education

sciences
Review
Teachers’ Attitudes toward Educational Inclusion in Spain:
A Systematic Review
Irene Lacruz-Pérez *, Pilar Sanz-Cervera and Raúl Tárraga-Mínguez

Department of Education and School Management, Faculty of Teacher Training, University of Valencia,
46022 Valencia, Spain; [email protected] (P.S.-C.); [email protected] (R.T.-M.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Inclusive education is currently one of the main aspirations of the Spanish educational
system and one of the key aspects for its achievement is teachers’ attitudes toward educational inclu-
sion. In recent years, many studies worldwide have analyzed this aspect, but so far, any systematic
review has specifically focused on the Spanish educational framework. For this reason, the purpose
of this paper is to review the studies published from 2010 to 2019 whose aim was to analyze teachers’
attitudes towards educational inclusion in Spain. After a literature search in four different databases
(PsycInfo, ERIC, Dialnet Plus, and Google Scholar), 34 studies were selected and reviewed. The re-
sults suggest that Spanish teachers’ attitudes toward educational inclusion are generally positive,
although in some cases they are ambiguous. Teachers’ attitudes are mainly influenced by the amount
of training and their contact or not with students with special educational needs. The discussion
highlights that more studies with a greater methodological diversity are required in order to provide
a complete analysis of teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and that teacher training is one of the best
tools to generate positive attitudes.



Keywords: attitudes; inclusive education; systematic review; teachers



Citation: Lacruz-Pérez, I.;

Sanz-Cervera, P.; Tárraga-Mínguez, R.
Teachers’ Attitudes toward 1. Introduction
Educational Inclusion in Spain: A
Inclusive education seeks to achieve the highest levels of presence, participation and
Systematic Review. Educ. Sci. 2021,
learning of all students in the regular educational system, especially of those who are
11, 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/
in a vulnerable situation [1]. This idea has been supported by different international
educsci11020058
regulations such as the Salamanca Statement [2], the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities (CRPD) [3], or the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [4].
Received: 29 December 2020
Accepted: 31 January 2021
In particular, after the approval of the CRPD [3] different countries began to re-
Published: 3 February 2021
form their national legislation to bring their educational systems closer to the inclusion
paradigm [5]. Nevertheless, there is some controversy around the meaning of the term “ed-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
ucational inclusion”, since article 24 of the CRPD does not define it explicitly [6]. This lack
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
of precision in its definition has generated some debate about the meaning of educational
published maps and institutional affil- inclusion, since it has been understood as incompatible with special education [7], a school-
iations. ing form that is considered essential to teach some students with a moderate or high degree
of disability [8].
Therefore, inclusive education generates a substantive debate that should not be avoided,
but rather approached with honesty and in defense of the interests of students and their fam-
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
ilies. This debate arises from the complexity of the subject, and it is also frequently distorted
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
by the fact that there are numerous cases in which schools are required to implement inclu-
This article is an open access article
sive practices without providing them with sufficient human, material and organizational
distributed under the terms and resources to do so. This situation means that, probably, the most prudent attitude to-
conditions of the Creative Commons ward inclusion is to encourage (but not demand) the implementation of inclusive policies
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and practices.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Regarding the Spanish educational system, the idea of inclusive education established
4.0/). by national educational legislation does not correspond to what some authors qualify as

Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11020058 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58 2 of 16

“full inclusion”, understood as the schooling of every student in regular schools, regardless
of his or her special educational needs [6,8]. On the contrary, even though the national
education laws promote the schooling of students with special educational needs in regular
schools since 1990 [9–12], they also support the schooling of some students in special
education schools when the measures of attention to diversity that they require cannot be
provided in regular schools.
In Spain, there are three main different types of schooling: regular schools, special ed-
ucation schools, or special education classrooms located in regular schools. In the last case,
students with disabilities attend some hours to the regular classroom and spend the rest of
the school time with the special education teacher in another classroom. These three major
forms of schooling, which include different resources and supports, are the embodiment
of the national educational policy regarding inclusion. Moreover, they are implicitly the
recognition of the existence of a wide range of diversity among students, a diversity that
also requires diversity in the educational response.
The decision of which type of schooling the students follow is made after the in-
dividual analysis of each case. The characteristics of each child, his or her diagnosis,
and the degree of severity are taken into account when making the decision on the type
of schooling. During the decision process, it is mandatory to listen to the assessment
of the families themselves about the decision of the type of schooling of their children.
Furthermore, the decision on the modality of schooling is evaluated (and if necessary,
modified) after finishing each school year.
The last Spanish educational law approved in 2020 [12] has established that in a period
of ten years it is intended to provide regular schools with more and better resources to
teach students with disabilities, but special education schools will continue to be financed,
since it is not possible always to enroll students with special educational needs in regu-
lar classrooms. The responsibility of putting these educational policies into practice on a
day-to-day basis lies with the teachers, who are one of the main responsible for providing
an adequate response to diversity. For this reason, their attitudes toward inclusion are
a cornerstone in order to materialize the above-mentioned legislation into real inclusive
practices. The study of teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion allows us drawing up a profile
about teachers’ conceptions and at the same time, it lets us to know how to work to improve
them [13]. Given its importance, this research area has progressively increased in recent
years [14], being currently of great interest to the scientific community.
International research on this topic has been synthesized in several systematic re-
views that reveal neutral attitudes towards educational inclusion [15–17], probably more
consistent with the concept of integration than with the idea of inclusion.
Reviews focused specifically on the physical education area have even found negative
attitudes towards inclusion [18]. In these studies, some specialists of this field give support
to striking arguments as that inclusion is detrimental to the performance of students
without special educational needs. In these researches, three groups of variables that may
influence teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education have been identified.
First, in relation to the type of the students’ diagnosis, teachers’ attitudes tend to be
more positive towards students with sensory or physical functional diversity than towards
students with cognitive functional diversity or behavioral problems [15–17].
Second, regarding teachers’ personal characteristics, it has been found that having
prior experience in inclusive practices and having received training in special education
is related to better attitudes towards inclusion [15–18]. Some studies have also found
that younger and less experienced teachers are more open to inclusive education [15,17],
although other studies have obtained the opposite [18].
Third, considering the educational environment, some studies have found that having
enough material and human resources, as well as having the reinforcement of the school
management team, influences the attitudes of teachers towards inclusion [15]. Addition-
ally, teachers tend to consider the difficulty of the academic content incompatible with
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58 3 of 16

inclusion, so they show less compliance with inclusive education in higher educational
stages [15,18].
In recent years, several studies aimed at analyzing Spanish teachers’ attitudes toward
inclusion. Nonetheless, no systematic review has brought together the conclusions of these
studies carried out within the framework of the Spanish educational system in a single
study so far.
Therefore, the aim of this paper is to review the studies published in the last decade
(2010–2019) that have analyzed the attitudes of teachers toward educational inclusion in any
region of the country. Specifically, this review intends to answer the following questions:
1. How are the attitudes of pre-service teachers and in-service teachers toward inclusion
in Spain?
2. Which research design has been followed in the different studies reviewed?
3. Which factors are related to teachers’ attitudes toward educational inclusion?

