Measuring teacher efficacy to implementinclusive practicesjrs3_1200 1..10

Umesh Sharma1, Tim Loreman2 and Chris Forlin3

1Monash University, Australia; 2Concordia University College of Alberta, Canada; 3Hong Kong Institute of Education,Hong Kong

Key words: Pre-service training, teacher efficacy, inclusive education.

The purpose of this study was to develop an instru-ment to measure perceived teacher efficacy toteach in inclusive classrooms. An 18-item scale wasdeveloped on a sample of 607 pre-service teachersselected from four countries (Canada, Australia,Hong Kong and India). Factor analysis of responsesfrom the sample revealed three factors: efficacy inusing inclusive instruction, efficacy in collaborationand efficacy in dealing with disruptive behaviours.The alpha coefficient for the total scale was 0.89.Alpha coefficients for the three factors ranged from0.85 to 0.93. Reliability analysis for the total scaleas well as factors for each country suggested thatthe scale provides a reliable measure of pre-serviceteacher perceptions of self-efficacy for inclusionacross different countries.

The inclusion of children with disabilities in regular class-rooms is now a worldwide trend that has been growing inpopularity during the last three decades. Several developedcountries (e.g., USA, UK, Canada and Australia) have leg-islation or policies that emphasise an inclusive model ofteaching students with diverse needs in regular class-rooms. Similarly, several developing countries have nowformulated policies that support the broader principles ofinclusive education to educate students with specialisedneeds (Kuyini and Desai, 2007; Wu-Tien, Ashman andYong-Wook, 2008). This change in the needs of studentsat classroom level over this period of time has made itnecessary for universities to change their teacher educa-tion practices (Nougaret, Scruggs and Mastropieri, 2005).Some teacher registration bodies in Western countries(e.g., New South Wales and Queensland in Australia) havemade it a mandatory requirement for all teachers tocomplete a subject in special or inclusive education(Subban and Sharma, 2006), or have made outcomesrelated to inclusion mandatory in teacher preparationprogrammes (see e.g., Alberta Education, 1997). Therequirement is based on the premise that without suchtraining, teachers will not be able to meet the needs ofdiverse student populations in their classrooms (Kuyiniand Desai, 2007; Sharma, Forlin and Loreman, 2008;Winter, 2006).

Inclusion is based on the philosophy that all students aredifferent in any number of ways (not limited to disability),and in order to meet their learning needs, schools need toadapt and change their practices (Kinsella and Senior, 2008;Oliver, 1990). Under an inclusive philosophy, schools existto meet the needs of all students; therefore, if a student isexperiencing difficulties, the problem is with the schoolingpractices not with the student. Implementing inclusiveeducation is not an easy task and requires significant changeto facilitate improvements in the way teachers have beenworking in the classroom. Although an earlier commonmisconception was that inclusion is just about placement ofstudents with diverse learning needs in regular classrooms,more recently, researchers argue that it is much more thanplacement (e.g., Winter, 2006). It is about ‘The quality ofthe school experience and about how far they are helped tolearn, achieve and participate fully in the life of the school’(DfES, 2004, p. 12).

Teacher education programmes now have a major respon-sibility to ensure that new graduates are well prepared toinclude all students into mainstream classrooms regardlessof individual difference (Winter, 2006). One way to deter-mine if pre-service teachers are ready for this challenge isto examine their perceived efficacy to implement inclusivepractices.

According to Bandura (1997), teachers’ perceived efficacyinfluences both the kind of environment that teachers createfor their students as well as their judgements about differentteaching tasks they will perform to enhance student learn-ing. Applying this theory to an inclusive education scenario,a teacher with high teacher efficacy in implementing inclu-sive practices would believe that a student with speciallearning needs can be effectively taught in the regular class-room. Alternatively, teachers with poor efficacy for imple-menting inclusive practices would consider that there isvery little they can do to include a student with speciallearning needs in a regular classroom, and thus they may bedisinclined to try. This theory implies that teachers’ sense ofefficacy affects their behaviour and actions, as well as con-sequences of actions (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk andHoy, 1998). Gibson and Dembo (1984) found significantdifferences in the teaching practices of high efficacious andlow efficacious teachers. Teachers with high self-efficacy

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs · Volume •• · Number •• · 2011 ••–••doi: 10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x

1© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

perceptions persisted with low-achieving students andused better teaching strategies (e.g., less criticism for wronganswers, better questioning) that allowed such students tolearn more effectively. Conversely, teachers with low self-efficacy spent more time on non-academic tasks and usedless effective teaching strategies that hindered studentlearning. Other researchers have also found that teacherswith efficacy for teaching tend to use more hands-on teach-ing methods (Chan, 2008) and more humanistic approa-ches (Woolfolk Hoy, Rosoff and Hoy, 1990). In summary,high teacher efficacy can be viewed as a key ingredient tocreate successful inclusive classroom environments. Someresearchers have even suggested that education reforms thatfail to address teacher efficacy are unlikely to be successfuland effective (DeMesquita and Drake, 1994; Sarason,1990).

