ARTICLES

 

Effect of inclusive practices on attitudes: A meta-analysis study

 

 

Nazlı Sıla Yerliyurt Günay^I; Şenel Elaldı^II; Mehtap Çifçi^II

^ICelal Ece Kindergarten, Kastamonu/Cide, Turkey. nazli_sila@hotmail.com
^IIDepartment of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

With the study reported on here we aimed to synthesise recent quantitative research to specify the effect of inclusive practices on attitudes via meta-analysis. Since attitudes have an integral role in the performance of inclusion programmes, within the scope of the study, the cumulative findings of experimental studies conducted on attitudes towards inclusive practices were reinterpreted. To this end, studies with a pretest-posttest control group carried out in 2000 and 2021 were scanned from databases according to the inclusion criteria. After the search process, 23 studies that met the inclusion criteria were selected from 54 studies. The overall sample size of the studies included 2,016 participants. The mean effect size calculations, heterogeneity test, moderator analyses and publication bias analyses were conducted through a comprehensive meta-analysis programme (CMA 3.0). The findings that were discussed in accordance with the random effects model (REM) suggest that inclusive practices have a positive effect on attitudes and this effect is at a large level (g = 1.328) with respect to Cohen's classification. This result indicates that inclusive practices have been strongly influenced by positive attitudes to yield favourable results. According to the moderator analyses, the highest effect sizes were found in the teachers' group (g = 1,880) according to group level and in primary education (g = 1,374) according to school grades. The attitudes towards inclusion have been strongly influenced by teachers' beliefs about the power of their teaching. More empirical studies on inclusive practices are recommended.

Keywords: attitudes; inclusive practices; meta-analysis; students with special education needs

---

 

 

Introduction

Inclusion is a means to educate students with special educational needs (SEN) alongside their non-disabled peers to ensure rigorous academic content standards (Bicehouse & Faieta, 2017).

Although many studies have been completed to consider the effectiveness of inclusive practices in education, there is still a lack of understanding by educators about the best practices in inclusion. However, it should be noted that inclusive practices are much more than all students being served in the same classroom, but inclusivity is about ensuring that all students are given the chance to learn and be challenged (Novak, 2018). When teachers are knowledgeable and confident about their content and teaching practices, students thrive academically, socially, and emotionally (Singh, 2016).

Literature Review

Inclusive practices involve educating students with SEN in general education classrooms with their non-disabled peers (Sharma & Nuttal, 2016). Inclusion is broadly defined as "a philosophy bringing diverse students, families, educators, and community members together to create schools and other social institutions based on acceptance, belonging, and community" (Bloom, Perlmutter & Burrell, 1999, as cited in Salend, 2011:6). Mestry (2017) states that high academic achievement for all students is possible if teachers' goals are focused on growth for all students. Therefore, an increase in student achievement among students with SEN is possible with effective implementation of individualised instructional practices, along with collaboration between general and special education teachers (Van Steen & Wilson, 2020). In addition to using effective inclusive practices, teachers' perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs toward inclusion have affirmed to be one of the most direct and powerful determinants of inclusive learning environments (Yuknis, 2015). In this context, having adequate training, adequate support and positive attitudes are expected from educators to implement inclusion successfully (Donohue & Bornman, 2014). It should be noted that positive attitudes yield favourable results (Singh, 2016). Moreover, when teachers have positive attitudes, they are more likely to include students with SEN in their learning environments (Sharma & Nuttal, 2016; Yuknis, 2015). In this regard, Saloviita (2022) reports that teachers' attitudes are linked to the overall acceptance of students with SEN in inclusive classrooms; the more positive the teachers' attitudes towards teaching students with SEN, the less concerned they are about teaching these students in their classrooms.

On the other hand, teachers' background and demographics affect their attitudes towards inclusion. Some of the demographic factors which impacted the teachers' attitudes were age, gender, years of teaching experience, and interactions with individuals with disabilities (Forlin, Loreman, Sharma & Earle, 2009). In this vein, Schwab, Sharma and Loreman's (2018) research shows that when teachers receive appropriate training regarding inclusive practices, they have more positive approaches towards implementing inclusive practices in their classrooms. Sarkar's (2015) found that teachers' lack of knowledge and training to teach students with SEN in inclusive classrooms affect their attitudes negatively. As to the effect of experience, exposure to students with SEN in the classroom has been identified as an important variable influencing teachers' attitudes toward inclusion (Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007). In this regard, Avramidis and Norwich (2002) indicate that teachers with active experience with inclusion not only reported more favourable results in the classroom, but also reported increased feelings of mastery and confidence in their ability to teach children of all ability levels. Mamabolo, Sepadi, Mabasa-Manganyi, Kgopa, Ndlovu and Themane (2021) who examined teachers' attitudes towards inclusive practices in South Africa reveal in their study that experienced teachers were generally positively well-disposed to include learners in their classrooms and they were willing to use diverse teaching strategies. However, although having positive attitudes towards inclusion, most teachers were not familiar with the resources they needed to help students with SEN in their classrooms.

