do contacts make a difference the effects of mainstreaming on student attitudes toward people with...

Do contacts make a difference?

The effects of mainstreaming on student attitudes

toward people with disabilities

Donna Kam Pun Wong *

University of Hong Kong, Social Work & Social Administration, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong

Received 7 November 2006; accepted 22 November 2006

Abstract

This article examines the effects of mainstreaming on the attitudes of non-disabled students, in a

secondary school, toward people with disabilities. Responses from 389 Form 1 and Form 2 students were

analyzed. A 47-item Students Attitudes toward People with a Disability Scale was used to measure student

attitudes at the beginning and end of the school year. The effect of educational intervention and daily

classroom contacts on student attitudes was examined. The competitive and achievement orientation of

Hong Kongs educational environment poses formidable barriers to the adoption of effective inclusive

practices in the classroom. The results of this study indicate that educational intervention outside the

classroom has a small effect in changing students attitudes.

# 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Inclusion; Disabilities; Peer attitudes; Social contacts; Educational intervention

Hong Kong lags far behind most other countries in its educational provisions for children with

special needs. It was not until 1997 that the Department of Education launched the Integrated

Education Pilot Project in an attempt to enhance the equal opportunities and social interactions of

students with and without disabilities in mainstream schools. The project aimed at supporting

children with special needs in mainstream schools by building up a whole school approach to

replace the previous pull-out model. The project targeted the mainstreaming of students with

mild learning disabilities, hearing impairments, visual impairments, physical handicaps or

autistic disorders. Schools that were prepared to welcome disabled students were given extra

financial aid for equipment and accommodation alterations, for resource teachers and training

Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 7082

* Tel.: +852 28592089; fax: +852 28587604.

E-mail address: [email protected].

0891-4222/$ see front matter # 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2006.11.002

support for teachers (Education and Manpower Bureau, 2002). Since 1997, the number of

children with disabilities in mainstream schools has gradually increased. This study aims to

examine the effects of mainstreaming on non-disabled students attitudes toward people with

disabilities. The effects of educational intervention and daily social contacts on student attitudes

toward people with disabilities were examined by comparing attitude scores at the beginning and

the end of the school year in a mainstream secondary school which admitted five students with

disabilities into its junior forms.

1. Literature review

Social contact with peers with disabilities is considered to be a key variable in shaping attitudes

(Manetti, Schneider, & Siperstein, 2001; Maras & Brown, 2000; Rimmerman, Hozmi, &

Duvdevany, 2000). Maras and Brown (1996) conducted a quasi-experimental study to examine the

temporal effects of inter-group contact on the attitudes of non-disabled children toward disability.

The children, aged from 8 to 10 years old, were randomly assigned to participate in the experimental

group of an integrated program or a control group. Twenty-six children in the integrating

(experimental group) and 24 children, without disabilities in the non-integrating (control group)

had their attitudes measured 3 times over a 3-month period. The experimental group became more

positive in their social orientations over time, while little change was seen in the controls. However,

the study also revealed that children with disabilities were still rated unfavorably in comparison to

their non-disabled peers despite the improvement in attitudes over the 3-month period. The

researchers suggested that future research should focus both on preparing mainstream children and

teachers for the inclusion of disabled students in their classrooms, and on the effects of attitudes

toward children with disabilities who are integrated into mainstream schools.

Hendrickson, Shokoohi-Yekta, Hamre-Nietupski, and Gable (1996) examined what 1137

middle and high school students felt about forming friendships with peers with severe

disabilities. The majority of these students were willing to form friendships with peers with

severe disabilities. Some of the reasons students gave for being friends with disabled students

were altruistic. They saw themselves as the person responsible for initiating the friendship. The

main barriers to forming friendships with peers with severe disabilities were a sense of

incompetence, discomfort and anxiety about being teased by others, and a fear of non-acceptance

by their own circle if they interacted with disabled students.

