Inclusion of Students with Autism Spectrum Disorders

comprehension of Students with Autism Spectrum DisordersAbstractThe employment of this study is to examine postures towards comprehension body of pupils with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) and self-importance- energy beliefs of preservice educateers. Background factors leave alone be explored in relation to both attitudes towards cellular comprehension and self capability beliefs. ASDs ar decorous the fastest growing developmental disabilities with 1 f in all out of every cl births being diagnosed as having one of these disorders.ASDs be typically outlined as developmental disorders and can range in symptoms from spiritless to austere. They atomic number 18 place by abnormal or impaired development in sociable interaction and communication combined with a restricted repertoire of activities and interests. As a result, much s scramrren with ASDs are in motif of genteelnessal run. Preservice t singularlyers go forth be surveyed for their level of efficacy as head as attitudes towards comprehension of children with autism spectrum disorders.Preservice Teachers Efficacy A Correlate of em musical arrangements towards Inclusion of Students with Autism Spectrum DisorderChapter 1 triggerThis study depart direction on self-efficacy beliefs preservice instructors and their attitudes towards cellular inclusion body of students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs). Historically, inclusion studies expect broadly focused on students with cosmopolitan disabilities without diverseiation of the 13 stultification categories as listed in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 ( head).It is necessary to briefly cross special knowledge law in order to understand how students with exceptionalities are placed and serviced within the larning methodal activity system (either in special cultivation, normal upbringing, or a combination of classes). thought is the federal legislation that regulates the culture of students with disabilities (Woolfolk, 2010). It was originally enacted by Congress in 1975 to ensure that children with disabilities had the same fortune as students without disabilities (Woolfolk, 2010).The law has seen galore(postnominal) revisions throughout the years. The most recent amendments to IDEA were passed by Congress in December 2004. The final regulations were published in August 2006 and termed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA 2004) (Public Law nary(prenominal) 108-446). IDEIA 2004 guides how states and train districts mention and provide special upbringing and related to function to children with disabilities (http//www.nichcy.org/idea.htm). IDEIA 2004 specialisedally addresses where students with disabilities should be educated and alike requires schoolhouses to provide a free and assign breeding (FAPE) for all students (Woolfolk, 2010).Although the law does non specializedally use the oral communication inclusion, i t does use the term least restrictive environment (LRE) when speaking of localization for students with disabilities (Inzano, 1999). The law regarding placing students within the LRE has generated many questions as to exactly what constitutes an LRE.According to the law, in an LRE, the student is to be placed with non-disabled peers as much as let throughout the school day (IDEIA, 2004). In addition, the student can only(prenominal) be spaced from nondisabled peers if the nature or severity of their deadening impedes upon their genteelness (IDEIA, 2004 http//www.findcounseling.com/journal/sped/least.html). establish upon this law, on that point appears to be a push to teach children with disabilities within the unremitting commandment schoolrooms (Villa, Thousand, Nevin, Liston, 2005 Liston, 2005). As a result of this, there will be a paradigm shift moving external from segregation to integration where students with and without disabilities will be taught together (Gidd ens, 2001). comprehensive education is set by the integration of all students, including those with disabilities, into the frequent education schoolroom (Avramidis Norwich 2002 Woolfolk, 2010). Inclusion is often confused with the nonion of mainstreaming. Schnorr (1990) indicated that mainstreaming and inclusion each deal with students with disabilities in the regular classrooms, the responsibilities of the widely distributed education instructor is different for both. In mainstreaming, the regular class instructor is liable for some of the program line of the student with exceptionalities while the