TEACHERS ’ SENSE OF EFFICACY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 1

Numerous studies confirm that self-efficacy positively correlates with teachers’ readiness to accept innovations in teaching and meet students’ needs, and with their satisfaction and performance at work. The aim of this research is to examine teachers’ sense of self-efficacy and, by analyzing it, to point to teachers’ existing strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of inclusive education. The sample consists of 148 teachers, 54.7% of whom are primary school teachers, and 45.3% are subject teachers. The research was conducted in five primary schools in Serbia. The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale – TSES/Long form was used for the purpose of this research. Overall answers of the teachers from our sample are within “I have quite a bit of influence” self-assessment framework in the Scale (AM 7.14, SD 0.66), with minimum self-efficacy assessment in “I have


INTRODUCTION
The concept of self-efficacy was developed by Albert Bandura who characterized self-efficacy as an extent to which individuals believe they can organize and perform necessary actions so that they achieve a desired outcome.Self-efficacy basically deals with exercise of control (Davis & Kozel, 2009).
According to Coladarci (1992), in the context of teaching, collective efficacy can be defined as teachers' belief that wellguided instruction can reduce the effect of non-stimulating family environment.Personal efficacy would represent teachers' belief that they are capable of providing well-guided instruction, i.e. that an individual possesses personal traits which can meet pedagogical requirements.
According to Woolfolk Hoy and Davis (2005), existing studies indicate that self-efficacy greatly influences and controls motivation to study and performance.Teachers' perception of their own abilities is of great importance and is related to students' achievement.Teachers with a clear perception have a tendency to express greater commitment to their job, they are open to innovations, put more effort in teaching, and are more satisfied with their job.Martinez (2003) cites the results of different studies which confirm that teachers with a higher level of self-efficacy assessment use more effective teaching methods (Bender et al., 1995), they are less prone to refer students to assessment whether they need special education (Meijer & Foster, 1988;Soodak & Podell, 1994), and set higher goals for their students (Allinder, 1995) when compared to teachers with low self-efficacy assessment.M. Skaalvik and S. Skaalvik (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2007) cite the research by Friedman & Farber (1992) which points out that teachers who consider themselves less competent in classroom management and maintaining discipline expressed a higher level of burnout syndrome when compared to teachers with a higher level of self-efficacy.
Since self-efficacy is a construct which is based on teachers' belief that they possess personal traits necessary to achieve educational goals, it is not surprising that there is an increase in research on the relation between teachers' selfefficacy assessment and the possibility of the implementation of inclusive teaching.
Thus, by reviewing available literature, it can be concluded that there is a considerable number of studies on the relation between the attitude and the perceived sense of selfefficacy and training of teachers for inclusive education and this sense.
Studies on the relation between the attitude toward inclusive education and teachers' perceived sense of self-efficacy have a positive correlation.Brigs et al. (2002, according to Gao & Mager, 2011: 103) point out that teachers' perception of the sense of self-efficacy and their beliefs with regard to differences at school can have a positive influence on each other.According to these authors, it is possible that teachers who are generally confident in their teaching will be less anxious when teaching students with learning and developmental disabilities.This practically means that teachers with a more positive attitude toward inclusion assess their experience in inclusive education more positively, which as a result increases the level of their self-efficacy perception.Gao and Mager (2011) determined a correlation between teachers' perception of self-efficacy and positive attitude toward the inclusion of students with learning disabilities or with disabilities in social functioning, but not children with behavioral disorders.By examining teachers' self-efficacy assessment in South Africa and Finland, and their attitude toward inclusive education, Savolainen et al. (2012) obtained data that both groups of teachers express mainly positive attitudes toward inclusive education, but that teachers in South Africa express the highest level of self-efficacy assessment in managing students' behavior, while teachers in Finland self-assessed this area as their weakest point.Sharma et al., 2009) which confirm the relation between a high sense of self-efficacy and positive attitude toward inclusion, but also point out that researchers determined that the best predictor of attitudes toward inclusion was teachers' belief that inclusive education is useful.
