Social inclusion and intercultural values in a school of education

518

Chapter 20

Social Inclusion and
Intercultural Values in a
School of Education
Olga M. Alegre de la Rosa
University of La Laguna, Spain
Luis M. Villar Angulo
University of Seville, Spain

ABSTRACT
The aim of the study was to analyze the contextual and personal factors associated with student teachers’
inclusive and intercultural values to minimize barriers to learning and participation. It also examined
the role higher education played as a facilitator of social inclusion. Method. The sample was comprised
of 1234 university students. Researchers applied the Guide Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2000)
composed of three dimensions: Culture, Politics and Inclusive Practices. Positive elements emphasized
the gender variable with highly significant scores on all dimensions. Besides, younger students with no
cooperation between teachers and families didn’t collaborate between teachers and family to promote
inclusive attitudes. Moreover, it was noted that experience increases to more predisposition to the inclusion and recognition of barriers to learning and participation. As a conclusion, it was recognized that
the principles of social inclusion may be influenced by variables such as gender, age, cultural experience
and experience with people.

INTRODUCTION
Diversity is an inherent quality in human beings; consequently, each person thinks, feels and acts in a
specific way in their lives. That mentioned diversity is expressed naturally in educational groups according to students’ capacities, needs, interests, maturing rate and socio-cultural situations, among others.
Education authorities must equalise students’ opportunities regardless of their personal or social situation in order to allow them to achieve a complete development of their potentials which will let them
be thoroughly part of the society. According to Pérez and Sarrate (2013), the university is an institution
highly valued by students because it facilitates cultural, social and labour promotion, and since it impulses inclusive education. From this point of view, the university must help in training those pre-service
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0672-0.ch020

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.



Social Inclusion and Intercultural Values in a School of Education

university teachers which make them able to prevent and give answers to students’ needs. This approach
is related to teacher professionalism, motivation and continuous training, whereas working to promote
inclusion in education is arranged as a way to answer to school diversity.
How teachers approach their educational work towards their students responds to the concept barriers for the inclusion was first developed by Booth and Aisncow (2000). This concept emphasises a
contextual or social perspective on learning difficulties or disability, placing them between students and
their context interaction: social and economic situations, educational policy and culture among schools.
The shortage of teachers who are qualified in inclusiveness complicates the quality of the education students receive, regardless of its type: religious or linguistic diversity, lack of culture or related
to gender, different abilities, or use of various cognitive types (Alegre, 2006). The limited attention to
student attitudes and especially to student diversity is part of the problem of an inclusive and intercultural
education (Lalueza & Crespo, 2012).
In this sense, the authors’ aim was to know the attitudes towards inclusiveness and interculturality
of students of the Degrees in Preschool Education, Primary Education and Pedagogy at the School of
Education of La Laguna, since they were going to be teachers and/or career advisers, and they could
improve inclusive culture and integrative practice at school (Booth & Ainscow, 2000). Likewise, the fact
of having carried out the study about future professionals in education allows authors to investigate the
role of personal attitudes in the teacher training process, and to see if these attitudes will be modified
during his or her university progress, affecting their school students (Antoniou & Kyriakides, 2013).
The study has taking place with primary and secondary school children (Darretxe, Goikoetxea, &
Fernández, 2013; Furuta & Alwis, 2013; Roselló, 2010) and with university student teachers (Chireshe,
2011; Lambe, 2007; Sánchez, 2011). This work has been held on the Canary Islands, in particular on Tenerife, because it is a very important area placed between three different continents (Wedell, 2005, 2008),
maximising changes in order to make inclusive attitudes more effective (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).

BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Future teachers’ attitude in any part of the world is seen as an essential concept for a better educational
practice and policy, which progress to inclusiveness and respect towards the existing diversity (Delgado,
2003; Rajovic & Jovanovic, 2013). To manage this success will depend on the positive attitudes professionals in education have related to inclusiveness of any special educational needs (Doménech, Esbrí,
González, & Miret, 2003).
In order to find a solution to these problems, it is necessary to change not only teacher training programs (Costello & Boyle, 2013), but also to analyse factors that might impact upon teacher approval of
the inclusive principle and use of different and appropriate methodologies to make everyone feel included
(Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).
The above-mentioned needs are not new, as inclusiveness has been consolidated in the philosophical
basis used by Warnock’s inform (1978), in the role of incorporating families in the education of children
(Esquivel, 1995), and in current approaches of the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2000), as
positive mindsets to take.
Through these approaches and thanks to the combination of tools and resources used in the process
of inclusiveness development at school, the interest is focused on how professionals in education mature
and develop their own attitudes towards students, in order to help those students to build significant
519



Social Inclusion and Intercultural Values in a School of Education

meanings, which let everyone’s integration. In this way, inclusiveness becomes a valuable device system to make appropriate school programs and practices to cover students’ educational needs with their
schoolwork, communication or behavior (De Boer, Pijl, Minnaert, & Post, 2014; Sentenac, Ehlinger,
Michelsen, Marcelli, Dickinson, & Arnaud, 2013).
According to Idol’s idea (2006), this does not mean students with higher educational needs should
receive an academic curriculum which is different to the rest of students, as for inclusiveness only happens when students with learning difficulties or disabilities receive the complete academic curriculum
from the general education programme. The author emphasized that inclusive attitudes are reinforced
by beliefs in a highly attractive whole group.
Current contributions related to inclusive education (Alegre & Villar, 2010; Poon-McBrayer & Wong,
2013; Unianu, 2011; Verdugo, 2009; Vlachou, Didaskalou, & Voudorri, 2009; Wehmeyer, 2009) have
shown that inclusiveness demand an analysis of change processes and a follow-up of educational cognitive, physical, emotional and cultural practices, and most important of all suggestions for home-to-school

connections and real life classroom settings improvement.
Symeonidou and Phtiaka (2009) have carried out an analysis of inclusive and intercultural education
through training courses for teachers related to the change of attitudes via educational practice. In this
sense, the aim of inclusive education was to enlarge values that lead to the improvement and development of a secure, educational, integrated and conciliatory community. Those inclusive values must be
common among teachers, students and families as a model to enrich the school setting.
It is also necessary to know about how student teachers assume school children inclusiveness and
integration, being essential to deal with those two concepts from a wider perspective, which takes into
account a culture of school transformation to look after diversity and current student educational needs,
such as reading, writing, number work or understanding information expressing themselves or understanding what others are saying.
This culture, in support of engaging students who seem unreachable, and for diversity of learning
activities must develop cooperative, plural and respectful attitudes and behaviours, regardless of student
origin or their physical, psychological or social condition (Alegre, 2012). Examining future teacher
attitudes helps in knowing the process of inclusive-attitude constructions in students, facilitating that
production of meanings that let everyone’s integration. These concepts on developing intrinsic motivation
where analysed by Alegre and Villar (2010). Their work was focusing on how skilled teachers think and
concluded that teachers’ positive attitudes were key points for developing a right climate for inclusive
and intercultural education.
According to Essomba (2008), the search of an inter and multicultural awareness are outlined among
ten challenge questions and also ten key ideas presented to teachers concerning people immigration,
civil rights, social reality, linguistic projects, intercultural curriculum, identity construction, religious
practices, cooperation, school community, and racism.

TENTATIVE HYPOTHESIS
Tentative hypothesis of this study was designed to increase the knowledge on how demographic variables such as gender, age, contact with different people and intercultural factors affect the acceptance
of principles of social inclusiveness by university student teachers.

