruptive to all participant groups. Further, all partici-
pants recognized communication as a core deficit of ASD in
the AIQ and interviews, yet within interviews no pre-service
teachers and only one administrator and one mentor teacher/
administrator mentioned the importance of language and
communication supports. One participant stated: “[teach-
ers should know] that children with ASD might need more
visual prompts and fewer words.” Another stated: “Visual
communication supports have helped support children to
be successful.” Although participant groups noted lack of/
poor peer relations as less disruptive on the AIQ, interviews
revealed that pre-service participants and administrators
expected to have to support peer relations. One pre-service
teacher stated: “Knowing how to facilitate their interac-
tions and knowing which children are going to be the ones
who want to be the leaders and who want to really develop
that friendship and that relationship is really, really impor-
tant.” An administrator stated: “[adults should] really help
them with those social skills that they need.” Furthermore,
interviewed pre-service teachers emphasized that behaviors
should be explained to peers.
One interview participant connected challenging behav-
iors with teacher responsibility: “Understanding that the
behaviors that come out of autism the child doesn’t really
have control over…you’re always anticipating what the child
needs because autism will always win.” A specific example
was given, “If there’s a change in the schedule and you didn’t
prepare the child ahead of time and the child acts out, it’s
not the child’s fault, it’s the teacher’s fault for not preparing
the child.” Although resistance to change in the schedule
was described as a teacher responsibility, this behavior was
rated disruptive by pre-service teachers, somewhat disrup-
tive by mentor teachers, and highly disruptive to disruptive
by administrators (see Table 3).
Awareness of Classroom Practices
Participants were asked to rate their awareness of the effec-
tiveness of various classroom practices associated with ASD
(see Table 4). Overall, the majority of participants in each
group indicated awareness of effective and unclear/emerg-
ing practices with similar Awareness of Practices Total
Scores ranging from 22.2 to 24.6 out of 28. The Awareness
of Practices Total Score for the third pre-service teacher
placement group was higher than that of the first and second
pre-service teacher placement groups, yet a Kruskal–Wal-
lis test showed no significance difference between pre-ser-
vice teacher placement group Awareness of Practices Total
13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2021) 49:725–737
Scores 𝜒 2(2) = 0.923, p = 0.630. Similarly, when pre-service
teacher group scores were compared to combined mentor
teacher and administrator scores (M = 23.88, SD = 6.29), no
significant difference was found between the first placement
group (M = 22.17, SD = 6.16) t(53) = 0.733, p = 0.474, sec-
ond placement pre-service teacher (M = 22.60, SD = 5.84)
t(31) = 0.528, p = 0.601, nor the third placement pre-ser-
vice teacher group (M = 24.56, SD = 4.39) t(15) = -0.261,
p = 0.797.
Pre-service teachers believed in the effectiveness of many
common evidence-based practices (e.g., applied behavior
analysis, assistive technology, functional behavior assess-
ment), but were less aware of the effectiveness of other
evidence-based practices (i.e., augmentative and alterna-
tive communication, discrete trial training). The majority
of mentor teachers acknowledged awareness of listed effec-
tive practices with the exception of behavior contract. Also,
the majority of pre-service and mentor teacher participant
groups believed emerging/unclear practices as well as inef-
fective practices were effective for children with ASD.
Additionally, mentor teachers reported use of each prac-
tice (see Table 4) with the majority reporting use of only
seven of the 20 listed effective practices and all of the listed
unclear/emerging practices. Mentor teachers also reported
use of all three ineffective practices with 83% (n = 5) report-
ing use of sensory integration. Open ended comments in
the survey provided some insights. A mentor teacher wrote:
“effectiveness may vary from child to child and the ability
to implement.” Similarly, an administrator wrote: “Using
food and tokens can be useful for some children with ASD,
but I don’t think it should be generalized to all children with
ASD.” Others noted their lack of knowledge about some
practices. A mentor teacher wrote: “I had to look up many
of the strategies” and a pre-service teacher wrote: “Some
strategies I didn’t recognize the name of.” This information
aligns with interview results. Only one interviewee stated
an evidence-based practice by name. During interviews, one
pre-service teacher, one mentor teacher, and one adminis-
trator specifically discussed the need for more explanation
of evidence-based practices within courses and clinical
placements.
Participant Suggestions for Program Improvement
Suggestions for improving the program in regard to preparing
teachers to include children with ASD were provided during
interviews. The existing course structure in the program offers
placements in classrooms with children birth through five
supported by funding and services from a variety of sources
(i.e., tuition, state funded, nationally funded, Medicaid). Six
of the twelve classrooms are considered inclusive and serve
children with and without disabilities ages three through five.