Theoretical Framework

The theories used to guide this study were the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). The SCT, coined by Albert Bandura in 1986, emphasises observational learning and the role of social experience in the development of personality. Bandura (1986) argues in his SCT that an individual's behaviour was the result of a combination of personal, behavioural, and environmental factors. In other words, SCT relates to a sense of control over one's environment and behaviour. It considers the way in which individuals acquire, maintain and perform behaviour (Bandura, 1986). Therefore, understanding the relationship between teachers' sense of control over the environment and behaviour and their commitment to their duties is also important for the purpose of this research. Teachers with a strong locus of control are more likely to cope with difficult situations or tasks (Bandura, 1986). This means that they are more likely to try harder to change behaviour despite challenges and obstacles that can undermine motivation.

The TPB, proposed by Ajzen in 1985, specifies the nature of the relationship between beliefs and attitudes. This theory assumes that a predictor of behaviour is an individual's intention towards the behaviour, which is defined by their attitudes. When teachers perceive behaviour to have positive results, their intentions to perform the behaviour are greater (Ajzen, 1985). The TPB implies that teachers' intentions toward teaching in inclusive classrooms are influenced by their attitudes toward inclusion and students with SEN.

Although many qualitative studies exist on inclusion literature, experimental studies are more limited. Therefore, meta-analysis studies conducted on inclusive education are also limited. A need for more meta-analyses on inclusive education is also mentioned in the literature (i.e., Saloviita, 2022; Van Steen & Wilson, 2020). Since attitudes have an integral role in the success of inclusion programmes (Yuknis, 2015), we need to conduct a meta-analysis of attitudes towards inclusive practices by re-interpreting the cumulative findings of experimental studies conducted on attitudes towards inclusive practices. Thus, with this study we aimed to synthesise research conducted to reveal the effects of inclusive practices on attitudes via meta-analysis. For this aim, experimental/quasi experimental studies conducted in 2000 and 2021 were scanned from databases according to the inclusion criteria. In order to present a general evaluation in line with the results of experimental studies involving inclusive practices, the following questions were included:

1) What is the overall effect size of the studies carried out in 2000 and 2021?

2) What is the effect size of inclusive practices on attitudes in terms of group level and school grade?

 

Methodology

In this meta-analysis research, the effect of inclusion practices on attitudes was examined. Meta-analysis is a method describing the process of combining and re-evaluating the results of independent studies conducted on a particular subject (Littel, Corcoran & Pillai, 2008).

In the data collection process, the targeted studies on the effect of inclusive practices on attitudes carried out in 2000 and 2021 were sought in the databases of Sage Journals Online, Web of Science, Ebscohost-Eric, the Higher Education Council National Thesis and Dissertation Center (YOK), and ProQuest Dissertation & Thesis Global. To reach the relevant studies, the key words "inclusive practices", "inclusive/ mainstreaming education", "attitudes towards inclusion", "students with SEN and their education" were used.

The inclusion criteria of this study included: (1) Studies carried out during 2000 and 2021 published in Turkish or English with the full text as unpublished dissertations and theses or in international peer-reviewed journals; (2) Empirical studies containing statistical values such as arithmetic mean, sample size, and standard deviation to calculate a standardised effect size.

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Flow Diagram (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman & PRISMA Group, 2009) (cf. Figure 1), contains detailed information of the studies reached in the data collection process.

As shown in Figure 1, within the scope of searching the databases, a total of 54 studies were found. In the eligibility phase, the studies retrieved were scanned on the basis of titles and abstracts and 19 of them were excluded as they were found to have irrelevant topics. Later, 12 of the remaining 35 studies were eliminated as well, due to including single-group design or being duplications. In the inclusion phase, the number of studies used in the meta-analysis was 23 (10 journals, one conference paper, four master's theses and eight Doctor of Philosophy dissertations). Additionally, the sample size in the study included 2,016 participants from the experimental (n = 997) and control (n = 1,019) groups.