special education instructor is principally responsible for the students instruction (Lipsky Gartner, 1989).This is quite different than inclusion. Through inclusion, the regular class teacher is responsible for nearly all of the instruction of the student with special needs. The special education teacher serves as a reinforcer to the regular education teacher (Salisbury et al., 1995). For the purposes of this study, inclusion will be defined as full term placement in mainstream general education classes with appropriate special education support service.By studying deterrent categories under a broad umbrella, it is difficult to differentiate attitudes towards inclusion of specific constipation categories. Inclusion of students based on specific impediment categories is circumscribed and has not been fully analyzed in current research studies. inquiry has largely focused on teacher attitudes towards inclusion of students with learning disabilities (Avramidis, Bayliss, et al 2000 Bender, Vail, et al, 1995 Bradshaw Mundia 2006 Buell, Hallam, et al 1999 Burke Sutherland 2004 Campbell, Gil more than et al 2003 Clough Lindsay 1991 Elhoweris Alsheikh 2006 Hammond Ingalls 2003 Jobe, Rust, et al. 1996 Kadell Wiebe 2001 Kalyva, Gojkovic, et al 2007 Kwapy 2004 Reasons 2005 Romer 2004 Ross-Hill 2007 Se top hata 2002 Shade Stewart 2001 Walpole 2006).Th ere piddle been some studies focusing on emotional and behavioral difficulties within the general education classrooms (Avramidis, Bayliss, Burden 2000 Clough Lindsay 1991 battle of Hastings Oakford 2003 Soodak et al. 1998 Stoiber et al. 1998) cognitive deadenings (Center Ward 1987 Thomas 1985), and mild-mannered physical disabilities (Center Ward 1987 Forlin 1995). The remaining special education categories shoot not been the focus of much research (Autism Spectrum Disorder, Blind or Low plenty Deaf or Hard of hearing Deaf-Blind Developmentally Delayed voice communication or Speech impairment Multiple Disabilities Other health impairment Orthopedic impairment and Traumatic brain injury). This study will wonder the attitudes of pre-service teachers toward inclusion of students with ASDs.ASDs fall within the Pervasive Developmental Disorders based upon the symptomatic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition (DSM-IV, p. 14 2005). The basis ASDs and Perv asive Developmental Disorder (PDD) are often used synonymously (Pieranagelo Giuliani, 2007). Pervasive Developmental Disorder is a general term that refers to a spectrum of disorders that differ with respect to the number and eccentric of symptoms or age of onslaught (DSM-IV, pg. 69). Pervasive Developmental Disorders take Autistic Disorder, Retts Disorder, Childhood clastic Disorder, Aspergers Disorder, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise qualify (DSM-IV, p. 14 2005). ASDs are typically defined as developmental disorders in which behavior characteristics range in syndrome expression and the symptoms change as the child develops on a continuum from mild to severe (Volkmar, Paul, Klin, Cohen, 2005). They are typically characterized by severe and pervasive impairment in several areas of development that include reciprocal and social interaction skills, communication skills, or the presence of sort behavior, interests, and activities(DSM-IV, pg 69 2005).Four mill ion children are born in the fall in States every year and of these four million children 560,000 individuals amidst the ages of 0-21 crap an ASD (http//www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/faq_prevalence.htm). Based on prevalence statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 2007, one out of every 150 children in the United States has autism (http//www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer?pagename= some_whatis_factsstats). Due to the growth in diagnosing of ASDs, more children are in need of narrow down education programs. In 2006, the CDC reported 484,299 individuals between the ages 3 through 21 drawd services under the autism classification for special education services (https//www.ideadata.org/tables30th/ar_1-3.htm).Additional data from the CDC reported the state of Indiana serviced 159,679 students under IDEA in 2006 between the ages of 6 and 21. Of these students, 7,391 were set as having an ASD (https//www.ideadata.org/tables30th/ar_1-3.htm). Illinois reported component part 289,611 students under IDEA in 2006 between the ages of 6 and 21. Of these students, 9,398 students were identified as having an ASD (https//www.ideadata.org/tables30th/ar_1-3.htm). Michigan reported