Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Self-efficacy beliefs among prospective teachers about inclusive geography education: Examining the relationships of general and geography-specific beliefs using structural equation modelling Cover

Self-efficacy beliefs among prospective teachers about inclusive geography education: Examining the relationships of general and geography-specific beliefs using structural equation modelling

Open Access
|Dec 2025

References

  1. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.
  2. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman.
  3. Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 469–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-006-0165-2
  4. Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2013). The COACTIV model of teachers' professional competence. In M. Kunter, J. Baumert, W. Blum, U. Klusmann, S. Krauss, & M. Neubrand (Eds.), Mathematics teacher education: Vol. 8. Cognitive Activation in the Mathematics Classroom and Professional Competence of Teachers: Results from the COACTIV Project (pp. 25–48). Springer.
  5. Bosse, S., Henke, T., & Jäntsch, C. (2016). Die Entwicklung der Einstellung zum inklusiven Lernen und der Selbstwirksamkeit von Grundschullehrkräften. Empirische Sonderpädagogik(1), 103–116.
  6. Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford publications.
  7. Bühner, M. (2011). Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion (3rd ed.). Psychologie. Pearson Studium.
  8. Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modelling. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 22(1), 7–16.
  9. Chow, W. S. E. (2024). Examining factors influencing teachers' intentions in implementing inclusive practices in Hong Kong classrooms. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 24(2), 376–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12632
  10. Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers' beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, T. Urdan, S. Graham, J. M. Royer, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook: Vol. 2. Individual Differences and Cultural and Contextual Factors (pp. 471–499). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13274-019
  11. Forlin, C. (2010). Teacher education for inclusion. In R. Rose (Ed.), Confronting Obstacles to Inclusion: International Responses to Developing Inclusive Education (pp. 155–170). Routledge.
  12. Gill, M. G., & Fives, H. (2015). Introduction. In H. Fives & M. G. Gill (Eds.), Educational Psychology Handbook Ser. International Handbook of Research on Teachers' Beliefs (1–10). Routledge.
  13. Gölitz, D., Thieroff, B., Tellesch-Bülow, C., Winklmaier, A.-S., Pluhatsch, V., & Schubert, J. C. (2021). Quantitative GeoLInk-Rohdaten - Designzyklus 2. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5798630
  14. Grube, J. W., Mayton, D. M., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1994). Inducing change in values, attitudes, and behaviors: Belief system theory and the method of value self-confrontation. Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01202.x
  15. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R: A Workbook. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7
  16. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Richter, N. F., & Hauff, S. (2024). Partial Least Squares Strukturgleichungsmodellierung: Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung (2nd ed.). Vahlen. https://doi.org/10.15358/9783800671465
  17. Hecht, P., Niedermair, C., & Feyerer, E. (2016). Einstellungen und inklusionsbezogene Selbstwirksamkeitsüberzeugungen von Lehramtsstudierenden und Lehrpersonen im Berufseinstieg. Messverfahren und Befunde aus einem Mixed-Methods-Design. Empirische Sonderpädagogik(1), 86–102.
  18. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  19. Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., & Rosseel, Y. (2022). semTools (Version 0.5-6) [Computer software].
  20. Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers' self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.06.001
  21. Kline, R. B. (2023). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford publications.
  22. Kopp, B. (2009). Inklusive Überzeugungen und Selbstwirksamkeit im Umgang mit Heterogenität - Wie denken Studierende des Lehramts für Grundschulen? Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 1(1), 5–25.
  23. Korkmaz, S., Göksülük, D., & Zararsiz, G. (2021). MVN: An R Package for Assessing Multivariate Normality. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MVN/vignettes/MVN.html
  24. Kuckartz, U., Rädiker, S., Ebert, T., & Schehl, J. (2013). Statistik. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-19890-3
  25. Li, C.-H. (2014). The Performance of MLR, USLMV, and WLSMV Estimation in Structural Regression Models with Ordinal Variables [Dissertation, Michigan State University]. DataCite.
  26. Little, T. D., Card, N. A., Bovaird, J. A., Preacher, K. J., & Crandall, C. S. (2007). Structural equation modeling of mediation and moderation with context factors. In T. D. Little, J. A. Bovaird, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Modeling Contextual Effects in Longitudinal Studies (pp. 207–230). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  27. Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn't be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266