As such, in interviews pre-service teachers identified different
Early Childhood Education Journal (2021) 49:725–737 735
experiences depending on clinical placements and timings
of placements within the program. One pre-service teacher
stated: “So my only experience with the [inclusion] program
was in [the first placement]. And obviously you have a lot less
responsibilities.” Another student described how their final
placement was in an inclusive classroom and how “it was
really eye opening.” An administrator indicated that they were
“highly doubtful” that pre-service teachers in their first and
second placements “would integrate anything into their prac-
tice moving forward” and noted that experiences and outcomes
may differ for pre-service teachers in an inclusive classroom
for their final placement. Although students’ placements var-
ied, they had the same coursework, yet one pre-service teacher
identified gaps in coursework. “[ASD is] not talked about in
the coursework…they mainly only talk about inclusion.”
Another stated: “I think [ASD is] kind of overlooked, unless
you’re in that classroom and your head teacher brings it up to
you, or you ask about it.” A pre-service teacher stated: “I really
wish that I had a better understanding and more experience
[including children with ASD].” A mentor teacher commented
on the need for more specific training and wished there was a
class to address specific inclusion practices, yet also indicated:
“I think their schedules are just so packed.” Both administra-
tors also commented on the need for coursework specific to
inclusion and children with ASD, but cited time as a barrier.
Interviewees acknowledged that teachers will have chil-
dren with ASD included in their early childhood classrooms.
One pre-service teacher stated: “I know I’m bound to have
a student who has autism in my class.” A mentor teacher
stated: “There are more and more children who are being
labeled as being on the autism spectrum…I think there’s
more to be done to just get [pre-service teachers] prepared
because it’s just going to be something they see more.” All
of the interviewees acknowledged that more could be done to
prepare pre-service teachers to include children with ASD,
yet over half of the interviewees (n = 4) acknowledged that
the program did prepare pre-service teachers to include chil-
dren with disabilities. Specifically, one pre-service teacher
said: “So I think as a whole the program has helped me to
develop better practice for being able to be inclusive and
take all individual needs into consideration.” An adminis-
trator stated: “I think we give a really great foundation.”
Another stated: “So the experience that our teachers walk
away with is all children should be included in your class-
room and it’s possible.”
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to build on existing research
by further exploring pre-service early childhood teachers’
(a) knowledge of ASD, (b) opinions and attitudes toward
inclusion, (c) perceptions of classroom behaviors, and (d)
awareness of classroom practices and how these factors
change over time as well as how they compare to the per-
ceptions of mentor teachers and administrators. Based on
the findings of this study, below are recommendations on
how programs can improve teacher preparation related to
the inclusion of children with ASD.
Findings indicated that by their final placement, pre-ser-
vice teachers were knowledgeable about ASD and scores
aligned to mentor teacher and administrator groups with
the exception of a few lasting misconceptions (see Table 1),
which coincides with Sanz-Cervera et al. (2017) suggesting
that even a limited amount of professional experience can
increase a participant’s knowledge of ASD. Participant inter-
view findings were consistent with survey data supporting
pre-service teachers’ high level of accurate knowledge of
ASD by the end of their placement in line with mentor teach-
ers and administrators. This finding highlights the program’s
deliberate focus on ensuring pre-service teachers exit the
program with sufficient knowledge of ASD. Early childhood
teacher preparation coursework should include knowledge
and characteristics of ASD.
Pre-service teachers held positive attitudes toward the
inclusion of children with ASD, which remained constant
over their time in the program. Additionally, positive atti-
tudes were consistent with the views of mentor teachers and
administrators. This finding is valuable as previous research
(Barton and Smith 2015) has identified attitudes and beliefs
as the number one barrier to high-quality inclusion for young
children with disabilities. Interview data also revealed posi-
tive attitudes toward inclusion for all participants. Unlike
previous findings (Barned et al. 2011), pre-service partici-
pants, as well as their mentor teachers and administrators,
held a positive view toward including children with more
severe disabilities. This divergent finding may be due to the
inclusive classroom experiences of pre-service teachers in
this study compared to those in other studies. Careful con-
sideration should be taken when choosing placements so that
pre-service teachers experience inclusion of children with
ASD in positive ways.
