Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T06:36:46.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Model of The Determinants of Teachers’ Attitudes to Integrating the Intellectually Handicapped

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

David Thomas
David Thomas*
Affiliation:
Flinders University, South Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper a model of teachers’ attitudes to integrating children with moderate learning difficulties into ordinary classrooms is described. The basis of this model is an AID analysis described in a previous paper (Thomas, 1986) and an analysis of the spontaneous comments of teachers in unstructured interviews. The sample consisted of 550 teachers in Tucson, Arizona and Devon, U.K. drawn from primary, secondary and special schools and advisory services. From the data of the unstructured interviews, four factors, not mentioned in the earlier paper, are included in the model. These are: traumatic experiences with the handicapped, class size, the what-happened-yesterday factor and leadership. Some implications of the model, the generality of the findings and suggestions for future are included in the discussion.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , November 1988 , pp. 12 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bem, D.J. (1970). Beliefs, attitudes and human affairs. California: Brooks, Cole Publishing Co. Google Scholar
Birch, J.W. (1974). Mainstreaming: Educable mentally retarded children in regular classes. Reston, Va.: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
Booth, T. & Statham, J. (Eds.). (1982). The nature of special education: People, places and change. London: Croom Helm, in conjunction with the Open University Press.Google Scholar
Booth, T. & Swann, W. (Eds.). (1987). Including pupils with disabilities. Milton Keynes (UK): Open University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, J.A. (1978). The inter-relationship between teacher skill, knowledge, attitude toward, knowledge of and behavioral interactions with handicapped children in the regular classroom. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Connecticut. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms.Google Scholar
Carey, J.A. (1978). Principals’ attitudes toward the integration of disabled children into regular schools. The Exceptional Child, 32(3), 149–161.Google Scholar
Gans, K.D. (1987). Willingness of regular and special educators to teach children with handicaps. Exceptional Children, 54(1), 41–45.Google Scholar
Gretton, J. & Jackson, M. (1976). William Tyndale: Collapse of a school - or a system. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Hamilton, D. (1975). Handling innovations in the classroom: Two Scottish examples. In Reid, W.A. & Walker, D. (Eds.). (1975). Case studies in curriculum change. London: R.K.P. Google Scholar
Hegarty, S. & Pocklington, K. (1982). Integration in action: Case studies in the integration of pupils with special needs. NFER-Nelson: Windsor.Google Scholar
Hewett, F., Taylor, F., & Artuso, A. (1969). The Santa in Kreinberg project Demonstration and evaluation of an engineered classroom design for the emotionally disturbed. Cited in Kreinberg, N. & Chow, S., (1973). Configurations of change: The integration of mildly handicapped children into regular classrooms. Report of US Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, National Institute of Education, National Center for Educational Communication.Google Scholar
Krech, D., Crutchfield, R.S. and Ballachy, E.L. (1962). Individual in society: A textbook of social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kreinberg, N. & Chow, S. (1973). Configuration of change: The integration of mildly handicapped children into the regular classroom. Report of the US Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, National Institute of Education, National Center for Educational Communication.Google Scholar
Parmenter, T. & Nash, R. (1987). Attitudes of teachers and parents in the Australian Capital Territory (A.C.T.) towards the integration of moderately handicapped child. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 11(2), 26–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggen, T.F. (1975). An investigation of the convariance of dogmatism and in-service training on the attitudes of principals and classroom teachers concerning the mainstreaming of mildly handicapped children. Doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Syracuse, 1975. Dissertation Abstracts, 1978.Google Scholar
Sonquist, J.A. (1970). Multivariate model building: The validation of a search strategy. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Institute for Social Research, Univ. of Michigan.Google Scholar
Swann, W. (Ed.), (1981). The practice of special education: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell, in association with the Open University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. (1982). Teachers’ attitudes to mainstreaming the intellectually handicapped. Ph.D. thesis: Flinders University of South Australia.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. (1985). The dynamics of teacher opposition to integration. Remedial Education, 20(2), 53–58.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. (1986). The determinants of teachers’ attitudes to integrating the intellectually handicapped. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 251–263.Google Scholar
Weston, P.D. (1979). Negotiating the curriculum: A study in secondary schooling. Windsor, Berks.: NFER.Google Scholar
Wilson, G.D. (1975). Manual for the Wilson-Patterson Attitude Inventory. Windsor, Berks.: NFER.Google Scholar