Teacher Education and Special Education

2007, Volume 30, No. 1, 42–51

Epistemological Beliefs and Attitudes

Toward Inclusion in Pre-service Teachers
Jenzi C. Silverman

Abstract: Previous investigations suggest that in addition to positive attitudes toward inclusion, high-level
beliefs about knowledge and learning (i.e., epistemological beliefs) are essential for all teachers of students with
disabilities in inclusive settings. This study examined the attitudes toward inclusion and epistemological belief
status of 71 pre-service general and special educators, along with the relationship between these variables.
Participants, who completed written measures of these variables along with a demographic questionnaire,
exhibited relatively positive attitudes toward inclusion and high-level epistemological beliefs. Also, those with
higher-level epistemological beliefs were significantly more likely to hold more positive attitudes toward
inclusion. Implications of findings for teacher education and further inquiry are discussed.

s greater numbers of K-12 students with ical beliefs. These variables are the focus of this
A disabilities are included in regular classes,
it is crucial that both special and general
study.

education teachers develop attitudes and beliefs
that support effective inclusive teaching prac-
tice (Fisher, Frey, & Thousand, 2003; Hen-
ning & Mitchell, 2002; Peterson & Beloin,
1998; Schumm, Vaughn, Gordon, & Rothlein,
1994; Udvari-Solner, 2003). Teachers’ atti-
tudes and beliefs directly affect their behavior
with students, thus having tremendous poten-
tial to influence classroom climate and student
outcomes (Andrews & Clementson, 1997;
Fang, 1996; Hutchinson & Martin, 1999;
Schumm et al., 1994; Tait & Purdie, 2000;
Trent & Dixon, 2004, Weiner, 2003). There-
fore, it is essential that teachers begin their
careers prepared to create school environments
that support the success of all students,
including those with disabilities.
Two specific attitude and belief sets that
appear to play a particularly important role in
successful inclusive teaching are positive atti-
tudes toward inclusion and high-level beliefs
about knowledge and learning, or epistemolog-
42
Positive Attitudes toward Inclusion
Previous studies indicate that three major
factors are necessary in order for teachers to
hold positive attitudes toward inclusion. First,
they must believe that students with disabilities
can learn and achieve to the best of their
abilities (Bishop & Jones, 2003; Weiner,
2003). Teachers with this belief are more likely
to persist in including these students fully in
class activities (Bender, Scott, & Vail, 1995,
cited in Cook, 2002). Additionally, students
without disabilities are more likely to feel
positively toward classmates with disabilities if
their teachers do, as teacher attitude partially
mediates peer acceptance [Dodge, Coie, &
Brakke, 1982 (cited in Antonak & Larrivee,
1995); Larrivee & Horne, 1991 (cited in
Antonak & Larrivee, 1995)]. Thus, students
with disabilities whose teachers view them
positively are far more likely to thrive in the
regular classroom, both academically and
socially [Parish, Nunn, & Hattrop, 1982 (cited
 Episemological Beliefs and Inclusion Attitudes
in Andrews & Clementson, 1997); Antonak &
Larrivee, 1995; Larrivee, 1982 (cited in Hen-
ning & Mitchell, 2002); Stewart, 1983 (cited
in Henning & Mitchell, 2002); Stewart, 1990,
(cited in Tait & Purdie, 2000)].
Secondly, all teachers need a strong sense
of self-efficacy for teaching students with
disabilities in inclusive settings (i.e., confidence
that they possess the skills to do this effectively;
Brownell & Pajares, 1999). Teachers with high
self-efficacy are significantly more willing to
adapt curriculum and instruction for students
with disabilities, and to be more patient and
flexible in providing these students with extra
help (Cook, Tankersley, Cook, Landrum,
2000; Fisher et al., 2003; Gibson & Dembo,
cited in Brownell & Pajares, 1999; Schumm et
al., 1994). Conversely, teachers with low self-
efficacy tend to (a) give up on students who do
not learn quickly and easily, (b) hold a pessi-
mistic view of student motivation, and (c) have
a rigid classroom management style (Woolfolk
& Hoy, 1990; cited in Brownell & Pajares,
1999).
Additionally, general and special educators
need to view one another as equal, mutually
supportive partners in educating all students.
Such a perspective increases the likelihood that
general and special educators will communicate
meaningfully about all aspects of inclusive
education, rather than simply about solving
problems with specific students (Glatthorn,
1990). This collegial relationship, in turn,
tends to facilitate constructive, critically re-
flective discussion about differences in general
and special education methods (Glatthorn),
along with efforts by both types of teachers to
learn from one another and complement each
other’s areas of expertise (Fisher et al., 2003;
Glatthorn). Also, this partnership between
general and special educators models inclusive,
collaborative learning for their students (Hen-
ning & Mitchell, 2002).