2. Materials and Methods

A literature search was carried out in PsycInfo, ERIC, Dialnet Plus, and Google Scholar
databases using the keywords attitudes and teachers combined with inclusion, integration,
inclusive education, disability, or diversity (in English and Spanish).
Dialnet Plus includes almost 11,000 scientific journals, being probably the most ex-
haustive database in terms of publications at a national level. This fact makes it one of
the reference databases in Spain, which is important to this review taking into account
that it is limited to Spanish territory. The searches in this database were limited to studies
conducted in Spain and the keywords were entered in any field.
PsycInfo and ERIC are two of the most widely used databases in specialized biblio-
graphic searches in Psychology and Education. They were mainly used to identify articles
published in international journals that might not be indexed in Dialnet Plus. In these two
databases the keywords were searched in any field of the article except full text and they
were limited to studies carried out in Spain.
Google Scholar is probably one of the databases that offers the highest amount of re-
sults, since it indexes publications of very different types. This database was used to
identify publications that previous databases had not been able to locate. In this case,
the keywords were entered in the search field, and the results were ordered by relevance.
In the search carried out, the titles of the first 500 results were reviewed, since, due to the
very nature of the database, the amount of results was practically unmanageable.
In all cases, searches were limited to works published from 2010 to 2019. The following
criteria were taken into account in the selection of the articles: (a) studies that analyzed
the perception or attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education; (b) the sample was
pre-service or in-service teachers of early childhood, primary or secondary education;
(c) quantitative or qualitative methodology was used; (d) works published in peer-reviewed
scientific journals; (e) articles written in Spanish or English; and (f) conducted in Spain.
Figure 1 summarizes the search process that concluded with the selection of 34 articles.
 Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58 4 of 16
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 16

Figure 1. Search process flowchart.

Figure 1. Search process flowchart.
3. Results
3. Results
The results of the review of the 34 studies are distributed in five different tables ac-
The to
cording results
the type of the review of
of sample. the134
Table studiesthe
includes areresults
distributed in five of
of 14 studies different
which the tables ac-
sample
cording to the type of sample. Table 1 includes the
were in-service teachers. Table 2 summarizes the studies whose participants were pre- results of 14 studies of which the
sample
servicewere in-service
teachers. teachers.
The studies thatTable
analyze 2 summarizes
pre-service the andstudies
in-servicewhose participants
teachers’ attitudes wereare
pre-service teachers. The studies that analyze pre-service
included in Table 3. Table 4 contains the research focused just on special education teachers, and in-service teachers’ atti-
tudes are included
and Table 5 refers to inthe
Table 3. Table
studies carried4 contains
out onlythe with research
physical focused just on
education special edu-
teachers.
cationThe
teachers, and Table
total sample 5 refers
includes 7158 to teachers
the studies (5372carried out only
in-service and with
1786 physical
pre-service), education
includ-
teachers.
ing early childhood, primary and secondary education stages. All the studies were carried
out The total sample
in Spain, includesis7158
and Andalusia teacherswith
the region (5372 thein-service and 1786 pre-service),
highest representation (12 studies).in-
cluding early childhood, primary and secondary education
The research tools used in the different studies are diverse, although the most widely used stages. All the studies were
carried out of
is the Scale inAttitudes
Spain, and Andalusia
towards People with is the region with
Disabilities [19].theIt ishighest
used inrepresentation
eight of the works, (12
studies).
which are The research
mainly toolson
focused used in the different
pre-service teachers studies
(see Table are2). diverse, although the most
widely Inused
21 ofisthe thestudies
Scale of the conclusions
Attitudes towardsindicated
People with that the attitudes
Disabilities ofisteachers
[19]. It used in towards
eight of
inclusive
the works,education
which are are mainlypositive;
focused in tenon studies
pre-service it is teachers
concluded (seethat the 2).
Table results are mixed;
andIn only
21 ofin the
three studies
studies theresults
conclusionspointed out unfavorable
indicated attitudes.
that the attitudes of In total, consider-
teachers towards
ing the different studies, the attitudes of teachers have
inclusive education are positive; in ten studies it is concluded that the results are mixed;been analysed in relation to up
to twenty
and only invariables.
three studies Mainlyresults five of these
pointed outvariables
unfavorable standattitudes.
out: (1) In gender; (2) teaching
total, considering
experience;
the different (3) contact
studies, thewith peopleofwith
attitudes functional
teachers have diversity
been analysed and/or in students
relation with
to upspe- to
cial educational
twenty variables. needs;Mainly(4) theofeducational
five these variables stagestand(earlyout:childhood,
(1) gender; primary or secondary
(2) teaching expe-
education);
rience; and (5)with
(3) contact the amount
people of withteachers’ training
functional in the inclusive
diversity education
and/or students field.
with special
Of the eighteen studies that analyzed the influence
educational needs; (4) the educational stage (early childhood, primary or secondary of gender, seven found that womened-
tend to be more positive [20–26] and four found that
ucation); and (5) the amount of teachers’ training in the inclusive education field. men have better attitudes [27–30].
Regarding
Of the eighteen teaching
studiesexperience, 10 studies
that analyzed theanalyzed
influenceitsof influence
gender,(see seven Tables
found1 andthat 4):
three found that teaching experience has a positive
women tend to be more positive [20–26] and four found that men have better attitudes correlation with positive attitudes
toward inclusion [27,28,31], three found the opposite [26,29,32], and the rest did not find a
[27–30].
statistically
Regarding significant
teachingrelation
experience,[33–36]. 10 studies analyzed its influence (see Tables 1 and
Contact with people with
4): three found that teaching experience has disabilities and/or
a positivestudents with special
correlation educational
with positive needs
attitudes
seems to positively influence teachers’ perception of inclusion,
toward inclusion [27,28,31], three found the opposite [26,29,32], and the rest did not find according to eight of the
eleven studies that analyzed
a statistically significant relation [33–36]. this aspect [20,23,24,31,37–40].
Concerning
Contact with the educational
people stage, seven
with disabilities and/orstudies
students detected less favorable
with special educationalattitudesneeds to-
ward inclusion in secondary education than in primary education teachers [25,29,30,33–35,41].
seems to positively influence teachers’ perception of inclusion, according to eight of the
At the same time, early childhood teachers’ attitudes seem to be more positive than primary
eleven studies that analyzed this aspect [20,23,24,31,37–40].
education teachers’ attitudes [25,33,35,42].
Concerning the educational stage, seven studies detected less favorable attitudes
A last important factor is training: in four studies with pre-service teachers (see Table 2),
toward inclusion in secondary education than in primary education teachers
more positive attitudes were found in the final phases of their initial training compared
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58 5 of 16

to the first courses of their training [20,40,42,43], and two other studies concluded that
teachers who feel better trained are more positive towards inclusion [31,39].

Table 1. Review of the studies carried out with in-service teachers.