Another study by Maras and Brown (2000), which attempted to compare two theoretical

models of social contact, produced negative findings. This study differentiated between two types

of inclusive school settings as reflecting an interpersonal model and an inter-group model of

social contact. A total of 256 children, aged between 5 and 11, were selected from 4 classes in

each of the 8 participating schools. The children were asked to indicate their preference for who

they wanted to play with. Personal interviews were also conducted to elicit pre-existing

stereotypes and attitudes about disabilities in general. A negative response to contact with people

with disabilities was found in all of the schools. Qualitative data indicated that children felt

uncomfortable in relation to peers with disabilities if they were not given adequate information

about the nature of the disabilities. The contrast between these findings and those of the earlier

study by the same researchers (Maras & Brown, 1996) was noted. The discrepancies in peer

acceptance between the two studies were attributed to the presence in the earlier study of regular

structured co-operative activities between students with and without disabilities.

Rimmerman, Hozmi, and Duvdevany (2000) examined the effects of contact with children

with developmental disabilities on the attitudes of Israeli volunteer students. They measured the

D.K.P. Wong / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 7082 71

attitude of 139 volunteer students using the Disability Factor Scale-General (Siller, 1988), taking

both the baseline and post-test measurement after 4 months of contact through tutoring. The scale

includes seven factors: interaction strain, rejection of intimacy, generalized rejection,

authoritarian virtuousness, inferred emotional consequences, distressed identification, and

imputed functional limitation. Using a quasi-experimental design, the 62 volunteers who chose to

tutor children with disabilities were taken to be the experimental group, and the other 77

volunteers who chose to tutor children without disabilities were the controls. In both groups, prior

contact with people with disabilities was also taken to be an independent variable. Regardless of

prior contacts, the students who tutored children with developmental disabilities had more

positive attitudes on the factors of rejection of intimacy and generalized rejection. The group of

volunteers who had both prior and current contact with people with disabilities had a more

favorable attitude on both the imputed functional limitation and also generalized rejection

factors. Initial contact served to remove the rejection of people with disabilities, while prolonged

contact helped to develop a more balanced and realistic understanding of the ability and

functional capacities of disabled people. The study concluded that the association between

contact and attitudes is related to time and length of exposure.

As noted by Verplanken and Meijnders (1994), the positive evaluation of peers with

disabilities is based on a process of cognitive reasoning, while the negative affective response is

based on emotions that occur mainly without reasoning. Hastings and Graham (1995) opine that a

cognitive understanding of and positive values toward disability would necessarily enhance

social acceptance of students with disabilities in the integrated classroom. However, if an

interaction with children with disabilities is seen as threatening the social status and self image of

their non-disabled peers, there would be a high incidence of non-acceptance. In a meta-analysis

of research from 1990 to 2000, Nowicki and Sandieson (2002) reviewed a total of 20 studies on

attitudes of children without disabilities in inclusive educational settings, and concluded that

children preferred peers without disabilities compared to those with physical or intellectual

disabilities. Positive evaluations of peers with disabilities may not be able to counteract the

negative affective outcomes of social interactions in real life situations. Structuring a favorable

contact situation seemed to be crucial for positive attitudes to be upheld and negative attitudes to

be rectified.

Judging from the literature reviewed, it can be concluded that the proximity and presence of

students with disabilities in the general classroom does not automatically bring about positive

attitudes. On the whole, students with disabilities were less popular, and active facilitation and

thoughtful intervention seems to hold the key to positive social acceptance in the general

classroom. The results of attitudinal studies in inclusive educational settings pointed to the

importance of structured intervention to increase the chance of positive social interactions.

Hence, the dynamics of attitude change are closely intertwined with social influences, and in

particular with the interpersonal context of social groupings and self identity. Many researchers

(Archie & Sherrill, 1989; Hastings & Graham, 1995; Horne, 1985) have found that attitude

change in children depends on whether the interactions are meaningful and carefully structured.

The study reported herein examined the effects of mainstreaming on non-disabled student

attitudes toward people with disabilities. The following hypotheses will be tested to understand

the importance and nature of social contacts in fostering attitude changes.

1. At the end of the academic year, attitude changes towards people with disabilities for those

students who are in the same class as the disabled students will be significantly more positive

than the rest of the student sample.

D.K.P. Wong / Research in Developmental Disabilities 29 (2008) 708272

2. At the end of the academic year, attitude changes toward people with disabilities for those non-

disabled students who have participated in educational programs will be significantly more

positive than the rest of the student sample.