High-Level Epistemological Beliefs
Beginning with the work of Perry in 1968
and 1970, (cited in Schommer, 1994), re-
searchers have generally viewed epistemological
beliefs (i.e., beliefs about knowledge and
learning) on a continuum, anchored on the
naı̈ve end by beliefs in (a) simple and certain
knowledge consisting of definite right and
Jenzi C. Silverman
wrong answers, (b) quick learning, (c) innate
and immutable learning ability, and (d)
omniscient authorities as the source of all
knowledge, with learners as passive receivers
thereof. In contrast, the advanced end of the
continuum is anchored by beliefs in (a)
complex and uncertain knowledge, (b) gradual,
effortful learning, (c) improvable learning
ability, and (d) knowledgeable but not omni-
scient authorities, with learners as active
constructors of meaning (Baxter Magolda,
1996; Schommer, 1994; Schraw, Bendixen,
& Dunkle, 1995; Schraw, Dunkle, & Bend-
ixen, 2002). These latter beliefs will be referred
to in this discussion as high-level epistemological
beliefs. Typically, young adults begin college
holding primarily naı̈ve epistemological beliefs,
and evolve toward higher-level ones through-
out their postsecondary education, provided
adequate opportunities to develop their beliefs
(Baxter Magolda; Schommer; Schraw et al.,
1995; Schraw et al., 2002).
To date, researchers have not examined the
exact nature of the relationship between
epistemological beliefs and attitudes toward
inclusion. However, prior findings suggest
a positive association between these variables.
Teachers who are sensitive and skilled in
teaching students with disabilities tend to
believe that learning ability is improvable,
and accept the slow and effortful nature of
learning for some students (Cook et al., 2000;
Weiner, 2003). Also, these teachers systemat-
ically and critically question advice from
experts along with their own beliefs, and are
comfortable with ‘‘not having all the answers’’
to classroom problems (Bondy & Brownell,
2004; Harriman & Renew, 1996). This
implies that effective inclusive teaching sub-
sumes beliefs in complex, uncertain knowledge
and authorities who are knowledgeable, but not
omniscient.
New Teacher Beliefs as a Key
Training Issue
The need for teachers to develop high-level
epistemological beliefs and positive attitudes
toward inclusion during pre-service training
takes on particular urgency in light of evidence
that many beginning teachers are lacking in
both areas (Bishop & Jones, 2003; Henning &
Mitchell, 2002; Lesar, Benner, Habel, &
43
TESE, Volume 30, No. 1
Winter 2007
Coleman, 1997; Pajares, 1992; 1993; Scheur-
man, 1995; Tomlinson, Callahan, Tomchin,
Eiss, Imbeau, & Landrum, 1997; Wideen,
Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). Many begin-
ning general educators hold negative attitudes
toward inclusion because they feel unprepared
to teach students with disabilities, citing serious
concerns about extra planning, record-keeping,
and potential classroom management problems
(Bishop & Jones; Henning & Mitchell; Lesar
et al.; Levin, Hibbard, & Rock, 2002; Tait &
Purdie, 2000). New special educators may feel
negatively about inclusion because they lack the
experience of working collaboratively with
general educators (Fisher et al., 2003; Glat-
thorn, 1990; Henning & Mitchell). They may
also believe that general educators do not
understand the needs of students with dis-
abilities, and will not provide these students
with necessary individualized instruction and
attention (Fisher et al.; Henning & Mitchell).
Unless these concerns are addressed and
remediated during pre-service training, new
teachers’ negative attitudes toward inclusion are
likely to persist (Brownell & Pajares, 1999;
Brownell, Yeager, Sindelar, vanHover, & Riley,
2004; Brownell, Ross, Colon, & McCallum,
2005; Cook et al., 2000; Goodman & Fish,
1997; Hutchinson & Martin, 1999; Lesar et
al.).
Negative attitudes toward students with
disabilities may also stem from firmly en-
trenched naı̈ve beliefs with roots in beginning
teachers’ own K-12 student experiences, in-
cluding examples such as: They cannot relate to
students with disabilities, or that these students
cannot learn much and belong only in special
education classes (Pajares, 1992; 1993; Wideen
et al., 1998). New teachers may also believe
that all students should have the same learning
needs and respond well to the same learning
methods, and that the teacher must control all
student behavior (Scheurman, 1995; Tomlin-
son et al., 1997; Wideen et al., 1998). Also
common among pre-service teachers is the
belief that teaching is merely a set of discrete
skills learned in a straightforward way, and that
they will be adequately prepared to teach once
told what to do (Lesar et al., 1997; Munby &
Hutchinson, 1998).