In the coding process of the meta-analysis, a coding form, which consisted of two parts, namely study identity and descriptive statistical data, was used. In the study identity part such information as study titles, author information, study year, and study type were regarded as the data of the studies. The second part contained such information as mean and standard deviation values and population size. To enhance the reliability of the research, the coding process was examined separately by two independent coders. Miles and Huberman's (1994) formula for inter-rater reliability was used to determine the consistency degree of the two raters and 100% consistency was found.

Data Analysis

The calculations of the effect sizes, publication bias and heterogeneity tests were run in the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA 3.0) software program (Borenstein & Rothstein, 1999). In the interpretation of the effect sizes of the studies analysed within the scope of this study, Cohen's (1992) guidelines (0.2 - < 0.5 small; 0.5 -< 0.8 medium; 0.8 large effect size) were used.

The heterogeneity test (Q-statistic) is a statistical test that shows the chi-square (χ²) distribution with k-1 freedom value (Gavaghan, Moore & McQuay, 2000). In addition, i² value is an indicator of heterogeneity as the complement of Q-statistics (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). A value between 0% and 40% shows low heterogeneity while a value of 50% showing average and 75% showing high heterogeneities (Higgins & Thompson, 2002).

Effect size, which is the most important unit in a meta-analysis, reflects the correlation of the variables (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins & Rothstein, 2013). In our study, Hedges' g formula for calculating effect size values was used to reveal the standardised mean difference of the groups (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Analyses were performed according to the random effects model (REM) which aims to predict the mean of the effect sizes distribution (Borenstein et al., 2013). It is supposed that while each of the studies in the analysis has a real effect size according to the fixed effects model (FEM), in the REM, each study represents a more balanced distribution (Borenstein et al., 2013). According to Field and Gillett (2010), REM calculations for effect sizes in social sciences should be made as a standard rule without determining the heterogeneous distribution.

Therefore, REM was taken into account in the interpretation of effect sizes.

The Reliability of the Study

To provide the reliability of the study, various analyses were made. Preventing publication bias is suggested to assure reliability in meta-analytical studies. To this end, the fail-safe number test calculation was performed and the number of missing studies was found to be 1,296. This high value indicates no bias (Cheung & Slavin, 2016).

Another way to ensure realiability in meta-analytical studies is to calculate Orwin's fail-safe number which depends on the calculation of the number of missing studies (Orwin, 1983). This calculation was found to be 85.

A funnel-plot is one of the most frequently suggested methods to detect publication bias in meta-analyses (Duval & Tweedie, 2000). In a funnel plot, an overturned symmetrical funnel shape is expected in the absence of bias (Sterne & Harbord, 2004) (cf. Figure 2).

Hoffman (2019) suggests that funnel plots with simple visual interpretation should be abandoned due to their interpretation being subjective and an informal method. Therefore, such formal statistical tests as the rank correlation test by Begg and Mazumdar and the linear regression test described by Egger have been suggested to verify whether publication bias existed (Lau, Ioannidis, Terrin, Schmid & Olkin, 2006). The Egger test (Egger, Smith, Schneider & Minder, 1997) results revealed a 95% confidence interval between the 4.704 lower limit and the 15.635 upper limit, intercept = 10.169, t = 3.869 and p = .0089 > 0.5. This result confirms the symmetry of the funnel plot as "p value of 0.5 or less indicates the statistically significance of asymmetry" in the Egger test (Rothstein, Sutton & Borenstein, 2005:102). Kendall's tau b coefficient was calculated using the Begg and Mazumdar (1994) test. According to the result of the value obtained (tau b = .35; p = >.05) it can be said that there is no publication bias.

 

Results

Table 1 indicates the descriptive data of the studies in the meta-analysis.

 

 

According to the data in Table 1, an increase in the publication of experimental studies carried out on inclusive education is seen between 2012 and 2017. Conversely, 4.35 % of experimental studies (f = 1) were conducted between 2000 and 2005; 17.39% f = 4) between 2006 and 2011; and 21.74% f = 5) between 2018 and 2021. Of these studies, 34.78% (f = 8) were PhD dissertations, 17.39% (f = 4) were master's theses, 43.47% (f = 10) were journals and 4.34% (f = 1) were conference papers. Of them, 52.17% (f = 12) were carried out on students, 47.82% (f = 11) were on teachers. According to school grade, 13.04% (f = 3) were conducted on the primary school students while 8.69% (f = 2) were on secondary school students. In addition, the most studies were carried out on pre-service teachers (26.08%; f = 6).

