Self-efficacy beliefs are regarded as crucial prerequisites for the professional competencies of primary school teachers and special education teachers, as they play an important role in the design and implementation of inclusive teaching (Baumert & Kunter, 2013; Urton et al., 2023). According to the ‘Theory of Planned Behavior’, teachers’ intentions to implement inclusive practices are shaped by their self-efficacy beliefs. The ‘Theory of Planned Behavior’ is a theoretical framework that explains human behavior in a specific context, and states that the greater the intention to perform a behavior, the higher the probability of its realization. The intention behind an individual’s behavior is determined by their attitude towards the behavior, the subjective norm, and their self-efficacy beliefs (Ajzen, 1991).

In principle, a distinction is made between general and specific self-efficacy beliefs. General self-efficacy beliefs are applicable to all areas of life and provide insight into an individual’s capacity to cope with challenging circumstances. In contrast, specific self-efficacy beliefs encompass area-specific concepts, such as school-related self-efficacy beliefs among children or the teaching-related self-efficacy of teachers (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 2002).

Teacher self-efficacy is defined as the belief in one’s abilities “to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context“ (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998, p. 233). Teachers who have a high level of self-efficacy are more likely to actively design and plan inclusive teaching, to provide extensive support to pupils during the learning process, and to demonstrate greater patience when working with pupils with learning difficulties. Conversely, teachers with a comparatively low level of self-efficacy are more prone to feelings of being overwhelmed and less motivated to organize inclusive education or to provide support to pupils with learning difficulties (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 2002; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Self-efficacy beliefs are shaped by multiple factors, including personal experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional or physiological states. Of these factors, personal experiences, particularly successes and failures, have been found to have the greatest impact on self-efficacy beliefs, while emotional and physiological states have been found to have the least impact on teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 2002). Empirical studies have revealed notable differences between primary school teachers and special education teachers with regard to their self-efficacy beliefs concerning the organization of inclusive teaching. Research findings indicate that primary school teachers tend to exhibit lower levels of self-efficacy beliefs with regard to inclusive teaching in comparison to their counterparts in special education (Schwab, 2019). Furthermore, in contrast to their special education counterparts, primary school teachers have been shown to experience heightened anxiety and trepidation when implementing inclusive practices (Gebhardt et al., 2015). Despite these findings, it remains unclear how primary school and special education teachers justify their self-efficacy beliefs regarding inclusive teaching. Therefore this study aims to explore the reasons behind primary school teachers’ and special education teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding inclusive education. It is imperative to gain insight into the underlying justifications for these perspectives to develop targeted support and professional development initiatives. In order to address these research gaps, the present study investigates two key questions: (1) How do primary school and special education teachers differ in their self-efficacy beliefs towards inclusive teaching? (2) Are there additional factors beyond the four sources of self-efficacy that influence teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs? By examing these questions, the study aims to contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities in promoting inclusive education by identifying the factors that shape the self-efficacy beliefs of primary school and special education teachers.

As part of an interview study, a total of N = 30 primary school teachers and special education teachers from the German federal states of North Rhine-Westphalia and Lower Saxony were interviewed. The primary objective of the study was to comprehend teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to design and conduct lessons that accommodate the diverse learning needs of all students. Furthermore, we aimed to investigate whether there exist additional factors, beyond the four sources of self-efficacy, that are associated with teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. The interview questions were based on a standardized guide. The primary school teachers and the special education teachers were asked about their self-efficacy beliefs and the underlying rationales for these beliefs with respect to inclusive teaching (“To what extent do you feel able to design and conduct lessons that meet the individual learning needs of all children?” / “What experiences in inclusive teaching do you have so far?”). The study is based on Strauss and Corbin’s Grounded Theory (1996). This analytical framework involves a systematic, multi-stage approach to data coding and theory development. The analysis was carried out in three distinct phases: Open coding, axial coding, and selective coding. In the open coding phase, the interviews were analyzed section by section. To this end, the requirements of each data segment were determined and assigned to a code. Subsequently, in the axial coding phase, the codes were subjected to further refinement and structuring, thereby enabling the formation of initial categories. This phase of the analysis is conducive to the acquisition of a more profound comprehension of the data. Finally, the selective coding phase resulted in the formulation of a comprehensive theoretical framework. This was achieved by refining and organizing the key concepts and their interconnections. The data collection process concluded after 30 interviews, as no new information or insights emerged during subsequent interviews. This indicated that a theoretical saturation had been achieved, which means that the research questions were fully addressed and additional data would no longer contribute to the development of new concepts or categories.

In relation to the initial research questions, the results reveal a notable difference between the self-efficacy beliefs of special education teachers and primary school teachers. Special education teachers generally exhibit a higher level of self-efficacy compared to primary school teachers. This finding suggests that special education teachers possess a higher level of confidence in their ability to design and implement lessons for the diverse needs of all learners compared to primary school teachers. Furthermore, special education teachers are more likely to emphasize the advantages they have gained from implementing inclusive approaches and the opportunities that inclusion offers than the primary school teachers (e.g., “I see inclusion, or rather this heterogeneity, as an opportunity – this diversity is definitely something I see as a chance”). In contrast, primary school teachers frequently express concerns regarding the feasibility and practical challenges associated with the implementation of inclusive education (e.g., “A mix of fear and discomfort because I know very well that I can’t meet the needs of all children when I’m alone”). Furthermore, the self-efficacy beliefs of primary school teachers are often found to be lower in comparison to those held by special education teachers. With regard to the second research question, the findings suggest that both groups justify their self-efficacy beliefs based on personal experiences or those of significant others. However, primary school teachers frequently attribute their lower self-efficacy to external factors, such as inadequate staffing, a lack of time, and large class sizes (e.g., “Not at all, because I can’t split myself in twenty, and I simply need more staff to meet the needs of all children”). Addressing the resource gaps identified in this study is essential to fostering the self-efficacy beliefs of primary school teachers, thereby improving the effectiveness of inclusive practices in primary education.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. 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.), Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers. Mathematics teacher education (Vol. 8, pp. 25–48). Springer. Gebhardt, M., Schwab, S., Hessels, M. G., & Nusser, L. (2015). Einstellungen und Selbstwirksamkeit von Lehrerinnen und Lehrern zur schulischen Inklusion in Deutschland – eine Analyse mit Daten des nationalen Bildungspanels Deutschland (NEPS) [Attitudes and self-efficacy of teachers towards school inclusion in Germany – an analysis with data from the German National Educational Panel Study (NEPS).] Empirische Pädagogik, 29(2), 211–229. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1996). Grounded Theory: Grundlagen Qualitativer Sozialforschung [Grounded Theory: Basics of Qualitative Social Research]. Psychologie Verlag Union. Schwab, S. (2019). Teachers’ student-specific self-efficacy in relation to teacher and student variables. Educational Psychology, 39(1), 4–18. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (2002). Das Konzept der Selbstwirksamkeit [The concept of self-efficacy]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 44. Beiheft, 28–53. Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248. Urton, K., Wilbert, J., Krull, J., & Hennemann, T. (2023). Factors explaining teachers’ intention to implement inclusive practices in the classroom: Indications based on the theory of planned behaviour. Teaching and Teacher Education, 132, 104–225.