Such beliefs clearly reflect a negative view
of inclusion, along with the naı̈ve epistemo-
logical stance that (a) knowledge of teaching
44
and learning is simple, certain, and passed
down from omniscient authorities; (b) that all
students should learn quickly; and (c) that
disabilities reflect an innate and immutable
lack of learning potential. New teachers who
bring such beliefs into teaching tend to be less
skilled than their experienced colleagues in
adapting to diverse student needs, managing
classroom events, reflecting critically on their
teaching, and solving the ill-structured prob-
lems (i.e., problems with no single or obvious
correct definition or solution) common to
inclusive teaching [Borko, Livingston, &
Shavelson (1990), cited in Brownell et al.,
2004; Scheurman, 1995]. Because teachers
tend to rely on their beliefs to solve ill-
structured problems (Fang, 1996), those who
hold low-level epistemological beliefs and
negative attitudes toward inclusion risk doing
academic and psychological harm to students
with disabilities (Tait & Purdie, 2000).
Given these high stakes, teacher training
must address knowledge and beliefs in ways
that profoundly affect inclusive teaching prac-
tice (Englert & Tarrant, 1995, cited in Englert
& Rozendal, 2004). If training interventions
are to accomplish this effectively, they must
start from an understanding of (a) pre-service
teachers’ epistemological belief status and
attitudes toward inclusion, and (b) the nature
and strength of the relationship between these
variables.
Purposes of Study
The purposes of the present study were to
determine (a) the level epistemological beliefs
and attitudes toward inclusion among a sample
of pre-service teachers; and (b) the extent to
which pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward
inclusion correlate with their epistemological
belief status. Based on prior investigations of
pre-service teacher attitudes and beliefs (e.g.,
Bishop & Jones, 2003; Henning & Mitchell,
2002; Levin et al., 2002; Lesar et al., 1997;
Pajares, 1992; 1993), it was hypothesized that
(a) the present sample of pre-service teachers
would display relatively naı̈ve epistemological
beliefs and relatively negative attitudes toward
inclusion; and (b) attitudes toward inclusion
would correlate positively with epistemological
belief status. Therefore, the research questions
that this study addressed were:
 Episemological Beliefs and Inclusion Attitudes
1. What is the status of these pre-service
teachers’ epistemological beliefs and atti-
tudes toward inclusion?
2. What is the nature and strength of the
relationship between pre-service teachers’
epistemological beliefs and attitudes toward
inclusion?
Method
Participants
The sample consisted of 71 pre-service
teachers at a large Midwestern university,
including 54 women, 14 men, and three who
did not indicate their gender. Sixteen of the
participants were enrolled in a Master’s-level
initial K-12 general education licensure program
and 19 were enrolled in a Master’s-level K-12
special education second licensure program,
yielding 35 graduate-level pre-service teachers.
Thirty-six were enrolled in an undergraduate
level K-12 general education licensure program
which included a block of special education
courses. Twenty-eight participants were between
18 and 22 years old; 30 were between 23 and
30 years; four were between 31 and 40, five
were between 41 and 50, three were over
50 years, and one did not indicate age range.
All participants except one reported expe-
rience teaching or otherwise working with
children or adolescents (e.g., as tutors, para-
educators, group home staff, or camp counse-
lors). The mean number of years of experience
was 4.57 years, with a range of 0 to 20 years.
Instruments
Participants completed surveys of their
epistemological beliefs and attitudes toward
inclusion, along with a brief demographic
questionnaire. Additionally, they were asked
to write structured analyses of case studies in
order to assess their level of critically reflective
thinking about problems of inclusive class-
rooms. Data from these analyses were not used
due to shortcomings of the case study in-
strument. These issues, along with details of
each instrument, are described in this section.
