04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Predictors of Efficacy for Inclusive Education: Canada vs. Germany
Susanne Miesera1, Jacqueline Specht2, Jamie Metsala3, Donna McGhie-Richmond4
1Technical University of Munich, Germany; 2Western University, Canada; 3Mount Saint Vincent University, Canada; 4University of Victoria, Canada
Presenting Author: Miesera, Susanne;
Specht, Jacqueline
The foundation of inclusive education is a belief that all students belong and are valued members of their neighbourhood school communities (Porter & Towell, 2017). Inclusive education promotes equity through respect for diversity. Since the issuance of the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), governments globally have focused on the development of inclusive education systems. Educational settings that promote inclusion are more successful in achieving learning for all (Krämer et al., 2021), the ultimate goal of education. Teachers who have adopted inclusive teaching approaches are able to improve academic standards for all students (Jordan, 2018).
Even when placed in inclusive classrooms, many students with disabilities do not participate optimally in the academic or social life of the classroom. Significant concerns remain about the capacity for schools to effectively support the diversity of learners present in schools and the capacity for traditional educational approaches to support inclusion (Graham, 2020). As a result, many students with disabilities are still segregated; they still experience negative classroom climates and peer interactions; they are still alienated and bullied; and they still fail to reach their academic potential (Reid et al., 2018). The challenge is to equip and empower teachers with the competence and confidence required to effectively teach all students in inclusive classrooms. Pre-service teacher education programs and in-service professional development are key in teachers’ development of effective instructional practices for inclusive classrooms.
It is known that for successful school inclusion teachers must possess the belief that all children belong in the neighbourhood school and the belief that they are responsible and have the competence to teach them (Jordan, 2018). Teacher self-efficacy, the belief that one is a capable educator, is known to influence teacher professional commitment, resilience, teacher performance, and student achievement (Holzberger, Philipp, Kunter, 2013). Teacher self-efficacy is a key competency for teachers in inclusive classrooms. Teachers with high self-efficacy work harder and persist longer to assist students who experience learning challenges (Woolfolk, Hoy, Hoy, & Davis, 2009). Teachers need to gain theoretical and practical knowledge that prepares them for their teaching practice; and also possess the belief that they are responsible for the education of all of their students within diverse classrooms (Jordan et al., 2009). Specht and Metsala (2018) found that for Canadian pre-service teachers preparing to teach secondary grades, significant predictors were gender, the amount of diverse teaching experience, their beliefs regarding the stability of academic ability, and their beliefs toward the use of extrinsic rewards to motivate learning. Miesera and Gebhardt (2018) noted that Canadian preservice teachers had higher self-efficacious beliefs than German preservice teachers and more experience with people with disabilities. Differing educational contexts between countries may lead to varying teacher experiences that contribute to these effects. In fact, Specht et al., (2022) determined that Canadian preservice teachers more often discussed mentoring experiences as contributing to their inclusive practice when compared to German preservice teachers. It was suggested that the difference could be in the way in which each country views themselves in the preservice program. To date, the factors that influence the efficacy of early career teachers have not been compared amongst the two countries. As a result, the current paper will investigate issues as they relate to early career teachers (those within their first 3 years) to determine if differences exist with respect to the predictors of efficacy for inclusive practice with a particular focus on country of teaching.
The following questions were addressed
Do beginning teachers from Germany and Canada differ in their efficacy for inclusive practice?
How do beginning teachers’ country, gender, experience with individuals with diverse educational needs, and beliefs about inclusion influence their self-efficacy?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedParticipants
Participants from both countries were in their first year of teaching. Canadians were 110 teachers (81 women) with an age range 21–52 years. German participants were 90 teachers (41 women) with an age range 25-45 years.
