the relationship between teachers' self-efficacy and attitudes

Nov. 2014. Vol. 4, No.7 ISSN 2307-227X

International Journal of Research In Social Sciences © 2013-2014 IJRSS & K.A.J. All rights reserved www.ijsk.org/ijrss

24

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY

AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS INCLUSIVE EDUCATION IN

PULAU PINANG

1 MOHD ZAMAN BIN HASHIM,

2 MOHD ZURI BIN GHANI,

3 SUZANA IBRAHIM,

4 WAN

SHARIPAHMIRA MOHD ZAIN

1234

School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia

E-mail: [email protected] ,

2 [email protected] ,

[email protected] ,

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

This study was administered to identify the relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes

towards inclusive education in Pulau Pinang. Apart from that, this study also identified the difference

teachers’ self efficacy and attitudes based on gender and teaching experience. It is a survey-based

quantitative study using questionnaires. Data were collected using the “Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale”

(TSES) and “The Scale of Teachers Attitudes toward Inclusive Classrooms” (STATIC). A total of 126

teachers who teach in mainstream with inclusive education from the state of Pulau Pinang were selected

randomly as the sample of this study. The data were analyses using the Statistical Packages for Social

Sciences (SPSS) Version 22.0 software. Statistical tools such as using t-test, Analysis of Varians (One-way

ANOVA) and Pearson Correlation were utilized to test the hypothesis. This study found that participants

were highly efficacious in teachers’ self-efficacy, compared to attitudes of teachers’ towards inclusive

education. Besides, t-test showed that no significant differences between male and female teachers on their

teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes. The study also revealed that no significant difference between

teacher’s experiences contribute in teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes. Lastly, it was found that there was

no significant relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes towards inclusive education.

Keywords – teachers’ self-efficacy, attitudes, inclusive education, special needs students

1. INTRODUCTION

The tendency of education in Malaysia to help

students with special needs began in the 1920s

when several volunteers has paved the foundations

to open the formal education of students with visual

and hearing impairment. Through the

implementation of the Education Policy Studies

Certificate 169 appearing in the Cabinet Committee

Report 1979 is a manifestation that leads to more

serious attention and clear about the

implementation of special education in Malaysia.

Special education in Malaysia focuses on three

categories of students, namely students with

learning disabilities, hearing and visual impairment.

According to the Ministry of Education (MOE)

(2013), special schools mean schools that

accommodate students with visual impairment,

hearing loss, and learning disabilities. Special

education program integration (PPKI) is a

mainstream school with special classes for students

with special needs and inclusive education program

is an education program for students with special

needs can learn together with mainstream students

by placing from one to five students with special

needs in a class (MOE, 2013).

Focus on inclusive education began in Malaysia

engage in seminars and workshops organized by the

United States internationally and programs

organized by the United Nations Educational,

Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). In

1990, at the Jomtien Thailand, a declaration of the

'education for all' the world has focused on the

integration of equity issues and initiatives for

http://www.ijsk.org/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:2%[email protected]



Nov. 2014. Vol. 4, No.7 ISSN 2307-227X


25

students, including students with special needs.

Similarly, in Harbin, China in 1993, commitment

and passion for education for all a priority in

seminars on policy, management, organization of

special education for students with special needs.

Seminars and 'education for all' has changed the

emphasis of our country from the special education

program to integration inclusive program.

2. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Department of Special Education (1998) states, the

MOE is working on implementing inclusive

education broadly and integrated. However, based

on information KPM (2013), only 6% of students

with special needs in Malaysia joined the inclusive

education program. According to the Ministry of

Education (2013) , the goal in the Education

Development Plan (PPPM) from 2013 to 2025 is to

get 75% of students with special needs enrolled in

inclusive education by 2025. KPM Intent is a big

challenge for those involved with student needs

particularly in special schools. Currently, the school

does not have the ability to assess or provide a

baseline of inclusive education. Therefore, the

school does not know the real situation or how to

improve the program (MOE, 2013). According

Zalizan and Gina (2000), school organization and

management system is the cornerstone of all

education reform. Organization of school

administrators, teachers and support staff must be

clearly defined and understood about the function

and implementation of inclusive education. Without

a clear understanding of inclusive education

certainly will cause problems.