Teacher efficacy is also associated with improvement inattitudes towards teaching in inclusive classrooms. In anearly comprehensive study of predicting teachers’ attitudesto inclusion, Soodak, Podell and Lehman (1998) found thatteachers’ sense of teaching efficacy was one of the strongestpredictors of their attitudes to inclusion. They also foundthat teachers with a low sense of efficacy demonstratedanxiety and rejected the idea of including students withspecial needs in their classrooms. Weisel and Dror (2006)similarly investigated the effect of school organisation andeducational climate, and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy(using Teacher Efficacy Scale) on the attitudes of 139 teach-ers from 17 primary schools in Israel towards the inclusionof students with disabilities. The researchers found thatteachers’ sense of self-efficacy was the single best predictorof their attitudes towards inclusion. Also, teachers whoperceived a more positive school climate (e.g., supportiveleadership, collaborative planning and autonomy) tendedto express more positive attitudes towards inclusion. Inanother Israeli study of 33 teachers, Almog and Shechtman(2007) established that there were positive correlationsbetween teacher democratic beliefs, teacher efficacy andeffective strategies to work with students with difficultbehaviour problems. In a series of studies, Sharma et al.(2008), Forlin, Loreman and Sharma (2009), and Sharma,Moore and Sonawane (2009) examined the relationshipbetween pre-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusionwith variables such as contact with people with disabilities,knowledge of local legislation and policies, and confidencelevel. The researchers found that confidence in teaching ininclusive classrooms was the single best predictor of par-ticipants’ attitudes.

Over the last two decades, more research has been con-ducted, particularly to find out if the Western constructs(such as teacher efficacy and the use of psychological mea-suring instruments) are appropriate to non-Western contexts(Cheung, 2006; Lin and Gorrell, 2001). Despite abundantresearch on teacher efficacy in Western countries, suchresearch in non-Western contexts is limited. Ho (2000)compared Australian and Hong Kong Chinese teachers’efficacy. Based on the interview data, he concluded that thetwo groups of teachers faced similar problems and they

used similar kinds of strategies to deal with them. He alsofound some differences between teachers. Although Austra-lian teachers perceived that their major responsibilities arethe area of instruction and discipline, their Chinese coun-terparts exhibited a strong sense of moral responsibility inguiding students in their daily life. In a more recent study,Ho and Hau (2004) compared 316 Australian and 411 HongKong in-service teachers regarding their personal efficacyin instruction, discipline, guidance and beliefs about exter-nal influences. They found that both groups of teachers hadhighly comparable factorial structure of teacher efficacy,although personal guidance efficacy was more differenti-ated from personal instruction and discipline efficacyamong Australian teachers. They found strong evidence for‘cross cultural validity of the basic structure for the teacherefficacy construct’ (p. 320). They concluded that ‘for teach-ers who work in comparable modern school systems, thereare important criteria for judging their professional capabil-ity in these domains of responsibility even when the culturalcontext is different’. This suggests that teacher efficacy is aconstruct that has cross-cultural validity. Researchers agreethat teacher efficacy is a context- and task-specific construct(Bandura, 1997; Chan, 2008). In other words, a teacherwho has high teacher efficacy in teaching mathematics willnot necessarily have high efficacy in teaching languages.Researchers have therefore recommended that teacher effi-cacy should be examined in terms of task and context speci-ficity (Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001).

The need to design new teacher efficacy scales has receivedrenewed impetus with the introduction of fresh educationalreforms (Chan, 2008). Although several studies have exam-ined teacher efficacy in general, studies examining teacherefficacy in including students with diverse needs in regularclassrooms are limited. Some studies (Romi and Leyser,2006; Weisel and Dror, 2006) that have examined teacherefficacy to implement inclusive education have oftenemployed general teacher efficacy measures (e.g., TeacherEfficacy Scale) (Gibson and Dembo, 1984). Other studieshave employed teacher efficacy scales based on a medicalconceptualisation of disability (e.g., Hutzler, Zach andGafni, 2005). Although these scales have good reliabilityand validity, they continue to conceptualise disability froma deficit perspective. Finkelstein (2001) argues that medicalconceptualisation of disability has hindered the progress ofinclusive education reform as the model is based on thebelief that if a child does not learn, then something is wrongwith the child and so the child should be separated andtaught in a special environment. Within this paradigm, dis-ability is viewed as a form of illness or physical conditionwhich is intrinsic to the individual and believed to causesignificant disadvantage (Finkelstein, 2001; Oliver, 1990)and as a result, the treatment of the condition revolvesaround finding the cause of the problem within the indi-vidual and solutions are mainly to control the impact ofdisability. Although there is no question that disability oftendoes cause significant disadvantages for an individual,those who are critical of the medical model ascribe theroot of such disadvantages to sources external to the indi-vidual. Teaching inclusively is a challenge for teachers and

