See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358573630

Attitude towards Inclusive Education among Teacher Candidates: Samples

from State Universities in Western Mindanao, Philippines

Article · February 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 621

2 authors:

Ericson Alieto Warrelen Caspillo

Western Mindanao State University Zamboanga Peninsula Polytechnic State University
47 PUBLICATIONS   545 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   7 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Project with Students View project

Mother Tongue Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Warrelen Caspillo on 15 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

Attitude towards Inclusive Education among Teacher Candidates: Samples

from State Universities in Western Mindanao, Philippines
Ericson Olario Alieto
Western Mindanao State University
[email protected]*
*Corresponding Author

Warrelen D. Caspillo
Zamboanga Peninsula Polytechnic State University

Abstract
Inclusive Education has concretized the idea that the education of children with special needs
is more of a right and an entitlement rather than an act of privilege or charity (Scanlon et al.,
2022; Singh et al., 2020). Therefore, IE should be supported by all means. One of the greatest
factors determining the success of IE is teachers’ attitude. Hence, it is important to determine
the attitude towards IE among teacher candidates who shall sooner serve at the frontline of
educational systems, and would be at the grassroots level of policy and program
implementation. This study employed a descriptive-quantitative-correlational design, and
surveyed a total of 1561 teacher candidates enrolled in universities from the Southern part of
the Philippines. The analysis of the data revealed that the respondents are manifesting
‘somehow negative’ attitude towards IE. Moreover, it was determined that there is gender
difference in the attitude towards IE with males being more ‘positive’ as compared to
females. Discussions of the findings are provided herein.

Keywords: Inclusive Education, Teacher Candidates, Mainstream Education, Attitude

Introduction
Background of the study
Education is not only important, but also is acknowledged as the ‘greatest social equalizer’
(Singh et al., 2020). It is even regarded as the means towards the attainment of ‘economic
prosperity’ (Priyadarshini & Thangarajathi, 2017, p.28). However, this would only happen if
Educational Systems welcome all children equally. If otherwise, Education would present
itself as a discriminatory tool against children from disadvantaged groups such as those with
disability (Singh et al., 2020).
Children with disabilities are noted to be the most marginalized and excluded group in any
existing society (MacKenzie et al., 2020; Savarimuthu et al., 2021). It could be implied that
learners with disabilities remain to quest for the full realization of their right to many things,
especially to education. Thus, it could be noted that children with disabilities struggle to gain
equal access to quality and appropriate education as they remain to be a group scarcely
afforded with such much needed opportunity (Priyadarshini & Thangarajathi, 2017; Singh et
al., 2020).
Not so many years ago, children with disabilities or special needs were not allowed to attend
school. Or if they were, they would not be allowed in a regular class , instead separated in a

