View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Influence of the 'Learning Disability' Label on Teachers' Performance Expectations--A Matter of Attitudes towards Inclusion?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Influence of the 'Learning Disability' Label on Teachers' Performance Expectations--A Matter of Attitudes towards Inclusion?
Language: English
Authors: Linda Kashikar (ORCID 0000-0002-5207-4947), Lara Soemers, Timo Lüke (ORCID 0000-0002-2603-7341), Michael Grosche (ORCID 0000-0001-6646-9184)
Source: Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs. 2024 24(3):696-712.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Special Education Teachers, Teachers, Regular and Special Education Relationship, Learning Disabilities, Labeling (of Persons), Attitudes toward Disabilities, Teacher Attitudes, Inclusion, Teacher Expectations of Students, Students
DOI: 10.1111/1471-3802.12664
ISSN: 1471-3802
Abstract: Teachers' expectations influence students' outcomes. Studies demonstrate that teachers lower their performance expectations of students with learning problems when these students are labelled with a 'Learning Disability' (LD) diagnosis. Our study aims to investigate whether these effects can be replicated in N = 429 special and regular education teachers. We also investigate whether positive implicit and explicit attitudes towards inclusion mitigate the negative effects of the LD label on teachers' performance expectations. Teachers were randomly assigned to the experimental (n = 214) or control group (n = 215). Both groups read the same description of a fictitious student with learning problems. In addition, the student was labelled as 'learning disabled' in the experimental group only. Results show that teachers' expected graduation level and school track recommendation were negatively affected by the LD label. It also led to a more frequent assumption that the student has an LD. Regardless of the LD label, special education teachers had lower performance expectations than regular education teachers. A positive implicit attitude towards inclusion reduced the likelihood that teachers believe that the labelled student has an LD. The findings are placed in the context of international research on disability labels and inclusive education.
Abstractor: As Provided
Notes: https://osf.io/k8ejv
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1429990
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEb3aRaPbb-7ZPuGBhPou19AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDGJn9eGwLebp0pHaQAIBEICBm81_sy0OIJxvNdinZG9WpPA9ShXhXIRojUy_0-qtbtGVCjEHJcGd3vbV3oiQ2vIyBMxUDXYloCdyQDuxAYzVzLRuwXn-61DK96T_wou4u7WL0kaLRpInC0s16mRwg9DdmgjN0U7gL9p-S57UKhi88XUs5UiunTROgvLBXKl0ymxw15UyO5GXIdQaGAUPMiwoNLQe9eTI56dCFJdK
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0178355238;0lc01jul.24;2024Jul12.05:24;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0178355238-1">Influence of the 'Learning Disability' label on teachers' performance expectations—a matter of attitudes towards inclusion? </title> <p>Teachers' expectations influence students' outcomes. Studies demonstrate that teachers lower their performance expectations of students with learning problems when these students are labelled with a 'Learning Disability' (LD) diagnosis. Our study aims to investigate whether these effects can be replicated in N = 429 special and regular education teachers. We also investigate whether positive implicit and explicit attitudes towards inclusion mitigate the negative effects of the LD label on teachers' performance expectations. Teachers were randomly assigned to the experimental (n = 214) or control group (n = 215). Both groups read the same description of a fictitious student with learning problems. In addition, the student was labelled as 'learning disabled' in the experimental group only. Results show that teachers' expected graduation level and school track recommendation were negatively affected by the LD label. It also led to a more frequent assumption that the student has an LD. Regardless of the LD label, special education teachers had lower performance expectations than regular education teachers. A positive implicit attitude towards inclusion reduced the likelihood that teachers believe that the labelled student has an LD. The findings are placed in the context of international research on disability labels and inclusive education.</p> <p>Keywords: attitudes towards inclusion; label; learning disabilities; regular education; special education; teachers' expectations</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-2">Keypoints</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The Learning Disability (LD) label negatively affects teachers' performance expectations of students, which partially manifests in behavioural teaching intentions. However, the LD diagnosis only unfolds its negative effects when it is consciously perceived. Teachers who do not remember the LD diagnosis of a fictitious student believe in the benefits of inclusive education.</item> <p></p> <item> Special education teachers (SETs) have lower performance expectations than regular education teachers (RETs). Experience teaching students with special learning needs possibly shapes teachers' expectations of low‐achieving students.</item> <p></p> <item> SETs have more positive implicit attitudes towards including students with special learning needs than RETs. The LD label influences the explicit attitudes of the two groups differently: SETs have more positive explicit attitudes towards including students with an LD than RETs.</item> <p></p> <item> Explicit and implicit attitudes towards inclusion are mostly negatively related to teachers' academic requirements of students.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0178355238-3">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>Our study examines the negative effects of special education labels on teachers' performance expectations of these students and their relation to attitudes towards inclusion in the context of school systems striving for more inclusive education. The study is embedded in the 'Dilemma of Difference' (Norwich, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref1">48</reflink>]). The expression describes the controversy that resources needed for students with special needs are tied to an official diagnosis of special educational needs in many countries. However, labelling students risks exposing them to stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination. A recent meta‐analysis found that Learning Disability (LD) labels for students have a negative impact on various teacher judgements of these students (Franz et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref2">24</reflink>]). Previous studies have shown that the LD label specifically lowers teachers' performance expectations of students labelled in this way (e.g. Clark, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref3">13</reflink>]; Shifrer, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref4">62</reflink>]; Woodcock & Vialle, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref5">82</reflink>]). As the definition of LD differs between countries (Cluley et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref6">14</reflink>]), our first aim is to examine whether these effects are associated with specific definitions and operationalisation of the LD term or whether they can also be observed when considering alternative definitions or operationalisations of LD.</p> <p>Our second aim is to examine how teachers' expectations for students diagnosed with an LD and teachers' attitudes towards inclusion are related. In inclusive schools, teachers are responsible for implementing inclusion daily and play a vital role in its success. Thus, teachers' positive attitudes towards inclusion are essential (e.g. Avramidis & Norwich, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref7">5</reflink>]; Klehm, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref8">41</reflink>]; Saloviita, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref9">58</reflink>]). Not much is known yet about whether positive attitudes towards inclusion mitigate possible negative effects of an LD diagnosis on teachers' judgements about students labelled in this way. Currently, one study has shown that teachers' positive explicit attitudes towards inclusion reduce the negative impact of the 'Specific Learning Difficulties' diagnosis on teachers' performance expectations of these students (Woodcock, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref10">81</reflink>]). Therefore, we aim to investigate whether positive attitudes towards including students with learning problems also function as a buffer against the negative effects of the LD label on teachers' performance expectations of these students. In this context, we examine both explicit and implicit attitudes, as both types of attitudes are linked to judgements and behaviour in different ways (Olson & Fazio, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref11">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>In addition, we aim to investigate differences between special education teachers (SETs) and regular education teachers (RETs) concerning the research objectives of this study, as both teaching professions are involved in the education of students with special educational needs but differ for example in their attitudes towards inclusion (e.g. Balboni & Pedrabissi, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref12">8</reflink>]; Hernandez et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref13">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-4">Teachers' expectations and the Learning Disability label</hd> <p>Teachers' expectations are 'inferences that teachers make about the future behaviour or academic achievement based on what they know about these students now' (Good, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref14">27</reflink>], p. 32). They are essential because they can influence students' academic performance so that high teachers' expectations are associated with better student performance and low teachers' expectations are associated with poorer student performance (Babad et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>]; Rosenthal & Jacobson, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref16">55</reflink>]). The simplified expectation effect process model distinguishes four steps to explain how teacher expectations work: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref17">1</reflink>) teachers develop expectations; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>) based on these expectations, teachers treat students differently; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref19">3</reflink>) students react to teachers' behaviour and thus, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>) students' outcomes improve/decline (Johnston et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref21">37</reflink>]; detailed model in Brophy & Good, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref22">12</reflink>]). Self‐fulfilling prophecy in the school context has been well studied (e.g. Gentrup et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref23">25</reflink>]; Papageorge et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref24">51</reflink>]; Rubie‐Davies, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref25">57</reflink>]), and meta‐analyses have found small (Jussim & Harber, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref26">38</reflink>]) to medium (Hattie, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref27">31</reflink>]) effects of teachers' expectations on student achievement.</p> <p>Generally, teachers develop expectations of their students' future academic performances based on their prior academic performance (de Boer et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref28">16</reflink>]). However, (assumed) group affiliations of students are an influencing factor as well. Research has shown that teachers' expectations are skewed and lower for students with an immigration background, students of lower socio‐economic status (Speybroeck et al., [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref29">65</reflink>]; Tobisch & Dresel, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref30">70</reflink>]), and students with an LD diagnosis. The latter group of students are low achievers by definition and are overrepresented within families of low socio‐economic status (Shifrer et al., [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref31">63</reflink>]), and with an immigration background (Pit‐ten Cate & Glock, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref32">52</reflink>]), which may create a triple risk for teachers' low‐performance expectations. The official diagnosis of special needs, that is a label, also shapes teachers' expectations.</p> <p>Regarding the LD label, experimental and non‐experimental studies have shown that the label negatively influences teachers' performance expectations. In typical experimental studies, teachers read identical vignettes about fictitious students labelled as learning disabled in the experimental group only. These studies have shown that the LD label increases the likelihood that teachers expect academic failure (Clark, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref33">13</reflink>]; Vlachou et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref34">73</reflink>]; Woodcock & Vialle, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref35">82</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref36">83</reflink>]; Woodcock, [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref37">80</reflink>]) and less academic success (Thelen et al., [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref38">68</reflink>]) in the future. Other studies have shown that teachers are less willing to refer a gifted student to a gifted programme when the student has been identified as learning disabled (Bianco, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref39">9</reflink>]; Bianco & Leech, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref40">10</reflink>]). However, in our previous study with pre‐service teachers, we did not find evidence of a negative impact of the LD label on teachers' performance expectations (Kashikar et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref41">39</reflink>]). In non‐experimental studies, Whitley ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref42">76</reflink>]) and Shifrer ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref43">62</reflink>]) showed that students labelled as learning disabled are less likely expected by their teachers to achieve a university degree than similar achieving but non‐labelled students. In a recent meta‐analysis about the effect of diagnostic labels on the evaluation of students, Franz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref44">24</reflink>]) distinguished between different types of assessments, such as behavioural evaluations, attitudes towards the child, evaluation of the personality and academic evaluations among others. They conclude that diagnostic labels for students negatively affect academic evaluations, including performance expectations and expectations of the academic future.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-5">The Learning Disability label and expectations of regular and special education teachers</hd> <p>Most of the studies cited above focus on RETs. It is striking why SETs have been neglected in current research, as they primarily educate students with special needs. Hence, not much is known about specific expectations of SETs. Heward ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref45">34</reflink>]), who summarises what hinders the effectiveness of special education, postulates that SETs have a high degree of patience for their students with disabilities, which 'often translates into slowed down instruction, lowered expectations for performance, fewer opportunities to respond, and fewer in‐class and homework assignments' (p. 94). Also, Ellis ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref46">21</reflink>]) assumes that SETs 'water down the curriculum and expectations' (p. 327) for their students. However, empirical findings on these postulates are scarce. While the results of some studies suggest that SETs have lower performance expectations than RETs (Bianco & Leech, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref47">10</reflink>]; Kashikar et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref48">39</reflink>]; Moscardini, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref49">47</reflink>]), other studies come to the opposite conclusion (Vlachou et al., [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref50">73</reflink>]; Ward et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref51">75</reflink>]; Woolfson et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref52">85</reflink>]). Only a few studies have examined the differential effects of the LD label on RETs' and SETs' expectations. These studies showed no evidence that the LD label influences the two teaching professions differently (Bianco, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref53">9</reflink>]; Bianco & Leech, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref54">10</reflink>]; Kashikar et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref55">39</reflink>]). Due to these scarce and ambiguous findings, we aim to explore further the role of the teaching profession on teachers' expectations in general and in the context of the LD label.