520




Social Inclusion and Intercultural Values in a School of Education

MAIN FOCUS OF THE CHAPTER
Sample Issue
The sample was composed of 1234 individuals of the 1st and the 3rd year of Degree in Pre-school Education
(PSED), Degree in Primary Education (PE) and Degree in Pedagogy (P) from the School of Education
at the University of La Laguna.
Variables like gender, age, credentials, year of studies and experience in special and intercultural education were taken into account. The students selected for the sample were at their 1st year – because those
have been students for a shorter period of time – and 3rd year of university studies – because it was the
last set up year on progress. The sample was tried to be intentionally similar among the different degrees.
Women percentage (n= 927, 75.1%) was higher than men percentage (n=307, 24.9%). Regarding
degrees, the highest weight was for PE (37.8%), followed by PSED (35%) and P (27.1%). Ages varied
between 18-22 years (n= 790, 64%), 23-27 years (n= 329, 26.7%), 28-32 years (n= 64, 5.2%), 33-40 years
(n= 44, 3.6%), 41 years or more (n= 7, 0.6%). 55.2% of students was on the first stage and 44.8% was
on the second stage. On the one hand, the obtained information indicated that most part of students did
not have experience – or have a short period of experience, between 0-3 years (n= 1177, 95.4%) – in the
intercultural field. On the other hand, there was a low percentage of students with experience, between
4-8- years (n= 56, 4.5%). Related to experience and/or contact with disable people, 97.3% (n= 1201)
answered they had had experience for about 0-3 years, while 2.7% (n= 33) had had it for about 4-8 years.

Debate: Instrument Selection
The instrument used for this work was a questionnaire adapted from the guide Index for Inclusion
(Booth & Ainscow, 2000), called Questionnaire about Attitudes towards Inclusion and Interculturality
(QAII), validated adaptation in previous studies by Alegre and Villar (2012) and initially suggested as
a programme by Booth and Ainscow (2000).

Controversies: Validity of Measures
The questionnaire QAII measured attitudes in students and their conceptualization of inclusiveness
and interculturality, thanks to 45 items, classified in the three dimensions of Index for Inclusion (Booth
& Ainscow, 2000) and designed in a Likert scale of four alternatives (1= Not important; 2= Not very

important; 3= Important; 4= Very important). The three dimensions of QAII are the following:
•
•

•

Creating Inclusive Culture: 13 items composed this dimension. Its objective is to impulse values
to improve and develop a secure community. This dimension is divided into two sections: Building
community and Establishing inclusive values.
Producing Inclusive Policies: 15 items constitute this dimension. Its objective is a demand as a
guaranteed success in measures and implication of teachers in order to secure student inclusiveness. This dimension is distributed in two sections: Developing the school for all and Organising
support for diversity.
Involving Inclusive Practices: 17 items comprise this dimension. Its objective is to advance forward in collaboration, cooperation and implication of the educational community. This dimension
is split in two sections: Orchestrating learning and Mobilising resources.

521



Social Inclusion and Intercultural Values in a School of Education

Table 1. Distribution of dimensions, sections and items
Dimensions

Sections

Distribution of items

Reliability

TD

.669

.400

Inclusive
culture

Building community

1,2,3,4,5,6,7.

Establishing inclusive values

8,9,10,11,12,13.

.590

.421

Inclusive
policies

Developing the school for all

14,15,16,17,18,19.

.673

.399

Organizing support for diversity

20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28.

.665

.489

Inclusive
practices

Orchestrating learning

29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,
39,40.

.811

.389

Mobilizing resources

41,42,43,44,45.

.757

.471

The questionnaire was anonymous and voluntary. It was given to the whole sample of individuals
and it was completed during teaching classes’ timetable.
The QAII analysis was made through the statistics software package SPSS (v. 19). A descriptive
analysis was carried out through ANOVA and t of Student for each of the items used on the sample of
individuals. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for reliability was obtained for QAII (.919), which guaranteed
exploratory research of student attitudes. Likewise, reliability coefficient of each section of the Index for
Inclusion (see Table 1) was calculated and showed that Orchestrating learning was noticeably higher (α
= .811), followed by Mobilising resources (α = .757).