Findings on the Effect of Inclusive Practices on Attitudes

The confidence interval distribution and mean effect size of the 23 studies are presented in Table 2. In the calculation according to the fixed effect model, the effect size (Hedges' g) was .466 and the standard error was .050. The upper limit for 95% of the confidence interval was .563 and the lower limit was .369. In addition, the z-test value was found statistically significant at the .01 level (z = 9.413; p = .000). According to the homogenous test results, the Q statistical value was found to be 706.591. Since this value exceeds the critical value (χ²(.95) = 33.92) in the chi-square (χ²) table, it was determined that the distribution of the effect sizes was heterogeneous. Moreover, the i2 value was found to be 96.886%. With respect to the Higgins and Thompson (2002) classification, this result specifies a high level of heterogeneity.

The REM calculation, presented in Table 2, reveals that the effect size (Hedges' g) was 1.239, which is a large effect size with respect to Cohen's (1992) classification, and the SE was .288. The lower limit for 95% of the confidence interval was .674 while the upper limit was 1.803. In addition, the z-test value was found to be statistically significant at the .01 level (z = 4.302; p = .000).

A forest plot of 23 studies is presented in Figure 3.

The diamond symbol in Figure 3 indicates the overall effect size, the lines next to the squares show the upper and lower effect size limits within the 95% CI, and the black squares show the effect size.

Moderator Analyses

Group level and school grades were used as moderators in our study. The moderator analyses are presented in Table 3.

As indicated in Table 3, according to group level, the total effect size was 1.272. According to Cohen's (1992) classification, it is a large effect size. Conversely, the effect size of the teacher group (Hedges' g = 1.880) was higher than the effect size of the student group (Hedges' g = .679). According to the results of the intergroup heterogeneity test, the Q-value was .4.570. Since this value did not exceed the critical value of 1 degree of freedom in the χ² table (χ² (.95) = 3.841), the effect size distribution was considered heterogeneous. A statistically significant difference was also observed in favour of the teacher group (z = 2.118; p = .003).

In relation to the school grades, although the studies were grouped as pre-school, primary, secondary and higher education, due to including one study, the group "pre-school education" was excluded from the analysis. In this vein, Valentine, Pigott and Rothstein (2010) state in their study that the minimum number of studies for a meta-analysis is two. The analysis results of the school grades revealed that while the primary education group with a 1.374 value had the highest overall effect size, the higher education group (pre-service teachers) with a .084 value had the lowest effect size. The total effect size of the groups was 1.338. With respect to Cohen's (1992) classification, this value is a large effect size. The calculation of the intergroup heterogeneity test was performed and the Q-value was found to be 17.718. As the Q-statistical value was higher than the critical value of 2 degrees of freedom in the χ² table (χ²_(.95) =5.99), a heterogeneous distribution of the effect size was accepted. Furthermore, there was a significant difference among the inter groups favouring the primary education group (z = 1.735; p = .001).

 

Discussion

The limited number of experimental studies on inclusive education leads to limited meta-analysis studies on this subject. In order to shed light on this gap in the literature, our study includes synthesising recent research through meta-analysis to specify the effect of inclusive practices on attitudes. In this context, 23 studies meeting the inclusion criteria among the experimental studies carried out to reveal the effect of inclusion practices on attitudes in 2000 and 2021 were analysed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis program (CMA 3.0). In the meta-analytic procedure, evaluation of the data was made in line with REM. The effect size value (Hedges' g) was found to be 1.239 that is large and significant with respect to Cohen's (1992) classification. In other words, the effect of inclusive practices on attitudes is large and significant. This result is consistent with the effect coefficients of the studies used in the analysis within the scope of this research and showing a positive effect for the experimental group (i.e., Aktan, 2018; Al-Assaf, 2017; Alkahtani, 2009; Bagotia, 2018; Brown Oyola, 2016; Bülbül, 2014; Demirdag, 2014; Gözün & Yıkmış, 2004; İlik & Sarı, 2017; Karaca, 2018, Kılıç, 2011; Kurniawati, De Boer, Minnaert & Mangunsong, 2017; Leana-Taşcilar, 2014; Lelashvili, 2014; Mertoglu, Taymaz Sarı, Pusmaz & Balçın, 2020; Öztürk & Yıkmış, 2013; Pingle & Garg, 2015; Sari, 2007; Sazak-Pınar, 2009; Sezer, 2012; Sharma & Nuttal, 2016; Turan, 2018; Woodward, 2017). In addition, the results of the study were also consistent with those excluded from the analysis in terms of positive impact (i.e., Elhoweris & Alsheikh, 2006; Lüke & Grosche, 2018).