2. Method

2.1. Subjects

The study targeted the 406 Form 1 and Form 2 students at a mainstream secondary school. In

the 10 classes of Form 1 and Form 2 students, there were only 5 students with special needs. Of

these students, 3 had autism, 1 had a hearing impairment and 1 had a physical impairment.

Students with special needs were in 4 out of the 10 classes. The class sizes and the distribution of

students with special needs are listed in Table 1.

2.2. Measure: Questionnaire on Student Attitudes toward People with Disabilities

The attitudes of students toward people with disabilities were examined with a questionnaire

that incorporated a 47-item Students Attitudes toward People with a Disability Scale (please

refer to Appendix A). The scale was developed locally in the Baseline Survey of Students

Attitudes towards People with a Disability (Pearson, Wong, & Hui, 2003) a study conducted by

the Equal Opportunities Commission in Hong Kong. The Students Attitudes towards People

with a Disability Scale was constructed by drawing references from three of the most widely used

attitude scales: the Scale of Attitudes toward Disabled Persons (Antonak, 1988), of which the

Chinese version has been validated in the local context (Chan, Hua, Ju, & Lam, 1984); the

Acceptance Scale by Voeltz (1980); and the Student Questionnaire by Shapiro (1999). Four

components, constructed as four sub-scales, included social acceptance (SA), optimism-human

rights (OH), behavioural misconceptions (BM) and pessimism-hopelessness (PH).

In the Baseline Survey of Students Attitudes toward People with a Disability (Pearson, Wong,

& Hui, 2003), the four sub-scales had Cronbachs Alpha scores ranging from 0.69 to 0.85, which

supported the reliability of these scales (Pearson et al., 2003). In this same study, the sub-scales

were also able to differentiate student attitudes toward people with different types of disabilities.

The sub-scales scores showed that students had less favorable attitudes toward people with


Table 1

Distribution of students with disabilities within the student sample

Class No. of students Types/number of student with special needs

A1A 38 Autism/1

A1B 37 Autism/1

A1C 42 Hearing impairment/1

A1D 42 Nil

A1E 41 Nil

A2A 40 Physical impairment/1; Autism/1

A2B 40 Nil

A2C 42 Nil

A2D 42 Nil

A2E 42 Nil

Total 406 5

intellectual impairment and the ex-mentally ill than toward people with physical, visual or

hearing impairments. This predictive power supported the general validity of the scale.

2.3. Procedure

The questionnaire was administered at the beginning and end of the school year and a matched

paired t-test was performed to analyze the changes in attitudes of the students. The independent

variables were program participation, demographic variables, and classmates or non-classmates.

The questionnaire involved paper and pencil responses and was administered by the respective

class teachers during class lessons. Students were assured of confidentiality and there was

voluntary participation in the research. An instruction sheet and report form was given to teachers

for standardization of the administration procedures and for the reporting of any special incidents

or problems in the data collection procedures. A total of 406 questionnaires were collected in

September of 2002. By the end of the school year (June 2003), 400 students had participated in

the post-test measurement. After matching and cleaning up the aggregated data set, responses

from 389 students were analyzed.

3. Results

3.1. Reliability and validity of the instrument

The mean age of the student was 13.3 with a standard deviation of 0.97. The ratio of male

(49.9%) and female students (50.6%) was quite balanced. The item scores for attitude statements

in each sub-scale of the Students Attitudes toward People with a Disability Scale were computed

and Cronbachs Alpha scores of the scale were analyzed for both the baseline and post-test

scores. The attitude scale had a total of 47 items with four sub-scales, which were social

acceptance (SA) (17 items), optimism-human rights (OH) (8 items), behavioral misconceptions

(BM) (13 items) and pessimism-hopelessness (PH) (9 items). Students were asked to rate their

agreement and disagreement to the items on a 4-point scale. The Cronbachs alpha scores ranged

from 0.68 to 0.90 which indicated that all four sub-scales had high reliability in both the baseline

and post-test measurements (Table 2).