Abdul Rahim (1994), holds some prerequisites to

be considered for the success of inclusive education

in Malaysia. Among the requirements is the

understanding, acceptance and the ability of

teachers to implement inclusive education. The

challenge for teachers in inclusive education

programs is increasing. Before this teacher just

focuses on mainstream students only in class, but

with the inclusion of students with special needs, it

will increase their workload. According to Barco

(2007), the primary responsibility of educating

students with special needs in inclusive education

program is the responsibility of mainstream

teachers. This statement is supported by Cook

(2002), states that mainstream teachers often need

to restructure the teaching methodologies and

practices to meet the needs of academic, social,

cultural and special needs students.

Modification of the learning process requires

creativity teacher because the time provided for

teachers to teach in inclusive education class is the

same as mainstream classes. However, many

teachers are not able to adapt their classroom

teaching involving students with special needs

(Baker & Zigmond, 1995). This opinion is

consistent with studies Eiserman et al. (1995),

which states that many teachers think that they are

not able to teach in inclusive education classes.

According Haniz Ibrahim (1998), a total of 66.9%

of mainstream teachers have negative perceptions

of inclusive education in Kedah. In addition,

negative attitudes and low self-efficacy for a

number of teachers have also contributed to this

situation (Eiserman et al., 1995). Low teacher self-

efficacy is associated with weakness strategic used

by teachers to teach in inclusive classes (Baker &

Zigmond, 1995). According to Baker and Zigmond

(1995), low self-efficacy of teachers will have an

impact on attitudes and behavior in the classroom

with students with special needs. Without adequate

support through training and professional programs

will lead to low self-efficacy of teachers and MOE

efforts see success in inclusive education programs

will be difficult?

At this point, there are teachers who are concerned

about the inclusion of students with special needs

into inclusive education program which did not

have the knowledge to meet their educational

needs. While most teachers agree that inclusive

education is good for special needs students, but

teachers in mainstream feel they are not well

prepared, do not have sufficient exercise, or do not

have the appropriate resources to teach in the

classroom inclusive education (Fuchs & Fuchs,

1994).

Based on the issues that have been disclosed,

researchers found that self-efficacy and attitudes of

teachers is an issue that requires special attention

and further study because it is a problem for many

countries who implementing inclusive education. In

addition, the implementation of inclusive education

program in Malaysia is still considered to be new

when compared with the developed countries that

have done earlier. Hence, there is a variety of

problems, particularly involving the ability of


Nov. 2014. Vol. 4, No.7 ISSN 2307-227X


26

mainstream teachers to teach in inclusive education

program. This problem has attracted the interest of

researchers to conduct further research on the

relationship between self-efficacy with teachers'

attitudes towards inclusive education in the state of

Penang.

3. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

In this study, researchers wanted to test the level of

self-efficacy levels of teachers and teachers'

attitudes towards inclusive education as a whole.

Researchers also will examine the levels of self-

efficacy levels of teachers and teachers' attitudes

towards inclusive education in Penang based on

demographic criteria such as gender and the

experience of teaching students with special needs.

In addition, this study will examine the relationship

between self-efficacy of teachers' attitudes towards

inclusive education in the state of Penang.

4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Based on the research objectives, research

questions to be studied by the researchers is as

follows:

1. What is the level of self-efficacy of

teachers towards inclusive education?

2. What is the level of teachers' attitudes

towards inclusive education?

3. Is there a significant difference in the level

of self-efficacy of teachers towards

inclusive education by demographic

criteria such as gender teacher?


of teachers' attitudes towards inclusive

education by demographic criteria such as

gender teacher?