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

2 © 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

demands certain expertise. Teachers working in a socialparadigm use inclusive strategies and tend not to referchildren with ‘special’ needs to special schools. They do notfocus on the diagnosis of the child rather on their skillsto teach all children in their classrooms. The only tools thatteachers have are their ability, competence and attitude; thecontext, thus, becomes more important (social model).

Considering that inclusion is a context-specific constructand that there are some explicit skills required of teachersto be successful in inclusive settings, there is a need todesign a scale that more holistically addresses the inclusioncontext. The aim of the present study was to develop a scalethat can be used to measure perceived teacher efficacy toteach in inclusive classrooms that will focus more on theenvironment and teaching practices rather than on the indi-vidual child, thus aiming to move away from a medicalmodel of disability.

MethodParticipantsParticipants for this study were pre-service teachersenrolled in a teacher preparation programme. In order toobtain a wide variation in responses and to make the scaleinternationally relevant, pre-service teachers from six dif-ferent universities were recruited from four countries(one each from Canada, Australia, and Hong Kong, andthree from India). A total of 609 pre-service teachers par-ticipated in the study (Canada = 130, Australia = 107,Hong Kong = 97, India = 275). A large majority of par-ticipants were female (n = 85%) aged 20–25 years (79%).

ProcedureData were collected in one of the lectures by faculty directlyinvolved in the training of the pre-service teachers. Theparticipants were informed of the purpose of the study andwere made aware that the data would be used for interna-tional comparison. They were also informed that participa-tion in the research was completely voluntary and theywould not be identified in final data analysis. They had theoption of declining participation by not completing thequestionnaire.

Instrumentation. The Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Prac-tices (TEIP) scale was developed to collect data from par-ticipants. The procedure recommended by DeVellis (2003)was used to develop the scale. The approach described byDeVellis has gained significant acceptance among scaledevelopers and is used by them frequently (see e.g., Chen,Gully and Eden, 2001; Cheung, 2006)

Item generation. The purpose of this phase of the study wasto define and then adequately capture the domains that bestrepresent teacher efficacy for inclusion. Relevant literatureon inclusive education (Danielson, 1996; Forlin et al., 2009;Kuyini and Desai, 2007; Nougaret et al., 2005; Romi andLeyser, 2006; Winter, 2006) and existing scales on teacherefficacy (Gibson and Dembo, 1984; Tschannen-Moran et al.1998; Woolfolk Hoy and Spero, 2005) were reviewed toidentify statements that allow the measurement of partici-

pants’ teaching efficacy in implementing inclusive educa-tion. The literature suggests that teachers need to have threecore areas of skills in order to teach effectively in inclusiveclassrooms. These include having knowledge of content andpedagogy (e.g., knowing students’ characteristics, selectinginstructional goals, adapting instruction to meet indivi-dual needs, using co-operative learning) (Danielson, 1996;Nougaret et al., 2005; Winter, 2006), managing classroomenvironment and behaviour (e.g., designing the classroomenvironment so as to prevent behaviour problems), andthe ability to work collaboratively with parents and para-professionals (Groom and Rose, 2005). We were aware thatthe literature we were reviewing was largely based on amedical model and made a conscious effort to avoid includ-ing any item that was based on a specific disability (such asworking with children with Down syndrome). The majorityof the items that were generated thus focussed on an indi-vidual educators’ ability to include all learners by usinginclusive strategies rather than a narrow focus on one ormore disabilities. A total of 35 statements were produced.All items were worded positively and they began with aphrase such as: ‘I can . . . , I am confident . . . , or I am . . .’.A decision was made to use a 6-point anchor system withresponses ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to StronglyAgree (6), as this does not allow for a neutral response,requiring pre-service teachers to make decisions about theirefficacy for each question.