Epistemic Beliefs Inventory (EBI)
This measure of epistemological beliefs
(Schraw et al., 2002) consists of 28 statements
Jenzi C. Silverman
representing beliefs in (a) Simple Knowledge,
(b) Quick Learning, (c) Certain Knowledge,
(d) Omniscient Authority, and (e) Innate
Learning Ability. Participants responded to
the items on a 5-point Likert-type scale (i. e.,
15Strongly Disagree, 35Neutral/Uncertain,
and 55Strongly Agree). The range of possible
scores is from 28 to 140 points. High EBI
scores indicate agreement with statements that
reflect naı̈ve beliefs; therefore, the low EBI
scores indicate more high-level beliefs. Twen-
ty-three of the items reflect this directly; five
are reverse-scored. For these five items,
agreement constitutes endorsement of higher-
level beliefs.
Opinions Relative to Integration of Students with
Disabilities (ORI)
The ORI (Antonak & Larrivee, 1995) is
a 25-item questionnaire measuring respon-
dents’ attitudes toward the inclusion of
students with disabilities in regular classrooms.
The items address (a) teachers’ academic and
behavioral expectations of students with dis-
abilities, (b) qualifications of general versus
special educators to teach students with
disabilities, and (c) teacher perceptions of
necessary adjustments in training for inclusive
classes. Thirteen of the items reflect positive
attitudes toward inclusion; the remaining 12
items reflect negative attitudes toward inclusion
(Antonak & Larrivee). Negatively-worded
items are reverse-scored, therefore respondents’
total score is based on the degree to which they
hold positive attitudes toward inclusion. The
potential score range is from 0 to 180 points,
with higher scores indicating more positive
attitudes.
Demographic qustionnaire
Participants were asked for their gender,
age range, area of education in which they plan
to specialize, and amount of experience in
teaching or working with children. This
information was collected for purposes of
describing the sample.
Case study analyses
As a measure of their skill in reflecting
critically about ill-structured problems in-
volving students with disabilities, participants
45
TESE, Volume 30, No. 1
Winter 2007
were asked to write structured analyses to four
case studies illustrating such problems. This
task was included originally because of the
positive association between critically reflective
thinking skill level, especially about ill-struc-
tured problems, and epistemological belief
status (Harrington, Quinn-Leering, & Hod-
son, 1996; Schraw et al., 1995; 2002;
Scheurman, 1995). Therefore, it was hypoth-
esized that pre-service teachers displaying
high-level epistemological beliefs would also
tend to exhibit high levels of critically reflec-
tive thinking.
However, the only available rater for this
instrument was the author of the study who
had also written the case studies and coding
rubric. Thus, the instrument was subject to
significant bias in the coding procedure, and its
reliability and validity were unknown. Case
study scores were calculated and included in
the preliminary data analysis, but due to the
psychometric limitations of the instrument,
and the finding of no statistically significant
correlation between case study scores and
scores on the ORI or EBI, these scores were
not included in the final data analysis reported
here.
Procedures
The author visited classes whose instruc-
tors expressed interest in the study, explained
the research to the students, and handed out
materials to those who wished to participate.
Participants completed the materials out of
class and returned them to the author within
three weeks. To guard against sequence effect
response biases, the EBI appeared first in half
of the study packets and the ORI appeared first
in the other half.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics for ORI and EBI
Total scores are displayed in Table 1. The ORI
mean score of 111.92 indicates that participant
attitudes toward inclusion are relatively posi-
tive, although the standard deviation and range
of scores suggest a good deal of variation.
Participant epistemological beliefs, with a mean
of 69.51, are also relatively high-level.
46
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for EBI and
ORI Total Scores
Variable M SD Min Max
EBI Total 69.51 8.39 46.00 93.00
ORI Total 111.92 15.80 54.00 139.00
Note. N5 71.
Correlation between EBI and
ORI Scores
To determine the degree of association
between participants’ epistemological belief
status and attitudes toward inclusion, Pearson’s
product-moment correlation (r) was calculated
for EBI Total Score and ORI Total Score. As
indicated in Table 2, the correlation between
these scores was negative, as expected (because
low EBI total scores indicate high-level episte-
mological beliefs), and statistically significant
(r5 20.36, p,5 .002). This confirms the
hypothesis that participants who hold positive
attitudes toward inclusion tend to hold high-
level epistemological beliefs.
Discussion
The purposes of this inquiry were to
determine the epistemological belief and in-
clusion attitude levels of these pre-service
teachers, and the degree of association between
attitudes toward inclusion and epistemological
beliefs. As prior study suggests that positive
attitudes toward inclusion and high-level
epistemological beliefs are central to effective
and sensitive inclusive teaching, the findings of
this study carry important implications for
teacher education.
