Do teachers favor the inclusion of all students? A systematic review of primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education

ABSTRACT

It has been decades since inclusive education was introduced as the most favourable approach to educating students with special educational needs and disabilities. Still, according to research and practice, teachers’ attitudes are seen as the most important key factor for its successful implementation. Therefore, there is an ongoing process of researchers investigating teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive schooling. The aim of the current study was to do a follow-up of previous reviews on primary schoolteachers’ attitudes (Avramidis and Norwich 2002; de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2011). In total, 36 studies were analysed. The results indicate that primary school teachers tend to hold rather neutral or ambivalent attitudes towards inclusive education. Similar to previous review results, inclusion still seems to be a matter of students’ type of disability. Therefore, regular primary school teachers do not favour the inclusion of all students when it comes to the concept of inclusion for all students. Directions for improving teachers’ attitudes are widely missing in the studies of the last years.

KEYWORDS:

• Attitudes
• inclusive education
• special educational needs
• disabilities
• teachers
• review

Introduction

For decades, educational development has increasingly shifted towards the direction of inclusive education. Throughout Europe (see e.g. Schwab 2021) and in other parts of the world, growing numbers of students who have been labelled as having a disability or a diagnosis of special educational needs (SEN) are attending mainstream schools instead of being educated in special schools or classes. This is partly due to the publication of various policy papers underpinning the importance of inclusion (for an overview, see Watkins 2017). For instance, the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO 1994) was a landmark for inclusive education policy. Subsequently, the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations 2007) was introduced. This document can be seen as a key policy document outlining a global vision of inclusive education around the world. Additional shifts in the conceptualisation of inclusive education have also been observed. In the Warnock Report (Department for Education and Science 1978; Warnock 1979), changes for students with disabilities in terms of SEN were initiated. Today, however, the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, Status of Treaties 2015) no longer address different categories of learners (e.g. learners with SEN); instead, the policy encompasses the individuality and uniqueness of all leaners. Moreover, a less medical and person-centred approach (referring to students’ disabilities or SEN) that is holistic and systemic can be observed today, including the consideration of learning barriers in the learners’ environment. Furthermore, such an approach does not solely consider academic aspects – rather, there is also a focus on equity and students’ full participation in all aspects of life (see also Ainscow 2016). Nevertheless, the complexity of inclusive education cannot be summed up within a single straightforward definition or interpretation. Understandings of inclusive education remain heterogeneous (see, e.g. the reviews of Amor et al. 2018; Nilholm and Göransson 2017). The operationalisation of inclusive education within research – especially quantitative – has thus far not been developed. For instance, most papers addressing attitudes towards inclusive education still refer to students in categories according to their disabilities and/or SEN (see, e.g. Schwab, Resch, and Alnahdi 2021). Moreover, the implementation of inclusion in school systems varies widely within and among individual countries (Schwab 2021).

While policy documents and school development have increasingly addressed inclusive schooling, research in the field has also begun to focus more on inclusion. Systematic reviews (e.g. De Vroey, Struyf, and Petry 2015; Van Mieghem et al. 2020) have identified a strong focus on attitudes towards inclusive education within the research. Existing definitions of these attitudes are based on theoretical concepts first coined by Allport (1935) and elaborated on more recently by Eagly and Chaiken (1993; Eagly and Chaiken, 1998), who view attitudes as inner tendencies and evaluative responses. In this vein, according to the three-component model advocated by Eagly and Chaiken (1993), attitudes represent multi-dimensional constructs consisting of affective, cognitive, and behavioural components.

The popularity of investigating attitudes, especially those of teachers, might partly be explained by the fact that lacking positive attitudes towards inclusive education is seen as a barrier towards its implementation. For instance, researchers have pinpointed a relationship between teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy (see the meta-study by Yada et al. 2022) and, by extension, the successful implementation of inclusion (Boyle, Anderson, and Allen 2020). Due to the huge number of studies investigating teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, some systematic reviews of the relevant studies have been conducted. For example, the meta-analysis by Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) included studies published from 1958 to 1995. The results showed that around two-thirds of the surveyed teachers had a relatively positive attitude towards inclusive education but fewer teachers were willing to implement inclusion within their own classrooms. Avramidis and Norwich (2002) provided an overview of studies undertaken between 1984 and 2000. They showed that during this period, teachers’ attitudes were found to be considerably positive, but evidence of the acceptance of ‘total inclusion’ was missing. One significant result of their study was that the kind of disability experienced by the student strongly influences teachers’ attitudes towards their inclusion, while teacher-related variables seemed to be less important. Furthermore, the lack of human and material resources has been cited as another barrier to inclusive education. Around ten years later, de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert (2011) included studies published between 1998 and 2008 in their systematic review. According to their outcomes, primary teachers’ attitudes were largely neutral. Again, the kind of disability presented to teachers emerged as a strong influencing variable. While a significant amount of research on teachers’ attitudes was summarised within these two reviews, research on this topic has remained popular over the last ten years. There have been some meta-studies published since the publication of de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert (2011). For instance, (2022)) conducted a meta-analysis on the relationship between teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive schooling and their teaching self-efficacy. Furthermore, van Steen and Wilson (2020) conducted a meta-analysis on individual and cultural factors affecting teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. The current study offers relevant added value in that it provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of research on primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. The present review differs from its predecessors in at least two respects. First, while previous efforts included solely quantitative studies, the present review includes quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies on the selected topic. Second, while previous reviews only included studies presented in English, the present review also includes studies presented in German, since attitudes received substantial research attention in German-speaking countries over the examined period.

