literature review inclusive education

Review of Literature: Inclusive Education 

This brief review of relevant literature on inclusive education forms a component of the larger Inclusive School Communities Project: Final Evaluation Report delivered by the Research in Inclusive and Specialised Education (RISE) team to JFA Purple Orange in October, 2020. 

Suggested citation for full evaluation report: 

Jarvis, J. M., McMillan, J. M., Bissaker, K., Carson, K. L., Davidson, J., & Walker, P. M. (2020).  Inclusive School Communities Project: Final Evaluation Report. Research in Inclusive and Specialised Education (RISE), Flinders University. 

https://sites.flinders.edu.au/rise  

Introduction 

Inclusive education has featured prominently in worldwide educational discourse and reform efforts over the past 30 years (Berlach & Chambers, 2011; Forlin, 2006). Inclusive schools are critical to providing a strong foundation for young people with disabilities to access, participate in and contribute to their communities and lead fulfilling lives (Hehir et al., 2016). Schools also represent a key condition for the development of thriving, inclusive communities for all citizens. Yet, as reflected in submissions to the current Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability, and consistent with recent South Australian reports (Parliament of South Australia, 2017; Walker, 2017), many students living with disability (and their families) continue to report negative experiences of education. While progress has been made, traditional educational structures and practices often run counter to inclusive goals (Slee, 2013), and inconsistencies occur between theory and policy and the implementation of inclusive principles and practices in schools (Carrington & Elkins, 2002; Graham & Spandagou, 2011). In addition, both preservice and practicing teachers consistently report feeling underprepared to teach students with disabilities and special educational needs (Jarvis, 2019; OECD, 2019). 

Despite legislation and policy imperatives related to inclusive education, there remains a lack of consensus in the field about the definition of inclusion and associated models of inclusive practice (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010; Kinsella, 2020). Multiple conceptualisations of inclusion and theoretical approaches to fostering inclusion in schools may contribute to confusion and uncertainty for educators and policymakers. With schools facing growing accountability and teachers expected to educate an increasingly diverse student population (Anderson & Boyle, 2015), it is vital that the concept of inclusive education is demystified for practitioners. Against this backdrop, initiatives such as the Inclusive School Communities (ISC) project that aim to deepen understandings of inclusion and increase the capacity of school communities to provide an inclusive education, are particularly important. 

Inclusive Education 

Inclusive education is based on a philosophy that stems from principles of social justice, and is primarily concerned with mitigating educational inequalities, exclusion, and discrimination (Anderson & Boyle, 2015; Booth, 2012; Waitoller & Artiles, 2013). Although inclusion was originally concerned with ‘disability’ and ‘special educational needs’ (Ainscow et al., 2006; Van Mieghem et al., 2020), the term has evolved to embody valuing diversity among all students, regardless of their circumstances (e.g., Carter & Abawi, 2018; Thomas, 2013). Among interpretations of inclusion, common themes include fairness, equality, respect, diversity, participation, community, leadership, commitment, shared vision, and collaboration (Booth, 2012; McMaster, 2015). The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), to which Australia is a signatory, defines inclusive education as:  

. . . a process of systemic reform embodying changes and modifications in content, teaching methods, approaches, structures and strategies in education to overcome barriers with a vision serving to provide all students of the relevant age range with an equitable and participatory learning experience and environment that best corresponds to their requirements and preferences. (United Nations, 2016, para 11)

Consistent with this definition, inclusive education now generally refers to the process of addressing the learning needs of all students, through ensuring participation, achievement growth, and a sense of belonging, enabling all students to reach their full potential (Anderson & Boyle, 2015; Booth, 2012; Stegemann & Jaciw, 2018). Inclusion is concerned with identifying and removing potential barriers to presence (attendance, access), meaningful participation, growth from an individual starting point, and feelings of connectedness and belonging for all students and community members, with a focus on those at particular risk of marginalisation or exclusion (Ainscow et al., 2006; Forlin et al., 2013). 

Critically, the view of inclusion described above moves beyond considerations of the physical placement of a student in a particular setting or grouping configuration. That is, while physical access to a mainstream school environment is essential to maintain the rights of students living with disabilities to access education “on the same basis” as their peers (consistent with legislation and human rights principles), it is not sufficient to ensure inclusion. Rather, inclusion can be considered a multi-faceted approach involving processes, practices, policies and cultures at all levels of a school and system (Booth & Ainscow, 2011). Inclusive education is responsive to each child and promotes flexibility, rather than expecting the child to change in order to ‘fit’ rigid schooling structures. The latter approach reflects integration, and inclusion is also inconsistent with segregation, in which children with disabilities are routinely educated separately from others. 

Considerable research has focused on the implementation of inclusive school processes, practices and cultures that are sustainable over time. Although a number of frameworks to achieve sustainable inclusive practice have been proposed, key elements are consistent across approaches and well supported by research (Booth & Ainscow 2011; Azorín & Ainscow, 2020). These interconnected elements are summarised in Figure 1 and considered fundamental to the process of achieving whole-school (and systemic) cultural change towards more inclusive ways of working. Of particular relevance to the Inclusive School Communities project are the concepts of a whole school approach, leadership, school values and culture, building staff capacity, and multi-tiered models of inclusive practice. 

Inclusion as a Whole School Approach 

Adopting a whole of school approach to inclusive education is fundamental to ensure efficacy and sustainability (Read et al., 2015). The process of developing inclusive schools is complex and multi-faceted, requiring time, commitment, ongoing reflection, and sustained effort. For inclusion to truly take root in schools, changes must be made from the inside out; a strong foundation must be built from inclusive school values, committed leadership, and shared vision amongst staff to support whole school structural reforms to policy, pedagogy, and practice (Ekins & Grimes, 2009). Whilst challenging, “it is necessary to unsettle default modes of operation” in schools (Johnston & Hayes, 2007, p.376), as inclusive education requires new, more efficient and effective ways of supporting student participation and achievement. This is made possible by implementing flexible, planned whole school support structures, such  as multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), where teachers work collaboratively with specialist staff to identify, monitor, and support students requiring varying levels and types of intervention at different times, and for different purposes (Sailor, 2017; Witzel & Clarke, 2015). This contrasts to the more traditional, ‘categorical’ and segregated approach of general educators referring identified students with additional needs to special educators, to devise and administer further education in isolation from the regular classroom (Sailor, 2017). 

Figure 1. Interconnected elements in sustainable inclusive education, derived from research.

Even at the classroom level, inclusive planning and teaching practices must be supported by school policies, practices, and culture in order to be sustainable (Sailor, 2017). Barriers to inclusive classroom practice can include lack of effective professional learning and support for teachers; teachers’ lack of willingness to include students with particular needs; attitudes that are inconsistent with inclusive practices; teacher education that fails to address concerns about inclusion; and, a lack of accountability for the implementation of inclusive teaching practices (Forlin & Chambers, 2011; Forlin et al., 2008; van Kraayenoord et al., 2014). Addressing each of these relies on targeted, coordinated support. The complexity of embedding inclusive practices such as differentiated instruction or Universal Design for Learning (UDL) into classroom work is often underestimated, and these practices have the greatest chance of becoming embedded when they are reinforced by a shared vision and collaborative effort (McMaster, 2013; Sailor, 2015; Tomlinson & Murphy, 2017). 

Sustainable, whole school change cannot be achieved via focus on a single element of inclusion in isolation, as components do not function in isolation. Rather, the core elements of inclusion including leadership, school culture, building staff capacity, and inclusive practices are parts of an interdependent system. Hence, key elements of inclusion must be considered collectively and accounted for in advanced planning to ensure they function harmoniously and are integrated into the developing inclusive fabric of the school (Alborno & Gaad, 2014). 

Leadership for Inclusion 

The importance of leadership for determining the success of school reforms or changes to practice is well established in the literature (McMaster & Elliot, 2014; Poon-McBrayer & Wong, 2013). Becoming a more inclusive school often requires significant shifts in school values, culture, practices, and organisational systems; thus, leadership is critical to ensuring sustainable inclusive change in schools (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010; McMaster, 2015; Poon-McBrayer & Wong, 2013). School leaders are highly influential figures whose values, beliefs, and actions directly affect the culture of the school, expectations of staff, and school operations (Slater, 2012; Wong & Cheung, 2009). It is critical that school leaders are committed to embodying inclusive principles, establishing and modelling a standard of behaviour that promotes the development of inclusion within the school community. 

Organisational change on the scale often required for inclusion requires leadership across multiple levels (Jarvis et al., 2016; Tomlinson et al., 2008). It is likely to be most effective when facilitated through models of distributed leadership across roles and levels within a school, and when the case for change is underpinned by a broader, shared vision specifically related to student outcomes (Harris, 2013). Research has established the relationship between distributed leadership practices and the implementation of effective, inclusive school practices (Miškolci et al., 2016; Mullick et al., 2013; Robinson et al., 2008; Sharp et al., 2020). Leaders should consider utilising inclusive styles of management, replacing hierarchical structures with leadership teams (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010; McMaster, 2015). Effective school leadership enables shared responsibility, vision, and consistency within the school community, which is vital for the successful implementation of inclusion (Poon- McBrayer & Wong, 2013). 

Fostering Inclusive School Cultures 

Developing an inclusive school culture is a fundamental component of developing sustainable inclusion in schools (Dyson et al., 2004; McMaster, 2013). The culture of a school is made up of the shared values, attitudes, and beliefs of the school community (Booth, 2012). Transitioning to a truly inclusive culture requires close attention to attitudes and general support of the inclusive values being adopted, particularly by staff, but also by students and the broader school community (Dyson et al., 2004; Forlin & Chambers, 2011). 

A whole school approach to inclusion prompts a school to reflect on and embrace values based on inclusive principles, such as equality, diversity, and respect. This process cannot be imposed, but should be a collaborative exercise with school leaders and staff, to ensure any pedagogical philosophies or practices based on outdated ideas or past assumptions are not operating by default (Johnston & Hayes, 2007; Schein, 2004). Evaluating and redefining existing school values also requires professional learning, to facilitate a collective reconceptualisation of inclusion specific to the unique context of the school; the meaning, aims, and expectations of inclusion must be clarified for the school community, to encourage a shared understanding, vision, and responsibility for supporting the inclusive changes unfolding within the school (Horrocks et al., 2008; Symes & Humphrey, 2011). Finally, it is vital that school policies and practices are regularly revised, to ensure that they reinforce the inclusive values and culture of the school; otherwise, they can act as a potential barrier to the development of sustainable whole school inclusion (Dybvik, 2004; McMaster, 2013). 

Building Teachers’ Capacity for Inclusive Practice 

Building the knowledge and capacity of teachers and other school staff is crucial to developing sustainable inclusion in schools. The evolution of an inclusive school culture depends on aligning the attitudes and behaviour of staff (McMaster, 2015). Teachers must be knowledgeable about how inclusive education has progressed over time, particularly how the meaning of inclusion has changed and what it means in their school context. Understanding the concepts and values behind inclusion can help teachers appreciate its significance, prompting reflection of their own practice and how they see their students (Anderson & Boyle, 2015; Skidmore, 2004). This can allow any unhelpful assumptions or beliefs that may have been unconsciously informing their teaching practice, particularly in relation to students living with disability, to be challenged and revised (Ashby, 2012; Ashton & Arlington, 2019). 

While attention to attitudes, values, and broad understandings is fundamental, the goals of inclusion will only be achieved when principles are consistently enacted in daily classroom practice. At the classroom level, inclusion relies on teachers’ willingness and capacity to apply evidence-informed inclusive practices, such as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and Differentiated Instruction (Van Mieghem et al., 2020). UDL is a planning framework for learning activities designed to maximise curriculum accessibility for all students by offering multiple opportunities for engagement, representation, and action and expression (CAST, 2018; Sailor, 2015). Differentiated Instruction (DI) is a holistic framework of interdependent principles and practices that enables teachers to design learning experiences to address variation in students’ readiness, interests and learning preferences (Tomlinson, 2014). UDL is primarily focused on inclusive task design, although the model has been expanded in recent years to include greater attention to pedagogy. Differentiation encompasses elements of planning (clear, concept-based learning objectives; formative  assessment to inform proactive decision-making for diverse students), teaching (strategies to differentiate by readiness, interest and learning preference; ensuring respectful tasks and ‘teaching up’), and learning environment (flexible grouping, classroom management, establishing an inclusive culture) (Jarvis, 2015; Tomlinson, 2014). 

The application of UDL and DI principles and practices by skilled teachers enables diverse students to access curriculum content in multiple ways (Kozik et al., 2009; McMaster, 2013), at appropriate levels of challenge and support to ensure learning growth, and in ways that support motivation, engagement, and feelings of connection and belonging (Beecher & Sweeney, 2008; Callahan et al., 2015; van Kraayenoord, 2007; Stegemann & Jaciw, 2018). These complementary frameworks apply to all students and define general, flexible classroom practices that also reduce the need for individualised adjustments for students with identified disabilities and specialised learning needs. However, in inclusive classrooms, teachers must also develop the knowledge and skills to make and implement reasonable adjustments and accommodations that enable students with identified disabilities and more complex needs to engage with curriculum and assessment ‘on the same basis’ as their peers, as defined within the Disability Standards for Education (Davies et al., 2016). 

While inclusive teaching and classroom practices are non-negotiable, the challenge for some teachers to master the necessary skills and achieve the significant shift away from traditional teaching practices is often underestimated (Dixon et al., 2014; Tomlinson & Murphy, 2015). It is well-documented that teachers often find it difficult to apprehend both the conceptual and practical tools of DI and to embed differentiated practices into their daily work (Dack, 2019), particularly when they are not adequately resourced or supported to do so (Black-Hawkins & Florian, 2012; Brigandi et al., 2019; Fuchs et al., 2010; Mills et al, 2014). Perhaps related to teachers’ perceived lack of competence and confidence, the past 5-10 years have seen an enormous increase in the employment of teacher aides to work alongside students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms, despite limited evidence for its effectiveness and often in the context of inadequate planning and oversight (e.g., Sharma & Salend, 2016). 

Engagement in targeted professional learning (PL) is fundamental to supporting the shift towards inclusive teaching. Yet, traditional approaches to PL have been criticised for a lack of systematic evaluation and inadequate adherence to principles of effectiveness (Avalos, 2011; Merchie et al., 2018). Research on effective professional learning for teachers has established common principles and practices that are associated with changes in practice, and these also align with teachers’ stated preferences (Walker et al., 2018). These include: 

• professional learning is embedded in teachers’ own work contexts, and requires teachers to engage with content that is highly relevant to their daily practice, and closely linked to student learning (Desimone, 2009; Easton, 2008; Spencer, 2016; Van den Bergh et al., 2014); 
• professional learning enables teachers to learn together with colleagues, such as in communities of practice (Gore et al., 2017; Voelkel & Chrispeels, 2017); 
• professional learning activities are supported by robust school leadership and linked to broader school values and goals (Carpenter, 2015; Frankling et al., 2017; Sharp et al., 2020; Tomlinson et al., 2008; Whitworth & Chiu, 2015); 
• professional learning is provided over extended periods, is led by facilitators with expert knowledge, and includes timely follow up activities such as mentoring and coaching to embed changes in practice (Desimone & Pak, 2017; Grierson & Woloshyn, 2013; Tomlinson & Murphy, 2015). 

Multi-tiered Approaches to Whole School Inclusive Practice 

Multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) is an overarching term for a whole school inclusive framework that can be used to structure the flexible, timely distribution of resources to support students depending on their level of need (Sailor, 2017). As reflected in the generic depiction of MTSS in Figure 2, models generally utilise three tiers of intervention and teaching, where the intensity of the support is increased with each level or tier (McLeskey et al, 2014; Witzel & Clarke, 2015). Tier 1 includes core differentiated instruction and universal, evidence-based strategies for support that all students in the class receive. Tier 2 provides additional, targeted support to certain students for a specified purpose and period of time, usually in a small group format, while Tier 3 represents the most intensive and individualised support (Webster, 2016). The MTSS approach requires assessing all students regularly to assist in the early identification of needs requiring additional support, to enable prompt delivery of targeted interventions (McLeskey et al., 2014). MTSS is concerned with supporting the holistic development of students, by targeting their academic progress, behaviour, and socio-emotional well- being (McMillan & Jarvis, 2017). 

When implemented with fidelity, MTSS is an effective whole school inclusive framework as teachers, therapists, and other support staff work collaboratively to assess, monitor, and plan interventions to support students (Sailor, 2017). Student progress is frequently monitored and data are evaluated by the support team to determine whether alternative interventions are required. MTSS additionally encourages the use of evidence-based practices to be implemented across the tiers of support. Some common examples of MTSS include Response to Intervention (RTI) and Positive Behaviour Interventions and Supports (PBIS) (Webster, 2016). RTI is focused on supporting students academically, while PBIS is concerned with emphasising behavioural expectations in a positive manner, naturally supporting the social and emotional development of students. MTSS models have also been applied in whole-school mental health promotion, prevention and intervention (McMillan & Jarvis, 2017) and inclusive approaches to academic talent development for more advanced students (Jarvis, 2017). 

MTSS approaches to contemporary inclusive practice stand in contrast to traditional, categorical models whereby students were either ‘in’ or ‘out’ of special education services. The focus is on determining and responding to what students need when they need it, as opposed to focusing on a specific diagnosis or inflexible program options. In the MTSS framework, the tiers do not represent students or their placement, but the flexible suite of supports and interventions that may be provided. The implementation of MTSS approaches fundamentally reconceptualises the role of the classroom teacher, who must work collaboratively with specialist staff and other professionals to define and address individual student needs in ongoing ways, rather than relying on a specialist teacher or even a teacher aide to take responsibility for the education of students with identified special needs. While MTSS requires substantial changes to school operations (and must therefore be supported by leadership and culture in deliberate, coordinated ways), the general framework provides an organisation and structure to support the development of sustainable, contemporary inclusive schools (McLeskey et al., 2014). 

Figure 2. Multi-tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework. 

Conclusion 

Ultimately, developing sustainable and effective inclusion in schools is a challenging but worthwhile undertaking, requiring shared vision, commitment, ongoing reflection, and patience. Changes in practice, particularly in teachers’ daily planning and pedagogy, take time and will be supported by ongoing, well designed and embedded professional learning in the context of strong leadership and an inclusive school culture. By utilising a whole school approach, key areas including leadership, school values and culture, building staff capacity, and coordinated frameworks for inclusive practice, can be considered collectively and planned for in advance.  

References 

Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: The role of organizational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14 (4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802504903 

Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. (2006). Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion. Routledge. 

Alborno, N., & Gaad, E. (2014). Index for Inclusion: A framework for school review in the United Arab Emirates. British Journal of Special Education, 41 (3), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12073 

Anderson, J., & Boyle, C. (2015). Inclusive education in Australia: Rhetoric, reality and the road ahead. Support for Learning, 30 (1), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12074 

Ashby, C. (2012). Disability studies and inclusive teacher preparation: A socially just path for teacher education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 37 (2), 89–99. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F154079691203700204 

Ashton, J. R., & Arlington, H. (2019). My fears were irrational: Transforming conceptions of disability in teacher education through service learning. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 15 (1), 50–81. 