Demographic Problem Results: Descriptive and Inference
Analysis of Questionnaire QAII Dimensions
Related to students’ age, some differences were found among higher punctuations depending on the
section used in QAII. Establishing inclusive values obtained the highest punctuation on average among
41 years old or more (M= 3.74; TD= .406) and also among 33-44 years old (M= 3.64; TD= .348). On
the contrary, the lowest punctuations were seen in Organising support for diversity among 18-22 years
old (M= 3.32; TD= .456) and among 23-27 years old (M= 3.44; TD= .446) (see figure 1). The highest
punctuation is in the section called Developing the school for all among people who are 33-40 years
old (M=3.63; TD= .397), 41 years old or more (M= 3.59; TD= .251), 23-27 years old (M= 3.57; TD=
.391), 28-32 years old (M= 3.47; TD= .476), and 18-22 years old (M= 3.54; TD= .391).
Taking gender into account (Figure 2), the highest values in women were in Developing the school for
all (M= 3.60; TD= .386). Likewise, there were similar values in men (M= 3.40; TD= .462). In general,
punctuation in both, women and men, showed positive attitudes towards inclusiveness and interculturality, being the lowest values on average those from the section Organising support for diversity, not only
for men (M= 3.41; TD= .477), but also for women (M= 3.24; TD= .441).
Regarding intercultural experience, the sample with 4-6 years of experience had obtained a higher
average on all sections, standing out results obtained in the necessity and importance of mobilising resources (M= 3.65; TD= .434). The lowest average punctuations were found in Organising support for
diversity, among students in the sample with 0-3 years of experience (M= 3.30; TD= .456).
Lastly, and related to experience and contact with disable people, the statistic sample obtained was
97.3% of students have had a limited experience, the most relevant average punctuations were found
in Building community among people with 4-6 years of experience (M= 3.78; TD= .782) and in the

522



Social Inclusion and Intercultural Values in a School of Education

Figure 1. Average punctuation of the sample of individuals, according to Age

Figure 2. Average answers of the sample of students, according to Gender

523



Social Inclusion and Intercultural Values in a School of Education

necessity and importance of Mobilising resources (M= 3.67; TD= .489). The lowest average punctuations were found in Organising support for diversity among students with 0-3 years of experience (M=
3.24; TD= .546).

Problem Analysis of Student Perceptions for QAII Questionnaire
T of Student tests (statistics software package SPSS, version 19) were carried out for each social demographic variable from the sample of students in each one of the QAII items (gender, intercultural
experience and experience in disability) through the variance analysis (ANOVA) in age and following a
statistic signification criterion .05. Significant differences were revealed in the variable gender, and it was
even more noticeable in the dimension Inclusive Culture, specifically in the section Building community,
t (471.426/1234)= -5.726, p< .000, and Establishing inclusive values, t (1232/1234)= -4.639, p< .000.
The dimension Inclusive Policy showed significant differences related to gender in both sections, Developing the school for all, t (472.678/1234)= -7.212, and Organising support for diversity, t (490.824/1234)=
-5.517. Lastly, the dimension Inclusive Practice also showed significant differences in both sections:
Orchestrating learning, t (462.541/1234)= -6.739, and Mobilising resources, t (471.717/1234)= -5.710.
After having taken Experience in disability into account, some differences were seen in the section
Building community, t (1232/1234)= -2.215, p< .027, and related to Intercultural experience, there were

only significant differences in the section Organising support for diversity, t (1232/1234)= -2.394, p<
.017 (table 2).
Last, and taking into account the effect of age (table 3), results showed that the higher the range is,
the more differences in three of the six sections (Building community, Developing the school for all and
Organising support for diversity). The age ranges with the biggest difference between each other were
18-22 and 23-27 years old.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study shows attitudes towards inclusiveness and interculturality among a sample of 1234 students
of Degrees in Pre-School Education, Primary Education and Pedagogy at the University of La Laguna.
Once students were classified by their age, more attitudes towards inclusiveness and interculturality were showed in older individuals. This is a relevant aspect because those students were at the last
stages of their studies and/or their age let them have some experience in inclusiveness and interculturality. Consequently, it facilitated their future professional labour in inclusive and intercultural curricular
competencies (Arteaga & García, 2008).
Differences in Organising support for diversity are significant, as younger students do not think collaboration among teachers and/or families is necessary in order to strengthen inclusive attitudes. Related
to this, there are numerous authors (O’Rourkey & Houghton, 2008; Villar, 2004, 2008) who claim that
type of collaboration is a decisive element to promote inclusive curricular competencies. This situation
implies the necessity of a deep analysis of competency development and achievement in the analysed
Degrees with the purpose of obtaining a higher use and coordination.
As it has remarked, the importance of an inclusive education consists in involving all the children
from a specific community, so they will learn together, regardless of their personal, cultural or social
conditions, including those children with any disability (Reyes, 2010). Moreover, student academic
524