Current study

To provide a systematic presentation of the research literature on teachers’ attitudes towards educational inclusion in the educational context and the potential influencing factors, the aim of the current article is to collectively present the state of international research in the field. Following the outstanding work of de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert (2011), the paper is intended to serve as an updated continuation of the research review and thus provide a summary of the recent body of literature. Therefore, the current study has two main objectives as follows: (1) offer a systematic analysis of primary teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion and (2) identify variables affecting teachers’ attitudes.

Method

Data sources and search procedure

Various search approaches were used in order to generate adequate potential contributions to the systematic review. Electronic searches in EBSCO host, ERIC, PsycARTICLES, PsychINFO, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science were conducted from December 2021 to April 2022. In addition, a systematic hand screening of selected journals was conducted. Selection criteria for the journals referred to high impact factors in the context of special and inclusive education, as well as pedagogy and educational research (journals selected for hand-screening: International Journal of Inclusive Education, European Journal of Special Needs Education, British Journal of Special Education, Exceptional Children, British Journal of Educational Psychology, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, International Journal of Special Education, Teaching and Teacher Education, and Journal of Research on Special Needs Education). To find appropriate literature, the following search terms were used individually or in combination: (‘teach*’ and ‘attitude*’ and ‘inclusi*’ or ‘mainstream*’ or ‘inclusi* education’ or ‘special needs students’ or ‘special educational needs’ or ‘impair*’ or ‘disorder*’ or ‘disab*’). Using these two search strategies, a total of 3,703 studies was selected.

Selection criteria for articles

The search procedure and selection of contributions followed the PRISMA guidelines (Liberati et al. 2009; see Figure 1) which specify the following steps within the article selection: (1) broad selection of adequate contributions found through database search and hand-screening (N = 3.703 studies), (2) removal of duplicates (N = 916), (3) title and abstract screening of studies (N = 2787 studies of which 2.577 were deemed irrelevant), (4) full-text assessment of studies for eligibility (N = 210 of which 164 were excluded), quality assessment of remaining studies (N = 46 studies of which 10 were excluded). All phases of the selection process were conducted independently by two members of the research team with a view to ensuring rigour. Inclusion criteria defined at the outset served as joint basis for the scientific decision-making process.

Figure 1. PRISMA chart.

Inclusion criteria

• Relevance to the topic: The contribution deals directly with primary teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion.

• Date of publication: The article was published between January 2009 (the starting point is the end of the selection period of de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2011) and April 2022.

• Publishing medium: The article was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

• Language: The article was published in English or German.

• Design: The study encompasses empirical results (e.g. quantitative, qualitative, comparative, mixed methods, intervention).

• Setting: The study took place in primary education.

• Sample: The sample of the article should encompass primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion.

Articles that did not pass the inclusion check were excluded during the full-text assessment step. The main reason for exclusion during the full-text screening could be traced back to inappropriate samples, irrelevant outcomes, or unsuitable article types (no empirical studies). During the last step – namely, the quality assessment – criteria for high-quality scientific work and the comprehensible presentation of research were applied. After checking all potential contributions, 36 articles were found to be eligible for further analysis in the course of the narrative synthesis in accordance with Popay et al. (2006).

Data extraction

The whole paper selection process (title screening, abstract screening, full paper screening) was done by two persons to ensure a high quality of this process (Long et al. 2002). If the quality check was positive and the potential bias was judged to be low by two independent reviewers, key article data was extracted and integrated into a protocol (Popay et al. 2006; see Supplementary material Table 1). This process resulted in the identification of 36 articles as eligible for the present synthesis.

Textual narrative synthesis

To analyse the remaining 36 articles, the textual narrative synthesis promoted by Popay et al. (2006) was deemed appropriate. This approach allows researchers to compare the similarities and differences of various studies with diverse study designs based on the data that has been previously extracted using the following four-step process: (1) identify the theoretical construct leading the selection process; (2) formulate a description of patterns regarding study characteristics (if necessary, organise the articles into more homogenous subgroups); (3) compile the similarities and differences among the studies based on the data extraction; and (4) produce the textual narrative synthesis (e.g. a map of knowledge, Hart 2018).

The theoretical models function as starting points of the selection process by defining thematic constructs and distinguishing them from similar concepts. Against the background of the research questions, the underlying theoretical models contain two working definitions – namely, ‘attitude’ and ‘inclusion’.

Attitude

Attitude is considered to be a multidimensional construct consisting of the following three conceptually distinguishable reactions to a given object: cognitive, affective, and behavioural (Eagly and Chaiken 1993). The cognitive component concerns beliefs, opinions, and ideas about the attitude object; the affective component concerns feelings such as ‘like’ or ‘dislike’; and the behavioural component concerns behavioural intentions or action tendencies.

Inclusion

Ainscow et al. (2006) developed a set of six perspectives and conceptualisations on inclusion, encompassing (1) inclusion dealing with students with special educational needs and disability; (2) inclusion dealing with students perceived as having challenging behaviour; (3) inclusion concerned with the exclusion of all vulnerable groups of students due to individual or collective identity markers; (4) inclusion as the approach of an individual school for all students without separation or segregation; (5) inclusion as ‘Education for All’, referring to UNESCO’s agenda; and (6) inclusion as a normative social goal dealing with principles such as equity and community. The chosen working definition of the present systematic review focuses on the first conceptualisation – inclusion as an approach to providing educational settings encompassing students with special educational needs as well as students without these needs.