Moderator analyses were conducted to determine whether inclusive practices had an effect on attitudes in terms of group level and school grades. As a result, changes in the attitudes were observed in the results of both analyses. According to group level, there was a significant difference favouring the teachers group. Teachers' attitudes were found high (Hedge's g =1.880) with respect to Cohen's (1992) classification. Similar to this result, in the meta-analysis study conducted by Van Steen and Wilson (2020), teachers were found to hold a positive attitude towards students with SEN in mainstream schools. Similarly, in another meta-analysis study carried out by Unianu (2012), it was found that many studies emphasised teachers' positive attitudes towards inclusive practices. In a similar fashion, some studies identified teachers' positive attitudes as a key component of successfully implementing inclusion (i.e., Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Yussof & Marzaini, 2021). The increase of teachers' positive attitudes towards inclusive practices may be due to increased inclusive legislation, raising awareness of inclusive practices in teacher education programmes (Symeonidou, 2017), and more opportunities for educators to work with students with SEN in mainstream schools (Van Steen & Wilson, 2020). Therefore, in-service training for inclusion is mentioned in many studies as the most important component of teachers' personal success (i.e., Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007; Elhoweris & Alsheikh, 2006; Kurniawati et al., 2017).

With regard to school grades, while the primary education group with a 1.374 value had the highest overall effect size, the higher education group (pre-service teachers) with a .084 value had the lowest one. The overall effect size of the school grade group was large (Hedge's g = 1.338) with respect to Cohen's (1992) classification. In agreement with this result, in a study by Gümüş and Tan (2015), it was revealed that positive attitudes towards students with SEN was higher at primary education level than other school levels. Similarly, in a meta-analysis study conducted by Chae, Park and Shin (2019), the effect sizes of kindergarten, elementary, and secondary school levels regarding awareness and attitudes of children without disabilities towards disability were all found to be large. By the same token, in a systematic review study in which 37 qualitative and quantitative studies conducted on pre-school, primary and secondary school students were included by Dell'Anna, Pellegrini and Ianes (2021), it was revealed that students showed good attitudes towards their peers with SEN, especially when they were female or had prior contacts with disability. In this meta-analysis research pre-service teachers' attitudes were found the lowest in the group. Similarly, Szumski, Smogorzewska and Grygiel (2020) imply that younger students often have more positive attitudes than older ones. In other words, the higher the school level, the higher the level of negative attitudes with increasing age. This may stem from social and cultural influences on pre-service teachers. In this context, some predictors such as educational background, gender, age and other socio-demographic characteristics may have an impact on developing pre-service teachers' attitudes towards inclusive practices (Avramidis &Norwich, 2002; Yuknis, 2015).

 

Conclusion and Implications

This research included a synthesis of 23 studies carried out on the effect of inclusive practices on attitudes. An important conclusion drawn from this study is that inclusive practices have a positive effect on attitudes of both teachers and students. Considering the research literature, it can be appropriate to suggest that attitudes towards inclusion have been strongly influenced by teachers' beliefs about the power of their teaching.

From this research, it is possible to mention some implications for future research. Firstly, it emerged that there were not many experimental studies on inclusive applications. It could be suggested that more empirical research is conducted to test the effectiveness of inclusive practices in learning environments. Secondly, carrying out some cross-cultural studies might be suggested to reveal qualities and efficiency of inclusive practices within various national contexts. Thirdly, more variables might be added to the analysis in order to reveal moderating effects. And lastly, the conditions causing an increase in positive attitudes towards inclusive practices in the new millennium age may be compared with conditions in previous years. As it is evident from the research that positive attitudes towards students with SEN in the inclusive settings improve inclusive practices and better student output, in-service training should also support teachers to develop positive attitudes.

 

Authors' Contributions

ŞE conducted all statistical analyses and created tables; NSYG searched the literature and provided data for Figure 1; MÇ searched the literature and attended to the technical aspects. All authors contributed to the writing of the article. All authors reviewed the final manuscript.

 

Notes

i. Published under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence.