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-6">Teachers' attitudes towards inclusion</hd> <p>Dual‐process models distinguish two different systems of information processing (e.g. Schneider & Shiffrin, [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref56">59</reflink>]; Shiffrin & Schneider, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref57">61</reflink>]; Stanovich & West, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref58">66</reflink>]; Strack & Deutsch, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref59">67</reflink>]). While these models differ in the designation of the two processes, they have in common that they postulate a distinction between (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>) processes that are automatic, unconscious and fast and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>) processes that are deliberate, conscious and slow (Evans, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref62">22</reflink>]). In the following, we will refer to the former processes as 'implicit' and the latter as 'explicit'. Dual‐process models have been studied in different domains, such as judgement, decision‐making and social cognition (Evans, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref63">22</reflink>]). Thus, dual‐process models have also been examined for attitudes (e.g. Nosek, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref64">49</reflink>]; Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref65">79</reflink>]).</p> <p>What are attitudes? Definitions of attitudes differ, as they depend on whether attitudes are viewed as relatively stable entities or temporary judgements (Bohner & Dickel, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref66">11</reflink>]). Eagly and Chaiken ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref67">20</reflink>]) provide an umbrella definition of attitudes as 'a psychological tendency, expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavor' (p. 582). Dual‐process models of attitudes (e.g. Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref68">79</reflink>]) postulate that explicit and implicit attitudes towards the same entity coexist in memory. While implicit attitudes are activated automatically, explicit attitudes require cognitive capacity and motivation to be retrieved from memory. Even when explicit attitudes are retrieved from memory, implicit responses, such as non‐verbal behaviour, may still interfere. The dual‐process model can also contribute to the stable‐temporary debate, as it is assumed that explicit attitudes can change quickly while implicit attitudes change slowly.</p> <p>Attitudes are of importance, as they are believed to influence judgements and behaviour (Olson & Fazio, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref69">50</reflink>]). Explicit and implicit attitudes are assumed to be differently related to behaviour. The MODE (Motivation and Opportunity as Determinants; Fazio, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref70">23</reflink>]; Olson & Fazio, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref71">50</reflink>]) model assumes that implicit attitudes elicit automatic and spontaneous behaviour, while explicit attitudes elicit controlled and conscious behaviour. Controlled behaviour can only occur when enough motivation and opportunity to reflect all accessible information is available, which includes attitudes. However, it has to be noted that mixed processes, which involve a combination of automatic and controlled processes, are possible (Olson & Fazio, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref72">50</reflink>]), which has also been postulated by other authors (Strack & Deutsch, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref73">67</reflink>]).</p> <p>Measuring explicit and implicit attitudes requires different approaches. Explicit attitudes are measured controllable, intended, and with awareness about what is being measured (e.g. with a questionnaire). Implicit attitudes measures are characterised by reduced controllability, lack of intention and reduced awareness of what is being measured (Nosek, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref74">49</reflink>]). Computerised tests are often used. They are based on reaction times and ask participants to categorise or evaluate stimuli as fast as possible. Since participants are not fully aware of what is measured and do not have time to correct their initial response, they are believed to reduce social desirability, which can be problematic with explicit attitude measures (Denessen et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref75">17</reflink>]).</p> <p>Acknowledging the attitude‐behaviour connection (Glasman & Albarracín, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref76">26</reflink>]), it is known that positive attitudes towards inclusion are crucial for the successful implementation of inclusion in schools (e.g. Avramidis & Norwich, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref77">5</reflink>]), and predict inclusive practices (e.g. Avramidis et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref78">6</reflink>]). Meta‐analyses have examined the valence of teachers' attitudes towards inclusion, with mixed results. In one meta‐analysis, teachers' attitudes towards inclusion were neutral (Dignath et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref79">19</reflink>]), in others positive (Avramidis & Norwich, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref80">5</reflink>]; Guillemot et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref81">29</reflink>]; van Steen & Wilson, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref82">72</reflink>]), or negative (de Boer et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref83">15</reflink>]). Different inclusion criteria, which led to a different selection of studies, explain these different results. Despite these ambivalent results, studies have come to the unambiguous conclusion that SETs have more positive attitudes towards inclusion than RETs (Desombre et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref84">18</reflink>]; Dignath et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref85">19</reflink>]; Guillemot et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref86">29</reflink>]; Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref87">78</reflink>]; Wüthrich & Lozano, [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref88">86</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-7">The Learning Disability label, teachers' attitudes towards inclusion and teachers' expectatio...</hd> <p>In their meta‐analysis, Franz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref89">24</reflink>]) also examined whether diagnostic labels for students affect teachers' attitudes towards including them. The attitude measures included teachers' willingness to work with students and teachers' assessment of their competence in dealing with the students. The authors did not find an influence of the labels on teachers' attitudes towards the students' inclusion. No study has examined this effect for the LD label exclusively yet.</p> <p>One study has investigated how teachers' attitudes towards inclusion and performance expectations for students with learning problems are related. Woodcock ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref90">81</reflink>]) examined teachers' explicit attitudes towards inclusive education and academic expectations of students with and without Specific Learning Difficulties. The author found that teachers with positive explicit attitudes towards inclusion have higher performance expectations of students with Specific Learning Difficulties. This result shows that positive explicit attitudes towards inclusion mitigate the negative effects of the Specific Learning Difficulties label on teachers' performance expectations. Our study examines whether this buffering effect of positive explicit attitudes towards inclusion can be replicated for the negative effect of the LD label on teachers' expectations. However, as teachers' judgements and behaviour in the school context are unlikely to be controlled and planned exclusively (Pit‐ten Cate & Glock, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref91">53</reflink>]), and can interact (Strack & Deutsch, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref92">67</reflink>]), we do not only examine explicit, but also implicit attitudes towards inclusion of students with special learning needs.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-8">The German Learning Disability label 'Lernbehinderung'</hd> <p>The definition of an LD differs between countries. For instance, what is defined as an LD in the UK is an 'Intellectual Disability' in other English‐speaking countries such as the USA, Canada and Australia (Cluley et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref93">14</reflink>]). Thus, explaining what is considered an LD in the present study, which we conducted in Germany, is important. The German LD diagnosis 'Lernbehinderung' literally translates to 'Learning Disability'. It is a legal term to describe students who receive special educational support in the learning category. Grünke and Grosche ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref94">28</reflink>]) use the following criteria to define an LD: the deficits (a) cover at least two school years, (b) affect several subjects, especially mathematics and language arts, (c) persist for several years, (d) are not the result of insufficient learning opportunities, but related to deficits in basic cognitive abilities, and (e) are not caused by a sensory impairment. With several subjects affected and related deficits in cognitive functioning, it can be misunderstood as an Intellectual Disability. But while both diagnoses share the characteristic of deficits in cognitive functioning, according to the DSM‐5 the diagnosis of an Intellectual Disability requires deficits in adaptive functioning, which results in the need for at least minimal support in daily life (American Psychiatric Association, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref95">3</reflink>]). However, the deficits of students with an LD primarily manifest in school problems (Häßler, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref96">30</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-9">Research questions and hypotheses</hd> <p>In our study teachers read a vignette describing a fictitious student with learning problems. We aim to answer three research questions using a two‐factorial design. Specifically, we examine whether there are main effects of the experimental group (LD labelled vs. non‐labelled fictitious student with learning problems) and the teaching profession (RETs vs. SETs), as well as their interaction that influence teachers' judgements about the fictitious student. The judgements concern teachers' expectations of the student's future academic performances and their manifestation in teachers' behavioural intentions (research question 1), as well as teachers' attitudes towards including the student (research question 2). The third research question examines whether positive attitudes towards including students with special learning needs mitigate the negative effects of the LD label on teachers' performance expectations and their behavioural manifestations.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-10">1a Hypothesis</hd> <p>Teachers expect a lower graduation level of a student labelled as learning disabled than of an identical, but non‐labelled student. This lower expectation manifests in the intention to assign fewer and easier tasks to the labelled student, to foster the labelled student's academic performance less, and to recommend a special school more frequently the labelled student compared to the non‐labelled student.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-11">1b Hypothesis</hd> <p>SETs expect a lower graduation level of the student than RETs. This lower expectation manifests in the intention to assign fewer and easier tasks to the student, foster the student's academic performance less, and recommend a special school more frequently.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-12">2 Hypothesis</hd> <p>SETs have more positive explicit attitudes towards including the student and more positive implicit attitudes towards including students with special learning needs than RETs.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-13">3 Hypothesis</hd> <p>Positive explicit attitudes towards including the student and positive implicit attitudes towards including students with special learning needs mitigate the negative effects of the LD label on teachers' performance expectations of the student.</p> <p>Figures displaying the hypotheses can be found in an electronic supplement.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-14">METHOD</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178355238-15">Procedure</hd> <p>Our study consisted of (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref97">1</reflink>) an online questionnaire with experimental manipulation and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref98">2</reflink>) a Single Target‐ Implicit Association Test (ST‐IAT) measuring implicit attitudes towards including students with special learning needs. Participants were randomly assigned to the control or experimental group. Both groups read the same vignette describing a fictitious student with learning problems. Only in the experimental group the fictitious student was labelled with an LD diagnosis in addition to the description of the learning problems (see 'Vignette' Section). Participants then answered three simple content questions to check for careful reading. After assessing the dependent variables, the questionnaire finished with a manipulation check, demographic data collection and open feedback. Participants executed the ST‐IAT after completing the questionnaire.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-16">Participants</hd> <p>Our participants were 458 in‐service RETs and SETs. We excluded 11 teachers (2.40%), because they had not read the vignette carefully, that is gave no or wrong answers to more than one of the three comprehension questions to check for careful reading (displayed in the electronic supplement). Like in our previous study (Kashikar et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref99">39</reflink>]), we observed the phenomenon that some teachers who were assigned to the initial EG (LD diagnosis was mentioned in the student description), incorrectly did not remember the LD diagnosis after completing the questionnaire (see Manipulation Check Section).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref100">1</reflink>] Instead of excluding these teachers, we kept them in our analyses to examine the unconscious effects of the LD label (i.e. when not remembered, even though it was mentioned in the student description). We stuck to the procedure used in our previous study and split the initial EG (LD diagnosis was mentioned in the students' description) into EG1 and EG2. Thus, while EG1 included teachers who had incorrectly answered that the LD diagnosis was not mentioned in the student description, EG2 included teachers who correctly remembered the LD diagnosis in the vignette (Table 1). This procedure excluded five (1.12%) participants who had not answered the question whether the LD label had been mentioned in the student description, as they could not be assigned to an experimental group. Twelve teachers (2.71%) of the initial CG (no LD diagnosis mentioned) who incorrectly indicated that the LD label was presented in the vignette were excluded. One participant was excluded because no demographic information was provided, so the teaching profession remained unknown (0.23%). No outliers were excluded. The sample included <emph>N</emph> = 429 teachers and was used to answer research questions that did not involve the implicit attitudes towards including students with special learning needs. Teachers' average age was 40.46 years (<emph>SD</emph> = 11.45). 