Results

The systematic literature selection led to a total of 36 contributions. Table 1 (Supplementary material) provides information on the extracted data, including authors, title, year of publication, study setting (geographical and educational), study design, methods, outcome subcategory, and journal of publication. The selected articles feature the following empirical approaches: 27 quantitative papers, 3 qualitative papers, and 6 mixed-methods papers. The years of publication range from 2009 to 2021. The studies took place on four continents, namely Africa (Botswana, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Trinidad), Asia (Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey), Europe (Austria, England, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, and Turkey), and North America (Barbados and ‘Southeastern regions’ – no specific information on geographical characteristics can be taken from the paper).

The identified studies were classified into the following four categories on the basis of their findings: (a) those reporting positive attitudes, (b) those reporting neutral attitudes, (c) those reporting negative attitudes, (d) those reporting ambivalent attitudes. Unlike De Boer et al’.s (2011) review where the classification of the studies was made on the basis of a numerical criterion (concerning the mean scores or the percentages presented), in the present review, studies were rated by two independent reviewers. Where disagreement between raters occurred or mixed results were detected, the study was classified as ambivalent.

Primary schoolteachers’ general attitudes towards inclusive education

Positive attitudes

Hashmi et al. (2017) investigated teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education in Pakistan and showed that the majority of participating primary schoolteachers favoured inclusive education. Seventy-four percent of participants defined inclusion in the context of education as a favourable practice. Seventy-seven percent of teachers agreed with the statement that all students regardless of their SEN or disabilities should be included in regular classes. Ninety percent of teachers perceived the inclusion of students with disabilities in regular classrooms to promote these students’ social participation and integration into peer groups of students without disabilities. Although the overall results can be interpreted as revealing mostly positive attitudes towards inclusive education, differences regarding students’ type of disability were found (see section entitled ‘Type of disability’).

In line with this, the study by Hellmich et al. (2019) in Germany confirmed teachers’ positive attitudes regarding inclusive educational practice in regular primary schools. By using a self-developed scale for assessing teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion quantitatively, results indicate very high approval ratings for inclusive education (e.g. regarding the adaption of learning situations to meet students’ needs as well as the fostering of social participation of all students).

Sakiz and Woods (2014) reported positive teacher attitudes towards inclusive education in their study in Turkey. All participating teachers explicitly supported the inclusion of students with disabilities in their schools and classes. Against this background, teachers’ understandings of inclusion and inclusive educational practice must be viewed critically, as despite the clear positive positioning, some teachers advocated the spatial separation of students with special educational needs (within the mainstream school) in order to meet their needs.

The results of Saloviita and Consegnati’s (2019) study showed highly positive teacher attitudes towards inclusion in Italy. Only 5% of participants favoured special educational settings for students with special educational needs, whereas 91% favoured regular classrooms being turned into inclusive educational settings.

Slovenian teachers’ overall attitudes towards inclusive education in the context of the study by Štemberger and Kiswarday (2018) were positive and mostly influenced by affective components. Teachers reported high levels of willingness to work in inclusive educational settings.

Negative attitudes

Although Odongo et al. (2016) interpreted their results to show that most teachers in Kenya had relatively positive attitudes towards inclusive education, the negative attitudes and concerns of teachers regarding educational inclusion seemed to predominate. This was clearly illustrated by teachers’ ratings of concerns regarding inclusive education. The four main concerns of teachers dealt with doubts of having enough time to meet the needs of all students in one classroom when teaching students with and without educational needs together (85.1%), perceptions of insufficient training regarding the professional implementation of inclusive education (84%), concerns of being able to evaluate student works deriving from a diversified classroom composition (83%), and doubts of being able to guarantee a disciplined work environment in inclusive classrooms (73%).

In their study, Rakap and Kaczmarek (2010) found that Turkish teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities were largely negative. Similar results were found by Ross-Hill (2009) regarding a sample of primary schoolteachers in the United States.

Neutral attitudes

Results that showed neutral tendencies in teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education were mostly found in studies with quantitative empirical design, such as the work of Alnahdi and Schwab (2021) in Saudi Arabia, Avramidis et al. (2019) in Greece, Hellmich and Görel (2014) in Germany, Heyder et al. (2020) in Germany, Mukhopadhyay (2014) in Botswana, Trumpa (2014) in Germany, Vanderpuye et al. (2020) in Ghana, and Urton et al. (2015) in Germany.

The results of the study by Gebhardt et al. (2011) in Austria pointed to teacher attitudes ranging from neutral to positive. However, it must be mentioned that clear differences could be observed with regard to the respective disabilities of children (see section entitled ‘Type of disability’).

In a study by Monsen et al. (2014) in the United Kingdom, the participating teachers were classified into the following three groups on the basis of their reported attitudes: mostly positive attitudes (n = 24), neutral attitudes (n = 45), and mostly negative attitudes (n = 26).

In line with the studies described above, the participants of the study by Moti et al. (2016) in Ethiopia showed moderately neutral results regarding their attitudes towards inclusive education.

Yada et al., (2022) also found Finish teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education to be neutral over repeated measurements, thus confirming the stability of teachers’ attitudes over time.

Urton et al. (2014) showed that teachers’ attitudes regarding inclusive education in Germany in general can be interpreted as positive. However, the same teachers rated their attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN and disabilities in regular classrooms rather neutral when it came to the social integration of students.

