4.1 Article

Teacher efficacy predicts teachers' attitudes towards inclusion - a longitudinal cross-lagged analysis

期刊

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2020.1752826

关键词

Inclusive education; teacher attitudes; teacher self-efficacy; longitudinal study; cross-lagged analysis

资金

  1. Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture [35/529/2012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that teachers' self-efficacy beliefs have a positive impact on attitudes, with this relationship existing among both male and female respondents, as well as novice and expert teachers. Strengthening teachers' efficacy for inclusive practices is likely to change their attitudes towards a positive direction.
Over the past decades, an abundance of studies have assessed teacher attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs related to inclusive education. However, empirical evidence on the causal relationship between efficacy and attitudes is still rare and inconclusive. Therefore, the present study focused on identifying the interdependent relationship between teachers' attitudes and their self-efficacy beliefs using a cross-lagged panel design path analysis. A total of 1326 teachers from Finish schools participated in an electronic survey. Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs were assessed five times and attitudes (attitudes and concerns subscale) three times over three years. The outcomes indicated that both constructs are relatively stable over the measured period. Moreover self-efficacy had a positive effect over time on both types of attitudes but not vice versa. This cross-lagged relationship was stronger between efficacy and concerns. These results were similar between male and female respondents and between novice and expert teachers. This implies that increasing teacher efficacy for inclusive practices is likely to change their attitudes toward positive direction. Implications for developing inclusive education and teacher education are discussed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据