Askell-Williams, H., & Koh, G. (2020). Enhancing the sustainability of school improvement initiatives. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1767657 

Avalos, B. (2011). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007 

Beecher, M., & Sweeney, S. M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment and differentiation: One school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19 (3), 502–530. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2008-815 

Berlach, R. G., & Chambers, D. J. (2011). Interpreting inclusivity: An endeavour of great proportions. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903159300 

Black-Hawkins, K. & Florian, L. (2012). Classroom teachers’ craft knowledge of their inclusive practice. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8 (5), 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.709732 

Booth, T. (2012). Creating welcoming cultures: The index for inclusion. Race Equality Teaching, 30 (2), 19–21. http://doi.org/10.18546/RET.30.2.07 

Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for Inclusion: developing learning and participation in schools (3rd ed.). Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. http://www.csie.org.uk/resources/inclusion-index-explained.shtml 

Brigandi, C., Gibson, C. M., & Miller, M. (2019). Professional development and differentiated instruction in an elementary school pull-out program: A gifted education case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 42 (4), 362–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353219874418 

Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Oh, S., Azano, A. P., & Hailey, E. P. (2015). What works in gifted education: Documenting the effects of an integrated curricular/instructional model for gifted students. American Education Research Journal, 52, 137–167. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214549448 

Carpenter, D. (2015). School culture and leadership of professional learning communities. International Journal of Educational Management, 29 (5), 682–694. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2014-0046 

Carrington, S., & Elkins, J. (2002). Bridging the gap between inclusive policy and inclusive culture in secondary schools. Support for Learning, 17 (2), 51–57. 

Carter, S., & Abawi, L. (2018). Leadership, inclusion, and quality education for all. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 42 (1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2018.5 

CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines Version 2.2. http://udlguidelines.cast.org 

Davies, M., Elliott, S., & Cumming, J. (2016). Documenting support needs and adjustment gaps for students with disabilities: Teacher practices in Australian classrooms and on national tests. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20 (12), 1252–1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1159256 

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38 (3),181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140 

Desimone, L. M., & Pak, K. (2017). Instructional coaching as high-quality professional development. Theory Into Practice, 56 (1), 312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1241947 

Dixon, F. A., Yssel, N., McConnell, J. A., & Hardin, T. (2014). Differentiated instruction, professional development and teacher efficacy. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 37 (2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353214529042 

Dybvik, A. C. (2004). Autism and the inclusion mandate: What happens when children with severe disabilities like autism are taught in regular classrooms? Daniel knows. Education Next, 4 (1), 42–49. 

Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallanaugh, F. (2004). Inclusion and pupil achievement. Department for Education and Skills. 

Easton, L. B. (2008). From professional development to professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 755–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170808901014 

Ekins, A., & Grimes, P. (2009). Inclusion: Developing an Effective Whole School Approach. McGraw Hill Open University Press. 

Forlin, C. (2006). Inclusive education in Australia ten years after Salamanca. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21 (3), 265–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03173415 

Forlin, C., & Chambers, D. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive education: Increasing knowledge but raising concerns. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2010.540850 

Forlin, C., Chambers, D. J., Loreman, T., Deppler, J., & Sharma, U. (2013). Inclusive education for students with disability: A review of the best evidence in relation to theory and practice. The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth. https://www.aracy.org.au/publicationsresources/command/download_file/id/246/filename/Inclusive_education_for_students_with_disability_-_A_review_of_the_best_evidence_in_relation_to_theory_and_practice.pdf73 

Forlin, C., Keen, M., & Barrett. E. (2008). The concerns of mainstream teachers: Coping with inclusivity in an Australian context. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 55 (3), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120802268396 

Frankling, T. W., Jarvis, J. M. & Bell. M. R. (2017). Leading secondary teachers’ understandings and practices of differentiation through professional learning. Leading and Managing, 23 (2), 72–86. 

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The ‘blurring’ of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76 (3), 301–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600304 

Gore, J., Lloyd, A., Smith, M., Bowe, J., Ellis, H., & Lubans, D. (2017). Effects of professional development on the quality of teaching: Results from a randomised controlled trial of Quality Teaching Rounds. Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, 91–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.08.007 

Graham, L., & Spandagou, I. (2011). From vision to reality: Views of primary school principals on inclusive education in New South Wales, Australia. Disability & Society, 26 (2), 223–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2011.544062 

Grierson, A. L., & Woloshyn, V. E. (2013). Walking the talk: Supporting teachers’ growth with differentiated professional learning. Professional Development in Education, 39 (3), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2012.763143 

Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Corwin Press 

Harris, A. (2013). Distributed leadership: Friend or foe? Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 4 (5), 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213497635 

Hehir, T., Pascucci, S., & Pascucci, C. (2016). A summary of the evidence on inclusive education, Instituto Alana, 2. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596134.pdf 

Horrocks, J. L., White, G., & Roberts, L. (2008). Principals' attitudes regarding inclusion of children with autism in Pennsylvania public schools. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 1462–1473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0522-x 

Jarvis, J. M. (2015). Inclusive Classrooms and Differentiation. In N. Weatherby-Fell (Ed.), Learning to Teach in the Secondary School (pp. 154–171). Cambridge University Press. 

Jarvis, J. M. (2019). Most Australian teachers feel unprepared to teach students with special needs. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/most-australian-teachers-feel-unpreparedto-teach-students-with-special-needs-119227 

Jarvis, J. M., (2017). Supporting diverse gifted students. In M. Hyde, L. Carpenter & S. Dole (Eds.), Diversity, Inclusion and Engagement (3rd ed., pp. 308–329). Oxford University Press. 

Johnston, K., & Hayes, D. (2007). Supporting students’ success at school through teacher professional learning: The pedagogy of disrupting the default modes of schooling. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 11 (3), 371–381. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110701240666 

Kinsella, W. (2020). Organising inclusive schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24 (12), 1340–1356. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1516820 

Kozik, P., Cooney, B., Vinciguerra, S., Gradel, K., & Black, J. (2009). Promoting inclusion in secondary schools through appreciative inquiry. American Secondary Education, 38 (1), 77–91. 

McLeskey, J., Waldron, N. L., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, B. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of effective inclusive schools: Research and practice. Taylor & Francis. 

McMaster, C. (2013). Building inclusion from the ground up: A review of whole school re-culturing programmes for sustaining inclusive change. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 9 (2), 1–24. 

McMaster, C. (2015). Inclusion in New Zealand: The potential and possibilities of sustainable inclusive change through utilising a framework for whole school development. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 50 (2), 239–253. 

McMaster, C., & Elliot, W. (2014). Leading inclusive change with the Index for Inclusion: Using a framework to manage sustainable professional development. Journal of Educational Leadership, Policy and Practice, 29 (1), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-015-0010-3 

McMillan, J., & Jarvis, J. M. (2017). Supporting mental health and well-being: Promotion, prevention and intervention. In M. Hyde, L. Carpenter & S. Dole (Eds.), Diversity, inclusion and engagement (3rd ed., pp. 65–392). Oxford University Press. 

Merchie, E., Tuytens, M., Devos, G., & Vanderlinde, R. (2018). Evaluating teachers’ professional development initiatives: Towards an extended evaluative framework. Research Papers in Education, 33 (2), 143–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2016.1271003 

Mills, M., Monk, S., Keddie, A., Renshaw, P., Christie, P., Geelan, D. & C. Gowlett, C. (2014). Differentiated learning: From policy to classroom. Oxford Review of Education, 40 (3), 331–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2014.911725 

Miškolci, J., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I. (2016). Teachers' perceptions of the relationship between inclusive education and distributed leadership in two primary schools in Slovakia and New South Wales (Australia). Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 18 (2), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1515/jtes-2016-001 

Mullick, J., Sharma, U., & Deppeler, J. (2013). School teachers' perception about distributed leadership practices for inclusive education in primary schools in Bangladesh. School Leadership & Management, 33 (2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2012.723615 

OECD (2019). TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en. 

Parliament of South Australia. (2017). Report of the select committee on access to the South Australian Education System for students with a disability. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2017-05/apo-nid94396.pdf 

Poon-McBrayer, K., & Wong, P. (2013). Inclusive education services for children and youth with disabilities: Values, roles and challenges of school leaders. Children and Youth Services Review, 35 (9), 1520–1525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.06.009 

Read, K., Aldridge, J., Ala’i, K., Fraser, B., & Fozdar, F. (2015). Creating a climate in which students can flourish: A whole school intercultural approach. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 11 (2), 29–44. https://doi.org/1710-2146 

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509 

Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. (2019). Issues Paper: Education and Learning. https://disability.royalcommission.gov.au/system/files/2020-07/Issues-paper-Education-Learning.pdf 

Sailor, W. (2015). Advances in schoolwide inclusive school reform. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514555021 

Sailor, W. (2017). Equity as a basis for inclusive educational systems change. The Australasian Journal of Special Education, 41 (1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2016.12 

Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass. 

Sharma, U., & Salend, S. (2016). Teaching assistants in inclusive classrooms: A systematic analysis of the international research. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41 (8), 118–134. 

Sharp, K., Jarvis, J. M., & McMillan, J. M. (2020). Leadership for differentiated instruction: Teachers' engagement with on-site professional learning at an Australian secondary school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24 (8), 901–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1492639 

Skidmore, D. (2004). Inclusion: The dynamic of school development. McGraw-Hill Education. 

Slater, C. L. (2012). Understanding principal leadership: An international perspective and a narrative approach. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 39 (2), 219–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143210390061 

Slee, R. (2013). How do we make inclusive education happen when exclusion is a political predisposition? International Journal of Inclusive Education: Making Inclusive Education Happen: Ideas for Sustainable Change, 17 (8), 895–907. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2011.602534 

Spencer, E. J. (2016). Professional learning communities: Keeping the focus on instructional practice. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 52 (2), 83–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2016.1156544 

Stegemann, K., & Jaciw, A. (2018). Making it logical: Implementation of inclusive education using a logic model framework. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 16 (1), 3–18. 

Symes, W., & Humphrey, N. (2011). School factors that facilitate or hinder the ability of teaching assistants to effectively support pupils with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in mainstream secondary schools. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 11 (3), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01196.x 

Thomas, G. (2013). A review of thinking and research about inclusive education policy, with suggestions for a new kind of inclusive thinking. British Educational Research Journal, 39 (3), 473–490. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.652070 

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 

Tomlinson, C. A., & Murphy, M. (2015). Leading for differentiation: Growing teachers who grow kids. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 

Tomlinson, C.A., Brimijoin, K., & Narvaez, L. (2008). The differentiated school: Making revolutionary changes in teaching and learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 

Van Den Bergh, L., Ros, A., & Beijaard, D. (2014). Improving teacher feedback during active learning: Effects of a professional development program. American Educational Research Journal, 51 (4), 772–809. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214531322 

van Kraayenoord, C. E. (2007). School and classroom practices in inclusive education in Australia. Childhood Education, 83 (6), 390–394, https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2007.10522957 

van Kraayenoord, C. E., Waterworth, D., & Brady. T. (2014). Responding to individual differences in inclusive classrooms in Australia. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 17 (2), 48–59. 

Van Mieghem, A., Verschueren, K., Petry, K., & Struyf, E. (2020). An analysis of research on inclusive education: A systematic search and meta review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26 (6), 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1482012 

Voelkel, R. H., Jr., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2017). Understanding the link between professional learning communities and teacher collective efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28, 505–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2017.1299015 

Waitoller, F. R., & Artiles, A. J. (2013). A decade of professional development research for inclusive education: A critical review and notes for a research program. Review of Educational Research, 83 (3), 319–356. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483905 

Walker, P. M., Carson, K. L., Jarvis, J. M., McMillan, J. M., Noble, A. G., Armstrong, D., . . . Palmer, C. (2018). How do educators of students with disabilities in specialist settings understand and apply the Australian Curriculum framework? Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 42 (2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2018.13 

Webster, A. (2016). Utilising a leadership blueprint to build the capacity of schools to achieve outcomes for students with autism spectrum disorder. In G. Johnson & N. Dempster (Eds.), Leadership in diverse learning contexts (pp. 109–127). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28302-9_6 

Whitworth, B. A., & Chiu, J. L. (2015). Professional development and teacher change: The missing leadership link. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26 (2), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9411-2

Inclusive School Communities Project Phone: (08) 8373 8333 Email:  [email protected] Address: 104 Greenhill Road, Unley SA 5061

Advertisement

Teachers’ Beliefs About Inclusive Education and Insights on What Contributes to Those Beliefs: a Meta-analytical Study

• Meta-Analysis
• Open access
• Published: 26 August 2022
• Volume 34 , pages 2609–2660, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Charlotte Dignath   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1707-8731 1 , 2 ,
• Sara Rimm-Kaufman 3 ,
• Reyn van Ewijk 4 &
• Mareike Kunter 1 , 2  

22k Accesses

27 Citations

9 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Teachers’ belief systems about the inclusion of students with special needs may explain gaps between policy and practice. We investigated three inter-related aspects of teachers’ belief systems: teachers’ cognitive appraisals (e.g., attitudes), emotional appraisal (e.g., feelings), and self-efficacy (e.g., agency to teach inclusive classrooms). To date, research in this field has produced contradictory findings, resulting in a sparse understanding of why teachers differ in their belief systems about inclusive education, and how teachers’ training experiences contribute to their development of professional beliefs. We used meta-analysis to describe the level and range of teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education, and examine factors that contribute to variation in teachers’ beliefs, namely (1) the point in teachers’ career (pre-service versus in-service), (2) training in special versus regular education, and (3) the effects of specific programs and interventions. We reviewed 102 papers (2000–2020) resulting in 191 effect sizes based on research with 40,898 teachers in 40 countries. On average, teachers’ cognitive appraisals, emotional appraisals, and efficacy about inclusion were found to be in the mid-range of scales, indicating room for growth. Self-efficacy beliefs were higher for preservice ( M  = 3.69) than for in-service teachers ( M  = 3.13). Teachers with special education training held more positive views about inclusion than regular education teachers ( d  = 0.41). Training and interventions related to improved cognitive appraisal ( d  = 0.63), emotional appraisal ( d  = 0.63), and self-efficacy toward inclusive practices ( d  = 0.93). The training was particularly effective in encouraging reflection of beliefs and, eventually, facilitating belief change when teachers gained practical experience in inclusive classrooms. Six key findings direct the next steps.

Similar content being viewed by others

Does Professional Development Effectively Support the Implementation of Inclusive Education? A Meta-Analysis

Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusive Education: a Cross-National Exploration

Are teachers’ personal values related to their attitudes toward inclusive education? A correlational study

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Teachers’ classroom practices and how they implement educational reform account substantially for students’ academic learning and achievement (Hattie, 2009 ). The United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD ; 2006 ) and the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 (United Nations, 2006 ) paved the way for reform toward inclusive education, and teachers play a key role in translating this reform into practice (Rouse, 2017). To implement the change towards more inclusive school systems, we must understand why some teachers use new teaching strategies while others resist inclusive reform efforts (Sutton & Wheatley, 2003 ). Identifying contributors and barriers to the implementation of inclusive education is a timely topic because inclusive education of students with special educational needs (SEN) has become one of the most significant educational reforms in countries all over the world (Savolainen et al., 2020 ).

A major driver for the development of inclusive education policies has been the right of children with SEN to be educated in mainstream schools. Yet, the likelihood of inclusive education actually occurring depends on teachers’ underlying belief systems (Lindsay, 2007 ). “Teachers’ belief systems” (Fives & Buehl, 2012 , p. 477) refer to a set of dynamic and integrated teacher views related to a certain topic that guides their perceptions, leads them to interpret incoming information and events in certain ways, and acts as an individual’s “working model of the world” (Bandura, 1977 , p. 3). The subcomponents of a teacher’s belief system are often entangled (e.g., Miesera et al., 2019 ; Woodcock & Jones, 2020 ). Knowing about teachers’ belief systems gives insights into the psychological experiences that drive teachers’ actions. Such knowledge is critical to inform teacher training (e.g., teacher preparation, professional development) that supports teachers’ implementation of reforms such as inclusive education. Using studies from across the globe and including high-, middle-, and low-income countries increases the likelihood that findings can be generalized widely.

There are numerous ways to build knowledge related to inclusive education. In this paper, we use studies from 40 countries to focus on teachers’ beliefs about inclusion as the key outcome. Yet, it seems important to acknowledge that research on teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education differs from research examining the effectiveness of inclusive education compared to other educational approaches. The latter is beyond the scope of this paper.

Researchers in education have produced a large body of work on teachers’ belief systems related to inclusive education. However, the existing research findings are contradictory and not easy to interpret. Some contradictions occur because of the wide range of beliefs teachers hold about inclusive education. Other contradictions reflect the variety of constructs studied; for instance, some work focuses on teaching approaches to inclusive education, other work focuses on thoughts about inclusive education, and still others assess teachers’ fears toward inclusive education. Given the existing contradictory information, the field needs a synthesis of research. We expect the resulting knowledge will shed light on factors that contribute to beliefs about inclusive education and inform teacher training in ways that will lead to inclusive education reform. For this reason, we conducted a meta-analysis to explain how and why teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education vary.

The goal of this article is twofold. To shed light on the variation of teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education, we investigate teachers’ belief systems regarding inclusive education and the extent to which they vary as a function of point in a career (i.e., preservice versus in-service) and teacher type (e.g., special education versus regular education). Then, we broaden the lens to understand how training and interventions provide teachers with experiences that contribute to teachers’ beliefs, such that teachers are more likely to implement inclusive practices (Forlin et al., 2014 ). To pursue these goals, first, we examine the effects of preservice teachers’ education and in-service teachers’ professional development on teachers’ beliefs on inclusive education. Second, we examine whether being a special or regular education teacher is related to teachers’ beliefs about inclusion. Third, to advance our knowledge about the malleability of inclusion-related beliefs, we examine the extent to which interventions (such as preservice courses, professional development training, and practical experiences in inclusive classrooms) moderate the effects of teacher education. We organize the literature by distinguishing between three components of beliefs—teachers’ cognitive appraisals (e.g., thoughts), emotional appraisals (e.g., feelings), and self-efficacy (e.g., agency to teach inclusive classrooms). The results provide the theoretical ground for future research on teachers’ belief systems about inclusive education reform, shed light on how teachers’ point in their career and whether they are special education versus regular teachers shape their belief systems about inclusive education reform, and provide information about what aspects of training and interventions are associated with more positive beliefs toward inclusion.

In the following section, we first describe the evidence for the implementation of the inclusive education reform and the role of teachers' beliefs in the implementation of this reform. Based on Gregoire's ( 2003 ) cognitive-affective model, we review the state of current research on teachers' belief systems and then describe factors that contribute to the development of teachers’ belief systems. Finally, we present our study and the research questions.

The Implementation and Effects of Inclusive Education

By definition, inclusive education refers to the education of all children within one classroom, irrespective of their cognitive or physiological conditions (UNESCO, 1994 ). Access to inclusive education has been viewed as a fundamental right of children with SEN and exclusion from such educational settings has been viewed as discrimination (Lindsay, 2007 ). The move toward inclusion is almost universal, and it reflects a change in values in many societies. However, there is remarkable variation in the definition and implementation of inclusive education around the world. According to UNESCO ( 2017a ), most countries have committed to the United Nations’ Convention on CRPD ; however, countries still differ substantially in terms of experience with inclusive education and the way in which inclusion is realized (O'Hanlon, 2017 ; UNESCO, 2017b ). Hence, implementing inclusive education remains a work in progress (Westwood, 2018 ). Whereas some countries, such as the USA, have been changing their educational systems to integrate students with SEN into regular education classrooms for decades, most countries worldwide are currently in the process of aligning their educational systems with the United Nations’ Convention on CRPD.

Inclusion has become a goal in many nations, but skeptics still question whether inclusion works for all children. To date, most empirical research on inclusion suggests it produces favorable outcomes. When research compares students in inclusive settings with those who remain segregated in specialized programs, the results show mostly positive effects of inclusion on academic achievement (Oh-Young & Filler, 2015 ) and student social contact (Nakken & Pijl, 2002 ), without having adverse effects (Wilberger & Palko, 2009). Moreover, research syntheses suggest that inclusive education does not lead to negative consequences for students without SEN (Kalambouka et al., 2007 ; Szumski et al., 2017 ). Nevertheless, there may be differential effects for different groups of students and types of inclusion practices (Ruijs & Peetsma, 2009 )—both of which depend on teachers’ inclusive classroom practices and, in turn, teachers’ beliefs. Before teachers take on new classroom practices to teach inclusive classrooms, they may first need to change their beliefs about inclusive education, which is a complex and cognitively demanding process (Gregoire, 2003 ). For many teachers, their existing beliefs may conflict with the underpinning philosophy of inclusive education (Wilson et al., 2016 ) and can prevent the implementation and sustained use of inclusive reform (Fox et al., 2021 ). Thus, understanding teachers’ beliefs about inclusive practices gives insights into an important precursor of whether teachers implement inclusive practices or not.