It is commonly believed and empirically supported that the attitude construct has relatively

stable properties, and should reflect a stable representation of the students evaluation and

acceptance of people with disabilities. A comparison between the baseline and post-test

measurements with paired t-test indicated that there were no significant differences for all of the

four attitude sub-scales. There were also high correlations between the baseline and post-test

scores of individual students (Table 3). This further supported the stability and reliability of the


Table 2

Reliability analysis of the Students Attitudes toward People with a Disability Scale (N = 406)

Sub-scales Cronbachs Alpha

Pre-test Post-test

Social acceptance (17 items) 0.90 0.90

Optimism-human rights (8 items) 0.80 0.82

Behavioral misconceptions (13 items) 0.84 0.85

Pessimism-hopelessness (9 items) 0.77 0.79

attitude scale as there was high congruency in the testretest reliability. This demonstrated that

the attitude sub-scale constructs were rather stable over time. The longitudinal comparison

ensured that the variations in the attitude scores could be attributed to independent variables

rather than the natural maturity of students over the timeframe of 1 year.

3.2. Attitude changes of classmates

Independent sample t-tests were performed to examine the differences in attitude changes

between classmates and non-classmates. Four classes with 144 students belonged to the

classmate group and the rest (245 students) constituted the non-classmate group (Table 4). The t-

test statistics indicated that there were no significant differences between the two groups

(Table 4). Hence, the classmates were not becoming more positive or negative in their attitudes

toward disability as a result of being in the same class as the students with disabilities. ANOVA

was also computed to explore whether there were significant differences among the classes.

These results were negative.

In the post-test questionnaire, one question was asked to ascertain the students subjective

perception of attitude changes over the past year. As shown in Table 5, 88 students, comprising

22.1% of the student sample, reported having developed a different attitude in the past year. Among

this group of 88 students, 46.6% attributed the change in attitude to the influence of TV programs,

27.3% to educational programs in school, 23.9% to newspapers/magazines and 22.7% considered

the source of influence came from contacts at school with students with disabilities (Table 5).

3.3. Attitude changes of program participants

Statistical computations were made to identify the effects of educational programs. Ninety-

eight students in Forms 1 and 2 had participated in educational programs that aimed to facilitate

social interactions between students with and without disabilities. The programs were specially


Table 3

Correlations of pre-test and post-test scores of the Students Attitudes Sub-scales (N = 389)

Sub-scales r

Social acceptance (17 items) 0.64***

Optimism-human rights (8 items) 0.56***

Behavioral misconceptions (13 items) 0.64***

Pessimism-hopelessness (9 items) 0.51***

*** p < 0.001.

Table 4

t-Test comparison of attitude changes between classmates and non-classmates (N = 389)

Classmates (n = 144) Non-classmates (n = 245) Effect size (pooled S.D.) t

Ma S.D. Ma S.D.

SA CHANGE 0.15 7.18 0.23 5.00 0.01 0.13.HR CHANGE 0.51 3.44 0.10 3.06 0.13 1.23BM CHANGE 0.30 5.15 0.52 4.20 0.05 0.45PH CHANGE 0.69 4.33 0.04 3.03 0.18 1.74

a A positive value of compressed attitude changes denotes a positive direction of attitude change.

designed to instill a message of acceptance toward people with disabilities. The attitude changes

of the program participants along each sub-scale were compared with the rest of the sample and it

was found that there was a positive change in social acceptance (Table 6). On average, the

program participant group scored an attitude mean difference of 1.52 in social acceptance

(t = 3.01, p < 0.05), whereas the other students did not have a significant attitude change (meandifference = 0.78). The effect size is 0.4, which is moderate (Springer, Stanne, & Donovan,1999). To further ascertain the direction of the attitude change, the attitude scores were

compressed into two points, with 1 indicating a more negative orientation and 0 a positive

orientation. As shown in Table 7, the compressed scores of program participants still showed a


Table 5

Perceived factors of forming different impressions on people with disabilities in the past year (N = 88)

No. of students %

Educational programs at school 24 27.3

Contact with SN classmates at school 20 22.7

Contact with other people with SN 10 11.4

Family/relatives 10 11.4

Friends 12 13.6

Television programs 41 46.6

Newspapers/magazines 21 23.9

Total 88 100.0

Table 6

t-Test comparison of attitude changes between program participants and non-participants (N = 389)

Participants

(n = 98)

Non-participants

(n = 291)

Effect size (pooled S.D.) t

Ma S.D. Ma S.D.

