Inclusive practices in Sweden: examining preschool teachers’
perceived efficacy and their attitudes to
children with autism
Rano Zakirova Engstrand
Speciapedagogiska institutionen
Examensarbete 15 hp
Specialpedagogiska programmet
UQ03SP Att forska inom specialpedagogik (30 hp) Höstterminen 2010
Inclusive practices in Sweden:
Examining preschool teachers’
perceived efficacy and their
attitudes to children with autism
Rano Zakirova Engstrand
Abstract
Purpose. The aims of this pilot study were to examine perceived efficacy of preschool teachers, working with children with autism and their attitudes concerning the inclusion of children with autism in two towns in central Sweden.
Methods. Participants were 19 preschool and 2 kindergarten teachers who worked with children with autism in general classrooms. To collect data, a demographic survey, the Autism Attitude Scale for Teachers (AAST), and an abbreviated version of the Bandura’s Teacher Efficacy Scale were used. The descriptive statistics was performed to obtain demographic information on the sample. A series of bivariate correlations was performed between teacher characteristics variables and teachers’ responses to the AAST and the Teacher Efficacy scale.
Results. The main findings are: a) the teachers had a tendency to hold favorable overall attitudes towards children with autism and neutral attitudes towards their inclusion in general preschool classrooms; b) positive relationships were found between teachers’ overall attitudes to children with autism, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion and a number of points in special education earned by teachers during pre-service education; c) no relations were found between teachers’
perceived efficacy and teacher characteristics such as work experience and education background; d) no relations were found between preschool teachers’ perceived efficacy and their attitudes towards children with autism included into general preschools.
Conclusions. Teacher preparation programs in general early childhood education should be revised to give pre-service teachers knowledge and opportunities to instruct children with autism in inclusive settings. Efficacy beliefs of in-service teachers can be strengthened through participation in professional development workshops, provision of high quality intensive supervision and assistance in conducting more intensive, one-to-one instruction. Development of positive attitudes to children with autism should become an important component of both pre-service education and in-service training programs. Implications for further research are discussed.
Keywords
Inclusion, preschool children with autism, teachers’ attitudes, perceved efficacy
Introduction...1
Children with autism in Sweden: prevalence rates and preschool inclusion...4
Teachers’ attitudes to children with autism and to their inclusion into regular preschools... 4
Teachers’ perceived efficacy...6
Relations between teacher self-efficacy, teacher characteristics and teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of children with special needs...7
Method...9
Instruments... 9
Autism Attitude Scale for Teachers (AAST)...9
Teacher Efficacy Scale...10
Demographic Survey...11
Participants and Procedure...11
Ethical Considerations...12
Data Analysis...13
Methodological Limitations...13
Results...14
Demographic information...14
Preschool teachers’ attitudes towards children with autism and their inclusion into general preschools settings...16
Relations between the preschool teachers’ perceived efficacy and teacher characteristics...17
Relations between the preschool teachers’ perceived efficacy and attitudes to children with autism...17
Discussion...18
Implications for Practice and Research...23
Acknowledgments...24
References...25
APPENDIX I...29
APPENDIX II...30
APPENDIX III...31
APPENDIX IV...33
Introduction
The Swedish Education Act (1989:1100) ensures the right of all children to participate in preschool programs from age of one to five. In accordance with the law, children with special needs should be included into regular preschool settings, which are often viewed as children’s natural environment where they can receive early intervention practices (Luttropp, Norling &
Balton, 2007; Sandberg, Norling & Lillvist, 2009, Vakil et al., 2009), that aim to “...remediate existing or emerging disabilities, [and] prevent functional deterioration...” (Shonkoff & Meisels, 2000, p. XVII).
According to the Swedish National Agency for Education (SNAE, 2004), the number of children with special needs enrolled into preschool settings has increased. Westling Allodi (2007) argues that in a decentralised organization the existing models of allocation of resources make those preschools that face more difficult situations experience lack of support to carry out their task resulting in recruitment of unqualified staff and poor educational environment.
Inclusion of children with special needs in regular preschools can present certain difficulties for preschool teachers in Sweden. Luttropp, Norling and Balton (2007) described challenges that preschool teachers encounter in their work with children with special needs:
Although the majority of Swedish children in need of special support are included in mainstream preschools, the challenge for teachers is actually to integrate these children into the everyday activities, relationships, and routines of the preschool. Another challenge for preschools is to realize that they have to consider the needs of individual children by creating activity settings in which children can use their abilities, interests, and experiences to increase the level of sustainability of intervention. (p. 23).
Vakil et al. (2009) stated that inclusion is not merely a placement. Preschool inclusion has been described as “a practice in which early childhood educators are encouraged to explore new methods for serving children with disabilities and developmental delays in typical early
childhood programs” (Frankel, Gold & Ajodhia-Andrews, 2010, p.1). Therefore, a teacher factor can be considered as one of the important variables in ensuring the quality of preschool inclusion. Teacher characteristics, such as years of experience, education level, and teacher self- efficacy have been described as having impact on the effectiveness of inclusive preschool programs (Stoiber, Gettinger & Goetz, 1998; Sari, Ҫeliköz & Seҫer, 2009). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education have also been reported as being an important variable in predicting
the success of inclusive education in preschools (Eiserman, Shisler & Healey, 1995; Park, Chitiyo & Choi, 2010; see also reviews by Odom et al., 2004).
The second important factor that contributes to the effectiveness of early intervention programs for children with special needs in mainstream preschools is the characteristics of the child (Guralnik, 1997). Odom et al. (2004) in their literature review on preschool inclusion identified two dimensions of child characteristics: type of disability and severity of disability.
According to the authors, children with hearing and visual impairments, Down syndrome and autism were most frequently identified as participating in inclusive preschool programs. At the same time, as Farran (2000) argues, all of the children, whatever their type of disability, receive similar intervention, except for one disability group – children with autism who represent a unique group. Children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are described as having impairments in social behaviour, communication, speech and general cognitive functioning (Simpson, de Boer-Ott & Smith-Myles, 2003; Matson, Mahan, Hess & Fodstad, 2009). One reason why these children receive more attention as a separate disability group is that they are often diagnosed later than children with other types of disabilities, and require more intense interventions. Another reason is due to “the most vociferous philosophical differences” that exist in current intervention programs (Farran, 2000, p. 533), which makes inclusion for preschool children with autism a controversial issue (Odom et al, 2004).