serving 217,673 under IDEA in 2006 between the ages of 6 and 21. Of these students, 9,723 were identified as having an ASD (https//www.ideadata.org/tables30th/ar_1-3.htm).The needs of students with ASDs vary and should be identified and addressed within their educational programming. As stated earlier, ASDs are a convention of developmental disabilities that are defined by significant impairments in social interaction, communication, and unusual behaviors (DSM-IV, pg. 69). This is of particular concern when looking at the best learning environment for students with ASDs. Researchers and educators agree that children with ASDs benefit from early intervention services (National Research Council, 2001 Rapin, 1997 Rogers, 1996 Strain, Wolery Izeman, 1998). It has been force-outuate to be beneficial to place students with ASDs in the general education classroom so they incur early interventions as salutary as appropriate role models of social skills (Klinger Dawson, 2005).At the same time, this presents a problem because students with ASDs are often not accepted into the general education class. Rejection increases with the students age and severity of their symptoms which increases their tendency to become socially isolated (Burack, Root, Zigler, 1997 as cited in Volkmar, Paul, Klin, Cohen, 2005). Parents, teachers, and students need to work together to determine which educational services are needed and specifically, to afford them with the greatest possibilities for future transitions (Bock Myles, 1999 Crowley, 2000 Bowe, 2005 as cited in Volkmar, Paul, Klin, Cohen, 2005). Educational placement options for students with ASDs need to be a place where they receive the most benefit as well as keeping in accordance with the law requirin g LRE.The increase of students with special needs within general education classrooms has spurred changes in attitudes of teachers, parents, and students regarding the appropriate placement for students with disabilities to receive an education. Research has shown that teacher attitudes towards inclusion induce a significant impact upon whether or not inclusion is a success or disappointment within the classroom (Avramidis Norwich 2002 Bacon Schultz 1991 Barton, 1992 Barton Wiczenski 1993 Bishop, 1986 Carroll, Forlin, Jobling 2003 Chow Winzer, 1992 Coates, 1989 Cook, 2001 Cook, Semmel, Gerber 1999 Good Brophy 1997 Hannah Pliner, 1983 convert Gunn, 1988 Idol, Nevin Paolucci-Whitcomb 1994 Roa Lim, 1999 Salend 2001 Schumm et al. 1994 Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, Lesar, 1991 Shade Stewart, 2000 Wiczenski, 1993 Van Reusen, Shoho, Barker 2001 William Algozine, 1977 Wood, 1989). Attitude research pertaining to inclusion of students with disabilities has provided widely vari ed results (Bennett et al, 1997 Garriott, Miller, Snyder, 2003 Leyser Tappendorf, 2001 Rea et al. 2002 Shier, 2002).Professional groups vary comfortably in their perceptions of which children are most in all likelihood to be successful with the inclusion process (Bochner Pieterse 1989). There are educators who support the inclusion of students with disabilities and indicate it has arrogant benefits for students (Avramidis et al, 2000 Chalmers, 1991 Frederickson, Dunsmuir, Lang Monsen 2004 Leyser Tappendorf 2001 Rodgers, 1987 Rojewski Pollard, 1993 Ward et al, 1994 Villa et al, 1996 York, Vandercook, MacDonald, Heise-Neff Caughey, 1992).If teachers attitudes toward inclusion are positive, then the nonplus of their students will also be positive (Anderson, Chitwood, Hayden 1997 Alexander Strain, 1978). Conversely, many educators are not as accepting of inclusion and hold minus attitudes towards inclusion (Alghazo, Dodeen, Algaryouti, 2003 Berryman, 1989 Bradshaw, 2004 B uell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, 1999 Center Ward, 1987 Coates, 1989 DAlonzo, Giordano Cross, 1996 DAlonzo Ledon 1992 Dixon, 1999 Forlin, Douglas, Hattie, 1996 Gersten, Walker Darch, 1988 Hammond Ingalls 2003 Hayes Gunn, 1988 Horne Ricciardo, 1988 Jamieson, 1984 Jobe, Rust, Brissie, 1996 Larrivee Cook, 1979 Leyser Tappendorf, 2001 Luseno, 2000 Minke et al, 1996 Murphy, 1996 Reiter et al, 1998 Schumm Vaughn 1991 Semmel et al, 1991 Thomas, 1985 Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad, Slusher Saumell, 1996). If the teachers attitudes towards inclusion are ban, then the experience of their students will be unsuccessful (Anderson, Chitwood, Hayden 1997 Alexander Strain, 1978). Forlin et al (1999) indicated that teachers attitudes towards individuals with disabilities suggest that