Measures
During their first year of teaching, participants completed the following measures online. Level of personal and professional experience were measured using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from no experience to extensive experience. Participants completed the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practice questionnaire (TEIP; see Sharma et al., 2012), which assessed their feelings of teacher efficacy as their teacher education programs concluded. Reponses on each of the 18 items on this scale are indicated on a 6-point Likert scale (higher scores indicate higher self-efficacy). Sharma et al. reported three factors on this self-efficacy scale: Efficacy in Collaboration, which measures the participants’ self-perceptions of working with parents and colleagues in the schools; Efficacy in Managing Behaviour, referring to sense of competence in dealing with disruptive behaviours in the classroom; and Efficacy to Use Inclusive Instruction, which refers to the use of teaching strategies consistent with the inclusion of all learners. Each scale has been found to have high internal reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85, 0.85, and 0.93, respectively (Sharma et al., 2012). Participants’ beliefs about their roles and responsibilities for including students with exceptional needs in the classroom, including those with disabilities or at risk for academic failure, were measured with the Beliefs About Learning and Teaching Questionnaire (BLTQ, see Glenn, 2018). Responses for the 20 items were on a 6-point Likert scale, and four factors are reported: Student-Centred Instruction, with high scores representing beliefs that students’ needs and the learning process are the focus of teachers’ instruction-based decisions; Teacher-Controlled Instruction, for which high scores indicate beliefs that a teacher’s focus is on transmitting information; Entity- Increment, with high scores1 indicating beliefs that students’ learning ability is a fixed rather than a malleable trait that is relatively impervious to good instruction; and Attaining Standards, for which high scores represent beliefs that external rewards, such as high grades, are primary motivators for students. A perspective consistent with a positive outlook on inclusion would include high scores on the Student-Centred scale, and low scores on and Entity-Increment, Teacher Controlled, and Attaining Standards scales. Cronbach’s alpha for the four scales are: .66, .73, .64, and .70, respectively (Glenn, 2018). These values are considered acceptable (Bacon, 2004).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsComparison of Efficacy
We conducted a MANOVA to examine the effects of country and gender on the three self-efficacy subscales; the effect of country was significant, F(3,194) = 17.878, p < .001; Wilks’ Λ = .783, ηp 2 = .217 as was the effect of gender F(3,194) = 4.209 p < .01; Wilks’ Λ = .939, ηp 2 = .061. The interaction was not significant.
Follow-up univariate tests showed that Canadian beginning teachers had higher overall self-efficacy for both collaboration and inclusive instruction, associated with a large and medium effect size, respectively (ηp 2= .170 & .108); the groups did not differ on efficacy for managing behaviour.
Follow-up tests for gender showed that males had higher self-efficacy for managing behaviour, a difference associated with a small to medium effect size (ηp 2=.048); there were no effects of gender for the other two factors.
Prediction of Efficacy
We ran a series of hierarchical regression analyses for each self-efficacy subscale in turn with the following variables entered: country, gender, personal experience, professional experience, entity-increment beliefs, student-centred instruction beliefs, teacher controlled instruction beliefs, and attaining standards beliefs. The results were as follows:
(a) Being in the Canadian sample and having more professional and personal experience each contributed, in turn, to beginning teachers’ higher self-efficacy for collaboration, as did having higher student-centred instruction beliefs.
(b) Beginning teachers increasing amount of professional and personal experience was positively associated with higher self-efficacy for managing behaviour, as was their gender, with males having higher self-efficacy.
(c) Being in the Canadian sample and having student-centred instruction beliefs predicts high teacher efficacy for inclusive instruction
Results will be compared using the frameworks of inclusive education training programs between the two countries and the potential importance of raising all inservice teachers’ knowledge and experience with student-centred practices.
ReferencesGlenn, C. V. (2018). The measurement of teacher’s beliefs about ability: Development of the Beliefs About Learning and Teaching Questionnaire. Exceptionality Education International, 28, 51-66.
Graham, L. (2020). Inclusive education in the 21st century. In L. Graham (Ed.), Inclusive Education for the 21st Century: Theory, policy and practice (pp. 3–26). Routledge.
Jordan, A. (2018). The Supporting Effective Teaching Project: 1. Factors influencing student success in inclusive elementary classrooms. Exceptionality Education International, 28, 10–27.
Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie-Richmond, D. (2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 535-542.