To address educational challenges that children with autism present, Simpson and his colleagues (2003) developed The Autism Spectrum Disorder Inclusion Collaboration Model to support general educators. Three proactive assumptions form the philosophical core of this model: a) children with autism and their nondisabled peer benefit from planned contact with one another; b) the majority of general education teachers, administrators and other staff members are agreeable to having children with autism in their classrooms when appropriate support and resources is provided, and c) general educators are willing and able to effectively assume their primary teaching responsibility for many students with autism with the help of special educators and other staff support and resources. Thus, this model is based on collaboration – shared responsibility and shared decision making among general educators, special educators and support personnel (p. 117). According to the authors, there are five main components that constitute the Autism Spectrum Disorder Inclusion Collaboration Model: 1) environmental and curricular modifications, general education classroom support, and instructional methods, which include the following aspects: availability of appropriately trained support personnel;
accessibility to collaborative problem-solving relationships; in-service training, implementation of appropriate instructional methods; availability of paraeducators; adequate teacher planning time, and reduced class size; 2) attitudinal and social support, 3) coordinated team commitment;
4) recurrent evaluation of inclusion procedures, and 5) home-school collaboration. All these
components affect each other and cannot operate in isolation (see Simpson, de Boer-Ott &
Smith-Myles, 2003, for a detailed description of the model).
This model, however, does not explicitly address the intensity of one-to-one intervention, limiting itself to mentioning one of the instructional methods used with children with autism within general education classroom – “difficult tasks are pretaught in one-to-one situation before being introduced to group in general education class” (p.122). Research shows that the intensity of intervention during the preschool period is viewed as an important factor
contributing to the effectiveness of intervention program (Dawson & Osterling, 1997). Dawson and Osterling when reviewing various early intervention programs for children with autism in the USA since the 1980s with the purpose to address the effectiveness of those programs found that all programs appeared to be quite effective even though they differed in their intervention strategies and philosophies. In their study the reported number of hours per week of one-to-one support received by children with autism ranged from 15 to 40, with an average of 27 hours.
The researchers concluded that the number of hours per week of preschool-based intervention can predict the positive outcome for children with autism. They noted, however, that preschool- aged children with autism often receive less than 27 hours per week. The authors expressed the need for researchers to further investigate issues such as intensity and type of support. In a study that analyzed outcome data for 28 children with autism and mental retardation, the researchers (Eldevik et al, 2006) compared two groups of children who received either low-intensive behavioural intervention (12.5 hours per week) or low-intensive eclectic intervention (12 hour per week) in regular kindergartens. Eldevik and colleagues found that low-intensive behavioural intervention was more effective than low-intensive eclectic special education intervention indicating that both intensity and type of support affect outcome. Another interesting finding was that placing children with autism into regular kindergartens with typically developing peers did not improve their adaptive and social skills, and therefore, it was suggested that more intensive, one-to-one behavioural intervention “may afford more opportunities to work specifically on enhancing self-help and social skills than does inclusion in a classroom” (p.
222).
The aim of the present pilot study was twofold: to examine perceived efficacy of preschool teachers, working with children with autism and their attitudes concerning the inclusion of children with autism in two towns in central Sweden. The specific foci of this study have been to examine the relations between preschool teachers’ (a) attitudes towards the inclusion of children with autism and teachers’ demographics such as years of work experience and educational background, (b) perceived efficacy and years of work experience and
educational background, and (c) perceived efficacy and attitudes towards the inclusion of children with autism.
Children with autism in Sweden: prevalence rates and preschool inclusion
According to Fernell and Gillberg (2008), the prevalence of childhood autism in Europe and Northern America was 6-10/1000 in 2000s. The recent study of prevalence rate in 147 preschool children born in 2002 in Stockholm county, Sweden, showed an overall prevalence rate of 6.2/1000 (Fernell & Gillberg, 2010). The authors stated that their findings indicated that ASDs are common disorders, when “at least 1 in 100 boys and 2 in 1000 girls are affected and recognized already in preschool period” (p. 684).
As Farran (2000) noted, children with autism enter preschool intervention programs between the ages of 3.5 and 4 years. Due to the complexity of needs of young children with autism, educating them presents a challenging task for preschool teachers (Vakil, et al, 2009).
Vakil and co-authors stated that in order to ensure a quality program, teachers as practitioners must implement evidence-based practices in their classrooms. In Sweden specialized
habilitation centers provide early intervention treatment for autism based on principles of applied behaviour analysis (ABA) (Fernell & Gillbert, 2010), which has developed a strong evidence base (Gibson, Grey & Hastings, 2009). In recommendations developed by the heads of habilitation centers on early intervention practices for children with autism the paramount role of preschools is emphasized: “Preschools should take responsibility for the largest part of the daily training” (Bromark, Granat, Haglund, Sjöholm-Lif, Zander, 2004, p.9, my translation). It is also strongly recommended to place children with autism in mainstream preschool facilities so that children could have an opportunity to interact with typically developing children. In the same document, the necessity of training preschool staff is stressed. Preschool teachers should possess skills and knowledge to provide not only intensive behavioral training to children with autism, but also in order to be able to plan activities, to design individual plans and to monitor children’s progress. This becomes especially salient as it is not uncommon in Sweden that preschool teachers raise suspicion that some of the children they work with may have ASD (Fernell & Gillberg, 2010).
Teachers’ attitudes to children with autism and to their inclusion into regular preschools
Positive attitudes among personnel to inclusion in general preschool classes are considered as one of the key determinants of success for children with autism (Simpson, de Boer-Ott &Smith- Myles, 2003). As Simpson and his colleagues argued, unsupportive attitudes towards inclusion of these children would create a self-fulfilling prophecy, and as a consequence, children would
not benefit from the inclusive environment. The research on attitudes of early childhood teachers towards children with autism and to inclusion of this disability group is limited.
However, several studies addressing this issue have been found. Eiserman, Shisler and Healey (1995) studied beliefs of 220 preschool teachers and administrators, working in 30 public and private preschools in Florida, about inclusion of children with diverse special needs including autism. Researchers reported that the teachers showed the most favorable attitudes towards inclusion of children with mild disabilities and the least favorable attitudes towards children with autism and multiple disabilities. Another study conducted in the USA examined beliefs towards inclusion of 128 preschool staff, consisting of 39 special educators, 35 regular
educators, 35 paraprofessionals, and 19 support service personnel (Stoiber, Gettinger & Goetz, 1998). Research findings were similar to those reported by Eiserman, Shisler and Healey (1995): practitioners felt less prepared to include children with autism, neurological disorders and visual/hearing impairments into their classrooms activities than to include children with mild cognitive disabilities, speech and language delays and learning disabilities. Practitioners perceived that inclusion of children with autism and neurological disorders would require greater amounts of accommodation than other disability groups. A study conducted several years later by Rafferty and Griffin (2005) who compared perspectives about benefits and risks of inclusion of 237 parents of children with and without disabilities and 118 teachers in the same community-based preschool program reported findings consistent with studies reported by Eiserman, Shisler and Healey (1995), and Stoiber, Gettinger and Goetz (1998), namely, that severity of disability was a key factor affecting the attitudes of preschool teachers: children with emotional problems, autism and cognitive impairments would be least supported by teachers than children with speech, orthopedic and hearing impairments.
