Mid Sweden University

Previous research reviews on teachers'attitudes towards inclusive education have shown that students'types of special educational needs influences teachers'attitudes; these reviews have also indicated that, in terms of the inclusion of various groups, teachers are most negative about including students with behavioural problems. This article is a review of the research on teachers'attitudes towards inclusion with regard to students who have special educational needs. It specifically identifies evidence regarding teachers'attitudes towards the inclusion of students with emotional and behavioural difficulty (EBD). For this review, 15 studies, measuring teachers'attitudes from 15 countries, met the inclusion criteria. The results of this synthesis confirmed that most teachers hold negative attitudes towards the inclusion of students with EBD; however, this was not true in all countries. The results also highlight specific explanations for why teachers hold negative attitudes towards including students with EBD in their classrooms. The implication of this synthesis is that teachers feel that their prerequisites for successfully including students with EBD are not being met; this impracticability is most impactful when the teachers nevertheless try to include these students. 

Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties (EBD) is an imprecise term difficult to define because it represents a continuum of behavior that challenges teachers. EBD is a subjectively perceived disorder rather than an objective. The purpose of this article is to contribute to the understanding of how some teachers in mainstream schools construct meaning of EBD. The theoretical framework is Discourse Theory (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985). The findings show that the prevailing discourses about students’ EBD focus on students being disturbing and disrespectful or introverted—and thus deviant. Antagonistic discourses face problems being accepted and are strongly and rapidly dismissed because of their described impossibility and insolubility. This article is a step toward an understanding of what limitations the prevailing discourses have in order to contribute to social change, leading to more equal power relations in schools, and it will also contribute to the international debate about schools categorizing students’ disorders and difficulties.

In Sweden, teachers in mainstream schools show frustration and insecurity about how to organise education for inclusion and diversity. This article contributes to the understanding of how they articulate their view of the advantages and disadvantages of including students with EBD in mainstream classes. To study teachers’ understanding, an approach of discourse theory which takes inspiration from Laclau and Mouffe (1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy. London: Verso) was applied. The empirical material consisted of 6 focus group interviews and 37 individual interviews based on stimulus texts. According to the results, the prevailing discourses focused on the disadvantages of it. However, they were articulated differently and filled with meaning mainly by three recurring nodal points: (1) problems, (2) dilemmas and (3) impossibility. The advantages of including students with EBD in mainstream classes were only to be found in the antagonistic discourses. They were articulated in different ways but were overpowered by others and therefore failed to fix the meaning. The overall conclusion is that teachers base their understanding on both their experiences and on the policy of the Educational Act, but the pragmatic discourse of the disadvantages was hegemonic to the ideological antagonistic discourse of the advantages.

Including students with emotional and behavioral difficulties (EBD) in general education is one of teachers’ greatest challenges and make the dilemma of inclusion displays its most difficult side. This article contributes to the understanding of how teachers in Swedish mainstream schools understand the concept of inclusive didactics for students with EBD. This article employs a directed qualitative content analysis supplemented with descriptive statistics related to the categories of inclusive didactics. Didactic theory was the basis of the predefined categories by which the analysis was completed. Empirical data were collected through 6 focus-group interviews and 37 individual follow-up interviews. The findings indicate that three didactic aspects were dominant in teachers’ understanding of inclusive didactics: Student(s), Methods, and Teacher. Less accentuated were Subject, Rhetoric and Interaction. Thus these teachers’ understanding and previous research is not consistent. The overall conclusion is that the concept of inclusive didactics is complex, complicated, and difficult for teachers to relate to. The descriptions are both vague and simplistic and therefore difficult for teachers to implement. This article clearly highlights that teachers often feel frustrated and inadequate, and blame themselves for the students’ deficiency and failure, thus concluding that strategies for distinct descriptions and teacher practices are needed.