3757
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

‘special class’, because of the belief that they could not catch up with the pace regular
students learn (Ataç & Taşçı, 2020). Hence, for countless years, children of disabilities have
experienced exclusion, discrimination, and segregation (Priyadarshini & Thangarajathi,
2017).
In recent years, however, a positive turn of events has happened. The understanding that
differently abled children are ‘capable of learning and growing equally to normal children’
(Hamid & Mohamed, 2021, p. 580) if these learners are given the necessary support (Batu &
Kırcaali-İftar, 2011; Rosales & Rosales, 2019). This alteration of mindset challenged
previous misconceptions, and has led to the increased popularity of mainstreaming (Scanlon
et al., 2022; Priyadarshini & Thangarajathi, 2017).
Such change of societal perception caused an educational reform (Ahsan, et al., 2012;
(Scanlon et al., 2022; Özokcu, 2018), and brought the emergence of Inclusive Education (IE)
which became a global trend (De Luna Velasco, 2012; Nouf et al., 2020) to ascertain
education for all (UNESCO, 2019). Hence, IE is not merely a matter of policy , but represents
a ‘complex educational ideology’ (Nouf et al., 2020, p.11) grounded on the principle that
accepts, gives importance and respects all individuals without regard for differentiation
(Ainscow, 2005). With IE, education is becoming more of a right and entitlement rather than
an act of priviledge or charity for children with special needs (Scanlon et al., 2022; Singh et
al., 2020).
Historically, the idea of IE, which means the integration of learners with disability in
mainstream education, emerged at the World Conference on Special Needs Education:
Access and Quality in the year 1994 in Salamanca, Spain (De Luna Velasco, 2012).
Moreover, there are other declarations that follow after which enhanced the movement for IE
such as the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) (Hassanein et al.,
2021). Considering the ideals upheld by IE, the move of allowing all children (normal and of
special case) to be in one classroom (Savarimuthu et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2020) should be
supported at all costs. Mind you, however, that IE is not simply about accepting children with
special needs inside a regular classroom, but also a move for appreciation and acceptance of
diversity and individuality (Priyadarshini & Thangarajathi, 2017; Singh et al., 2020).
One of the main factors to consider for the successful implementation and continuation of IE
is the attitude of educators. Notably, it has been determined by research that teachers’ attitude
determines the failure and success of Inclusive Education (Ahsan, et al., 2012; Hassanein et
al., 2021; Kurniawati et al., 2012; Nunez & Rosales, 2021; Singh, et al., 2020) because
attitude could either be a ‘great influencer’ (Todorovic et al., 2011, p. 427) or a barrier
(Unianu, 2012) - an influential factor relating to teacher practice (Alharthi & Evans, 2017;
Alieto, 2018; Ricohermoso et al., 2019). Attitude towards IE is taken to mean as the is
defined as ‘a generalized tendency to think, feel and respond towards inclusion’ (Singh et al.,
2020, p.191). Due to its identified importance as regards implementation and sustainability of
IE, teachers’ attitude towards IE is an extensively investigated area of IE (Opoku et al.,
2021).
Survey of the literature provides that numerous studies have been conducted to examine
attitude towards IE in different countries such as Kuwait (Nouf et al., 2020), Saudi Arabia
(Alharthi & Evans, 2017), Turkey (Özokcu, 2018), Bulgaria (Scanlon et al., 2022), Germany
(Spörer, 2020), Serbia (Todorovic et al., 201), Palestine (MacKenzie et al., 2020), Indonesia

3758
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

(Kurniawati et al., 2012), Romania (Unianu, 2012), Malawi (Opoku et al., 2021) India
(Priyadarshini & Thangarajathi, 2017; Savarimuthu et al., 2021; Singh et al.,, 2020),
Bangladesh (Ahsan, et al., 2012), Australia (Costello & Boyle, 2013), Algeria (Hoadjli &
Latrache, 2020), and Qatar (Hassanein et al., 2021). However, there is scarcity of research in
the said topic conducted in the Philippines specifically in the context of Western Mindanao –
a geographical setting away from the country’s capital. The need for more research conducted
in the setting of this investigation is essential as the idea of IE remains to be emerging in this
context.
Studies have disclosed different results. Savarimuthu et al. (2021) , in their study among 96
teachers assigned to teach in a suburban school in India, disclosed that the respondents are
predominantly manifesting a positive attitude towards children with disability, specifically
mental disability. The study of Singh et al. (2020, p.189) ,which surveyed a total of 108 pre-
service and in-service teachers determined through the use of quota sampling, revealed that
the teachers’ attitude towards IE was ‘moderate to a favorable level’. Hamid and Mohamed
(2021), a study with a total of 46 respondents, reported that the prospective teachers show a
positive attitude towards the IE; however, the identified attitude is associated with the
severity of disability and the nature of disability. Ahsan et al., (2012), conducted an empirical
research involving 1,623 pre-service teachers sampled across 16 teacher training institutions
in Bangladesh), disclosed that pre-service teachers have ‘moderately positive attitude’
towards IE. Costello and Boyle (2013), which surveyed 193 pre-service secondary teachers,
divulged that the respondents held positive attitude towards IE; but, the researchers noted a
downtrend in attitude which means that participants reported to be more positive towards IE
in their first year at the university as compared to their attitude in the succeeding years of
stay. Nouf et al. (2020), involving 452 pre-service teachers, informed that the respondents are
, generally, positive towards IE with note that respondents with higher training in special
education manifest ‘better’ attitude towards IE. Scanlon et al. (2022) which examined the
attitude of 922 kindergarten teachers declared that the respondents were holding a negative
affective attitude towards IE. Moreover, the same study found out that older educators
manifest less favorable affective attitude towards IE as compared to their younger
counterparts in the study.
Obviously, there exists no consensus with respect to the result of the different conducted
research works. This is taken to mean that , although there are numerous investigations
performed, the demand for the continous research in the identified area; hence, this
investigation. Furthermore, this research was conducted not with the goal of discounting
findings of previous studies; instead, to contribute to the existing literature for a more
contextualized understanding of the construct under investigation. Additionally, this study
has accounted the variable gender in the analysis of the respondents’ attitude towards IE as
inspired by previous studies (e.g., Hamid & Mohamed, 2021; Singh et al., 2020)
Therefore, first and foremost, the current empirical investigation intended to determine the
attitude towards IE of teacher candidates. Secondarily, it aimed to determine whether or not
gender is a variable influencing significant difference in the attitude towards IE of the
respondents.

