Exploring in-service teachers’ attitudes, teacher self-efficacy, and influential factors for implementing inclusive practices in Hong Kong classroom

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic information of in-service teachers.

Variable		Frequency	Percentage
Qualification	Less than bachelor’s degree	9	0.8
	Bachelor’s degree	537	48.4
	Master’s degree	560	50.5
	Doctor of Education	1	0.1
	Doctor of Philosophy	3	0.3
Years of teaching experience	Less than 5 years	178	16.0
	6–10 years	203	18.3
	11–20 years	393	35.4
	More than 21 years	336	30.3
Teaching experience with students with disabilities	No opportunity to teach these students yet	10	0.9
	Low	166	15.0
	Average	520	46.8
	High	414	37.3
Level of confidence in teaching students with disabilities	No opportunity to teach these students yet	8	0.7
	Low	140	12.6
	Average	773	69.6
	High	189	17.0
Level of training in teaching students with disabilities	None	194	17.5
	Low (less than 30 hours)	342	30.8
	Moderate (30–90 hours)	246	22.2
	High (more than 90 hours)	328	29.5
Level of knowledge of the local legislation/policy	None	161	14.5
	Poor	436	39.3
	Average	448	40.4
	Good	51	4.6
	Very good	14	1.3

Table 2. Overall scale and subscales of teachers’ attitudes scores.

		95% confidence interval
Variable	Mean	Lower CI	Upper CI	Standard deviation
AIS full	4.54	4.48	4.60	1.04
AIS (beliefs)	4.04	3.96	4.11	1.32
AIS (feelings)	5.05	4.98	5.11	1.08

Attitude mean responses range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Table 3. Overall scale and subscales of teachers’ self-efficacy scores.

		95% confidence interval
Variable	Mean	Lower CI	Upper CI	Standard deviation
TEIP full	4.27	4.30	4.33	0.63
TEIP (inclusive instruction)	4.33	4.30	4.37	0.64
TEIP (managing behaviour)	4.36	4.32	4.41	0.80
TEIP (collaboration)	4.11	4.07	4.15	0.73

Self-efficacy mean responses range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).

Table 4. Pearson’s correlations amongst the AIS and TEIPs’ overall scores and sub-scale scores.

		1	2	3	4	5	6
1	AIS full	–
2	AIS (beliefs)	0.89**	–
3	AIS (feelings)	0.83**	0.48**	–
4	TEIP full	0.46**	0.34**	0.48**	–
5	TEIP (inclusive instruction)	0.39**	0.27**	0.41**	0.85**	–
6	TEIP (managing behaviour)	0.36**	0.24**	0.40**	0.88**	0.61**	–
7	TEIP (collaboration)	0.46**	0.36**	0.44**	0.87**	0.63**	0.63**

** p < .01.

Table 5. Stepwise regression analysis for AIS predicting teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education.

Predictor variables	B	SE B	β
Prior experience in teaching students with disabilities	–0.126	0.042	–0.088**
Confidence in teaching students with disabilities	0.254	0.058	0.139***
Level of training in teaching students with disabilities	0.114	0.027	0.119***
Years of teaching experience	–0.068	0.026	–0.068**
Efficacy in inclusive instruction	0.226	0.055	0.139***
Efficacy in collaboration	0.426	0.049	0.300***
R^2	0.260
Model statistics	F(6, 1103) = 64.426

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.

Table 6. Stepwise regression analysis for TEIP predicting teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusive practices.

Predictor variables	B	SE B	β
Knowledge of legislation and policies	0.084	0.019	0.112***
Confidence in teaching students with disabilities	0.316	0.029	0.287***
Attitude (beliefs)	0.042	0.013	0.089**
Attitude (feelings)	0.192	0.017	0.331***
R^2	0.348
Model statistics	F(4, 1105) = 145.984***

** p < .01.

*** p < .001.