5. Are there significant differences in the

level of self-efficacy of teachers towards

inclusive education by demographic

criteria, namely the experience of teaching

students with special needs?


of teachers' attitudes towards inclusive

education by demographic criteria, namely

the experience of teaching students with

special needs?

7. Is there a relationship between self-

efficacy of teachers with teachers' attitudes

towards inclusive education?

5. RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

Based on the first and second objectives of the

researcher will examine the level of self-efficacy

and the level of teachers' attitudes towards inclusive

education. No hypothesis is formed because the

researchers will use descriptive method of the total

score, mean and percent.

In the next research question, five hypotheses were

constructed and tested in answer to the research

question. Hypotheses are:

Ho1: There is no significant difference in the level

of self-efficacy of teachers towards inclusive

education by demographic criteria such as gender

teachers.

Ho2: No significant difference in the level of

teachers' attitudes towards inclusive education

based on demographic criteria such as gender

teachers.

Ho3: There is no significant difference in the level

of self-efficacy of teachers towards inclusive

education by demographic criteria, namely the




based on demographic criteria, namely the


Ho5 based: There is no significant relationship

between self-efficacy of teachers with teachers'

attitudes towards inclusive education.

6. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study is a quantitative survey using a

questionnaire to collect data from respondents.

According to the Gay and Airasian (2009), this

design is suitable for a large population to obtain

uniformity of facts and information from

respondents systematically. Questionnaires were

used to obtain standard figures can be analyzed

through the frequency, mean, percentage, standard

deviation, t-test, ANOVA and Pearson correlation.

Variables to be analyzed are the efficacy and

attitudes that act as the independent variable while


Nov. 2014. Vol. 4, No.7 ISSN 2307-227X


27

the teachers who implement inclusive education

were used as the dependent variable.

This study population consisted of 193 teachers

from mainstream schools who teach in inclusive

classes in 13 schools. To meet the criteria of the

recommended sampling (Gay & Airasian, 2009;

Krejcie & Morgan, 1970), the study set out to select

a total of 130 teachers in the sample. The sample or

the respondent is done using simple random

sampling method to select respondents among

teachers from each school.

Teacher self-efficacy questionnaire measured using

the "Teachers Sense of efficacy Scale" (2001).

"Teachers Sense of efficacy Scale" (TSES) is the

short version of the questionnaire of 12 items in the

questionnaire that was modified by Tschannen-

Moran and Hoy (2001), from a previous version

developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy in 1990

in 'The Ohio State University '. To measure the

attitudes of teachers who teach inclusive education,

the survey "The Scale of Teachers Attitudes

Toward Inclusive Classrooms" (Static) is used.

Static questionnaire was developed by Cochran

(2000), which contains 20 items.

TSES instrument for reliability studies conducted

by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001), in general,

the reliability of the TSES 12 items was .90 (α).

The researchers conducted a pilot study showed

that the reliability of this instrument was .94 (α),

which is higher than the level of reliability of the

TSES in the study conducted by Tschannen-Moran

and Hoy (2001). Static attitude instrument contains

20 items that had previously been tested on 516

people in north Alabama teachers (Cochran, 2000).

Reliability was calculated by using Cronbach

Alpha. Cochran (2000), found that the coefficient

of reliability was .89 (α) and consistency to the

group and other groups. The pilot study conducted

by the researchers showed that the reliability

coefficient was .91 (α).

SPSS v.22 software will be used to analyze the data

because it fulfills almost all the processing

techniques and data analysis. Significant level set in

this study is at 0.05 (α). The results of data analysis

will use descriptive statistics and inferential

statistics to indicate the frequency, mean, standard

deviation, percentage, t-test, ANOVA and Pearson

correlation.