SA CHANGE 1.52 6.81 0.78 5.45 0.40 3.01**,bHR CHANGE 0.18 3.40 0.40 3.14 0.18 1.53BM CHANGE 0.33 4.88 0.48 4.47 0.03 0.28PH CHANGE 0.08 3.66 0.40 3.54 0.13 1.16

a A positive value of compressed attitude changes denotes a positive direction of attitude change.b Equal variances not assumed (F = 8.11, **p < 0.01).

** p < 0.01.

Table 7

t-Test comparison of compressed attitude changes between program participants and non-participants (N = 389)

Participants

(n = 98)

Non-participants

(n = 291)

Effect size (pooled S.D.) t

Ma S.D. Ma S.D.

CSA CHANGE 1.30 3.26 0.18 2.36 0.43 3.15**,b

CHR CHANGE 2.58 3.00 2.67 2.52 0.03 0.29.CBM CHANGE 0.46 3.02 0.70 2.43 0.09 0.74.CPH CHANGE 0.35 1.76 0.15 1.55 0.12 1.07

a A positive value of compressed attitude changes denotes a positive direction of attitude change.b Equal variances not assumed (F = 8.11, **p < 0.01).

** p < 0.01

positive and significant attitude change (t = 3.15, p < 0.05) in the social acceptance sub-scale.The effect size is 0.43, which is moderate (Springer et al., 1999).

3.4. Prediction of attitude change

Regression analysis was computed to eliminate the possible spurious effects of socio-

demographic variables from the main effects of the key independent variables of program and

contact. Multiple regression analysis was performed on the four attitude change scores with the

following as independent variables: sex, age, education of father, education of mother, housing

type, number of computers at home, contact with people with disabilities and participation in

programs. The results are shown in Table 8. In the model summary of attitude changes in social

acceptance, only the program variable had an independent effect on student attitude changes. In

the case of the other three sub-scales, no independent variables could be entered into the

equation. The multiple regression analysis ruled out the possibility of spurious effects of

demographic variables on attitude changes of students. Hence, attitude changes could more

confidently be attributed to the key variable of participation in educational programs.

4. Discussion

4.1. Classroom contacts and attitude change

The quantitative research findings revealed no significant differences in attitude scores

between the classmates and non-classmates of the students with disabilities. The first hypothesis

was not supported. These findings call attention to the complexity and nature of social contacts in

an inclusive educational setting. As Allport (1954) emphasized, a desirable condition for social

contact is a shared goal. This preset condition does not always exist in local educational settings.

Although Hong Kong students might share the common goal of attaining academic achievement,

they have to compete with each other and achieve in a highly individualistic manner. Educational

cultures that have a strong achievement orientation foster a strong sense of rivalry and elitism in

the classroom.

The school in this study did not deploy teaching assistants in mainstream classrooms as there

are too many subjects in the secondary school setting. Curriculum constraints limit the range of

feasible inclusive educational practices that can be implemented. Useful inclusive educational

practices such as collaborative teaching and peer tutoring (Salisbury, Gallucci, Palombaro, &

Peck, 1995; Shapiro, 1999) have not been adopted by the school. Without deliberate and


Table 8

Multiple regression analysis in predicting attitude changes (N = 389)

Variables Standardized Beta t

Sex 0.04 0.83

Age 0.03 0.81

Fathers education 0.05 0.95Mothers education 0.02 0.39

Housing 0.01 0.17Number of computers 0.04 1.00Have participated in programs 0.13 3.02**

Have known or been in contact with disabled people 0.06 1.47

thoughtful inclusive practices, it is not surprising that being in physical proximity to students with

special needs did not necessarily bring forth attitude changes among students. Schools in Hong

Kong are largely judged by the results achieved by students in public examinations. While the social

interdependence theory (Johnson & Johnson, 1998) may have rightly described the mechanisms

and group environment that are conducive to the social acceptance of students with disabilities, the

prevalent emphasis on academic achievement would affect the chances of successful co-operation

and the outcomes of social contact between students with and without disabilities.

Co-operative groups in the classroom may have little chance of fostering interdependence

when the competence of the group members is not on a par or complementary. As the school in

this study did not lower the academic requirements for students with special needs, students with

disabilities struggled to keep up with the curriculum, and their presence in the mainstream

classroom was often considered a burden. Some students resisted and resented being in the same

project groups as students with disabilities, who were either perceived as free riders or burdens in

meeting the academic requirements of the group.