Content validation. A Delphi approach was employed forinitial validation of the scale (Clayton, 1997). Six univer-sity faculty (excluding the authors) working in the field ofspecial and inclusive education and educational psychol-ogy were asked to evaluate the scale as a valid measureto assess pre-service teacher efficacy in implementinginclusive practices. The six university faculty were fromCanada (1), Australia (3), Hong Kong (1) and India (1).All faculty had experience of preparing teachers or schoolpsychologists about various aspects of inclusive educationand had a good understanding of their local context.Hinkin and Tracey’s (1999) approach was followed todetermine the content validity. This approach essentiallyinvolved gauging agreement among experts about theapplicability of an item to measure a construct. The par-ticipants were asked to comment on the usefulness of eachitem in measuring teacher efficacy in implementing inclu-sive practices using a scale ranging from 1 (does not orhardly measures pre-service teacher efficacy to implementinclusion) to 5 (definitely measures pre-service teacherefficacy to implement inclusion). They also reported onthe clarity of items and instructions. Based on their rec-ommendations, six items that obtained a rating of lessthan two were deleted and minor changes were made tosome items. The scale was returned to the faculty for finalreview and confirmation.

The revised scale was administered to the participantsfrom four countries. The data from 609 participants weresubjected to analysis using Statistical Package for the SocialSciences software. Reliability of the scale was computedusing Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency.

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

3© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

Inter-correlations between items were also computed toidentify any items that were highly inter-correlated (above0.80). A decision was also made to delete items that had acorrected item-scale correlation of less than 0.30. Two items(Items 3 and 4) had very high correlations with Item 2. Item27 had a poor item-to-scale correlation (r = 0.26). All threeitems were deleted at this stage resulting in a 26-item scale.

Exploratory factor analysis. An exploratory factor analysiswas conducted on the 26 items to determine the factorstructure of the scale. Prior to undertaking analysis, datawere examined to determine suitability for factor analysis.An examination of correlation matrix revealed many coef-ficients of 0.30 or above. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin valuefor sampling adequacy was 0.93, exceeding the recom-mended value of 0.60 (Pallant, 2009). Barlett’s test of sphe-ricity (Barlett, 1954) was also highly significant, suggestingthat the data can be factor analysed. The sample size of 609was sufficient to undertake factor analysis because it isabove the recommended numbers. Nunnally (1978) recom-mends a ratio of 10 subjects to one item. Tabachnick andFidell (2001) recommend a sample size of 300 cases.

Examination of eigenvalues and scree plot analyses wereemployed to determine the number of meaningful factors.An initial solution based on the maximum likelihoodextraction method with no rotation revealed three factorswith eigenvalues above 1. Factors 4 and 5 had eigenvaluesof 0.919 and 0.644, respectively (see Table 1). Together,they accounted for six per cent of the explained variance.Scree plot analysis suggested the presence of four factors.Parallel analysis was also undertaken to determine thenumber of factors as this is more robust and accurate com-pared with eigenvalues and scree plot tests, which tend tooverestimate the number of factors (Henson and Roberts,2006). Parallel analysis involves subjecting random datasimilar to the real data for a factor analysis. It is based onthe premise that meaningful components extracted fromreal data will have larger eigenvalues than componentsextracted from a similar random data set (Lautenschlager,1989). Thus, the number of factors to retain is the numberof eigenvalues from the real data that have a value higherthan the eigenvalues obtained from a random sample. Par-allel analysis suggested the presence of three factors (seeTable 1). Thus, three factors were retained.

An exploratory factor analysis of the correlation matrixusing a principal component analysis with varimax

rotation was subsequently conducted to determine thefactor structure. Items were included in a factor if theirfactor coefficient loading exceeded 0.40 as well as if theitem conceptually related to other items in the scale. Itemsthat loaded on more than one factor were deleted. Eightitems were deleted at this stage. Item 9 had a maximumloading of 0.31 and items 16, 17, 18, 21 and 22 loaded onmore than one factor. Items 20 and 29 loaded on a factorwhere they conceptually did not relate to the construct.Factor analysis using the method described above wasre-run on the 18-item scale (see Table 2). The three retainedfactors accounted for 64.5% of the explained variance.

ResultsThe final scale consisted of 18 items (see Appendix A),which were randomised to provide an interspersing of thethree factors. The value of the total score was obtained byadding the responses for each item and ranged from 18 to108 with higher scores indicating that participants have ahigh sense of perceived teaching efficacy for teaching ininclusive classrooms. Factor 1 consisted of six items, whichaccounted for 25.45% of the variance. This factor relatedto a participant’s perceptions of their teaching efficacy inusing inclusive instruction and was named Efficacy to useInclusive Instructions (see Table 2). We used the term‘inclusive instruction’ to refer to strategies that promote theinclusion of all learners. Factor 2 consisted of eight itemswhich accounted for 19.8% of the variance. This factorrelated to an individual’s perceptions of teacher efficacyin working with parents and other professionals and wasnamed Efficacy in Collaboration. Factor three also hadsix items. This factor related to self-perceptions of teachingefficacy in dealing with disruptive behaviours and wasnamed Efficacy in Managing Behaviour. This factoraccounted for 19% of the variance. Cronbach alphas werecomputed to determine the reliabilities of the three factors.The alpha coefficients of the three factors were 0.93, 0.85and 0.85, respectively. Table 2 presents factor loadings andreliability statistics for the total scale and each of the threefactors. The reliability coefficient for the total scale was0.89 suggesting that the scale has adequate reliability tomeasure the construct. Alpha coefficients were also calcu-lated to determine if the scale had good reliabilities (bothfor the total scale and the three factors) for each of thesubsamples based on the country location of participants.Table 3 presents results of the analysis. The alpha values forthe total scale were 0.87, 0.91, 0.89 and 0.84 for Canada,Australia, Hong Kong and India, respectively, suggesting