Studies provided in literature deal with determining the relation between training in inclusive education and selfefficacy assessment.Thus, Romi and Leyser (2006) conducted a research on a sample of 1155 Israeli teachers-to-be with the aim to determine the relation between teachers' training in the implementation of inclusive education and teachers' selfefficacy assessment.They determined that advancement in the training program increases the concern of teachers-to-be and decreases their support for inclusive education.Forlin and Chambers (2011) determined that increased knowledge of laws and inclusive policies, as well as improving future implementers' competencies in inclusive education, did not affect the reduction of teachers' concerns and experienced stress related to the idea that they will have a student with disability in their class.Different results were obtained by Leyser et al. (2011), who examined the relation of years of educational training, experience with children with special needs, and training in working with children in inclusive or special education with self-efficacy assessment of teachers-to-be.They obtained data that teachers-to-be who had great or at least some experience with children with special needs, expressed a higher level of self-efficacy assessment than teachers without such experience, and that teachers-to-be who completed an intensive or at least some training program, expressed a higher level of self-efficacy assessment than those who did not have training in working with children with special needs.
The study conducted by Wertheim and Leyser (2010), the aim of which was to examine the beliefs of teachers-to-be about their efficacy and the choice of differentiated teaching methods in order to achieve effective inclusive education, led to the results that Personal Teaching Efficacy factor correlated with the choice of a teaching method, but that Teaching Efficacy factor did not have such correlation.The examinees expressed greater willingness to adapt instruction for all students in their class than to apply differentiated instruction.
Teachers' self-efficacy assessment and its implication for the implementation of inclusive education have not been researched in the Republic of Serbia so far, which was the main motive for conducting such research.

RESEARCH AIM
The aim of this research was to examine teachers' sense of self-efficacy and, by analyzing it, to point to teachers' existing strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of inclusive education.
Willingness was the main criterion for including teachers in the research.

METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale -TSES / Long form, (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, 2001) was used in this research.The Scale consists of 24 questions.Teachers provided answers to each of the questions by circling a number on a nine-point scale, where 1 meant "I have no influence", and 9 -"I have a great deal of influence".
Teachers' answers were analyzed according to the instructions given by the authors of the Scale.Confirmatory factor analysis of the main components with Oblimin rotation (used because of the assumption about correlating factors) was conducted.Factor structure of the questionnaire (3 factors) was confirmed, but identical distribution of items for all three subscales was not.On the basis of Cattell's scree test, and by applying Guttman-Kaiser criterion and calculating factor loadings between factors and individual items, we determined three factors and the distribution of items with regard to the factors.The factors were named with regard to the original distribution of items done by the authors Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) when designing the Scale and testing its validity and reliability.Thus, according to the original distribution, the items were grouped in three groups of factors, each consisting of eight items: Factor analysis conducted on our sample determined that all eight original items of the subscale "Efficacy in Instructional Strategies" were distributed within the first factor, six items from the subscale "Efficacy in Classroom Management" were distributed within the second factor (item: How well can you establish routines to keep activities running smoothly?had the highest loading in the first factor, while the item: To what extent can you make your expectations clear about student behavior?had the highest loading in the third factor).Items from the subscale "Efficacy in Student Engagement" were the most unstable, having factor loadings in the first factor (five items: How much can you do to help your students value learning?, How much can you do to foster student creativity?, How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work?, How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school?and How much can you do to improve the understanding of a student who is failing?), and in the third factor (three items: How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work?, How much can you do to help your students think critically?, How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students?) (Table 1).The variability coefficient for the complete Scale (Cronbach α=0.926), and the subscales designed in this way "Efficacy in Instructional Strategies" (Cronbach α=0.906), "Efficacy in Challenging Goals" (Cronbach α=0.755), and "Efficacy in Classroom Discipline" (Cronbach α=0.879) has very high and satisfactory values.