314 (73.19%) were female, 111 (25.87%) were male, and four (0.01%) teachers indicated they were diverse or did not reveal their gender. Due to randomisation, the distribution of RETs and SETs did not differ between the three experimental groups, <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> = 3.86, <emph>df</emph> = 2, <emph>p</emph> = 0.145, Cramer's <emph>V</emph> = 0.09.</p> <p>1 TABLE Distribution of regular and special education teachers in the label groups.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">CG</th><th align="left">EG1</th><th align="left">EG2</th><th align="left">Total</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Description</td><td align="left">No LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis correctly not remembered</td><td align="left">LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis incorrectly not remembered</td><td align="left">LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis correctly remembered</td><td align="left">–</td></tr><tr><td align="left">RETs</td><td align="left">149/141</td><td align="left">53/49</td><td align="left">76/68</td><td align="left">278/258</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SETs</td><td align="left">66/66</td><td align="left">36/35</td><td align="left">49/48</td><td align="left">151/149</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="left">215/207</td><td align="left">89/84</td><td align="left">125/116</td><td align="left">429/407</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>: The numbers behind the slash represent the sample size for which implicit attitudes towards including students with special learning needs were available in addition to the questionnaire.</p> <p>2 Abbreviations: RETs, regular education teachers; SETs, special education teachers.</p> <p>The ST‐IAT measuring attitudes towards including students with special learning needs was completed by 430 teachers. Not all teachers completed both the questionnaire and the ST‐IAT. After merging the data, the sample comprised <emph>N</emph> = 407 teachers (Table 1) and will be used to answer research questions that involve implicit attitudes towards including students with special learning needs. The detailed sample description for the merged data is presented in the electronic supplement.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-17">Material</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178355238-18">Vignette</hd> <p>The student description was adapted from Lanfranchi and Jenny ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref101">43</reflink>]) and read the initial CG and initial (<emph>EG</emph>) as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> L. is 10 years old (<emph>and has a Learning Disability</emph>). Since first grade, L. has shown learning and performance problems in reading, writing, and mathematics, which have increased over time. L. works very slowly, is overwhelmed quickly, and appears helpless. It is difficult for L. to retain learned facts over a longer period. When calculating, L. often uses fingers. In addition, L. reads familiar words very slowly and also makes a lot of spelling mistakes when writing.</item> </ulist> <p>The instruction differed in the initial CG and (<emph>EG</emph>) as well:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> You should now work on a few tasks. In this context, imagine that you are the class teacher in the class of (<emph>the learning‐disabled child</emph>) L.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0178355238-19">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178355238-20">Questionnaire</hd> <p>We used LimeSurvey ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref102">44</reflink>]) to collect data on four variables measuring teachers' expectations and their manifestation in behavioural intentions, a scale measuring explicit attitudes towards the inclusion of the fictitious student, and participants' assessment of whether the fictitious student has an LD. We also conducted a manipulation check.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-21">Highest expected graduation level</hd> <p>Teachers were asked to estimate the highest graduation level the fictitious student can achieve. The item was assessed on a 6‐point Likert scale, with (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref103">1</reflink>) indicating <emph>no graduation</emph>, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref104">2</reflink>) indicating the <emph>graduation level that children who were classified as learning disabled</emph><emph>can legally achieve</emph>, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref105">3</reflink>) representing the <emph>basic track graduation</emph>, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref106">4</reflink>) representing the <emph>intermediate track graduation</emph>, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref107">5</reflink>) indicating the <emph>lower academic track graduation</emph>, and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref108">6</reflink>) meaning the <emph>highest academic track graduation</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-22">Track recommendation for secondary school</hd> <p>For the transition to a secondary school class, teachers provide an (in some federal states binding) track recommendation at the end of primary school in Germany. Traditionally, the regular secondary school system has been three‐tiered, consisting of <emph>basic</emph>, <emph>intermediate</emph>, and <emph>academic track schools</emph>. In recent years, the number of <emph>comprehensive schools</emph> has been growing and replacing basic and intermediate track schools. Most comprehensive schools also offer academic track education and thus combine all secondary education levels. Besides the regular education system, special schools for students with disabilities exist (Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref109">4</reflink>]). In our study, participants were informed that as class teacher, they have to give a track recommendation for the fictitious student's secondary school. The choice was between <emph>special</emph>, <emph>basic</emph>, <emph>intermediate</emph>, <emph>academic</emph>, or <emph>comprehensive school</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-23">Fostering of performance</hd> <p>We used two items to measure how strongly teachers would foster the fictitious students' academic performance. The first item asked which goal they pursue in fostering. The item was assessed on a six‐point Likert scale, with one indicating <emph>exclusive fostering of well‐being</emph> and six indicating <emph>exclusive fostering of academic performance</emph>. The second item asked what they found more important to foster. The item was assessed on a six‐point Likert scale, with one indicating <emph>extracurricular skills</emph> and six indicating <emph>curricular skills</emph>. The two items were combined into one scale (<emph>α</emph> = 0.66).</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-24">Choice of tasks</hd> <p>We asked teachers to assess which type of tasks they would assign to the fictitious student in terms of their difficulty and number in a typical mathematics and language arts class, with students working on individual tasks. The four items were assessed on a five‐point Likert scale. For the difficulty of tasks, the scale ranged from 1 (<emph>tasks with the lowest difficulty that the lowest‐performing students work on</emph>) to 5 (<emph>tasks with the highest difficulty that the best‐performing students work on</emph>). For the number of tasks, 1 indicated the <emph>lowest number of tasks the lowest‐performing students work on</emph> and 5 indicated the <emph>largest number of tasks that the best‐performing students work on</emph>. The procedure was repeated for the language arts class. The four items were combined into one scale (<emph>α</emph> = 0.92).</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-25">Explicit attitudes towards including the fictitious student</hd> <p>We used an adapted version of the 'Questionnaire on Attitudes towards Inclusion for Teachers' (EFI‐L; Seifried & Heyl, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref110">60</reflink>]). The questionnaire has a three‐dimensional structure with two student‐focused factors, that is 'Promoting academic competencies in inclusive classrooms' and 'Social inclusion in school', and the teacher‐focused factor 'Individual readiness for inclusive education'. The factors can be combined into one general factor, which we used in our study (<emph>α</emph> = 0.86). All items were assessed on a six‐point Likert Scale, ranging from 1 (<emph>do not agree at all</emph>) to 6 <emph>(fully agree</emph>). To measure teachers' attitudes towards including the fictitious student, we individualised each item (e.g. 'L. is equally well supported in an inclusive school class as in a special school class' and 'I can imagine teaching L. in an inclusive class').</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-26">Assessment of whether the fictitious student has a Learning Disability</hd> <p>We asked teachers to judge whether the fictitious student has an LD. The question had to be answered with <emph>yes</emph> or <emph>no</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-27">Manipulation check</hd> <p>Teachers were asked to remember the vignette presented at the beginning of the study and to answer whether it had been mentioned in the description that the fictitious student had an LD. The question had to be answered with <emph>yes</emph> or <emph>no</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-28">ST‐IAT on inclusion in schools for students with special learning needs</hd> <p>Detailed information about the paradigm of the ST‐IAT, choice of target stimuli, procedure, data preparation, calculation of effect <emph>D</emph>, and internal inconsistency can be found in the electronic supplement. We used OpenSesame 3.3.10 for stimulus presentation and latency recording (Mathôt et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref111">46</reflink>]). During the ST‐IAT, teachers were repeatedly presented with five stimulus words for each of the three categories 'positive' (e.g. 'gift'), 'negative' (e.g. 'disgust'), and the target category 'Inclusion in schools of students with special learning needs'. The stimuli for the target category were 'One school for all', 'Inclusive class', 'Individualised teaching', 'Special learning needs', and 'Learning Disability'. In the ST‐IAT, participants must categorise stimulus words of the three categories as fast as possible. The ST‐IAT exists of different blocks. During the 'positive and inclusion blocks' stimuli of the respective categories require the same decision (i.e. pressing the same letter on the keyboard), while in the 'negative and inclusion blocks' stimuli of the respective categories require the same decision. On average, shorter latencies within the 'positive and inclusion blocks' compared to the 'negative and inclusion blocks' are believed to represent positive attitudes and vice versa. The associated measure is called effect <emph>D</emph>, which is calculated for each participant individually. Effects <emph>D</emph> greater than zero are considered positive implicit attitudes, effects <emph>D</emph> smaller than zero are considered negative implicit attitudes, and effects <emph>D</emph> around zero are considered neutral implicit attitudes towards including students with special learning needs. The internal consistency of the ST‐IAT was <emph>α</emph> = 0.60.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-29">Statistical analyses</hd> <p>To answer the first three research questions, ANOVAs using Type III Sum of Squares were conducted for all dependent variables except for the track recommendation. For the track recommendation, we carried out a binomial logistic regression. This is because although educational tracks in Germany can generally be ranked hierarchically according to their academic requirements, comprehensive schools cannot be positioned anywhere in this order, as they are open to students of all academic abilities. Independent variables/predictors for all analyses were the label groups (CG vs. EG1 vs. EG2), the teaching profession (RETs vs. SETs), and their interaction. In the respective result section, we describe the approach to answer research question three, whether positive attitudes towards inclusion mitigate the negative effects of the LD label on teachers' expectations.</p> <p>Analyses were conducted with R 4.1.1 (R Core Team, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref112">54</reflink>]) in RStudio 2022.7.1.554 (RStudio Team, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref113">56</reflink>]). We used <emph>afex</emph> 1.0–1 (Singmann et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref114">64</reflink>]), <emph>tidyverse</emph> 1.2.1 (Wickham et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref115">77</reflink>]), and <emph>mice</emph> (van Buuren & Groothuis‐Oudshoorn, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref116">71</reflink>]). Data were complete except for the explicit attitudes scale, with 3.3% missing. The missing data were imputed on the item level using a single imputation with predictive mean matching.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-30">RESULTS</hd> <p>The descriptive results of all dependent variables can be found in Tables 2 and 3. Table 4 displays the intercorrelations of the study variables.</p> <p>2 TABLE Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) of the dependent variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left">CG</th><th align="left">EG1</th><th align="left">EG2</th><th align="left">Total</th></tr><tr><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="left"><italic>M</italic> (<italic>SD</italic>)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Graduation level</td><td align="left">RETs</td><td align="char" char=".">4.07 (1.17)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.72 (1.23)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.42 (1.25)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.82 (1.23)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SETs</td><td align="char" char=".">3.35 (1.13)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.17 (0.94)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.04 (0.84)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.21 (1.00)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">3.85 (1.20)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.49 (1.15)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.27 (1.12)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.61 (1.19)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Fostering of performance</td><td align="left">RETs</td><td align="char" char=".">3.48 (0.92)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.30 (0.76)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.73 (0.89)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.51 (0.89)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SETs</td><td align="char" char=".">3.33 (0.73)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.31 (0.72)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.02 (0.71)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.23 (0.73)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">3.43 (0.86)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.30 (0.74)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.45 (0.89)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.41 (0.85)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Choice of tasks</td><td align="left">RETs</td><td align="char" char=".">2.84 (0.97)</td><td align="char" char=".">2.50 (0.85)</td><td align="char" char=".">2.65 (1.17)</td><td align="char" char=".">2.72 (1.01)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SETs</td><td align="char" char=".">2.57 (0.84)</td><td align="char" char=".">2.56 (0.85)</td><td align="char" char=".">2.22 (0.97)</td><td align="char" char=".">2.45 (0.90)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">2.76 (0.94)</td><td align="char" char=".">2.52 (0.84)</td><td align="char" char=".">2.48 (1.11)</td><td align="char" char=".">2.63 (0.98)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Explicit attitudes towards including the fictitious student</td><td align="left">RETs</td><td align="char" char=".">4.06 (0.78)</td><td align="char" char=".">4.17 (0.83)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.76 (0.70)</td><td align="char" char=".">4.00 (0.78)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SETs</td><td align="char" char=".">4.05 (0.65)</td><td align="char" char=".">4.36 (0.82)</td><td align="char" char=".">4.27 (0.75)</td><td align="char" char=".">4.19 (0.74)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">4.06 (0.74)</td><td align="char" char=".">4.24 (0.83)</td><td align="char" char=".">3.96 (0.76)</td><td align="char" char=".">4.07 (0.77)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Implicit attitudes towards including students with special learning needs (D)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="left">RETs</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09 (0.29)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12 (0.33)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08 (0.29)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.10 (0.30)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SETs</td><td align="char" char=".">0.14 (0.27)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.22 (0.26)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16 (0.31)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.17 (0.28)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11 (0.28)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16 (0.31)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11 (0.30)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12 (0.29)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>N</emph> = 429. CG = No LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis correctly not remembered. EG1 = LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis incorrectly not remembered. EG2 = LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis correctly remembered.