Table 1: Comparison of eigenvalues from PCA analysis, percentage of variance and the corresponding criterion valuesobtained using parallel analysis

Factor Actual eigenvalues from PCA Percentage of variance Criterion value from parallel analysis Decision

1 9.20 35.40 1.39 Accept

2 3.51 13.48 1.33 Accept

3 1.28 4.91 1.29 Accept

4 0.92 3.53 1.25 Reject

5 0.64 2.48 1.21 Reject

PCA, principal component analysis.

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

4 © 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

that the scale is a reliable measure to assess teacher efficacyacross different cultures. Reliability scores for all threefactors ranged from 0.64 to 0.97, suggesting that the factorsalso had adequate reliabilities for pre-service teachersacross different countries.

DiscussionThis paper describes the development of a scale to measurethe self-efficacy of teachers to implement inclusive class-room practices. The rationale for designing a new scale wasbased on the belief that teacher efficacy for inclusion is atask-specific construct, and measurement of such a specifictask should be undertaken by employing a scale that explic-itly captures the construct. We made a conscious decisionnot to include items in the scale that were based on a label(e.g., students with autism) as we know from our ownexperience as well as from the literature available in thisfield that teaching students with different abilities in regularclassrooms requires teachers to have specific strategies thatwill work with all students. Teachers competent in usingeffective teaching strategies, collaborating with others andmanaging disruptive behaviours would likely be more effi-cacious when teaching in an inclusive classroom. The final18 items incorporated in the scale were gleaned from exist-ing literature on inclusive education and teacher efficacystudies. The scale was implemented using a purposefulsample of 609 pre-service teachers from Canada, Australia,Hong Kong and India. The scale was found to consist ofthree factors that measured teacher efficacy with inclusiveinstruction (Factor 1); with collaboration (Factor 2); andwith managing disruptive behaviours (Factor 3). Teachers’responses on the three factors provide a general overview oftheir teaching efficacy in relation to all students in theirclass. In order to understand how efficacious a teacher is inteaching an individual student (e.g., with significant learn-ing needs), the scale can be used by taking into account thelearning needs of a particular student when responding toeach item. Information of this kind may be useful forschools if they are concerned about not being able to effec-tively include students with specific learning needs (e.g.,students with behavioural difficulties). All three factors hadstrong reliabilities ranging from 0.85 to 0.93. Further, therewere indications that this scale is suitable for internationaluse as the scale had adequate reliabilities for the subsamplesbased on four separate countries.

The three factors obtained in the scale have practical rel-evance for teacher educators. With the greater emphasis onpreparing teachers for inclusive classrooms, teacher educa-tors often question what skills are necessary to implementinclusive practices and how they can assess if teachers haveobtained adequate level of competency in them. In order tosuccessfully teach in inclusive classrooms, teachers need tohave skills in designing classrooms where the needs of allstudents can be met (Nougaret et al., 2005) and whereall students feel safe and do not display any disruptivebehaviour (Nougaret et al., 2005). They must also havethe competence to work with adults such as parents andallied health professionals (Danielson, 1996). If teacherscan attain these three core groups of skills, then they should

Table 2: Varimax-rotated factor matrix, reliabilitiesand summary statistics for 18 items retained in theTeacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices scale (N = 607)

Item topic

Factor loadings

I II III Total

Efficacy to use inclusive

instructions

Item 1 (Using variety of

assessments)

0.85

Item 2 (Providing

alternative explanations)

0.90

Item 5 (Designing

individualised learning

tasks)

0.79

Item 6 (Ability to gauge

student comprehension)

0.86

Item 7 (Working with very

capable students)

0.84

Item 8 (Making students

work in small groups)

0.86

Efficacy in collaboration

Item 19 (Assisting families

to help their children)

0.70

Item 23 (Work jointly with

professionals)

0.75

Item 24 (Involving parents

in school activities)

0.84

Item 25 (Making parents

feel comfortable)

0.77

Item 26 (Collaborating

with professionals)

0.71

Item 28 (Informing others

about laws and policies)