3759
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

Research Questions
This empirical research on attitude towards IE among teacher candidates is given direction by
two research questions. The following are the specific questions answered in this study:
1. What is the general attitude of the respondents towards Inclusive Education?
2. Do the male respondents’ significantly differ in their attitude towards IE when compared to
female respondents of the study?
Methodology
Research Design
This present research on attitude towards IE employs a descriptive-quantitative research
design. Descriptive studies involve the processes of data collection, tabulation and analysis to
characterize a variable with use of simple statistics such as mean [M] and Standard Deviation
[SD] (Calderon, 2006 cited in Rillo & Alieto, 2018) as performed in this study – the
characterization of the respondents’ attitude towards IE. Moreover, the study is determined to
be quantitative because such design is fit for investigations which aim to quantify and
measure variables (Kothari, 2004) as in the case of this study which aimed to quantify the
latent variable attitude towards IE.
Respondents
Teacher candidates comprise the population of the study. A total of 1561 respondents were
sampled for this study which is significantly higher when compared to previous
investigations with the same respondent types, pre-service teachers (e.g., Ahsan et al., 2012;
Singh, 2020; Nouf et al., 2020).
In terms of gender distribution, the majority of the respondents are females (72.6% or 1134).
This statistics supports the claims of previous studies involving pre-service and inservice
teachers that it is a career path dominated by females (Abequibel et al., 2021; Alieto, 2019;
Alieto et al., 2019; Cabangcala et al., 2021; Buslon et al., 2020; De la Rama et al., 2020; Go
Silk et al., 2020;Torres & Alieto, 2019; Mumbing et al., 2021; Somblingo & Alieto, 2019).
In terms of age, the youngest of the respondents reported to be 18, while the oldest disclosed
to be 34 , and the mean age is 21.12 (SD-2.34). The large standard deviation suggests that the
age of the respondents is dispersed. This is so because the sample pre-service teachers were
from first year to fourth year, and some were second coursers (those who took a different
undergraduate degree prior to taking an education course).
Research Instrument
Creswell (2012) discussed that, for the quantification of a variable in a quantitative study, a
research tool or instrument is needed. Moreover, the use of research instruments in
quantitative design appears to be a long-favored technique among scholars. Informed by this
claim, the study adopted the questionnaire named Teachers’ Attitudes towards Inclusive
Education (TAIS) developed by Saloviita (2015). The said instrument was originally
intended for pre-service teachers, to measure their attitude towards IE. However, the same
instrument was also utilized by scholars to survey in-service teachers (e.g., Hoadjli &
Latrache, 2020). The instrument was a 10-item tool answerable with a five-point Likert scale

3760
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

– 1 for strongly disagree, 2 for disagree, 3 for neither agree nor disagree, 4 for agree, and 5
for strongly agree. Out of the 10 items, six are negative statements. The instrument was
declared to bear a reliability score α = 0.90.
Results
Respondents’ Attitude towards Inclusive Education
For the descriptive analysis to become possible, the responses were first coded. The mean
was given interpretation with the developed scale utilizing equal intervals (1.0 to 1.79 for
Negative Attitude [NA], 1.8 to 2.59 for Somehow Negative Attitude [SNA], 2.6 to 3.39 for
Neutral [N], 3.4 to 4.19 for Somehow Positive [SP], and 4.2 to 5.0 for Positive Attitude
[PA]). Included in the presentation in Table 1 are descriptive statistics limited to minimum
[Min.], maximum [Max.], mean [M], standard deviation [SD], and interpretation [Interp.].
Table 1.0
Variable Min. Max. Mean SD Interpretation
Positive Items 1 5 3.12 1.34 Neutral
Somehow Negative
Negative Items 1 4.50 1.81 0.63
Attitude
Overall Attitude towards Inclusive Somehow Negative
1 4.40 2.34 0.70
Education Attitude
N- 1561