</item> <item>4 Abbreviations: RETs, regular education teachers; SETs, special education teachers.</item> <item>5 a <emph>n</emph> = 407.</item> <item>3 TABLE Frequency table for the track recommendation to a special school versus a regular school.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left">CG</th><th align="left">EG1</th><th align="left">EG2</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Regular education teachers</td><td align="left">Special school</td><td align="left">21</td><td align="left">12</td><td align="left">23</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Regular school</td><td align="left">128</td><td align="left">41</td><td align="left">53</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Special education teachers</td><td align="left">Special school</td><td align="left">23</td><td align="left">15</td><td align="left">22</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Regular school</td><td align="left">43</td><td align="left">21</td><td align="left">27</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 <emph>N</emph> = 429. CG = No LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis correctly not remembered. EG1 = LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis incorrectly not remembered. EG2 = LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis correctly remembered.</item> <item>7 Abbreviations: RETs, regular education teachers; SETs, special education teachers.</item> <item>4 TABLE Intercorrelations of the dependent variables and the teaching profession across the experimental groups.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="left">1</th><th align="left">2</th><th align="left">3</th><th align="left">4</th><th align="left">5</th><th align="left">6</th><th align="left">7</th><th align="left">8</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1. Highest expected graduation level</td><td align="left">—</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Track recommendation<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn9" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.42<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Fostering</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Choice of tasks</td><td align="char" char=".">0.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.33<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Explicit attitudes<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.25<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.12<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn14" /></td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6. Implicit attitudes<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.12<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn14" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.10</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="left">–</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">7. Presence of an LD<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.36<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.10<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn14" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">–</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">8. Teaching profession<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.25<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.21<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.16<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.12<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn14" /></td><td align="char" char=".">0.11<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn14" /></td><td align="left">0.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="left">–</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>8 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>N</emph> = 429.</item> <item>9 a Track recommendation coded with 0 = special school, 1 = any type of regular school.</item> <item>10 b Explicit attitudes towards including the fictitious student.</item> <item>11 c Implicit attitudes towards including students with special learning needs, <emph>n</emph> = 407.</item> <item>12 d 'Do you think that L. has a Learning Disability?' 0 = no, 1 = yes.</item> <item>13 e Teaching profession coded with 0 = Regular education teachers, 1 = Special education teachers.</item> <item>14 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>15 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0178355238-31">Hypotheses testing</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178355238-32">Teachers' performance expectations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178355238-33">Highest expected graduation level</hd> <p>The presence of the LD label influenced the highest expected graduation level, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312664:jrs312664-math-0001" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.030. Post‐hoc analyses show that only the difference between CG and EG2 was significant, <emph>p</emph> = 0.001, indicating that teachers who remember the LD label expect a lower graduation level than teachers of the CG. We also found a significant main effect of the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312664:jrs312664-math-0002" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.047, with SETs expecting a lower degree than RETs. The two variables did not interact, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312664:jrs312664-math-0003" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.004 (Table 5).</p> <p>5 TABLE Results of ANOVAs to examine the influence of the LD label and the teaching profession on teachers' performance expectations (research question 1).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="left">Sum of squares</th><th align="left"><italic>df</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left"><sub>Partial</sub><italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup></th><th align="left"><sub>Partial</sub><italic>η</italic><sup>2</sup> 95% CI [LL, UL]</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Highest expected graduation level</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(Intercept)</td><td align="left">4222.60</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">3280.31</td><td align="left"><0.001</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Label group</td><td align="left">16.82</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">6.53</td><td align="left">0.002</td><td align="char" char=".">0.030</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.005, 0.065]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teaching profession</td><td align="left">26.65</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">20.70</td><td align="left"><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">0.047</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.015, 0.090]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Group × profession</td><td align="left">2.09</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">0.81</td><td align="left">0.445</td><td align="char" char=".">0.004</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.000, 0.020]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Error</td><td align="left">544.51</td><td align="left">423</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Fostering of performance</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(Intercept)</td><td align="left">3984.80</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">5805.43</td><td align="left"><0.001</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Label group</td><td align="left">0.60</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">0.44</td><td align="char" char=".">0.647</td><td align="char" char=".">0.002</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.000, 0.015]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teaching profession</td><td align="left">7.07</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">10.30</td><td align="char" char=".">0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">0.024</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.004, 0.059]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Group × profession</td><td align="left">8.08</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">5.89</td><td align="char" char=".">0.003</td><td align="char" char=".">0.027</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.003, 0.061]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Error</td><td align="left">290.34</td><td align="left">423</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Choice of tasks</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(Intercept)</td><td align="left">2305.01</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">2459.48</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Label group</td><td align="left">5.58</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">2.98</td><td align="char" char=".">0.052</td><td align="char" char=".">0.014</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.000, 0.040]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teaching profession</td><td align="left">4.00</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">4.27</td><td align="char" char=".">0.040</td><td align="char" char=".">0.010</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.000, 0.036]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Group x profession</td><td align="left">3.17</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left">1.69</td><td align="char" char=".">0.186</td><td align="char" char=".">0.008</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.000, 0.029]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Error</td><td align="left">396.43</td><td align="left">423</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>16 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>N</emph> = 429.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-34">Track recommendation for secondary school</hd> <p>We tested the frequency of recommendation for a special school compared to any regular school. The binomial logistic regression model was significant. With the CG and RETs set as the respective reference groups, EG2 was a significant predictor of recommendation for a special school. Specifically, while only 20.47% of the CG recommended a special school, 36.00% of teachers in EG2 did. Being an SET also predicted a recommendation for a special school. Specifically, 39.74% of SETs, compared to 20.14% of RETs, advised a special school. There was no interaction between the label groups and the teaching professions (Table 6).</p> <p>6 TABLE Results of logistic regressions of the influence of the Learning Disability (LD) label and the teaching profession on the track recommendation (research question 1) and assessment of whether the fictitious student has an LD (exploratory analysis).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>SE</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>z</italic></th><th align="left">Exp (<italic>B</italic>)</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left">95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Track recommendation: special school (0) versus any type of regular school (1)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn19" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">(Intercept)</td><td align="char" char=".">1.81</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">7.68</td><td align="char" char=".">6.10</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">[1.37, 2.30]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG1</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.58</td><td align="char" char=".">0.40</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.43</td><td align="char" char=".">0.56</td><td align="char" char=".">0.152</td><td align="char" char=".">[−1.36, 0.24]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG2</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.97</td><td align="char" char=".">0.34</td><td align="char" char=".">−2.83</td><td align="char" char=".">0.39</td><td align="char" char=".">0.005</td><td align="char" char=".">[−1.65, −0.30]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SETs</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.18</td><td align="char" char=".">0.35</td><td align="char" char=".">−3.38</td><td align="char" char=".">0.31</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">[−1.87, −0.50]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG1 × SETs</td><td align="char" char=".">0.29</td><td align="char" char=".">0.59</td><td align="char" char=".">0.49</td><td align="char" char=".">1.34</td><td align="char" char=".">0.622</td><td align="char" char=".">[−0.87, 1.44]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG2 × SETs</td><td align="char" char=".">0.55</td><td align="char" char=".">0.52</td><td align="char" char=".">1.07</td><td align="char" char=".">1.74</td><td align="char" char=".">0.286</td><td align="char" char=".">[−0.46, 1.57]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Assessment of whether the fictitious student has a Learning Disability<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn20" /><sup>,</sup><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn21" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">(Intercept)</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.25</td><td align="char" char=".">0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.55</td><td align="char" char=".">0.77</td><td align="char" char=".">0.121</td><td align="char" char=".">[−0.58, 0.07]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG1</td><td align="char" char=".">0.52</td><td align="char" char=".">0.32</td><td align="char" char=".">1.62</td><td align="char" char=".">1.68</td><td align="char" char=".">0.106</td><td align="char" char=".">[−0.11, 1.16]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG2</td><td align="char" char=".">2.39</td><td align="char" char=".">0.41</td><td align="char" char=".">5.87</td><td align="char" char=".">10.98</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">[1.64, 3.26]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SETs</td><td align="char" char=".">0.88</td><td align="char" char=".">0.31</td><td align="char" char=".">2.88</td><td align="char" char=".">2.42</td><td align="char" char=".">0.004</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.29, 1.49]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG1 × SETs</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.58</td><td align="char" char=".">0.54</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.07</td><td align="char" char=".">0.56</td><td align="char" char=".">0.285</td><td align="char" char=".">[−1.63, 0.49]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG2 × SETs</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.23</td><td align="char" char=".">0.63</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.95</td><td align="char" char=".">0.29</td><td align="char" char=".">0.052</td><td align="char" char=".">[−2.48, 0.03]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>17 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>N</emph> = 429. Reference groups: regular education teachers and CG. CG = No LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis correctly not remembered. EG1 = LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis incorrectly not remembered. EG2 = LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis correctly remembered.</item> <item>18 Abbreviation: SETs, special education teachers.</item> <item>19 a <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref117">5</reflink>) = 28.04, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, Nagelkerke <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.092.