Studies Participants Research Tool Results

Mixed attitudes. Teachers recognize the
universal right to secondary education,
n = 143 (secondary education teachers). considering that attention to diversity in
Years of experience: <5 (31%), mainstream classrooms is needed.
Questionnaire based on
[44] 5–10 (25%), >10 (44%). However, they consider that integration is
APADESO scale [45].
Regular schools (86%), not very positive for their job: it lowers
Semi-private schools (14%). academic content, it impoverishes
education, and capable students
are neglected.
Positive attitudes toward
Questionnaire developed integration-inclusion. Having training,
n = 36 (n = 2 early childhood, and validated by the satisfactory prior experience and consistent
n = 12 primary, n = 22 authors: Scale for Measuring expectations are related to better attitudes.
[39] secondary education). the Attitude of the Regular Regarding the inclusion of students with
69.4% women; 30.55% men. Classroom teacher towards autism (high performance), the support of
Age: 41–50 (56%). Educational Integration. the administration and the school
Semi-structured interview. environment influence teachers’ attitudes
(in secondary schools).
n = 77 (n = 32 primary; n = 45
secondary education) + n = 39 university.
57.25% women; 32.8% men. They feel uneasy working with students
Questionnaire developed
[30] Age: 35–45 (42.2%). with disabilities (especially women and
and validated by the author.
Experience with students with secondary school teachers).
disabilities: 100%.
Three regular schools.
Teachers perceive inclusion positively:
they consider that it develops tolerance
n = 336 (20.2% early childhood; (84%), and it is unfair to separate students
39.6% primary; 40.2% with special educational needs from the rest
secondary education) of the students (59%).
67% women; 33% men. The Teachers’ Perception Nonetheless, they also consider that
[32] Age: M = 41.5. on Inclusion inclusion is impossible for students with
Years of experience: <4–8 (28%), Questionnaire [46]. moderate-severe difficulties (60%),
9–15 (20.6%), >15 (51.3%). especially in secondary education (70%).
Experience with students with special Early childhood education teachers’ have
educational needs: 100%. better attitudes toward inclusion than
primary and secondary education teachers.
Having support is related to better attitudes.
Inclusion generates tolerant attitudes (90%),
being possible in secondary education.
n = 20 (primary education).
It favors the teaching–learning
40% women; 60% men.
process (75%), schooling of students with
Age: >40 (70%) Adaptation: [46]
[31] severe disabilities should be in regular
Years of experience: <5 (20%); questionnaire.
schools (50%), they value support teachers
5–20 (30%); >20 (50%).
positively (90%). Having training,
Two regular schools.
experience, and contact with people with
disabilities are related to better attitudes.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58 6 of 16

Table 1. Cont.

Studies Participants Research Tool Results

n = 82 (early childhood, primary and
secondary education) Positive attitudes. Inclusion
72% women; 28% men. Teachers’ attitudes and encourages tolerance. Teachers of regular
[34] Age: M = 39.51. practices concerning and semi-private schools, who teach in early
Years of experience: M = 1.46. inclusion [47]. childhood or primary education show
Experience with students with special better attitudes.
educational needs: 100%.
Inclusion implies multiple advantages:
affective and socio-emotional development
of students with special educational needs;
students without special educational needs
acquire ethical values; greater involvement
Questionnaire: of families and social agents; and acceptance
n = 2518 teachers (20.8% early childhood, of society. However, inclusion harms the
Questionnaire specifically
56% primary, academic performance of all students.
elaborated for this study.
23.2% secondary education). Early childhood education teachers perceive
[35] Semi-structured interview,
Years of experience: 0–9 (54.8%); inclusion significantly better, followed by
developed and validated
10–20 (29.2%); >20 (16%). primary education teachers and finally
by authors.
Interview: secondary education teachers.
n = 27 teachers. More experienced teachers perceive more
advantages for students with special
educational needs and less experienced
teachers perceive more benefits of inclusion
for students without special
educational needs.
n = 46 teachers (early childhood and
Adaptation: Questionnaire Teachers positively value teacher
primary education).
of Opinions, attitudes and cooperation and their awareness toward
[48] A regular public school with students
competences of teachers disability (it seems to be better in the
with hearing impairment and a regular
towards disability [49]. public school).
private school.
Mixed attitudes. Most of the secondary
teachers consider that attention to diversity
is a duty of the school (90%); inclusion is
important (72.6%); it enriches the school
community (68.7%); the education of the
n = 407 (secondary education). students with special educational needs is
47.4% women; 52.6% men. Questionnaire developed the responsibility of both the regular
[26] Age: 31–40 (41.9%). and validated by teachers and the special education
Years of experience: 4–6 (29.2%) the authors. specialists (76.9%). However, reaching real
Inclusive education training: 39.8%. inclusion is utopian (46.8%);
inclusion implies extra work to teachers
(78.7%); students with disabilities should be
educated in special education schools (44%).
Having more teaching experience is related
to less favorable attitudes.
n = 7 (early childhood and primary Teachers accord importance to inclusion
education teachers). Questionnaire (it also benefits students without special
[50]
Years of experience in inclusion: (open-ended questions). educational needs), although their discourse
minimum 5. is integrator and not inclusive.
Early childhood education teachers
n = 78 (early childhood recognize people with disabilities rights’
education teachers). and the importance of their social inclusion.
Scale of Attitudes towards
[36] 91% women; 9% men. Teachers from the first years of early
People with Disabilities [19].
Age: 21–30 (21.8%); 31–40 (25.6%); childhood education (0–3) have less positive
41–50 (33.3%); 51–60 (19.2%). attitudes than teachers from the last years of
this stage (3–6).
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58 7 of 16

Table 1. Cont.

Studies Participants Research Tool Results

Teachers accord greater importance to
n = 175 (10.9% early childhood,
socio-emotional aspects of students with
36% primary, 53.10% secondary
Adaptation: questionnaire disabilities than to academic aspects.
education teachers).
for teachers about attitudes Teachers from semi-private schools feel
70.9% women; 29.1% men.
[29] towards students with more trained for inclusion. Having better
Age: M = 40.13.
special educational needs attitudes is related to rural areas, to men
Contact with students
derived from disability [51]. (not significantly), to have less teaching
with disabilities: 100%.
experience and to early childhood and
Urban area (74.9%), rural (25.15%).
primary education teachers.
Teachers show positive attitudes
n = 402 (48.9% early childhood toward diversity, although they do not
education, 15% primary education, know how to organize the educational
5.1% special education, 13.8% other, Questionnaire specifically response. Men and more experienced
[28] 16.7% secondary education). elaborated for this study. teachers value inclusive polices better.
63.7% women; 36.3% men. Special education specialists value inclusive
Years of experience: <5 (26.5%); culture and practices significantly better.
6–15 (28%); 16–29(25.1%); >30 (18.2%). Teachers from regular schools are more
positive towards inclusion.
n = 30 (n = 6 early-childhood education; Teachers feel uneasy with students
n = 18 primary education; n = 2 physical with disabilities. They consider that special
[52] Scale [30].
education; n = 2 English; n = 1 religion; education specialists are the responsible of
n = 1 music). teaching these students.

Table 2. Review of the studies carried out with pre-service teachers.