Table 1 presents the descriptive analysis of the data set using SPSS. The analysis revealed
that the respondents manifest a ‘somehow negative attitude’ towards IE. Moreover, it could
be noted from the result that the respondents, with respect to the positive items of the
instrument, expressed ‘neutrality’. Meaning they neither agree nor disagree with the items
advancing or favoring IE. On the contrary, as regards the negative items which do not favor
mainstreaming, the respondents , on the average, expressed agreement to these items.
Descriptive analysis of responses on positive statements in the questionnaire
Presented in Table 1.1 are the answers of the respondents for the positive items in the
questionnaire. For the positive statements towards IE, the code of 1 for strongly disagree
[SD], 2 for disagree [D], 3 for neither agree nor disagree (neutral [N]), 4 for agree [A], and 5
for strongly agree [SA] was used.
Table 1.1
Respondents’ Responses on Positive Statements
Responses
Items SD D N A SA M Des.
f % f % f % f % f %
#2 385 24.7 280 17.9 105 6.7 364 23.3 427 27.4 3.10
#4 364 23.3 245 15.7 161 10.3 378 24.2 413 26.5 3.15 Neutral
#7 350 22.4 287 18.4 196 12.6 364 23.3 364 23.3 3.07 Attitude
# 10 322 20.6 322 20.6 147 9.4 329 21.1 441 28.1 3.16
Scale: 1.0 to 1.79 (SD), 1.8 to 2.59 (D), 2.6 to 3.39 [N], 3.4 to 4.19 (SA), and 4.2 to 5.0 (A)

From the Table above, it could be gleaned that, when the responses were descriptively
analyzed, the mean score is interpreted to be neutral. This does not however mean that most
of the respondents answered option 3 (for neutral). Instead, it could be noticed that

3761
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

consistently, across the four positive items of the instrument, nearly a quarter and a little
more than a quarter of the respondents reported ‘strongly agree’ with the items supporting
mainstream education. However, nearly a quarter as well responded ‘strongly disagree’ with
the same question. The polarized responses resulted in an overall neutral attitude. These
extreme responses have resulted in the identified finding. Moreover, it could be noted that
among the four positive statements, it is item 10 that is most positively rated. Noticeably, it is
the item which was well-rated by the respondents with 329 or 21.1% who reported to ‘agree’
with the statement and 441 or 28.1% who reported to ‘strongly agree’ with the statement. On
another hand, it could be noted that it is item number 2 which gained the highest frequency
count (385 or 24.7%) for the response ‘strongly disagree’.

Descriptive analysis of responses on negative statements in the questionnaire

Presented in Table 1.2 are the responses of the respondents to the six negative items in the
questionnaire. For the negative statements towards IE, the code of 5 for strongly disagree
[SD], 4 for disagree [D], 3 for neither agree nor disagree (neutral [N]), 2 for agree [A], and 1
for strongly agree [SA] was used. Obviously, reversed coding was employed for the negative
statements.

Table 1.2
Respondents’ Responses on Negative Statements
Responses
Items SA A N D SD M Interp.
f % f % f % f % f %
#1 1015 65.0 427 27.4 91 5.8 14 0.9 14 0.9 1.45 Negative
#3 1015 65.0 399 25.6 77 4.9 56 3.6 14 0.9 1.50 Negative
Somehow
#5 434 27.8 574 36.8 427 27.4 98 6.3 28 1.8 2.17
Negative
#6 952 61.0 420 26.9 126 8.1 35 2.2 28 1.8 1.57 Negative
Somehow
#8 413 26.5 707 45.3 322 20.6 70 4.5 49 3.1 2.13
Negative
Somehow
#9 567 36.3 511 32.7 329 21.1 119 7.6 35 2.2 2.07
Negative
Scale: 1.0 to 1.79 (SA), 1.8 to 2.59 (A), 2.6 to 3.39 [N], 3.4 to 4.19 (D), and 4.2 to 5.0 (SD)

From the above Table, it could be noted that in three items (1, 3, and 6) more than half of the
respondents answered ‘strongly agree’. This means that most of the respondents ‘strongly
agree’ to statements that do not favor IE which is especially true with items 1 and 3. It is also
worth noting that for the negative items, most respondents only choose between agree and
strongly agree which means that the majority of the pre-service teachers do not favor the
mainstreaming of IE, suggesting a negative attitude towards IE.
Attitude towards Inclusive Education: Gender Differences
Gender in this study was operationalized to refer to the binary categorization of being a male
or female. This practice has consistently been noticed across different studies (Antonio et al.,
2020; Bacang et al., 2019; Horton-Ramos, 2020; Ricohermoso, 2021).
To determine whether or not male respondents significantly differ in their attitude towards IE
when compared to their female counterparts, the data set was analyzed employing the