Krämer, S., Möller, J., & Zimmermann, F. (2021). Inclusive education of students with general learning difficulties: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 91(3), 432–478. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321998072
Miesera, S. Gebhardt, M. (2018). Inclusive vocational schools in Canada and Germany. A comparison of vocational pre-service teachers ′ attitudes, self-efficacy and experiences towards inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education 33(5), 707-722. DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2017.1421599
Porter, G. L., & Towell, D. (2017). Advancing inclusive education: Keys to transformational change in public education systems. https://inclusiveeducation.ca/2017/04/21/advancing-inclusive-education
Reid, L., Bennett, S., Specht, J., White, R., Somma, M., Li, X., Lattanzio, R., Gavan, K., Kyle, G., Porter, G., & Patel, A. (2018). If inclusion means everyone, why not me? https://www.inclusiveeducationresearch.ca/events/inclusive_education_news.html
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x
Specht, J., & Metsala, J. (2018). Predictors of teacher efficacy for inclusive practice in pre-service teachers. Exceptionality Education International, 28(3), 67-82
Specht, J., Miesera, S., McGhie-Richmond, D., & Haider, F. (2022). Experiences that shape the development of inclusive instruction in preservice teachers: An international comparison. European Journal of Special Education Research, 8(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejse.v8i4.4436
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca Statement Framework.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy, W.K., & Davis, H. (2009). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. In A. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 627-654). Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Self-Efficacy of Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing Teachers and Teachers with a Physical Disability
Erez Miller1, Noa Tal-Alon2
1Achva Academic College, Israel; 2Ono Academic College, Israel
Presenting Author: Miller, Erez
The purpose of the study was to reveal the commonalities and differences between two groups of teachers with disabilities: Teachers with physical disabilities and Deaf/hard-of-hearing teachers and to explore the components of self-efficacy among these teachers.
Rationale: Diversity and inclusion in education often refer to students in schools. However, when diversity and inclusion refer to the teaching workforce, it usually discusses aspects of ethnicity and culture. While in recent years the number of teachers with disabilities in the teaching force has increased around the world, discussions about the inclusion of teachers with disabilities are scarce (Ingersoll et al., 2018). Despite their underrepresentation in the teaching force (Neca et al., 2020), they can help diversify the teaching workforce, solve challenging school issues and serve as role models for students with and without disabilities (Dvir, 2015; Jeffress, 2018; Wood & Happé, 2021).
Teachers’ self-efficacy refers to teachers’ belief in their ability to cope successfully with tasks, obligations, and challenges related to their professional role (e.g., pedagogical tasks, classroom management, resource usage, support for parents’ efforts to help their children learn, etc.). Teachers’ self-efficacy is an important component of their professional and personal success and has implications for teaching effectiveness, instructional techniques, and student performance (Graham et al., 2021; Klassen & Tze, 2014), as well as job satisfaction and levels of job-related stress arising from coping with students’ misbehaviors. According to Friedman and Kass (2002), teachers' self-efficacy refers to performing various teaching-related tasks in the classroom, and to performing organizational tasks and becoming part of the school's professional community. Both spheres require teachers to perform professional duties and maintain interpersonal relationships. Thus, teachers’ self-efficacy is an important component of their success (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2007).
A recent review of the international literature on teachers with disabilities found that these teachers have the potential to be fully capable of both teaching effectiveness and better understanding the special needs of students with disabilities in their classrooms. Still, this review underlines the complexity of planning and navigating their teaching careers, which are still affected by ableist and discriminatory practices (Bellacicco et al., 2022).
While there are numerous studies on the professional efficacy of teachers (e.g., Gordon et al., 2022; Wray, Sharma & Subban, 2022), only a few studies have examined the self-efficacy of TWD, and a recent book on TWD (Bellacicco & Ianes, 2022) did not specifically address their professional efficacy.
Our research questions were:
1. What are the differences and similarities between the self-efficacy of teachers with physical disabilities and Deaf/hard-of-hearing teachers?
2. What are some of the challenges teachers with physical disabilities and Deaf/hard-of-hearing teachers face in schools?
Using a qualitative, transcendental, phenomenological approach, we used semi-structured interviews with 20 teachers with disabilities. The data were analyzed using content analysis.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedMethods: A qualitative, transcendental, phenomenological approach was used in this study. Phenomenology is an approach to qualitative research that explores and describes the personal, subjective meaning of a lived experience shared by a group of people who have some commonalities (such as a profession). We wanted to explore the perceptions of teachers with disabilities based on their own perspectives and thus better represent their authentic voices. We aimed to understand the personal and collective interpretations of these teachers.
All participants were teachers with a childhood disability. Ten had a motor disability due to cerebral palsy, injury, or a medical condition; and ten were Deaf or hard of hearing. Though this was a purposeful sample of unique professionals, it was also fairly small due to the characteristics of these professionals. The participants taught various age levels: Four taught in elementary schools, and sixteen taught in secondary schools. Some of the teachers (n=10) taught in inclusive classes, while others taught in special education classes or special education schools. Teachers were selected through personal and professional contacts, snowball sampling, and articles about them in newspapers.
