To address the diverse needs of students effectively, teachers’ individual competences as well as their collective performance are indispensable (Sharma et al., 2023). This also includes collective efficacy, which is defined as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capability to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainment” (Bandura, 1997, p. 477). Individualized teaching adapted to cater to students’ diversity requires well-functioning teams of teachers. To reach this objective, shared goals are essential. According to Goddard et al. (2000), they can be regarded as normative expectations for individual teachers, influencing their beliefs about teaching and learning as well as their performance in the classroom. Accordingly, self-efficacy and collective efficacy are interconnected (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007), and teachers’ collective efficacy is known for being linked to their attitudes towards inclusion and their intentions to teach (e.g., Leyser et al., 2011; Sharma et al., 2012). International comparisons are of particular interest for each country or school system, respectively, as they can help to identify alternative approaches and possibilities for inclusive school development (e.g., Sharma et al., 2023). Against this background, this paper examines the relationships between teachers’ self-efficacy and collective efficacy with regard to inclusive practices and their attitudes towards inclusion in a global context. A total of N=897 preschool, primary, and secondary school teachers from Canada, Germany and Switzerland were surveyed about their individual self-efficacy (TEIP; Sharma et al., 2012) and their collective self-efficacy (CTEIP; Sharma et al., 2023) with regard to inclusive practices as well as their attitudes towards inclusion (AIS; Sharma & Jacobs, 2016). The results indicate that Canadian teachers have higher levels of individual and collective efficacy than German and Swiss teachers. Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are significantly lower in Germany and Switzerland compared to Canada. However, the correlations between AIS, TEIP, and CTEIP are not significantly different within the three countries. The results indicate that while both, individual as well as collective efficacy are significantly related to attitudes, the correlation between TEIP and AIS is much stronger compared to CTEIP vs. AIS. Directional interrelations between the three aspects of teacher professionalism together with country-specific interpretations will be presented and discussed.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman and Company. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and effect on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 479–507. Leyser, Y., Zeiger, T., & Romi, S. (2011). Changes in self-efficacy of prospective special and general education teachers: Implication for inclusive education. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 58, 241–255. Sharma, U., & Jacobs, D. K. (2016). Predicting in-service educators’ intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms in India and Australia. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 13–23. 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. Sharma, U., Loreman, T., May, F., Romano, A., Sahli Lozano, C., Avramidis, E., Woodcock, S., Subban, P., & Kullmann, H. (2023). Measuring collective efficacy for inclusion in a global context. European Journal of Inclusive Education. doi:10.1080/08856257.2023.2195075 Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625.