4.2. Effects of educational programs

At the end of the school year, the students who had participated in educational programs had a

significantly higher positive change in their attitudes toward people with disabilities, as shown in

Table 6. These changes were confined to the social acceptance sub-scale. There were no changes in

the basic core values of human rights and the beliefs about behavioral misconceptions. The second

hypothesis was therefore partially supported. In comparison with classroom activities, group co-

operation in educational programs outside the classroom, which involved physical and adventure

based activities, provided social contacts of a different nature. As group members might be on a par

in terms of non-academic competence and potential, the small groups, under thoughtful adult

supervision and guidance, were able to facilitate positive interactions and meaningful co-operation

between students with and without disabilities. Yet it should also be noted that this group cohesion

and morale might also be short lived. The interdependence between the students might not

necessarily be sustainable after the educational program had ended. The effects on attitude change

were limited by the time, duration and specific content of the educational program.

Such short-term educational intervention would need to work against the competitive and

individualistic culture in the mainstream classroom. Mutual goals and interdependence existed

for certain student groups when they shared similar levels of social resources and competence.

For example, an autistic student was able to help other members to win a game during an

overnight camp because of his physical strength and trust toward fellow group members. Yet, the

effects were short lived and the co-operative spirit of the group could not be carried over into the

general classroom.

4.3. Implications for inclusive educational policies and practices

The findings of the study were very much in line with the literature and point out the

challenges of fostering social acceptance in the general classroom. Empirical studies by Evans

et al. (1992), Scheepstra, Nakken, and Pijl (1999) and Yude, Goodman, and McConachie (1998)

indicated that inclusion does not automatically lead to more social contact and friendships

between students with and without special needs. Furthermore, Shapiro (1999) cautioned against

the simplistic view that social contact would necessarily bring about a favorable change in

attitudes toward people with disabilities.


The present findings indicate that given the right tasks and adult facilitation, co-operative groups

in the non-academic arena can be effective in fostering interactions and possibly favorable attitude

changes toward people with disabilities. Knowledge of disabilities, the development of appropriate

skills, being part of a co-operative group structure, and adult modeling and coaching are all

important ingredients in the fostering of attitude changes throughout the process of prolonged social

contact between students with and without disabilities. Knowledge about the nature of disabled

students special needs was essential for the barriers and misconceptions in initial social encounters

to be overcome. This knowledge could also help students to develop empathy toward, and have

differential expectations of the students with disabilities. In ongoing social interactions, both

students with and without disabilities would have to learn a new set of rules and skills in relating to

each other that would identify commonalities and accommodate differences. It would be desirable

if the co-operation between students would bring about mutual satisfaction and positive outcomes.

Conscious effort would be required to pave the way so that positive and constructive roles would be

assigned to students with disabilities in co-operative groups. As suggested by Goldstein (2002),

teachers can assist students with disabilities to gain entry into student groups by reducing the costs

and increasing the rewards for typical peers. Adult facilitation is essential to enable less socially

capable students to connect with others in co-operative small groups.

Teachers or social workers could make use of the contact situations as a reciprocal learning

process for students with and without disabilities. In the focus group interviews, some students

revealed a willingness to help their disabled classmates, but they were not given opportunities or

provided with the appropriate structures (such as the role of peer helpers or tutors) that would

allow them to relate to the students with disabilities. They were also doubtful about their own

capabilities and worried about possible social rejection from others if they intended to try to show

a little kindness toward the students with disabilities. Adolescents are in an exploration and

experimentation period. They need adult guidance and facilitation in the small group to create a

sense of safety so that they can step out of their own egocentric selves and be willing to empathize

with others. Students also need to be aware of their own limitations and weaknesses before they

can accept people who are different from themselves. Many of the group dynamics and

interpersonal relationships provide a good starting point for self-reflection and understanding, for

students both with and without disabilities. Students can explore the virtues of friendship and

diversity by interacting with and helping those less capable than themselves. It would be helpful

to think of ways to minimize costs and increase social incentives and recognition for students

willing to accommodate peers with disabilities. For example, explicit recognition can be given

for assisting the student with disabilities to take up simple tasks and responsibilities in the group.