 

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

Ajzen I 1985. From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J Kuhi & J Beckmann (eds). Action control: From cognition to behavior. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69746-3_2        [ Links ]

*Aktan O 2018. The effect of team-assisted individualization technique on the academic successes of the students, attitude to lessons and social acceptance in inclusive education. PhD dissertation. Ankara, Turkey: Gazi University.         [ Links ]

*Al-Assaf S 2017. An evaluation of the new inclusion model in Saudi Arabia: Teachers' knowledge and perspectives. PhD dissertation. Madison, WI: Edgewood College. Available at https://www.proquest.com/docview/1935581723?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true. Accessed 28 February 2023.         [ Links ]

*Alkahtani K 2009. Creativity training effects upon concept map complexity of children with ADHD: An experimental study. PhD thesis. Glasgow, Scotland: University of Glasgow. Available at https://theses.gla.ac.uk/601/1/2009_alkahtani.pdf.pdf. Accessed 28 February 2023.         [ Links ]

Avramidis E & Kalyva E 2007. The influence of teaching experience and professional development on Greek teachers' attitudes towards inclusion. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 22(4):367-389. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250701649989        [ Links ]

Avramidis E & Norwich B 2002. Teachers' attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2):129-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056        [ Links ]

*Bagotia H 2018. Effect of special education training programme on the attitudes of general education teachers regarding inclusion of children with special needs in general school. Journal of Advances and Scholarly Researches in Allied Education Multidisciplinary Academic Research, 15(9):67-70. https://doi.org/10.29070/15/57918        [ Links ]

Bandura A 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.         [ Links ]

Begg CB & Mazumdar M 1994. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50(4):1088-1101. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533446        [ Links ]

Bicehouse V & Faieta J 2017. IDEA at age forty: Weathering common core standards and data driven decision making. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 10(1):33-14. https://doi.org/10.19030/cier.v10i1.9878        [ Links ]

Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT & Rothstein HR 2013. Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.         [ Links ]

Borenstein M & Rothstein H 1999. Comprehensive meta-analysis. A computer program for research synthesis. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.         [ Links ]

*Brown Oyola JL 2016. The difference in attitudes of regular and special education teachers toward inclusion. PhD dissertation. Minneapolis, MN: Walden University. Available at https://www.proquest.com/docview/1859910927?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true. Accessed 28 February 2023.         [ Links ]

*Bülbül MŞ 2014. The effect of enriched course materials about motion on nineth grade sighted and totally blind students' achievement, motivation, attitude, perception of learning environment and interaction in inclusive classes. PhD thesis. Ankara, Turkey: Middle East Technical University. Available at https://open.metu.edu.tr/handle/11511/23579. Accessed 28 February 2023.         [ Links ]

Chae S, Park EY & Shin M 2019. School-based interventions for improving disability awareness and attitudes towards disability of students without disabilities: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 66(4):343-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2018.1439572        [ Links ]

Cheung ACK & Slavin RE 2016. How methodological features affect effect sizes in education. Educational Researcher, 45(5):283-292. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16656615        [ Links ]

Cohen J 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1):155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155        [ Links ]

Dell'Anna S, Pellegrini M & Ianes 2021. Experiences and learning outcomes of students without special educational needs in inclusive settings: A systematic review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(8):944-959. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1592248        [ Links ]

*Demirdag S 2014. Charter schools and inclusive science education: The conceptual change and attitudes of students without disabilities. PhD dissertation. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma. Available at https://shareok.org/handle/11244/8109. Accessed 28 February 2023.         [ Links ]

Donohue D & Bornman J 2014. The challenges of realising inclusive education in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 34(2):Art. # 806, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.15700/201412071114        [ Links ]

Duval S & Tweedie R 2000. A nonparametric "trim and fill" method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(449):89-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905        [ Links ]

Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M & Minder C 1997. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315:629-634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629        [ Links ]

Elhoweris H & Alsheikh N 2006. Teachers' attitudes toward inclusion. International Journal of Special Education, 21(1):115-118.         [ Links ]

Field AP & Gillett R 2010. How to do meta-analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 63(3):665-694. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711010X502733        [ Links ]

Forlin C, Loreman T, Sharma U & Earle C 2009. Demographic differences in changing preservice teachers' attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(2): 195-209. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701365356        [ Links ]