In Canada a group of researchers (Killoran, Tymon & Frempong, 2007) interviewed 354 directors of the licensed preschools about the inclusion of children with special needs into their preschool programs. The study identified 575 children with various types of disabilities
included into preschools settings. Of them children with autism constituted the largest disability group (n=148, or 25.7%). To the hypothetical question “Would you refuse a child based on the disability?” the majority of directors said ‘yes’. To the question “Would you refuse a child based on a specific disability?” 33% of directors of preschools where children with special needs were included responded that they would refuse a child with ASDs, and 13% of directors of preschools without children with special needs gave a similar response. Moreover, some directors expressed resistant and discriminatory attitudes toward including children with autism as having more involved needs.
Nevertheless, findings by Park, Chitiyo and Choi (2010) contradict the results of the studies discussed above. Park and his colleagues examined attitudes to children with autism among 131 college students majoring in general education, special education, elementary
school, physical education, and early childhood education. The results revealed that student teachers of all majors had high levels of positive attitudes towards children with autism; they also demonstrated relatively high levels of positive attitudes towards inclusion of these children in general classrooms. At the same time, female students held more positive attitudes than males; students majoring in special education also were more positive in their attitudes towards children with autism than their peers majoring in general education. Researchers also found that students’ attitudes to children with autism were influenced by their teaching and working experiences with these children. Park, Chitiyo and Choi (2010) suggested that various types of exposure to children with autism can be considered as “a foundation in forming an individual’s positive attitude towards this population” (p.112).
In summary, studies of preschool staff’s attitudes and beliefs about inclusion of children with autism into their preschool programs are rather negative, and can be therefore considered as barriers to the successful implementation of inclusive practices in early childhood education (Guralnick, 2008), while teachers in training appear to have positive attitudes toward inclusion of children with autism.
Teachers’ perceived efficacy
A major focus in Bandura’s social-cognitive theory is a concept of self-efficacy (Roll-
Pettersson, 2008; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), which is defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p.3). According to Bandura (1997), there are four main sources of self-efficacy beliefs:
enactive mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological reactions. Enactive mastery experiences are described as “the most influential source of efficacy information because they provide the most authentic evidence of whether one can muster whatever it takes to succeed” (p.80). Successful experiences promote the development of strong beliefs in one’s personal efficacy, while failures contribute to the formation of a low sense of self-efficacy. Vicarious experiences affect people’s perceived efficacy through modeled attainments, i.e. people evaluate their own capabilities to perform a given task in relation to the attainments of others. By comparing themselves with others, people get feedback on their own capabilities, which can affect their sense of self-efficacy: it might become either low or high depending on the results of the task performance in relation to the established norms. People can also strengthen their efficacy beliefs if they are persuaded verbally by significant others that they possess capabilities necessary to accomplish a challenging task. However, as Bandura (1997) noted, raising unrealistic beliefs of personal capabilities may lead to failures in task performing and further undermining one’s sense of self-efficacy. Physiological and emotional states also function as sources of self-efficacy formation. Negative emotions and physiological
reactions such as fatigue, aches and pains, sweating, trembling, heartbeats and stomach upsets are described as indicators of personal inefficacy to perform given tasks.
Teachers’ perceived efficacy has been defined as “individual teachers’ beliefs in their own abilities to plan, organize, and carry out activities required to attain given educational goals” (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007, p.612). Research has indicated that teachers with high sense of self-efficacy have a tendency to get better accustomed to changes in their professional life in comparison with teachers with lower sense of self-efficacy (Sari, Ҫeliköz & Seҫer, 2009).
Bandura (1997) stated that teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy viewed difficult-to-teach students as “reachable and teachable” (p.242), while teachers with a low sense of self-efficacy tended to explain students’ difficulties to learn by disabilities of such students. Also teachers with low levels of personal efficacy showed high levels of anxiety toward the inclusion of children with a disability (Roll-Pettersson, 2008), and even hostility to the suggestion of inclusion (Soodak, Podell & Lehman, 1998). In connection with children with autism, Jennet, Harris and Mesibov (2003) examined the relationships between burnouts in teachers, teachers’
commitment to philosophy of intervention program (ABA and TEACCH) and professional self- efficacy. It was found that in both groups those teachers who showed greater commitment to the philosophy underlying either ABA or TEACCH treatment approach reported a higher sense of teaching efficacy and little burnout.
Relations between teacher self-efficacy,
teacher characteristics and teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of children with special
needs
A number of studies examined relations between teachers’ sense of self-efficacy and some of the teacher characteristics such as a number of years in the teaching profession and teachers’
educational level. For example, Roll-Pettersson (2008) in her sample of 175 general educators found that teachers’ sense of self-efficacy was not significantly related to years of experience but positively related to participation in post-graduate course in special education educators. In the preschool context Guo, et al. (2010) studied the relations between teachers’ level of
educational attainment, certification, years of teaching experiences, and self-efficacy. They also studied the relations between teachers’ self-efficacy, classroom quality and children’s
achievements in language and literacy acquisition. The researchers surveyed 67 preschool teachers and conducted systematical observations within 67 classrooms; they also tested children in a 40-min sessions by trained research assistants to assess their language and literacy skills. Guo and her colleagues found that having an elementary teaching certificate was
positively correlated with teachers’ self-efficacy, while having more years of teaching
experience at preschools was negatively related to teachers’ self-efficacy. They also found that teachers’ sense of self-efficacy is a positive and significant predictor of children’s vocabulary gains within high quality, emotionally supportive classrooms. Although this study did not focus on children with special needs, its findings clearly implicate the importance of the quality of classroom environment as a predictor of successful inclusion in the preschool context.
Only two research studies that investigated the relationships between teachers’ sense of self-efficacy and attitudes to inclusion of children with special needs in preschool settings could be found. Lifschitz and Glaubman (2002) surveyed 595 female students from secular and religious teacher colleges in Israel who were majors in early childhood, elementary school, junior high school, junior high school humanities, and special education. In general the researchers reported that “…when sense of self-efficacy regarding the disability is higher, i.e.
when the teachers feel confident in their capability to teach pupils with learning difficulties, their willingness to include these pupils in regular education is higher, and vice versa” (p. 416).