negative attitudes fail to patheticer expectations of that student.Research has also shown teachers attitudes toward inclusion were strongly actd by the nature of the students disabilities (Avramidis, Bayliss, Burden, 2000 Bradshaw and Mundia 2006 Center Ward, 1987 Dean, Elrod B missbourn, 1999 Jobe, Rust Brissie, 1996 Mak, 2003 Scruggs Mastropieri, 1996 Soodak, Podell, Lehman, 1998). Several studies go shown that specific disability areas negatively presumeed teacher attitudes towards inclusion. Thomas (1985) canvass teachers in England and found they opposed integration of students with intellectual difficulties. This opposition has been replicated in several subsequent studies (Avramidis, Bayliss, Burden, 2000 Center Ward, 1987 Clough and Lindsay, 1991 Forlin, 1995 Hayes Gunn, 1988 Kwapy, 2004 Soodak et al., 1998 Stoiber et al., 1998). Research also shows that teachers had bother with children who had emotional and behavioral difficulties (Avramidis et al, 2000 Bowman, 1986 Clough Lindsay, 1991 Forlin, 1995 Hastings Oakford, 2003 Hayes Gunn, 1988 Heflin Bullock, 1999 Kwapy, 2004 Soodak et al., 1998 Stoiber et al, 1998).Center and Ward (1987) found that teachers within their research study were reluctant to include students with more severe physical disabilities or students with intellectual disabilities however, they were willing to accept the inclusion of students with mild physical disabilities. As a result of the mixed results of research on inclusion, it is important to identify attitudes towards inclusion of students, specifically with ASDs, within the general education classroom.To date, there has been a lack of research on ASDs and teacher attitudes towards inclusion. With the style within the educational system to integrate all students with disabilities into regular education classrooms, it is going to be important to evaluate teacher attitudes toward inclusion of students with ASDs as the prevalence rate for this specific disability is on the rise.Multiple factors put up been found to affect teachers attitudes (Salend Duhaney, 1999). These factors primarily relate to the child, teacher, and school. Several factors seem to systemati cally arise in research regarding attitudes towards inclusion of students with disabilities and include teacher efficacy, the type of disability, and the individuals teacher breeding program. These areas will be the focus of this research study.Teacher efficacy has been a focus in many research studies (Allinder, 1994 Allinder, 1995 Ashton, 1984 Ashton Webb, 1986 Brownell Pajares, 1999 Gibson Dembo, 1984 Pajares, 1992 Soodak, Podell Lehman, 1998). Teacher efficacy is a teachers individual beliefs in their capabilities to reach all of their students, unheeding of disability and teach all types of students (Armor et al., 1976 Ashton, 1984 Ashton Webb 1986 Berman McLaughlin, 1977 Coladarci Breton, 1997 Gibson Dembo, 1984 Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, Hoy, 1998 Woolfolk, 2010). Many studies have noted that a teachers understanding of efficacy can have a direct positive affect on student achievement (Anderson, Greene, Loewen, 1988 Ashton, 1984 Midgley, Feldlaufer, Eccles, 1989 Woolfolk, 2010) and is a principal factor impacting classroom effectiveness (Allinder, 1993 Ashton Webb, 1986 Brownell Pajares, 1999 Gibson Dembo, 1984 Pajares, 1992).There has been limited research as to the effect teacher efficacy has upon the students with ASDs. Research on general disability areas has shown that as a teachers personal efficacy increases, they become less nervous well-nigh including students with disabilities into their classrooms (Allinder, 1994 Soodak, Podell Lehman, 1998). Other research studies have found that teachers often lack confidence in their instructional skills when dealing with a student with a disability (Buell, Hallam, Gamel-McCormick, 1999 Center Ward 1987) thus decreasing their self efficacy.By identifying links between teacher efficacy and teacher attitudes towards inclusion of students with ASDs more information can be provided to teachers to serve up them olfactory sensation confident as well as successful in teaching students w ith ASDs within their classrooms. other factor affecting teacher attitudes towards inclusion stems from their teacher preparation programs. oftentimes of the current research on inclusion of students with disabilities has shown that general educators often feel confused when asked to nominate accommodations for students with disabilities within their classes (Lombard et al., 1998). Educators have indicated that