The Role of Teachers’ Belief Systems and the Implementation of Inclusive Reform

According to Gregoire’s ( 2003 ) cognitive–affective model of conceptual change, teachers’ belief systems play a major role in how comfortable teachers are with implementing reforms (Liou et al., 2019 ). If teachers think and feel positive about a set of practices, they are more likely to use those practices in the classroom (Fives & Buehl, 2012 ). Then, no conceptual change needs to take place and beliefs may stay the same (Gregoire, 2003 ). However, if a teacher’s prior beliefs and experiences are opposed to the reform approach, those beliefs and experiences may act as a barrier to implementing the reform (Fox et al., 2021 ). When teachers engage in critical appraisal, they may realize that the reform practices are actually at odds with how they have been teaching for a long time. Being confronted with a reform message that challenges a teacher’s current ideas about instruction (cognitive appraisal) can make the teacher appraise the situation as stressful, resulting in feelings of anxiety (emotional appraisal). Whether or not the teacher feels able to cope with this situation (self-efficacy) will determine whether the reform will be appraised as a challenge or a threat (Gregoire, 2003 ). Eventually, such negative appraisals can contribute to teacher burnout (Chang, 2009 ) and teacher turnover (Iancu et al., 2018 ).

Cognitive Appraisals of Inclusive Education

Cognitive appraisal refers to a person’s cognitive evaluation of an attitude object (i.e., whether it is favorable or unfavorable (Ajzen, 2002 )). More precisely, teachers’ cognitive appraisals of inclusive education include beliefs about the effectiveness of including students with diverse SEN in regular classrooms and whether inclusion is viewed positively or negatively (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002 ). This evaluation builds on teachers’ cognitive representations of inclusive education that reflect teachers’ thoughts about the costs and benefits of inclusion for classroom management, teachers’ own work, and for the students themselves (including those with and without SEN) (Forlin et al., 2010 ).

Cognitive appraisals of inclusive education affect the perception and the expectations that teachers have for their students, which can have profound consequences on their teaching (Kiely et al., 2015 ). For example, appraising inclusion as an obstacle often goes along with a deficit view of students at risk for school failure, wherein educational challenges are mainly explained by students’ deficits (Ainscow, 2007 ). In contrast, the appraisals of inclusion as an opportunity for education build on an approach towards diversity that considers students’ backgrounds as an asset for learning rather than an obstacle (Ainscow, 2005 ; UNESCO, 2017a ). Previous reviews suggest that teachers appraise the inclusion of students with SEN in regular schools in a slightly negative way. Thus, as far as we know today, teachers’ cognitive appraisals have been slightly more deficit-focused than asset-based (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002 ; De Boer et al., 2011 ; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996 ).

Emotional Appraisals of Inclusive Education

Compared to cognitive appraisals, emotional appraisals take inclusion to a personal level (Savolainen et al., 2012 ). Teachers’ emotional appraisals are most likely to occur when their cognitive evaluation of reform indicates that the reform is personally relevant and will impact their well-being (Gregoire, 2003 ). Whereas some teachers feel threatened by inclusive education because they fear the additional workload (Pearman et al., 1997 ), anticipate stress (Jenson, 2018 ), or experience feelings of threat related to a lack of resources (Sharma & Desai, 2002 ), others feel less concerned regarding inclusion (Forlin et al., 2010 ). Evidence on teachers’ emotional appraisals varies; typically, teachers range from being only marginally concerned to very concerned about using inclusive practices (e.g., Forlin & Chambers, 2011 ).

The response teachers have depends on the individual’s appraisal of the controllability and their ability to cope with that situation (Pekrun, 2006 ). When teachers feel like situations are out of control and/or they cannot cope with the challenge, their appraisals have negative consequences for their emotional state, resulting in burn-out, inability to mobilize cognitive resources, or difficulty choosing instructional strategies effectively (Sutton & Wheatley, 2003 ; Pekrun et al., 2002; Talmor et al., 2005 ; Kunter et al., 2013 ). In turn, this state can affect their students adversely (Frenzel et al., 2021; Aldrup et al., 2018). Given the evidence on the detrimental effects of teachers’ negative emotional appraisals on various teacher, student, and instruction outcomes, one important open question is if and how emotional appraisals can be modified (Sutton & Wheatley, 2003 ), which turns attention toward understanding self-efficacy beliefs.

Self-Efficacy Beliefs about Implementing Inclusive Education

Self-efficacy beliefs regarding inclusive education refer to teachers’ resources for coping as well as their expectations of being able to support students in specific situations. Teachers are more likely to act if they believe they can successfully accomplish a reform effort (Bandura, 1997 ), such as inclusion. These self-beliefs serve as a cognitive lens through which teachers evaluate whether or not to engage in efforts to carry out reform practices (Liou et al., 2019 ).

Teachers with low self-efficacy toward implementing inclusive practices may feel incapable of including students with SEN in their classrooms, and, consequently, make little effort to adapt their teaching to meet the needs of SEN students (Sharma et al., 2012 ). Many teachers do not feel well prepared for the tasks that can arise in inclusive settings, such as responding to particular difficulties or making adaptations (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011 ), and they experience concern about a lack of personal and material resources to implement inclusion effectively (Sharma et al., 2009 ). In contrast, higher self-efficacy beliefs about inclusive practices are associated with stronger intentions to teach inclusively (Miesera et al., 2019 ; Opoku et al., 2020 ), a stronger willingness to implement specific inclusive practices in their classrooms (Avramidis et al., 2019 ), and higher self-reported implementation of inclusive teaching practices (Schwab & Alnahdi, 2020 ).

Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs have been found to be the most influential of the belief constructs for predicting whether or not teachers take action to carry out reform (Liou et al., 2019 ). For example, teachers’ self-efficacy to implement inclusive practices contributes to teachers’ prospective cognitive appraisals and, even more so, toward their emotional appraisals of inclusive education, based on cross-lagged analyses (Savolainen et al., 2020 ; Sharma & Sokal, 2015 ). Beyond this, higher self-efficacy protects teachers from burnout (Evers et al., 2002 ) and is one of the main psychological resources that can reduce emotional exhaustion in teachers (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017 ).

In sum, teachers’ cognitive appraisals, emotional appraisals, and self-efficacy beliefs contribute to the extent to which teachers are likely to implement inclusive education reform in their classrooms. To date, we know that teachers vary in all aspects of their belief system towards inclusive education. However, we do not fully understand what contributes to or produces changes in these belief components. Improving our understanding will help support teachers to perceive the new standards of inclusive education as a new opportunity rather than a threat to existing instructional practice, which in turn will improve the implementation of inclusive practices (Liou et al., 2019 ).

Do Teachers’ Experiences Create Variation in Teachers’ Belief Systems about Inclusive Education?

Teachers’ experiences inside and outside of classrooms vary, and they relate to their belief systems (Didion et al., 2020 ; Klassen & Chiu, 2011 ). The associations are bi-directional: not only can teachers’ beliefs shape teachers’ experiences (for example, beliefs contribute to whether a person decides to study to become a special or regular education teacher), but their experiences can contribute to their beliefs (Fives & Buehl, 2012 ). One prevalent theme in studies of teachers’ beliefs is the category of teacher type, thus differentiating between (1) teachers with general teaching experience in regular classrooms (i.e., teaching experience with typically developing students) and (2) teachers with specific training and experience as special-needs teachers (i.e., experiences in special or inclusive classrooms).

General Teaching Experience in Regular Classrooms

Teachers’ appraisals of inclusive education may be affected by their preservice education to become a regular education teacher and years of teaching experience in a typical classroom (i.e., how long they have worked as a regular education teacher). With more years of work experience, many actions become automated throughout a teacher’s career, which enables teachers to focus on other aspects of their work (Berliner, 1994). In the beginning, novice teachers report more feelings of work overload (Paquette & Rieg, 2016 ) and tend to use more avoidant strategies (e.g., withdrawing from sources of stress) than experienced teachers (Sharplin et al., 2011 ). On the other hand, novice teachers perceive less work-related stress (Klassen & Chiu, 2011 ) and tend to be more idealistic regarding their perception of teaching than in-service teachers who regard the teaching process more realistically (Anspal et al., 2012). This can lead to over-confidence in preservice teachers, but also to more negative feelings when classroom realities do not match their expectations (Toompalu et al., 2017 ). To date, it remains an open question whether or not teachers’ years of experience in a regular classroom translate into rather positive or negative appraisals of inclusive education, as the findings have been inconclusive (see Avramidis & Norwich, 2002 ; De Boer et al., 2011 ).

Specific Training and Experience in Special Education

Teachers’ preparedness for inclusive education may also vary in light of preservice teachers’ preparation for teaching and their years of experience teaching students with special needs. Special education teachers show more positive beliefs about inclusive education than regular education teachers (Lee et al., 2015 ). While regular teachers usually have little or no training in how to teach classes with SEN students effectively, special education teachers have knowledge about individual differences and have learned teaching strategies that allow them to adapt to students with SEN. Moreover, they developed their belief system based on classroom experience with teaching students with SEN. As a consequence, special education teachers hold more positive beliefs toward inclusion, which are partly mediated by higher self-efficacy beliefs about teaching in inclusive settings (Desombre et al., 2019). Not only in-service, but also preservice special education teachers tend to have higher self-efficacy beliefs for teaching students with SEN than preservice teachers in regular teacher preparation (Leyser et al., 2011 ). Of course, it is also possible that persons who are positive about inclusion are more inclined to choose a career in SEN.

Influence of Targeted Interventions

Interventions for pre-service and in-service teachers are designed to create change in people’s beliefs and actions. Among pre-service teachers, interventions typically take the form of courses. Among in-service teachers, these interventions may be programs or courses that are embedded into professional development opportunities. For both pre-service and in-service teachers, the interventions may involve practical experiences in inclusive classrooms and/or practical experiences with students with SEN. Such experiences vary in length from just a couple of days or weeks of training to long-term intervention. To date, findings have been inconclusive (e.g., for initial teacher preparation: (Ajuwon et al., 2015 ; Rakap et al., 2017 ); for in-service teachers’ professional development: (Aiello & Sharma, 2018 ; Sucuoğlu et al., 2015 )). Moreover, it is still poorly understood which parts of teachers’ belief systems are affected, and how changes in beliefs are achieved.

To be concrete, envision situations where preservice and in-service teachers are participating in interventions (e.g., coursework, programs) designed to teach them about inclusive education. In these training situations, a teacher may react in one of three ways. Some teachers will have cognitive appraisals of inclusive education that fit with their prior knowledge and experience; their emotional appraisals may result in feelings of pleasantness or curiosity, and they will not perceive the need to reflect on and change their practices. In contrast, other teachers will have cognitive appraisals of inclusive education that reveal incongruity between their current beliefs and the new instructional content. Among these teachers experiencing incongruity, some will have emotional appraisals of concern, worry, and threat about the implementation of inclusive education, whereas others will have emotional appraisals that signal an opportunity to learn new information and grow. What differentiates between these two latter groups? Is it teachers’ point in their career, training as special educator versus regular teachers, or some aspect of the training itself?

Existing studies of inclusive education interventions and teachers’ beliefs provide the raw material for meta-analysis to answer these key questions. As mentioned above, some studies focus on preservice teachers, whereas others study in-service teachers. Some studies examine special education teachers and/or regular education teachers to understand how interventions contribute to belief change. Studies of interventions related to inclusive education also examine the role of field experience in an inclusive classroom, practical experience with people with SEN, and length of interventions—thus setting the stage to consider these features as potential moderators of change in beliefs.

Field Experience in an Inclusive Classroom

Teachers’ field experience in an inclusive classroom creates mastery or vicarious experiences that may shape how teachers think and feel about inclusive education. Providing them with real-world experiences upon which they can base their beliefs, such as field placements and observations, is assumed to foster a more realistic sense of self-efficacy and more realistic beliefs about teaching and learning (Haverback & Parault, 2009). Some studies indicate that preservice and in-service teachers benefit from having the opportunity to gain experience with inclusive education through field experience (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002 ). Most of these studies embedded field experience in course work (McHatton & Parker, 2013 ). Mastery experience has been found to be vital in predicting teachers’ self-efficacy (Wilson et al., 2020 ).

Practical Experience with People with SEN

Teachers’ practical experiences with people with SEN could have shaped their belief system. In line with Allport’s intergroup contact theory, which posits that personal contact is an effective way to reduce prejudice (Allport, 1954), many researchers have argued that teachers develop more positive beliefs about inclusive education when they have regular contact with people in marginalized groups (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002 ; Parasuram, 2006; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006 ). Work measuring practical experience with people with SEN typically asks teachers questions about how much time people have spent with individuals with different disabilities as a way of assessing the amount of contact.

Length of Intervention

Training experiences and interventions range in length, with some being short workshops of several days (e.g., 5 days in the study by Carew et al., 2019 ) and others being long-term interventions (e.g., 2 years in the study by Sharma et al., 2008 ). Existing research on the length of interventions suggests that the effectiveness of interventions increases with their length (Bezrukova et al., 2016 ). On the other hand, other meta-analyses indicate that shorter teacher interventions lead to even higher effects (e.g., Egert et al., 2018 ), or that length did not affect the effectiveness of teacher interventions at all (e.g., Gesel et al., 2021 ). Synthesizing information about how the length of interventions relates to teachers’ beliefs can inform the development of effective interventions for future use.

Existing studies vary in who receives training (preservice or in-service teachers, special education or regular education teachers) and what is considered a critical component of the delivery (field experience in inclusive classrooms, practical experience with people with SEN, short- or long-duration trainings). To date, we still have a limited understanding of the characteristics that make such interventions most effective (Lautenbach & Heyder, 2019 ). Using longitudinal designs, one can investigate the effects of interventions in teacher preparation programs and professional development on the development of teachers’ belief systems. Such studies provide the ideal raw material for meta-analysis.

The Present Study

The existing work leads us to take a three-pronged approach to examine beliefs by focusing on cognitive and emotional appraisals of inclusion as well as teachers’ own self-efficacy in teaching inclusive classrooms. The focus on teachers’ cognitive appraisals of inclusive education is important because these evaluations affect the teachers’ perception of their students (Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2006 ), influence teachers’ classroom practice (Kiely et al., 2015 ), and teachers’ well-being (Buehl & Beck, 2015 ). Examining teachers’ emotional appraisals of inclusion is important because it affects teachers’ coping processes (Gregoire, 2003 ; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984 ). Finally, examining self-efficacy beliefs about teachers’ capabilities and the outcomes of their efforts is important because it can affect their classroom behavior (Klassen & Tze, 2014 ). As described above, these belief systems are interconnected and malleable.

With this meta-analysis, we aim to test how teachers’ cognitive and emotional appraisals and self-efficacy beliefs about inclusive education vary as a function of their experiences. Furthermore, we aim to clarify which elements of teacher training have an impact on teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education.

RQ 1 How do teachers think and feel about inclusive education and how does point in their career (pre-service versus in-service) contribute to their belief systems?

In the first step, we examined teachers’ belief systems about inclusive education using the full sample of 102 studies from 40 different countries. To this end, we quantified teachers’ cognitive appraisals, emotional appraisals, and self-efficacy beliefs about teaching inclusive classes and identified whether the point in teachers’ careers (preservice vs. in-service teachers) can explain variation in these beliefs.

RQ 1.1 How do teachers cognitively appraise inclusive education, and how does this vary depending on the point in teachers’ careers (pre-service versus in-service)?

Many studies ( m  = 102) have investigated teachers’ beliefs (i.e., cognitive appraisals) about inclusive education, but the results are inconclusive. Literature reviews (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002 ; De Boer et al., 2011 ) indicate that teachers vary in their views about inclusive education, with some research showing that teachers hold positive beliefs, whereas others show that teachers hold negative beliefs. Some studies show that teachers have favorable views on average (e.g., Avramidis et al., 2000 ; Wilson et al., 2016 ), whereas in other studies, teachers held negative (Rapak & Kaczmarek, 2010; Thaver & Lim, 2014 ) or neutral views about inclusive education, meaning that they neither agree nor disagree with statements such as “most children with exceptional needs are well behaved in integrated education classrooms” (Galovic et al., 2014 ; Memisevic & Hodzic, 2011 ). Based on existing work, we hypothesized that cognitive appraisals would be near the mid-range of the scale (suggesting room for growth). Further, we expected cognitive appraisals about inclusive education would be more favorable among in-service teachers compared to preservice teachers because in-service teachers base their beliefs on a broader range of work experiences than preservice teachers (Berliner, 1994; Toompalu et al., 2017 ).

RQ 1.2 How do teachers emotionally appraise inclusive education, and how are these emotional appraisals moderated by the point in the teachers’ career (pre-service versus in-service)?

Only a few studies ( m  = 23) have investigated teachers’ emotional appraisals of inclusive education. While some studies indicate that teachers feel moderately concerned (Forlin & Chambers, 2011 ; Sharma & Sokal, 2015 ), others report that teachers have many concerns about the consequences of including children with SEN in their classrooms (Savoleinen et al., 2011). Therefore, we hypothesized that teachers would be, on average, moderate and near the midpoint of the scale in their emotional appraisals of inclusive education, indicating hesitant feelings toward inclusive education. Further, we expected that emotional appraisals would be more positive among in-service teachers because they have more experience managing work overload (Paquette & Rieg, 2016 ) and possess more effective coping strategies than preservice teachers (Sharplin et al., 2011 ).

RQ 1.3 How self-efficacious are teachers toward implementing inclusive education, and how is self-efficacy moderated by teachers’ point in their careers (preservice versus in-service)?

Only a few studies ( m  = 24) examined self-efficacy for inclusive education. In general, we hypothesized that teachers would rate near the midpoint of the scale for self-efficacy beliefs, suggesting room for growth before teachers adopt inclusive practices readily. Based on the evidence that shows higher self-efficacy beliefs for preservice than for in-service teachers (Ismailos et al., 2019 ; Tümkaya & Miller, 2020 ), we hypothesized higher self-efficacy among preservice than in-service teachers because preservice teachers tend to overestimate their abilities given their limited experience (Anspal et al., 2012; Ismailos et al., 2019 ).

RQ 2 Do special and regular education teachers’ belief systems about inclusive education differ?

In the second step, we investigated the differences in belief systems about inclusive education among special and regular education teachers given that these two types of teachers have different training and subsequent experience in the classroom. Quite a few of the retrieved studies ( m  = 18) provided data that directly compared the beliefs of special and regular education teachers, thus creating an opportunity to conduct a separate meta-analysis with these 18 studies to compare differences in beliefs by teacher type. Based on the assumption that initial teacher preparation has an impact on teachers’ formation of their belief systems, we expected special education teachers to hold more affirmative cognitive appraisals (Lee et al., 2015 ), more confident emotional appraisals (Schields, 2020), and higher self-efficacy beliefs about teaching inclusive classrooms (Desombre et al., 2019; Leyser et al., 2011 ) than regular education teachers.

RQ 3 How malleable are beliefs about inclusive education following intervention (i.e., training, teacher preparation, professional development)?