Studies Participants Research Tool Results

n = 274 pre-service teachers
Positive attitudes. Master’s degree students
(21.8% early childhood;
show better attitudes than early childhood
72.4% primary education). Adaptation: Opinions
pre-service teachers; and both of them have
91.5% women; 9.4% men. Relative to Integration of
[42] better attitudes than primary education
Age: M = 22.16. Students with Disabilities
pre-service teachers. Training in special
Grade: 2nd (n = 112), 3rd (n = 44), Scale [53].
education programs improves the attitudes
Special Education Master’s Degree
of second-grade students.
(n = 59).
n = 91 pre-service teachers
Women and those who have had contact
(early childhood and primary education)
Questionnaire developed with students with special educational
78% women; 22% men.
[24] and validated by needs feel more prepared for inclusion.
Age: M = 28.13.
the authors. Nonlinear relation of teachers’ attitudes
Contact with students with special
with contact frequency was found.
educational needs: 74.7%.
n = 315 pre-service teachers
(early childhood and Positive attitudes: concern for equality;
primary education), willingness to make curriculum more
and educational psychologists). flexible and to modify spaces.
Grade (early childhood): 1st (n = 43); Adaptation: Attitudes Women pre-service teachers,
3rd (n = 39) toward Inclusive older participants, and participants with
[20] Grade (primary) 1st (n = 36), 3rd (n = 37). Education [54]. prior experience with students with special
Grade (educational psychologists) Reduced version: Values educational needs show slightly more
1st (n = 82), 2nd (n = 76). Questionnaire [55]. positive attitudes. Third-grade pre-service
265 women; 50 men. teachers’ show better attitudes than
Age: M = 22.35. First-grade pre-service teachers
Experience with students with special (non-linear relation).
educational needs: 43.20%.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58 8 of 16

Table 2. Cont.

Studies Participants Research Tool Results

Favorable attitudes. Pre-service teachers
consider attention to diversity as an
enrichment and duty of schools. They agree
n = 99 pre-service teachers
Questionnaire developed with combined schooling and they think
(secondary education).
[56] and validated by inclusion is possible in secondary education.
60.6% women; 39.4% men.
the authors. They consider that teaching students with
Age: <25 (63.6%).
special educational needs is
everyone’s responsibility, although it
involves extra work to the regular teachers.
Positive attitudes. Early childhood
n = 41 pre-service teachers
pre-service teachers recognize the rights of
(early childhood education)
people with disabilities and they intend to
92.7% women; 7.3% men.
interact with them. They value their abilities
Age: M = 21.37.
Scale of Attitudes towards less positively.
[38] University access: Entrance examination
People with Disabilities [19]. Pre-service teachers who have accessed
(53.7%); Higher Level
university through entrance examination
Education Cycle (46.3%).
and have had prior contact with people
Contact with people
with disabilities show better attitudes
with disabilities: 39%.
towards inclusion (no strong relation).
Positive attitudes, but not enough
n = 65 pre-service teachers
(especially concerning pre-service teachers’
(primary education) Scale of Attitudes towards
[57] expectations towards students with
38 women; 27 men. People with Disabilities [19].
disabilities and their knowledge about
Age: M = 21.28.
these students).
n = 107 pre-service secondary education
teachers (psychologic counselling n = 12;
Mathematics n = 13; Spanish language
Positive attitudes. Women and those who
n = 33; Geography and History n = 22;
have had contact with people with
Physical education n = 11; Scale of Attitudes towards
[23] disabilities score better (not significantly).
Others n = 16). People with Disabilities [19].
Geography and History specialists show
57% women; 43% men.
less favorable attitudes.
Age: M = 26.14.
Contact with people
with disabilities: 62.6%.
Positive attitudes. Pre-service teachers
consider that attention to diversity
is important; it enriches the school
community; it allows teaching all
students fairly; and it promotes
n = 158 pre-service teachers
positive values. However, they are
(early childhood and
Adaptation: [58] undecided about the best type of schooling
primary education).
[43] questionnaire (Likert items for students with special educational needs
Grade: 1st (n = 90), 4th (n = 68).
and open-ended questions). and the extra work that the inclusion of
76.8% women; 23.2% men.
these students in the regular classroom
Age: 18–22 (77.3%).
implies for the teacher. Fourth-grade
pre-service teachers have significantly better
attitudes and richer and more realistic
speeches than first-grade
pre-service teachers.
Pre-service teachers who have greater
n = 48 pre-service teachers contact with people with disabilities have
(early childhood education). Scale of Attitudes towards greater willingness to interact with them.
[37]
91.67% women; 8.33% men. People with Disabilities [19]. Remarkable (not significant) relation
Age: M = 21.25. between the attitudes of the participants
and their academic performance was found.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58 9 of 16

Table 2. Cont.

Studies Participants Research Tool Results

Positive attitudes. Pre-service teachers
consider that inclusion is enrichment.
n = 46 pre-service teachers
In early childhood and primary education,
(early childhood and primary education)
pre-service teachers are undecided about the
78% women; 22% men.
appropriate schooling modality of students
[41] n = 50 pre-service secondary [58] questionnaire.
with disabilities. They do not know sure if
education teachers.
teaching students with special educational
50% women; 50% men.
needs implies an extra work for the teachers.
Age: 22–26.
Secondary education pre-service teachers
have less positive attitudes.
Pre-service teachers show positive attitudes.
n = 314 pre-service teachers
Women have significantly better attitudes
(13.1% early childhood, 19.1% primary,
than men. Early childhood pre-service
34.1% secondary education, 33.8% other). Scale of Attitudes towards
[25] teachers show more positive attitudes than
75.45% women; 24.52% men. People with Disabilities [19].
primary education pre-service teachers,
Contact with people
and they are also more positive than
with disabilities: 55.8%.
secondary pre-service teachers.
n = 120 pre-service teachers (early
childhood education); n = 16
English specialists; n = 34 special
education teachers; n = 139 physical Scale of beliefs towards Positive attitudes toward disability:
[59] education teachers; n = 11 attention to disability in especially special education pre-service
creative languages; n = 46 physical activity [60]. specialists (not significantly).
without specialization
95.1% women; 4.8% men.
Age: M = 22.39.

Table 3. Review of the studies carried out with in-service and pre-service teachers.

Studies Participants Research Tool Results

n = 26 (primary education)
17 women; 9 men. Age: M = 43.42
n = 26 pre-service teachers (primary
Scale of Attitudes towards Positive attitudes toward disability
[21] education)
People with Disabilities [19]. (especially in women).
18 women; 8 men. Age: M = 27.73
Contact with people
with disabilities: 100%.
n = 4 pre-service teachers Both pre-service and in-service teachers
(early childhood and primary education) show inclusive attitudes. They consider that
Grade: 1st (n = 2), 4th (n = 2). inclusion fosters cooperation, empathy,
Adapted interview
[61] n = 2 in-service teachers (first year of and tolerance, among other values.
from [62,63].
teaching: early childhood and However, they relate the benefits of
primary education). inclusion only to vulnerable students
3 women; 3 men. (integration approach).
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58 10 of 16

Table 4. Review of the studies carried out with special education teachers.

Studies Participants Research Tool Results

They consider integration does not
n = 106 special education specialists Adaptation: Attitudes work properly. Lower acceptance of
(primary and secondary education). towards integration in students with behavioral problems and
[32] 82.7% women; 17.3% men. primary [64] and secondary belonging to ethnic minorities. Having more
Age: M = 37.8 [65] education question- experience and being older are two aspects
Years of experience: M = 12.3 naire. associated to less positive teachers’
attitudes.
n = 428 teachers of special education
schools (80.3% special Questionnaire on training Teachers consider inclusion a basic pillar
education teachers; 9.6% needs of teachers in special of education. Special education schools
[66] speech-language teachers; 10.1% others) education schools, should be based on the inclusion principles.
73.1% women; 26.9% men. developed and validated Teachers without experience perceive
Years of experience: <1–7 (41.4%); by authors. inclusion more favorably.
8–14 (12.7%); >15 (45.8%).
Special education specialists consider
diversity important. They favorably
n = 428 special education specialists.
perceive inclusive practices in special
73.1% women; 26.9% men. Questionnaire developed
education schools. Having less teaching
[27] Age: >41 (49.7%). and validated by
experience is related to less
Years of experience: <1–3 (27.3%); the authors.
positive attitudes. Men seem to have better
4–7 (14.5%); 8–14 (14.2%); >15 (44%).
expectations towards students with
disabilities than women.