Gavaghan DJ, Moore AR & McQuay HJ 2000. An evaluation of homogeneity tests in meta-analyses in pain using simulations of individual patient data. Pain, 85(3):415-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3959(99)00302-4        [ Links ]

*Gözün Ö & Yıkmış, A 2004. The effect of informing prospective teachers about mainstreaming on the change of their attitudes towards mainstreaming. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 5(2):65-77.         [ Links ]

Gümüş M & Tan Ç 2015. An investigation of primary and middle school students' attitudes toward inclusive students. Siirt Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 3:79-94.         [ Links ]

Hedges LV & Olkin I 1985. Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.         [ Links ]

Higgins JPT & Thompson SG 2002. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta analysis [Special issue]. Statistics in Medicine, 21(11):1539-1558. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1186        [ Links ]

Hoffman JIE 2019. Basic biostatistics for medical and biomedical practitioners (2nd ed). San Francisco, CA: Academic Press.         [ Links ]

*İlik ŞŞ & Sarı H 2017. The training program for individualized education programs (IEPs): Its effect on how inclusive education teachers perceive their competencies in devising IEPs. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(5):1547-1572. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2017.5.0424        [ Links ]

*Karaca MA 2018. The effect of integration training program on the professional competencies of teachers about integration interventions. MEd dissertation. Konya, Turkey: Necmettin Erbakan University.         [ Links ]

*Kılıç AF 2011. The effectiveness of informing the preschool teachers about inclusion of disabled students upon changing their opinions towards inclusion education. MEd dissertation. Burdur, Turkey: University of Mehmet Akif Ersoy.         [ Links ]

*Kurniawati F, De Boer AA, Minnaert AEMG & Mangunsong F 2017. Evaluating the effect of a teacher training programme on the primary teachers' attitudes, knowledge and teaching strategies regarding special educational needs. Educational Psychology, 37(3):287-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1176125        [ Links ]

Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Terrin N, Schmid CH & Olkin I 2006. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ, 333(7568):597-600. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597        [ Links ]

*Leana-Taşcılar MZ 2014. Eğitimin öğretmen adaylanmn özel eğitim hakkindaki yeterliklerine ve ihtiyaçlarına etkisi [The contribution of education to the special education qualifications and needs of teacher candidates]. Hasan Ali Yücel Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(22):135-155. Available at https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/93170. Accessed 28 February 2023.         [ Links ]

*Lelashvili A 2014. Examining the impact of in-service training module in inclusive education on developing positive attitude and awareness of vocational education teachers toward inclusion. MPhil thesis. Oslo, Norway: University of Oslo. Available at https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/40205/Ana-Lelashvili.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 28 February 2023.         [ Links ]

Littel HJ, Corcoran J & Pillai VK 2008. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.         [ Links ]

Lüke T & Grosche M 2018. What do I think about inclusive education? It depends on who is asking: Experimental evidence for a social desirability bias in attitudes towards inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(1):38-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1348548        [ Links ]

Mamabolo JM, Sepadi MD, Mabasa-Manganyi RB, Kgopa F, Ndlovu SM & Themane M 2021. What are teachers' beliefs, values and attitudes towards the inclusion of learners who experience barriers to learning in South African primary schools? Perspectives in Education, 39(2):239-252. https://doi.org/10.18820/2519593X/pie.v39.i2.17        [ Links ]

*Mertoglu H, Taymaz Sarı O, Pusmaz A & Balçın MD 2020. Fen bilgisi öğretmen aday larının kaynaştırma uygulamaları yeterlikleri [Science teacher candidates' competence of inclusive education]. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 51:131-154. https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.533609        [ Links ]

Mestry R 2017. Empowering principals to lead and manage public schools effectively in the 21st century. South African Journal of Education, 37(1):Art. # 1334, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v37n1a1334        [ Links ]

Miles MB & Huberman AM 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.         [ Links ]

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG & The PRISMA Group 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097        [ Links ]

Novak K 2018. Inclusion vs. inclusive practice in teaching. Available at https://www.novakeducation.com/inclusion-vs-inclusive-practice-in-teaching. Accessed 18 January 2021.         [ Links ]

Orwin RG 1983. A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8(2):157-159. https://doi.org/10.2307/1164923        [ Links ]

*Öztürk T & Yıkmış A 2013. The effect of informing normal children who continue kindergarten on their attitudes towards their peers with mental retardation. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(1): 1-20.         [ Links ]

Petticrew M & Roberts H 2006. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malde, MA: Blackwell Publishing.         [ Links ]