The finding that participants hold rela-
tively high-level epistemological beliefs and
positive attitudes toward inclusion is encour-
aging, as it indicates that these pre-service
teachers already possess certain attitudes and
Table 2. Correlations between EBI Total
Score and ORI Total Score
EBI Total ORI Total
EBI Total 1.00 2.36**
ORI Total 2.36** 1.00
Note. N5 71. **Significant at .01.
 Episemological Beliefs and Inclusion Attitudes
beliefs associated with patient, tolerant, and
flexible treatment of students with disabilities
(Bondy & Brownell, 2004; Cook, 2002;
Harriman & Renew, 1996; Weiner, 2003).
Participants’ patterns of response to specific
items on both instruments confirm this. On
the EBI, most participants endorsed items
representing beliefs in gradual, effortful learn-
ing and improvable learning ability; on the
ORI, they endorsed items representing positive
attitudes toward the benefits of inclusion for all
students. These beliefs and attitudes are
arguably some of the most essential for teachers
of students with disabilities, in terms of their
association with behavior likely to support
these students’ academic and emotional well-
being (Bishop & Jones, 2003; Cook; Cook et
al., 2000; Gabel, 2001; Lesar et al., 1997). This
finding implies that although previous inquiry
has found negative attitudes toward inclusion
and low-level epistemological beliefs to be
common among pre-service teachers (e.g.,
Bishop & Jones; Henning & Mitchell, 2002;
Lesar et al.; Pajares, 1992), this is by no means
inevitably true.
Even more noteworthy is the statistically
significant negative correlation between ORI
and EBI scores, which confirms that partici-
pants who hold more positive attitudes toward
inclusion also tend to hold higher-level episte-
mological beliefs. This suggests that teachers
who bring high-level epistemological beliefs
into their classrooms will tend to approach
inclusive teaching in a more sensitive and
effective manner than teachers with lower-level
beliefs. It also suggests that teaching and
learning approaches that foster epistemological
belief development may also promote more
positive attitudes toward inclusion.
Participants’ ORI item response patterns
also provide insight into their misgivings about
certain aspects of inclusion. Although most
participants endorsed ORI statements about
the benefits of inclusion for all students, they
also agreed with statements representing neg-
ative attitudes about potential teacher training
and classroom management problems associat-
ed with inclusion. This response pattern held
for both pre-service general and special educa-
tors, at the graduate and undergraduate level,
and across age groups, gender, and amount of
experience with young people. It indicates that
while these participants generally believe in the
Jenzi C. Silverman
potential of students with disabilities to
succeed academically and socially in inclusive
classes, they hold a relatively low sense of self-
efficacy for inclusive teaching, along with some
concerns about adequate collegial and admin-
istrative support.
Implications for Teacher Education
The present findings suggest that to pro-
mote positive attitudes toward inclusion and
high-level epistemological beliefs in new tea-
chers, teacher educators must make the
following actions an integral part of teacher
training: First, they must assess pre-service
teacher epistemological belief status and atti-
tudes toward inclusion at the beginning of
training, and take the results carefully into
account in planning new teacher training
(Scheurman, 1995). The present participants’
higher-level epistemological beliefs and more
positive attitudes toward certain aspects of
inclusion than those displayed by other
beginning teachers underscores the idea that
teacher educators need to obtain an accurate
picture of pre-service teacher attitudes and
beliefs, rather than making assumptions about
these. Also, such assessment and acceptance of
pre-service teachers’ baseline beliefs and atti-
tudes is one of the keys to fostering de-
velopment [Andrews & Clementson, 1997;
Bandura, 1986 (cited in Scheurman, 1995);
Gagne, 1977 (cited in Scheurman, 1995);
Torney-Purta, 1991 (cited in Scheurman,
1995); Wideen et al., 1998].
Working from this information, teacher
educators should implement training ap-
proaches that bolster strengths in pre-service
teachers’ attitudes and beliefs (e.g., beliefs in
gradual, effortful learning, improvable learning
ability, and the benefits of inclusion for all
students, as the present sample demonstrates),
guiding teacher trainees in connecting these
ways of thinking with sensitive treatment of
students with disabilities and effective inclusive
teaching practices (Bishop & Jones, 2003;
Gabel, 2001; Goodman & Fish, 1997; Hen-
ning & Mitchell, 2002). Training must also
address liabilities in pre-service teacher atti-
tudes and beliefs, such as the concerns that the
present participants indicated regarding teacher
training, support, general-special educator
collaboration, and student behavior manage-
47
TESE, Volume 30, No. 1
Winter 2007

ment problems associated with inclusion.