Table 5. Review of the studies carried out with physical education teachers.

Studies Participants Research Tool Results

n = 7 physical education specialists
(n = 2 pre-service teachers; n = 2 primary Positive attitudes. Except in cases of
Open-ended questions
education in-service teachers; n = 3 students with very specific needs,
[67] posed by authors.
secondary education in-service teachers) teachers generally agree with schooling in
Two sessions’ observation.
Years of experience: primary 5–10; regular schools.
secondary 4–8.
n = 76 physical education
pre-service teachers.
Scale of Attitudes towards Very positive attitudes toward disability
34 women; 42 men.
People with Disabilities [19]. were found.
Age: M = 22.61.
[40] Scale of beliefs towards Having prior experience with people with
Grade: 3rd (n = 42); 4th (n = 34).
attention to disability in disabilities is related to better attitudes
Years of experience with people with
physical activity [60]. (not significantly).
disabilities: <1 (75%); 1–3 (14.5%);
3–5 (3.9%); >5 (1.3%); No answer (5.3%).
Not very positive attitudes were found.
Some teachers consider that it is impossible
n = 40 physical education specialists.
to work with the rest of students
32.5% women; 67.5% men. Adaptation:
[22] effectively (37.5%); “handicapped” students
Age: <30 (n = 9); 31–40 (n = 22); [68] questionnaire.
should study in special education
>41 (n = 9).
schools (35%). Middle-aged men have
moderately less positive attitudes.

4. Discussion
This review lets us to systematize in a single study the conclusions obtained on
teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education studies carried out in Spain in the last
decade, and it enables us to answer mainly three questions.
The first question refers to know how Spanish pre-service and in-service teachers’
attitudes towards inclusive education are. Regarding the studies focused just on in-service
teachers, seven studies out of 14 found positive attitudes. The conclusions of nine of the
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58 11 of 16

11 studies conducted with pre-service teachers also show positive attitudes. The analysis
carried out with special education teachers show positive attitudes in two out of three,
and the same happens in the studies focused on physical education teachers. Therefore,
considering the results obtained in most of the studies, teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion
tend to be positive.
Nevertheless, in ten studies the attitudes are mixed: five of them are in-service teachers’
studies [26,33,35,44,50], three are pre-service teachers’ research [24,37,57], another one is a
mixed study with in-service and preservice teachers [61], and the last one that found mixed
attitudes was conducted just with special education teachers [32]. In three other cases,
teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion tended to be even negative [22,30,52].
Although the universal right to inclusion is generally recognized, sometimes teachers
have some beliefs that limit their positive attitudes or that place them in an integrative
approach rather than an inclusive approach. For instance, some teachers attach inclusion to
the type of special educational needs and other teachers consider that inclusive education
is detrimental to students without special educational needs. These results are in line with
previous reviews [15–17]. This is an unfavorable result for inclusion since teachers play
a central role in schools, and therefore they are the main ones in charge of transferring
the regulations on inclusion to the classroom. In addition to this, the results that point
to positive attitudes should be understood with caution as they may be influenced by
the social desirability bias. Currently, inclusive education is a sensitive issue, which has
occasionally starred in debates with relatively opposed positions, so it is possible that
teachers respond to it according to what is socially acceptable [69].
This leads us to answer the second question, referring to the research design used in
each study. Most of the reviewed studies (27 out of 34) use questionnaires with a Likert
response as a research tool. Some authors explain that questionnaires only allow us to
know explicit attitudes. Consequently, they suggest expanding the study to implicit atti-
tudes, since they seem to be less susceptible to social desirability bias [69]. For this reason,
research tools such as the Single-Target Implicit Association Test (ST-IAT) [70] could be
used. ST-IAT is an open-source computer tool that is available to the research community
to be replicated in other contexts. During its implementation, a series of stimuli (some of
them related to inclusion) are displayed to participants. They must react to these stimuli by
pressing two keys, choosing them according to whether they are words with positive or
negative emotional valence. By measuring the latency of the different evaluation blocks
that are carried out and doing the corresponding calculation, a score is obtained. This
score allows researchers to read whether the implicit attitudes of the participants towards
inclusion are positive or negative [69]. Qualitative studies should also be carried out
through interviews, discussion groups or sessions observation (methodologies that are
included only in four of the reviewed articles). The use of these methodologies would
allow teachers to express their positions and beliefs about inclusion with more nuances,
thus obtaining a more complete analysis of the school reality. In addition, studies that
combine several methodologies are needed, since this would allow a triangulation of the
results in order to be able to evaluate the coherence between the explicit statements of the
teachers and their educational practice.
The third question to which this review can answer refers to the great variety of
factors that can be related to teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. In most of the studies,
twenty-seven specifically, variables related to some teachers’ characteristics have been an-
alyzed. In 13 studies some variables related to the school environment, and in just three
studies some variables related to the students have also been analyzed. According to some
international reviews [15–18], training in special and inclusive education, as well as contact
with people with functional diversity or students with special educational needs posi-
tively influence teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion. The results of this study also show,
in line with [15] and [18], that there is a relationship between the educational stage and the
teachers’ attitudes, being attitudes in higher stages less favorable. Differences have also
been found in the attitudes of teachers depending on their position as regular teachers or
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58 12 of 16

special education specialists. Although this relation has only been analyzed in two studies,
both have found better attitudes in special education teachers [28,42]. Additionally, other
studies highlight some teachers’ beliefs that go against inclusion, such as the fact that
just special education specialists should be in charge of the education of students with
functional diversity [22,26,52], or that inclusion involves “added” work to the regular
teachers [26,43,56].
The relationship between these factors and teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion leads
us to highlight the importance of initial training, especially the one of regular and sec-
ondary education pre-service teachers, to generate positive attitudes. During their training,
pre-service teachers should acquire knowledge, strategies, and skills, and they should
learn about the available resources to teach students with special educational needs. Like-
wise, they should work on reflective practice to understand the meaning of inclusion and
consider it part of their job and teaching responsibility, thus avoiding conceiving it as
an extra work. It is also essential to give them opportunities to put these learnings into
practice and to have direct contact with students with special educational needs.
These conclusions should be understood taking into account some study limitations.
First, the studies included in this review are mostly quantitative, a methodology that does
not allow describing in depth a concept with as many edges as the attitudes concept has.
Second, the number of the studies that analyze the relation between teachers’ attitudes
and other variables related to the students’ characteristics and contextual characteristics
of the school environment is disproportionate compared to those that analyze teachers’
attitudes and other variables related to the teachers’ characteristics. This decompensation
makes the comparison of the influence of these three factors on teachers’ attitudes toward
inclusion difficult. Therefore, it does not allow us to know exactly the type of variable that
has the greatest influence on them. Finally, most of the studies reviewed have referred to
attitudes toward special educational needs as a generic or global construct, ignoring the
multiple nuances it may contain. Although the label of special educational needs is a very
broad term that includes students with very different characteristics, practically none of
the studies reviewed analyze whether teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion are modulated
by the type of special educational need of the students or other characteristics (such as
their sex, nationality, religion, or social status). In other words, although there is diver-
sity in diversities, very few studies have analyzed how this circumstance influences the
teachers’ attitudes.
Relying on these limitations, we propose as future lines of research: to increase triangu-
lation in the analysis of teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion; to conduct qualitative studies;
to study in depth the relation between teachers’ attitudes and some factors related to the
students and the school environment characteristics; to analyze with greater precision the
influence of training on teachers’ attitudes; to analyze whether teachers’ attitudes toward
inclusion are modulated by the characteristics of the students; and to extend the study of
attitudes toward inclusion to the entire school community (not only teachers).