3762
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

inferential statistics known as Independent samples T-test. Table 2 presents the analysis.
Codes: agree [A], somehow agree [SA], neither agree nor disagree (neutral) [N], and SNA
[Somehow Negative Attitude].
Table 2.0
Attitude towards IE across gender groupings
Variables
Mean SD Desc. Sig. (2-tailed)
Dependent Independent
Male 1.90 0.68 A
Negative Items 0.056
Female 1.78 0.60 SA
Male 3.23 1.31 N
Positive Items 0.002*
Female 3.08 1.35 N
Overall Attitude towards Male 2.43 0.72
SNA 0.001*
Inclusive Education Female 2.30 0.69
*significant at alpha = 0.05

From the Table above, it could be observed that for the negative statements although there is
difference in the extent of agreement of the respondents, as suggested by the mean difference
of 0.12 favoring the females, the difference is acknowledged to be not statistically significant
(p-value = 0.056 > α = 0.05), with the males manifesting a ‘somehow negative attitude’ and
the females showing a ‘negative attitude’ towards IE. For the positive items, it was revealed
that there is a significant difference (p-value = 0.002 < α = 0.05) with the males being more
neutral in terms of take and stance as regards the different items promoting or advancing IE.
Overall, the females significantly differ in terms of attitude towards IE (p-value = 0.001 < α =
0.05). The males were found to significantly manifest ‘better’ attitude towards IE as
compared to the females in the study (mean difference = 0.13). This means that gender is a
variable influencing attitude towards IE.
Gender Difference on responses across positive statements
Independent Samples T-test was used as treatment for the data set drawn as responses for the
different positive statements to determine whether or not the male and female of the study
significantly differ.
Table 2.1
Gender Differences across responses on positive items of the instrument
Variables Sig.
# Mean SD
Positive Items Gender (2-tailed)
The education of children with emotional and Male 3.180 1.56
behavioural problems should be arranged in
2 0.262
mainstream classrooms with the provision of Female 3.080 1.58
adequate support.
Children with attention deficit/hyperactive Male 3.426 1.48
4 disorder (ADHD) should be admitted in 0.000*
Female 3.043 1.55
mainstream classrooms with adequate support.
The education of students with special educational Male 3.197 1.45
7 needs should be arranged as far as possible in 0.036**
Female 3.018 1.51
mainstream classrooms.
The learning of children with special educational Male 3.098 1.47
10 0.354
needs can be effectively supported in mainstream Female 3.179 1.56

3763
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

classrooms as well.
*Significant at alpha = 0.01 , ** Significant at alpha = 0.05

Table 2.1 provides the inferential analysis of the data. It could be noticed that among the four
items the respondents’ extent of agreement significantly differ only in two items, number 4
(p-value = 0.000 < α = 0.01) and number 7 (p-value = 0.036 < α = 0.05). Consistently, for
both items supporting IE, the males reported to be ‘more in agreement’ than the females in
the study, suggesting that the males are more in favor of IE than the females.
Gender Difference on responses across positive statements

Independent Samples T-test was used as treatment for the data set drawn as responses for the
different positive statements to determine whether or not the male and female of the study
significantly differ.

Table 2.1
Gender Differences across responses on negative items of the instrument
Variables Sig.
# Mean SD
Negative Items Gender (2-tailed)
Children with special educational needs learn best in Male 1.508 0.69
1 their own special education classes where they have 0.065
Female 1.432 0.74
specially trained teachers.
It is the right of a child with special educational Male 1.639 0.92
3 0.000*
needs to get into a special education classroom. Female 1.444 0.77
Teachers' workload should not be augmented by Male 2.262 1.07
5 compelling them to accept children with special 0.041**
Female 2.142 0.93
educational needs in their classrooms.
The best result is achieved if each child with special Male 1.704 1.04
6 educational needs is placed in a special education 0.001**
Female 1.518 0.79
classroom that best suits him/her.
Integrated children with special educational needs Male 2.114 1.03
8 create extra work for teachers in mainstream 0.785
Female 2.129 0.93
classrooms.
A child with special educational needs should be Male 2.163 1.16
9 moved to a special education classroom in order not 0.036**
Female 2.030 0.98
to violate his/her legal rights.
*Significant at alpha = 0.01, ** Significant at alpha = 0.05