</item> <item>20 b <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref118">5</reflink>) = 64.16, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, Nagelkerke <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.190.</item> <item>21 c Do you think that L. has a Learning Disability? No (0) versus yes (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref119">1</reflink>).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0178355238-35">Fostering of performance</hd> <p>We found an effect of the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312664:jrs312664-math-0004" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.024, with RETs intending to foster academic performance more than SETs. The presence of the label did not influence the intention to foster performance, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312664:jrs312664-math-0005" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.002, but interacted with the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312664:jrs312664-math-0006" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.027. Post‐hoc analyses showed that only when teachers remember the LD label (i.e. EG2), RETs intended to foster performance more than SETs, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001 (Table 5).</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-36">Choice of tasks</hd> <p>The presence of the label did not affect the choice of tasks, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312664:jrs312664-math-0007" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.014. We found an effect of the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312664:jrs312664-math-0008" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.010, with SETs intending to assign fewer tasks than RETs. There was no interaction between the two variables, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312664:jrs312664-math-0009" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.008 (Table 5).</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-37">Teachers' attitudes towards inclusion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178355238-38">Explicit attitudes towards including the fictitious student</hd> <p>Results showed no main effect of the LD label, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312664:jrs312664-math-0010" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.014. We found a main effect of the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312664:jrs312664-math-0011" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.019, with SETs having more positive attitudes than RETs. The interaction was significant, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312664:jrs312664-math-0012" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.020. Post‐hoc test showed a significant difference only in EG2, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001. Specifically, SETs in EG2 have more positive explicit attitudes than RETs in EG2 (Table 7).</p> <p>7 TABLE Results of ANOVAs to examine the influence of the Learning Disability (LD) label and the teaching profession on teachers' attitudes towards inclusion (research question 2).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="left">Sum of squares</th><th align="left"><italic>df</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left"><sub>Partial</sub> η<sup>2</sup></th><th align="left"><sub>Partial</sub> η<sup>2</sup> 95% CI [LL, UL]</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Explicit attitudes towards including the fictitious student</td></tr><tr><td align="left">(Intercept)</td><td align="left">5955.90</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="left">10429.61</td><td align="left"><0.001</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Label group</td><td align="left">3.45</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="char" char=".">3.07</td><td align="char" char=".">0.050</td><td align="char" char=".">0.014</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.000, 0.041]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teaching profession</td><td align="left">4.65</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="char" char=".">8.14</td><td align="char" char=".">0.005</td><td align="char" char=".">0.019</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.002, 0.051]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Group × profession</td><td align="left">4.91</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="char" char=".">4.30</td><td align="char" char=".">0.014</td><td align="char" char=".">0.020</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.001, 0.050]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Error</td><td align="left">241.00</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Implicit attitudes towards including students with special learning needs<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn23" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">(Intercept)</td><td align="char" char=".">6.23</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="char" char=".">73.05</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Label group</td><td align="char" char=".">0.17</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="char" char=".">1.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.363</td><td align="left">0.005</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.000, 0.024]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teaching profession</td><td align="char" char=".">0.47</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="char" char=".">5.52</td><td align="char" char=".">0.019</td><td align="left">0.014</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.001, 0.044]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Group × profession</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="left">1</td><td align="char" char=".">0.29</td><td align="char" char=".">0.752</td><td align="left">0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.000, 0.013]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Error</td><td align="char" char=".">34.22</td><td align="left">2</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>22 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>N</emph> = 429.</item> <item>23 a <emph>n</emph> = 407.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0178355238-39">Implicit attitudes towards including students with special learning needs</hd> <p>We found an effect of the teaching profession, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312664:jrs312664-math-0013" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.014, with SETs having more positive implicit attitudes than RETs. There was no main effect of the LD label, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312664:jrs312664-math-0014" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.014, or interaction, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:14713802:media:jrs312664:jrs312664-math-0015" display="inline" overflow="scroll" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><semantics><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></semantics></math> </ephtml> = 0.001 (Table 7).</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-40">Exploratory analysis</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178355238-41">Assessment of whether the fictitious student has a Learning Disability</hd> <p>A binomial logistic regression was used to examine whether the label group and teaching profession influenced this judgement. The binomial logistic regression model was significant. With the CG and RETs as reference groups, EG2 was a significant predictor of assuming an LD. We also found SETs to be a significant predictor of assuming an LD. These results show that compared to the CG (50.23%), more teachers in EG2 (88.00%) believe that the fictitious student has an LD. Also, more SETs (71.52%) than RETs (58.63%) believe in the presence of an LD. No interaction was found (Table 6).</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-42">Positive attitudes towards inclusion as a buffer for the negative effects of the Learning Dis...</hd> <p>When consciously remembered (i.e. teachers in EG2) the LD label negatively influences the highest expected graduation level, the track recommendation to a regular school, and increases the likelihood of assuming an LD. To test the hypothesis that positive attitudes towards inclusion mitigate the negative effects of the LD label on teachers' performance expectations, we analysed the buffer hypothesis for these variables. Specifically, we performed a linear regression that included the interaction of EG2 with both attitude forms for the highest expected graduation level and two logistic regressions with the same predictors for the track recommendation and participants' assessment of the presence of an LD.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-43">Highest expected graduation level</hd> <p>The regression model was significant. Positive implicit attitudes and EG2 were significant predictors of a lower graduation level. None of the other predictors were significant (Table 8).</p> <p>8 TABLE Results of a regression examining whether positive attitudes towards inclusion mitigate the negative effects of the Learning Disability (LD) label on teachers' highest expected graduation level (research question 3).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>t</italic></th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left">95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">(Intercept)</td><td align="char" char=".">−3.75</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">55.19</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">[3.62, 3.88]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG2</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.54</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">−4.17</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">[−0.79, −0.28]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Implicit attitudes</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.71</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">−3.00</td><td align="char" char="."><0.003</td><td align="char" char=".">[−1.17, −0.24]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Explicit attitudes</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.23</td><td align="char" char="."><0.219</td><td align="char" char=".">[−0.07, 0.29]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG2 × implicit attitudes</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.57</td><td align="char" char=".">0.44</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.18</td><td align="char" char="."><0.238</td><td align="char" char=".">[−0.34, 1.38]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG2 × explicit attitudes</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.18</td><td align="char" char="."><0.860</td><td align="char" char=".">[−0.30, 0.36]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>24 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>N</emph> = 407. Reference group: CG. CG = No LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis correctly not remembered. EG1 = LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis incorrectly not remembered. EG2 = LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis correctly remembered. Both attitudes measures are centered. Regression model: <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.06, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref120">5</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib401" id="ref121">401</reflink>) = 5.97, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-44">Track recommendation for secondary school</hd> <p>The binomial logistic regression model was significant. EG2 was a significant predictor of a special school recommendation. Both attitudes were also significant predictors of the track recommendation. However, while positive explicit attitudes increase the likelihood of recommending a regular school, positive implicit attitudes increase the likelihood of recommending a special school. There was no interaction between EG2 and the attitudes (Table 9).</p> <p>9 TABLE Results of logistic regressions examining whether positive attitudes towards inclusion mitigate the negative effects of the Learning Disability (LD) label on teachers' track recommendation and assessment of whether the fictitious student has a LD (research question 3).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><italic>B</italic></th><th align="left">SE</th><th align="left"><italic>z</italic></th><th align="left">Exp (<italic>B</italic>)</th><th align="left"><italic>p</italic></th><th align="left">95% CI</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Track recommendation: Special school (0) versus any type of regular school (1)<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn26" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">(Intercept)</td><td align="char" char=".">1.26</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">8.45</td><td align="char" char=".">3.52</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.98, 1.56]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG2</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.65</td><td align="char" char=".">0.26</td><td align="char" char=".">−2.52</td><td align="char" char=".">0.52</td><td align="char" char=".">0.012</td><td align="char" char=".">[−1.15, −0.14]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Implicit attitudes</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.51</td><td align="char" char=".">−2.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.35</td><td align="char" char=".">0.041</td><td align="char" char=".">[−2.05, −0.05]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Explicit attitudes</td><td align="char" char=".">0.82</td><td align="char" char=".">0.20</td><td align="char" char=".">4.09</td><td align="char" char=".">2.26</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">[0.43, 1.22]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG2 × implicit attitudes</td><td align="char" char=".">1.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.85</td><td align="char" char=".">1.23</td><td align="char" char=".">2.85</td><td align="char" char=".">0.217</td><td align="char" char=".">[−0.62, 2.72]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG2 × explicit attitudes</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.35</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">1.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.942</td><td align="char" char=".">[−0.65, 0.73]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Assessment of whether the fictitious student has a Learning Disability<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn27" /><sup>,</sup><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn28" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">(Intercept)</td><td align="char" char=".">0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12</td><td align="char" char=".">1.43</td><td align="char" char=".">1.19</td><td align="char" char=".">0.153</td><td align="char" char=".">[−0.06, 0.40]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG2</td><td align="char" char=".">1.93</td><td align="char" char=".">0.34</td><td align="char" char=".">5.62</td><td align="char" char=".">6.92</td><td align="char" char="."><0.001</td><td align="char" char=".">[1.31, 2.68]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Implicit attitudes</td><td align="char" char=".">0.63</td><td align="char" char=".">0.42</td><td align="char" char=".">1.50</td><td align="char" char=".">1.87</td><td align="char" char=".">0.132</td><td align="char" char=".">[−0.18, 1.45]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Explicit attitudes</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.22</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">−1.40</td><td align="char" char=".">0.80</td><td align="char" char=".">0.163</td><td align="char" char=".">[−0.53, 0.09]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG2 × implicit attitudes</td><td align="char" char=".">−2.47</td><td align="char" char=".">1.18</td><td align="char" char=".">−2.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.037</td><td align="char" char=".">[−4.90, −0.23]</td></tr><tr><td align="left">EG2 × explicit attitudes</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.27</td><td align="char" char=".">0.42</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.64</td><td align="char" char=".">0.76</td><td align="char" char=".">0.524</td><td align="char" char=".">[−1.12, 0.56]</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>25 <emph>Note</emph>: <emph>N</emph> = 407. Reference group: CG. CG = No LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis correctly not remembered. EG1 = LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis incorrectly not remembered. EG2 = LD diagnosis mentioned in the fictitious student description, LD diagnosis correctly remembered. Both attitudes measures are centered.