5. Conclusions
The present systematic review allows us to draw at least three fundamental conclusions:
The first conclusion refers to the methodology used to date to study attitudes toward
inclusion. Researchers interested in this field of study must take note that there is ex-
cessive homogeneity in the methodological approach used to analyze attitudes toward
inclusive education.
As it has been evidenced in this review, and as it has also been found in other reviews
carried out at an international level [17,71], the attitude questionnaires using Likert-type
items are practically the only type of instruments that has been used in this area. The con-
clusion, therefore, is clear: if we continue to study attitudes only through Likert scales,
we will be looking again and again at a complex reality only from one point of view,
which provides us with a specific type of scales that can also be notably bound to social
desirability bias [69,70,72].
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58 13 of 16

If we truly aspire to be able to study the phenomenon of attitudes in all its complexity,
it is necessary to complete the information provided by these scales with other instruments
that allow us to contemplate attitudes from other angles, thus allowing us a triangulation
of results. Conducting interviews, focus groups, observation records by professionals
outside the schools and the application of instruments that evaluate not only explicit but
also implicit attitudes, can be very useful ways that allow us to get closer to know about
the teachers attitudes towards inclusive education in greater depth.
Second, the results of the review show us that teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are
not decidedly positive. There are numerous nuances regarding teacher attitudes. There are
differences between special education teachers and regular teachers; and there are differ-
ences between teachers at different stages of the educational system. Altogether, it seems
that teachers’ attitudes are closer to the idea of integration than to the idea of inclusion.
This result is problematic since educational policies in Spain in recent decades tend towards
increasingly inclusive models (thus surpassing the integrating models). Therefore, it seems
that there is a certain unresolved discrepancy between what the legislation proposes and
what a part of the teaching staff considers should be proposed. The debate on inclusive
education is a legitimate and necessary debate, in which the different possible positions
are welcome, if what they seek is to pursue the best results for students. However, we must
be very cautious so that the outcome of this debate does not generate negative consequences
in practice for the education of students.
Finally, the main conclusion that we can obtain from this review is that there is still
a long way to go, a path that does not run through a single path, but through multiple
paths in which it is worth moving forward. One of these paths is that of teacher training.
Attitudes are not created from scratch. They are molded and shaped over the years from
the experiences lived, and from the training received too. For this reason, teacher educators
must take note that it is our responsibility to try to explain that the elimination of barriers
to inclusion and the construction of more livable and more inclusive schools is positive for
all those who live in the school and it is a must for students with special educational needs.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.T.-M.; Methodology, R.T.-M. and I.L.-P.; Writing—

original draft preparation, I.L.-P.; Writing—review and editing, R.T.-M., I.L.-P., and P.S.-C.; Project ad-
ministration, P.S.-C.; Funding acquisition, P.S.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Valencia Government grant number GV/2020/073. The APC
was funded by Valencia Government. This study also received human and financial resources from
the Valencian University, grant code UV-INV-PREDOC19F1–1010132.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Ainscow, M. Developing inclusive education systems: What are the levers for change? J. Educ. Chang. 2005, 6, 109–124. [CrossRef]
2. UNESCO. Conferencia Mundial sobre Necesidades Educativas Especiales: Acceso y Calidad. Salamanca, España, 1994. Avail-
able online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000110753_spa (accessed on 20 October 2020).
3. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 2006. Available online: https://treaties.un.org/doc/
Publication/CTC/Ch_IV_15.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2021).
4. Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas. Proyecto de Documento Final de la cumbre de las Naciones Unidas para la Aprobación
de la Agenda Para el Desarrollo Después de 2015. Available online: https://www.cooperacionespanola.es/sites/default/files/
agenda_2030_desarrollo_sostenible_cooperacion_espanola_12_ago_2015_es.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2020).
5. Anastasiou, D.; Felder, M.; Correia, L.A.M.; Shemanov, A.; Zweers, I.; Ahrbeck, B. The impact of article 24 of the CRPD on
special and inclusive education in Germany, Portugal, the Russian Federation, and the Netherlands. In On Educational Inclusion:
Meanings, History, Issues and International Perspectives; Kauffman, J.M., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; pp. 216–248.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58 14 of 16