Finally, we examined the contribution of interventions about inclusive education to changes in teachers’ belief systems in a set of 17 studies. For this question, we defined “intervention” broadly to include preservice education courses and training in professional development programs. Since previous literature reviews have suggested that training teachers in inclusive education affects their beliefs (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002 ), we hypothesized that programming targeting inclusive education would contribute to more affirmative cognitive appraisals (Lautenbach & Heyder, 2019 ), more confident emotional appraisals (Sharma & Sokal, 2015 ), and higher self-efficacy beliefs (Sharma & Sokal, 2015 ). To test this hypothesis, we examined the contribution of interventions on belief using 17 studies on cognitive appraisals, 7 on emotional appraisals, and 4 on self-efficacy. We did not expect this effect to be moderated by the teachers’ point in their careers, as there was no indication in the literature that preservice teachers would benefit more from training than in-service teachers or vice versa. However, we hypothesized that this effect would be moderated by intervention characteristics such that the effects of training would be higher under certain conditions: (a) when the training involved practical experience in inclusive classrooms (McHatton & Parker, 2013 ), (b) when the training involved practical experience with people with SEN (Parasuram, 2006), and (c) when the training was longer in duration (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002 ). To understand the contribution of training involving practical experience, we controlled for the length of the teacher intervention in predicting outcomes (Kennedy, 2016).

For this meta-analysis, we followed the Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS; American Psychological Association, 2008 ) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. In this section, we: (a) describe our literature search and inclusion criteria, (b) the data extraction and coding of the retrieved studies, (c) the analytic strategy, including our approach to calculating effect sizes, and (d) the meta-analytic methods used in this study.

Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria

We conducted a systematic search to locate primary studies on preservice and in-service teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education. Since international agreements on inclusive education and education for all led to global efforts on implementing inclusion in the 1990s and later (Werning et al., 2016), we searched for international studies published between January 2000 and January 2020. We searched for titles and abstracts containing the terms inclusi* , special educational needs, divers* , and heterogen* , each in combination with teacher in the databases PsycINFO , PsycARTICLES , and Web of Science .

To be included, studies had to meet seven criteria. Studies had to: (a) assess belief systems about inclusive education, (i.e., cognitive appraisals, emotional appraisals, or self-efficacy to teach inclusive classes); (b) include preservice or in-service teachers; (c) be carried out in a formal educational context, and the studies ranged from focusing on preschool through secondary school; (d) contain the statistical information needed to calculate standardized means or effect sizes; (e) report on measurable outcomes of the teacher education course on teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education; (f) indicate the scale of the measurement instrument in order to standardize the mean scores; and (g) be published in English. (See PRISMA Table S1 (online only) in the Appendix for more detailed information on the methodology of the literature search, the coding, and the computation of the meta-analysis.)

After omitting duplicate data, the initial search yielded 4737 hits in total. A first screening of titles eliminated those that did not meet the eligibility criteria, yielding 469 records that were further screened based on the abstract. That screening involved another check of eligibility and led to the exclusion of qualitative studies that did not provide any data. Out of the 146 full-texts which were assessed for eligibility based on the seven criteria mentioned above, 15 studies had to be excluded because they did not provide the necessary data to compute effect sizes. Footnote 1 Furthermore, 29 studies were excluded as they included only qualitative data analyses that did not serve to compute effect sizes. That resulted in 102 studies that met the abovementioned eligibility criteria and were selected for more detailed coding (see Fig.  1 ).

Flow chart of literature search

We coded each selected full text according to a coding scheme (see Table 1 ) to ensure greater accuracy when analyzing the studies. From the 102 studies, we retrieved 191 effect sizes based on a total sample of 40,898 teachers that were entered into the meta-analysis.

Data Extraction and Coding

A data coding system was developed, capturing information about each study, all potential moderator variables, and the statistical parameters, with the goal of establishing high accuracy in the coding process. We coded study characteristics, the type of outcome variable, statistical parameters, and characteristics of the interventions that were administered to preservice or in-service teacher programs. Table 1 shows the information coded from the full texts of the thematically relevant studies found in the databases, which matched the terms we used in our search. Each study was coded by two raters. The coders underwent intensive coding training that included communal coding and discussion of coding results. Interrater agreement was found to range between 89 and 100%. Disagreement was resolved through discussion. Regular checks of interrater reliability were carried out throughout the coding process, showing no time-related decline in agreement.

Analytic Strategy and Calculation of Effect Sizes

Rq 1 how do teachers think and feel about inclusive education and what are the experiences that contribute to their belief systems.

As meta-analysis can only capture one outcome variable at a time, three separate meta-analyses of standardized mean scores were conducted to calculate average weighted standardized mean values for teachers’ cognitive (RQ 1.1) and emotional appraisals (RQ 1.2) and self-efficacy beliefs (RQ 1.3). In each meta-analysis, moderator analyses were conducted in terms of meta-analytic regression analysis to determine whether teachers’ beliefs vary as a function of the teachers’ point in their careers (preservice vs. in-service teachers). This entailed between-study comparison as most studies reported means for only one sample, while few studies reported between-group differences.

Meta-analysis of mean scores required that all studies’ results be expressed in a standardized form (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001 ). This means that results had to be recoded into the same scale. While one-third of the data collections were carried out with self-developed questionnaires to assess teachers’ cognitive appraisals ( m  = 29), the instruments that most of the studies applied were the ATIES (Wilczenski, 1995 ; example item: Students who cannot control their behavior and disrupt activities should be in regular classes “) ( m  = 13), and the SACIE (Loreman et al., 2007 ; example item: “Students who need an individualized academic program should be in regular classes”.) ( m  = 11), the ORI (Antonak & Larrivee, 1995 ; Larrivee & Cook, 1979 ; example item: “The student with a disability will probably develop academic skills more rapidly in a regular classroom than in a special classroom.”) ( m  = 10), and the TATIS (Cullen et al., 2010 ; example item: “All students with mild to moderate disabilities should be educated in regular classrooms with non-handicapped peers to the fullest extent possible.”) ( m  = 7). These items deal with the feasibility of a regular class placement for students requiring physical, academic, behavioral, or social accommodations. Teachers are asked to indicate their attitudes on 6-point scales with strongly agreed/strongly disagreed anchors (Likert scale). Low scores on the scale indicate less favorable beliefs toward inclusive education; high scores on the scale indicate more favorable beliefs. Thus, even a mid-range answer (“agree nor disagree”) reflects a neutral belief about inclusion that may interfere with a teacher’s uptake of inclusive practices.

The score for beliefs about inclusive education was most frequently operationalized on a five-point scale, with 1 being the minimum and 5 being the maximum. All these scales assessed teachers’ agreement to the items, ranging from strong disagreement up to a strong agreement. For studies in which a different scale was employed, mean scores were converted into the same 5-point scale metric using the following formulas, in which \(\mathrm{Min}\) indicates the minimum value of the study’s scale (usually 1), \(\mathrm{Max}\) being the maximum value of the study’s scale, and \(\mathrm{Mean}\) being the reported mean value. After applying these formulas, the means and standard deviations can be compared across studies and should all be interpreted in terms of a 1- through 5 five-point scale.

High scores of cognitive appraisals reflect a positive appraisal of inclusion, and high scores for self-efficacy indicate a positive belief that teachers can teach inclusive classrooms. In contrast, values from the emotional appraisal measures were recoded so that high scores of emotional appraisals indicated a low level of concern, thus positive emotional appraisals.

Since a sufficiently large number of studies reported between-group differences between special and regular education teachers, we conducted a separate meta-analysis for which we computed Cohen’s \(d\) to indicate group differences between special and regular education teachers. This analysis was only conducted for cognitive appraisals because there was an insufficient number of studies that reported means by sub-group for emotional appraisals and self-efficacy. To investigate group differences utilizing within-study variation, for the 27 studies that reported separate estimates for teachers with special and regular education, the effect size Cohens’ \(d\) was calculated, which represents the standardized mean difference between two groups divided by the pooled standard deviation (Hedges & Olkin, 1985 ). As not all studies reported reliability scores, effect sizes were not adjusted for reliability (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990 ). This decision rested on the assumption that the effect sizes would be more comparable if all were left unadjusted instead of adjusting some but not all effect sizes (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001 ).

RQ 3 How malleable are beliefs about inclusive education following intervention (i.e., teacher preparation or professional development)?

To examine the effects of intervention on teachers’ cognitive appraisals, a meta-analysis was conducted with the 30 retrieved intervention studies, and we computed Cohen’s \(d\) to indicate group differences between pretest and posttest scores, with a positive effect size indicating a positive belief change. In addition, 12 studies reported intervention effects on teachers’ emotional appraisal and five studies on teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs.

Meta-analytic Method

For each research question, an average effect size was computed to determine the overall mean effect. Effect sizes resulting from studies with different sample sizes would not predict the treatment effect with the same precision. Thus, when combining effect sizes across studies, effect sizes were weighted by the inverse of their estimated sampling variance \({V}_{i}\) to assure more precise estimates of the population parameter such that larger samples were weighted more than smaller samples (Rosenthal et al., 1994 ; Morris & DeShon, 2002 ). Because we regard the effect estimates that are included in this meta-analysis as a random sample from the universe of all potential effect estimates, we added an additional variance component \({\widehat{\tau }}^{2}\) that reflects the estimated population distribution of effect estimates (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001 ; Overton, 1998 ). We hence weight each estimate \(i\) by the inverse of its total variance, calculated as \({\mathrm{weight}}_{i}=\frac{1}{{V}_{i}+{\widehat{\tau }}^{2}}\) .

In some cases, dependencies existed between effect estimates from the primary studies, as multiple estimates on the same samples were given (e.g., when scores from two different beliefs questionnaires were assessed within the same teacher sample). Ignoring these correlations increases the risk of Type I error. Recent meta-analytic procedures have addressed such data structures by applying hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002 ) or robust variance estimation (RVE) (Hedges et al., 2010 ). We selected RVE because of several advantages: (a) it requires fewer assumptions about the distribution of the data, (b) it builds on adjusting standard errors (in a similar way as, for example, heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation consistent (HAC) standard errors), and (c) it does not require exact knowledge on the covariances between the effect sizes from the same clusters (Tanner-Smith & Tipton, 2014 ; Tipton & Pustejovsky, 2015 ).

Following Hedges et al. ( 2010 ), an RVE meta-analysis on mean differences gives approximately correct confidence intervals independently of the number of included clusters and estimates per cluster. When computing the weighted average effect sizes, we conduct RVE assuming a correlation between estimates from the same cluster of \(\rho =.80\) as recommended by Tanner-Smith and Tipton ( 2014 ). In RVE, one assumes a certain correlation between the effect estimates within clusters (here: 0.80), which is the same for each cluster. If the assumed correlation deviates from the true correlation, this does not lead to bias, but only to a loss of efficiency. We conducted sensitivity tests with \(\rho\) values varying from \(\rho = 0.0\) to \(\rho = 0.9\) , which demonstrated that the results were robust to the choice of \(\rho\) . For the meta-analyses on teachers’ self-efficacy (RQ 1.3) and on the effectiveness of teacher intervention on emotional appraisals and on self-efficacy, there was only one estimate for each cluster. As a result, for these three analyses, no RVE could be conducted (see Table 2 ).

For meta-regression with cognitive appraisals about inclusive education as the dependent variable, we again used RVE analyses. Hedges and colleagues ( 2010 ) show that, especially when the number of included studies is not very large, confidence intervals from RVE meta-analyses tend to be incorrect when a few clusters contribute multiple estimates and almost all clusters contribute only one estimate. This is the case for our other outcomes (except RQ 1.1). Because we mostly have categorical covariates in our analyses, the amount of between-cluster variation in the values of the covariates is limited. As a result, we use random effects meta-regression for these outcomes.

We used two methods to investigate whether publication bias affected our results. Publication bias results from an underrepresentation of smaller studies with lower effect sizes and non-significant results. First, a funnel plot was created to provide a visual measure of publication bias by plotting each study’s weighted average effect size on the x-axis and its corresponding standard error on the y-axis. An asymmetric funnel plot would point to a correlation between the effect size and the precision of the study. Second, Egger’s test of the intercept was computed to perform a linear regression of the effect estimates on their standard error by weighting by 1/(variance in the effect estimate) (Egger et al., 1997 ). Both, the funnel plot and Egger’s test were conducted for each meta-analysis separately.

All analyses were conducted in Stata, version 16. For RVE meta-analyses, we employed the robumeta command.

We start by reporting on the characteristics of the sample of studies and estimates and then describe the occurrence of outliers and results of the analysis for publication bias. In the next step, we present an overview of teachers’ cognitive appraisals, emotional appraisals, and self-efficacy beliefs regarding inclusive education (RQ 1), and then describe the corresponding moderator analysis examining teachers’ point in their career (preservice versus in-service). Then, we present the meta-analysis on within-study variance about differences between special and regular education teachers’ beliefs (RQ 2). Finally, we show the effects of an intervention on belief change from pretest to posttest and describe how this is (or is not) moderated by point in a teachers’ career, field experience in inclusive classrooms, practical experience with people with SEN, and length of the intervention (RQ 3).

For the interpretation of all analyses, a positive estimate indicates positive cognitive appraisals, positive emotional appraisals, or high self-efficacy beliefs (RQ 1), higher effects for special education teachers compared to regular education teachers (RQ 2), or an increase in positive beliefs about inclusion from pretest to posttest (RQ 3).

Data Description

In total, k  = 191 estimates from c  = 130 correlated groups (clusters) were extracted from m  = 102 primary studies. Table 3 displays the frequencies of characteristics per primary study. Table A2 in the Appendix provides an overview of study characteristics and estimates per study.

Characteristics of Included Studies

As can be seen in Fig.  2 , the number of studies of teachers’ belief systems about inclusive education rose continuously in the last two decades and then declined within the last 5 years. The studies were carried out in 40 different countries all over the world, 17 of which have been categorized as low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) according to World Bank classifications (World Bank, 2022 ). More than 34% of the effect sizes result from studies conducted in LMICs. Most data collections took place in the USA ( m  = 17), Australia ( m  = 11), and Canada ( m  = 8), and more than one-third of the studies were conducted across non-OECD countries ( m  = 37). Slightly more than half of the studies focused on in-service teachers ( k  = 91); the other half on preservice teachers ( k  = 72). From the k  = 117 estimates that specified the type of school, k  = 93 estimates resulted from studies carried out with preschool or primary school teachers, and k  = 24 with secondary school teachers.

Increase in publications since the year 2000

In almost half of the studies, the SEN was not specified, but teachers were asked about their cognitive appraisals of inclusive education in general ( k  = 90). For the remaining studies, the majority referred to appraisals of the inclusion of students with non-physical SEN ( k  = 64), and the remaining studies focused on the inclusion of students with physical SEN ( k  = 37).

Extreme effect sizes deviating from the effect size distribution are less representative of the full sample and can influence meta-analytic statistics disproportionately because they estimate a different population mean than the mean that is estimated by the rest of the effect size distribution (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001 ). Outliers should therefore be eliminated from the analysis or should be adjusted. Following the procedure of Lipsey ( 2009 ) and Tukey ( 1977 ), we adjusted effect sizes that were more than 1.5 times the interquartile range beyond the 25th or from the 75th percentile, to the respective inner fence value. In the meta-analysis of mean scores for teachers’ cognitive appraisals and self-efficacy, no outliers were found that needed adjustment. Regarding teachers’ emotional appraisals, one outlier was discovered beyond the 25th percentile (Cologon, 2012 ) and adjusted to the lower bound.

Publication Bias

We used funnel plots and Egger’s test to examine whether a publication bias affected our results.

RQ 1 Overview of Belief Systems and Belief Systems Based on Teachers’ Point in Their Career.

The resulting funnel plots for scores for teachers’ cognitive appraisals, emotional appraisals, and self-efficacy beliefs about inclusive education did not indicate a publication bias (see Fig.  3 ). The results of the Egger tests confirmed the symmetry of the funnel plots. The intercepts did not differ significantly from zero (cognitive appraisals: β  = 0.04, SE = 0.24, z  = 0.15, p  = 0.88; emotional appraisals: β  = 0.38, SE = 0.61, z  = 0.62, p  = 0.54; self-efficacy: β  = 0.56, SE = 0.74, z  = 0.76, p  = 0.45), which suggests no publication bias present in these data sets.

Funnel plots of publication bias among scores for teachers’ cognitive and emotional appraisal of inclusive education as well as their self-efficacy beliefs. The standard error is presented on the y -axis and the weighted mean effect size on the x -axis. Black dots represent the observed data points

RQ 2 Differences Between Special and Regular Education Teachers.

Similarly, the funnel plots for the within-study meta-analysis comparing the beliefs between teachers trained vs. not trained in SEN (see Fig.  4 ) and the Egger tests did not suggest a publication bias ( β  =  − 0.70, SE = 0.65, z  =  − 1.07, p  = 0.28).

Funnel plots of publication bias among effect sizes for the difference in the cognitive appraisal of inclusive education among special education vs. regular education teachers and of publication bias among teacher training effect sizes. The standard error is presented on the y -axis and the weighted mean effect size on the x -axis. Black dots represent the observed data points

RQ 3 Malleability of Belief Systems Following Intervention.

A similar funnel plot was found for the within-study comparison represented by the effect sizes of intervention studies (see Fig.  4 ). Results of the Egger tests indicate that there were no small-study effects present (cognitive appraisals: β  =  − 1.05, SE = 0.81, z  =  − 1.30, p  = 0.19; emotional appraisals: β  =  − 1.35, SE = 1.57, z  =  − 0.86, p  = 0.39; self-efficacy: β  =  − 0.59, SE = 1.24, z  =  − 0.48, p  = 0.63).

How do Teachers Think and Feel about Inclusive Education and Does Point in their Career Moderate their Belief Systems?

We carried out a meta-analysis on the mean value of cognitive appraisals, emotional appraisals, and self-efficacy to shed light on teachers’ belief systems about inclusive education, and to understand whether teachers’ belief systems vary as a function of experience (i.e., teachers’ point in their career).

Teachers’ Cognitive Appraisals and How They Vary Based on Point in Their Career

We expected to find an average score for cognitive appraisals in the mid-range of the scale, and we hypothesized average scores would be higher among in-service than preservice teachers. The overall mean for teachers’ cognitive appraisals included in the meta-analysis was 3.18 (SE = 0.06, c  = 130) on a 5-point-scale. Thus, as expected, across all studies under investigation, teachers’ cognitive appraisals were near the midpoint in the surveys. In a measure of cognitive appraisals, for example, this would mean that, on average, they neither agreed nor disagreed with a statement like, "Students who cannot control their behavior and disrupt activities should be in regular classes” (example item from the Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education Scale ; Wilczenski, 1992, 1995 ). However, the data showed considerable variation (see Table 4 ). This distribution was not skewed, and teachers appeared to use the full range of the scale.

Besides the weighted average estimate, we investigated the degree of heterogeneity among the estimates. The variability between the effect estimates \(({\tau }^{2}\) ) was 0.08, suggesting that there was variation in the true distribution of standardized means and that the effect likely varies as a function of moderators. Given this heterogeneity in the standardized means, we tested whether the standardized means of teachers’ cognitive appraisals of inclusive education varied systematically according to teachers’ general classroom experience ( k  = 72 preservice teachers; k  = 91 in-service teachers). Contrary to our hypothesis, estimates did not differ between preservice and in-service teachers, B  = 0.03, SE = 0.11, p  = 0.81.

Teachers’ Emotional Appraisals and How They Vary Based on Point in Their Career

We hypothesized a medium average score for emotional appraisals and expected that emotional appraisals would be higher among in-service than preservice teachers. We retrieved a subsample of k  = 35 estimates (resulting from 23 studies and 32 clusters) that provided mean scores measuring teachers’ emotional appraisals about teaching inclusive classes. Using RVE meta-analysis, the results based on the average across all studies in the subsample showed an overall standardized mean of 3.17 (SE = 0.10) on a 5-point scale, which demonstrated moderate concern about teaching inclusive classes, on average. For example, on a measure of emotional appraisals, this would mean neither agree nor disagree with a statement such as “I am concerned that I will be more stressed if I have students with disabilities in my class.” (example item from the Concerns about Inclusive Education Scale ; Sharma & Desai, 2002 ). The small \({\widehat{\tau }}^{2} < 0.001\) indicated that standardized mean scores did not differ across studies. Consequently, no moderator analysis was conducted as—against our hypothesis—there was no statistical indication that scores of preservice and in-service teachers would differ.