Particularly as such concerns reflect a low sense
of self-efficacy for inclusive teaching, and
uncertainty about the qualifications and roles
of general versus special educators, it is essential
that these be remedied by the time new
teachers begin working in inclusive classrooms.
Prior study provides valuable information
regarding teacher-training approaches that
address the above issues, and appear effective
at fostering growth in epistemological beliefs
and positive attitudes toward inclusion. These
include practice in the accurate representation,
analysis, and solution of ill-structured teaching
problems related to inclusion (Hutchinson &
Martin, 1999; Levin et al., 2002; Munby &
Hutchinson, 1998); comparison of the needs of
culturally diverse students and students with
disabilities (Trent & Dixon, 2004); advocacy
and creation of positive change in schools for
students who have been marginalized [i.e.,
teaching against the grain (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1999 as cited in Bondy & Brownell,
2004); Goodman & Fish, 1997]; development
of familiarity with different levels of epistemo-
logical belief development (Scheurman, 1995);
critical reflection on beliefs about knowledge,
learning, and disability issues (Bishop & Jones,
2003; Englert & Rozendal, 2004; Gabel, 2001;
Goodman & Fish, 1997; Henning & Mitchell,
2002; Hutchinson & Martin, 1999; Lesar et
al., 1997; Peterson & Beloin, 1998); and
provision of extensive opportunities for pre-
service teachers to observe and teach inclusive
classes, which increases the power of these
approaches to promote attitude and belief
growth (Bishop & Jones, 2003; Brownell and
Pajares, 1999; Brownell et al., 2005; Goodman
& Fish, 1997; Hutchinson & Martin, 1999;
Jones, Wint, & Ellis, 1990, cited in Tait &
Purdie, 2000; Lesar et al., 1997; Levin et al.,
2002; Munby & Hutchinson, 1998). These
practices are also associated with the develop-
ment of critically reflective thinking skills [i.e.,
the deliberate scrutiny of one’s beliefs and
actions, along with other perspectives, regard-
ing teaching behavior and the moral, ethical,
and social justice aspects of teaching; Van
Manen, 1977 (cited in York-Barr, Sommers,
Ghere, & Montie, 2001); Zeichner, 1987
(cited in York-Barr, Sommers, Ghere, &
Montie, 2001)], which are cited broadly as
central to sound inclusive teaching practice
48
(Bishop & Jones, 2003; Bondy & Brownell,
2004; Gabel, 2001; Goodman & Fish, 1997;
Hutchinson & Martin, 1999; Ross & Blanton,
2004; Salisbury & McGregor, 2002; York-Barr
et al., 2001).
Teacher educators should ensure that they
implement these training methods in a safe,
supportive environment, as such methods will
require pre-service teachers to confront dis-
crepancies between their existing beliefs and
new information about inclusive teaching. This
process presents challenges that are neither
natural nor comfortable (Kolar & Dickson,
2002; Lesar et al., 1997). However, providing
the appropriate balance of challenge and
support increases the likelihood that pre-service
teachers will work through this process in spite
of discomfort (Lesar et al.).
Limitations
Several limitations of this study should be
addressed. First, as the sample of participants
was drawn quasi-randomly from one institu-
tion, it may not represent the population of
pre-service general and special educators over-
all. The results may therefore be limited in
their generalizability to other pre-service tea-
chers. Secondly, the present study used only
surveys of pre-service teacher attitudes and
beliefs, which does not provide information
about respondents’ actual behaviors. Thus,
beginning teachers’ interactions with students
in inclusive classrooms may not be congruent
with their responses to the surveys (Fang,
1996). Thirdly, no information was collected
about which aspects of these participants’
training may have influenced their epistemo-
logical belief status or attitudes toward in-
clusion the most. Further, no information
about the stage of training participants had
reached at the time of the study (e.g., amount
of coursework completed, whether they had
done student teaching, etc.) was collected.
Therefore, no conclusions can be drawn
regarding the comparative influence of differ-
ent aspects of training on pre-service teacher
attitudes and beliefs.
Implications for Future Research
Future study of teacher beliefs and
attitudes can address the above limitations in
the following ways. First, researchers should
 Episemological Beliefs and Inclusion Attitudes
draw participants randomly from more than
one institution, in order to increase the
likelihood of a representative sample of pre-
service teachers (McLeskey & Ross, 2004;
Wideen et al., 1998). Secondly, subsequent
inquiry into teacher attitudes and beliefs
should employ multiple data collection meth-
ods (e.g., interviews and observations in
addition to surveys), in order to determine
the degree to which self-reported attitudes and
beliefs reflect teachers’ actual behavior with
students (Cook et al., 2000). This is particu-
larly important because even if teachers’ beliefs
and attitudes are very favorable to the
treatment of students with disabilities, this is
of limited use if they cannot translate these
beliefs into actions that support the success of
students with disabilities. Thirdly, additional
investigations should use sufficiently rigorous
data collection and analysis methods to allow
determination of which specific training
activities facilitate growth in pre-service teach-
er attitudes and beliefs (Brownell et al., 2005;
McLeskey & Ross, 2004).