6.1 DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS

Descriptive analyzes involving the mean and

standard deviation made in order to see the level of

efficacy and the level of teachers' attitudes towards

inclusive education. Accordingly, the two variables

are used to seeing this relationship is self-efficacy

of teachers consists of three subscale; student

engagement, instructional strategies and classroom

management. The second variable is the attitude

that consists of four subscale; advantages and

disadvantages of inclusive education, professional

issues, philosophical issues and concerns about the

logistics of inclusive education. Descriptive

analyzes are described below: -

6.1.1 Teacher Self Efficacy

Part B of the questionnaire is the self-efficacy of

teachers consists of three subscale with each

subscale consists of four questions. Three subscale

of efficacy is divided into three levels, namely low

scores (1:00 to 3:50), medium (3:51 to 6:50) and

high (6:51 to 9:00). Three subscale efficacy was

analyzed in this study. Based on Table 1, all the

self-efficacy subscale had high level of student

involvement subscale showed a mean of 6.90, the

mean of the subscale total teaching strategy is 7:05,

and classroom management subscale showed the

highest mean 7:16. Total mean for self-efficacy of

teachers at the high level is 7:04.

Table 1: Efficacy subscale (N = 126)

Efficacy Mean Std Deviation Level

Student

involvement 6.90 1.161 High

Teaching

strategies 7.05 1.232 High

Class

management 7.16 1.116 High

TOTAL 7.04 1.170 High

6.2 TEACHER ATTITUDES

Attitude dimensions are dimensions that were in

section C questionnaire. Attitude dimension

contains four subscale and a number of questions in

each subscale of the seven questions the advantages


Nov. 2014. Vol. 4, No.7 ISSN 2307-227X


28

and disadvantages of inclusive education; five

questions of professional issues; four questions

philosophical issues; four questions and concerns

about the logistics of inclusive education. Four

subscale attitude is divided into three levels,

namely low scores (1:00 to 2:50), medium (2:51 to

4:50) and high (4:51 to 6:00).

All scale attitudes of teachers in this study were

analyzed. Based on Table 2, there is only one

subscale attitude at the high level of philosophical

issues which show a mean of 4.68. Subscale mean

for the rest of the advantages and disadvantages of

inclusive education, professional issues, and

concerns about the logistics of inclusive education

are respectively 3.74, 3.72 and 4:24 categorized as

moderate. Mean overall attitude is moderate ie

4:10.

It can be concluded that the subscale attitude

towards inclusive education is in the highest

philosophical issues. The subscale that less

attention in the attitude questionnaire is the

professional issues.

Table 2: Attitudes subscale (N = 126)

Efficacy Mean Std.Deviation Level

Advantages and

disadvantages

inclusive

education 3.74 0.786 Average

Professional

Issues 3.72 1.029 Average

Philosophy

Issues 4.68 0.654 High

Anxiety

about

inclusive

education 4.24 0.825 Average

TOTAL 4.10 1.030 Average

6.3 THE RESULT INTERVENTION

This study consists of five main hypotheses to be

tested for validity. All the results of hypothesis

testing are described as follows: -

Ho1: There is no significant difference in the


inclusive education by teacher gender.

Gender differences in the level of overall teacher

self-efficacy were tested using t-test for two

independent samples, as shown in Table 3 The aim

is to determine whether the mean values for the

variables male and female variables were

significantly different at the 0.05 significance level.

T-test results show the value of t = 1.020 and 0.310

is the significant value (p> 0.05) at the two ends.

This study confirms that there is no significant

difference between both variables on the level of

teacher self-efficacy as a whole. These results led to

the hypothesis Ho1 failed and rejected.

Table 3: t-test Results for Level Efficacy based

ongender (N = 126)

*At the significance level of p <0.05



by gender of teacher.

Gender differences in the level of overall attitude

was tested using t-test for two independent samples,

as shown in Table 4 .The aim is to determine

whether the mean values for the variables male and

female variables were significantly different at the

0.05 significance level. T-test results show the

value of t = -.125 and significant value is the 0.900

(p> 0.05) at the two ends. This study confirms that

there is no significant difference between both

variables on the level of overall attitude. These

results led to the hypothesis Ho2 failed and

F

S

ig

.

t

Dk

Sig.(2deci

mals)

Teacher

Gender

Assumpt

ion of

equality of

variance

are met

Assumpt

ion of

equality of

variance

is not met

.