Further research is needed to identify strategies and teaching practices that make use of small co-

operative groups inside and outside the classroom.

4.4. Limitations of the study

Students attitudes toward people with disabilities were shown to be stable and consistent

within the sample. This finding lends support to the reliability of the instrument as well as the

stability of the attitude constructs. The comparison between the student groups had to be made

conservatively because there were limitations in controlling all the variables and conditions in the

study. In examining the effects of social contact, a gross differentiation between classmates and

non-classmates was taken to be the independent variable. This was far from adequate as an

estimation of the frequency, intensity, and nature of social contacts between students with and

without disabilities. The quantitative findings on the effects of contact were, therefore, not


definitive and should be interpreted with caution. The operational definition and measurement of

social contact were not rigorously quantified because of the limited opportunities for research

team members to be on site and take frequency counts of different kinds of contacts in and outside

the classroom. The feasibility and co-operation of the schools in accommodating the research

team members in the school settings had to be taken into account in the research design.

Similarly, the construct of educational intervention that targeted attitude change was also

based on a broad classification of program participants and non-participants. Since the overall

number of students participating in these program interventions was rather small, it would not be

statistically sensible to divide this group even further into participants of different program types.

Teachers predetermined the type and number of educational interventions and also the target

group of students to be invited to participate. Hence, the sub-sample of program participants was

non-randomized and did not necessarily correspond in its basic characteristics with the full

sample. Despite having a significant difference in attitude scores between program participants

and non-participants, the positive effects of the programs on attitude changes might be a result of

a social desirability or self-selection factor. Further research will have to be conducted to probe

into the dynamics and strategies of various types of educational intervention in fostering attitude

changes toward people with disabilities.

5. Conclusions

The present study demonstrates that social contacts do make a difference if educational

intervention is carefully structured in a supportive school environment. However, efforts to foster

positive attitude changes has to work against the ethos of social ranking based on competence

which is inherent in the educational culture and structural environment. Students have to compete

with each other and achieve in a highly individualistic manner. Positive rewards and reciprocity

in social contacts hold the key in fostering positive attitudes towards peers with disabilities. The

findings of the study were congruent with the existing literature and could explain how some

social and ecological features could influence students attitudes and actual behavior toward

peers with disabilities. The findings clearly establish the need for good teaching practices that

facilitate mutual benefits and co-operation between students with and without disabilities in

academic tasks within the mainstream classroom.

Appendix A

A.1. Students Attitudes toward People with a Disability Scale

The following are examples of items in the social acceptance (SA) sub-scale

1. If there is a disabled student in my class, I would talk to them.

2. It is really not a big deal to tease somebody by calling him/her a disabled.

3. I dont want a disabled person sitting next to me on the bus.

4. If I had a disabled brother or sister, I wouldnt tell anyone.

The following are examples of items in the optimism-human rights (HR) sub-scale

1. Disabled children should not be provided with a high school education.

2. Disabled people should be allowed to live where and how they choose.


3. Disabled workers should receive the same wage as compared with other workers for the same

workload.

4. I do not mind having a service centre for disabled people in my residential neighbourhood.

The following are examples of items in the behavioral misconceptions (BM) sub-scale

1. Disabled people are no different from others in many ways.

2. Disabled people can never really be happy.

3. Disabled people show a deviant personality type.

4. Disabled people are not a burden of their family and the society.

The following are examples of items in the pessimism-hopelessness (PH) sub-scale

1. Disabled individuals can be expected to fit into competitive society.

2. Keeping severely disabled people alive is scientifically unnatural and lies in the face of

survival for the fittest.

3. It is a waste of money to have special facilities/services for disabled people.

4. Severely disabled people cannot really benefit from an education.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Antonak, R. F. (1988). The measurement of attitudes toward people with disabilities: Methods, psychometrics, and scales.

Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Archie, V. W., & Sherrill, C. (1989). Attitudes toward handicapped peers of mainstreamed and non-mainstreamed children

in physical education. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 319322.

Chan, F., Hua, M.-S., Ju, J. J., & Lam, C. S. (1984). Factorial structure of the Chinese Scale of Attitudes toward Disabled

Persons: A cross-validation study. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 7, 317319.