An additional recommendation for further
inquiry is that researchers examine the relation-
ship between specific aspects of teachers’
inclusion-related attitudes, behavior, and out-
comes for students with disabilities. Even well-
designed training interventions associated with
significant growth in thinking will mean little if
new teachers cannot translate this into better
inclusive teaching. Thus, understanding the
relationship between growth in new teacher
thinking, inclusion-related classroom behavior,
and student outcomes is of paramount impor-
tance for the success of all students. Brownell et
al. (2005) and McLeskey and Ross (2004)
argue that such study is especially needed with
regard to special educators, as much of the
research has focused on general educator beliefs
and behavior.
Conclusion
Due to the tremendous potential of
teachers’ attitudes and beliefs to influence their
behavior toward students, it is vital that they
develop attitudes and beliefs that are conducive
to fostering the success of all students. Because
students with disabilities are included in
regular classes with increasing frequency, it is
especially important that their teachers hold
Jenzi C. Silverman
attitudes and beliefs associated with sensitive,
effective inclusive teaching. The goal of the
present study was to explore the epistemolog-
ical belief status and attitudes toward inclusion
of a sample of pre-service general and special
educators. The findings of relatively high-level
epistemological beliefs and positive attitudes
toward inclusion, and a significantly positive
correlation between these variables, provide
teacher education researchers with a starting
point for further exploration of teacher training
interventions that facilitate pre-service teacher
growth in both areas, and of the relationship of
teacher attitudes and beliefs to student out-
comes. It is hoped that this line of inquiry and
teacher training will lead ultimately to better
performance, higher self-efficacy, and greater
success on the part of all students.
References
Andrews, S., & Clementson, J. J. (1997). Active
learning’s effect upon pre-service teachers’ attitudes
toward inclusion. Unpublished manuscript.
Antonak, R. F., & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric
analysis and revision of the Opinions Relative to
Mainstreaming scale. Exceptional Children, 62, 139–
149.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (1996). Epistemological
development in graduate and professional education.
Review of Higher Education, 19(3), 283–304.
Bishop, A., & Jones, P. (2003). ‘‘I never thought
they would enjoy the fun of science just like ordinary
children do:’’ Exploring science experiences with early
years teacher training students and children with severe
and profound learning difficulties. British Journal of
Special Education, 30(1), 34–43.
Bondy, E., & Brownell, M. T. (2004). Getting
beyond the research to practice gap: Researching against
the grain. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27,
47–56.
Brownell, M. T., & Pajares, M. F. (1999). Teacher
efficacy and perceived success in mainstreaming students
with learning and behavior problems. Teacher Education
and Special Education, 22, 154–164.
Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E. P., &
McCallum, C. L. (2005). Critical features of special
education teacher preparation: A comparison with general
teacher education. Journal of Special Education, 38,
242–252.
Brownell, M. T., Yeager, E. A., Sindelar, P. T.,
vanHover, S., & Riley, T. (2004). Teacher Learning
Cohorts: A vehicle for supporting beginning teachers.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 174–
189.
49
TESE, Volume 30, No. 1
Winter 2007
Cook, B. G. (2002). Inclusive attitudes, strengths,
and weaknesses of pre-service general educators enrolled in
a curriculum infusion teacher preparation program.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 25, 262–
277.
Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum,
T. J. (2000). Teachers’ attitudes toward their included
students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67,
115–135.
Englert, C. S., & Rozendal, M. S. (2004). A model
of professional development in special education. Teacher
Education and Special Education, 27, 24–46.
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher
beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47–
65.
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Thousand, J. (2003). What
do special educators need to know and be prepared to do
for inclusive schooling to work? Teacher Education and
Special Education, 26, 42–50.
Gabel, S. L. (2001). ‘‘I wash my face with dirty
water’’: Narratives of disability and pedagogy. Journal of
Teacher Education, 52, 31–47.
Glatthorn, A. A. (1990). Cooperative professional
development: Facilitating the growth of the special
education teacher and the classroom teacher. Remedial
and Special Education, 11(3), 29–34, 50.
