An Examination of Preservice Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Beliefs About Inclusive Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs are important to classroom practices and student success. In this study, the authors examine preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and beliefs related to inclusive education. One hundred seventy-nine preservice teachers enrolled in secondary or elementary education programs participated in this study. Overall, participants in elementary versus secondary programs felt more responsible for students with disabilities and more efficacious with inclusive practices. At the same time, preservice teachers in the secondary program and those in their second (vs. first) year rated themselves higher on negative beliefs about inclusive education and viewed ability as more of a fixed and stable trait. Preservice teachers with a history of reading difficulty had higher teacher self-efficacy than those without this history. The factors examined in this study accounted for about a third of the variance in each of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusive instructional practices and in their negative beliefs about inclusive education. Epistemological beliefs about ability emerged as a strong predictor of preservice teachers’ negative beliefs about inclusive education. The results from this study are discussed within the context of preparing teachers for the inclusive classroom.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".