The UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2006 (UN, 2007) and its ratification in more than 160 countries all over the world as well as the “Education for All” programme of the UNESCO (2015) foster the shift towards inclusion in education. Following this aspiration, all students, irrespective of their gender, social and economic conditions as well as disabilities and special educational needs should be educated in joint learning settings. Besides the general education sector, inclusion strikes the sector of vocational education and training (UN, 2007, Art. 24; UNESCO, 2015). Inclusive education signifies new and complex challenges for teachers at general and vocational schools. Positive attitudes are essential requirements to meet these challenges. Teacher’s attitudes are a core aspect of the professional competence of teachers (Baumert & Kunter, 2011, 482) and they predict the quality of tuition (Helmke, 2012, 176). They are international acknowledged as the main influencing factor in the implementation of inclusion (Miesera & Gebhardt, 2018, 2; Hernandez, Hueck & Charley, 2016). However, research on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion is focused mainly on general education. There are only first small or qualitative studies on attitudes of teachers at vocational schools with low empirical evidence in germany and in comparsion with other countries (summarised in Driebe et al., 2018; Miesera & Moser, 2020). Hence, this study aims to provide insight into german teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in vocational education.

Attitudes are summative evaluations of individual points of view and willingness towards inclusion (Seifried, 2015, 32; Kunz, Luder & Moretti, 2010, 84). They are conceptualized as multidimensional constructs (Seifried, 2015, 32 f.; Ruberg & Porsch, 2017, 395 f.), of three components – according to Rosenberg and Hovland (1960): 1. affective, 2. behavioural and 3. cognitive dimension. Studies indicate positive attitudes of teachers at general schools, although their willingness towards the implementation of inclusion decreases (Kunz, Luder & Moretti, 2010, 93; Seifried, 2015, 41; Yada & Savolainen, 2017). Main positive impact factors of the attitudes are direct experience with persons with disabilities (‘contact hypothesis’), experiences with inclusive education, education and training on inclusion, experience of self-efficacy as well as the support and the quality of the school environment. A main negative impact factor is the seriousness of the disability (summarised in Driebe et al., 2018, 397 f). Moreover, attitudes vary depending on the type of school (Ruberg & Porsch, 2017, 404; Seifried, 2015, 42). Considering this background this study investigates on teacher’s attitudes at vocational schools. In detail we investigate the following seven research questions and four hypotheses:

q1-5: What influence have (1) age, (2) gender, (3) work experience, (4) federal state and (5) pedagogical qualification on attitudes towards inclusion?

h1: The direct experience with persons with disabilities affects attitudes towards incluson positive.

h2: Teaching in inclusive classes has a positive effect on attitudes towards inclusion.

h3: Further training has a positive effect on attitudes towards inclusion.

h4: Higher self-efficacy has a positive effect on attitudes towards inclusion.

q6: Which impact does the understanding of learning and teaching have on attitudes towards inclusion?

q7: Which fears, positive expectations and demands do the teachers have?

The conducted survey is based on a standardised paper-and-pencil questionannaire. Substantially, we adapted the German-speaking questionnaire of Stefanie Seifried (2015). It is based on a three dimensional model of attitudes (cognitive, behavioural and affective). The cognitive and the behavioural components are raised by the scale EFI-L in a standardised part of the questionnaire. As a result, Seifried identified three factors: 1. professional support and 2. social inclusion (both cognitive components) and 3. personal willingness (behavioural component). In addition, the fears, positive expectations and demands are raised in open questions. This aims to gain insight in the affective dimension of attitudes, which is often neglected (Seifried, 2015, 45, 74). For measuring the self-efficacy of teachers we adapted the scale WirkLehr by Schwarzer & Schmitz (1999) and items on the self-efficacy towards inclusion by Bosse & Spörer (2014). Moreover, we surveyed the teachers’ understanding of learning and teaching by the scale of Jürgen Seifried (2009) that is based on Fennema, Carpenter & Loef (1990). In total this instrument measures the attitudes and relevant attitude-influencing variables, such as self-efficacy, qualification or experience (see above). 669 teachers at vocational schools in four german federal states participated in this survey in 2019. The scale EFI-L is validated using exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. On the item and factor level, the confirmatory factor analysis provided satisfying results for the three factors professional support (α = 0.84), personal willingness (α = 0.82) and social inclusion (α = 0.84). The three-factor structure has been confirmed (RMSEA=0.054; CFI=0.926; TLI=0.911), which shows its special quality. The data was used to analyse uttered attitudes via multiple regression analysis. The affective dimension of attitudes was analysed by using the qualitative content analysis by Mayring (2014). We startet with categories that were gained by a first study with 62 teachers at vocational schools in Germany and the same open questions we used in the pre-test (Driebe et al., 2018, 406 f.) which we refined inductively by interpreting the new collected data.