From the above Table, it could be noted that in four items, the male and female respondents
significantly differ in their extent of agreement to the negative items in the questionnaire. It
could be noted that for items 3 [p-value = 0.000 < α = 0.01], 5 [p-value = 0.041< α = 0.05], 6
[p-value = 0.001< α = 0.05], and 9 [p-value = 0.036< α = 0.05] the female respondents were
significantly more favoring statements which do not support IE.
Discussion
This study embarked on investigating the attitude towards IE of teacher candidates, noting
that attitude is a factor influencing the success of IE. The study reveals that the respondents
manifest a ‘somehow negative’ attitude towards IE. It was found out that the respondents , as
a whole, take a neutral stance with respect to the different statements promoting IE. However,
the respondents, in general, are in agreement with statements that do not favor IE. This

3764
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

finding is unique when referenced with other studies (e.g., Ahsan et al., 2012; Costello &
Boyle, 2013; Hamid & Mohamed, 2021; Singh et al., 2020) which reported respondents to
bear an attitude that is leaning towards being positive. On the contrary, the study confirms the
findings of Scanlon et al. (2022) which disclosed that respondents held a negative attitude
toward IE. This result implies that although IE is a global trend it remains to be an emerging
concept in the context of the study. It then could be deduced that the teacher candidates of the
different universities remain to gain much understanding about IE and its importance. It is
remarked that from the sampled institutions only one offers a special education program. The
limited offering of the said program suggests that there is scarcity of promotion of the
understanding and awareness of advocacies backing IE among HEIs in the region.
The study further found out that the females are possessing less favorable attitudes towards
IE as compared to their male counterparts. When it comes to ideas supporting IE, the female
respondents are more ‘neutral’ than male respondents. This finding is not supported by the
results of previously conducted investigations such as that of Orakcı et al. (2016) which
disclosed that gender has no influence on the attitude towards IE. However, in the case of this
study, analysis of the data proved that gender is a factor influencing differences in attitude
toward IE with the females less supportive of IE. It was consistently found out that the
females significantly differ in their extent of agreement with statements that do not support
IE.
Overall, the findings of the study provides essential understanding that the quest for IE has
not yet been won. It may have become popular among nations, but among many would-be
teachers educated in non-metropolitan academic institutions appear to remain indifferent
toward such a noble cause. Regrettably, it is deduced that teacher candidates with a negative
attitude towards IE would likely soon become in-service teachers opposing mainstreaming.
The advocacy known as Education for All should be won first inside the classrooms.
Because, it is there where lasting results and revolutionary activities come from. A changed
world must begin with changing the perspective of those who are molding the minds of the
young. Thus, this study does not only reveal a result, but also flashes a warning to all
concerned. And, suggesting that there should be something done to influence and make
positive the attitude of future educators towards IE.
References
1. Abequibel, B., Ricohermoso, C., Alieto, E., Barredo, C., & Lucas, R.I. (2021).
Prospective Reading Teachers’ Digital Reading Habit: A Cross-sectional Design.
TESOL International Journal, 16(4.4), 246-260.
2. Ahsan, M.T., Sharma, U., & Deppeler , J. (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.
3. Ainscow, M. (2005). Developing inclusive education systems: what are the levers for
change? Journal of Educational Change, 6, 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-
005-1298-4.
4. Alharthi, N. & Evans, D. (2017). Special Education Teachers’ Attitudes Towards
Teaching Students With Learning Disabilities in Middle Schools In Saudi Arabia.
International Journal of Modern Education Studies, 1(1), 1-15.