Social Inclusion and Intercultural Values in a School of Education

Table 2. Significant associations based on t of Student
Measure
Gender

Effect (Items)

Levene

t

p<

M

TD

Building community
5

.587

-3.336

.001

V= 2.82
M= 3.05

.923
.879

8

.067

-3.581

.000

V= 3.00
M= 3.34

.849
.826

9

.863

-3.027

.003

V= 3.14
M= 3.45

.816
.714

.000

-4.191

.010

V= 3.58
M= 3.76

.589
.474

.001

-5.144

.000

V= 3.20
M= 3.71

.738
.625

.000

-4.483

.000

V= 3.34
M= 3.76

.678

.519

45

.000

-5.194

.000

V= 3.40
M= 3.70

.722
.577

42

.016

-3.514

.001

V= 3.29
M= 3.62

.781
.682

.056

-2.215

.027

4-8= 3.27
0-3= 2.98

.849
.929

.032

-3.007

.003

4-8= 3.73
0-3= 3.38

.555
.616

Establishing inclusive values

Developing the school for all
17
Organising support for diversity
21

Orchestrating learning
35
Mobilise resources.

Experience in
disability

Building community.
5
Organising support for diversity
20

training in inclusive competencies has to stand up to the necessity of reinforcing this knowledge and
experience of future teachers.
In relation to gender, women are more receptive than men when applying Inclusive culture, policy
and practice, standing out a higher difference between men and women in items of the section Building community, which alludes to the importance of working as a team in an educational community in
order to create an inclusive philosophy. Some authors like Firestone (1996), Graham (1996) and Alegre
(2006) emphasized that it was necessary to have a teaching commitment regardless of gender or attitude
for a good school working.
Besides, the necessity of a better collaboration between teachers and families is the second more
valued item by women. Connected with this, authors like Gallavan (1998), Mateos, Torrejón, Parra, and
Pérez (2008), and Kugelmass (2001) support the importance of communication among members who
are part of the school community, especially between mothers and fathers. This contributes to create

525



Social Inclusion and Intercultural Values in a School of Education

Table 3. Significant feature associations based on ANOVA by Age
Measure
Age

Effect (Items)

Levene

gl

F

p<

Post hoc
Tukey

M

TD

.631

4

7.118

.000

18-22 with

23-27
23-27 with
33-40

18-22=2.90
23-27=3.20
33-40=2.70

.936
.874
.991

.087

4

3.864

.004

18-22 with
23-27

18-22=3.41
23-27=3.60

.709
.671

20

.283

4

3.698

.049

18-22 with
23-27

18-22=3.40
23-27=3.56

.619
.587

25

.634

4

4.491

.001

18-22 with
23-27

18-22=3.25
23-27=3.48

.691
.662

27

.578

4

4.666

.001

18-22 with
23-27

18-22=3.21
23-27=3.47

.843
.782

Building community
5

Developing the school for all

14
Organising support for diversity

learning communities where the whole group is involved and it contributes to remove those barriers that
damage learning and participation (Ainscow, 1999, 2002, 2004).
Meanwhile, Aguado (2004) described in her work the importance of the family-community dimension in students’ and teachers’ attitudes, as the means to reach global quality in educational contexts
and to develop the intercultural approach. Like this, the author supported the active representation of
an educational community on its whole as part of the usual innovation and school change environment.
Concerning intercultural experience among students, most differences were found in the section
Building community. Results showed that the more teaching experience, the better willingness towards
the construction of a secure community. Lambe and Bones (2006), and Cook, Cameron, and Tankersley (2007) pointed out that the more experience in diversity students had, the higher positive effects on
social inclusion principles.
In relation to the effect of teaching children with disabilities, there were some significant differences
in the importance and/or necessity related to collaboration between teachers and families, organising
support for diversity and coordinating all ways of children support. Results of the study revealed longer
teaching experience in special education brought more importance to that practice action.
In this way, Minke, Oso, Deemer, and Griffin (1996) showed that special education teachers held the
most positive views of inclusion, as regular teachers in the inclusive classrooms. In these studies results
highlighted that those teachers who were in contact with disabled children had more positive attitudes
towards inclusiveness. In addition, they also had a higher perception of self-efficacy, competency and
satisfaction.
It was equally necessary to point out the higher percentage of survey respondents who do not have
teaching experience in working with disabled people. Previous studies presented by López, Echeita, and
Martin (2009) proved that it was necessary to reformulate teacher training strategies so that reflexion
about future situations in the classroom related to disabilities would be strengthened, in particular, those
situations which could reinforce this type of students segregation.