It can be seen that many teachers at vocational schools have experience with inclusive teaching (76%). However, only a few (24%) have attended further training. The EFI-L-scale values tend to result in a slightly negative average. This is somewhat surprising given the current state of research, since slightly positive attitudes are reported in general schools. Regression analysis is utilized on an overall model and separately on each of EFI-Ls three factors. The overall model produce an adj. R² of 0.38. The two cognitive factors, the teacher’s assessment of professional support received by students with special needs and social inclusion, produce an adj. R² of 0.27 and 0.14, respectively. The behavioural factor, personal willingness, produce an adj. R² of 0.35. The regression analyses shows, for example, that self-efficacy towards inclusion (β = 0.50; p<.001), general self-efficacy towards teaching (β = 0.18; p<.01), further education on inclusion (β = 0.38; p<.001) and the instructional understanding of teaching and learning (β = -0.14; p<.001) affect attitudes towards inclusion. Demographic variables like age or gender seem to be mostly irrelevant. With regard to the affective dimension of the teachers’ attitudes slightly more than 50% of the fears refer to expected disadvantages for the students, followed by limited ressources or an unfavourable framework (about 30%) and qualitative and/or quantitative excessive demand of the teachers (about 25%). Positive expectations are referred especially for students with or without special educational needs (about 34%). Almost 80% of the demands refer to ressources, about 23% to the teachers’ qualification.

Baumert, J. & Kunter, M. (2011). Das Kompetenzmodell von COACTIV. In Kunter, M. Baumert, J., Blum, W. et al. (Eds.), Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften: Ergebnisse des Forschungsprogramms COACTIV (pp. 29–53). Münster. Bosse, S. & Spörer, N. (2014). Erfassung der Einstellung und der Selbstwirksamkeit von Lehramtsstudierenden zum inklusiven Unterricht. Empirische Sonderpädagogik 6(4), 279–299. Online: urn:nbn:de:0111-pedocs-100199 Driebe, T., Götzl, M., Jahn, R.W., & Burda-Zoyke, A. (2018). Einstellungen zu Inklusion von Lehrkräften an berufsbildenden Schulen. Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 114(3), 394–418. Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. & Loef, M. (1990). Mathematics beliefs scales. Madison. Helmke, A. (2012). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität. Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts. Seelze. Hernandez, D. A., Hueck, S. & Charley, C. (2016). General Education and Special Education Teachers’ Attitudes Towards Inclusion. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 79–93. Kunz, A., Luder, R. & Moretti, M. (2010). Die Messung von Einstellungen zur Integration. Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 2(3), 83–94 Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. Klagenfurt. Online: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-395173 Miesera, S. & Gebhardt, M. (2018). Inclusive vocational schools in Canada and Germany. A comparison of vocational pre-service teachers′ attitudes, self-efficacy and experiences towards inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 1–16. Miesera, S. & Moser, D. (2020). Welche Erfahrungen, Einstellungen und Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen zeigen angehende Berufspädagog*innen betreffend Inklusion an beruflichen Schulen? Ein internationaler Vergleich. bwp@ Spezial PH-AT1, 1–22. https://www.bwpat.de/spezial-ph-at1/miesera_moser_bwpat-ph-at1.pdf Rosenberg, M. J. & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective and behavioral components of attitudes. In C. I. Hovland, & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude organization and change (pp. 1–14). New Haven. Ruberg, C. & Porsch, R. (2017). Einstellungen von Lehramtsstudierenden und Lehrkräften zur schulischen Inklusion – Ein systematisches Review deutschsprachiger Forschungsarbeiten. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 63(4), 393–415 Schwarzer, R. & Schmitz, G. S. (1999). Kollektive Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung von Lehrern: Eine Längsschnittstudie in zehn Bundesländern. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 30(4), 262–274. Seifried, J. (2009). Unterricht aus der Sicht von Handelslehrern. Frankfurt am Main. Seifried, S. (2015). Einstellungen von Lehrkräften zu Inklusion und deren Bedeutung für den schulischen Implementierungsprozess. Heidelberg. UN (2007). Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/Ch_IV_15.pdf UNESCO (2015). Education for all. 2000-2015: Achievements and Challenges. Paris. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002322/232205e.pdf Yada, A. & Savolainen, H. (2017). Japanese in-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education and self-efficacy for inclusive practices. Teaching and Teacher Education 64, 222–229.