6. Anastasiou, D.; Gregory, M.; Kauffman, J.M. Commentary on Article 24 of the CRPD: The right to education. In Commentary on
the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; Bantekas, I., Stein, M., Anastasiou, D., Eds.; Oxford University Press:
New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 656–704. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325812098_Article_24
_Education (accessed on 25 January 2021).
7. Boyle, C.; Anderson, J.; Page, A.; Mavropoulou, S. (Eds.) Inclusive Education: Global Issues & Controversies; Brill Sense:
Boston, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 253–255.
8. Kauffman, J.M.; Felder, M.; Ahrbeck, B.; Badar, J.; Schneiders, K. Inclusion of all students in general education? International ap-
peal for a more temperate approach to inclusion. J. Int. Spec. Needs Educ. 2018, 21, 1–10. [CrossRef]
9. Ley Orgánica 1/1990, de 3 de octubre, de Ordenación General del Sistema Educativo (BOE nº238 04-10-1990 pp. 28927–28942).
Available online: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/1990/10/03/1 (accessed on 15 January 2021).
10. Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación (BOE nº106 04-05-2006 pp. 17158–17207). Available online: https://www.boe.
es/eli/es/lo/2006/05/03/2 (accessed on 2 November 2020).
11. Ley Orgánica 8/2013, de 9 de diciembre, para la mejora de la calidad Educative (BOE nº295 10-12-2013). Available online:
https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2013/12/09/8/con (accessed on 2 November 2020).
12. Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de diciembre, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación (BOE nº340
30-12-2020 pp. 122868–122953). Available online: https://www.boe.es/eli/es/lo/2020/12/29/3 (accessed on 15 January 2021).
13. Azorín, C.M. Análisis de instrumentos sobre educación inclusiva y atención a la diversidad. Rev. Complut. Educ. 2017,
28, 1043–1060. [CrossRef]
14. García, J.M.; Inglés, C.J.; Vicent, M.; Gonzálvez, C.; Mañas, C. Actitudes hacia la Discapacidad en el Ámbito Educativo a través
del SSCI (2000–2011). Análisis Temático y Bibliométrico. Rev. Electrón. Investig. Psicoeduc. Psicopedag. 2013, 11, 139–165.
Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/2931/293125761007.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2020).
15. Avramidis, E.; Norwich, B. Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ.
2002, 17, 129–147. [CrossRef]
16. Cano, E.; Pappous, A. Actitudes de los profesionales de la educación hacia la educación física inclusiva: Una revisión bibliográfica.
Rev. Digit. De Investig. Educ. Conect@2 2013, 3, 105–118.
17. De Boer, A.; Pijl, S.J.; Minnaert, A. Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the
literature. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2011, 15, 331–353. [CrossRef]
18. Hernández, F.J.; Casamort, J.; Bofillródenas, A.; Niort, J.; Blázquez, D. Las actitudes del profesorado de Educación Física hacia la
inclusión educativa: Revisión. Apunt. Educ. Fís. Deporte 2011, 103, 24–30. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?
id=551656923004 (accessed on 5 October 2020).
19. Verdugo, M.A.; Jenaro, C.; Arias, B. Actitudes sociales y profesionales hacia las personas con discapacidad. Estrategias de
evaluación e intervención. In Personas con Discapacidad. Perspectivas Psicopedagógicas y Rehabilitadoras, 2nd ed.; Verdugo, M.A., Ed.;
Siglo: Madrid, Spain, 2002; pp. 79–135.
20. Álvarez, J.L.; Buenestado, M. Predictores de las actitudes hacia la inclusión de alumnado con necesidades educativas especiales
en futuros profesionales de la educación. Rev. Complut. De Educ. 2015, 26, 627–645. [CrossRef]
21. Chacón, H.; Olivares, J. Diversidad funcional y actitudes del profesorado. Una mirada presente y futura. Rev. Estud. Investig.
Psicol. Educ. 2017, 6, 16–19. [CrossRef]
22. Fernández, M.; Espada, M. Evaluación de las dificultades de llevar a cabo la atención a la diversidad por parte del profesorado de
Educación Física. Sport. Rev. Técnico Científica Del Deporte Esc. Educ. Física Y Psicomot. 2017, 3, 542–553. [CrossRef]
23. Gil, S. Perfil actitudinal de alumnos del Máster en Formación del Profesorado de Educación Secundaria ante la discapacidad.
Estu-dio comparativo. Rev. Educ. Incl. 2017, 10, 133–146. Available online: https://revistaeducacioninclusiva.es/index.php/REI/
article/view/268 (accessed on 28 July 2020).
24. Janero, C.; Flores, N.; Beltrán, M.; Tomşa, R.; Ruiz, M.I. Necesidades educativas e inclusión escolar: El peso de las actitudes.
Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2014, 4, 605–612. [CrossRef]
25. Macías, M.E.; Aguilera, J.L.; Rodríguez, M.; Gil, S. Un estudio transversal sobre las actitudes de los estudiantes de pregrado
y máster en ciencias de la educación hacia las per-sonas con discapacidad. Rev. Electrón. Interuniv. Prof. 2019, 22, 225–240.
[CrossRef]
26. Pegalajar, M.C.; Colmenero, M.J. Actitudes y formación docente hacia la inclusión en Educación Secundaria Obligatoria.
Rev. Electrón. Investig. Educ. 2017, 19, 84–97. [CrossRef]
27. Colmenero, M.J.; Pegalajar, M.C.; Pantoja, A. Teachers’ perception of inclusive teaching practices for students with severe
permanent disabilities. Cult. Y Educ. 2019, 31, 542–575. [CrossRef]
28. González-Gil, F.; Martín, E.; Poy, R.; Jenaro, C. Percepciones del profesorado sobre la inclusión: Estudio preliminar.
Rev. Electrón. Interuniv. Prof. 2016, 19, 11–24. [CrossRef]
29. Solís, P.; Pedrosa, I.; Mateos, L.M. Evaluación e interpretación de la actitud del profesorado hacia alumnos con discapacidad.
Cult. Y Educ. 2019, 31, 589–604. [CrossRef]
30. Suriá, R. Discapacidad e integración educativa: ¿Qué opina el profesorado sobre la inclusión de estudiantes con discapacidad en
sus clases? Rev. Esp. Orientac. Psicopedag. 2012, 23, 96–109. Available online: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/3382/338230792007.
pdf (accessed on 6 July 2020).
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58 15 of 16

31. Anzano, S. Evolución histórica de la atención a la diversidad en la escuela: Estudio descriptivo sobre las actitudes de los maestros
de educación primaria ante la inclusión en dos centros públicos de Huesca. Educ. Y Divers. Rev. Interuniv. De Investig. Sobre
Discapac. E Intercult. 2015, 9, 73–84. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6368520 (accessed on
23 July 2020).
32. Campo, M.A.; Castro, P.; Álvarez, E.; Álvarez, M.; Torres, E. Funcionamiento de la integración en la enseñanza según la
percepción de los maestros especialistas en pedagogía terapéutica. Psicothema 2010, 22, 797–805. Available online: http:
//hdl.handle.net/10651/22918 (accessed on 2 July 2020).
33. Chiner, E.; Cardona, M.C. Inclusive education in Spain: How do skills, resources, and supports affect regular education teachers’
perceptions of inclusion? Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2013, 17, 526–541. [CrossRef]
34. Garzón, P.; Calvo, M.I.; Orgaz, M.B. Inclusión educativa. Actitudes y estrategias del profesorado. Rev. Esp. Discap. 2016, 4, 25–45.
[CrossRef]
35. González, R.; Medina, M.C.; Domínguez, M.C. Ventajas del tratamiento inclusivo de la diversidad: Perspectivas de los principales
agentes encargados de su desarrollo. Enseñanza Teach. 2016, 34, 131–148. [CrossRef]
36. Polo, M.T.; Aparicio, M. Primeros pasos hacia la inclusión: Actitudes hacia la discapacidad de docentes en educación infantil.
Rev. De Investig. Educ. 2018, 36, 365–379. [CrossRef]
37. Mercado, E.; Di Giusto, C.; Rubio, L.; De la Fuente, R. Influencia de las actitudes hacia la discapacidad en el rendimiento académico.
Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2017, 4, 77–86. [CrossRef]
38. Rodríguez, M. Actitudes hacia la discapacidad en alumnos de Magisterio de Educación Infantil. Propuestas de formación para
una Edu-cación Inclusiva. Rev. Educ. Incl. 2015, 8, 137–152. Available online: https://revistaeducacioninclusiva.es/index.php/
REI/article/view/95/92 (accessed on 15 July 2020).
39. Sepúlveda, L.; Medrano, C.; Martín, P. Integración en el aula regular de alumnos con síndrome asperger o autismo de alto
funcionamiento: Una mirada desde la actitud docente. Bordón: Rev. De Pedagog. 2010, 62, 131–140. Available online: https:
//recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/BORDON/article/view/29323 (accessed on 4 October 2020).
40. Abellán, J. Actitudes hacia la discapacidad de los futuros maestros de Educación Física. Sport. Rev. Técnico Científica Del Deporte
Esc. Educ. Física Y Psicomot. 2015, 1, 207–219. [CrossRef]
41. Hernández, M.J.; Urrea, M.E.; Fernández, A.; Aparicio, M.P. Atención a la diversidad y escuela inclusiva: Las actitudes del
futuro profesorado. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2018, 3, 147–156. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10045/75531 (accessed on
10 July 2020).
42. Tárraga, R.; Grau, C.; Peirats, J. Actitudes de los estudiantes del Grado de Magisterio y del Máster de Educación Especial hacia la
inclusión educativa. Rev. Electrón. Interuniv. Prof. 2013, 16, 55–72. [CrossRef]
43. Hernández, M.J.; Urrea, M.E.; Granados, L.; Lagos, N.G.; Sanmartín, R.; García, J.M. Actitudes de los maestros en formación
sobre la diversidad e inclusión educativa. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2017, 4, 45–53. [CrossRef]
44. Ferrandis, M.V.; Grau, C.; Fortes del Valle, M.C. El profesorado y la atención a la diversidad en la ESO. Rev. Educ. Incl. 2010,
3, 11–28.
45. Rodríguez, R.M. Atención a la Diversidad en la ESO. Actitudes del Profesorado y Necesidades Educativas Especiales. Ph.D. Thesis,
Universidad de Extremadura, Extremadura, Spain, 2006. Available online: https://www.educacion.es/teseo/mostrarRef.do?ref=
388320 (accessed on 18 October 2020).
46. Cardona, M.C.; Gómez, P.F.; González, M.E. Cuestionario de Percepciones del Profesor acerca de la Pedagogía Inclusiva; Universidad de
Alicante: Alicante, Spain, 2000.
47. Chiner, E. Las Percepciones y Actitudes del Profesorado Hacia la Inclusión del Alumnado con Necesidades Educativas Especiales
Co-mo Indicadores del uso de Prácticas Educativas Inclusivas en el aula. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de Alicante, Alicante, Spain,
2011. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10045/19467 (accessed on 18 October 2020).
48. Lorenzo, C.; Rodríguez, M.C.; González, A.I.; Márquez, Y. La percepción y las actitudes del profesorado hacia la diversidad e
inclusión educativa. Eur. J. Educ. Stud. 2017, 3, 29–68. [CrossRef]
49. Pérez, D. Actitudes y Concepto de la Diversidad Humana: Un Estudio Comparativo en Centros Educativos de la isla de Tenerife.
Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de La Laguna, Alicante, Spain, 2010. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?
codigo=144834 (accessed on 6 November 2020).
50. Pérez, M.; Padilla, P. Mental health and inclusion seen from the children’s and teachers’ perspectives: A case study in Spain.
Educ. Res. Rev. 2018, 13, 188–196. [CrossRef]
51. Mula, A. Incidencia de las Actitudes y Expectativas de Alumnos y Profesores Sobre el Desarrollo del Programa de Integración; Universi-
dad de Alicante: Alicante, Spain, 2002.
52. Navarro, D. La percepción del profesorado sobre la inclusión del alumnado con discapacidad. Rev. Int. Apoyo Incl. Logop.
Soc. Multicult. 2016, 2, 35–52. Available online: https://revistaselectronicas.ujaen.es/index.php/riai/article/view/4234/3459
(accessed on 1 July 2020).
53. Antonack, R.F.; Larrive, B. Psychometric Analysis and Revision of the Opinions Relative to Mainstreaming Scale. Except. Child.
1995, 62, 139–149. [CrossRef]
54. De Boer, A.; Timmerman, M.; Pijl, J.; Minnaert, A. The psychometric evaluation of a questionnaire to measure attitudes towards
inclusive education. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 2012, 27, 573–589. [CrossRef]
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 58 16 of 16