3

0

1

.

5

8

4

1.

02

0

.9

22

12

4

38

.3

63

.310

.363


Nov. 2014. Vol. 4, No.7 ISSN 2307-227X


29

rejected.

Table 4: t-test Results for Level Attitude Based on

Gender Factor. (N = 126)


Ho3: There is no significant difference in the


inclusive education in the experience of teaching

students with special needs.

ANOVA analysis was conducted to examine the

differences in levels of self-efficacy of teachers

based on the experience of teaching students with

special needs in schools in the study. ANOVA

results are shown in Table 5 ANOVA results

showed no significant difference in efficacy

according to the level of teaching experience (F =

.889, p = .449). Therefore, the hypothesis Ho3

failed and rejected.

Table 5: ANOVA Mean Scores for Student

Teaching Experience With Special Needs Teacher

Self-Efficacy Level Overall (N = 126)

ANOVA




in accordance with the experience of teaching

students with special needs.

ANOVA analysis conducted to examine differences

in the level of teachers' attitudes based on the

experience of teaching students with special needs

in schools in the study. ANOVA results are shown

in Table 6 ANOVA results showed no significant

difference in the level of attitude by the teaching

experience (F = 1.602, p = .192). Therefore, the

Ho4 hypothesis failed and rejected.

Table 6: ANOVA Mean Scores for Student

Teaching Experience With Special Needs Teacher

Attitudes Overall Level (N = 126)

ANOVA


Ho5 based: There is no significant relationship

between self-efficacy of teachers' attitudes

towards inclusive education.

F Sig. t Dk Sig.(2-decima

ls)

Teacher Gender

Assumptio

n of

equali

ty of

varian

ce are met

Assumptio

n of

equality of

varian

ce is not

met

1.10

4

.2

9

6

-.1

2

5

-.1

3

6

12

4

49.43

0

.90

0

.89

3

Total

Square

Dk Mean

Squar

e

F Sig.

Among

Group

In Group

Total

3.301

151.0

37

154.3

37

3

122

125

1.1

00

1.2

38

.

8

8

9

.

4

4

9

Total

Square

Dk Mea

n

Squa

re

F Sig

.

Among

Group

In Group

Total

2.136

54.21

4

56.35

0

3

122

125

.

7

1

2

.

4

4

4

1

.

6

0

2

.

1

9

2


Nov. 2014. Vol. 4, No.7 ISSN 2307-227X


30

Pearson correlation test results (r) shows the

correlation coefficient between self-efficacy of

teachers' attitudes are weak r = 0.172. R values

showed a weak positive relationship between self-

efficacy with teachers' attitudes towards inclusive

education. Table 7 shows the results for this

hypothesis. The findings of the study (p = 0.056>

0.01) confirmed that there was no significant

relationship between self-efficacy of teachers'

attitudes towards inclusive education. These results

led to the hypothesis Ho5 failed and rejected.

Table 7: Results of Pearson Correlation Between

Self-Efficacy and Teacher Attitudes (N = 126)

Efficacy

Attitude

Efficacy

Pearson

Colleratio

n

Sig.

(2

decimals)

N

1

126

.172

.056

126

Attitude Pearson

Colleratio

n

Sig.

(2

decimals)

N

.172

.056

126

1

126

*At the significance level of p < 0.05

7. DISCUSSION

Mean scores obtained in relation to self-efficacy

among mainstream teachers who teach in inclusive

classes are generally higher than the mean score of

attitude that is at a moderate level. This finding is

an indicator that does not help, especially among

interested parties with special needs students. The

main factor that has been identified as the root

mean of attitude is moderate because teachers do

not have the knowledge and training to students

with special needs. The finding is in line with

studies and Tappendorf Leyser (2001), when the

teachers are not interested in teaching students with

special needs due to lack of experience and no

professional training on inclusive education.