</item> <item>26 a <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref122">5</reflink>) = 40.32, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, Nagelkerke <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.136.</item> <item>27 b <emph>χ</emph><sups>2</sups>(<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref123">5</reflink>) = 55.85, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, Nagelkerke <emph>R</emph><sups>2</sups> = 0.176.</item> <item>28 c Do you think that L. has a Learning Disability? No (0) versus yes (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref124">1</reflink>).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0178355238-45">Assessment of whether the fictitious student has a Learning Disability</hd> <p>The binomial logistic regression model was significant. In addition to EG2 as a significant predictor for assuming an LD more frequently, we found a significant interaction between EG2 and implicit attitudes: the more positive the explicit attitudes of teachers in EG2, the less likely the assumption of an LD. The other predictors were not significant (Table 9).</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-46">DISCUSSION</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178355238-47">Summary of results</hd> <p>Our study examined whether the presence of an LD label as an official diagnosis, the teaching profession, and the interaction of these two variables influence teachers' judgements about a fictitious student with learning problems. For the first research question, we hypothesised that the presence of the LD label lowers teachers' performance expectations of the student, which manifests in teachers' behavioural intentions in the form of lower requirements (H1a). This assumption was partially confirmed, as teachers who remembered the LD diagnosis[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref125">2</reflink>] (i.e. EG2) in the fictitious students' description expected a lower graduation level and recommended a special school more frequently than teachers who read the student description without the LD label. We hypothesised that SETs have lower performance expectations of the fictitious student (with and without LD diagnosis) than RETs, which manifests in their behavioural intentions (H1b) and is supported by our results. In addition, we found one interaction that we had not formulated as a hypothesis: In EG2, SETs intend to foster the performance of the labelled student less than RETs. The second research question examined the influence of the LD label, the teaching profession, and their interaction on teachers' attitudes towards inclusion. We hypothesised that SETs have more positive explicit attitudes towards including the fictitious student and more positive implicit attitudes towards including students with special learning needs (H2). The results partially support our assumptions, as the implicit attitudes of SETs were more positive than those of RETs. However, only within EG2 were the explicit attitudes of SETs more positive than those of RETs.</p> <p>With the third research question, we examined whether positive explicit and implicit attitudes towards inclusion mitigate the negative effects of the LD label on teachers' performance expectations (H3). Our results do not support this assumption for teachers' expectations. However, we found one buffering effect of positive implicit attitudes on the assessment of whether the fictitious student has an LD: Teachers who remembered the LD label are more likely to believe in the correctness of the diagnosis. However, in this group of teachers, the more positive the implicit attitudes, the less likely it is that an LD will be assumed.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-48">Effects of the Learning Disability label and the teaching on teachers' expectations—A matter...</hd> <p>Our study shows that when consciously remembered, the LD label leads to lower performance expectations for the labelled student. This puts our result in line with other studies that have found negative effects of the LD label on teachers' expectations (e.g. Shifrer, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref126">62</reflink>]; Woodcock & Vialle, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref127">82</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref128">83</reflink>]). Therefore, the LD label is likely not linked to a specific definition or operationalisation but generally leads to lower performance expectations. In addition, our study adds to the state of knowledge that not only the LD diagnosis negatively influences teachers' performance expectations of students so labelled, but that the conscious perception of the diagnosis is important, as we will discuss later.</p> <p>Another difference is that we did not find a negative influence of the LD label in our previous study with pre‐service teachers (Kashikar et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref129">39</reflink>]). This result indicates that practical experience may influence the effects of the LD label on teachers' expectations. Specifically, in‐practice teachers may need to rely on special needs diagnoses daily. Being a teacher is commonly perceived as a highly stressful occupation (Kyriacou, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref130">42</reflink>]; von der Embse et al., [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref131">74</reflink>]), which may not allow teachers to question students' diagnoses generally. As students with an LD are low achievers by definition, the consequence of not questioning the diagnosis is lower performance expectations for students labelled with an LD. Another possible explanation might be the application of stereotypes caused by the LD label (Link & Phelan, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref132">45</reflink>]). The result that the conscious perception of the LD label makes it more likely that teachers believe that the diagnosis is true may be interpreted as a stereotypical judgement. Assuming an LD as the cause of learning problems carries the risk of a medical explanation for learning problems, which are seen as inherent in the student (Ho, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref133">35</reflink>]). However, in order to draw a conclusion about stereotypes as the cause of negative label effects, it needs to be investigated more extensively. With one exception, the LD label affected performance expectations and their manifestation in behavioural intentions of SETs and RETs in the same way, which reinforces the findings of other studies (e.g. Bianco & Leech, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref134">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Regardless of the LD label, SETs have lower performance expectations than RETs in the present study, contributing to the contradictory findings of other studies examining these differences (e.g. Ward et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref135">75</reflink>]; Woolfson et al., [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref136">85</reflink>]). One might again argue that the lower performance expectations of SETs compared to RETs might be related to teaching experience. Specifically, SETs usually have more experience teaching students with special (learning) needs and thus observe low academic performances more frequently than RETs, which might have shaped their expectations for the fictitious student. In this context, it needs to be considered that SETs, compared to RETs, significantly more often believe that the fictitious student has an LD, irrespective of whether the diagnosis was mentioned in the fictitious student's description. As an LD, by definition, also manifests in stable learning problems, lower performance expectations seem to be the logical consequence. The present study is experimental, with judgements about a fictitious student. Thus, it is impossible to say whether the expectations of SETs or RETs are more accurate. However, the fact that SETs more often believe in an LD based on a short description is unexpected. Franz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref137">24</reflink>]) argue that professionals who are knowledgeable about disorders 'might be aware of the complexity of every clinical condition and the fact that each affected child has its unique history and combination of challenges' (p. 16). Considering that SETs usually have more expertise in the complex process of diagnosing special (learning) needs, it seems reasonable to assume that SETs would not conclude an LD based on a short description more frequently than RETs.</p> <p>Most of the studies that examined the effects of the LD label on performance expectations examined 'classic' academic performance expectations, such as the likelihood of future failure (e.g. Clark, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref138">13</reflink>]; Woodcock & Vialle, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref139">84</reflink>]) or the likelihood of completing a university degree (Shifrer, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref140">62</reflink>]; Whitley, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref141">76</reflink>]). The expected graduation level in the present study is also a classic academic performance expectation. The simplified expectation effect process model postulates that teachers' expectations are expressed in behaviour (Johnston et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref142">37</reflink>]). There is reason to believe that classic performance expectations are related to teachers' behavioural intentions because the fostering of the student and the track recommendation are positively correlated to the expected graduation level. However, we could not detect a negative effect of the LD label on behavioural intentions in the form of the choice of tasks, but on SETs' intention to foster the students' performance. Due to these unclear results, it is currently not possible to conclude whether or not the LD label negatively affects the manifestation of teachers' performance expectations in behavioural intentions. We also found a negative influence of the LD label on the track recommendation, which is probably between a classic expectation and the transfer of expectations to behavioural intentions. The track recommendation to a special or regular school is positively correlated to explicit attitudes towards including the fictitious student. Therefore, the tack recommendation is probably not only influenced by teachers' performance expectations, but also by whether inclusive or special schools are seen as the better schools for students with special (learning) needs.</p> <p>We could not replicate the result that positive attitudes towards inclusion mitigate the negative effects of the LD diagnosis on teachers' expectations, as Woodcock ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref143">81</reflink>]) found for the Specific Learning Difficulties label. The outcome might be explained by the difference in the label Specific Learning Difficulties versus 'Lernbehinderung'. Another difference is the way the explicit attitudes towards inclusion were measured. The author used the closed question, 'Do you believe an inclusive classroom is an effective way to teach all students' (p. 7), which could be answered with yes or no. It cannot be ruled out that measuring attitudes towards inclusion with a single question leads to different results compared to a full scale adapted to one specific student. It must be noted that although no buffering effect of both attitudes on teachers' performance expectations was found, a buffering effect of positive implicit attitudes on the teachers own assessment of the presence of an LD was detected. It is difficult to explain why this buffering effect was found only for implicit attitudes and not for explicit attitudes, as the judgement of whether the LD diagnosis is true is supposed to be a controlled judgement. A further study should replicate whether this effect is stable.</p> <p>Although our study does not fully support the buffer hypothesis of positive attitudes, explicit attitudes towards inclusion seem important in the context of the LD label. As previously described, mentioning the LD diagnosis only unfolds its negative effects on teachers' performance expectations when it is consciously remembered. Examining teacher‐related variables, teachers who did not remember the LD label (i.e. EG1) significantly differ in one factor of the scale measuring explicit attitudes towards including the fictitious student. As presented in the supplemental material, we see that the LD label only influences the factor 'Promoting academic competencies in inclusive classrooms'. Specifically, teachers who do not remember the LD label, although it was used in the fictitious student's description, agree to a higher degree that the fictitious student's academic career can be adequately fostered in inclusive regular schools. Interpreting this result, it can be hypothesised that positive explicit attitudes towards inclusion may reduce the likelihood that an LD diagnosis is perceived in the first place. However, more studies are needed to examine this hypothesis, as in our previous study, the LD label influenced one of the teachers' judgements negatively even when it was not consciously remembered (Kashikar et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref144">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>A positive outcome of the present study is that explicit attitudes towards including the fictitious student and implicit attitudes towards the inclusion of students with special learning needs were overall positive. However, it has to be noted that explicit attitude scales typically do not focus on one individual (i.e. the fictitious students) but on all individuals belonging to a group (i.e. students with special learning needs). Thus, our result may not allow us to draw conclusions about explicit attitudes towards including students with special learning needs. Although explicit and implicit attitudes measure different constructs (Wilson et al., [<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref145">79</reflink>]), the positive correlation between the two measures can be interpreted as a positive indicator of the validity of the newly developed ST‐IAT.</p> <p>In the present study, SETs in EG2 have more positive explicit attitudes towards including the fictitious student than RETs. Thus, the LD label seems to influence the explicit attitudes of the two teaching professions differently. Looking at the factors of the explicit attitudes, as displayed in the electronic supplement, it is important to emphasise that RETs and SETs differ only in the factor 'Individual readiness for inclusive education', with RETs reporting lower scores. This possibly means that the two teaching professions support inclusive education equally, but RETs feel less competent to implement inclusive teaching for students with special learning needs. This may improve with additional training in inclusive education, as has been successfully demonstrated (Dignath et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref146">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Dual‐process models propose that implicit and explicit attitudes elicit different behaviour. Specifically, implicit attitudes are related to automatic and explicit attitudes to controlled behaviour, with mixed processes being possible (Olson & Fazio, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref147">50</reflink>]; Strack & Deutsch, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref148">67</reflink>]). The results of our study show that both attitudes are partially related to behavioural intentions, suggesting mixed processes. Thus, not only explicit attitudes towards inclusion but also implicit attitudes towards including students with special learning needs, seem to be related to the manifestations of performance expectation in the form of behavioural intentions. Unexpectedly, some correlations between the two attitudes and behavioural intentions were negative. An explanation for these correlations may be that positive attitudes towards inclusions are related to the wish to create a positive learning environment for students with learning problems and to minimise experiences of failure, resulting in lower academic requirements.