*Pingle S & Garg I 2015. Effect of inclusive education awareness programme on preservice teachers. Paper presented at the European Conference on Education, Brighton, England, 1 -5 July. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED560796.pdf. Accessed 28 February 2023.         [ Links ]

Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ & Borenstein M (eds.) 2005. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.         [ Links ]

Salend SJ 2011. Creating inclusive classrooms: Effective and reflective practices (7th ed). Boston, MA: Pearson.         [ Links ]

Saloviita T 2022. Teachers' changing attitudes and preferences around inclusive education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 69(6):1841-1858. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1828569        [ Links ]

*Sari H 2007. The influence of an in-service teacher training (INSET) programme on attitudes towards inclusion by regular classroom teachers who teach deaf students in primary schools in Turkey. Deafness & Education International, 9(3):131-146. https://doi.org/10.1179/146431507790559996        [ Links ]

Sarkar R 2015. Teacher's self-efficacy, attitude, and concern toward the inclusion of children with special needs: Lessons from literature. European Academic Research, 3(9):10080-10099.         [ Links ]

*Sazak-Pınar E 2009. Investigating social skills expectations of inclusive classroom teachers and the effectiveness of social skills training program on teachers' outcomes. PhD dissertation. Ankara, Turkey: Ankara University.         [ Links ]

Schwab S, Sharma U & Loreman T 2018. Are we included? Secondary students' perception of inclusion climate in their schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75:31-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.05.016        [ Links ]

*Sezer F 2012. Preventive guidance work to develop a positive attitude towards people with disabilities; an experimental study. e-Journal of New World Sciences Academy, 7(1):16-26.         [ Links ]

*Sharma U & Nuttal A 2016. The impact of training on pre-service teacher attitudes, concerns, and efficacy towards inclusion. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 44(2):142-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2015.1081672        [ Links ]

Singh JD 2016. Inclusive education in India - concept, need and challenges. Scholarly Research Journal for Humanity Science and English Language, 3(13):3222-3232. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301675529_INCLUSIVE_EDUCATION_IN_INDIA_-_CONCEPT_NEED_AND_CHALLENGES. Accessed 28 February 2023.         [ Links ]

Sterne JAC & Harbord RM 2004. Funnel plots in meta-analysis. The Stata Journal, 4(2):127-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0400400204        [ Links ]

Symeonidou S 2017. Initial teacher education for inclusion: A review of the literature. Disability & Society, 32(3):401-422. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2017.1298992        [ Links ]

Szumski G, Smogorzewska J & Grygiel P 2020. Attitudes of students toward people with disabilities, moral identity and inclusive education-A two-level analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 102:103685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103685        [ Links ]

*Turan M 2018. The effect of empathy education program on primary school fourth grade students' attitudes towards inclusive students. MEd dissertation. Bursa, Turkey: University of Uludağ         [ Links ].

Unianu EM 2012. Attitudes towards inclusive education: A qualitative meta-analysis of recent studies. Paper presented at the International Conference of Scientific Paper AFASES, Brasov, Romania, 24-26 May. Available at https://www.afahc.ro/ro/afases/2012/socio/2.2/Unianu.pdf. Accessed 28 February 2023.         [ Links ]

Valentine JC, Pigott TD & Rothstein HR 2010. How many studies do you need?: A primer on statistical power for meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 35(2):215-247. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998609346961        [ Links ]

Van Steen T & Wilson C 2020. Individual and cultural factors in teachers' attitudes towards inclusion: A meta-analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 95:103127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ate.2020.103127        [ Links ]

*Woodward J 2017. A quasi-experimental study of the effects of teacher training on attitudes towards inclusion settings. PhD dissertation. Phoenix, AZ: University of Phoenix. Available at https://www.proquest.com/docview/1980685445?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true. Accessed 28 February 2023.         [ Links ]

Yuknis C 2015. Attitudes of pre-service teachers toward inclusion for students who are deaf. Deafness & Education International, 17(4): 183-193. https://doi.org/10.1179/1557069X15Y.0000000003        [ Links ]

Yussof SM & Marzaini AFM 2021. Attitudes toward inclusive education among pre-service teachers. International Journal of Advanced Research in Education and Society, 3(3):152-162. Available at https://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijares/article/view/16055/8336. Accessed 28 February 2023.         [ Links ]

 

 

Received: 13 April 2021
Revised: 9 February 2022
Accepted: 18 July 2022
Published: 28 February 2023