The protocol included open-ended questions about the participants' perspectives of themselves as teachers, followed up (when necessary) by their self-perspective of being a teacher with a disability; about their motivations to become teachers, and various questions about their sense of self-efficacy as teachers. Using a semi-structured interview allowed the researchers to add follow-up questions when further clarification was required, or omit questions that were answered earlier in the interview. Some of the questions referred to the participants’ perception of themselves as teachers and of successful teaching, while other questions referred to different aspects of professional efficacy in teaching. In addition, we used a brief demographic questionnaire for each participant.
At the beginning of the interview, each teacher was asked to sign an informed consent form. All the interviews with the Deaf and hard-of-hearing participants were conducted via Zoom, with a certified Israeli Sign Language interpreter assisting in the interpretation of the interview. These interviews were recorded and then transcribed. The recordings were outsourced to a company that employs people with disabilities as transcribers, enabling them to work from home.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsConclusions: There were five main themes reflecting the experiences of these teachers, divided into two spheres: 1. Classroom efficacy, included professional self-efficacy in class management, professional self-efficacy when teaching the curriculum, professional self-efficacy in building a meaningful relationship with students, and being a role model for students. The better the teachers' management of the classroom and teacher-student relationship, the higher was their sense of professional efficacy. 2. Organizational efficacy, refers to teachers’ professional self-efficacy as they function at the school level in various activities and commitments. Many teachers with physical disabilities described school efforts to create an accessible environment. In some cases, such accessibility was not sufficient, but generally, they were able to participate in school activities. However, for Deaf teachers many school activities were inaccessible, experiencing difficulties in forming social ties with hearing teachers. Thus, in terms of accessibility, physical accessibility often received more attention than communicative accessibility. There is a need to provide proper accessibility and communication so that these teachers can fulfill their potential and develop a higher sense of organizational self-efficacy.
These findings offer both a theoretical understanding of the components of the self-efficacy of TWD and a practical contribution to increasing the inclusion of these teachers, thus diversifying the teaching workforce and acknowledging the unique contributions of such teachers.
Administrative support is crucial to the development of professional efficacy in the classroom and in the organization. In order for all teachers to feel included and take an active role in school activities, including extracurricular activities, all school activities, including extracurricular activities, must have physical and communicative accessibility to all teachers. In addition, in light of the transition in recent years to distance learning, it is important to make sure that these systems are indeed accessible to all people with disabilities, students, or teachers.
ReferencesBellacicco, R., & Ianes, D. (2022). Teachers with disabilities: Dilemmas, challenges, and opportunities. FrancoAngeli.
Dvir, N. (2015). Does physical disability affect the construction of professional identity? Narratives of student teachers with physical disabilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 52, 56-65.
Friedman, I. A., & Kass, E. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: A classroom-organization conceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(6), 675-686.
Gordon, D., Blundell, C., Mills, R., & Bourke, T. (2022). Teacher self-efficacy and reform: a systematic literature review. The Australian Educational Researcher, 1-21.
Graham, S., Wolbers, K., Dostal, H., & Holcomb, L. (2021). Does Teacher Self-Efficacy Predict Writing Practices of Teachers of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Students?. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 26(3), 438-450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enab012
Ingersoll, R. M., Merrill, E., Stuckey, D., & Collins, G. (2018). Seven Trends: The Transformation of the Teaching Force: Updated October 2018 [CPRE Research Report# RR 2018-2]. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED593467.pdf
Jeffress, M. S. (Ed.). (2018). International perspectives on teaching with disability: Overcoming obstacles and enriching lives. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315099941
Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. C. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: a meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001.
Neca, P., Borges, M. L., & Pinto, P. C. (2020). Teachers with disabilities: A literature review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-19. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2020.1776779
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(6), 944-956. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.05.003
Wood, R., & Happé, F. (2021). What are the views and experiences of autistic teachers? Findings from an online survey in the UK. Disability & Society, 1-26. DOI: 10.1080/09687599.2021.1916888
Wray, E., Sharma, U., & Subban, P. (2022). Factors influencing teacher self-efficacy for inclusive education: A systematic literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, 103800.