Ambivalent attitudes

While some studies show the neutral rating tendencies of teachers, a category encompassing ambivalent attitudes is also necessary. The reason for creating up such a category of ambivalent attitudes is that in some studies, extremely divergent attitudes of the participating teachers (extremely positive and extremely negative interpersonal ratings) become apparent and therefore cannot be included in the neutral attitudes section.

In the study by Amr et al. (2016) in Jordan, the interpersonally ambivalent attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education became extremely clear. On the one hand, the participating teachers openly spoke out against including students with special educational needs and/or disabilities in regular classrooms. The arguments underpinning this view were diverse, including the assumption that students with disabilities are not capable of keeping up with learning requirements and processes. Another explanation for their rejection of inclusion was the lack of resources at the school and class levels that might prevent all students from participating in the educational processes of teaching and learning. Other teachers participating in the study by Amr et al. (2016) justified their negative attitudes towards inclusive education as a preventive reaction against the exclusion and bullying of students with disabilities, to which they might be exposed in inclusive settings from their peers without disabilities. In contrast to the negative statements of teachers regarding their attitudes towards inclusive education, some colleagues positioned themselves in favour of inclusive education and referred to the perceived benefits associated with it. The benefits of inclusive education in this context exclusively concerned students with SEN or disabilities who the teachers believed would benefit socially and psychologically from being included in regular schools.

The results of the study by Bailey et al. (2015) might, at first glance, lead one to believe that the attitude ratings of Malaysian teachers were neutral; however, these results are considered particularly interesting in going beyond this. Although the majority of the participating teachers (strongly) agreed with the statements that ‘inclusion is generally a desirable practice’ (79.6%), ‘students with disabilities should be given every opportunity to function in general education setting’ (93.7%), and ‘the inclusion of students with disabilities can be beneficial for students in the general education setting’ (81.7%), 95.1% of teachers agreed with the statement that ‘the needs of students with disabilities can best be served through special classes’, which is not considered in keeping with inclusive teaching principles. The rating of this item led to a drop of the overall mean to a neutral mean, whereas all other items on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education show neutral-positive to positive tendencies (Bailey et al. 2015).

The results of Blackman et al’.s study (2012) suggest that both Barbadian and Trinidadian teachers’ attitudes towards integration (the study referred to the concept of integration and not inclusion) were ambivalent, as the ratings of the teachers showed a high interpersonal fluctuation range.

Gyimah et al. (2009) reported that teachers in Ghana held generally positive attitudes towards inclusive education but, at the same time, emphasised that the extent of positive attitudes were dependent on the students’ type of disability. Therefore, the results were categorised as ambivalent teacher attitudes in the context of the present literature review.

The results of Hwang and Evans’s (2011) work also show the ambivalent attitudes of Korean teachers regarding inclusive educational practice. Of the participating teachers, 41.37% positively rated inclusive education, 34.47% rated it negatively, and 24.13% held neutral attitudes towards the concept. When asking these teachers about their willingness to work in inclusive educational settings defined as regular classes containing students with disabilities, 55.16% indicated that they did not want to do so, which means that even teachers who held neutral to positive attitudes towards the concept itself did not prefer to work in an inclusive educational environment. In line with this result, 75.85% of the teachers agreed with the assumption that students with disabilities should be taught in special classes to best address their specific needs (Hwang and Evans 2011).

Kurniawati et al. (2012) concluded that although the participating Indonesian teachers showed neutral values regarding their attitudes towards inclusive education, their willingness to include students with disabilities and/or special educational needs into their regular classroom reflected more positive attitudes.

In the study by Leung and Mak (2010) in Hong Kong, 74.5% of the teachers rejected the suggestion that all schools should follow inclusive educational principles. In addition, 51.2% of teachers expressed concerns about the academic development of students in inclusive education, and 32.6% agreed with the statement that working in inclusive educational settings would negatively influence teachers. These results would suggest that there is a negative underlying attitude among respondents regarding inclusive education. However, checking the predictors for attitudes of teachers (age, general teaching experience, type of disability) in the course of the paper reveals a different picture. Depending on the predictor, ambivalent attitudes on the part of teachers become clear (see section entitled ‘Variables affecting primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education’).

Parey (2019) identified teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education in Trinidad as particularly ambivalent. Against the background of most teachers agreeing that inclusive education is a favourable concept, three possible explanations for the reported concerns were examined. The three areas of concern encompassed school dynamics, professional support, and the differentiation of specific groups of students according to their special educational needs and disabilities. In line with this, another study by Parey (2021) showed the ambivalent attitudes of Trinidadian teachers towards inclusive education. Regarding positive trends in attitudes, the participants highlighted the benefit to students without disabilities of connecting with students with special educational needs and disabilities and becoming sensitised to diverse social interactions. Benefits for students with disabilities were also mentioned in terms of strengthening their independence and social participation. Regarding the negative tendencies in attitudes towards inclusive education, teachers stated the need for adequate resources and support, which they found to be unsatisfactory at the time of the study. Furthermore, the inclusive school setting has been accused of being a potential place of danger and grievance, in which students with disabilities might be exposed to bullying and exclusion by students without disabilities. With regard to the needs of students with disabilities, teachers stated that they should be educated in special education settings in order to reach their full potential and to be adequately taught according to their needs (Parey 2021).

The study by Saloviita (2020a) on the attitudes of Finnish teachers showed large variability ranging from a small group of teachers who were extremely against inclusive education to another small group of teachers who were extremely welcoming of the concept of inclusion in educational settings.