Education and Manpower Bureau (2002). Whole-school approach to integrated education. http://www.emb.gov.hk/

index.aspx?nodeID=185&langno=1. Retrieved on 10th October 2006. Last updated on 10th September 2005.

Evans, I. M., Salisbury, C. L., Palombaro, M. M., Berryman, J., & Hollowood, T. M. (1992). Peer interactions and social

acceptance of elementary-age children with sever disabilities in an inclusive school. Journal of the Association for

Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17, 205212.

Goldstein, H. M. L. (2002). Promoting social communication: Children with developmental disabilities from birth to

adolescence. In H. Goldstein, L. A. Kaczmarek, & K. M. English (Eds.), Promoting social communication: Children

with developmental disabilities from birth to adolescence (pp. 525). Baltimore: Paul H.

Hastings, R. P., & Graham, S. (1995). Adolescents perceptions of young people with severe learning difficulties: The

effects of integration schemes and frequency of contact. Educational Psychology, 15(2), 149160.

Hendrickson, J. M., Shokoohi-Yekta, M., Hamre-Nietupski, S., & Gable, R. A. (1996). Middle and high school students

perceptions on being friends with peers with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 1928.

Horne, M. D. (1985). Attitudes toward handicapped students: Professional, peer and parent reactions. NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory. In R. S. Tindale, L.

Heath, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-King, & J. Myers (Eds.), Theory and

research on small groups. NY: Plenum Press.

Manetti, M., Schneider, B. H., & Siperstein, G. (2001). Social acceptance of children with mental retardation:

Testing the contact hypothesis with an Italian sample. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25,

279286.

Maras, P., & Brown, R. (1996). Effects of contact on childrens attitudes toward disability: A longitudinal study. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 26, 21132134.

Maras, P., & Brown, R. (2000). Effects of different forms of school contact on childrens attitudes toward disabled and

non-disabled peers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 337351.


Nowicki, E. A., & Sandieson, R. (2002). A meta-analysis of school-age childrens attitudes towards persons with physical

or intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 49, 243265 (Carfax

Publishing Company).

Pearson, V., Wong, D. K. P., & Hui, H. S. K. (2003). A baseline survey of students attitudes towards people with a

disability. Hong Kong: Equal Opportunities Commission.

Rimmerman, A., Hozmi, B., & Duvdevany, I. (2000). Contact and attitudes toward individuals with disabilities among

students tutoring children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 25,

1318.

Salisbury, C. L., Gallucci, C., Palombaro, M. M., & Peck, C. A. (1995). Strategies that promote social relations among

elementary students with and without severe disabilities in inclusive schools. Exceptional Children, 62, 125138.

Scheepstra, A. J. M., Nakken, H., & Pijl, S. J. (1999). Contacts with classmates: The social position of pupils with Downs

syndrome in Dutch regular education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 14, 211220.

Shapiro, A. (1999). Everybody belongs: Changing negative attitudes toward classmates with disabilities. NY: Garland

Pub Co.

Siller, J. (1988). The general form of the Disability Factor Scales Series (DFS-G). In R. F. Antonak, & H. Livneh (Eds.),

The measurement of attitudes towards people with disabilities. Springfield Il: Charles C Thomas.

Springer, L., Stanne, M. E., & Donovan, S. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science,

mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69, 2151.

Verplanken, B., & Meijnders, A. (1994). Emotion and cognition: Attitudes toward persons who are visually impaired.

Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 88, 504511.

Voeltz, L. M. (1980). Childrens attitudes toward handicapped peers. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 84, 455

464.

Yude, C., Goodman, R., & McConachie, H. (1998). Peer problems of children with hemiplegia in mainstream primary

schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39, 533541.


Do contacts make a difference?Literature reviewMethodSubjectsMeasure: Questionnaire on Student Attitudes toward People with DisabilitiesProcedure

ResultsReliability and validity of the instrumentAttitude changes of classmatesAttitude changes of program participantsPrediction of attitude change

DiscussionClassroom contacts and attitude changeEffects of educational programsImplications for inclusive educational policies and practicesLimitations of the study

ConclusionsAppendix AStudents Attitudes toward People with a Disability Scale

References

do contacts make a difference the effects of mainstreaming on student attitudes toward people with...

Documents