04. Inclusive Education
Paper
Teachers’ Collective Efficacy with Regard to Inclusive Practices - Characterising a New Scale and International Results from Canada, Germany & Switzerland
Margarita Knickenberg1, Harry Kullmann1, Sergej Wüthrich2, Caroline Sahli Lozano2, Tim Loreman3, Umesh Sharma4
1Paderborn University, Germany; 2PH Bern, Switzerland; 3Concordia University of Edmonton, Canada; 4Monash University, Australia
Presenting Author: Knickenberg, Margarita
As more schools around the globe become inclusive, the student body in many classes is getting more diverse with regard to various dimensions. In order to make the shift to inclusive education a success, a variety of conditions summarised in “the 4 As” of Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability, and Adaptability have to be in place (UN-CRPD, 2016). To meet the heterogeneous needs of all learners, teachers of course are crucial with regard to both their individual competences as well as their collective performance as part of a multi-professional team (Sharma et al., submitted; Subban et al., 2022). Searching for factors of success, many studies emphasize teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, their self-efficacy as well as their collective efficacy as being essential (e.g. Wray et al., 2022; Zee & Koomen, 2016).
Collective efficacy is defined as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment” (Bandura, 1997, p. 477). Individualized teaching adapted to students’ diversity requires well-functioning teams of teachers characterized by high solidarity, mutual appreciation and respect, and shared responsibility which are closely connected to their collective efficacy. Accordingly, school teams achieving a high degree of collective efficacy appear to set themselves higher goals and to pursue them with an elevated persistence. According to Goddard et al. (2000), shared goals can be regarded as normative expectations for the individual teacher, influencing their beliefs about teaching and learning as well as their performance in the classroom. Accordingly, collective efficacy and individual self-efficacy are interconnected (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) and teachers’ collective efficacy is known for being linked to students’ achievements (e.g. Tschannen-Moran & Barr, 2004; Zee & Koomen 2016). While teachers’ individual as well as collective efficacy have been extensively studied with regard to promoting students’ academic success, teachers’ collective efficacy with respect to inclusive practices has been largely neglected thus far, especially from an international perspective (e.g. Sharma et al., submitted). The scarcity of questionnaire scales having been successfully proved of their international validity employing criteria such as measurement invariance could be a reason for the sparse research in the respective field. International comparisons are of particular interest for each country or school system, respectively, as they can help to identify alternative approaches and possibilities for inclusive school development. Canada, for example, is of particular interest, especially from a European perspective, since it has long been seen as a best practice example with respect to inclusive teaching but has recently been regarded more critically (e.g. Merz-Atalik 2022). Against this background, the paper to be presented is examining a newly developed scale assessing teachers’ collective efficacy with regard to inclusive practices in a global context (Sharma et al., submitted). It covers the characterisation of the scale by evaluating its dimensionality and factorial structure. In addition, it provides data and discussion on the measurement invariance across Canada, Germany and Switzerland as a well as selected comparisons regarding the relevance of individual background variables such as gender and teaching experience.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedOur analysis is integral part of an international research project aiming at predicting teachers’ intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms in a global context. Within the scope of this project, questionnaires were administered online to 897 preschool, primary and secondary school teachers (63% female) in the Canadian province of Alberta (n=281), the German federal state of North Rhine-Westfalia (n=257) and the Canton Bern in Switzerland (n=359). Approximately half of the teachers reported having a teaching experience of 10 years or more (52.3%) while beginners (1-4 years: 26.5%) and teachers with 6 to 10 years of experience (21.2%) make up for one forth or one fifth of the sample, respectively. All of the following age groups were fairly equally represented: under 30 years: 22%; 30–39 years 27.40%; 40–49 years: 23.8%; over 50 years: 26.8%.
Collective teaching efficacy to implement inclusive practices (CTEIP) was measured using 18 items which theoretically can be assigned into three dimensions: ‘Inclusive Instructions’ (6 items, e.g., “Teachers in my cohort/school can provide appropriate challenges for very capable students.”; M=4.52, SD=.85, ω=.91), ‘Managing Behaviour” (6 items, e.g., “Teachers in my cohort/school can prevent disruptive behaviour in the classroom before it occurs.”; M=4.33, SD=.85, ω=.91) and ‘Collaboration’(6 items, e.g., “Teachers in my cohort/school are able to work jointly with other professionals and staff (e.g. aides, other teachers) to ensure that all students are included in the classroom.”; M=4.36, SD=.87, ω=.88).
Teachers were asked to rate their agreement on the various items on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (=strongly disagree) to 6 (=strongly agree). CTEIP was adapted from an instrument measuring teachers’ individual teaching efficacy to implement inclusive practices (TEIP; Sharma et al., 2012; Sharma et al., submitted).