T-test analysis showed no significant difference in

the level of self-efficacy and the level of teachers'

attitudes based on gender teachers. Brenner (2013),

also obtained results consistent with this efficacy

study when the analysis showed no significant

difference between the efficacy of primary school

teachers based on gender. These results indicate

that teachers have the motivation and determination

are almost the same as in the classroom and are not

influenced by gender. In addition, another study

about attitudes also consistent with this analysis

when data showed no significant difference

between gender and the attitude of teachers for

inclusive education (Brenner 2013; Wright 2013;

Kuester, 2000 Van Reusen et al., 2001). However,

one fact that needs to be seen is the result of a study

involving gender changing and inconsistent to one

gender. It is often associated with a place of

cultural factors (Lampropoulou & Padelliadu,

1997).

ANOVA analysis found no significant difference in

the level of self-efficacy of teachers according to

the experience of teaching students with special

needs. This shows that teachers have a high level of

efficacy and did not show a significant difference in

the level of efficacy while teaching experiences are

different. The finding is consistent with studies

Brenner (2013), which shows the mean scores

associated with efficacy levels did not differ

significantly based on years of experience.

According to Brenner (2013) again, new teachers

serving (1 to 5 years) have a high level of efficacy

in the belief that they can cope with problems based

on the knowledge acquired during their studies.

After serving several years (6 to 10 years), they will

get married and have a family. It will limit the

amount of time previously used to achieve the goals

of teaching. While this is usually their efficacy

levels will decline slightly. After the teacher

through the challenges and overcoming the

problems of family life, the level of self-efficacy

they will return high for subsequent years (11 years

and above).

ANOVA analysis showed no significant difference

in the level of attitude by the experience of teaching

students with special needs. This shows that

teachers have a moderate level of attitude and did

not show a significant difference in the level

attitude while teaching experiences are different.

The finding is in line with findings Walker (2012),

shows that the number of years of teaching


Nov. 2014. Vol. 4, No.7 ISSN 2307-227X


31

experience did not affect teachers' attitudes towards

inclusive education. Wright's study (2013),

indicates the reverse when the teachers are older,

and have experience of teaching the old inclusive

education less positive than teachers who are

younger and less teaching experience. Teachers

who have long been taught to feel burdened with

the task of improving and changing the teaching

approach in the classroom with students with

special needs.

Pearson correlation study showed no significant

relationship between self-efficacy with teachers'

attitudes towards inclusive education. Damasco

study (2013), also shows the results of this study

are nearly parallel with when found higher self-

efficacy, but their attitudes are toward the lower

level. Thompson's study (2012), nor is rather to find

a significant relationship between self-efficacy with

the attitude of mainstream primary schools to

students with special needs in inclusive classes.

Most self-efficacy studies with this attitude shows a

significant relationship between teachers with

teachers' attitudes (Bradshaw & Mundia, 2006;

Hsien, 2007; Sharma et al, 2008;). Hsien (2007)

states the key factors that support a significant

relationship between teachers with professional

training because of the attitude that has been given

to the teacher.

8. IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY

The results showed the problems faced by

mainstream teachers are not confident and do not

have the knowledge to handle students with special

needs. In order to overcome this problem, there is a

need to ensure that teachers are trained to be

successful mainstream to effective teaching in the

classroom with students' varying needs and abilities

(Almog & Shechtman, 2007; Barman et al, 2007;

DeSimone & Parmar, 2006; Jenkins & Yoshimura,

2008; Martinez & Dick, 2005; Rose et al., 2007;

Sharma et al., 2008). This statement is in

accordance with the recommendations of the MOE

(2013) to train teachers to teach in inclusive classes

on the basics of handling students with special

needs.

The successful implementation of inclusive

programs is largely dependent on the teacher to be

positive and have a high level of self-efficacy. An

effective professional development program should

be designed to meet the specific needs of the school

community, including teachers (Quick, Holtzman,

& Chaney, 2009). Almog (2008), states that the

specific professional development needs to address

concerns about the implementation of inclusive

education as teacher knowledge and implement an

appropriate approach results from studies that have

been performed. Thus, the MOE urged to not only

provide the basic training of handling special needs

students, but professional training undertaken must

be focused on student disability and implemented

intensive stages.

