ANTECEDENTES

conflicting results with regard to the influence of attitudes on intention of engagement with inclusive practice. Results of some of the literature indicated a positive impact of attitudes towards inclusion on intentions to engage with inclusive practice. A study by Ahmmed et al. (2014) examined to what extent attitudes towards inclusion, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control influenced teachers’ intention to engage with inclusive practice. A total of 708 primary school teachers in Dhaka completed a survey. The survey consisted of five parts: demographic information, attitude towards inclusion, self- efficacy, school support, and intentions to engage with inclusive practice. A modified version of the

School Principal’s Attitudes Towards Inclusion (SPATI, Bailey, 2004) was used to measure the

participants’ attitudes towards inclusion. Hierarchical regression was utilised to examine the impact of teachers’ background variables on the three determinants which were, attitudes towards inclusion, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. The results showed that attitudes towards inclusion had a positive impact on intentions to engage with inclusive practice (β = +.26, p < .001).

A study by Yan and Sin (2014) also found that attitudes towards inclusion had a statistically significant impact on intentions to engage with inclusive practice (β = .15, p < .01). A total of 841 teachers in Hong Kong public schools completed the survey. In this study, attitudes towards inclusion, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, intention and behaviour were included to gain a

40

comprehensive picture of intentions to engage with inclusive practice. The MATIES (Mahat, 2008) was implemented to measure intentions to engage with inclusive practice. Except for measuring intentions, a 4-point Likert scale was developed for measuring other variables guided by DeVellis (2011). A higher score indicated the respondents strongly agreed with the questions. SEM was used as the method of analysis. The results found that the respondents held less positive attitudes towards inclusion (M = 2.39). In particular, the respondents held negative attitudes to educate students with severe disabilities in the class (M = 1.68) while they held positive attitudes towards educating students with a mild disability (M = 3.09) and slightly negative attitudes towards including students with moderate disability (M = 2.38). Although they held less positive attitudes towards inclusion, there was a statistically significant positive effect of attitudes towards intentions to engage with inclusive practice (β = .15, p < .01). The researchers assumed that the respondents had less positive or negative attitudes towards including moderate or severe disabilities because of a lack of resources, low confidence and previous experience. The researchers insisted policy needs to seriously consider teachers’ readiness to implement inclusion.

Findings of a study by Batsiou et al. (2008) were similar to studies by Ahmmed et al. (2014) and Yan and Sin (2014) with regards to the impact of attitudes towards inclusion on intentions to engage with inclusive practice. A total of 87 teachers in Greece and 92 teachers in Cyprus completed a questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of eight parts: attitudes towards inclusion, subjective norms, self-identity, attitude strength, knowledge, intention, experience, and information. The questionnaire was developed by Theodorakis (1994) and based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour. An experience variable was added to the questionnaire. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used as the method of analysis. From the results, attitudes towards inclusion was correlated with intention to engage with inclusive practice (r = .55, p < .001). They suggested comparing the relationship between attitudes towards inclusion and intentions in different countries to examine whether cultural difference influences teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion and their intentions to engage with inclusive practice.

Results seemed to have differed depending on the dimensions of attitude. MacFarlane and Wolfson (2013) included belief and affective aspects of attitudes to predict teachers’ intention to engage with inclusive practice. A total of 111 respondents in Scotland completed a questionnaire consisting of six parts: background variables, attitudes towards inclusion, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control, intentions to engage with inclusive practice and actual engagement with inclusive practice. To examine the impact of attitudes on intentions, the MATIES (Mahat, 2008) and the Teachers’ Willingness to Work

with severe Disabilities Scale (TWSD; Rakap & Kaczmarek, 2010) were utilised. Standard multiple

regression was used to predict the impact of attitudes towards inclusion, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control on intentions (𝑅2 _{= .49, 𝑅}2_{> .25, 𝐹(4,105) = 24.81, p < .001). The results}

41

to engage with inclusive practice (B = .04, β = .25, p < .05). However, there was no statistically

significant impact of teachers’ affective attitude towards inclusion on intentions (B = .02, β = .08, p > .05). A study by Sharma and Jacobs (2016) had different results from the other studies. They examined in-service teachers’ intention to engage with inclusive practice and its relationship with attitudes towards inclusion, perceived behavioural control and demographic variables. A total of 349 primary and

secondary teachers in Pune city, India and 245 secondary teachers in the state of Victoria, Australia were asked to complete a survey. The Attitude towards Inclusion Scale (AIS) was developed for the study and used to examine the participants’ attitudes towards inclusion. SEM was adopted as the analysis method. For Indian respondents, attitudes towards inclusion had a statistically significant impact on intentions to engage with inclusive practice (𝑅2_{= .27, 𝑝 < .001). For Australian respondents, the result on the}

relationship between attitudes and intention were different from Indian respondents. It was found that Australian teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion did not predict intentions to engage with inclusive practice (𝑅2_{= .18, 𝑝 > .05).}