One of the findings that Lifschitz and Glaubman (2002) described as “surprising” was related to the students majoring in early childhood education. It showed that their level of perceived efficacy and willingness to include children with special needs were the lowest in comparison with students in other majors.
A study conducted in Turkey by Sari, Ҫeliköz and Seҫer (2009) analyzed relationships between sense of self-efficacy and attitudes of 264 preschool teachers and 198 students majoring in preschool education towards inclusive education. This group of researchers found that attitudes of the preschool teachers toward including children with special needs tended to be more negative than those of student teachers. At the same time the level of self-efficacy of the teachers were higher compared to teacher students. The analysis of relationships between perceived efficacy and attitudes toward inclusion showed that self-efficacy of both preschool teachers and teacher students were not major predictors of their attitudes toward inclusive practices at the preschool context. At the same time, as Sari, Ҫeliköz and Seҫer (2009) stated, some teachers in Turkey are reluctant to include children with special needs into their
classrooms due to the lack of sense of self-efficacy and the lack of adequate knowledge in how to effectively educate such children.
Although the studies reviewed above did focus on measuring relations between teachers’
perceived efficacy, experience, education level and their attitudes to inclusive education, none of those studies specifically examined those relations regarding children with autism within preschool contexts either internationally or nationally. For this reason, the present study aimed at bridging this gap. It was hypothesized that preschool teachers who (a) had taken part in special education courses during either their pre-service or in-service training as well as (b) worked on a daily basis with children with autism would respond positively toward the
inclusion of these children in regular preschools. It was also hypothesized that preschool teachers who had positive attitudes towards children with autism and their inclusion in regular preschool settings would show high level of teacher efficacy.
Method
Instruments
In the present study a demographic survey and two instruments were used a) the Autism Attitude Scale for Teachers (AAST) and b) an abbreviated version of the Bandura’s Teacher Efficacy Scale. Both scales had been translated from English into Swedish with some modifications to address the aims of the study.
Autism Attitude Scale for Teachers (AAST)
The Autism Attitude Scale for Teachers (AAST) was developed by Olley, et al. (1981) “…as a means of assessing the attitudes of teachers whose schools were about to receive autistic pupils for the first time and evaluating the effect of in-service training for those teachers.” (p.3). The AAST scale has been chosen for two reasons: first, it is specific as it measures attitudes toward children with autism in mainstreamed schools, and therefore, “…should yield more accurate predictions of behavior towards autistic children than would a more global scale” (Olley, et al., 1981, p.2). Second, it is reliable (the alpha reliability coefficient for the 14-item combined form is .91). The AAST scale was translated from English into Swedish. Slight modifications were made, for example, the word “school” was replaced by “preschool” (förskola), “groups”
(grupper); the word “schoolwork” – by “play” (lek). The second item in the Form A Mealtime behaviors of children with autism are disruptive and negatively influence the behavior of children around them was moved two items down.
In the current study the internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha for the AAST’s Form A was .65; for the Form B – .75, and for the 14 item combined form – .83. Responses in the AAST were made on a 5-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). The total score of the scale was calculated in a two-step process: 1) reversing ten negativelyworded items and 2) summing the scores from all the items that make up the scale (see Appendix II and Table 1 for the total score of the scale). The total score of seven of the scale’s items related to
inclusion of children with autism in regular school settings (e.g. Schools with both typically developing children and children with autism enhance the learning experiences of typically
developing children, Regular schools are too advanced for children with autism) was also calculated (Table 1).
Teacher Efficacy Scale
The Teacher Efficacy Scale developed by Bandura (1997) was chosen to use in this study as it
“supports the conceptualization of teacher self-efficacy as a multidimensional construct”
(Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007, p. 620). For the purposes of the present study an abbreviated 18- item version of the Bandura’s teacher efficacy scale was used. The scale consisted of four dimensions of teacher efficacy: efficacy to influence decision making, instructional self- efficacy, disciplinary self-efficacy, and efficacy to create a positive school climate. Responses to the scale items ranged from “no feelings of efficacy in this areas” (0) to “very strong feelings of efficacy in this area” (4). The Bandura version of teacher efficacy scale was chosen for the present study as it had been used successfully in a number of studies and has been proven to be a reliable instrument (Guo, 2010). For the present study the internal consistency of the scale and its four subscales was calculated: the scale’s Cronbach alpha coefficient was .91.
Cronbach’s alphas for Efficacy to Influence Decision Making subscale was – 0.6, with the mean inter-item correlation .42; for Instructional Self-Efficacy – .75; for
Disciplinary Self-Efficacy – .86, and for Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate - .81. For further analyses a total self-efficacy score of the scale, as well as total score for all four
subscales were calculated (Table 1).
The abbreviated version was translated from English into Swedish with several
modifications. For example, the word ”preschool” (förskola) was added to replace ”school”; the name of the subscale ”Instructional Self-Efficacy” was changed to ”Efficacy to Create a Good Learning Environment” (Förmågan att tillhandahålla en god lärmiljö); ”schoolwork” – into
”learning” (lärprocess); ”school grounds” – into ”playgrounds” (lekplatser), ”students” – into
”children” (barn).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the AAST and Teacher Self-Efficacy scales
Instrument M SD Range
AAST 52.11 9.51 40
AAST Inclusion Items 24.10 5.82
Teacher Self-Efficacy 47.13 7.17 29
Efficacy to Influence Decision Making Items 5.52 1.63 6
Efficacy to Create a Good Learning Environment
Items (Instructional Efficacy) 18.32 3.21 13
Disciplinary Efficacy Items 7.71 2.23 9
Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate Items 14.81 2.63 10
Demographic Survey
A demographic survey was developed to collect data on teachers’ characteristics such as age, gender, years of work experience as preschool teacher and years of work experience with children with autism as well as characteristics of the child with autism (a degree of severity of disability), the intervention treatment used by teachers, and a number of hours per week of working individually (one-to-one) with children with autism. The demographic survey also had questions concerning teachers’ perceived level of knowledge of autism; sources of this
knowledge (“habilitation”, “municipality”, “other”); whether or not teachers received
supervision, and to what degree they were satisfied with provided supervision (responses ranged from 1 – dissatisfied, 5-very satisfied).