526


Social Inclusion and Intercultural Values in a School of Education

FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
In short, this study suggested teaching competencies, which make the whole university community be
involved in values, related to support for diversity and to the importance of an education that favours
inclusive and intercultural teaching-learning processes (UNESCO, 2011).
Authors provided recommendations to develop inclusive practices for School of Education students.
They were committed for a program improvement tool at the University of La Laguna to assist university
students in creating a safe, inclusive and caring school and classroom environment (Alegre & Villar, 2009).
However, in order to build a more just, inclusive and intercultural school community it is necessary
to include and develop an environment by:
•
•
•
•

Introducing effective practices that encourage barrier removal, as long as those material or nonmaterial obstacles limit a secure and sustainable inclusive and intercultural education.
Implementing academic programs for university students to increase their knowledge and understanding of inclusive and intercultural competences.
Improving pre- and in-service teacher training, mentorship and team-building in order to share
emotional attitudes, and inclusion and intercultural experiences, and
Developing inclusive competencies about shared educational leadership based on cooperation and
coordination among all members of the educational community.

CONCLUSION
Index for Inclusion had made it possible to share a sensitive and appropriate point of view of inclusive
culture, policies and practices. Index for Inclusion dimensions and sections are suitable to be used in
order to analyse and interpret the approval of social inclusion principles and values among students of
Degrees in Education and Pedagogy at the University of La Laguna.
As a general conclusion, the initial hypotheses – which claimed that social inclusion for future student

teachers may be influenced by variables like gender, age, intercultural experience and experience with
different people – were accepted.
Particularly, data revealed existing differences between students due to age, regardless of degrees: the
older the student teacher is and the longer experience he or she has, the higher predisposition towards
inclusiveness and the better recognition of barriers to learning and participation.

REFERENCES
Aguado, T. (2004). Investigación en educación intercultural. Educatio Siglo XXI, 22(0), 39–58.
Ainscow, M. (1999). Understanding the Development of Inclusive Schools. London: Falmer.
Ainscow, M. (2002). Using research to encourage the development of inclusive practices. In P. Farrell
& M. Ainscow (Eds.), Making Special Education Inclusive: from Research to Practice (pp. 25–37).
London: David Fulton.

527



Social Inclusion and Intercultural Values in a School of Education

Ainscow, M. (2004, December 9-11). Developing inclusive education systems: what are the levers for
change? Paper presented at the Seminario Regional UNESCO “Salamanca 10 años después”, Santiago,
Chile. doi:10.1007/s10833-005-1298-4
Alegre, O. M. (2006). Evaluación del programa de posgrado Educar en la diversidad por parte de los
profesores participantes. Revista de Educación, 340, 299–340.
Alegre, O. M. (Dir.) (2012). Investigación sobre Competencias y Tecnología para la Inclusión y la Interculturalidad. Sevilla: Arial.
Alegre, O. M., & Villar, L. M. (2009). Desarrollo de competencias de diversidad en graduados y predicción de la calidad global de un postgrado. Revista Brasileira de Formaçao de Professores, 1(2), 69–103.
Alegre, O. M., & Villar, L. M. (2010). Evaluación del postgrado universitario educar en la diversidad.
Estudios y Ensayos. Tenerife: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de La Laguna.
Alegre, O. M., & Villar, L. M. (2012). Ögretmenlik Mesleginin Degerlendirilmesi: Kariyer Gelisimine
Yönelik Montorlugun Etkileri. In R. Yirci & I. Kocabas (Eds.), Dünyada Mentorluk Uygulamalari (pp.