Despite positive connotations in statements from teachers, the overall attitudes towards inclusive education of Polish teachers participating in the study by Starczewska et al. (2012) can be categorised as ambivalent. On the one hand, teachers mentioned the benefits for all students of learning together under the circumstances of heterogeneous class compositions. On the other hand, teachers stated that inclusive education can only be successful when students who are ‘selected’ for inclusive education are carefully ‘chosen’ and have been prepared for inclusive education in regular classes (Starczewska et al. 2012).

Variables affecting primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education

As previously stated, several studies have shown that there is a possible relationship between teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion and specific variables at the teacher and student levels. The following section focuses on the second research question, which deals with factors affecting primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. In the study by de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert (2011), which served as the starting point for this study, the following variables were identified as affecting teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: gender, years of teaching experience, experience with inclusive education, training, and type of students’ disability. The results of the present work build on de Boer’s et al., (2011) findings and expand on them in the following areas: age, educational degree of teachers, personal experience with inclusion or people with disabilities, personality traits, and support.

Age

The results of Avramidis et al’.s (2019) study revealed age to be a significant predictor of Greek teachers’ attitudes, indicating that teachers aged 50 years or older held more positive attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SEN and disabilities than their younger colleagues.

Contrary results were found in the study by Hwang and Evans (2011) indicating that the older Korean teachers were, the more negative their attitudes were and the lower their willingness was to work in inclusive educational settings.

Monsen et al. (2014) found significant differences between younger and older schoolteachers in the UK, whereby younger teachers scored significantly more positive attitudinal ratings than their older colleagues.

Regarding the relationship between teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education and teacher age, Parey (2019) found that teachers at age 21 (considered to be the minimum age of fully qualified in-service teachers in this context) held increasingly negative attitudes for about 10 years, and at the age of 31, their attitudes marginally increased in a positive way.

Saloviita (2020a) found that Finnish teachers who were younger than 30 years of age expressed slightly more positive attitudes than their colleagues who were aged 30 years or older.

In Hong Kong, Leung and Mak (2010) detected a significant relationship between teachers’ age and their evaluations of the suitability of students for inclusive educational settings according to their type of special educational needs. The results showed that teachers within the age range of 26 and 30 years held more negative attitudes towards the inclusion of students with ‘mild intellectual disabilities’ than their colleagues from other age groups.

Educational degree

Few studies have examined the relationship between teachers’ attitudes and their educational qualifications. A study tracing back significant differences between participants’ attitudes to their educational qualifications was conducted by Ahmmed et al. (2012) in Bangladesh, reporting that teachers with a bachelor’s degree held less-positive attitudes than their colleagues with a master’s degree or higher qualifications. In this context, Ahmmed et al. (2012) concluded that teachers’ educational degrees represented a significant predictor of teachers’ attitudes.

The results of the study by Mukhopadhyay (2016) showed that regular teachers in Botswana who had an academic degree in special education held significantly more positive attitudes towards inclusive education than their counterparts with other educational qualification degrees.

Gender

With regard to gender as a variable affecting teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, results from several studies showed a significant relationship.

Ahmmed et al. (2012) found a statistically significant gender difference in the mean scores of Bangladeshi teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, indicating that female teachers held slightly less-positive attitudes than their male colleagues. A linear multiple regression confirmed gender as a significant predictor of teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities.

The results of the study by Gyimah et al. (2011) showed significant differences determined by gender in Ghanaian teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of groups of students, indicating that female teachers had more positive attitudes towards including students with physical disabilities and health disorders in regular classrooms (regardless of additional special educational support), whereas their male colleagues preferred segregated settings.

Saloviita (2020a) found that Finnish female teachers held more positive attitudes towards inclusive education than their male colleagues.

In the studies by Alnahdi and Schwab (2021), Blackman et al. (2012), Monsen et al. (2014), and Rakap and Kaczmarek (2010), gender was not confirmed as a variable affecting regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusion.

Personal experience with inclusive education or people with disabilities

The results of the study by Alnahdi and Schwab (2021) showed that Saudi Arabian teachers who had a relative with a disability showed more positive attitudes towards inclusive education.

The same results were found by Parey (2019), who detected higher levels of positive attitudes towards inclusive education in Trinidadian teachers with experience with other people with disabilities or a friend with disabilities.

Personality traits

The study by Odo et al. (2021) examined Nigerian teachers’ personality traits regarding their professional practice. In this context, a teacher’s level of conscientiousness was found to be a positive predictor of teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education.

Support

All studies that investigated the relationship between teachers’ attitudes and their perceived school support determined significant results, showing positive correlations of high levels of professional support and positive attitudes towards inclusive education (Ahmmed et al. 2012).

Saloviita (2020a) showed that professional support in the form of teaching assistants had a positive influence on Finnish teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion.

General teaching experience

Some studies reported a significant relationship between primary schoolteachers’ general teaching experience (e.g. operationalised by years of active occupation) and their attitudes towards inclusive education.

The results of Odo et al’.s (2021) study showed that Nigerian teachers’ work experience had a significant positive impact on the teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education, indicating that teachers’ positive attitudes increased with each additional year of general work experience as teachers.

Palavan et al. (2018) examined significant differences in Turkish teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education related to their years of general work experience, showing that novice teachers (one to five years of teaching experience) and teachers with a high number of years of teaching experience (21 or more years) showed less-positive attitudes than their colleagues with teaching experiences in between these ranges.