3765
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

5. Alieto, E. (2018). Language shift from English to Mother Tongue: Exploring language
attitude and willingness to teach among pre-service teachers. TESOL International
Journal, 13(3), 134-146.
6. Alieto, E. (2019). Cognition as predictor of willingness to teach in the Mother Tongue
and the Mother Tongue as a subject among prospective language teachers. Science
International (Lahore), 31(1), 135-139.
7. Alieto, E., Abequibel, B., & Ricohermoso, C. (2020). An Investigation on Digital and
Print Reading Attitudes: Samples from Filipino Preservice Teachers from a Non-
metropolitan-based University. Asian EFL, 27(4.3), 278-311.
8. Alieto, E., Devanadera, A., & Buslon, J. (2019). Women of K-12: Exploring teachers'
cognition in language policy implementation. Asian EFL Journal, 24(4.1), 143-162.
9. Antonio, A., Probitchado, R., Ricohermoso, C., Saavedra, A., & Dela Rama, J.M. (2020).
Gender Differences in Technological Competence among Science Teachers:.
International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(7), 13257-13268.
10. Ataç, B.A. & Taşçı, S. (2020). An investigation of prospective language teachers’
knowledge and attitudes towards inclusive education in Turkey. International Journal of
Curriculum and Instruction, 12(2), 359-373.
11. Bacang, B., Rillo, R., & Alieto, E. (2019). The Gender Construct in the Use of Rhetorical
Appeals, Hedges and Boosters in ESL Writing: A Discourse Analysis. Asian EFL
Journal, 25 (5.2), 210-224.
12. Batu, S. & Kırcaali-İftar, G. (2011). Kaynaştırma. Ankara: KÖK Yayıncılık.
13. Buslon, J. , Alieto, E., Pahulaya, V., & Reyes, A. (2020). Gender Divide in Attitude
towards Chavacano and Cognition towards Mother Tongue among Prospective Language
Teachers . Asian EFL, 27 (3.1), 41-64.
14. Cabangcala, R., Alieto, E., Estigoy, E., Delos Santos, M., & Torres, J. (2021). When
Language Learning Suddenly Becomes Online: Analyzing English as Second Language
Learners' (ELLs) Attitude and Technological Competence. TESOL International Journal,
16(4.3), 115-131.
15. Calderon, J. (2006). Methods of research and thesis writing (2nd Ed.). Mandaluyong
City: National Bookstore.
16. Costello, S. & Boyle , C. (2013). Pre-service Secondary Teachers’ Attitudes Towards
Inclusive Education . Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 129-143.
17. Creswell, J. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th Edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
18. De Luna Velasco, L. (2012). University practice as a key factor in increasing the
sensitivity to Educational Inclusion. Contemporary Issues In Education Research, 5(5),
379-382.
19. Dela Rama, J.M., Sabasales, M., Antonio, A., Ricohermoso, C., Torres, J., Devanadera,
A., Tulio, C., & Alieto, E. (2020). Virtual Teaching as the 'New Norm' : Analyzing
Science Teachers' Attitude toward Online Teaching, Technological Competence and
Access. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(7), 12705-
12715.
20. Go Silk, B., Medriano, R., Dela Cruz, S.B., Deran, J.J., Alieto, E., Abdon, M., Rillo, R.,
& Lucas, R.I. (2020). Cognition toward the Mother Tongue, Attitude toward English,

3766
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

Chavacano, and Filipino: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach with Bootstrap

Analysis. Asian ESP, 16(1.2), 5-28.
21. Hamid, M. & Mohamed, N.I. (2021). Empirical investigation into teachers’ attitudes
towards inclusive education: A study of future faculty of Qatari schools. Cypriot Journal
of Educational Sciences, 16(2), 580-593.
22. Hassanein, E. E. A., Alshaboul, Y. M., & Ibrahim, S. (2021). The impact of teacher
preparation on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education in Qatar.
Heliyon, 7(9), e07925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07925.
23. Hoadjli, A.C. & Latrache, K. (2020). Teachers’ Attitude towards Inclusive Education:
The Case of Algerian Middle School Teachers of English. English Language Teaching,
13(10), 129-138.
24. Horton-Ramos, M. (2020). Reading in the digitized era: Analyzing ESL graduate
students' e-reading habit. Asian EFL, 27(1), 67-85.
25. Kothari, C. . (2004). Research Methodology (Second Revised Edition). New Delhi: New
Age International Publisher.
26. Kurniawati, F., Minnaert, A., Mangunsong, F., & Ahmed, W. . (2012). Empirical Study
on Primary School Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusive Education in Jakarta,
Indonesia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1430–1436.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.082.
27. MacKenzie, A., Bower, C., & Owaineh, M. (2020). Gratitude versus children’s rights:
An exploration mothers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive education in Palestine.
International Journal of Educational Research Open, 1, 100001.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2020.100001.
28. Mumbing, L., Abequibel, B., Buslon, J., & Alieto, E. (2021). Digital Education, the New
Frontier: Determining Attitude and Technological Competence of Language Teachers
from a Developing Country. Asian ESP Journal, 17(4.3), 300-328.
29. Nouf, A., Bader, A., & Abbas, Z. (2020). Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitudes Towards
Including Students with Moderate Learning Difficulties in Mainstream Schools in the
Context of Kuwait . International Education Studies, 13(2), 11-20.
30. Nunez, R. & Rosales, S. (2021). Inclusive Education: Perceptions and attitudes among
Filipino high school teachers. The Asian ESP, 17(6.1), 151-172.
31. Opoku, M.P., Jiya, A.N., Kanyinji , R.C., & Nketsia, W. (2021). An exploration of
primary teachers' attitudes towards inclusive education, retention, and job satisfaction in
Malawi. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 17(1), 30-61.
32. Orakcı, S., Aktan, O., Toraman, C., & Çevik, H. (2016). The Influence of Gender and
Special Education Training on Attitudes towards Inclusion. International Journal of
Instruction, 9(2), 108-122. doi: 10.12973/iji.2016.928a.
33. Özokcu, O. (2018). The Relationship Between Teacher Attitude and Self-Efficacy for
Inclusive Practices in Turkey. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 6(3), 6-12.
https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v6i3.3034.
34. Priyadarshini, S.S. & Thangarajathi, S. . (2017). Effect of selected variables on regular
school teachers' attitude towards Inclusive Education. i-manager’s Journal on
Educational Psychology, 10(3), 28-38.