Within this study we discovered that most challenges
related to attitudes and opinions stemmed from a lack of
communication and collaboration. All interviewees indi-
cated the importance of communication and collaboration
between teachers, service providers, and families. This
understanding might reflect the program’s weekly teacher
meetings, where educational teams gather to discuss inclu-
sive programming. Teacher preparation programs should
ensure pre-service teachers experience collaboration with
mentor teachers and service providers to prepare them for
effective communication and collaboration in inclusive
settings.
Despite positive attitudes toward inclusion, pre-service
teachers held concerns related to child behaviors, which
13

736
aligns with previous studies (Barned et al. 2011). Although
perceived disruptiveness decreased over time, all 20 behav-
iors were rated at a disruptive level at the time of pre-service
teachers’ final placement, which was commensurate with
mentor teacher and administrator ratings. These findings
may relate to respondents’ misconceptions of some effec-
tive practices, interviewee comments related to the desire of
pre-service teachers to learn more about effective classroom
practices, and mentor teacher and administrator awareness
of the need to explain behavioral practices. We echo Stites
et al. (2020) recommendation for course-work and experi-
ence focused on evidence-based practices to give teachers
the confidence and skills to handle difficult or disruptive
behaviors and meet the needs of included children. Further,
the same pattern was identified with language and commu-
nication supports; although participants were aware of these
needs, within the current study, only one administrator and
one mentor teacher/administrator discussed the importance
of language and communication supports for children with
ASD during interviews. Since evidence-based language and
communication supports are an integral component to most
individualized educational plans for children with ASD, it
would be expected that mentors highlight their importance
and use in the classroom. Yet, the low number of mentor
teachers’ reported utilization of evidence-based practices
based on the AIQ reveals a lack of use and modeling of
effective evidence-based practices, which may greatly
impact pre-service teacher preparation. These findings
highlight the importance of selecting quality mentor teach-
ers. Mentor teachers and service providers in the classroom
should model the use of behavior and language and com-
munication practices. Thus, it is recommended that mentor
teachers should not only implement these interventions with
fidelity, but should also possess the skills to train and coach
pre-service teachers in their implementation.
Limitations and Recommendations
for Future Research
Although this study provides unique insights into early child-
hood pre-service preparation related to the inclusion of chil-
dren with ASD, several limitations exist. First, this study
included only self-reported data. We did not gather data on the
behaviors of the pre-service teachers, mentors, or administra-
tors, which may vary from their reported attitudes and percep-
tions. Since knowledge does not predict behavior (Kennedy
et al. 2004) future research may explore measures with validity
evidence using observation tools such as the Inclusive Class-
room Profile (Soukakou 2012). In addition, the sample sizes
in this study were small, unbalanced, and respondents repre-
sented one university program. Future research should explore
findings with larger, balanced samples using longitudinal
13
Early Childhood Education Journal (2021) 49:725–737
research design across multiple programs. Given the influ-
ence of coursework on pre-service teacher preparation future
research might also include professors of early childhood edu-
cation courses. Additionally, the importance of family involve-
ment was illuminated by interviewee participants, yet items
related to family involvement were not included in the AIQ
limiting the interpretation of these results. Future research
should include the exploration of family supports related to the
inclusion of children with ASD particularly if future research
utilizes the AIQ. Finally, the sample size for pre-service inter-
viewees was smaller than we had hoped given the challenge
of contacting students as they graduate and the demands of
student teaching. Future research should consider alternative
ways to reach out to students after graduation and build this
into the study early on (e.g., gather permanent emails).
Final Thoughts
Teacher preparation programs influence the knowledge, atti-
tudes, and perceptions of pre-service teachers toward the
inclusion of children with ASD. As pre-service teachers in
this study progressed through their program, their knowledge
and perceptions not only evolved over time, but also aligned
to their mentor teachers and administrators’. In many pro-
grams, faculty have little influence over the selection of men-
tor teacher and classroom experiences. As a result, there may
be little match between coursework and clinical placements
(Koerner 1992). With the understanding that mentor teachers
play a crucial role in pre-service teacher preparation (Stites
et al. 2020), programs should explore ways to mirror course-
work and clinical placements providing pre-service teachers
with meaningful research to practice experiences.
Author Contributions  SRD conceived of the study, participated in the
design and coordination, analyzed and interpreted data, and drafted and
revised the entire manuscript. SND participated in the design, assisted
in data analyzation, and helped to draft and revise the manuscript.
Funding  No funding provided for this research.
Data Availability  Data are available by request.
Compliance with ethical standards 
Conflict of interest  Authors declare that they have no conflicts of in-
terest.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Publishing.