In addition to focusing on the training of teachers,

the MOE (2013) acknowledged the mainstream

schools have students with special needs and the

are lack of friendly facilities and technical

equipment that is limited. Therefore, a proactive

approach should be taken by the ministry to

immediately upgrade the facilities and equipment

needed by students with special needs in particular

assistive technology devices in the classroom. If

facilities for students with special needs can be met,

it will not only help students but will indirectly

increase the motivation and change to a more

positive attitude when teaching in class inclusion.

In addition, it is recommended that future studies

consider factors "antecedent" which was the cause

of high or low self-efficacy and attitudes of

teachers in enhancing the implementation of

inclusive education. There is no doubt about the

need to study a broader and deeper aspects of

demography because there are many more who

have not studied the demographics associated with

self-efficacy and attitudes of teachers, especially

research in the country.

9. CONCLUSION

Based on the findings, it is clear that there is no

significant relationship between self-efficacy of

teachers' attitudes towards inclusive education. In

addition, the analysis confirmed no significant

difference level of self-efficacy and the level of

teachers' attitudes based on gender and teaching

experience. Further results showed that self-

efficacy are high, while his teacher was at a

moderate level. Accordingly, there is a need to

undertake professional training for mainstream

teachers who teach in inclusive classes. Training is

definitely able to improve the quality of teaching,

self-efficacy and attitude to be more positive when

dealing with students with special needs in the


Nov. 2014. Vol. 4, No.7 ISSN 2307-227X


32

classroom. This is a step towards success in the

Malaysian education system as embodied in the

Girl Guides Association (2013-2025).

REFERENCES

1. Abdul Rahim Selamat. (1994). Strategi-

strategi bagi pelaksanaan ‘Inclusive

Education’ –Bengkel Kebangsaan

Pertama Pendidikan Inklusif. Seaview

Hotel, Langkawi, Kedah. 8-10 Jun.

2. Almog, O., & Shechtman, Z. (2007).

Teachers‘ democratic and efficacy beliefs

and styles of coping with behavioral

problems of pupils with special needs.

European Journal of Special Needs

Education, 22, 115–129.

3. Baker, J. & Zigmond, N. (1995). The

meaning and practice of inclusion for

students with learning disabilities: Themes

and implications from the five cases.

Journal of Special Education, 29 (2), 163-

180.

4. Barco, M.J. (2007) The relationship

between secondary general education

techers self-efficacy and attitudes as they

relate to teaching learning disabled

students in the inclusive setting (Doctoral

Dissertation). Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University.

5. Barman, B., Le Flush, K. C., Klekotka, A.,

Ludwig, M., Taylor, J., Walters, K., &

Yoon, K. S. (2007). State and local

implementation of the No Child Left

Behind Act. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/n

clb-accountability/nclbaccountability-

final.pdf.

6. Bradshaw, L., & Mundia, L. (2006).

Attitudes and concerns about inclusive

education: Bruneian inservice and

preservice teachers. International Journal

of Special Education, 21, 35–41.

7. Brenner, K. (2013). The relationship

between elementary general education

teachers’ self-efficacy and attitude change.

(Doctoral Dissertation). Northen Arizona

University.

8. Cochran, H. K. (2000, February).

Differences in teachers’ attitudes toward

inclusive education as measured by the

Scale of Teachers’ Attitudes Toward

Inclusive Classrooms (Rev. ed.). Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the

Midwestern Educational Research

Association, Chicago, IL.

9. Cook, B. G. (2002). Inclusive attitudes,

strengths, and weaknesses of pre-service

general educators enrolled in a curriculum

infusion teacher preparation program.

Teacher Education and Special Education,

25, 262-277.

10. Damasco, J. P. (2013). The relationship

between teacher self-efficacy and attitude

toward collaboration in an inclusion

setting. (Doctoral Dissertation). Capella

University.