The survey also contained a short, 6-item Knowledge survey designed to explore teachers’ perspectives about sources of gained knowledge in childhood autism and treatment methods, namely, through participation in pre-service and in-service courses in special education, from parents of autistic children, from a colleague, from professionals working in habilitation centers and municipalities. Responses in the Knowledge survey were made on a 5- point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 5= strongly agree). For the statistical analyses, the responses made on “1= strongly disagree” were combined “2= disagree”, and “4= agree” were combined with “5= strongly disagree” to form two nominal categories such as “disagree” and
“agree”. The internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha for the knowledge scale was .47.
A Comments section was provided at the end of the demographic survey for participants’
written comments.
Participants and Procedure
Twenty-one preschool teachers from seven municipality driven preschools and two kindergarten classes at elementary public schools participated in the study.In the first county 14 preschool and two kindergarten teachers were identified by means of contacting 62 municipality driven preschools and 2 elementary public schools, whose contact information was listed in a
informational brochure provided by the authorities responsible for placement for young children
at preschools and kindergartens. In the second, neighbouring county a principal of one
preschool was contacted through the informal network of preschool teachers. Five teachers who were working with children with autism in that preschool were recruited to participate in the study.
Survey packages consisting of 1) a cover letter, 2) the Autism Attitude Scale for Teachers (AAST), 3) the Teacher Efficacy Scale, and 4) a demographic survey was either sent (by e-mail) to principals to distribute among teachers, or given directly to teachers during the researcher’s visits to preschools (see Appendici I-IV). Two preschool teachers who initially agreed to participate in the study withdrew themselves from the study. Of 26 distributed survey packages 23 were returned. However, two completed surveys were excluded from the study as the respondents did not have any experience of working with children with autism. Thus, the analysis was based on total 21 preschool and kindergarten teachers.
All study participants were females. The teachers ranged in age from 30 to 61years. The mean age of respondents was 46.8. Ten teachers (50%) had not take any courses in special education while studying at the university; three teachers (15%) earned 5 points in special education; one teacher (5%) – 10 points; two teachers (10%) earned between 15-20 points; three teachers (15%) earned between 21-40 points, and one teacher (5%) had a further education degree in special education, 60 points. Ten participants (47.6%) worked as preschool teachers for more than 20 years; five (23.8%) had teaching experience in the 16-20 years range; four participants (19%) – 11-15 years, one participant (4.8%) – 6-10 years, and one participant (4.8%) – 1-5 years.
Ethical Considerations
This study was conducted in accordance with the international ethical standards in social sciences research, such as informed consent; protection from harm, and participants’ rights to privacy (Babbie, 2001; Bryman, 2002; Vetenskapsrådet, 2002). Prior to the study, the teachers’
permissions to take part in the study were obtained. The cover letter that accompanied the survey package informed the teachers about the aims of the study, and that their participation would be voluntary, anonymous, and that they had the right to withdraw any time. It also informed participants that obtained research findings data would be fully confidential and be used only for research purposes.
Data Analysis
The PASW Statistics 18 Student Version was used to analyze the collected data. During the preliminary analyses stage the descriptive statistics was performed to obtain demographic information on the sample. The second set of analyses was a series of bivariate correlations between a number of teacher characteristics variables and teachers’ responses to the AAST and the Teacher Efficacy scale. A set of additional correlation analyses was conducted between teacher characteristics and four subscales of the Teacher Efficacy scale.
Factor analysis for the Bandura’s Teacher Efficacy scale was not conducted due to the small sample (n=21) (Pallant, 2010). For the same reason the regression analyses were not performed (see Pallant, 2010).
Methodological Limitations
The present study has several methodological limitations that should be addressed before presenting the main findings. The results of the study cannot be generalized to the whole population of Sweden due to its small sample size (n=21) and the sampling method: teachers were not sampled randomly – they were recruited from two neighboring counties by contacting their school principals. Small sample size also did not permit conducting a number of statistical tests to detect differences between, for instance, those teachers who had more experience of working with children with autism and those who had less experience, or between those teachers who used ABA intervention approach and those who used only social stories or other methods in their daily work with this disability group. For this reason, the findings of this pilot study should be approached with extreme caution and treated as preliminary (Lancaster, Dodd
& Williamson, 2004).
Another limitation pertains to the use of the instrument, the Autism Attitude Scale for Teachers (AAST), to collect and examine preschool teachers’ attitudes to children with autism included to general classrooms together with their typically developing peers. This instrument was developed by Olley and his colleagues in 1981, and, as Park, Chitiyo and Choi (2010) noted, “... it may not fully reflect attitude changes that have occurred since the instrument was developed” (p.112). Also it is important to note that the instrument was developed when autism was considered a relatively rare disorder (Olley et al., 1981), which contradicts with current views on its prevalence and incidence. This possible shortcoming of the AAST may explain why two preschool teachers withdrew from participation in the present study. They reported that it was very difficult to answer some of the questions in the AAST scale as they thought the scale was designed for children with severe form of autism, and therefore could not be applicable to
the child they worked with who was diagnosed with attention hyperactivity deficit disorder (ADHD) and autism. Another limitation of the present study is that the original meaning of some words in both instruments, the AAST and the Teacher Efficacy Scale, could have been lost during the translation process.
Results
Demographic information
As can be seen in Table 2, the majority of preschool teachers reported that they had work experience with children with autism within 2 to 5 years range. In relation to a degree of severity of autism, one preschool teacher reported that she had work experience with children with both mild and severe forms of autism, two – both mild and moderate forms of autism, three – both moderate and severe forms of autism, and one person had worked with children who had mild, moderate and severe forms of autism. None of the teachers reported using TEACCH intervention approach, while nine teachers used applied behavior analysis (ABA). Four teachers used both ABA and social stories in their work with children with autism. Other teachers used either social stories or some other methods. Methods mentioned: ”a general pedagogical structure” (n=1), ”pictures” (n=1), ”a paraprofessional who works exclusively with the child, using baby toys and social stories” (n=1), methods to ”develop social and communicative skills”
(n=1), ”nothing” (n=1). Regarding the intensity of provided intervention, the average number of hours per week of working individually (i.e. one-to-one) with children with autism was 2.30 (SD=1.08). For the group of teachers who provided intervention based on the principles of ABA (n=9), the average number of hours per week of one-to-one support was 2.56 (SD=1.01). In this connection it would be informative to report the written comments provided by one of the participants of the study who used the behavioural treatment both in inclusive and separate preschool settings. She wrote: “We opened a [separate] department for children with autism inside the general preschool. We observed successful results and very satisfied parents... It’s very good to have a separate department, where we [applied] cognitive behavioural therapy with a lot of good results. All our four children came from “general departments”; however, they brought bad experiences from there. Joint playing outside – that was very good. It felt natural that all children could be there together.” This view of having a separate department was supported by another teacher who did not use ABA in her classroom. She wrote: “I have worked in a [special] school for children with autism; at that time we worked one-to-one with children
100 percent [of our time]. There is no time for that in a general preschool group; nor is there knowledge to take care of these children”.