0.59

Efficacy in managing

behaviour

Item 10 (Ability to prevent

disruptive behaviour)

0.78

Item 11 (Controlling

disruptive behaviour)

0.81

Item 12 (Ability to calm a

disruptive student)

0.77

Item 13 (Getting children

to follow classroom rules)

0.68

Item 14 (Dealing with

physically aggressive

students)

0.66

Item 15 (Making

expectations clear)

0.52

Alpha coefficients 0.93 0.85 0.85 0.89

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

5© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

be better prepared to successfully include all learners inthe classroom. The TEIP scale allows teacher educators tomeasure the perceived efficacy of participants in these threeareas; thus, it can be used as an evaluation tool to discern ifpre-service teachers have obtained a reasonable level ofperceived efficacy before they complete their teacher train-ing programmes. Although it is not possible to set a ‘bench-mark’ mean score which pre-service teachers should attainon the scale prior to graduation, a ‘pre’ and ‘post’ adminis-tration of the scale (perhaps before and after the commence-ment of a particular unit of work on inclusion) might behelpful in measuring general progress and the impact theunit of work undertaken has on teacher efficacy for inclu-sion. Similarly, departments of education or school leaderscan use the scale to gauge an understanding of teacherefficacy of their teacher population to work effectivelyin inclusive classrooms, especially with new teachers whomay find inclusion challenging. A targeted professionallearning programme can then be designed to address areaswhere teachers perceive that they lack competence.

One limitation of the study was that no qualitative datawere collected as the major purpose was to design a scalefor quantitatively measuring teaching efficacy. We stronglyrecommend that future users of the TEIP collect qualita-tive data in the form of open-ended questions or classroomobservations to make greater sense of the quantitativedata. A combination of qualitative and quantitative datawill provide researchers with an in-depth understanding ofteacher efficacy and about the factors that may contribute inthe formation of their efficacy as well as those that maysustain high level of efficacy amongst teachers (Milner &Woolfolk Hoy, 2003). The qualitative data will also beuseful in making sense of the teacher efficacy construct in

different cross-cultural contexts (Milner and Woolfolk Hoy,2003) and thus contribute to the further validity of the TEIPscores.

The development of the TEIP scale is timely as teachereducators and educational systems attempt to ensure thatthey are adequately preparing teachers for working in inclu-sive classrooms. Measuring teacher efficacy has clearlybeen seen as task specific, yet to date, there has been nosuitable scale that targets teacher efficacy specifically inrelation to inclusive education. This scale provides a suit-able measuring instrument that is developed from a socio-cultural perspective of diversity rather than a medical modelof deviance. The initial findings indicate that the scale hasstrong validity and reliability. Further research across dif-ferent cultures and contexts will enable a more rigorousevaluation of the scale and its suitability for measuringteacher efficacy for inclusive education.

Address for correspondenceUmesh Sharma,Krongold Centre,Faculty of Education,Monash University,Room G10A,Building 5,Wellington Road,Vic. 3800,Australia.Email: umesh.sharma@monash.edu.

Table 3: Alpha coefficients for Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices total scale and the three factors

Countries

Australia Canada Hong Kong India

Total Scale 0.91 0.88 0.90 0.86

Efficacy to use inclusive instructions (Factor 1) 0.78 0.97 0.73 0.64

Efficacy in collaboration (Factor 2) 0.81 0.86 0.80 0.81

Efficacy in dealing disruptive behaviours (Factor 3) 0.83 0.88 0.86 0.79

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

6 © 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

Appendix A Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practice (TEIP) Scale*This survey is designed to help understand the nature of factors influencing the success of routine classroom activities increating an inclusive classroom environment. In an inclusive classroom students from a wide range of diverse backgroundsand abilities learn together with necessary supports available to teachers and students.

Please circle the number that best represents your opinion about each of the statements.

Please attempt to answer each question

1 2 3 4 5 6

Strongly disagree Disagree Disagree somewhat Agree somewhat Agree Strongly agree

SD D DS AS A SA

I can make my expectations

clear about student

behaviour (15)

1 2 3 4 5 6

I am able to calm a student

who is disruptive or noisy

(12).

1 2 3 4 5 6

I can make parents feel

comfortable coming to

school (25).

1 2 3 4 5 6

I can assist families in

helping their children do

well in school (19).

1 2 3 4 5 6

I can accurately gauge

student comprehension of

what I have taught (6).

1 2 3 4 5 6

I can provide appropriate

challenges for very

capable students (7).

1 2 3 4 5 6

I am confident in my ability

to prevent disruptive

behaviour in the classroom

before it occurs (10).

1 2 3 4 5 6

I can control disruptive

behaviour in the classroom

(11).