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-49">Limitations and direction for future research</hd> <p>First, although an experimental design has high internal validity, it lacks external validity (Aguinis & Bradley, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref149">1</reflink>]). In the artificial setting of this study, teachers only use the very little information available as a source for their judgements. However, much more information will likely influence teachers' judgements in real classroom settings. Teachers' performance expectations are, for example, influenced by students' effort (Helwig et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref150">32</reflink>]), work habits or engagement (Kelly & Carbonaro, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref151">40</reflink>]; Timmermans et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref152">69</reflink>]), and the quality of the teacher–student relationship (Hughes et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref153">36</reflink>]; Rubie‐Davies, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref154">57</reflink>]). Therefore, we aim to examine the effects of special learning needs diagnoses with non‐experimental approaches in the future.</p> <p>Second, although it is commonly assumed that labels cause stereotypes (Link & Phelan, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref155">45</reflink>]), we did not measure whether the LD label increases the stereotypical perception of the fictitious student. Future studies should investigate this desiderate.</p> <p>Third, according to the 'Theory of Planned Behaviour', not only attitudes, but also subjective norms and perceived behavioural control are believed to influence the intention to behave in a certain way (Ajzen, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref156">2</reflink>]). Thus, future studies should examine whether the LD label affects teachers' subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. As it is unlikely that in the school context, behaviour is exclusively controlled (Pit‐ten Cate & Glock, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref157">53</reflink>]), it is desirable to investigate how implicit and explicit attitudes interact with behavioural intentions.</p> <p>Last, we discussed that the partially negative correlation between the two attitudes towards inclusion and the academic requirements that teachers have for the fictitious student may be caused by teachers' trying to avoid overstrains and failure for the student. This assumption needs further exploration. Specifically, we only asked about the choice of tasks and fostering of the student without examining the reasons. While exploring the reasons for certain behavioural intentions, the reliability of the intention to foster performance measure should also be improved.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-50">AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS</hd> <p>All authors contributed to the study's conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analyses were performed by Linda Kashikar. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Linda Kashikar and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-51">Acknowledgement</hd> <p>Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-52">FUNDING INFORMATION</hd> <p>No funding was received for conducting this study.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-53">CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT</hd> <p>The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/ or publication of this article.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-54">DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT</hd> <p>The data of this study are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/k8ejv/.</p> <hd id="AN0178355238-55">ETHICS STATEMENT</hd> <p>Written informed consent was obtained for all participants. The Ethics Review Panel of the University of Wuppertal approved the study on 17 November 2021.</p> <p>GRAPH: Data S1:</p> <ref id="AN0178355238-56"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref17" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The fact that some teachers did not remember the diagnosis of an LD, although it was mentioned in the vignette, cannot be interpreted as inattentive reading, as they had correctly answered the three content questions that were asked immediately after reading the description of the fictitious student. The manipulation check question whether or not the LD diagnosis was mentioned in the vignette was asked at the end of the questionnaire, after around 10 min had passed to answer the other questions in the questionnaire.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref18" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Some of the teachers who read the description of the fictitious student that included the LD diagnosis, incorrectly did not remember that the LD diagnosis was mentioned in the description.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0178355238-57"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibtext> Aguinis, H. & Bradley, K.J. (2014) Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational Research Methods, 17 (4), 351 – 371. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ajzen, I. (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behaviour. In: Kuhi, J. & Beckmann, J. (Eds.) Action‐control: from cognition to behaviour. Berlin, Heidelberg : Springer, pp. 11 – 39. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐642‐69746‐3_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref19" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychiatric Association. (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edition. Washington, DC : American Psychiatric Association Publishing. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref20" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung. (2020). Bildung in Deutschland 2020: Ein indikatorengestützter Bericht mit einer analyse zu Bildung in einer digitalisierten welt [Education in Germany 2020: an indicator‐based report with an analysis on eduction in a digital world]. Bielefeld : wbv. https://doi.org/10.3278/6001820gw</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref7" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Avramidis, E. & Norwich, B. (2002) Teachers' attitudes towards integration/inclusion: a review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17 (2), 129 – 147. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref78" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Avramidis, E., Toulia, A., Tsihouridis, C. & Strogilos, V. (2019) Teachers' attitudes towards inclusion and their self‐efficacy for inclusive practices as predictors of willingness to implement peer tutoring. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 19 (S1), 49 – 59. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471‐3802.12477</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref15" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Babad, E.Y., Inbar, J. & Rosenthal, R. (1982) Pygmalion, Galatea, and the Golem: investigations of biased and unbiased teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74 (4), 459 – 474. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.74.4.459</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref12" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Balboni, G. & Pedrabissi, L. (2000) Attitudes of Italian teachers and parents toward school inclusion of students with mental retardation: the role of experience. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 34 (2), 148 – 159.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref39" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bianco, M. (2005) The effects of disability labels on special education and general education teachers' referrals for gifted programs. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28 (4), 285 – 293. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/4126967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bianco, M. & Leech, N.L. (2010) Twice‐exceptional learners: effects of teacher preparation and disability labels on gifted referrals. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33 (4), 319 – 334. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409356392</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bohner, G. & Dickel, N. (2011) Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 391 – 417. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131609</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brophy, J.E. & Good, T.L. (1970) Teachers' communication of differential expectations for children's classroom performance: some behavioral data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61 (5), 365 – 374. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0029908</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, M.D. (1997) Teacher response to learning disability: a test of attributional principles. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30 (1), 69 – 79. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cluley, V., Pilnick, A. & Fyson, R. (2022) Talking about learning disability: discursive acts in managing an ideological dilemma. SSM—Qualitative Research in Health, 2, 1 – 7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmqr.2022.100088</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Boer, A., Pijl, S.J. & Minnaert, A. (2011) Regular primary schoolteachers' attitudes towards inclusive education: a review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15 (3), 331 – 353. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903030089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Boer, H., Bosker, R.J. & van der Werf, M.P.C. (2010) Sustainability of teacher expectation bias effects on long‐term student performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102 (1), 168 – 179. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017289</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., van den Bergh, L. & Bijlstra, G. (2022) Implicit measures of teachers' attitudes and stereotypes, and their effects on teacher practice and student outcomes: a review. Learning and Instruction, 78, 101437. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101437</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Desombre, C., Lamotte, M. & Jury, M. (2019) French teachers' general attitude toward inclusion: the indirect effect of teacher efficacy. Educational Psychology, 39 (1), 38 – 50. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1472219</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dignath, C., Rimm‐Kaufman, S., van Ewijk, R. & Kunter, M. (2022) Teachers' beliefs about inclusive education and insights on what contributes to those beliefs: a meta‐analytical study. Educational Psychology Review, 34 (4), 2609 – 2660. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐022‐09695‐0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eagly, A.H. & Chaiken, S. (2007) The advantages of an inclusive definition of attitude. Social Cognition, 25 (5), 582 – 602. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.582</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellis, E.S. (1997) Watering up the curriculum for adolescents with learning disabilities: goals of the knowledge dimension. Remedial and Special Education, 18 (6), 326 – 346. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259701800603</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evans, J.S.B.T. (2008) Dual‐processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255 – 278. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fazio, R.H. (1990) Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: the mode model as an integrative framework. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 75 – 109. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065‐2601(08)60318‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Franz, D.J., Richter, T., Lenhard, W., Marx, P., Stein, R. & Ratz, C. (2023) The influence of diagnostic labels on the evaluation of students: a multilevel meta‐analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 35 (1), 17. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐023‐09716‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gentrup, S., Lorenz, G., Kristen, C. & Kogan, I. (2020) Self‐fulfilling prophecies in the classroom: teacher expectations, teacher feedback and student achievement. Learning and Instruction, 66, 101296. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101296</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glasman, L.R. & Albarracín, D. (2006) Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: a meta‐analysis of the attitude‐behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132 (5), 778 – 822. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.132.5.778</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Good, T.L. (1989) Two decades of research on teacher expectations: findings and future directions. Journal of Teacher Education, 38 (4), 32 – 47. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/002248718703800406</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grünke, M. & Grosche, M. (2014) Lernbehinderung [Learning disability]. In: Lauth, G.W., Grünke, M. & Brunstein, J.C. (Eds.) Interventionen bei Lernstörungen: Förderung, training und Therapie in der praxis [Interventions for learning disorders: support, training, and therapy in practice]. Göttingen : Hogrefe, pp. 76 – 89.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guillemot, F., Lacroix, F. & Nocus, I. (2022) Teachers' attitude towards inclusive education from 2000 to 2020: an extended meta‐analysis. International Journal of Educational Research, 3, 100175. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2022.100175</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Häßler, F. (2011) Intelligenzminderung. Eine ärztliche Herausforderung: [Intellectual disability. A medical challenge]. Berlin, Heidelberg : Springer. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐642‐12996‐4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J. (2009) Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta‐analyses relating to achievement. London : Routledge. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203887332</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helwig, R., Anderson, L. & Tindal, G. (2001) Influence of elementary student gender on teachers' perceptions of mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 95 (2), 93 – 102. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670109596577</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heward, W.L. (2003) Ten faulty notions about teaching and learning that hinder the effectiveness of special education. The Journal of Special Education, 36 (4), 186 – 205. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/002246690303600401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ho, A. (2004) To be labelled, or not to be labelled: that is the question. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32 (2), 86 – 92. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐3156.2004.00284.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes, J.N., Gleason, K.A. & Zhang, D. (2005) Relationship influences on teachers' perceptions of academic competence in academically at‐risk minority and majority first grade students. Journal of School Psychology, 43 (4), 303 – 320. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.07.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnston, O., Wildy, H. & Shand, J. (2019) A decade of teacher expectations research 2008–2018: historical foundations, new developments, and future pathways. Australian Journal of Education, 63 (1), 44 – 73. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0004944118824420</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jussim, L. & Harber, K.D. (2005) Teacher expectations and self‐fulfilling prophecies: knowns and unknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9 (2), 131 – 155. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kashikar, L., Soemers, L., Lüke, T. & Grosche, M. (2023) Does the 'Learning Disability' label lower teachers' performance expectations? Social Psychology of Education, 26 (4), 971 – 1000. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218‐023‐09775‐1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly, S. & Carbonaro, W. (2012) Curriculum tracking and teacher expectations: evidence from discrepant course taking models. Social Psychology of Education, 15 (3), 271 – 294. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218‐012‐9182‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klehm, M. (2014) The effects of teacher beliefs on teaching practices and achievement of students with disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 37 (3), 216 – 240. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406414525050</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kyriacou, C. (2001) Teacher stress: directions for future research. Educational Review, 53 (1), 27 – 35. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910120033628</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lanfranchi, A. & Jenny, G. (2005) Prozesse der Zuweisung von Kindern mit Problemen zu sonderpädagogischen Massnahmen [Allocation processes of children with problems to special education services]. In: Häfelu, K. & Walter‐Müller, P. (Eds.) Das Wachstum des sonderpädagogischen Angebots im interkantonalen Vergleich: Steuerungsmöglichkeiten für eine integrative Ausgestaltung [the growth of special needs education provision in an intercantonal comparison: steering options for an inclusive design]. Luzern : Schweizerische Zentralstelle für Heilpädagogik, pp. 217 – 278.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LimeSurvey. (2021) LimeSurvey: an open source survey tool [Computer software]. Hamburg, Germany. <ulink href="http://www.limesurvey.org">http://www.limesurvey.org</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Link, B.G. & Phelan, J.C. (2001) Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363 – 385. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mathôt, S., Schreij, D. & Theeuwes, J. (2012) Opensesame: an open‐source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 314 – 324. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428‐011‐0168‐7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moscardini, L. (2015) Primary special school teachers' knowledge and beliefs about supporting learning in numeracy. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15 (1), 37 – 47. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471‐3802.12042</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Norwich, B. (2009) Dilemmas of difference and the identification of special educational needs/disability: international perspectives. British Educational Research Journal, 35 (3), 447 – 467. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920802044446</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nosek, B.A. (2007) Implicit‐explicit relations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16 (2), 65 – 69.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olson, M.A. & Fazio, R.H. (2009) Implicit and explicit measures of attitudes: the perspective of the MODE model. In: Petty, R.E., Fazio, R.H. & Briñol, P. (Eds.) Attitudes: insights from the new implicit measures. New York : Psychology Press, pp. 21 – 63.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Papageorge, N.W., Gershenson, S. & Kang, K.M. (2020) Teacher expectations matter. Review of Economics and Statistics, 102 (2), 234 – 251. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00838</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pit‐ten Cate, I.M. & Glock, S. (2018) Teacher expectations concerning students with immigrant backgrounds or special educational needs. Educational Research and Evaluation, 24 (3–5), 277 – 294. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2018.1550839</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pit‐ten Cate, I.M. & Glock, S. (2019) Teachers' implicit attitudes toward students from different social groups: a meta‐analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2832. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02832</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. (2021) R: a language and environment for statistical computing [computer software]. Vienna, Austria : R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R‐project.org/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968) Pygmalion in the classroom. In: Pygmalion in the classroom: teacher expectations and student intellectual development. New York : Holt.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> RStudio Team. (2022) RStudio: integrated development environment for R (Version 2022.7.1.554) [Computer software]. Boston, MA: RStudio, PBC. <ulink href="http://www.rstudio.com">http://www.rstudio.com</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubie‐Davies, C.M. (2010) Teacher expectations and perceptions of student attributes: is there a relationship? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 121 – 135. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X466334</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saloviita, T. (2020) Teacher attitudes towards the inclusion of students with support needs. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 20 (1), 64 – 73. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471‐3802.12466</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, W. & Shiffrin, R.M. (1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84 (1), 1 – 66. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.84.1.1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seifried, S. & Heyl, V. (2016) Konstruktion und Validierung eines Einstellungsfragebogens zu Inklusion für Lehrkräfte (EFI‐L) [Construction and validation of an attitude questionnaire on inclusion for teachers (EFI‐L)]. Empirische Sonderpädagogika, 8 (1), 22 – 35. Available from: https://doi.org/10.25656/01:11852</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shiffrin, R.M. & Schneider, W. (1977) Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84 (2), 127 – 190. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐295X.84.2.127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shifrer, D. (2013) Stigma of a label: educational expectations for high school students labeled with learning disabilities. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 54 (4), 462 – 480. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146513503346</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shifrer, D., Muller, C. & Callahan, R. (2011) Disproportionality and learning disabilities: parsing apart race, socioeconomic status, and language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44 (3), 246 – 257. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410374236</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singmann, H., Bolker, B., Aust, F. & Ben‐Shachar, M.S. (2021) afex: Analysis of factorial experiments (Version R package version 1.0‐1) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R‐project.org/package=afex</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Speybroeck, S., Kuppens, S., van Damme, J., van Petegem, P., Lamote, C., Boonen, T. et al. (2012) The role of teachers' expectations in the association between children's SES and performance in kindergarten: a moderated mediation analysis. PLoS One, 7 (4), e34502. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0034502</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stanovich, K.E. & West, R.F. (2000) Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23 (5), 645 – 726. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00003435</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strack, F. & Deutsch, R. (2004) Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8 (3), 220 – 247. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thelen, R.L., Burns, M.K. & Christiansen, N.D. (2003) Effects of high‐incidence disability labels on the expectations of teachers, peers, and college students. Ethical Human Sciences and Services, 5 (3), 183 – 193. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1891/1523‐150X.5.3.183</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Timmermans, A.C., de Boer, H. & van der Werf, M.P.C. (2016) An investigation of the relationship between teachers' expectations and teachers' perceptions of student attributes. Social Psychology of Education, 19 (2), 217 – 240. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218‐015‐9326‐6</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tobisch, A. & Dresel, M. (2017) Negatively or positively biased? Dependencies of teachers' judgments and expectations based on students' ethnic and social backgrounds. Social Psychology of Education, 20, 731 – 752. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218‐017‐9392‐z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Buuren, S. & Groothuis‐Oudshoorn, K. (2011) Mice: multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45 (3), 1 – 67. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v045.i03</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Steen, T. & Wilson, C. (2020) Individual and cultural factors in teachers' attitudes towards inclusion: a meta‐analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 95, 103127. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vlachou, A., Eleftheriadou, D. & Metallidou, P. (2014) Do learning difficulties differentiate elementary teachers' attributional patterns for students' academic failure? A comparison between Greek regular and special education teachers. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29 (1), 1 – 15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2013.830440</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> von der Embse, N., Ryan, S.V., Gibbs, T. & Mankin, A. (2019) Teacher stress interventions: a systematic review. Psychology in the Schools, 56 (8), 1328 – 1343. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22279</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, M.J., Montague, N. & Linton, T.H. (2003) Including students with disabilities and achieving accountability: Educators' emerging challenge. Essays in Education, 5 (1), 5. https://openriver.winona.edu/eie/vol5/iss1/5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitley, J. (2010) Modelling the influence of teacher characteristics on student achievement for Canadian students with and without learning disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 25 (3), 88 – 97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L.D.A., François, R. et al. (2019) Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4 (43), 1 – 6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, C., Woolfson, L.M. & Durkin, K. (2022) The impact of explicit and implicit teacher beliefs on reports of inclusive teaching practices in Scotland. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 26 (4), 378 – 396. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1658813</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wilson, T.D., Lindsey, S. & Schooler, T.Y. (2000) A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107 (1), 101 – 126. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033‐295X.107.1.101</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, S. (2014) Attributional beliefs of Canadian trainee teachers toward students with a learning disability. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 60 (1), 119 – 134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, S. (2020) Teachers' beliefs in inclusive education and the attributional responses toward students with and without specific learning difficulties. Dyslexia, 27 (1), 110 – 125. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/dys.1651</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, S. & Vialle, W. (2010) Attributional beliefs of students with learning disabilities. The International Journal of Learning, 17 (7), 177 – 192. Available from: https://doi.org/10.18848/1447‐9494/CGP/v17i07/47160</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, S. & Vialle, W. (2011) Are we exacerbating students' learning disabilities? An investigation of preservice teachers' attributions of the educational outcomes of students with learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 61, 223 – 241. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881‐011‐0058‐9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, S. & Vialle, W. (2016) An examination of pre‐service teachers' attributions for students with specific learning difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 252 – 259. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woolfson, L., Grant, E. & Campbell, L. (2007) A comparison of special, general and support teachers' controllability and stability attributions for children's difficulties in learning. Educational Psychology, 27 (2), 295 – 306. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410601066826</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wüthrich, S. & Lozano, C.S. (2018) Measuring implicit attitudes with the inclusion ST‐IAT: a replication and further validation. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 16 (1), 59 – 73.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Linda Kashikar; Lara Soemers; Timo Lüke and Michael Grosche</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib401" firstref="ref121"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref153"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1429990
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Influence of the 'Learning Disability' Label on Teachers' Performance Expectations--A Matter of Attitudes towards Inclusion?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Linda+Kashikar%22">Linda Kashikar</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5207-4947">0000-0002-5207-4947</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lara+Soemers%22">Lara Soemers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Timo+Lüke%22">Timo Lüke</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2603-7341">0000-0002-2603-7341</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael+Grosche%22">Michael Grosche</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6646-9184">0000-0001-6646-9184</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Research+in+Special+Educational+Needs%22"><i>Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs</i></searchLink>. 2024 24(3):696-712.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Special+Education+Teachers%22">Special Education Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teachers%22">Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Regular+and+Special+Education+Relationship%22">Regular and Special Education Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Disabilities%22">Learning Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Labeling+%28of+Persons%29%22">Labeling (of Persons)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attitudes+toward+Disabilities%22">Attitudes toward Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Expectations+of+Students%22">Teacher Expectations of Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students%22">Students</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/1471-3802.12664
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1471-3802
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Teachers' expectations influence students' outcomes. Studies demonstrate that teachers lower their performance expectations of students with learning problems when these students are labelled with a 'Learning Disability' (LD) diagnosis. Our study aims to investigate whether these effects can be replicated in N = 429 special and regular education teachers. We also investigate whether positive implicit and explicit attitudes towards inclusion mitigate the negative effects of the LD label on teachers' performance expectations. Teachers were randomly assigned to the experimental (n = 214) or control group (n = 215). Both groups read the same description of a fictitious student with learning problems. In addition, the student was labelled as 'learning disabled' in the experimental group only. Results show that teachers' expected graduation level and school track recommendation were negatively affected by the LD label. It also led to a more frequent assumption that the student has an LD. Regardless of the LD label, special education teachers had lower performance expectations than regular education teachers. A positive implicit attitude towards inclusion reduced the likelihood that teachers believe that the labelled student has an LD. The findings are placed in the context of international research on disability labels and inclusive education.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Note
  Label: Notes
  Group: Note
  Data: https://osf.io/k8ejv
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1429990
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1429990
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/1471-3802.12664
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 696
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Special Education Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Regular and Special Education Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Labeling (of Persons)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attitudes toward Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Expectations of Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Influence of the 'Learning Disability' Label on Teachers' Performance Expectations--A Matter of Attitudes towards Inclusion?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Linda Kashikar
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lara Soemers
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Timo Lüke
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michael Grosche
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1471-3802
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 24
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs
              Type: main
ResultId 1