55. Schwartz, S.H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.
Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 25, 1–65.
56. Colmenero, M.J.; Pantoja, A.; Pegalajar, M.C. Percepciones sobre atención a la diversidad en la formación inicial del profesorado
de Educación Secundaria. Rev. Complut. De Educ. 2015, 26, 101–120. [CrossRef]
57. Macías, E. Actitudes de estudiantes de magisterio en educación primaria hacia las personas con discapacidad. Rev. Educ. Incl. 2016,
9, 54–69. Available online: https://revistaeducacioninclusiva.es/index.php/REI/article/view/70/67 (accessed on 20 July 2020).
58. Colmenero, M.J.; Pegalajar, M.C. Cuestionario para futuros docentes de Educación Secundaria acerca de las percepciones sobre
atención a la diversidad: Con-strucción y validación del instrumento. Estud. Sobre Educ. 2015, 29, 165–189. Available online:
https://hdl.handle.net/10171/39796 (accessed on 5 November 2020).
59. Abellán, J.; Sáez, N.M.; Hernández, A. Creencias de los futuros maestros de Educación Infantil hacia la atención a la discapacidad
en actividad física. Ens. Rev. De La Fac. De Educ. De Albacete 2016, 31, 145–152. [CrossRef]
60. González, J.; Baños, L.M. Estudio sobre el cambio de actitudes hacia la discapacidad en clases de actividad física.
Cuad. Psicol. Deporte 2012, 12, 101–108. Available online: http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/cpd/v12n2/articulo10.pdf (accessed on
11 July 2020).
61. Gajardo, K. Reflexiones de docentes noveles y en formación sobre la inclusión educativa: Un estudio cualitativo. Rev. Electrón.
Investig. Docencia Creat. 2019, 8, 167–185. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10481/57752 (accessed on 4 July 2020).
62. Garnique, C. Las representaciones sociales: Los docentes de educación básica frente a la inclusión escolar. Perf. Educ. 2012,
34, 99–118. [CrossRef]
63. López, M.; Echeita, G.; Martín, E. Dilemas en los procesos de inclusión: Explorando instrumentos para una comprensión de las
concepciones educativas del profesorado. Rev. Lat. Educ. Inclusiva 2010, 4, 155–176. Available online: http://www.rinace.net/
Rlei/numeros/vol4-num2/art8_htm.html (accessed on 2 November 2020).
64. Álvarez, M.; Castro, P.; Campo, M.; Álvarez, E. Actitudes de los maestros ante las necesidades educativas específicas. Psicothema
2005, 17, 601–606. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10651/22917 (accessed on 13 October 2020).
65. Álvarez, E.; Álvarez, M.; Castro, P.; Campo, M.; Fueyo, E. Funcionamiento de la integración en la Enseñanza Secundaria
Obligatoria según la percepción del profesorado. Psicothema 2008, 20, 56–61.
66. Pegalajar, M.C.; Colmenero, M.J. Actitudes del docente de centros de educación especial hacia la inclusión educativa.
Enseñanza Teach. 2014, 32, 195. [CrossRef]
67. Granda, J.; Mingorance, A.C. El proceso de formación de los docentes de educación física en la adquisición de actitudes para la
integración de alumnos en la atención a la diversidad. Publ. Fac. De Educ. Y Humanid. Del Campus De Melilla 2010, 40, 27–47.
Available online: https://revistaseug.ugr.es/index.php/publicaciones/article/view/2227 (accessed on 3 July 2020).
68. Barroso, E. Respuesta Educativa ante la Diversidad; Amarú: Salamanca, Spain, 1991.
69. Lüke, T.; Grosche, M. Implicitly measuring attitudes towards inclusive education: A new attitude test based on single-target
implicit associations. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2017, 33, 427–436. [CrossRef]
70. Lautenbach, F.; Antoniewicz, F. Ambivalent implicit attitudes towards inclusion in preservice PE teachers: The need for assessing
both implicit and explicit attitudes towards inclusion. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2018, 72, 24–32. [CrossRef]
71. Amor, A.M.; Hagiwara, M.; Shogren, K.A.; Thompson, J.R.; Verdugo, M.Á.; Burke, K.M.; Aguayo, V. International perspectives
and trends in research on inclusive education: A systematic review. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2019, 23, 1277–1295. [CrossRef]
72. Lüke, T.; Grosche, M. What do I think about inclusive education? It depends on who is asking. Experimental evidence for a social
desirability bias in attitudes towards inclusion. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2018, 22, 38–53. [CrossRef]