An overwhelming majority of participants (n=16) reported that they had been provided supervision on how to work with autistic children at the preschool. To the question ”How can you describe your knowledge about autism?”, more than a half of all participants (n=12) reported as ”sufficient”, but only one – as ”excellent” (see Table 2).
On the Knowledge scale that examined teachers’ responses to the sources of their perceived knowledge on autism and intervention methods only 14.3% (n=3) participants reported that they learned about autism during their studies at the university. 66.7% (n=14) reported that they got knowledge about this disorder through participation in in-service training courses. 42.9% (n=9) of participants learned about autism and intervention methods from children’s parents; 28.6 % (n=6) reported that they gained knowledge on autism from educational services provided by municipalities; eleven preschool teachers (52.4%) gained knowledge on autism and intervention methods from the habilitation centers, and eight participants (38.1%) learned about autism and pedagogical intervention strategies for autism from their colleagues.
Table 2. Pre-school teachers’ knowledge and experience of working with children with autism.
Variable Category N % of the
sample
Gender Females 21 100
Number of years working with children with autism 0.1 year 2-5 years 5-10 years
More than 15 years
3 15 2 1
14.3 71.4 9.5 4.8
Degree of severity of disability Mild
Moderate Severe
9 12 8
42.9 57.1 38.1 Number of hours of working individually with
children with autism 0 hours
1-5 hours 6-9 hours 10-15 hours 15-20 hours
4 10 3 3 1
20 50 15 15 5
Intervention method ABA
TEACCH Social stories Other
9 0 6 6
42.9 0 28.6 28.6 Perceived level of knowledge on autism Minimal
Sufficient Excellent
8 12 1
38.1 57.1 4.8
Supervision received Yes
No 16
5 76.2
23.8
Preschool teachers’ attitudes towards children with autism and their inclusion into general preschools settings
Descriptive statistical analysis on the AAST revealed that the preschool teachers showed a tendency to hold favourable overall attitudes to children with autism included in the general classrooms at preschools (M=3.72, SD=0.67). At the same time, the participants showed neutral attitudes towards inclusive practices of working with children with autism – they had moderate scores on the items related to the inclusion of children with autism into general preschools (M=3.44; SD=0.83) (see Table 3). However, the analysis of the individual scores of the items showed that preschool teachers tended to hold slightly positive beliefs about mutual enrichment of the learning experiences among both typically developing children and children with autism, and that children with autism could benefit from the activities of a general preschool.
Table 3. Preschool teachers’ attitudes to inclusion of children with autism
Item M SD
Preschools with both typically developing children and children with autism
enhance the learning experiences of typically developing children 3.62 1.24 Preschools with both typically developing children and children with autism
enhance the learning experiences of children with autism 3.62 1.20 Typically developing children should be taught in separate groups 3.50 1.10 Regular preschools are too advanced for children with autism 3.19 1.56 Mealtime behavior of children with autism are disruptive and negatively
influence the behavior of children around them 3.24 1.13
Children with autism are too impaired to benefit from the activities of a general
preschool 3.76 1.2
Children with autism cannot socialize well enough to profit from contact with
typically developing children 3.38 1.28
The correlation analyses revealed that there was a positive relation between teachers’
attitudes to children with autism and a number of points in special education earned by teachers during their studies at the university, i.e. pre-service training (r = .487, p < = .04). The results also showed that though non-significant there was a tendency to a positive relation between teachers’ attitudes to children with autism and participation in in-service training (r = .385, p <
= .11). Similarly, the results showed that teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion of these children into general preschools were positively correlated with a number of points in special education earned during pre-service education (r = .447, p < = .05), and there was a tendency to a positive relation between teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of these children into general preschools and participation in in-service training (r = .380, p < = .10).
The correlation analyses showed a tendency to a positive relation between teachers’
overall attitudes towards children with autism and supervision(r = .368, p < = .12), and a
positive relation between teachers’ attitudes to inclusion and supervision (r = .397, p < = .08).
There were no relations found between teachers’ overall attitudes to children with autism, their attitudes to inclusion of these children into general preschools and several teacher
characteristics such as a number of years of working as preschool teachers, a number of years working with children with autism, teachers’ perceived knowledge gained both during their pre- service and in-service training.
Relations between the preschool teachers’
perceived efficacy and teacher characteristics
A set of correlation analyses was conducted to examine relations between teachers’ sense of self-efficacy and a number of teacher characteristics. The results showed that there were no relations found between teachers’ self-efficacy and a number of years of working as preschool teachers, a number of years working with children with autism, teachers’ perceived knowledge gained during their pre-service and in-service training. However, the correlation analyses conducted with teacher characteristics and four subscales of the Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale revealed the following: a) there was a positive relation between preschool teachers’ perceived knowledge gained during their participation at in-service training courses and efficacy to make decision making (r = 409, p < = .07); b) there was a tendency to a negative relation between work experience with children with autism and instructional self-efficacy (r = -.348, p < = .14) indicating that higher numbers of years of working with children with autism were associated with lower levels of perceived efficacy, c) there was a tendency to a positive relation between a number of points in special education that preschool teachers earned during pre-service training and efficacy to create a positive school climate (r = .357, p < = .12).
Relations between the preschool teachers’
perceived efficacy and attitudes to children with autism
The results revealed no associations between preschool teachers’ perceived efficacy and their attitudes towards children with autism included into general preschools.
Discussion
The present pilot study focused on investigating the relations between preschool teachers’ (a) attitudes towards the inclusion of children with autism and teachers’ demographics such as years of work experience and educational background, (b) perceived efficacy and years of work experience and educational background, and (c) perceived efficacy and attitudes towards the inclusion of children with autism. All teachers who participated in this survey study had experience of working with children with autism included to regular, municipality driven preschools and kindergartens located in two neighboring counties in central Sweden.