1 2 3 4 5 6

I am confident in my ability

to get parents involved in

school activities of their

children with disabilities

(24).

1 2 3 4 5 6

I am confident in designing

learning tasks so that the

individual needs of

students with disabilities

are accommodated (5).

1 2 3 4 5 6

I am able to get children to

follow classroom rules

(13).

1 2 3 4 5 6

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

7© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

Continued

SD D DS AS A SA

I can collaborate with other

professionals (e.g.,

itinerant teachers or

speech pathologists) in

designing educational

plans for students with

disabilities (26).

1 2 3 4 5 6

I am able to work jointly

with other professionals

and staff (e.g., aides, other

teachers) to teach students

with disabilities in the

classroom (23).

1 2 3 4 5 6

I am confident in my ability

to get students to work

together in pairs or in

small groups (8).

1 2 3 4 5 6

I can use a variety of

assessment strategies (e.g.,

portfolio assessment,

modified tests,

performance-based

assessment, etc.) (1)

1 2 3 4 5 6

I am confident in informing

others who know little

about laws and policies

relating to the inclusion of

students with disabilities

(28).

1 2 3 4 5 6

I am confident when dealing

with students who are

physically aggressive (14).

1 2 3 4 5 6

I am able to provide an

alternate explanation or

example when students

are confused (2).

1 2 3 4 5 6

*Numbers in parentheses indicate that item’s number in the original 29-item scale.

ReferencesAlberta Education (1997) ‘Ministerial order (016/97).

Teaching quality standard applicable to the provisionof basic education in Alberta.’ <http://education.alberta.ca/department/policy/standards/teachqual.aspx>(accessed 14 August 2009).

Almog, O. & Shechtman, Z. (2007) ‘Teachers’democratic and efficacy beliefs and styles of copingwith behavioural problems of pupils with specialneeds.’ European Journal of Special Needs Education,22, pp. 115–29.

Bandura, A. (1997) Self-Efficacy: the Exercise of Control.New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Barlett, M. S. (1954) ‘A note on the multiplying factorsfor various chi square approximations.’ Journal of theRoyal Statistical Society, 16, Series B), pp. 296–8.

Chan, D. W. (2008) ‘Dimensions of teacher self-efficacyamong Chinese secondary school teachers in HongKong.’ Educational Psychology, 28, pp. 181–94.

Chen, G., Gully, S. M. & Eden, D. (2001) ‘Validation ofa new general self-efficacy scale.’ OrganizationalResearch Methods, 4, pp. 62–83.

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

8 © 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

Cheung, H. Y. (2006) ‘The measurement of teacherefficacy: Hong Kong primary in-service teachers.’Journal of Education for Teaching, 32, pp. 435–51.

Clayton, M. J. (1997) ‘Delphi: a technique to harnessexpert opinion for critical decision-makingtasks in education.’ Educational Psychology,14, pp. 373–86.

Danielson, C. (1996) Enhancing Professional Practice: AFramework for Teaching. Alexandria, VA: Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development.

DeMesquita, P. B. & Drake, J. C. (1994) ‘Educationalreform and the self-efficacy beliefs of teachersimplementing non graded primary school programs.’Teaching and Teacher Education, 10, pp. 291–302.

Department of Education and Skills (DfES) (2004)Removing the Barriers to Achievement: ExecutiveSummary. Nottingham: DfES.

DeVellis, R. F. (2003) Scale Development. (2nd edn).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Finkelstein, V. (2001) ‘The social model of disabilityrepossessed.’ Leeds University Disability StudiesArchive. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/finkelstein/soc%20mod%20repossessed.pdf(accessed 18 February 2009).

Forlin, C., Loreman, T., Sharma, U. & Earle, C. (2009)‘Demographic differences in changing pre-serviceteachers’ attitudes, sentiments and concerns aboutinclusive education.’ International Journal of InclusiveEducation, 13, pp. 195–209.

Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. H. (1984) ‘Teacher efficacy: aconstruct validation.’ Journal of EducationalPsychology, 76, pp. 569–82.

Groom, B. & Rose, R. (2005) ‘Supporting the inclusionof pupils with social, emotional and behaviouraldifficulties in the primary school: the role of teachingassistants.’ Journal of Research in Special EducationalNeeds, 5 (1), pp. 20–30.

Henson, R. K. & Roberts, K. (2006) ‘Use of exploratoryfactor analysis in published research: common errorsand some comment on improved practice.’Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, pp.393–416.

Hinkin, T. R. & Tracey, J. B. (1999) ‘An analysis ofvariance approach to content validation.’ OrganisationResearch Methods, 2, pp. 175–86.

Ho, I. T. (2000) Teachers Thinking about StudentProblem Behaviours and Management Strategies: aComparative Study of Australian and Hong KongTeachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, TheUniversity of Sydney, Australia.