Leung and Mak (2010) confirmed a significant relationship between teaching experience and teachers’ attitudes, reporting that teachers who had worked in the job for ten or more years held significantly more positive attitudes towards inclusive education than their colleagues with less than ten years of work experience as teachers.

Teaching experience in the context of inclusive education

Ahmmed et al. (2021) showed significant differences in attitudes between teachers who had accumulated some experiences with students with disabilities and their counterparts who had no contact with such students. Additionally, teaching experience with students with disabilities was proven to be a predictive variable for teacher attitudes towards inclusive education.

In line with the findings of Ahmmed et al. (2021), Gyimah et al. (2011) reported that teachers who were experienced in teaching students with special educational needs held significantly more positive attitudes towards their inclusion in regular classes. Significant differences between teachers with and without experience in inclusive education could be found in the attitudes of teachers towards the inclusion of students with ‘emotional and behavioural difficulties’, as well as those who are ‘hard of hearing’, have ‘low vision’, and have ‘speech-and-language difficulties’.

The results of the study by Kurniawati et al. (2012) showed that regular primary schoolteachers held more positive attitudes towards inclusive education when they had experiences in special education or when they had previously taught students with special educational needs in their regular classrooms. It should be emphasised that these differences were only significant at the cognitive and affective attitude levels (more favourable of inclusive education) but not at the behavioural level (willingness to actually practice inclusive education).

Parey (2019) showed that teachers’ attitudes were more positive when they had experiences with students with disabilities. In line with this finding, teachers’ concerns decreased as their ratings of experiences in the context of inclusive education became more positive.

Within the studies of Alnahdi and Schwab (2021), Blackman et al. (2012), Monsen et al., (2014), Mukhopadhya (2014), and Leung and Mak (2010) teachers’ experiences with inclusive education or students with special educational needs were not confirmed as a variable affecting regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusion.

Teacher training

Gyimah et al. (2011) reported that teachers who were categorised as having more training in terms of further professional courses held more positive attitudes towards the inclusion of students with ‘mild-to-moderate intellectual difficulties’, whereas their colleagues who were assessed to have less training were more in favour of including students with ‘severe-to-profound intellectual difficulties’ in regular classes.

Kurniawati et al. (2012) also showed significant differences regarding teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education when checking for previous special education training, indicating that regular teachers who have received training related to inclusive education held more positive attitudes than their colleagues without specific training experiences (general attitudes on cognitive-affective levels, willingness to practice inclusive education).

Within the qualitative study of Mukhopadhyay (2016), teachers highlighted the need for training to improve their knowledge and skills and explained their doubts and concerns about inclusive education due to their lack of competence and specific training. Parey (2019) also showed that completed trainings in inclusive education led to more positive teacher attitudes.

The results of the study by Štemberger and Kiswarday (2018) indicated that teachers who had not received in-service training and had no experience in the context of inclusive education regarding special educational needs held the most positive attitudes towards inclusive education. The lowest ratings of attitudes towards inclusive education came from teachers who had experience with inclusive education but received no specific in-service training for special educational needs.

Within the studies by Ahmmed (2012), Monsen et al. (2014), and Rakap and Kaczmarek (2010), professional development courses were not confirmed as a variable affecting regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusion.

Type of disability

Within the results of the study by Gebhardt et al. (2011), students’ type of disability was found to have a significant effect on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. In this study, the inclusion of students with physical disabilities was mostly favoured, followed by students with learning disabilities and students with mental disabilities.

The findings of the study by Gyimah et al. (2011) confirmed the assumption that the student’s type of disability affects teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Teachers were asked to report their preferred educational setting for several groups of students. The results showed that most general primary teachers favoured regular classrooms without the need for special educational support for students with ‘mild-to-moderate intellectual difficulties’ (55%), ‘health disorders’ (45.6%), and ‘physical disorders’ (55%). The same teachers identified the need for additional support within regular classrooms for the following groups of students: ‘severe-to-profound intellectual difficulties’ (63.4%), ‘emotional and behavioural difficulties’ (56%), ‘speech and language difficulties’ (56%), ‘low vision or partially sighted’ (51.2%), and ‘hard of hearing’ (50.2%). Segregated educational settings were rated favourably by most teachers for deaf (67.2%) and blind (73.4%) students.

Although the overall results of the study by Hashmi et al. (2017) can be interpreted as indicating mostly positive attitudes towards inclusive education, differences regarding students’ type of disability were found. Despite the fact that 68% of regular teachers stated to be happy to teach students with disabilities, 52% made clear that not all students with every type of disability are perceived as candidates for inclusion in regular classrooms. Fifty percent of the participants agreed that students with visual and hearing impairments as well as other ‘minor physical disabilities’ should be taught in regular education settings, whereas 75% of primary schoolteachers held negative attitudes towards the inclusion of deaf students. Sixty-one percent of the participating teachers doubted the benefits of inclusion for students with cerebral palsy, and 44% (rather) rejected the idea of including students with speech difficulties.

Monsen et al. (2014) separately examined students’ type of disability as a potential variable affecting teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education for three previously split groups – teachers with high attitudes (positive), medium attitudes (neutral), and low attitudes (negative). The results showed that teachers with generally negative attitudes towards inclusion were more in favour of including students categorised as able or gifted than including students with multiple difficulties. Teachers with neutral attitudes also differentiated their approval of inclusive education with regard to specific groups of students. In this context, their willingness to include students who considered to be able or gifted or with ‘visual difficulties’, learning difficulties, and ‘speech and language difficulties’ was higher than when asked about the inclusion of students with ‘behavioural or multiple difficulties’. Teachers with generally positive attitudes considered the inclusion of able or gifted students, ‘students with learning disabilities’, and students with ‘speech and language difficulties’ to be more favourable than the inclusion of students with ‘behavioural difficulties’. As well, they preferred the inclusion of students considered to be able or gifted as well as students with learning or ‘speech and language difficulties’ over students with multiple difficulties (Monsen et al. 2014).