In order to evaluate the factorial structure of CTEIP, a confirmatory and exploratory structural equation modelling (ESEM) framework was used employing the software Mplus (Version 8.8, Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2022). Estimations were done using robust maximum-likelihood estimator (MLR). Subsequently, measurement invariance across countries was examined by means of multiple group comparisons. At last, the factors gender, age and teaching experience were included as predictors of collective teaching efficacy to specify a multiple indicator multiple causes model (MIMIC; Marsh et al., 2013).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsTo examine the dimensionality of CTEIP, different theory-driven confirmatory factorial analyses (CFA) and ESEMs were tested. After testing and refusing unidimensional as well as bifactorial models, a three factor first order CFA was compared to an equivalent ESEM with the latter appearing to fit the data better. This model also withstands the examination of measurement invariance, therefore meeting the statistical requirement for cross-country comparisons. Significant differences, ascertained on the basis of latent means and by taking Canada as a standard (with its latent means constrained to zero) are found for Germany regarding ‘managing behaviour’ (M=-.23) as well as ‘collaboration’ (M=-34) and for Switzerland regarding ‘collaboration’ (M=-.47). Apparently, Canadian teachers show higher levels of collective efficacy with regard to teaching in diversity-enriched classes to at least some extent compared to the two central European countries.
Based on a subsequently employed ESEM MIMIC, the factor gender (1=male, 2=female) appears to have a small effect in the Canadian sample on ‘managing behaviour’ (β=.15, p=.008) and ‘collaboration’ (β=.16, p=.009) and also in the German sample (‘managing behavior’: β=-.14, p=.035; ‘collaboration’: β=-.17, p=.016). The same holds true for ‘collaboration’ in the Swiss sample (β=-.13, p=.045). Thus, female teachers tend to have higher values for two out of three dimensions of collective efficacy in Canada, while in Germany the same holds true for male teachers. In Switzerland the higher values for males are limited to the collaboration-oriented dimension.
Age-related effects were only found in the Swiss sample regarding ‘inclusive instructions’ (β=-.20, p=.009) and ‘managing behavior’ (β=-.20, p=.008). This indicates that older teachers in Switzerland are less pronounced in their collective efficacy to at least some extent. Teaching experience has no significant effect on teachers’ collective efficacy in any of the three countries.
More results and country-specific interpretation will be presented and discussed in the final paper.
ReferencesMerz-Atalik, K. (2022). Canada as a “Driving Force” for inclusion activists in European countries? Comparative perspectives on inclusive education in Europe and Canada. In T. M. Christou, R. Kruschel, I. A. Matheson, & K. Merz-Atalik (eds.), European perspectives on inclusive education in Canada. Critical comparative insights (S. 9–34). Routledge.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and effect on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479–507. doi:10.2307/1163531
Marsh, H. W., Vallerand, R. J., Lafrenière, M.-A. K., Parker, P., Morin, A. J. S., Carbonneau, N., Jowett, S., Bureau, J.S., Fernet, C., Guay, F., Salah Abduljabbar, A., & Paquet,Y. (2013). Passion: Does one scale fit all? Construct validity of two-factor passion scale and psychometric invariance over different activities and languages. Psychological Assessment, 25(3), 796–809. doi:10.1037/a0032573
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2022). Mplus user’sguide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21. doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x
Sharma, U., Loreman, T., May, F., Romano, A., Sahli Lozano, C., Avramidis, E., Woodcock, S., Subban, P., & Kullmann, H. (submitted). Measuring collective efficacy for inclusion in a global context. European Journal of Inclusive Education.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611
Subban, P. K., Bradford, B., Sharma, U., Loreman, T., Avramidis, E., Kullmann, H., et al. (2022). Does it really take a village to raise a child? Reflections on the need for collective responsibility in inclusive education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 37, 1–12. doi:10.1080/08856257.2022.2059632
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering student achievement: The relationship between collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3, 187–207. doi:10.1080/15700760490503706
UN-CRPD – UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2016). General comment No. 4. Article 24: Right to inclusive education. CRPD/C/GC/4. https://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?OpenAgent&DS=CRPD/C/GC/4&Lang=E.
Wray, E., Sharma, U., & Subban, P. (2022). Factors influencing teacher self-efficacy for inclusive education: a systematic literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, [103800]. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2022.103800
Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015.
|