Early Childhood Education Journal (2021) 49:725–737 737
Baio, J., Wiggins, L., Christensen, D., Maenner, M., Daniels, K., War-
ren, Z., et al. (2018). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder
among children aged 8 years. MMWR Surveillance Summary, 67,
1–23.
Barned, N. E., Knapp, N. F., & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2011). Knowl-
edge and attitudes of early childhood preservice teachers regard-
ing the inclusion of children with autism spectrum disorder. Jour-
nal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 32, 302–321.
Barton, E., & Smith, B. (2015). Advancing high-quality preschool
inclusion: a discussion and recommendations for the field. Topics
in Early Childhood Special Education, 35, 69–78.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative,
quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). London:
Sage.
Eldar, E., Talmor, R., & Wolf-Zukerman, T. (2010). Successes and
difficulties in the individual inclusion of children with Autism
spectrum disorder (ASD) in the eyes of their coordinators. Inter-
national Journal of Inclusive Education, 14, 97–114.
Fram, S. M. (2013). The constant comparative analysis method outside
of grounded theory. The Qualitative Report, 18, 1–25.
Harrison, A. J., Slane, M. M., Hoang, L., & Campbell, J. M. (2017). An
international review of autism knowledge assessment measures.
Autism, 21, 262–275.
Horrocks, J. L., White, G., & Roberts, L. (2008). Principals’ attitudes
regarding inclusion of children with autism in Pennsylvania pub-
lic schools. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38,
1462–1473.
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-
methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice.
Field Methods, 18, 3–20.
Johnson, P., Porter, K., & McPherson, I. (2012). Autism knowledge
among pre-service teachers specialized in children birth through
age five: Implications for health education. American Journal of
Health Education, 43, 279–287.
Jordan, R. (2005). Managing autism and Asperger’s syndrome in cur-
rent educational provision. Pediatric Rehabilitation, 8, 104–112.
Kennedy, T., Regehr, G., Rosenfield, J., Roberts, S. W., & Lingard,
L. (2004). Exploring the gap between knowledge and behavior:
a qualitative study on clinician action following an educational
intervention. Academic Medicine, 79, 386–393.
Koerner, M. E. (1992). The cooperating teacher: an ambivalent partici-
pant in student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 43, 46–56.
National Autism Center (2009). National Standards Report. https​://
www.nation​ alaut​ ismce​ nter.​ org/nation​ al-standa​ rds-projec​ t/histor​ y/
National Autism Center (2015). National Standards Report. https​://
www.natio​nalau​tismc​enter​.org/natio​nal-stand​ards-proje​ct/phase​
-2/
Praisner, C. (2003). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward
the inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children,
69, 135–145.
Sanz-Cervera, P., Fernández-Andrés, M. I., Pastor-Cerezuela, G., &
Tárraga-Mínguez, R. (2017). Pre-service teachers’ knowledge,
misconceptions and gaps about autism spectrum disorder. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 40, 212–224.
Schlosser, R. W., & Wendt, O. (2008). Effects of augmentative and
alternative communication intervention on speech production in
children with autism: a systematic review. American Journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 212–230.
Segall, M. J., & Campbell, J. M. (2012). Factors relating to education
professionals’ classroom practices for the inclusion of students
with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum
Disorders, 6, 1156–1167.
Segall, M. J. (2011). Inclusion of students with autism spectrum disor-
der: Educator experience, knowledge, and attitudes (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens). https:​ //getd.
libs.uga.edu/pdfs/segal​l_matth​ew_j_20080​5_ma.pdf
Soukakou, E. P. (2012). Measuring quality in inclusive preschool class-
rooms: development and validation of the Inclusive Classroom
Profile (ICP). Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 478–488.
Stites, M. L., Walter, H. L., & Krikorian, J. G. (2020). These aren’t the
kids I signed up for: The lived experience of general education,
early childhood preservice teachers in classrooms for children
with special needs. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Educa-
tion, 41, 1–19.
Suhrheinrich, J., Hall, L. J., Reed, S. R., Stahmer, A. C., & Schreib-
man, L. (2014). Evidence based interventions in the classroom.
In L. Wilkinson (Ed.), Autism spectrum disorder in children and
adolescents: evidence-based assessment and intervention in
schools (pp. 151–172). Washington, DC: American Psychologi-
cal Association.
U.S. Department of Education (2018). 40th Annual Report to Congress
on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Educa-
tion Act, Washington, D.C.
Wong, C., Odom, S., Hume, K., Cox, A., Fettig, A., Kucharczyk, S.,
et al. (2015). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and
young adults with autism spectrum disorder: a comprehensive
review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45,
1951–1966.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13