Data obtained from the Scale and the Questionnaire were quantitatively analyzed.Descriptive statistic procedures were used for statistical analysis of data (frequency, percentage, arithmetic mean, and standard deviation), and t-test was used for determining the significance of differences.Overall answers of the teachers from our sample are within "I have quite a bit of influence" self-assessment framework in the Scale (AM 7.14, SD 0.66), with minimum self-efficacy assessment in "I have some influence".Distribution of answers in the subscales is similar to the distribution of overall answers, but it is observed that in the subscale "Efficacy in Challenging Goals", regardless of high arithmetic mean (AM 6.50, SD 1.09), minimum selfefficacy assessment is closer to "I have very little influence" (Table 2).Statistical analysis, done by means of t-test, did not confirm the existence of significant differences between arithmetic mean values in the subscales and the Scale in total (Table 3).Table 4 shows teachers' answers with regard to selfefficacy assessment in applying instructional strategies.Teachers' self-assessment of the sense of efficacy in applying instructional strategies is within "I have quite a bit of influence" framework in all the observed variables.The widest range of answers, from "I have very little influence" to "I have a great deal of influence" is observed in teachers' self-assessment of efficacy when crafting good questions for their students in the domain of motivating students who show low interest in school work, however, this is not the variable with the lowest arithmetic mean value.The lowest arithmetic mean (AM 6.70; SD 1.13; answers range from "I have very little influence" to "I have a great deal of influence") and, at the same time, the lowest self-assessment of the sense of efficacy is determined in teachers' self-assessment of the possibilities to implement alternative instructional strategies.Teachers assess that their efficacy is the highest when they have to provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused.In 7 out of 14 variables, standard deviation larger than one is determined, which indicates that teachers' sense of self-efficacy is pretty unstable in this subscale (Table 4).

RESEARCH RESULTS
Ilić-Stošović, D., Nikolić, S., Popadić, M.: Teachers' sense of efficacy and implications for implementation of inclusive education To what extent can you make your expectations clear about student behavior?7.51 1.21 3 9 Table 5 shows teachers' answers in the assessment of selfefficacy in challenging goals.Teachers' self-assessment of the sense of efficacy in the domain of giving instructions is within "I have a great deal of influence" framework in almost all the observed variables.The highest level of teachers' self-assessed efficacy is determined in the possibility to make their expectations clear about student behavior (AM 7.51; SD 1.21).The highest variability of answers (ranging from "I have very little influence" to "I have a great deal of influence") is determined in assessing teachers' sense of self-efficacy in the possibility to motivate students who show low interest in school work, however, this is not the variable with the lowest arithmetic mean value (AM 6.51; SD 1.35).The lowest arithmetic mean (AM 6.19; SD 1.27) is determined in the assessment of teachers' sense of self-efficacy in getting through to the most difficult students.Standard deviation larger than one is determined in all the variables which examined teachers' assessment of self-efficacy in challenging goals (Table 5).Teachers' self-assessment of efficacy in classroom management is within "I have a great deal of influence" framework.The highest level of teachers' self-assessed efficacy is determined in the possibility to respond to defiant students (AM 7.41; SD 1.11), and in getting children to follow classroom rules (AM 7.26; SD 1.07).The widest range of teachers' answers (from "I have very little influence" to "I have a great deal of influence") and the lowest arithmetic men (AM 6.71; SD 1.41) is determined in teachers' self-assessment of efficacy in the possibility to control disruptive behavior in the classroom (Table 6).