Ho, I. T. & Hau, K. T. (2004) ‘Australian and Chineseteacher efficacy: similarities and differences inpersonal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy andbeliefs in external determinants.’ Teaching andTeacher Education, 20, pp. 313–23.

Hutzler, Y., Zach, S. & Gafni, O. (2005) ‘Physicaleducation students’ attitudes and self-efficacy towardsthe participation of children with special needs inregular classes.’ European Journal of Special NeedsEducation, 20, pp. 309–27.

Kinsella, W. & Senior, J. (2008) ‘Developing inclusiveschools: a systematic approach.’ International Journalof Inclusive Education, 12, pp. 651–65.

Kuyini, A. B. & Desai, I. (2007) ‘Principals’ andteachers’ attitudes and knowledge of inclusiveeducation as predictors of effective teaching practicesin Ghana.’ Journal of Research in Special EducationalNeeds, 7 (2), pp. 104–13.

Lautenschlager, G. J. (1989) ‘A comparison ofalternatives to conducting Monte Carlo analyses fordetermining parallel analysis criteria.’ MultivariateBehavioral Research, 24, pp. 365–95.

Lin, H. & Gorrell, J. (2001) ‘Pre-service teachers efficacybeliefs in Taiwan.’ Journal of Research andDevelopment in Education, 32, pp. 17–25.

Milner, H. R. & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2003) ‘Teacherself-efficacy and retaining talented teachers:a case study of an African American teacher.’Teaching and Teacher Education, 19,pp. 263–76.

Nougaret, A. A., Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. (2005)‘Does teacher education produce better specialeducation teachers?’ Exceptional Children, 71, pp.217–29.

Nunnally, J. O. (1978) Psychometric Theory. New York:McGraw Hill.

Oliver, M. (1990) The individual and social models ofdisability. Paper presented at Joint Workshop of theLiving Options Group and the Research Unit of theRoyal College of Physicians, Thames, UK.

Pallant, J. (2009) SPSS Survival Manual. (4th edn).Crows Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.

Romi, S. & Leyser, Y. (2006) ‘Exploring inclusionpre-service training needs: a study of variablesassociated with attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs.’European Journal of Special Needs Education, 21, pp.85–105.

Sarason, S. B. (1990) The Predictable Failure ofEducational Reform. San Fransisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sharma, U., Forlin, C. & Loreman, T. (2008) ‘Impact oftraining on pre-service teachers’ attitudes andconcerns about inclusive education and sentimentsabout persons with disabilities.’ Disability and Society,23, pp. 773–85.

Sharma, U., Moore, D. & Sonawane, S. (2009) ‘Attitudesand concerns of novice teachers regarding inclusion ofstudents with disabilities into regular schools in Pune,India.’ The Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,37, pp. 319–31.

Soodak, L. C., Podell, D. M. & Lehman, L. R. (1998)‘Teacher, student, and school attributes as predictorsof teachers’ responses to inclusion.’ Journal of SpecialEducation, 31, pp. 480–97.

Subban, P. & Sharma, U. (2006) ‘Primary schoolteachers’ perceptions of inclusive education inVictoria, Australia.’ International Journal of SpecialEducation, 21, pp. 42–52.

Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2001) UsingMultivariate Statistics. (4th edn). New York:HarperCollins.

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

9© 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk, H. A. & Hoy, W. K.(1998) ‘Teacher efficacy: its meaning and measure.’Review of Educational Research, 68, pp. 202–48.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2001)‘Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct.’Teaching and Teacher Education, 17,pp. 783–805.

Weisel, A. & Dror, O. (2006) ‘School climate, sense ofefficacy and Israeli teachers’ attitudes toward inclusionof students with special needs.’ Education, Citizenshipand Social Justice, 1, pp. 157–74.

Winter, E. C. (2006) ‘Preparing new teachers forinclusive schools and classrooms.’ Support forLearning, 21, pp. 85–91.

Woolfolk Hoy, A., Rosoff, B. & Hoy, W. K. (1990)‘Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs aboutmanaging students.’ Teaching and Teacher Education,6, pp. 137–48.

Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Spero, R. B. (2005) ‘Changes inteacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: acomparison of four measures.’ Teaching and TeacherEducation, 21, pp. 343–56.

Wu-Tien, W., Ashman, A. & Yong-Wook, K. (2008)‘Education reforms in special education.’ In C. Forlin& M.-G. J. Lian (eds), Reform, Inclusion & TeacherEducation: Towards a New Era of Special Educationin the Asia-Pacific Region, pp. 13–29. Abingdon:Routledge.

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, •• ••–••

10 © 2011 The Authors. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs © 2011 NASEN