The results of this study partially confirmed the first hypothesis. It was hypothesized that preschool teachers who had taken part in special education courses during either their pre- service or in-service training as well as worked on a daily basis with children with autism would respond positively toward the inclusion of these children in general preschools. It was found that the teachers generally showed a tendency to hold favorable overall attitudes towards children with autism (M=3.72, SD=0.67) and neutral attitudes towards the inclusion of children with autism to the general preschool classrooms (M=3.44, SD=0.83). These findings are not consistent with the results of a number of previous studies that reported that preschool staff would be unwilling to include children with severe disabilities such as autism together with typically developing children (Eiserman, Shisler &Healey, 1995; Killoran, Tymon & Frempong, 2007; Rafferty & Griffin, 2005; Stoiber; Gettinger & Goetz, 1998). The possible explanation to this could be a teacher training factor. Indeed, as the results of correlation analyses showed, there were positive relations between teachers’ overall attitudes to children with autism, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of these children into general preschools and a number of points in special education earned by teachers during pre-service education. As several
researchers noted, preschool teachers who had higher educational levels or had pre-service training in special education, held more positive attitudes toward inclusion of children with disabilities than their less educated colleagues (Park, Chitiyo & Choi, 2010; Rafferty & Griffin, 2005; Stoiber; Gettinger & Goetz, 1998).
At the same time, the results of the present study indicated that about half of the teachers (n=10) did not take any courses in special education during their pre-service education at universities/teacher colleges. Moreover, of those teachers who did take classes in special education during their pre-service education, only 14.3% (n=3) reported that they had gained good knowledge in autism. This lack of training during teachers’ pre-service education could explain why teachers showed rather neutral attitudes to inclusion of children with autism in their classrooms. However, the results of the study also revealed positive relations between teachers’
overall attitudes to children with autism, their attitudes to inclusion and supervision, and a
tendency to positive relations between teachers’ overall attitudes to children with autism, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of these children into general preschools and participation in in-service training. Therefore, it can be assumed that lack of necessary knowledge and skills during pre-service education was compensated by teachers’ participation in in-service training courses and received supervision, which could lead to formation of more favorable attitudes to children with autism and absence of negative attitudes to inclusion. Thus, teacher training is one of the key factors in effective provision of support for children with specific disabilities such as autism at inclusive preschool settings. Participation in training seminars not only gives teachers an opportunity to gain knowledge and skills, but also form positive attitudes and increase teachers’ ability to work effectively with all children (Rafferty & Griffin, 2005; Simpson, de Boer-Ott &Smith-Myles, 2003). Teacher training is also considered as a predictor of the quality of early childhood environment (Guo et al., 2010; see also Odom, 2004).
As it has been noted earlier, the analysis of the individual scores on the items related to inclusion in the present study showed that preschool teachers tended to agree that inclusion was beneficial for both children with autism and their typically developing peers. This finding is consistent with studies reported by Lieber et al. (1998) and Rafferty and Griffin (2005). For example, Lieber and her colleagues (1998) in their qualitative study described beliefs of early childhood teachers about inclusion and observed the ways these teachers enacted their beliefs.
The researchers found that teachers believed that typically developing children would learn about and accept differences; learn to be empathetic, tolerant and compassionate for others;
learn to help others. Teachers also believed that inclusion was equally beneficial for children with disabilities who “would acquire cognitive, linguistic and social skills through observing, modeling and interacting with more competent peers” (p.98). However, the methodology of the present study did not make it possible to investigate how exactly children with autism and their typically developing peers benefited from inclusion.
The hypothesis that preschool teachers who worked with children with autism in inclusive environment on a daily basis would show positive attitudes toward the inclusion of these children in general preschools was not confirmed – the statistical analyses revealed no associations between teachers’ overall attitudes to children with autism, attitudes to inclusion and teachers’ work experience in preschool setting, in general, and work experience with children with autism, in particular. These findings generally do not support Park’s and his colleagues’ (2010) suggestion that contact and exposure to children with autism could foster teachers’ positive attitudes to this disability group and their inclusion. It is possible that factors other than work experience could affect the formation of more positive attitudes, such as availability of support from administration, availability of resources, and close collaboration with other agencies responsible for provision of intervention services. More research is needed
to identify both facilitators and barriers to formation of positive attitudes toward successful inclusion of young children with autism.
Although there were no relations found between teachers’ attitudes to inclusion of children with autism and their work experience, there was an interesting finding related to a specific aspect of teachers’ experience of working with this disability group that requires attention – the intensity of intervention, i.e. the number of hours per week of one-to-one support provided by teachers to children with autism. Teachers reported that they worked individually (one-to-one) with children with autism on average 2.30 hour per week (SD=1.08). Somewhat similar result was reported by those teachers who provided intervention based on the principles of ABA (n=9) – 2.56 hours per week (SD=1.01). This finding – low-intensive intervention that children with autism received at preschools – supports Dawson’s & Osterling’s (1997)
observation that in school-based programs it is common to provide less than 27 hours per week of intervention, the intensity that promotes achievement of positive outcomes for children with autism. Although it was beyond the scopes of the present study to examine the impact of low- intensive behavioral intervention on outcomes for young children with autism in regular classrooms, it can be assumed that low intensity of behavioral intervention may indirectly support Eldevik’s and his colleagues’ (2006) argument that “replacing the 1:1 behavioral treatment time in a separate room with time in a mainstream kindergarten was not successful in improving [child’s] adaptive and social skills” (p. 222). This could also be a possible
explanation for why teachers demonstrated rather neutral attitudes toward inclusion of these children in general classrooms.
One of the purposes of the present study was to examine the relations between teachers’
perceived efficacy and teacher characteristics such as work experience and education background. The results of the correlation analyses revealed no associations between those variables. However, the analyses conducted with teacher characteristics and subscales of the Teacher Efficacy Scale showed that, first, there was a positive relation between preschool teachers’ efficacy to influence decision making and their perceived knowledge about autism and its treatment gained during their participation in in-service training courses. Second, it was found that there was a tendency to a positive relation between teachers’ efficacy to create a positive school climate and a number of points in special education earned during pre-service education. As research has reported, teachers’ professional development through participation in in-service training in special education enhances teachers’ perceived efficacy (Roll-Pettersson, 2008), especially if these programs included ”information about (a) the needs of students with disabilities, (b) curricular and instructional adaptations, and (c) behavior management
techniques for students with disabilities” (Brownell & Pajares, 1999, p.162). Brownell and Pajares (1999) also argued, that teachers’ pre-service preparation plays a critical role in development of teacher efficacy beliefs if pre-service education programs offer the same
components as in-service programs do. In the present study, the teachers who were enrolled into in-service special education programs, probably, were perceived as knowledgable and,
therefore, were supported by their principals through creation of favourable conditions to influence decision making at preschools. Furthermore, it could be supposed that teachers who received support from their principals, showed higher efficacious beliefs about being able to influence decision making and, thus, contributing to creating of a positive climate at preschools.