115–132). Ankara: Pagen Alademi.
Antoniou, P., & Kyriakides, L. (2013). A dynamic integrated approach to teacher professional development: Impact and sustainability of the effects on improving teacher behaviour and student outcomes.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 29(0), 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.001
Arteaga, B., & García, M. (2008). La formación de competencias docentes para incorporar estrategias
adaptativas en el aula. Revista Complutense de Educación, 19(2), 253–274.
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. doi:10.1080/08856250210129056
Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2000). Index for inclusion. Bristol: Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
Chireshe, R. (2011). Special Needs Education In-Service Teacher Trainers Views on Inclusive Education
in Zimbabwe. Journal of Social Sciences, 27(3), 157–164.
Cook, B. G., Cameron, D. L., & Tankersley, M. (2007). Inclusive teachers’ attitudinal ratings of their
students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 40(2), 230–238. doi:10.1177/002246690
70400040401
Costello, S., & Boyle, C. (2013). Pre-service Secondary Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusive Education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 129–143. doi:10.14221/ajte.2013v38n4.8
Darretxe, L., Goikoetxea, J., & Fernández, A. (2013). Análisis de prácticas inclusivas y exclusoras en
dos centros educativos del País Vasco. Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 13(2), 105–134.
De Boer, A., Pil, S. J., Minnaert, A., & Post, W. (2014). Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Intervention
Program to Influence Attitudes of Students Towards Peers with Disabilities. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 44(3), 572–583. doi:10.1007/s10803-013-1908-6 PMID:23982486

528



Social Inclusion and Intercultural Values in a School of Education

Delgado, M. (2003). Quién puede ser “inmigrante” en la ciudad? In M. Delgado, W. Actis, D. Martucelli,
I. Palacín, & P. Sáez (Eds.), Exclusión social y diversidad cultural (pp. 9–24). San Sebastián: Tercera
Prensa.
Doménech, V., Esbrí, J. V., González, H. A., & Miret, L. (2003). Las actitudes del profesorado hacia el
alumno con necesidades educativas especiales derivadas de la discapacidad. Jornadas de Fomento de

la Investigación. Universidad de San Jaume.
Esquivel, L. A. (1995). Análisis de la tríada familia-escuela-sociedad: Un estudio comparativo. Revista
Educación y Ciencia, 12(4), 51–61.
Essomba, M. A. (2008). 10 ideas clave. La gestión de la diversidad cultural en la escuela. Barcelona: Grao.
Firestone, W. (1996). Images of teaching and proposals for reform: A comparison of ideas from cognitive and organizational research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(2), 209–235. doi:10.1177/
0013161X96032002003
Furuta, H., & Alwis, K. A. C. (2013). Differing process of inclusive education in Sri Lanka: Teachers’
statements in government schools. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 10(2),
122–122.
Gallavan, N. P. (1998). Why Aren’t Teachers Using Effective Multicultural Education Practices? Equity
& Excellence in Education, 31(2), 20–27. doi:10.1080/1066568980310203
Graham, K. (1996). Running Ahead: Enhancing Teacher Commitment. Journal of Physical Education,
Recreation & Dance, 67(1), 45–47. doi:10.1080/07303084.1996.10607182
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed school leadership. London: Routledge.
Idol, L. (2006). Toward Inclusion of Special Education Students in General Education. A Program
Evaluation of Eight Schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77–94. doi:10.1177/074193250
60270020601
Kugelmass, J. W. (2001). Collaboration and compromise in creating and sustaining an inclusive school.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(1), 47–65. doi:10.1080/13603110121498
Lalueza, J. L., & Crespo, I. (2012). Diversidad cultural, investigación psicológica e intervención educativa. Cultura y Educación, 24(2), 131–135. doi:10.1174/113564012804932056
Lambe, J. (2007). Northern Ireland student teacher’s changing attitudes towards inclusive education
initial teacher training. International Journal of Special Education, 22(1), 59–71.
Lambe, J., & Bones, R. (2006). Student teachers’ perceptions about inclusive classroom teaching in
Northern Ireland prior to teaching practice experience. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
21(2), 167–186. doi:10.1080/08856250600600828
López, M., Echeita, G., & Martín, E. (2009). Concepciones sobre el proceso de inclusión educativa de
alumnos con discapacidad intelectual en la educación secundaria obligatoria. C&E, Cultura y Educación,
21(4), 485–496. doi:10.1174/113564009790002391