Teachers’ Self-efficacy Beliefs and How They Vary Based on Point in Their Career

We expected to find a medium-average score for self-efficacy beliefs, with preservice teachers scoring higher than in-service teachers. We found a subsample of k  = 31 estimates (24 studies, 31 clusters) that provided additional data on teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding teaching inclusive classes. Using standard random effects meta-analysis, the overall standardized mean averaged across all studies of this subsample was 3.40 (SE = 0.14), suggesting that teachers feel somewhat self-efficacious toward implementing inclusive education. For example, on a measure of efficacy, that means they would respond between “disagree somewhat” and “agree somewhat” with a statement such as “I am confident in designing learning tasks so that the individual needs of students with disabilities are accommodated" (example item from the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practice Scale ; Sharma et al., 2012 ). However, a test for homogeneity suggested that this estimate likely differed as a function of moderator variables ( Q  = 80.28; p  < 0.001). Consequently, we compared the self-efficacy beliefs between in-service ( k  = 17) and preservice ( k  = 11) teachers. In line with our assumption, self-efficacy beliefs were found to be higher for preservice than for in-service teachers, B  = 0.55, SE = 0.27, p  = 0.04.

Do Special and Regular Education Teachers’ Belief Systems About Inclusive Education Differ?

We assumed to find more positive cognitive appraisals, more confident emotional appraisals, and higher self-efficacy beliefs among special education than among regular education teachers. To test this, we performed a within-study comparison meta-analysis with a subset of k  = 27 effect sizes (18 studies; 20 clusters) that reported estimates separately for teachers with and without training in special education. For each study, the standardized mean difference d (Cohen, 1988 ) was computed to assess differences between special and regular education teachers’ cognitive appraisals. Footnote 2 As hypothesized, teachers with ( M  = 3.39, SE = 0.16) and without special education training ( M  = 3.23, SE = 0.16) differed significantly in their cognitive appraisals of inclusive education, with teachers with special education training being significantly more affirmative than regular teachers, d  = 0.41, SE = 0.09, p  < 0.001 (see Fig.  5 ). The between-study variability τ 2 was < 0.001, indicating homogeneity among the effect sizes.

Forest plot for meta-analysis on differences in the cognitive appraisal of inclusive education of special education teachers (coded as 1) vs. regular education teachers (coded as 0)

How Malleable Are Beliefs About Inclusive Education Following Intervention?

We tested the hypothesis that participating in interventions on inclusive education in teacher preparation and professional development would result in more affirmative cognitive appraisals, more positive emotional appraisals, and higher self-efficacy beliefs (Sharma & Sokal, 2015 ). We did not expect this effect to be moderated by teachers’ point in their careers. However, we expect effects to be higher when the intervention involves practical experience in inclusive classrooms, practical experience with people with SEN, and an increasing length of the intervention.

Studies were coded along the coding categories (see Table S3 for a detailed coding (online only)). Effect sizes of the pre-post gain were computed across the k  = 30 Footnote 3 effect sizes from the intervention studies ( m  = 17; c  = 22) to investigate the effects of teacher education that addressed teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education (see Table 5 for average mean effect sizes).

Intervention Effects on Cognitive and Emotional Appraisals and Self-efficacy Beliefs

The average mean effect size for the increase in cognitive appraisals of d  = 0.63 (SE = 0.15) was found across all intervention studies, suggesting a substantial effect of interventions on teachers’ appraisals of inclusive education (see Fig.  6 ). The \({\widehat{\tau }}^{2} =\) 0.21 indicates heterogeneity in effect sizes; thus, we conducted moderator analyses (see Table 6 ).

Forest plot for meta-analysis on differences in the cognitive appraisal of inclusive education between pretest (coded as 0) and posttest (coded as 1)

We also found a similar effect on change in teachers’ emotional appraisals across the 12 studies ( m  = 7; c  = 12) that reported on pretest and posttest scores for teachers’ emotional appraisals, d  = 0.63, SE = 0.18 (see Fig.  7 ). Findings showed that teachers reported less concern with inclusion after the intervention than before.

Forest plot for meta-analysis on differences in the emotional appraisal of inclusive education between pretest (coded as 0) and posttest (coded as 1)

The effects of teacher intervention on teachers’ self-efficacy were investigated in five studies ( m  = 4; c  = 5). The analysis revealed a high intervention effect on the development of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, d  = 0.93, SE = 0.17.

Moderator Effects of Teachers’ Field Experience in an Inclusive Classroom, Teachers’ Personal Experience with People with SEN, and Length of the Intervention

Moderator analyses were only indicated for cognitive appraisals, as for emotional appraisals and for self-efficacy, we found only low variation of effects across studies, \({\widehat{\tau }}^{2}<\) 0.001. With regard to teachers’ general teaching experience, in line with our assumption, we did not find effects to differ between interventions for in-service ( k  = 14) compared to preservice ( k  = 16) teachers, B  = 0.31, SE = 0.25, p  = 0.22.

As to practical experience in inclusive classrooms, in accordance with our hypothesis, interventions that included a practicum in inclusive classrooms ( k  = 6) were more effective than interventions without opportunities for practical experience, B  = 0.79, SE = 0.29, p  = 0.007. Against our hypothesis, no such difference was found for interventions that included contact experience with a person with SEN ( k  = 5), B  = 0.13, SE = 0.33, p  = 0.70. Contrary to our expectation, no moderator effect was found for the length of the intervention, assessed by means of the total number of training hours across all training sessions, B  = 0.003, SE = 0.002, p  = 0.86.

The trend toward inclusive education is a worldwide phenomenon that has occurred over the past several decades. Despite being a promising approach, its implementation is challenging for teachers. For inclusive education to be implemented effectively, teachers need to believe that all students belong in a regular classroom (Specht et al., 2016 ). This article provides the first meta-analysis that uses studies from 40 countries to investigate three different components of teachers’ belief systems about inclusive education. In doing so, the findings explain differences between groups of teachers (preservice versus in-service, special education versus regular) and evaluate the effects of interventions on aspects of beliefs toward inclusive education. The meta-analysis uses 191 effect sizes based on research from 40,898 teachers from around the world and includes research from low-, middle-, and high-income countries. We identified six key findings that inspire further research on teachers’ belief systems and their malleability. Such findings have implications for the field of inclusive education and have broader implications for educational practice and policy related to inclusive education as well as other reforms (see Table 7 for an overview of the results).

On Average, Teachers Neither Endorse nor Reject Inclusive Education

The mean values of teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education were found to be around the midpoint, on average. Similarly, previous qualitative research syntheses found that, on average, teachers were neither strongly negative nor particularly favorable towards inclusive education (e.g., De Boer et al., 2011 ). There are several plausible explanations for why teachers tend to rate toward the middle of the scale. One possibility is that many teachers are rather indifferent toward inclusive education and therefore chose the midpoint of the scale. Yet another possibility is that teachers choose the mid-point of a scale, indicating that teachers do not have a strong opinion (O’Muircheartaigh et al., 1999) or lack the cognitive effort required to decide upon a clear answer (“satisficing”) and therefore rate towards the center of the scale (Saris & Gallhofer, 2007). Further, some teachers may simply use the middle category of a scale as a “don’t know” category (Sturgis et al., 2014). Regardless of the explanation, teachers’ average scores toward the middle of the scale shed light on practitioners’ and policymakers’ making decisions about inclusive education.

Given international trends toward inclusive education, what does it mean that teachers, on average, hold views that are toward the middle of the scale? Most likely, it means that many teachers have beliefs that may be interfering with their ability to use inclusive practices. For example, if teachers tend to be negative or neutral about inclusive education, it can be difficult to reach these teachers in professional development situations. Following Gregoire ( 2003 ), these teachers may perceive the implementation of inclusion as a stressful situation—in particular, negative emotional appraisals (combined with a perception of low resources) may lead to a threat appraisal, which will result in heuristic processing (e.g., immediate responses, mental shortcuts). Following this logic, even scores at the midpoint for cognitive appraisals, emotional appraisals, and self-efficacy—although they may seem neutral and harmless at first glance—can pose a problem and lead to low levels of implementation of inclusive education.

In-service Teachers Need Stronger Self-efficacy Beliefs

Teachers need a strong sense of self-efficacy to feel capable of overcoming challenges and processing a new reform message (Gregoire, 2003 ). However, our results show that, on average, teachers hold self-efficacy beliefs toward inclusion that suggest only modest efficacy in teaching students with SEN. Further, we even found that preservice teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are significantly higher than those of in-service teachers. This is in line with earlier research on changes in self-efficacy beliefs in teachers’ careers and indicates that many novice teachers, due to their inexperience, hold rather unrealistic beliefs about their competence (Anspal et al., 2012). Importantly, this means that in-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are even lower than the average mean found in our meta-analysis. Given that increases in self-efficacy are likely to lead to the formation of more positive cognitive and emotional appraisals and that all three can increase the chance that teachers carry out inclusive practices (Savolainen et al., 2020 ), the need arises to support teachers—in particular, in-service teachers—to boost self-efficacy beliefs about inclusive education.

Special Education Teachers Experience More Positive Cognitive Appraisals Toward Inclusion

Teacher type (special education versus regular education teacher) explained variation in teachers’ cognitive appraisals. Special education teachers held more positive views toward inclusion than regular teachers. These findings suggest that affirmative beliefs may not develop on their own, but rather as a consequence of specific, preservice education related to special education. This supports the assumption that teachers may not be “born to be a good inclusive educator” but can be trained to become one (see Klassen & Tze, 2014 ). Given the importance that teachers’ beliefs and their resources have for their challenge or threat appraisal, training teachers in implementing inclusive education seems to have a strong potential to foster teachers’ approach intention. Yet, it is difficult to make a causal inference here in that there may be specific qualities about teachers who choose to train in special education instead of regular education that differ even before their teacher preparation program.

Belief Systems About Inclusive Education Can be Improved Through Interventions

One of our goals has been to identify specific intervention characteristics that moderate its effectiveness. Unfortunately, there were not enough studies to test moderation for all four moderators and all three belief outcomes. Still, existing studies allowed us to examine moderator effects for cognitive appraisals. Analyses revealed several key findings: (1) the interventions were equivalently efficacious in predicting cognitive appraisals regardless of teachers’ point in their teaching career, (2) interventions involving practical experience in inclusive classrooms were more effective, (3) practical experience with people with SEN did not moderate outcomes, and (4) intervention length did not moderate outcomes. Taken together, these results are encouraging because they give insights about training opportunities that support changes in teachers’ beliefs, and in turn, can help teachers become inclusive educators.

Practical Experience in Inclusive Classrooms Forecasts Cognitive Appraisals But Not Point in One’s Career or Practical Experience with People with SEN

Specific practical experience in the inclusive classroom moderated the effectiveness of teacher intervention. More precisely, effect sizes were higher for interventions that included fieldwork in an inclusive classroom. Yet, there were no differences in the relation between the intervention and cognitive appraisals depending on the point in a teacher’s career (preservice or in-service) or based on a teacher’s past experience spending time with people with SEN.

Thus, the experience of spending time in an inclusive classroom brings about belief change (see also Sharma et al., 2008 ). This finding is supported by previous research, reflecting a positive association between teachers’ experiences in inclusive classrooms and their cognitive appraisals of inclusive education (Cansiz & Cansiz, 2017; Hong et al., 2018). To understand the importance of practical experience, it is worth reflecting on the meaning of cognitive appraisals. In essence, having a positive cognitive appraisal means that teachers see the feasibility and desirability of including students with behavior problems or needing individualized academic programs in regular classrooms. It is plausible that practical experience in inclusive classrooms gives teachers an opportunity to understand some of the benefits of inclusion for students with SEN. Teachers may see and understand how mentor teachers can handle challenging situations effectively. Such practical experiences appear to boost teachers’ perception that students needing physical, academic, behavioral, or social accommodations can excel in typical classrooms. This finding may be useful for other reform efforts in that when training experiences are tailored to see the reform in action, the effect of that experience increases.

No association has been found between teachers’ cognitive appraisals and their social contact with persons with SEN (Beamer & Yun, 2014; Rakap et al., 2017 ). Contact with people with SEN may need to be more specific to classroom spaces and may need to reflect the full range of SEN behaviors to impact cognitive appraisals. The point in teachers’ careers (preservice or in-service) did not relate to the effect of interventions on boosts in cognitive appraisals. Preservice teachers often have opportunities to observe mentor teachers. However, schools are not typically structured to allow in-service teachers to observe other in-service teachers. The findings here suggest the benefit of such practices.

Longer Interventions Are Not Necessarily Better

Interventions used in the studies in this meta-analysis ranged from 5 h to 2 years. Compared to earlier findings, which indicated that the effectiveness of teacher intervention increased with its length (Guskey & Yoon, 2009 ; Iancu et al., 2018 ), the intervention effects in this meta-analysis did not vary as a function of length. A meta-analysis by Basma and Savage ( 2018 ) on the effectiveness of professional development showed that training was more effective when it lasted fewer than 30 h. Hence, there is probably more to an effective intervention than its length.

Implications for Future Research

The findings on teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education have several implications.

A Broad Perspective on Teachers’ Inclusive Belief Systems

Given the importance that teacher beliefs can have on teachers’ well-being, classroom behavior, and eventually, their students’ performance and motivation (Kiely et al., 2015 ), the results emphasize the need to support teachers who will be teaching in inclusive classrooms. Specifically, work can be done to help teachers reflect on their beliefs about inclusive education, feel less concerned and more optimistic about the implementation of inclusive education, and feel more capable to support students with SEN (see also Sharma et al., 2008 ). Here, Gregoire’s ( 2003 ) cognitive-affective approach to investigate changes in teachers’ beliefs applies well to studying teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education because teacher interventions do not necessarily affect all the different parts of the belief system in the same way. For example, Forlin and Chambers ( 2011 ) found that preservice teachers were more confident about teaching students with special needs after a course on inclusive education, but in some cases, their concerns increased, too. Only by disentangling these different parts of the belief system, we can understand the mechanisms of intervention effects and teachers’ belief change.

Future research could produce more precise results about teachers’ resources and needs when assessing teachers’ belief systems in a broad way by also including emotional appraisals and self-efficacy beliefs in addition to teachers’ cognitive appraisals of inclusive education. Disentangling teachers’ belief systems with regard to inclusive education can help support teachers in ways that are tailored to their current belief systems. Assessing all three parts of teachers’ belief systems can provide baseline information to teacher educators so that they can adapt training in ways that build upon the prior knowledge of teachers (Sharma et al., 2008 ) and are tailored to their needs (Kiel et al., 2020 ).

Assessing Teachers’ Perceived Resources

Whether teachers appraise inclusion as a challenge or threat not only depends on their belief system but also on their perceived resources, such as prior knowledge, time, or support at their school (Gregoire, 2003 ). In most studies in this meta-analysis, these variables were not assessed. Some research studies prior knowledge and indicates that preservice as well as in-service teachers have shallow understanding and hold misconceptions about inclusive education (Hodkinson, 2005 ). Evidence has been inconclusive: whereas in-service teachers’ knowledge is associated with their teaching self-efficacy (Lauermann & König, 2016 ), no relation was found for preservice teachers (Depaepe & König, 2018 ). More research is needed to understand how teachers’ beliefs and their knowledge of inclusive education are related (Forlin & Chambers, 2011 ). To examine where teachers need further support, it will be helpful to gather information about teachers’ perceived resources in addition to their self-efficacy beliefs, as both will affect whether they appraise the situation as challenging or threatening.

Research is also needed to understand how schools set aside time for professional development in inclusive education and how school climate and school culture play a role in supporting teachers’ beliefs about inclusion. School climate and culture may be possible moderators of associations between training and beliefs or training and practices. Further, teachers’ motivation, teacher socialization practices, mentoring experiences at the school, and teacher collaboration may all play important roles in shifts in teachers’ beliefs about inclusion and, ultimately, uptake of inclusion practices.

Gregoire’s ( 2003 ) model postulates that cognitive processing mediates belief change and that motivation, in turn, mediates cognitive processing. Teachers who do not feel that the reform message has implications for themselves may appraise inclusive education as positive but not important, which can impede cognitive processing and lead to no or only superficial belief change. In addition, self-efficacy expectations play a key role as they mediate whether the stress appraisal is seen as challenging or threatening (Gregoire, 2003 ).

Thus, an intervention that fosters teachers’ motivation and self-efficacy for reform, such as inclusive education, can enhance teachers’ cognitive processing of the reform message and, eventually, affect their beliefs. Hence, motivational constructs, such as personal relevance and involvement, as well as a sense of self-efficacy, are important potential mediators to be explored in future work on teachers’ belief change regarding inclusive education (e.g., Gregoire-Gill et al., 2022 ).

Next to motivation and efficacy beliefs, teachers’ professional knowledge may mediate the process of belief change. Even teachers who are confident in their ability to teach in an inclusive classroom will be overwhelmed if they do not know enough about inclusive practices to engage a heterogeneous group of students in learning. This is especially the case if teachers do not have the time necessary to plan their lessons, or if their attempts at inclusive education are not well received by students, parents, or administrators (see Gregoire, 2003 ). Most of the primary studies included in this meta-analysis did not investigate teachers’ knowledge in the context of inclusive education. However, some intervention research indicates that with growing knowledge and more affirmative appraisals of inclusive education, teachers’ emotional appraisals did not necessarily become more positive, but even decreased (Forlin & Chambers, 2011 ). Future research is needed to expand our understanding of the mediating role of knowledge in the process of inclusive education belief change. This may be particularly interesting for teacher educators because knowledge may be a mediator of belief change by connecting practical field experience with university-based coursework (e.g., Walton & Rusznyak, 2019).

Mentoring experiences are another potential mediator of belief change. Teachers’ implementation of educational reforms is more probable if teachers have opportunities to receive support and practice. In addition to their own mastery experiences, teachers can learn from mentors, especially if the mentors encourage teachers to revise their thinking (Richter et al., 2013 ; Voss & Kunter, 2020 ). Thus, mentoring experiences are yet another interesting factor to investigate related to beliefs about inclusive education.

How Can Teacher Preparation and Professional Development Support Teachers’ Qualification for Inclusive Education?

Encouraging teachers’ reflection of beliefs and possible belief change is not about “fixing” beliefs. Belief change does not mean just dropping one conviction in favor of another. However, inclusion is a social reality and teachers will have to come to terms with it. Teacher interventions (i.e., teacher preparation, professional development) play an essential role in fully preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms.

The results suggest that regular education teachers benefit from practical experience in inclusive classrooms that are embedded in knowledge-providing education courses. From the discussion sections of several intervention study articles (e.g., Sharma et al., 2008 ), we can observe that the combination of theoretical information and practical experience was especially effective when reflection on the practical experience of the course was integrated into the theoretical content of the course. The strong contribution of practical experience to self-efficacy beliefs probably results from teachers’ building mastery experiences (Klassen et al., 2011 ) in inclusive classrooms that help them feel capable of implementing such practices themselves (Savolainen et al., 2020 ). Providing opportunities for teachers to experience instructional mastery with inclusive education and helping teachers see the disadvantages of excluding certain practices strengthens their self-efficacy so that teachers find the reform message more accessible (Gregoire, 2003 ). To enhance belief change, teachers should be provided with evidence that the reform is effective for students with different needs by presenting a reform message that is clear, understandable, plausible, and fruitful (Posner & Strike, 1992 ). Quasi-experimental and experimental studies are needed to compare the effectiveness of different types of interventions.