When asking teachers about different types of students’ disabilities, the results of Parey (2019) showed differences regarding teachers’ attitudes towards the students’ inclusion in regular classrooms. In this context, students with physical and visual disabilities were considered to be easy to include in regular settings, whereas students with ‘major academic and behavioural problems’ were least favoured to be taught in regular classrooms.

Within the study by Rakap and Kaczmarek (2010), teachers stated differences in their comfort levels regarding the inclusion of students with diverse disabilities. When comparing groups of students, the following differences were identified. The participating teachers were more in favour of including students with physical disabilities (32%) and ‘mild and moderate learning disabilities’ (28.4%) than students with hearing (2.6%) and vision (2.1%) impairments, followed by students on the autism spectrum (1%); 19.6% indicated that they would feel comfortable including students with ‘speech and language delays’; and 14.4% held positive attitudes towards the inclusion of students with ‘behavioural problems’ (Rakap and Kaczmarek 2010).

Teachers who participated in the study by Starczewska et al. (2012) strongly believed that not all students would fit into the regular school system and should be educated in special schools or in special classes in regular schools. This perspective was exemplified by alleged problems and challenging circumstances when it comes to the inclusion of students with ADHD and students on the autism spectrum.

In line with many other selected studies, the results of the study by Leung and Mak (2010) showed differences regarding teachers’ willingness to teach students with different types of special educational needs or disabilities. In this study, 47.9% of teachers favoured the inclusion of students with ‘hearing impairment’, followed by 41.7% who agreed to the inclusion of ‘gifted’ students; 33.3% held positive attitudes towards the inclusion of students with ‘learning difficulties’; and 14.6% of the participating teachers reported that from their point of view, none of the types of special educational needs or disabilities could be categorised as ‘suitable’ for inclusive education (Leung and Mak 2010).

Work environment

Kurniawati et al. (2012) examined the significant differences in teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion when comparing regular primary schoolteachers from private and public schools, showing that teachers working at private schools rated their willingness to include students with special educational needs and/or disabilities in their classes more favourably than their colleagues working at public schools.

Discussion

Assuming that the successful implementation of inclusive education is largely dependent upon the cooperation and commitment of regular teachers, there has been a proliferation of studies examining teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Previous attempts to synthesise this body of work have revealed mixed results (Avramidis and Norwich 2002; de Boer, Pijl, and Minnaert 2011). While in many studies teachers have been found to hold positive views towards the general philosophy of inclusion, at the same time, they are also hesitant about implementing inclusion in their classes. The present review has confirmed this tendency by synthesising relevant attitudinal research focusing on primary teachers over the last fifteen years. Specifically, with the exception of three studies that reported negative results (Odongo et al. 2016; Rakap and Kaczmarek 2010; Ross-Hill 2009), all other identified studies reported neutral to positive results. Interestingly, the studies that reported unequivocally positive results were conducted in disparate countries at different stages of inclusive development, which suggests that it is unlikely that cultural characteristics or national education systems account for these findings. For example, the positive findings reported by Saloviita and Consegnati (2019) in their study of Italian teachers could be attributed to the long tradition of inclusive education in Italy and, in particular, the radical way the policy was implemented through the complete dismantling of special schooling in 1977 and the subsequent accommodation of disabled students in their local community schools. Unsurprisingly, four decades later, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in Italy remain positive, especially as the alternative option of a special school does not exist and, perhaps more importantly, Italian teachers have experienced the feasibility and effectiveness of inclusive education. On the other hand, the positive findings reported by Hellmich et al. (2019) in their study of German teachers in North Rheine Westphalia could be attributed to the significant inclusive developments that have taken place in this particular state over the last few years, including increased learning support in regular schools and providing teachers with opportunities for training on inclusion so that they can develop the necessary expertise to meet the needs of students with disabilities.

In considering the results of the identified studies, some useful observations can be made. First, it was consistently found that the attitudes of regular teachers towards inclusion were largely affected by the type of children’s disability presented to them (Gebhardt et al. 2011; Gyimah et al. 2011 Hashmi et al. 2017; Parey 2019). Indeed, the present review has highlighted variable responses to the difficulty of accommodating children with different types of SEN and, more generally, the feasibility of inclusive arrangements for all students. While children with motor, sensory, and mild cognitive disabilities were usually viewed as unproblematic, children with more severe and complex needs (brain/neurological disorders, autistic spectrum disorders, or behavioural difficulties) were regarded as a major challenge to accommodate. In this respect, it was often stated that inclusive education can only be successful when students with disabilities have been carefully ‘chosen’ for inclusion so that they can be accommodated in regular classes (Monsen et al. 2014; Starczewska et al. 2012). Far from indicating a blanket ethical commitment to ‘teach all pupils’, as genuine ‘inclusion’ presupposes, such findings demonstrate regular teachers’ enculturation within an ‘integration’ paradigm in which the manner and extent of children’s integration is predicated on their own needs and the school’s circumstances (i.e. the availability of support, resources and training opportunities for the teaching staff among others). It is therefore regrettable that almost thirty years on from the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO 1994), the right of all students to be educated in regular schools is not fully embraced by regular teachers. Put simply, the often-cited principle in definitions of inclusion of educating ‘all’ students in regular schools does not mean in practice ‘all’ but more likely ‘most’ students with disabilities. Our analysis of the identified attitudinal studies suggests that while teachers generally agree with the inclusion concept in principle, at the same time, they privilege certain types of SEN/disability thus reflecting socially constructed hierarchies of suitable candidates for educational inclusion based on personal characteristics”. In this respect, the right to inclusion is weighed and granted or denied depending on the learning characteristics of the persons concerned (see section ‘Type of disability’). Thus, the right to inclusion is weighed and granted or denied depending on the identity characteristics of the persons concerned (see section entitled ‘Type of disability’). Accordingly, the debate surrounding inclusive education should therefore not be focused on the question of the extent to which students with disabilities and/or special educational needs are included (e.g. the question of total inclusion within a regular class or moderate inclusion in the regular school system with opportunities for joint learning situations; Ainscow 2016). Instead, the debate ought to revolve around the question of combatting the power-ridden and discriminatory process of denying basic human rights such as access to regular education.