they feel un watchful to pass inclusion as a result of a lack of preparation in education programs (Avramidis, Bayliss Burden, 2000 Bender Ukeje, 1989 Bender, Vail, Scott 1995 Betancourt-Smith 1994 Bruneau-Balderrama, 1997 Buell et al, 1999 Center Ward, 1987 Creal, 2000 Edelen-Smith, Prater, Sileo 1993 Evans, Townsend, Duchnowski, Hocutt, 1996 Ferguson, 1995 Forlin et al. 1999 Garfinkle Schwartz, 2002 Glass 1996 Grbich Sykes, 1992 Hammond Ingalls, 2003 Hastings, Hewes, Lock Witting, 1996 Johnston, Proctor, Corey 1994 King-Sears Cummings, 1996 Kwapy, 2004 Lanie r Lanier 1996 Mastropieri Scruggs, 2000 Minke, Bear, Deemer Griffin, 1996 Nevin, Cohen, Salazar Marshall, 2007 Olson, 2003 OShea OShea, 1997 Pugach Seidl, 1995 Reber, Marshak, Glor-Scheib, 1995 Reed Monda-Awhitethorna, 1995 Reitz Kerr, 1991 Salend, 2001 Schumm et al. 1994 Schumm Vaughn, 1992 Schuum Vaughn, 1995 Scruggs Mastropieri, 1996 Shanker, 1994 Sindelar, 1995 Singh, 2001 Slusher Saumell 1996 Snyder, 1990 Soodak, Podell Lehman, 1998 Swoboda, 2000 Tait Purdie 2000 Taylor, Richards, Goldstein, Schilit 1997 Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad, Wang, Reynolds, Walberg, 1994 Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad, Slusher, Saumell, 1996 Wang, Reynolds Walberg, 1994 Wanzenried, 1998).Currently, many educators remain insufficiently informed about the practice and theory of inclusion as well as the effect it has on all students within the classroom. Part of teacher preparation programs includes bestow a sense of knowledge and experience of functional with students with disabilities. Those with experience working with students with disabilities tend to have more positive attitudes toward inclusion (Beh-Pajooh, 1991 Forlin, Fogarty Carroll, 1999 Gallagher 1985 Gregory, 1997 Hastings et al., 1996 Hastings Graham, 1995 LeRoy Simpson 1996 Pernell, McIntyre, Bader 1985 Sack 1998 Rees, Spreen Harnadek, 1991 Shoho, Katims, Wilks 1997).If teachers feel as though they are unprepared to defy students with disabilities there needs to be a change in teacher preparation programs to ensure that all teachers feel confident and prepared to teach students with exceptionalities. By changing teacher education programs and adding more required coursework regarding students with exceptionalities, teachers should be transgress equipped to exercise accommodations and interventions for exceptional students.It is important to account for preservice teachers attitudes and beliefs in order to rectify any ill conceived notions about inclusion of children with ASDs. By identifying attitudes towards inclusion of students with ASDs, the inclusion process can be improved. By identifying factors that lead to negative attitudes towards inclusion and dispelling any myths associated with inclusion of students with ASDs, these students may be soften served within the general education classroom. In addition, the attitudes towards inclusion may corpuscle weaknesses within teacher preparation programs.By identifying weaknesses, teacher education programs may be able to change or revise classes and syllabus to better meet the needs of future educators. Due to the increase in students identified with ASDs, laws mandating students be taught in the LRE, more general education teachers will have to make accommodations for students with ASDs within their classrooms. By identifying teacher attitudes towards inclusion of students with ASDs, teacher curriculum can be changed and in-services can be added to programming to improve teacher attitudes towards inclusion.Statement of the Pr oblemThis study will focus on self-efficacy of preservice teachers and their attitudes towards inclusion of students with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs). Current research shows a range of attitudes towards inclusion of students with disabilities. There is a lack of research regarding teacher attitudes towards the various disability categories specifically ASDs. Inclusion of students based on specific disability categories, ASDs, has been limited. With the increase in diagnosis of children with ASDs there will likely be an increase in the placement of students with ASDs into general education classrooms.As a result, general education teachers will likely be responsible for teaching students with ASDs within their classrooms. By identifying attitudes towards inclusion of students with ASDs, the inclusion process can be improved. By identifying factors that lead to negative attitudes towards inclusion, such as teacher efficacy beliefs, and dispelling any myths