Investigating Moderators for Teachers’ Belief Change

Our research has shown that teachers’ beliefs about inclusive education as well as the effectiveness of teacher intervention can be moderated by several factors, including teacher type, point in teachers’ career, and their practical experience in inclusive classrooms. Yet, there are other factors that may influence teachers’ beliefs change. Little research has expanded the perspective from the beliefs of individual teachers to understanding the role of the school context. Teacher beliefs develop in the scope of a broader school community that creates learning opportunities for teachers, which in turn can affect teachers’ cognitive and emotional appraisals and their self-efficacy (Liou et al., 2019 ). Future research could investigate the role of the school climate (Hosford & O'Sullivan, 2016 ) or the potential of learning communities for teachers to interact with and support each other (Gebbie et al., 2012 ). Furthermore, the research could test the added value of teacher education that involves the teachers’ context, (i.e., intervention for whole schools rather than individual teachers).

With regard to context characteristics, the societal experience with implementing inclusive education may affect teachers’ belief systems (Loreman et al., 2013 ). Cross-cultural research showed that teachers from countries with a long history of inclusive education hold more affirmative beliefs about inclusion than those from countries that introduced inclusion only recently (e.g., Avramidis & Kalyva, 2007 ; Srivastava et al., 2015 ). Thus, one could expect that as teachers become more experienced with inclusive education over the years, eventually they will have developed more affirmative beliefs about inclusive education. Furthermore, one may assume that preschool and primary school teachers hold more affirmative beliefs about inclusive education than secondary school or higher education teachers, as their education is focused more on managing a diverse student population effectively (Boe et al., 2007 ). Yet, the evidence on the association of the educational stage with teachers’ beliefs is presently unclear (Clough & Lindsay, 1991 ; Leyser et al., 1994 ).

Methodological Implications

One aim of meta-analysis is to provide an overview of the research field and derive implications for future research. This meta-analysis synthesizes two decades of interdisciplinary and contemporary research studies from around the world on teachers’ belief systems about inclusive education. Integrating these studies calls attention to three major research gaps: most of the studies found in this meta-analysis (1) assess beliefs only by means of self-report, (2) are based on cross-sectional designs, or test intervention effects with a pre-post design without a control group, and (3) do not investigate associations between teachers’ belief systems and their classroom behavior or with outcome variables on the student level (APA, 2006 , 2008 ; Gerstenet al., 2005 ; Grant et al., 2013 ). Like all meta-analyses, its inferences depend on the design and methods of the studies within it. Future studies with increasingly rigorous designs will enhance future projects of this type.

Applying Multiple Measures

Still, the explicit assessment of beliefs by means of self-report can be subject to several limitations. Asking teachers directly what they think and how they feel about inclusive education may yield socially desirable statements that do not necessarily reflect teachers’ real beliefs. There is evidence indicating that implicit and explicit measures may measure different aspects of teacher beliefs (Bezrukova et al., 2016 ; Hofmann et al., 2005 ; Pit-ten Cate & Glock, 2019 ). Moreover, an explicit assessment of teachers’ beliefs may change the nature of specific beliefs from being implicit to explicit (Fives & Buehl, 2012 ; Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2006 ). In future work using both implicit and explicit measures, research on teachers’ belief systems can be further advanced by investigating how cognitive appraisals, emotional appraisals, and self-efficacy are related.

Control Group Design

Most retrieved studies had a cross-sectional design. However, in order to test causality, experimental or at least quasi-experimental designs are necessary (Schneider et al., 2007 ). Yet, all the intervention studies in this meta-analysis except for one (Kim et al., 2005 ) had a pretest–posttest design without a control group and do therefore not allow for causal conclusions. While a randomized assignment of teachers to training conditions might not always be feasible, at least a control group design with pretest and posttest could facilitate verification of the effects of natural development (Gersten et al., 2005 ; Grant et al., 2013 ).

Assessing Transfer Effects

Former research suggested a link between beliefs and the implementation of new educational practices (Liou et al., 2019 ). However, in the studies of our meta-analysis only very few studies reported on teacher behavior (e.g., Wilson et al., 2019). To test whether and how teachers’ belief systems are associated with their classroom practice, we encourage researchers to collect data on both beliefs and teaching practice in the field of inclusion.

Eventually, research should also assess student-related data, for example, achievement, well-being, or social and emotional skills, in order to have a more conclusive outcome measure to assess the impact of teachers’ beliefs on teaching effectiveness (Basma & Savage, 2018 ). Providing a measure of effective support for students with SEN would allow for investigating the contribution of teachers’ cognitive and emotional appraisal and teachers’ self-efficacy to students’ learning (see, e.g., MacFarlane & Woolfson, 2013 ; Sucuoglu et al., 2015).

Implications for Educational Practice and Policy

We can derive a few tentative conclusions for educational practice and policy. In many countries, educational policy emphasizes the importance of inclusion, and the formation of affirmative beliefs about inclusive education is an important goal of teacher preparation (Cochran-Smith et al., 2016 ). Further, some of what we find about inclusion beliefs may also generalize to education reforms (Fives & Buehl, 2016 ). However, the findings indicate that, on average, teachers do not yet have strongly confident beliefs about inclusion that motivate them to carry out reform. Educational institutions have to find ways to support teachers so that they reflect their beliefs toward inclusive education and feel more at ease about their teaching in inclusive classrooms (Forlin et al., 2014 ). Which desiderata for educational policy can be derived from the findings of our research synthesis?

First, our findings suggest that even short-term interventions of a few weeks can be beneficial for teachers to develop supportive belief systems about inclusive education. As professional development creates high costs for the educational system, short-term interventions of high quality are more practical to implement (Basma & Savage, 2018 ).

Second, we found teachers to benefit from specific vicarious and mastery experiences, as evidenced by the importance of field experience in inclusive classrooms. The combination of theoretical course work, practical experiences in inclusive classrooms, and reflection of these experiences can integrate both knowledge transmission and practical experience and can facilitate belief change.

Third, as our results indicate that teachers with SEN training have more positive belief systems about inclusive education than regular education teachers, a collaboration between the two types of teachers could be productive. For instance, a teacher preparation program could create productive exchanges between regular preservice teachers and those pursuing special education training to broaden their learning and enhance the reflection of their beliefs (see Savolainen et al., 2020 ).

Fourth, when schools implement educational reform, they often focus on the external change of the organization rather than on individual change (Hargreaves, 2004). Yet, the individual teacher’s internal change is highly consequential to the success of the overall organizational change of the school (Liou et al., 2019 ). Thus, schools should be advised to take into account their teachers’ individual beliefs when implementing reforms such as inclusive education.

Finally, teacher educators have to serve as models for preservice and in-service teachers. Teachers’ education can only succeed in providing teachers with knowledge and resources and encouraging belief change if they provide learning teachers with good examples of inclusive practices. The results emphasized the impact of vicarious and mastery learning on teachers’ belief systems. Such experience is not limited to experience in classrooms. Experiences in higher education with teaching strategies that serve to accommodate learners with different needs can offer beneficial learning opportunities for preservice teachers. Thus, we encourage teacher educators to apply teaching methods that serve as models for inclusive classrooms in schools. In the words of Robert T. Brown’s ( 1990 ): “The implication that graduate programs, in general, should train academically bound graduate students in effective teaching is hardly new, but its actual implementation would be revolutionary” (Brown, 1990 , p. 267). Even 30 years later, this quote is still current.

Differentiating between different parts of teachers’ belief systems showed that these parts do not develop synchronously. Teachers’ point in their teaching career (preservice vs. in-service teachers) explains differences in teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs, whereas teacher type (special educator versus regular teacher) explains variation in cognitive appraisals about inclusive education. Investigating teachers’ belief systems in this more differentiated way seems promising to understand how and why teachers think about educational reform, such as inclusive education, in a certain way.

In general, the effect sizes found in this meta-analysis for the effectiveness of teacher preparation and professional development are encouraging and show that training has a great potential for encouraging teachers to reflect on their belief systems regarding educational reform. One major contribution of this work is that it uses studies from 40 countries, 17 of which are LMIC and tend to be under-represented in much of educational research. These findings imply that rather than hoping for natural development, teachers’ formation of beliefs can be supported by specific teacher education that provides opportunities to gain experience with inclusive practices. We encourage future work examining these teachers’ belief systems in relation to other reform efforts.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Some studies provided sum scores for the applied rating scale, but not the underlying Likert scale, so we could not compute adjusted mean scores. Moreover, some studies did not provide standard deviations or standard errors needed to compute effect sizes (e.g., Braunsteiner & Mariano-Lapidus, 2017). Authors were contacted and asked to provide the missing statistical information, but not every author responded.

Note that these studies only investigated differences in cognitive appraisal, but not in emotional appraisal or self-efficacy.

Because Sharma & Nuttal ( 2016 ) report the same statistical parameters for pretest, posttest, and t-values as the Australian sample in Sharma & Sokal ( 2015 ), we did not additionally include the data of Sharma & Nuttal ( 2016 ) in the meta-analysis to avoid that the same data enters the analyses twice. Therefore, 29 training studies were entered in the meta-analysis, although 30 articles had been found.

Asterisk indicates references of studies included in the Meta-Analysis

*Ahmmed, M., Sharma, U., & Deppeler, J. (2012). Variables affecting teachers' attitudes towards inclusive education in Bangladesh. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs , 12 (3), 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01226.x

Ahsan, M. T., Sharma, U., & Deppeler, J. M. (2012). Exploring pre-service teachers’ perceived teaching-efficacy, attitudes and concerns about inclusive education in Bangladesh. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 8 (2), 1–20.

Google Scholar  

Aiello, P., & Sharma, U. (2018). Improving intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms: The impact of teacher education courses on future learning support teachers. Form@re-Open Journal per la formazione in rete , 18 (1), 207–219.

Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change? Journal of Educational Change, 6 (2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-005-1298-4

Article   Google Scholar  

Ainscow, M. (2007). Taking an inclusive turn. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 7 (1), 3–7.

Ajuwon, P. M., Sarraj, H., Griffin-Shirley, N., Lechtenberger, D., & Zhou, L. (2015). Including students who are visually impaired in the classroom: Attitudes of preservice teachers. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 109 (2), 131–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482x1510900208

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32 (4), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x

*Alghazo, E. M., Dodeen, H., & Algaryouti, I. A. (2003). Attitudes of pre-service teachers towards persons with disabilities: Predicting for the success of inclusion. College Student Journal , 37 (4), 515–522.

*Alquraini, T. A. (2012). Factors related to teachers' attitudes towards the inclusive education of students with severe intellectual disabilities in Riyadh, Saudi. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs , 12 (3), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01248.x

American Psychological Association. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. The American Psychologist, 61 (4), 271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.61.4.271

American Psychological Association. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? The American Psychologist, 63 (9), 839. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.63.9.839

Antonak, R. F., & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and revision of the opinions relative to mainstreaming scale. Exceptional Children, 62 (2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299506200204

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

Avramidis, E., Toulia, A., Tsihouridis, C., & Strogilos, V. (2019). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion and their self-efficacy for inclusive practices as predictors of willingness to implement peer tutoring. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 19 , 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12477

*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

*Avramidis, E., Bayliss, P., & Burden, R. (2000). A survey into mainstream teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in one local education authority. Educational Psychology , 20 (2), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/713663717

Baglieri, S. (2008). ‘I connected’: Reflection and biography in teacher learning toward inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12 (5–6), 585–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802377631

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control . Freeman. https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158

Book   Google Scholar  

Basma, B., & Savage, R. (2018). Teacher professional development and student literacy growth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30 (2), 457–481.

*Bennett, S. M., & Gallagher, T. L. (2013). High school students with intellectual disabilities in the school and workplace: Multiple perspectives on inclusion. Canadian Journal of Education , 36 (1), 96–124.

Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 11 , 1227–1274. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000067

*Bhatnagar, N., & Das, A. (2014). Attitudes of secondary school teachers towards inclusive education in New Delhi, India. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs , 14 (4), 255–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12016

Boe, E. E., Shin, S., & Cook, L. H. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in either special or general education? The Journal of Special Education, 41 (3), 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070410030201

Brockwell, S. E., & Gordon, I. R. (2001). A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine, 20 (6), 825–840. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.650

Brown, R. T. (1990). A “model” proposal for reform in teacher training. Educational Psychology Review, 2 (3), 263–270.

Bruggink, M., Meijer, W., Goei, S. L., & Koot, H. M. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions of additional support needs of students in mainstream primary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 30 , 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.11.005

Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., & Smith, D. D. (2019). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive classrooms . Sage.

Buehl, M. M., & Beck, J. S. (2015). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and teachers’ practices .

Carew, M. T., Deluca, M., Groce, N., & Kett, M. (2019). The impact of an inclusive education intervention on teacher preparedness to educate children with disabilities within the Lakes Region of Kenya. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23 (3), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1430181

*Carroll, A., Forlin, C., & Jobling, A. (2003).The impact of teacher training in special education on the attitudes of Australian preservice general educators towards people with disabilities. Teacher Education Quarterly , 30 (3), 65–79.

Chang, M. L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21 (3), 193–218.

Chao, C. N. G., Forlin, C., & Ho, F. C. (2016). Improving teaching self-efficacy for teachers in inclusive classrooms in Hong Kong. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20 (11), 1142–1154. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1155663

*Chhabra, S., Srivastava, R., & Srivastava, I. (2010). Inclusive education in Botswana: The perceptions of school teachers. Journal of Disability Policy Studies , 20 (4), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1044207309344690

Clough, P., & Lindsay, G. (1991). Integration and the Support Service . Windsor: NFER-Nelson. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203220795

Cochran-Smith, M., Ell, F., Grudnoff, L., Haigh, M., Hill, M., & Ludlow, L. (2016). Initial teacher education: What does it take to put equity at the center? Teaching & Teacher Education, 57 , 67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.03.006

Cohen, J. (1988). The effect size. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences . Hillsday: Lawrence https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587

*Cologon, K. (2012). Confidence in their own ability: postgraduate early childhood students examining their attitudes towards inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 16 (11), 1155–1173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2010.548106

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1986). The causal assumptions of quasi-experimental practice: The origins of quasi-experimental practice. Synthese , 141–180.

Corno, L. Y. N. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43 (3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520802178466

*Crowson, H. M., & Brandes, J. A. (2013). Motives to Respond Without Prejudice: Predictors of Greater Expressed Inclusiveness Toward Students with Disabilities by Pre-Service Teachers? Individual Differences Research , 11 (1), 12–21.

Cullen, J. P., Gregory, J. L., & Noto, L. A. (2010). The Teacher Attitudes Toward Inclusion Scale (TATIS). Eastern Educational Research Association, 1 , 1–13.

*Damore, S. J., & Murray, C. (2009). Urban elementary school teachers' perspectives regarding collaborative teaching practices. Remedial and Special Education , 30 (4), 234–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508321007

De Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2011). Regular primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15 (3), 331–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903030089

*Dedrick, R. F., Marfo, K., & Harris, D. M. (2016).Experimental analysis of question wording in an instrument measuring teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 67 (1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164406292034

Depaepe, F., & König, J. (2018). General pedagogical knowledge, self-efficacy and instructional practice: Disentangling their relationship in pre-service teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 69 , 177–190.

*Dessemontet, R. S., Morin, D., & Crocker, A. G. (2014). Exploring the relations between in-service training, prior contacts and teachers’ attitudes towards persons with intellectual disability. International Journal of Disability Development and Education , 61 (1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2014.878535

DeVibe, M., Bjørndal, A., Fattah, S., Dyrdal, G. M., Halland, E., & Tanner-Smith, E. E. (2017). Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) for improving health, quality of life and social functioning in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13 (1), 1–264. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2017.11

*Dias, P. C., & Cadime, I. (2016). Effects of personal and professional factors on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in preschool. European Journal of Special Needs Education , 31 (1), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2015.1108040

Didion, L., Toste, J. R., & Filderman, M. J. (2020). Teacher professional development and student reading achievement: A meta-analytic review of the effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13 (1), 29–66.

Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1998). Reconceptalizing change in the cognitive construction of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 33 (2–3), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3302&3_5

Donnell, L. A., & Gettinger, M. (2015). Elementary school teachers’ acceptability of school reform: Contribution of belief congruence, self-efficacy, and professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 51 , 47–57.

Egert, F., Fukkink, R. G., & Eckhardt, A. G. (2018). Impact of in-service professional development programs for early childhood teachers on quality ratings and child outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 88 (3), 401–433.

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315 (7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

*Engstrand, R. Z., & Roll‐Pettersson, L. (2014). Inclusion of preschool children with autism in Sweden: Attitudes and perceived efficacy of preschool teachers. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs , 14 (3), 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2012.01252.x

*Eriks-Brophy, A., & Whittingham, J. (2013). Teachers' perceptions of the inclusion of children with hearing loss in general education settings. American Annals of the Deaf , 158 (1), 63–97. https://doi.org/10.1353/aad.2013.0009

European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education (2017) . European Agency Statistics on Inclusive Education: 2014 Dataset Cross-Country Report . (J. Ramberg, A. Lénárt, & A. Watkins). Odense, Denmark.

Evers, W. J., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: A study on teachers’ beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 (2), 227–243. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709902158865

Feldon, D. F. (2007). Cognitive load and classroom teaching: The double-edged sword of automaticity. Educational Psychologist, 42 (3), 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701416173

Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigation of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16 (3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872676301600302

Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers’ beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us. In K.R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J.M. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook. Vol. 2: Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 471–499). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13274-019

Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2016). Teachers’ beliefs, in the context of policy reform. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3 (1), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732215623554

Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37 (5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096

Florian, L., & Linklater, H. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Using inclusive pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40 (4), 369–386.

Forlin, C. (1995). Educators’ beliefs about inclusive practices in Western Australia. British Journal of Special Education, 22 (4), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.1995.tb00932.x

Forlin, C. (2010). Teacher education for inclusion: Changing paradigms and innovative approaches . Routledge.

Forlin, C., & Chambers, D. (2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive education: Increasing knowledge but raising concerns. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (1), 17–32.

*Forlin, C., Sharma, U., & Loreman, T. (2007). An international comparison of pre-service teacher attitudes towards inclusive education. Disability studies quarterly , 27 (4). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v27i4.53

*Forlin, C., Garcia Cedillo, I., Romero-Contreras, S., Fletcher, T., & Rodriguez Hernandez, H. J. (2010). Inclusion in Mexico: ensuring supportive attitudes by newly graduated teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 14 (7, SI), 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603111003778569

*Forlin, C., Loreman, T., & Sharma, U. (2014). A system-wide professional learning approach about inclusion for teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education , 42 (3), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.906564

Fox, R. A., Leif, E. S., Moore, D. W., Furlonger, B., Anderson, A., & Sharma, U. (2021). A systematic review of the facilitators and barriers to the sustained implementation of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. Education and Treatment of Children , 1–22.

*Galovic, D., Brojcin, B., & Glumbic, N. (2014). The attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education in Vojvodina. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 18 (12), 1262–1282. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2014.886307

Gartin, B. C., & Murdick, N. L. (2005). Idea 2004: The IEP. Remedial and Special Education, 26 (6), 327–331.

Gebbie, D. H., Ceglowski, D., Taylor, L. K., & Miels, J. (2012). The role of teacher efficacy in strengthening classroom support for preschool children with disabilities who exhibit challenging behaviors. Early Childhood Education Journal, 40 (1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-011-0486-5

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71 (2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202

Gesel, S. A., LeJeune, L. M., Chow, J. C., Sinclair, A. C., & Lemons, C. J. (2021). A meta-analysis of the impact of professional development on teachers’ knowledge, skill, and self-efficacy in data-based decision-making. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 54 (4), 269–283.