Another observation concerns the evidence regarding the importance of certain factors on the formation of positive attitudes towards inclusion. In line with previous reviews of the literature, teacher-related variables, such as teaching experience, educational qualifications, prior experience in inclusive education, experience of personal contact with disabled people, and training, emerged in the present review as affecting teachers’ attitudes. Specifically, a number of studies detected a relationship between years of teaching experience and attitudes towards inclusion whereby the longer the teaching experience, the more positive the attitudes reported (Odo et al. 2021; Palavan et al. 2018; Leung and Mak 2010). Moreover, it has consistently been reported that those teachers who possess higher educational qualifications and have completed training courses on special or inclusive education matters hold significantly more positive attitudes than their counterparts with basic educational qualifications and little or no in-service training (Ahmmed et al. 2012; Mukhopadhyay 2016; Gyimah et al. 2011; Kurniawati et al. 2012; Štemberger and Kiswarday 2018). Furthermore, teachers who have implemented inclusive education programs report consistently more positive attitudes than their counterparts with little such experience (Ahmmed et al. 2021; Gyimah et al. 2011; Kurniawati et al. 2012; Parey 2019). These findings, taken collectively, suggest that teachers’ attitudes are far from stable and immutable; rather, they develop in a positive direction along with the accumulation of both theoretical (i.e. from professional development courses) and practical (from direct teaching experience) knowledge. Additionally, the evidence seems to suggest that teachers’ attitudes are strongly linked to their sense of teaching efficacy. Indeed, several studies have recently shown that teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are positively correlated with their self-efficacy in dealing with the challenges of diversity and inclusion (see the meta-analysis by Yada et al. 2022). The implications for policy makers are twofold. First, it seems that inclusion should be radically promoted despite the scepticism often voiced by teachers, since the latter’s expertise develops through the experience of implementing the policy. This is most vividly illustrated in the case of Italy where teachers’ attitudes have become very positive (Saloviita and Consegnati, 2019) as a result of their developing the necessary expertise through implementing inclusive education over the last forty years. Second, ample opportunities for continuing the teachers’ professional development should be offered to regular teachers so that their sense of teaching efficacy is boosted and, by extension, their attitudes and commitment to implementing inclusion are developed. Again, this is best illustrated in the German study by Hellmich et al. (2019) in the state of North Rheine Westphalia in which abundant training opportunities were offered to teachers in order to develop the necessary expertise to implement inclusion effectively.

To sum up, the present review represents a systematic attempt to map the current state of research on regular teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. Some limitations of this study should be mentioned. First, the study focused solely on primary school teachers and, therefore, no conclusions can be drawn about the attitudes of educators working in other sectors (i.e. pre-school and secondary teachers). Second, the present review included only studies that have been published in peer reviewed international journals, and therefore, our conclusions might not be accurate given the well-known publication bias that exists in academic journals. Consequently, incorporating unpublished studies in the review would have certainly resulted in a fuller picture of educators’ attitudes. Third, some studies that presented empirical data from both in-service and pre-service teachers were excluded, as it was not possible to distinguish between the two sets of data. In response to this limitation, a suggestion for future research on teachers’ attitudes would be that not only calculations of predictors for attitudes should be presented in the course of the final paper but also basic information such as statistical reliabilities as well as descriptive results containing separate mean values and SD for all samples participating. This approach would allow a classification of all relevant studies (and others) on the basic rating tendency of teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion (categorisation: positive, negative, neutral, ambivalent). Fourth, the classification of the identified studies’ findings as positive, neutral, and negative was not done on the basis of explicit numerical criteria but instead was based on the qualitative appraisal of the findings by two members of the research team. Recognising these limitations, however, the present review contributes to the current debate in the field since it reveals that teachers’ attitudes have remained stable over the last fifteen years. More importantly, this review highlights the fact that teachers’ reservations about the feasibility of inclusion for all students irrespective of type or severity of need remain. In this respect, despite the progress achieved to date, inclusive education has a long way to go before it is embraced and fully applied by teachers. What interventions are most effective in altering teachers’ attitudes and strengthening their commitment to inclusion is as yet a largely open question. In this respect, we recommend that researchers’ attention is diverted from the measurement of teachers’ attitudes towards the evaluation of different types of training programmes designed to formulate positive attitudes, as well as the evaluation of innovative inclusive programmes and their impact on the teachers implementing them.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.