3767
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol.37, No.3, 2022

35. Ricohermoso, C. (2021). Entering the Digital Classroom, Leaving the Physical One:
Analyzing Teachers' Attitude toward Virtual Teaching, Technological Competence and
Willingness. The Asian ESP Journal, 17(6.1), 201-223.
36. Ricohermoso, C., Abequibel, B., & Alieto, E. (2019). Attitude towards English and
Filipino as correlates of cognition toward Mother Tongue: An analysis among would-be
language teachers. Asian EFL Journal, 26(6.1), 5-22.
37. Rillo, R. & Alieto, E. (2018). Indirectness Markers in Korean and Persian English
Essays: Implications for Teaching Writing to EFL Learners. English as an International
Journal, 13(2.2), 165-184.
38. Rosales, S. & Rosales, E. (2019). Inclusive Education Program for persons with
disabilities : Insights and Lived Experiences of Stakeholders. Sci.Int.(Lahore), 31(4),631-
636.
39. 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.
40. Savarimuthu, M.K., Innamuri, R., Tsheringla, S., Shonima, A.V., Mammen, P.M.,
Alwinneshe, M., Russell, S., & Kuppuraj, J. (2021). A Retrospective Audit (Paper A)
and the Effects of Educational Intervention (Paper B) on Attitudes towards Inclusive
Education in School teachers. International Journal of Education, 9(2), 141-149.
https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v9i2.3577.
41. Scanlon, G., Radeva, S., Pitsia, V., Maguire, C., & Nikolaeva, S. (2022). Attitudes of
teachers in Bulgarian kindergartens towards inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 112, 103650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103650.
42. Singh, S., Kumar, S. & Singh, R.K. (2020). A study of attitude of teachers towards
Inclusive Education. International Journal of Education, 189-197.
43. Somblingo,R., & Alieto, E. (2019). English language attitude among Filipino prospective
language teachers: An analysis through the Mentalist theoretical lens. The Asian ESP
Journal, 15(2), 23-41.
44. Spörer, N., Lenkeit, J., Bosse, S., Hartmann, A., Ehlert, A., & Knigge, M. (2020).
Students’ perspective on inclusion: Relations of attitudes towards inclusive education
and self-perceptions of peer relations. International Journal of Educational Research,
103, 101641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101641.
45. Todorovic, J., Stojiljkovic, S., Ristanic, S., & Djigic, G. (2011). Attitudes towards
Inclusive Education and Dimensions of Teacher’s Personality. . Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 29, 426–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.259.
46. Torres, J., & Alieto, E. (2019). Acceptability of Philippine English grammatical and
lexical items among pre-service teachers. Asian EFL Journal, 21(2.3), 158-181.
47. UNESCO. (2019). Inclusive education: The way of the future. Paris: UNESCO.
48. Unianu, E. M. . (2012). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33, 900–904.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.252.
49. Yogesh Hole et al 2019 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 1362 012121

3768

View publication stats