The ratification of the UN-Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities is related to new challenges for teachers. Within the frame of implementing inclusive education at school, it is the teachers’ responsibility to organize good learning environments for all primary school students. In order to meet the individual needs of the students they have to establish a high quality of inclusive learning processes in the class. Research in teaching and learning generally considers teachers’ personality as an important prerequisite for the quality of teaching and instruction (e.g., Hattie, 2003). Apart from expert and didactical or pedagogical knowledge, teachers’ personality also consists of facets like beliefs and motivation (Baumert & Kunter, 2006, p. 482). The question concerning the conditions of a successful inclusive education at school gave rise to a number of studies focusing on teachers’ attitudes in greater detail. In this context, it is assumed that teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education are an important predictor for the successful implementation of inclusive concepts in the classroom (Sze, 2009). At this point, the term attitude is defined as “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor” (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p. 1). In several studies, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education were investigated in connection with their self-efficacy beliefs concerning the organization of inclusive teaching. It was shown that teachers’ attitudes and their self-efficacy beliefs are correlated (e.g., Savolainen, Engelbrecht, Nel, & Malinen, 2012). In this context, self-efficacy beliefs are understood as the perceived ability of oneself in regard to achieve a specific aim (Bandura, 1997). Consequently, it can be assumed that personal resources of primary school teachers such as attitudes, motivation and self-efficacy beliefs are essential for children`s successful learning processes in inclusive schools. However, there is a lack of studies investigating the relationships between teachers’ personal resources and their views on the quality of inclusive learning processes.

For this reason, the present study initially examines the relationship between primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, their self-efficacy beliefs and their motivation to deal with inclusive issues. Here, it is assumed that these personal resources have significant relationships with each other. In detail, the study then deals with the question if teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion and their motivation to deal with inclusion can be predicted by their self-efficacy beliefs concerning the organization of inclusive learning processes. The next question of the study concerns the relationship between teachers’ personal resources and their prospective views on quality features of inclusive learning processes such as dealing with heterogeneity, structuring the subject matter, clarity and an encouraging atmosphere in the classroom. Here, it is assumed that personal resources of teachers’ such as attitudes, self-efficacy beliefs and motivation can be predictive for their prospective view on quality features of inclusive learning processes. 

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Academic Press. Baumert, J. & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9(4), 469-520. Eagly, A. E. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: What is the research evidence? Australian Council for Educational Research Annual Conference on: Building Teacher Quality. Retrieved November 28, 2016, from https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/education/hattie/docs/teachers-make-a-difference-ACER-(2003).pdf Helmke, A. (2009). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität. Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts (2., aktual. Aufl.). Seelze: Klett/Kallmeyer. Helmke, A., Helmke, T., Lenske, G., Pham, G., Praetorius, A.-K., Schrader, F.-W., & Ade-Thurow, M. (2011). EMU - Evidence-based methods of diagnosis of classroom instruction. Teacher questionnaire (version 3.2). Retrieved November 28, 2016, from http://www.unterrichtsdiagnostik.info/media/files/en/EMU_Teacher_questionnaire.pdf Jerusalem, M. & Schwarzer, R. (1981/1999). Allgemeine Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung (WIRKALL_r). In R. Schwarzer & M. Jerusalem (Hrsg.), Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen. Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen (S. 57-59). Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. Retrieved November 28, 2016, from http://www.psyc.de/skalendoku.pdf Kunz, A., Luder, R., & Moretti, M. (2010). Die Messung von Einstellungen zur Integration (EZI). Empirische Sonderpädagogik, 2(3), 83-94. Lelgemann, R., Lübekke, J., Singer, P., & Walter-Klose, C. (2012). Qualitätsbedingungen schulischer Inklusion für Kinder und Jugendliche mit dem Förderschwerpunkt körperliche und motorische Entwicklung. Retrieved November 28, 2016, from http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/fileadmin/06040400/downloads/Forschung/Forschungsbericht_uni_wuerzburg_fertig.pdf Meyer, H. (2007). Was ist guter Unterricht? Berlin: Cornelsen Scriptor. 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. Schrader, F.-W. & Helmke, A. (2008). Unter der Lupe: Wie in deutschen Klassenzimmern differenziert wird. Klexer. Magazin für die Grundschule, 20, 3-5. Sze, S. (2009). A literature review: Pre-service teachers’ attitudes toward students with disabilities. Education, 130(1), 53-56. Wild, K.-P., Krapp, A., Schiefele, U., Lewalter, D., & Schreyer, I. (1995). Dokumentation und Analyse der Fragebogenverfahren und Tests (Berichte aus dem DFG-Projekt "Bedingungen und Auswirkungen berufsspezifischer Lernmotivation", Nr. 2). München: Universität der Bundeswehr, Institut für Erziehungswissenschaft und Pädagogische Psychologie.