Goodman, J., & Fish, D. R. (1997). Against-the-
grain teacher education: A study of coursework, field
experience, and perspectives. Journal of Teacher Education,
48(2), 96–107.
Harriman, N., & Renew, F. C., Jr. (1996). Prepar-
ing classroom teachers to teach diverse learners in rural
schools. In Rural Goals 2000: Building Programs that Work
(ERIC RC#020 545).
Harrington, H. L., Quinn-Leering, K., & Hodson,
L. (1996). Written case analyses and critical reflection.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 12(1), 25–37.
Henning, M. B., & Mitchell, L. C. (2002).
Preparing for inclusion. Child Study Journal, 32(1),
19–29.
Hutchinson, N. L., & Martin, A. K. (1999).
Fostering inclusive beliefs and practices during pre-service
teacher education through communities of practice.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 22, 234–
250.
Kolar, C., & Dickson, S. V. (2002). Pre-service
general educators’ perceptions of structured reflective logs
as viable learning tools in a university course on
inclusionary practices. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 25, 395–406.
Lesar, S., Benner, S. M., Habel, J., & Coleman, L.
(1997). Preparing general education teachers for inclusive
settings: A constructivist teacher education program.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 20, 204–220.
Levin, B., Hibbard, K., & Rock, T. (2002). Using
problem-based learning as a tool for learning to teach
students with special needs. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 25, 278–290.
50
McLeskey, J., & Ross, D. D. (2004). The politics of
teacher education in the new millennium: Implications for
special education teacher educators. Teacher Education and
Special Education, 27, 342–349.
Munby, H., & Hutchinson, N. L. (1998). Using
experience to prepare teachers for inclusive classrooms:
Teacher education and the epistemology of practice.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 21, 75–82.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and
educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.
Review of Educational Research, 62, 307–332.
Pajares, M. F. (1993). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs: A
focus for teacher education. Action in Teacher Education,
25(2), 45–54.
Peterson, M., & Beloin, K. S. (1998). Teaching the
inclusive teacher: Restructuring the mainstreaming course
in teacher education. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 21, 306–318.
Ross, D. D., & Blanton, L. (2004). Inquiry
communities in special education teacher education.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 15–23.
Salisbury, C. L., & McGregor, G. (2002). The
administrative climate and context of inclusive elementary
schools. Exceptional Children, 68, 259–274.
Scheurman, G. (1995). Constructivism, personal
epistemology, and teacher education: Toward a social-
developmental model of adult reasoning. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Schommer, M. (1994). Synthesizing epistemological
belief research: Tentative understandings and provocative
confusions. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 293–319.
Schraw, G., Bendixen, L. D., & Dunkle, M. E.
(2002). Development and validation of the Epistemic
Belief Inventory (EBI). In Hofer, B. K. & Pintrich, P. R.
(Eds.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about
knowledge and knowing. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schraw, G., Dunkle, M. E., & Bendixen, L. D.
(1995). Cognitive processes in well- defined and ill-
defined problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9,
523–538.
Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Gordon, J., & Rothlein,
L. (1994). General education teachers’ beliefs, skills, and
practices in planning for mainstreamed students with
learning disabilities. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 17, 22–37.
Tait, K., & Purdie, N. (2000). Attitudes toward
disability: Teacher education for inclusive environments in
an Australian university. International Journal of Disability,
Development, and Education, 47(1), 25–38.
Tomlinson, C. A., Callahan, C. M., Tomchin, E.
M., Eiss, N., Imbeau, M., & Landrum, M. (1997).
Becoming architects of communities of learning: Addres-
sing academic diversity in contemporary classrooms.
Exceptional Children, 63, 269–282.
Trent, S. C., & Dixon, D. J. (2004). My eyes were
opened: Tracing the conceptual change of pre-service
teachers in a special education/multicultural education
 Episemological Beliefs and Inclusion Attitudes
course. Teacher Education and Special Education, 27,
119–133.
Udvari-Solner, A. (2003). Leading social change in
collaborative and inclusive practice: One middle school’s
journey. Impact, 16(1), 20–21.
Weiner, H. M. (2003). Effective inclusion: Pro-
fessional development in the context of the classroom.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 35(6), 12–18.
Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998).
A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach:
Jenzi C. Silverman
Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry.
Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 130–178.
York-Barr, J., Sommers, W. A., Ghere, G. S., &
Montie, J. (2001). Reflective practice to improve schools.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Jenzi C. Silverman, Department of Educational
Psychology, University of Minnesota.
51