The third finding related to teachers’ sense of self-efficacy in the present study revealed a tendency to a negative relation between teachers’ work experience with children with autism and their instructional self-efficacy. This finding indicated that the longer teachers worked with children with autism in inclusive classrooms, the less they felt capable to teach those children in such environment. A possible explanation to this phenomenon can be found in the relationships between teachers’ efficacy beliefs to children’s outcomes as a result of pedagogical
intervention. Research has established the positive relationships between teachers’ high level of efficacy beliefs to instruct and students’ improvement in learning outcomes (see Guskey, 1986;
Brownell & Pajares, 1999; Smith, 1989). Given the results of the present study, one could suppose that teachers’ low level of instructional efficacy can be attributed to children’s
outcomes, implying that children with autism probably did not demonstrate active participation in academic activities and the acquisition of new skills at a desirable level, i.e. children did not fully benefit academically and socially from inclusive preschool environment (Simpson, de Boer-Ott & Smith-Myles, 2003). If this supposition is true, then teachers discouraged by their unsuccessful experience might feel that they failed in their task of educating these children, which could lead to dissatisfaction and, eventually, to development of low efficacy beliefs. As Bandura (1997) noted, successes build a strong belief in one’s personal efficacy, while failures undermine it (p.80).
Another possible explanation to low self-efficacy beliefs to instruct children with autism in inclusive classroom among preschool teachers can be found in the reported evidence that efficacy beliefs of experienced teachers tend to be stable and difficult to change (see
Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998). This becomes especially pronounced when experienced teachers try to implement pedagogical innovations. As several authors argue, implementation of innovative instructional strategies is very difficult as it requires changing of existing teachers’ beliefs about the effectiveness of their instructional strategies (Guskey, 1986;
Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy (1998). Based on the review of relevant studies, Tschannen-Moran and her colleagues noted that ”Teachers who successfully implemented the new program exhibited marked gains in self-efficacy, whereas teachers who learned about the new method but were unsuccessful in their attempts to implement it saw their level of self- efficacy decline” (p.237). In this context, encouragement and support in a form of specific feedback and training provided to in-service teachers can enhance their efficacy beliefs. In the
present study, for those in-service teachers, who took part in professional development courses in applied behavior analysis, and who followed the recommendations of the heads of the habilitation centers in Sweden to include children with autism into general preschool classrooms, the implemenation of new instructional strategies based on applied behavior analysis such as ”the Lovvas method”, most probably, presented a big challenge and may be in part be responsible for teachers’ neutral attitudes to inclusion of children with autism in general settings. This in conjunction with low intensity of intervention hours supports the suggested explanation of teachers’ low level of instructional efficacy. Regular, high quality intensive supervision provided to teachers can be seen as one of the sources in developing a strong sense of efficacy among in-service teachers. Since the efficacy is negatively affected by repeated failures, teachers need practical support to get out of the vicious circle (Roll-Pettersson, 2011, via email), especially for those teachers who began implementing pedagogical interventions based on the ABA principles.
In this study it was also hypothesized that preschool teachers who had positive attitudes towards children with autism and their inclusion would show high level of self-efficacy. The results of the study did not confirm this hypothesis: correlation analyses revealed no significant relations between these two variables. A possible explanation to this finding could be related to the issue of children’s outcomes. Child skills in social and academic domains are indicators of the effectiveness of intervention programs. The components outlined in the Autism Spectrum Disorder Inclusion Collaboration Model (Simpson, de Boer-Ott & Smith-Myles, 2003), such as development of positive attitudes to integration of children with autism into general education classrooms among teachers, their professional development, the use of appropriate instructional methods together with adequate teacher planning time, reduced class size, availability of assistance from paraprofessionals and qualified resource personnel (e.g. speech therapists, psychologists, special educators, social workers), and close home-school relationships are prerequisites to positive outcomes of young children with autism in general classrooms. For those teachers who use interventions based on ABA (e.g. “the Lovaas method”) for children with autism in inclusive preschool settings, a higher intensity approach could be viewed as especially important in achieving positive outcomes among children with autism. If teachers observe favourable outcome as a result of early interventions, one may expect changes in teachers’ efficacy beliefs. As Guskey (1986) noted, “... gained evidence of improvements in the learning outcomes of their students expressed more positive attitudes toward teaching and greater personal responsibility for their students’ learning – similar to a sense of self-efficacy”
(p.8). Unfortunately, in frames of this study it is not possible to prove the suggested explanation as this study was not designed to measure children’s outcomes in relation to their teachers’
perceived efficacy and attitudes to inclusion. Future research is needed to address this issue.
Implications for Practice and Research
In Sweden the current political agenda to include children with disabilities into general schools has made state and local educational agencies focus on implementing inclusive practices for children with autism in general educational settings. Nevertheless, despite educational reforms, there are a number of issues that still need to be addressed. One of the important issues is related to teacher training. The results of the present study demonstrated that preschool teachers lacked necessary training in special education during their pre-service preparation, implying that available curricula in special education offered at universities/teacher colleges did not fully reflect the existing demands of knowledge and skills required to support children with autism in regular preschools, and, therefore, should be revised. According to the Swedish National Agency for Higher Education (SNAHE, 2006), at the pre-service level the two teacher programs - general education and special education – are separated from each other, giving very little chance for university instructors and students in both programs to interact with each other and cooperate. For this reason, the SNAHE (2006) strongly recommended to revise existing curricula in such a way that courses in special education would become an obligatory part in general education programs. As Vakil et al (2009) rightly noted, “the marriage” of special and general education will be fruitful and beneficial for all (p.326).
Teacher preparation programs in general early childhood education should not only give knowledge in various pedagogical strategies of working with children with autism, but also give them more opportunities to instruct these children in inclusive settings, thus confronting the educational challenges this disability group presents. Enacted mastery experiences together with positive performance feedback that pre-service teachers get during their field work/practice can foster their strong sense of self-efficacy (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy & Hoy, 1998). This becomes especially salient as formation of efficacy beliefs is believed are most prone to occur in early learning (Bandura, 1977). Efficacy beliefs of in-service teachers can be strengthened through participation in professional development workshops and close collaboration with qualified resource personnel. However, teachers should be able to observe positive outcomes among children with autism as a result of their pedagogical interventions, which becomes a necessary prerequisite for development of high levels of efficacy beliefs. Therefore, teachers