  28. Lüke, T., & Grosche, M. (2017). Professionsunabhängige Einstellungsskala zum Inklusiven Schulsystem (PREIS).
  29. Lüke, T., & Grosche, M. (2018). Konstruktion und Validierung der Professionsunabhängigen Einstellungsskala zum Inklusiven Schulsystem (PREIS). Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 10(1), 3–20.
  30. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2017.1421599
  31. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
  32. Rhemtulla, M. (2016). Population performance of SEM parceling strategies under measurement and structural model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 21(3), 348–368. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000072
  33. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. P. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (2nd ed., pp. 102–119). Macmillan.
  34. Rokeach, M. (1963). The organization and modification of beliefs. The Centennial Review, 7(4), 375–395.
  35. Rönkkö, M., & Cho, E. (2022). An updated guideline for assessing discriminant validity. Organizational Research Methods, 25(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120968614
  36. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
  37. Savolainen, H., Engelbrecht, P., Nel, M., & Malinen, O.-P. (2012). Understanding teachers' attitudes and self-efficacy in inclusive education: Implications for pre-service and in-service teacher education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2011.613603
  38. Schubert, J. C., Winklmaier, A.-S. (2023). Inklusiver Geographieunterricht. In D. Böhn (Ed.), Wörterbuch der Geographiedidaktik: Definitionen, Klassifikationen, Diskussionen, (2nd ed., pp. 124–25). Westermann.
  39. Schubert, J. C., Winklmaier, A.-S., & Gölitz, D. (2021). Hinweise zu den quantitativen GeoLInk-Rohdaten - Designzyklus 2. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5798688
  40. Schulte, K. (2008). Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen in der Lehrerbildung: Zur Struktur und dem Zusammenhang von Lehrer-Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen, Pädagogischem Professionswissen und Persönlichkeitseigenschaften bei Lehramtsstudierenden und Lehrkräften [Dissertation, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen].
  41. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (2002). Das Konzept der Selbstwirksamkeit. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik(44), 28–53.
  42. Sharma, U., & Jacobs, K. E. (2016). Predicting in-service educators' intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms in India and Australia. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.12.004
  43. 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
  44. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2019). Using Multivariate Statistics (7th ed.). Always learning. Pearson. https://www.pearsonhighered.com/assets/preface/0/1/3/4/0134790545.pdf
  45. Thieroff, B., Tellesch-Bülow, C., Winklmaier, A.-S., Pluhatsch, V., Gölitz, D., & Schubert, J. C. (2021). Instrument zur Messung von Überzeugungen, Selbstwirksamkeitserwartungen und fachdidaktischem Wissen von (angehenden) Lehrpersonen für inklusiven Geographieunterricht: GeoLInk-Fragebogen mit Skalenbenennungen und Itemkürzeln. Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5801462
  46. UNESCO. (2019). Promoting Inclusive Teacher Education: Introduction (2nd ed.).
  47. Urton, K., Wilbert, J., & Hennemann, T. (2015). Die Einstellung zur Integration und die Selbstwirksamkeit von Lehrkräften. Psychologie in Erziehung Und Unterricht, 62(2), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.2378/peu2015.art09d
  48. Winklmaier, A.-S., & Schubert, J. C. (2024). Inklusiver Geographieunterricht – Grundlagen, Perspektiven und Leitlinien. Zeitschrift für Geographiedidaktik, 52(1), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.60511/52214
  49. Woodcock, S., Gibbs, K., Hitches, E., & Regan, C. (2023). Investigating teachers' beliefs in inclusive education and their levels of teacher self-efficacy: Are teachers constrained in their capacity to implement inclusive teaching practices? Education Sciences, 13(280), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13030280
  50. Woodcock, S., Sharma, U., Subban, P., & Hitches, E. (2022). Teacher self-efficacy and inclusive education practices: Rethinking teachers' engagement with inclusive practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103802
  51. Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 343–356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.01.007
  52. Yada, A., Leskinen, M., Savolainen, H., & Schwab, S. (2022). Meta-analysis of the relationship between teachers' self-efficacy and attitudes toward inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103521
Language: English
Page range: 35 - 49
Published on: Dec 31, 2025
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2025 Ann-Sophie Winklmaier, Jan Christoph Schubert, published by Gesellschaft für Fachdidaktik (GfD e.V.)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License.