529


Social Inclusion and Intercultural Values in a School of Education

Mateos, G., Torrejón, M., Parra, M., & Pérez, Y. (2008). Necesidades de asesoramiento de acuerdo con
padres y maestros de una escuela primaria. Revista Intercontinental de Psicología y Educación, enerojunio, 10(1), 63-74.
Minke, K., Oso, G., Deemer, S., & Griffin, S. (1996). Teachers’ Experiences with Inclusive Classrooms: Implications for Special Education Reform. The Journal of Special Education, 30(2), 152–186.
doi:10.1177/002246699603000203
Morales, P., Urosa, B., & Blanco, A. (2003). Construcción de escalas de actitud tipo Likert. Madrid:
La Muralla.
O’Rourke, J., & Houghton, S. (2008). Perceptions of Secondary School Students with Mild Disabilities
to the Academic and Social Support Mechanisms Implemented in Regular Classrooms. International
Journal of Disability Development and Education, 55(3), 227–237. doi:10.1080/10349120802268321
Pérez, G., & Sarrate, M.L. (2013). Diversidad y ciudadanía. Hacia una educación superior inclusiva.
Educación XX1, 16(1), 85-104.
Poon-McBrayer, K. F., & Wong, P. M. (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. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.06.009
Rajovic, V., & Jovanovic, O. (2013). The Barriers to Inclusive Education: Mapping 10 years of Servian
Teacher’s Attitudes Toward Inclusive Education. Psychological and Pedagogical Survey, 14(3-4), 78–97.
Reyes, M. M. (2010). La formación del profesorado. Revista de Educación Inclusiva, 3(3), 89–102.
Rosselló, M. R. (2010). El reto de planificar para la diversidad en una escuela inclusiva. Revista
Iberoamericana de Educación, 51(4), 1–10.
Sánchez, A. (2011). La Universidad de Almería ante la integración educativa y social de los estudiantes
con discapacidad: Ideas y actitudes del personal docente e investigador. The University of Almería and
the educational and social integration of students with disabilities: ideas and attitudes held by teaching/
research staff. Revista de Educación, 354, 575–603.
Sentenac, M., Ehlinger, V., Michelsen, S. I., Marcelli, M., Dickinson, H. O., & Arnaud, C. (2013). Determinants of inclusive education of 8–12 year-old children with cerebral palsy in 9 European regions.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 588–595. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2012.09.019 PMID:23123872

Symeonidou, S., & Phtiaka, H. (2009). Using teachers’ prior knowledge, attitudes and beliefs to develop
in-service teacher education courses for inclusion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 543–550.
doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.001
UNESCO. (2011). Enhancing Effectiveness of EFA Coordination. Paris: UNESCO.
Unianu, E. M. (2012). Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Procedia: Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 33, 900–904. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.252
Verdugo, M. A. (2009). El cambio escolar desde una perspectiva de calidad de vida. Revista de Educación, 349, 23–43.

530



Social Inclusion and Intercultural Values in a School of Education

Villar, L. M. (Ed.). (2004). Capacidades docentes para una gestión de calidad en Educación Secundaria.
Madrid: McGraw-Hill.
Villar, L. M. (2008). Competencias básicas para uso y dominio de los nuevos medios e instrumentos. In
M. L. Sevillano (Coord.). Nuevas tecnologías en educación social (pp. 53–84). Madrid: McGraw Hill.
Vlachou, A., Didaskalou, E., & Voudouri, F. (2009). Adaptaciones en la enseñanza de los maestros de
educación general. Revista de Educación, 349, 179–201.
Warnock, H. M. (1978). Special Educational Needs. Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Education of de Handicapped Children and Young People. London: HMSO.
Wedell, K. (2005). Dilemmas in the quest for inclusion. British Journal of Special Education, 32(1),
3–11. doi:10.1111/j.0952-3383.2005.00363.x
Wedell, K. (2008). Confusion about inclusion: Patching up or system change? British Journal of Special
Education, 35(3), 127–135. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8578.2008.00386.x
Wehmeyer, M. (2009). Autodeterminación y la tercera generación de prácticas educativas de inclusión.
Revista de Educación, 349, 45–67.

531