11. DeSimone, J. R., & Parmar, R. S. (2006).

Middle school mathematics teachers‘

beliefs about inclusion of students with

learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities

Research and Practice, 21, 98–110.

12. Eiserman, W. D., Shisler, L., & Healey, S.

(1995). A community assessment of pre-

school providers' attitudes toward

inclusion. Journal of Early Intervention.

19(2), 149-167.

13. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive

schools movement and the radicalization

of special education reform. Exceptional

Children, 60, 294-309.

14. Gay, L.R., & Airasian, P. (2009).

Educational research: Competencies for

analysis and applications. (9th Ed), New

Jersey: Pearson Education.

15. Haniz Ibrahim. (1998). Inclusive

Education in Malaysia. Teacher attitudes

to change. Tesis Ph.D. Universiti Exeter.

16. Hsien, M. (2007). Teacher attitudes

towards preparation for inclusion in


http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/nclb-accountability/nclbaccountability-final.pdf



Nov. 2014. Vol. 4, No.7 ISSN 2307-227X


33

support of a unified teacher preparation

program. Journal of Educational

Research, 8, 49–60.

17. Jabatan Pendidikan Khas. (1998) Hala tuju

pendidikan khas. Kuala Lumpur; Kertas

yang tidak diterbitkan.

18. Jenkins, A. A., & Yoshimura, J. (2008).

Not another inservice! Meeting the special

education professional development needs

of elementary general educators. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 42(5), 36–43.

19. Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia (2013).

Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia

(PPPM) 2013-2025. Putrajaya:

Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

20. Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W., (1970).

Determining sample size for research

activities. Educational and Psychologal

Measurement 30,607-610.

21. Kuester, V. M. (2000). 10 Years on: Have

teacher attitudes toward the inclusion of

students with disabilities changed? Paper

presented at the ISEC 2000, London.

22. Lampropoulou, V., & Padelliadu, S.

(1997). Teachers of the Deaf as compared

with other groups of Teachers : Attitudes

toward people with disability and

inclusion. American Annals of the Deaf,

142(1), 2633.

23. Leyser, Y. & Tappendorf, K. (2001). Are

attitudes and practices regarding

mainstreaming changing? A case of

teachers in two rural school districts.

Education. 121(4), 751-760.

24. Martínez, R. S., & Dick, A. C. (2005).

Inclusion of children with disabilities in

regular classroom settings. In N. J. Salkind

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of human

development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25. Quick, H., Holtzman, D., & Chaney, K.

(2009). Professional development and

instructional practice: Conceptions and

evidence of effectiveness. Journal of

Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14,

45–71.

26. Rose, R., Kaikkonen, L., & Koiv, K.

(2007). Estonian vocational teachers‘

attitudes towards inclusive education for

students with special educational needs.

International Journal of Special

Education, 22(3), 97–108.

27. 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, 773–785.

28. Thompson, V. F. (2012). The relationship

between professional development,

efficacy, and teachers‘ attitudes toward

students with disabilities. (Doctoral

Dissertation). Walden University.

29. Tschannen-Moran, M. & Hoy, A.W.

(2001). Teacher Efficacy: Capturing An

Elusive Construct. Teaching And Teacher

Education: Vol 17: p783-805.

30. 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.

31. Walker, T.J. (2012). Attitudes and

inclusion: An examination of teachers’

attitudes towar including students with

disabilities. (Doctoral Dissertation).

Loloya University Chicago, Illinois.

32. Wright H. D. (2013). The relation between

high school teacher sense of teaching

efficacy and self-reported attitudes toward

the inclusive classroom settings. (Doctoral

Dissertation). Liberty University.

33. Zalizan, Mohd Jelas, & Noraini, Mohd

Salleh (2000, Jun). Seminar pendidikan

satu perubahan dalam paradigma

pendidikan: Institut Aminuddin Baki,

Genting Highlan


the relationship between teachers' self-efficacy and attitudes

Documents