associated with inclusi on of students with ASDs, these students may be better served within the general education classroom. In addition, the attitudes towards inclusion may pinpoint weaknesses within teacher training programs. By identifying weaknesses, teacher education programs may be able to use this information to hold changes or revisions to classes and curriculum to better meet the needs of future educators. routine of the StudyThe primary purpose of this study is to investigate preservice teachers sense of efficacy and their attitudes towards inclusion of students with ASDs. Relationships between teacher attitudes towards inclusion, teacher efficacy, the type of student disability, teacher preparation programs, and demographic information will be explored. This study aims to identify preservice teacher attitudes toward inclusion of students with ASDs and their level of teacher efficacy.Additionally, it will explore factors that influence attitudes of preservice teachers toward inclusion of studen ts with ASDs. By understanding the factors that influence preservice teacher attitudes, teacher preparation programs can better prepare teachers for students with exceptionalities, particularly ASDs within the classrooms.Research QuestionsWhat are preservice teachers attitudes towards inclusion of students with ASDs within the general education classroom?Secondary QuestionsWhat is the family relationship between teacher efficacy and teacher attitudes towards inclusion of students with ASDs?What factors are related to preservice teachers attitudes towards inclusion of students with ASDs?What is the relationship between the amount of college preparation courses and teacher attitudes towards inclusion of students with ASDs?Is there a relationship between having a special education background and attitudes towards inclusion of students with ASDs?Is there a relationship between having a special education background and teacher efficacy?RationaleInclusive education integrates all student s, regardless of disability, into the general education classroom. Integration of students with disabilities requires teachers to make accommodations and modifications for students in order for them to be successful within the general education classroom. The teachers level of efficacy has been found to affect their willingness to make modifications and accommodations for students with disabilities and thus affect their attitudes toward inclusion.This study will investigate preservice teachers sense of efficacy and its correlation with attitudes towards inclusion of students with ASDs. Current studies focus on the integration of students with disabilities without differentiating specific disability categories. This study will allow for differentiation of ASDs from the remaining disability categories. Findings from this study will be beneficial for teacher preparation programs.Bandura (1986, 1994, 1997) suggested that predications about behavior outcomes affect the individuals goals, effort, and motivation to complete a task. Predications of behavior are racyly influenced by a persons self-efficacy (Woolfolk, 2010). Self-efficacy has been defined as the belief in ones capabilities to devise and execute the course of action required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1995). As a result, people are more likely to engage in behaviors that they believe they are capable of completing successfully. If a person believes they are able to complete an activity with success, they have high self-efficacy conversely, if they do not feel they are able to complete certain behaviors successfully, they have low self-efficacy. Individuals tend to seek behaviors that they have success with and will put more effort and persistence to activities that they consider to be successful. Self-efficacy is also influenced by a persons previous successes or failures with an activity, feedback from others regarding their performance, and success or failure of other people around th em (Woolfolk, 2010).For inclusion to be successful, teachers will need to observe a successful implementation of inclusion. In addition, they will have to feel confident in their own abilities to implement inclusion. This confidence will likely come from their teacher education training as well as role models indicating a successful implementation of inclusion. If a teacher does not believe he or she is able to implement inclusion within their classroom, the inclusion process is likely to fail.This has implications for the students within their classrooms. Students