Grant, S. P., Mayo-Wilson, E., Melendez-Torres, G. J., & Montgomery, P. (2013). Reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials: A systematic review of reporting guidelines and trial publications. PLoS ONE, 8 (5), e65442. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065442

Gregoire, M. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers’ cognition and appraisal processes during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15 (2), 147–179. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023477131081

Gregoire-Gill, M. G., Trevors, G., Greene, J. A., & Algina, J. (2022). Don’t take it personally? The role of personal relevance in conceptual change. The Journal of Experimental Education, 90 (1), 1–22.

Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90 (7), 495–500.

*Haq, F. S., & Mundia, L. (2012). Comparison of Brunei Preservice Student Teachers’ Attitudes to Inclusive Education and Specific Disabilities: Implications for Teacher Education. Journal of Educational Research , 105 (5), 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.627399

*Hastings, R. P., & Oakford, S. (2003). Student teachers' attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special needs. Educational Psychology , 23 (1), 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410303223

Hattie, J. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332

*Hecht, P., Niedermair, C., & Feyerer, E. (2016).Einstellungen und inklusionsbezogene Selbstwirksamkeitsüberzeugungen von Lehramtsstudierenden und Lehrpersonen im Berufseinstieg - Messverfahren und Befunde aus einem Mixed-Methods-Design [Teachers' efficacy of student teachers and novice teachers to implement inclusive practices as a question of research methods - Results from a mixed-methods design]. Empirische Sonderpädagogik , 8 (1), 86–102.

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis . Academic. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-057065-5.50006-3

Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1 (1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5

*Helldin, R., Bäckman, Ö., Dwyer, H., Skarlind, A., Hugo, A. J., Nel, N., & Müller, H. (2011). Opportunities for a democratic pedagogy: A comparative study of South African and Swedish teachers' attitudes to inclusive education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs , 11 (2), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01173.x

*Hellmich, F., Görel, G., & Schwab, S. (2016). Einstellungen und Motivation von Lehramtsstudentinnen und -studenten in Bezug auf den inklusiven Unterricht in der Grundschule - Ein Vergleich zwischen Deutschland und Österreich [Pre-service teachers' attitudes and motivation in relation to inclusive education in primary school - A comparison between Germany and Austria]. Empirische Sonderpädagogik , 8 (1), 67–85.

Higgins, J., & Thompson, S. G. (2004). Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Statistics in Medicine, 23 (11), 1663–1682. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1752

Hodkinson, A. (2005). Conceptions and misconceptions of inclusive education: A critical examination of final-year teacher trainees’ knowledge and understanding of inclusion. Research in Education, 73 (1), 15–28.

Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31 (10), 1369–1385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205275613

Hornby, G., & Evans, W. H. (2014). Including students with significant social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream school settings . In P. Garner, J. Kauffman and J. Elliott (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Emotional & Behavioral Difficulties (335–347) . London: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446247525.n24

*Horrocks, J. L., White, G., & Roberts, L. (2008). Principals’ attitudes regarding inclusion of children with autism in Pennsylvania public schools. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 38 (8), 1462–1473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-007-0522-x

Hosford, S., & O’Sullivan, S. (2016). A climate for self-efficacy: The relationship between school climate and teacher efficacy for inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20 (6), 604–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1102339

*Hoskin, J., Boyle, C., & Anderson, J. (2015). Inclusive education in pre-schools: predictors of pre-service teacher attitudes in Australia. Teachers and Teaching , 21 (8), 974–989. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1005867

*Hsieh, W.-Y., & Hsieh, C.-M. (2012). Urban early childhood teachers' attitudes towards inclusive education. Early Child Development and Care , 182 (9), 1167–1184. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2011.602191

*Hsieh, W.-Y., Hsieh, C.-M., Ostrosky, M., & McCollum, J. (2012). Taiwanese first-grade teachers’ perceptions of inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 16 (1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603111003592283

*Huang, H.-H., & Diamond, K. E. (2009). Early childhood reachers’ ideas about including children with disabilities in programmes designed for typically developing children. International Journal of Disability Development and Education, 56 (2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/10349120902868632

*Humphrey, N., & Symes, W. (2013). Inclusive education for pupils with autistic spectrum disorders in secondary mainstream schools: teacher attitudes, experience and knowledge. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17 (1), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2011.580462

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis. Correcting error and bias in research findings . Newbury Park: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483398105

Iancu, A. E., Rusu, A., Măroiu, C., Păcurar, R., & Maricuțoiu, L. P. (2018). The effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing teacher burnout: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30 (2), 373–396.

Ismailos, L., Gallagher, T., Bennett, S., & Li, X. (2019). Pre-service and in-service teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs with regards to inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 1–17.

Jenson, K. (2018). A global perspective on teacher attitudes towards inclusion: Literature review . Online Submission. Retrieved from files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED585094.pdf

*Jerlinder, K., Danermark, B., & Gill, P. (2010). Swedish primary-school teachers' attitudes to inclusion—The case of PE and pupils with physical disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education , 25 (1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250903450830

Kalambouka, A., Farrell, P., Dyson, A., & Kaplan, I. (2007). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educational Research, 49 (4), 365–382.

Kiel, E., Braun, A., Muckenthaler, M., Heimlich, U., & Weiss, S. (2020). Self-efficacy of teachers in inclusive classes. How do teachers with different self-efficacy beliefs differ in implementing inclusion?. European Journal of Special Needs Education , 35 (3), 333–349.

Kiely, M. T., Brownell, M. T., Lauterbach, A. A., & Benedict, A. E. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs about students with special needs and inclusion. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers’ Beliefs (pp. 475–491). Routledge.

*Kim, J., Park, E., & Snell, M. E. (2005). Impact of information and weekly contact on attitudes of Korean general educators and nondisabled students regarding peers with disabilities. Mental Retardation , 43 (6), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1352/0047-6765(2005)43[401:IOIAWC]2.0.CO;2

*Kim, J.-R. (2011). Influence of teacher preparation programmes on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15 (3), 355–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903030097

Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2011). The occupational commitment and intention to quit of practicing and pre-service teachers: Influence of self-efficacy, job stress, and teaching context. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36 (2), 114–129.

Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12 , 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001

Klassen, R. M., Tze, V. M., Betts, S. M., & Gordon, K. A. (2011). Teacher efficacy research 1998–2009: Signs of progress or unfulfilled promise? Educational Psychology Review, 23 (1), 21–43.

Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105 (3), 805. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583

Larrivee, B., & Cook, L. (1979). Mainstreaming: A study of the variables affecting teacher attitude. The Journal of Special Education, 13 (3), 315–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246697901300310

Lauermann, F., & König, J. (2016). Teachers’ professional competence and wellbeing: Understanding the links between general pedagogical knowledge, self-efficacy and burnout. Learning and Instruction, 45 , 9–19.

Lautenbach, F., & Heyder, A. (2019). Changing attitudes to inclusion in preservice teacher education: A systematic review. Educational Research, 61 (2), 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2019.1596035

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping . Springer publishing company.

*Lee, F. L. M., Yeung, A. S., Tracey, D., & Barker, K. (2015). Inclusion of children with special needs in early childhood education: What teacher characteristics matter. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education , 35 (2), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121414566014

Levin, B. B. (2015). The development of teachers’ beliefs. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International handbook of research on teachers’ beliefs (pp. 48–65). Routledge.

*Levins, T., Bornholt, L., & Lennon, B. (2005). Teachers' experience, attitudes, feelings and behavioural intentions towards children with special educational needs. Social Psychology of Education , 8 (3), 329–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-005-3020-z

Leyser, Y., Kapperman, G., & Keller, R. (1994). Teacher attitudes toward mainstreaming: A cross-cultural study in six nations. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 9 , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0885625940090101

Leyser, Y., Zeiger, T., & Romi, S. (2011). Changes in self-efficacy of prospective special and general education teachers: Implication for inclusive education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58 (3), 241–255.

*Leyser, Y., & Romi, S. (2008). Religion and attitudes of college preservice teachers toward students with disabilities: implications for higher education. Higher Education , 55 (6), 703–717. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9084-2

*Lifshitz, H., & Naor, M. L. (2001).Student teachers’ willingness to mainstream pupils with special needs in relation to track and severity of the disability. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research , 24 (2), 143–148. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004356-200106000-00008

*Lifshitz, H., Glaubman, R., & Issawi, R. (2004). Attitudes towards inclusion: The case of Israeli and Palestinian regular and special education teachers. European Journal of Special Needs Education , 19 (2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250410001678478

Lindsay, G. (2007). Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (1), 1–24.

Liou, Y. H., Canrinus, E. T., & Daly, A. J. (2019). Activating the implementers: The role of organizational expectations, teacher beliefs, and motivation in bringing about reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79 , 60–72.

Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and Offenders, 4 (2), 124–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612573

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis . Sage.

Loreman, T., Earle, C., Sharma, U., & Forlin, C. (2007). The development of an instrument for measuring pre-service teachers’ sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about inclusive education. International Journal of Special Education, 22 (1), 150–159.

*Loreman, T., Sharma, U., & Forlin, C. (2013). Do Pre-service Teachers Feel Ready to Teach in Inclusive Classrooms? A Four Country Study of Teaching Self-efficacy. Australian Journal of Teacher Education , 38 (1), 3. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2013v38n1.10

*MacFarlane, K., & Woolfson, L. M. (2013). Teacher attitudes and behavior toward the inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream schools: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education , 29 , 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.006

Maggioni, L., & Parkinson, M. M. (2008). The role of teacher epistemic cognition, epistemic beliefs, and calibration in instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 20 (4), 445–461.

*Malinen, O.-P., Savolainen, H., & Xu, J. (2012). Beijing in-service teachers' self-efficacy and attitudes towards inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education , 28 (4), 526–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.004

Markova, M., Pit-Ten Cate, I., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Glock, S. (2016). Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and toward students with special educational needs from different ethnic backgrounds. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84 (3), 554–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2015.1055317

*Maunganidze, L., Kasayira, J. M., Ruhode, N., Shonhiwa, L., & Sodi, T. (2007).Teacher attitudes towards the inclusion of children with mild hearing impairments into the regular school settings. Journal of Psychology in Africa , 17 (1-2), 141–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2007.10820160

McCarthy, C. J., Lambert, R. G., Lineback, S., Fitchett, P., & Baddouh, P. G. (2016). Assessing teacher appraisals and stress in the classroom: Review of the classroom appraisal of resources and demands. Educational Psychology Review, 28 (3), 577–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9322-6

McHatton, P. A., & Parker, A. (2013). Purposeful preparation: Longitudinally exploring inclusion attitudes of general and special education pre-service teachers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36 (3), 186–203.

McIntyre, D. (2009). The difficulties of inclusive pedagogy for initial teacher education and some thoughts on the way forward. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 (4), 602–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.008

McLean, M. A. (2008). Teaching about disability: An ethical responsibility? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 12 (5–6), 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802377649

*Memisevic, H., & Hodzic, S. (2011). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of students with intellectual disability in Bosnia and Herzegovina. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 15 (7), 699–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903184001

Miesera, S., DeVries, J. M., Jungjohann, J., & Gebhardt, M. (2019). Correlation between attitudes, concerns, self-efficacy and teaching intentions in inclusive education evidence from German pre-service teachers using international scales. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 19 (2), 103–114.

Mizunoya, S., Mitra, S., & Yamasaki, I. (2016). Towards inclusive education: The impact of disability on school attendance in developing countries, Innocenti Working Paper No.2016–03 , UNICEF Office of Research, Florence. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2782430

*Moberg, S., & Savolainen, H. (2003). Struggling for inclusive education in the North and the South: Educators’ perceptions on inclusive education in Finland and Zambia. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 26 (1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mrr.0000054970.12822.d6

*Moberg, S. (2003). Education for all in the North and the South: Teachers' attitudes towards inclusive education in Finland and Zambia. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities , 417–428.

Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., & … Stewart, L. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4 (1), 1–9.

*Montgomery, A., & Mirenda, P. (2014). Teachers' self-efficacy, sentiments, attitudes, and concerns about the inclusion of students with developmental disabilities. Exceptionality Education International , 24 (1), 18–32.

Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7 (1), 105. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.105

Morris, D. B., Usher, E. L., & Chen, J. A. (2017). Reconceptualizing the sources of teaching self-efficacy: A critical review of emerging literature. Educational Psychology Review, 29 (4), 795–833. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9378-y

*Moser, V., Kuhl, J., Redlich, H., & Schaefer, L. (2014).Beliefs of student teachers in special and elementary school educational programs. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft , 17 (4), 661–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-014-0587-1

Mueller, M. L., & Dunlosky, J. (2017). How beliefs can impact judgments of learning: Evaluating analytic processing theory with beliefs about fluency. Journal of Memory and Language, 93 , 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.201

Murphy, P. K., & Mason, L. (2006). Changing knowledge and beliefs. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 305–324). Simon & Schuster/Macmillan.

*Muwana, F. C., & Ostrosky, M. M. (2014). Factors related to pre- service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion: a case for Zambia. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 18 (8), 763–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.835877

Nakken, H., & Pijl, S. J. (2002). Getting along with classmates in regular schools: A review of the effects of integration on the development of social relationships. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 6 (1), 47–61.

*Ntinas, K. M., Neila, A., Nikolaidou, E., Papadimitriou, S., Papadopoulou, I., Fasoulas, A., & Hatzikonstantinidis, C. (2006). Inclusion and challenging behaviors: Greek general educators' perspectives. The Behavior Analyst Today , 7 (1), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100146

*Obrusnikova, I. (2008). Physical educators’ beliefs about teaching children with disabilities. Perceptual and Motor Skills , 106 (2), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.2466/PMS.106.2.637-644

O'Hanlon, C. (Ed.). (2017). Inclusive education in Europe . London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203730409

Ohlsson, S. (2009). Resubsumption: A possible mechanism for conceptual change and belief revision. Educational Psychologist, 44 , 20–40.

Oh-Young, C., & Filler, J. (2015). A meta-analysis of the effects of placement on academic and social skill outcome measures of students with disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 47 , 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.014

*Ojok, P., & Wormnæs, S. (2013). Inclusion of pupils with intellectual disabilities: Primary school teachers' attitudes and willingness in a rural area in Uganda. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17 (9), 1003–1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.728251

Opoku, M. P., Cuskelly, M., Pedersen, S. J., & Rayner, C. S. (2020). Attitudes and self-efficacy as significant predictors of intention of secondary school teachers towards the implementation of inclusive education in Ghana. European Journal of Psychology of Education , 1–19.

*Oswald, M., & Swart, E. (2011). Addressing South African pre-service teachers’ sentiments, attitudes and concerns regarding inclusive education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education , 58 (4), 389–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2011.626665

*O'Toole, C., & Burke, N. (2013). Ready, willing and able? Attitudes and concerns in relation to inclusion amongst a cohort of Irish pre-service teachers. European Journal of Special Needs Education , 28 (3), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2013.768451

Overton, R. C. (1998). A comparison of fixed-effects and mixed (random-effects) models for meta-analysis tests of moderator variable effects. Psychological Methods, 3 (3), 354–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.3.3.354

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62 (3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307

Paquette, K. R., & Rieg, S. A. (2016). Stressors and coping strategies through the lens of early childhood/special education pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57 , 51–58.

Parsons, S. A., Vaughn, M., Scales, R. Q., Gallagher, M. A., Parsons, A. W., Davis, S. G., ... & Allen, M. (2018). Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research , 88 (2), 205-242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317743198

Pearman, E. L., Huang, A. M., & Mellblom, C. I. (1997). The inclusion of all students: Concerns and incentives of educators. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities , 11–20.

Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18 (4), 315–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (5), 751.

Pintrich, P. R. (1999). Motivational beliefs as resources for and constraints on conceptual change. In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on conceptual change (pp. 33–50). Pergamon.

Pit-ten Cate, I. M., & Glock, S. (2019). Teachers’ implicit attitudes toward students from different social groups: A meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 10 , 2832. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02832

Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (2), 438. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.438

Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66 (2), 211–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730660207

Posner, G. J., & Strike, K. A. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In R.A. Duschl & R. J. Hamilton (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147- 177). Suny Press. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.30-2215

Rakap, S., Cig, O., & Parlak-Rakap, A. (2017). Preparing preschool teacher candidates for inclusion: Impact of two special education courses on their perspectives. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 17 (2), 98–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12116

*Rakap, S., & Kaczmarek, L. (2010). Teachers' attitudes towards inclusion in Turkey. European Journal of Special Needs Education , 25 (1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250903450848

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods . Sage.

*Razer, M., Mittelberg, D., Motola, M., & Bar-Gosen, N. (2015). Israeli high school teachers’ perceptions and attitudes towards a pedagogy of inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 19 (9), 944–964. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1019373

*Van Reusen, A. K., Shoho, A. R., & Barker, K. S. (2000).High school teacher attitudes toward inclusion. The High School Journal , 84 (2), 7–20.

*Rheams, T. A., & Bain, S. K. (2005). Social Interaction Interventions in an Inclusive Era: Attitudes of Teachers in Early Childhood Self-Contained and Inclusive Settings. Psychology in the Schools , 42 (1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20029

Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula, T. J. Buttery, & E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 102–119). Macmillan.

Richter, D., Kunter, M., Lüdtke, O., Klusmann, U., Anders, Y., & Baumert, J. (2013). How different mentoring approaches affect beginning teachers’ development in the first years of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36 , 166–177.

Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Storm, M. D., Sawyer, B. E., Pianta, R. C., & LaParo, K. M. (2006). The Teacher Belief Q-Sort: A measure of teachers’ priorities in relation to disciplinary practices, teaching practices, and beliefs about children. Journal of School Psychology, 44 (2), 141–165.

Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analysis: A review. Psychosomatic Medicine, 53 , 247–271. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-199105000-00001

Rosenthal, R., Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In h. Cooper, & L.V: Hedges (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis , (pp. 231–244). New York: Sage.

*Round, P. N., Subban, P. K., & Sharma, U. (2016). ‘I don’t have time to be this busy.’ Exploring the concerns of secondary school teachers towards inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 20 (2), 185–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1079271

Ruijs, N. M., & Peetsma, T. T. (2009). Effects of inclusion on students with and without special educational needs reviewed. Educational Research Review, 4 (2), 67–79.

*Saloviita, T. (2015). Measuring pre-service teachers' attitudes towards inclusive education: Psychometric properties of the TAIS scale. Teaching and Teacher Education , 52 , 66–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.09.003

*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/10.1002/dei.220

Savolainen, H., Engelbrecht, P., Nel, M., & Malinen, O. P. (2012). Understanding teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive education: Implications for pre-service and in-service teacher education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27 (1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2011.613603

Savolainen, H., Malinen, O. P., & Schwab, S. (2020). Teacher efficacy predicts teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion–a longitudinal cross-lagged analysis. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 1–15.

Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W. H., & Shavelson, R. J. (2007). E stimating causal effects using experimental and observational design . American Educational & Reseach Association.

Schwab, S., & Alnahdi, G. H. (2020). Do they practise what they preach? Factors associated with teachers’ use of inclusive teaching practices among in‐service teachers. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs , 20 (4), 321–330.

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63 (1), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299606300106

*Shah, R., Das, A., Desai, I., & Tiwari, A. (2016). Teachers' concerns about inclusive education in Ahmedabad, India. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs , 16 (1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12054

Sharma, U., & Desai, I. (2002). Measuring concerns about integrated education in India. Asia and Pacific Journal on Disability, 5 (1), 2–14.

Sharma, U., & Ng, O. (2014). What has worked for bringing out-of-school children with disabilities into regular schools? A literature review. Disability, CBR & Inclusive Development, 25 (2), 54–75.

Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12 (1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x

*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

*Sharma, U., & Sokal, L. (2015). The impact of a teacher education course on pre‐service teachers' beliefs about inclusion: An international comparison. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs , 15 (4), 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12043

*Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Loreman, T., & Earle, C. (2006). Pre-Service Teachers' Attitudes, Concerns and Sentiments about Inclusive Education: An International Comparison of Novice Pre-Service Teachers. International Journal of Special Education , 21 (2), 80–93.

*Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2007). What concerns pre-service teachers about inclusive education: An international viewpoint? KEDI Journal of Educational Policy , 4 (2), 95–114.

*Sharma, U., Forlin, C., & Loreman, T. (2008). Impact of training on pre-service teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disability & Society , 23 (7), 773–785. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687590802469271

*Sharma, U., Moore, D., & Sonawane, S. (2009). Attitudes and concerns of pre-service teachers regarding inclusion of students with disabilities into regular schools in Pune, India. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education , 37 (3), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660903050328

Sharplin, E., O’Neill, M., & Chapman, A. (2011). Coping strategies for adaptation to new teacher appointments: Intervention for retention. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27 (1), 136–146.

*Shaukat, S., Sharma, U., & Furlonger, B. (2013). Pakistani and Australian Pre-Service Teacher's Attitudes and Self-Efficacy towards Inclusive Education. Journal of Behavioural Sciences , 23 (2).

Shields, P. A. (2020). Differences between attitudes, concerns, and self-efficacy of secondary general and special education teachers towards inclusive education (Publication No. 27831511) [Doctoral dissertation, Grand Canyon University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Shippen, M. E., Flores, M. M., Crites, S. A., Patterson, D., Ramsey, M. L., Houchins, D. E., & Jolivette, K. (2011). Classroom structure and teacher efficacy in serving students with disabilities: Differences in elementary and secondary teachers. International Journal of Special Education, 26 (3), 36–44.

Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2017). Dimensions of teacher burnout: Relations with potential stressors at school. Social Psychology of Education, 20 (4), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611

Skott, J. (2015). The promises, problems, and prospects of research on teachers’ beliefs. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers’ Beliefs (pp. 37–54). Routledge.

*Specht, J., McGhie-Richmond, D., Loreman, T., Mirenda, P., Bennett, S., Gallagher, T., ... Cloutier, S. (2016). Teaching in inclusive classrooms: efficacy and beliefs of Canadian preservice teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 20 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2015.1059501

Srivastava, M., De Boer, A., & Pijl, S. J. (2015). Inclusive education in developing countries: A closer look at its implementation in the last 10 years. Educational Review, 67 (2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.847061

Staub, F., & Stern, E. (2002). The nature of teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs matters of student achievement gains: Quasi-experimental evidence from elementary mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94 , 344–355.

*Stefanidis, A., & Strogilos, V. (2015). Union gives strength: Mainstream and special education teachers’ responsibilities in inclusive co-taught classrooms. Educational Studies , 41 (4), 393–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2015.1018872

*Stella, C. S. C., Forlin, C., & Lan, A. M. (2007). The influence of an inclusive education course on attitude change of pre-service secondary teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education , 35 (2), 161–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598660701268585

*Sucuoğlu, N. B., Bakkaloğlu, H., Akalin, S., Demir, Ş., & İşcen-Karasu, F. (2015). The effects of the preschool inclusion program on teacher outcomes in Turkey. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education , 36 (4), 324-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2015.1105328

Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers’ emotions and teaching: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 15 (4), 327–358. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026131715856

Szumski, G., Smogorzewska, J., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 21 , 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.004

Tait, K., & Purdie, N. (2000). Attitudes toward disability: Teacher education for inclusive environments in an Australian university. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 47 (1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/103491200116110

Talmor, R., Reiter, S., & Feigin, N. (2005). Factors relating to regular education teacher burnout in inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education , 20 (2), 215–229.

Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Tipton, E. (2014). Robust variance estimation with dependent effect sizes: Practical considerations including a software tutorial in Stata and SPSS. Research Synthesis Methods, 5 (1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1091

*Thaver, T., & Lim, L. (2014). Attitudes of pre-service mainstream teachers in Singapore towards people with disabilities and inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education , 18 (10), 1038–1052. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.693399

*Thomas, C. M., Curtis, R. S., & Shippen, M. E. (2011). Counselors', rehabilitation providers', and teachers' perceptions of mental and physical disabilities. Journal of Counseling & Development , 89 (2), 182–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2011.tb00076.x

Tipton, E. (2015). Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psychological Methods, 20 (3), 375. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000011

Tipton, E., & Pustejovsky, J. E. (2015). Small-sample adjustments for tests of moderators and model fit using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40 (6), 604–634. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998615606099

Toompalu, A., Leijen, Ä., & Kullasepp, K. (2017). Professional role expectations and related feelings when solving pedagogical dilemmas: A comparison of pre-and in-service teachers. Teacher Development, 21 (2), 307–323.

*Tripp, A., & Rizzo, T. (2006). Disability labels affect physical educators. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly , 23 (3), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1123/apaq.23.3.310

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23 (6), 944–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003

Tukey, J. W. (1977). Some thoughts on clinical trials, especially problems of multiplicity. Science, 198 (4318), 679–684. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.333584

Tümkaya, G. S., & Miller, S. (2020). The perceptions of pre and in-service teachers’ self-efficacy regarding inclusive practices: A systematised review. Elementary Education Online, 19 (2), 1061–1077.

Underwood, P. R. (2012). Teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the instruction of English grammar under national curriculum reforms: A theory of planned behaviour perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28 (6), 911–925.

UNESCO. (2017b). Global education monitoring report 2017/18: Accountability in education . UNESCO.

UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for action on special needs education. Salamanca, Spain, 7–10 June 1994. Unesco.

UNESCO (2017a). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education . Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002482/248254e.pdf [accessed on December, 14 2020]

UNICEF (2020). Inclusive education. Understanding Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities . https://www.unicef.org/eca/sites/unicef.org.eca/files/IE_summary_accessible_220917_0.pdf . Accessed 14 Dec 2020

United Nations (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities , G.A. Res. 61/106, U.N. GAOR, 61 st Sess, U.N. Doc. A/Res/61/106.

United States Congress (1975). Education for All Handicapped Children Act. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/94/s6

United States Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics, 2015 (NCES 2016–014), Chapter 2.

*Urton, K., Wilbert, J., & Hennemann, T. (2014).Attitudes towards inclusion and self-efficacy of principals and teachers. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal , 12 (2), 151–168.

*Urton, K., Wilbert, J., & Hennemann, T. (2015). Die Einstellung zur Integration und die Selbstwirksamkeit von Lehrkräften. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht , 62 (2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.2378/peu2015.art09d

Uttal, D. H., Meadow, N. G., Tipton, E., Hand, L. L., Alden, A. R., Warren, C., & Newcombe, N. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139 (2), 352–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028446

*Varcoe, L., & Boyle, C. (2014). Pre-service primary teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Educational Psychology , 34 (3), 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.785061

*Vaz, S., Wilson, N., Falkmer, M., Sim, A., Scott, M., Cordier, R., & Falkmer, T. (2015). Factors associated with primary school teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities. PloS one , 10 (8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137002

Veal, W. R., Riley Lloyd, M. E., Howell, M. R., & Peters, J. (2016). Normative beliefs, discursive claims, and implementation of reform-based science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53 (9), 1419–1443.

Vieluf, S., Hochweber, J., Kunter, M., & Klieme, E. (2015). Who has a good relationship with the teachers? A comparison of comprehensive education systems with education systems using between-school tracking. Oxford Review of Education, 41 , 3–25.

*Vizer-Karni, N., & Reiter, S. (2014). Organizational conditions and school culture fostering inclusive education - findings of research among Israeli Arab teachers. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities , 60 (4), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1179/2047387713Y.0000000018

Voltz, D. L., Brazil, N., & Ford, A. (2001). What matters most in inclusive education: A practical guide for moving forward. Intervention in School and Clinic, 37 (1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/105345120103700105

Voss, T., & Kunter, M. (2020). “Reality shock” of beginning teachers? Changes in teacher candidates’ emotional exhaustion and constructivist-oriented beliefs. Journal of Teacher Education, 71 (3), 292–306.

*Wall, R. (2002). Teachers' exposure to people with visual impairments and the effect on attitudes toward inclusion. Review: Rehabilitation and Education for Blindness and Visual Impairment , 34 (3), 111–119.

Westwood, P. (2018). Inclusive and adaptive teaching: Meeting the challenge of diversity in the classroom . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351061261

Wilczenski, F. L. (1995). Development of a scale to measure attitudes toward inclusive education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55 (2), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055002013

Wilson, C., Woolfson, L. M., Durkin, K., & Elliott, M. A. (2016). The impact of social cognitive and personality factors on teachers’ reported inclusive behavior. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86 (3), 461–480.

Wilson, C., Marks Woolfson, L., & Durkin, K. (2020). School environment and mastery experience as predictors of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs towards inclusive teaching. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24 (2), 218–234.

Woodcock, S., & Jones, G. (2020). Examining the interrelationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and their beliefs towards inclusive education for all. Teacher Development, 24 (4), 583–602.

Woolfolk Hoy, A., Davis, H., & Pape, S. J. (2006). Teacher knowledge and beliefs . In P.H. Winne & P.A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (715–737). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203874790.ch31

World Bank (2022). World Bank Data Low and Middle Income . https://data.worldbank.org/country/XO

Wyer, R. S., Jr., & Albarracın, D. (2005). Belief formation, organization, and change: Cognitive and motivational influences. In D. Albarracın, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Handbook of attitudes and attitude change (pp. 273–322). Erlbaum.

*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

Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86 (4), 981–1015.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This work was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

DIPF Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education, Rostocker Straße 6, 60323, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Charlotte Dignath & Mareike Kunter

IDeA Research Center for Individual Development and Adaptive Education of Children at Risk, Rostocker Str. 6, 60323, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

Center for the Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning, Curry School of Education and Human Development, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

Sara Rimm-Kaufman

Chair of Statistics and Econometrics, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany

Reyn van Ewijk

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charlotte Dignath .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 93 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Dignath, C., Rimm-Kaufman, S., van Ewijk, R. et al. Teachers’ Beliefs About Inclusive Education and Insights on What Contributes to Those Beliefs: a Meta-analytical Study. Educ Psychol Rev 34 , 2609–2660 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09695-0

Download citation

Accepted : 08 July 2022

Published : 26 August 2022

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09695-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Meta-analysis
• Inclusive education
• Teacher beliefs
• Teacher self-efficacy
• Teacher training
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Virtual Library
• Editorial Board Member
• Write For Us
• Terms & Conditions
• Refund Policy
• Privacy Policy
• April 26, 2021
• Posted by: rsispostadmin
• Category: IJRISS

International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS) | Volume V, Issue III, March 2021 | ISSN 2454–6186

Inclusive Education: A Literature Review on Definitions, Attitudes and Pedagogical Challenges

Tebatso Namanyane, Md Mirajur Rhaman Shaoan Faculty of Education Southwest University China

Abstract: This paper on inclusive education explores several diverse viewpoints from various scholars in different contexts on the concepts of inclusive education in an effort to reach the common understanding of the same this concept. The attitudes section is addressed from the perspectives of pupils, educators, and the society (parents), and it further explore the dilemmas that teachers and students with disabilities face in modern education systems. The instructional approaches focusing on how teachers plan and execute lessons with diverse students’ aptitudes from literature are also levelheadedly outlined. In conclusion, it included a broad overview focused on two models, social and medical models on which this paper is primarily based.

Key words: Inclusive Education, Attitudes, Pedagogical Challenges

I. INTRODUCTION There are several terms in the field of education that are interpreted differently depending on the reason for which they are meant. Others have been given meanings that are globally recognized, while others are interpreted differently based on the varying reasons and factors affecting them, including religion and regions, history, values, race, and resource limitations. The present paper is intended to discuss an interesting educational topic which has intrigued scholars across the globe due to its arguable definitions from different perspectives. It will also have a more comprehensive but remarkably different interpretation of these core tenets as proposed in the topic specified above, Inclusive Education: A Literature Review on Definitions, Attitudes and Pedagogical Challenges. Education is a full process of training a new generation who is ready to participate in civic life and is also a vital link in the process of human social production experience to be carried out, with special regard to the process of school education for school-age infants, young people and retired people. Generally, all things that will improve human intelligence and skills and affect people’s moral character as considered as part of education. In a narrow sense, it is primarily schooling, which is characterized as the practice of educators to impact the mind and body of the learner intentionally, purposefully and systematically according to the requirements of a specific community or class to develop them as persons they want to be. Aristotle defines education as the way to prepare a man to achieve his mission by exercising all the faculties to the fullest degree as a citizen of society.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Inclusive Education: Literature Review

The education of disabled children never received such amount of consideration and special efforts by government and non-government agencies in past as in present days. The attitude of the community in general and the attitude of parents in particular towards the education of the disabled have undergone change with the development of society and civilization.

Related Papers

vatika sibal

Executive Summary In India, inclusive education for children with disability has only recently been accepted in policy and in principle. In light of supportive policy and legislation, the present paper argues for individual initiative on part of an institution and colleges to implement programmes of inclusive education for children with disabilities in their classrooms. The paper provides guidelines in a generalized mode that institutions can follow to initiate such programmes. In this context, this paper argues for individual initiative on part of institutions to extend facilities for children with disabilities within their regular school settings. The paper further provides guidelines that institutions can adopt to set up inclusive education practices. The guidelines were derived from an empirical study which entailed examining prevalent practices and introducing inclusion in a regular institution setting. It is suggested that institutions can implement inclusive education programmes if they are adequately prepared, are able to garner support of all stakeholders involved in the process and have basic resources to run the programmes. The guidelines also suggest ways in which curriculum adaptations, teaching methodology and evaluation procedures can be adapted to suit needs of students with special needs. Issues of role allocation and seeking support of parents and peers are also dealt with. The recommendations that intuitions can adopt to implement inclusive education programmes for students with special needs within their regular set ups. The recommendations have been presented in a generalized mode to permit institute to interpret, modify and adapt the guidelines based on their individual needs and characteristics. It is pertinent those institutes that initiate such programmes assess their strengths and weaknesses at the outset and ensure adequate cooperation from the school management as well as the administrative and teaching staff. It is important to state here that an inclusive education programme does not require resource overload or elaborate preparations. With policy support, opportunities for training of teachers and cooperation from parents and the peer group, inclusive practices can be effectively adopted by any school. Clarity of vision, commitment to the goal of inclusion, and a perceptible understanding of the nuances involved in such an initiative are central to the success of the programme. Emotional commitment to inclusion emerges when the intellectual understanding of the concept goes through a democratic visioning process involving all the stakeholders expressing their opinions and feelings.

Inclusive Education: children with disabilities - - Background paper prepared for the 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report Inclusion and education 2020

Paula Frederica Hunt

This paper presents the case for inclusive education for children with disabilities as the entry point for policy development and implementation of inclusive education in the broad sense: inclusive, quality education for ALL children. The paper starts by providing a short historical perspective of the education of children with disabilities and continues with a description of the essential elements of an inclusive legislative framework, with a particular focus on General Comment no4 of Article 24 (CRPD). The benefits of inclusive education, as well as financing mechanisms, and required accountability measures for implementation, are also discussed. Then, the paper discusses the foundational basis of curriculum for inclusion, as well as issues related to a transformative teacher education practice. The final chapters describe what an inclusive school might look like, as well as the role of students, families and communities in creating an inclusive education system. It should be noted that this paper is substantiated with selective literature, with attention payed to an equitable geographic coverage.

ankur madan

Research Anthology on Inclusive Practices for Educators and Administrators in Special Education

Shekh Farid

BRAC, a leading international development organization, has been working to ensure the rights of persons with disabilities to education through its inclusive education program. This article discusses the BRAC approach in Bangladesh and aims to identify its strategies that are effective in facilitating inclusion. It employed a qualitative research approach where data were collected from students with disabilities, their parents, and BRAC&#39;s teachers and staffs using qualitative data collection techniques. The results show that the disability-inclusive policy and all other activities are strongly monitored by a separate unit under BRAC Education Program (BEP). It mainly focuses on sensitizing its teachers and staff to the issue through training, discussing the issue in all meetings and ensuring effective use of a working manual developed by the unit. Group-based learning and involving them in income generating activities were also effective. The findings of the study would be usefu...

Shonazar Botirov

This article describes the introduction of inclusive education, what it is, about children with disabilities, as well as the positive and negative aspects of inclusive education.

Ikhfi Imaniah

This paper identifies and discusses major issues and trends in special education in Indonesia, including implications of trends for the future developments. Trends are discussed for the following areas: (1) inclusion and integration, issues will remain unresolved in the near future; (2) early childhood and postsecondary education with disability students, special education will be viewed as lifespan schooling; (3) transitions and life skills, these will receive greater emphasis; and (4) consultation and collaboration, more emphasis but problems remain. Moreover, the participant of the study in this paper was an autism student of twelve years old who lived at Maguwoharjo, Yogyakarta. This study was qualitative with case study as an approach of the research. The researchers conclude the autism that has good academic, communication and emotional skill are able to go to integrated school accompanied by guidance teacher. But in practice, inclusive education in Indonesia is inseparable from stakeholders ranging from government and institutions such as schools, educators, school environment, community and parents to support the goal of inclusive education itself. Adequate infrastructure also needs to be given to the school that organizes inclusive education for an efficient and effective students understanding learning-oriented of inclusive education. In short, every child has the same opportunity in education, yet for special education which is aimed at student with special educational needs.

Rajendra KR

Inclusive Education on Children with Learning Disabilities

Arien Arien

ABSTRACT Name : Zahrien Assyifa Nur Palisma NISN : 0002223086 Title : Analysis of Inclusive Education on Children with Learning Disabilities (Case study on 4th Grade of Mutiara Bunda Elementary School, Cilegon Banten Inclusive Education is an approach that aims to change the education system by translating barriers that can accommodate every student to participate fully in education. That is, every child is entitled to a decent education, not to mention children with learning disabilities. Children with learning disabilities are interpreted as children who find it difficult to receive formal and non-formal learning because of certain psychological "disabilities". This study aims to determine how much the effectiveness of inclusive education for children with learning disabilities in Mutiara Bunda Elementary School, Cilegon. The method used by the author is the field research that is carried out on October 6th, 2017 at Bunda Mutiara Elementary School, Street. Boulevard Raya Block A2 Number.6 Taman Cilegon Indah, Sukmajaya, Cilegon Banten.The results obtained from this study are: a. Inclusive Education is the right solution for children with learning disabilities even for all children with disabilities. b. The curriculum used in inclusive schools is similar to the curriculum in public schools. There is little modification in children with learning disabilities as well as some omissions and curriculum substitutions. Keywords: Inclusive Education, Children with Learning Disabilities

Swati Chakraborty

International Journal of …

Missy Morton

RELATED PAPERS

Roczniki Naukowe Polskiego Towarzystwa Zootechnicznego

Wojciech Andrzejewski

Munasprianto Ramli

Journal of Composite Materials

Giovanni Boano

Annals of Journalism and Mass Communication

Bani Koumachi

Luke Stoeckel

Sociologies pratiques

Sophie Beroud

Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups

Laura Dreisbach

Jurnal Segara

Nurfitriana pereda prahara

Nutrition Research and Practice

Eduardo Kingman Garcés. La ciudad y los otros. Quito 1860-1940: higienismo, ornato y policía.

Eduardo Kingman Garcés

Uluslararası Teknolojik Bilimler Dergisi

Osamah SALMAN

siti khafifah

Gordan Črpić

Kingsley Agho

Turkish Journal of Entomology

Shahbaz Hussain

Tendencias en la Investigación Universitaria. Una visión desde Latinoamérica. Volumen VII

Julio Cesar Rodríguez Garcia (Docente) , Paola Consuelo Ladino Marin (Docente)

Iraqi journal of chemical and petroleum engineering

Hamed Muhammed Jassim

Chilean journal of agricultural research

Veneta Andersen

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024