without disabilities are likely to model the teachers negative attitude towards inclusion and sham behavior at the same time, if the teacher has a positive attitude toward inclusion, the children would imitate that behavior. The self-efficacy of the teacher and their resulting actions has a large impact for the successful inclusion of students with ASDs within the general education class.Conceptual FrameworkThis study is root in the theories of Albert Bandura, a cognitive theorist. His theories on social learning, social cognition, and self-efficacy have an influence this study. Banduras social cognitive theory and his construct of self efficacy (Bandura 1977) help explain how teachers attitudes towards inclusion would potentially have an effect upon the students within their classrooms.Banduras (1977) theory of self-efficacy is closely tied(p) with teacher sense of efficacy. Teacher sense of efficacy is the belief that a teacher can reach all of his or her students, regardless of disability and teach all types of students (Woolfolk, 2010). Teacher sense of efficacy has a major impact upon the students within a teachers classroom. A high sense of teacher efficacy would indicate a teacher believes that he or she is capable to teach their students. Teachers with a high sense of teacher efficacy believe they can teach all of their students, regardless of disability (Woolfolk, 2010).Significance of t he StudyDue to revisions of federal regulations regarding placement of special education students within the LRE, children with disabilities are spending a majority of their day in the general education classroom. This study is an investigation of preservice teachers sense of efficacy and attitudes regarding inclusion of students with ASDs. It is valuable to determine attitudes of preservice teacher regarding the placement of students with ASDs due to research soon citing teacher attitudes strongly effect the success of students (Avramidis Norwich, 2002 Bacon Schultz, 1991 Chow Winzer, 1992 Coates, 1989 Cook, Semmel, Gerber, 1999 Good Brophy, 1997 Hayes Gunn 1988 Idol, Nevin, Paolucci-Whitcomb, 1994 Roa Lim, 1999 Salend, 2001 Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, Lesar, 1991 Shade Stewart, 2000 Silberman, 1971 Van Reusen, Shoho, Barker, 2001 William Algozine, 1977).Previously, students who needed modifications or adjustments within the classroom were separated from the non-disable d students and placed in special education classrooms. Changes in the law have provided a directive that all students must be educated in the LRE, part of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142). This law states that individuals, regardless of the severity of their disabilities, are entitled to receive services from the public school systems at no cost to the parents (Public Law No. 94-142). With more students being placed in general education classrooms, it is important for future educators to have positive attitudes towards successful inclusion of students with ASDs.The results of this study may help in the development of effective educational curriculum at universities and colleges with teacher education programs. Education programs need to be committed to producing highly qualified and prepared future educators. This means being prepared to teach and understand the comical needs required by students with ASDs within the classroom. Results from this study may help preservice teachers to gain insight into their attitudes towards inclusion and their efficacy beliefs.Definitions and TerminologyAccommodation A change in testing materials or procedures that enables students to participate in assessments in ways that reflect their skills and abilities rather than their disabilities (Salvia, Ysseldyke Bolt, 2007, p. 682).Americans with Disabilities Act (Coladarci Breton) Public Law No. 10-325 (1 January 2009). Prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in employment, transportation, public access, local government, and telecommunications (Woolfolk, 2010, p. 129).Autism Developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally unmingled before age 3 and ranging from mild to major (Woolfolk, 2007, p. 613).Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) A group of five related developmental disorders that share common core deficits or difficulties in social relationships, communicati on, and ritualistic behaviors differentiated from one another primarily by the age of onset and severity of various systems includes autistic disorder, Asperger syndrome, Rett syndrome, childishness