DISCUSSION
The results of this research show that general trend of teachers' self-efficacy assessment in all three observed factors ranges from "I have quite a bit of influence" (factor "Efficacy in Student Engagement" and factor "Efficacy in Classroom Management") to "I have a great deal of influence" (factor "Efficacy in Instructional Strategies"), which can be characterized as generally high teachers' sense of self-efficacy in education.The results of our research are similar to the results of research conducted by Martinez (2003) with the aim to assess teachers' self-efficacy before and after the training in adapting teaching strategies in the education of students with disabilities.She found that the examinees in her sample had a generally high level of self-efficacy assessment before the training.More precisely, more than a half of the examinees believed that they have quite a bit or a great deal of influence in all TSES items.Thus, before the training 65.1% of the examinees in her sample believed in their ability to improve the understanding of a student who is failing, 82.6% believed that they can motivate students who show low interest in school work, 86.9% said that they can help students value learning, while after the training 60.8% of the examinees self-assessed their efficacy as "I have quite a bit of influence" and "I have a great deal of influence".All 100% of the examinees from her sample believed that they can make their expectations clear about student behavior, and 91.3% that they can establish routines to keep activities running smoothly.In our research, self-assessment of efficacy within "I have a great deal of influence" framework (AM from 6.70 to 7.66) is also determined in items which examined selfassessment of teachers' efficacy in instructional strategies.This high self-assessment of teachers' efficacy in our sample can be explained by the results of some studies (e.g.Wolters & Daugherty, 2007;Ross, Cousins & Gadalla, 1996), which indicate that teaching experience itself can increase teachers' sense of self-efficacy.Wolters and Daugherty (2007) studied the ways in which teacher beliefs about motivation and the practice of teaching can be related, and how these constructs can vary depending on teachers' experience and the educational level of the implemented instruction.Their research confirmed the relation between teachers' experience and a higher level of selfefficacy, which correlates with the research by Ross et al. (1996).Although this was not the subject of our research, we can say, for now only on the level of assumption, that such highly self-assessed efficacy can be the result of great experience of teachers from our sample, in which 42.57% of the examinees had 16 to 30 years of work experience.
With regard to the items, the teachers from our sample self-assessed that their highest efficacy in this area is in providing alternative explanations or examples when students are confused (AM 7.66; SD 0.88), in gauging student comprehension of what they have taught (AM 7.61; SD 0.89), in crafting good questions for their students (AM 7.57; SD 0.91), in their ability to respond to difficult questions from their students (AM 7.43; SD 0.89), and in fostering student creativity (AM 7.42; SD 0.94).Such results indicate teachers' potentials which can directly be applied in the implementation of inclusive education, especially the part related to teachers' capabilities to first determine whether some students are confused, and then make additional effort to provide alternative explanations or examples.
The lowest self-assessment of efficacy in this area is determined in the item "How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom?"(AM 6.70; SD 1.11).This result may indicate that one of the obstacles to successful implementation of inclusive education lies in teachers' inability to deviate from classic frontal work method and apply other numerous forms of organizing teaching and instruction (e.g.active instruction, partner instruction, differentiated instruction, problem instruction).Further research should provide an answer to the question of a sample with such low level of efficacy self-assessment for the application of alternative instructional strategies.For now, only at the level of assumption, it is possible that teachers need additional training in this field, and also regarding curricula which are potentially too extensive and which require the most economic teaching methods, which frontal method certainly is.
The results of our research indicate that lower, but not alarmingly low, self-assessment of efficacy is determined in the subscales "Efficacy in Challenging Goals" and "Efficacy in Classroom Discipline".At the same time, standard deviation is larger than one in all items of both scales, except in the item "How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students?",which indicates extreme instability of the answers.In the first subscale, the lowest self-assessment of teachers' efficacy is in the possibility to get through to the most difficult students (AM 6.19; SD 1.27), while with regard to self-efficacy in classroom discipline, the lowest self-assessment of teachers' efficacy is in controlling disruptive behavior (AM 6.71; SD 1.41).The obtained results may be associated with the results of some studies (Wilczenski, 1995;Subban & Sharma, 2006;Gao & Mager, 2011) which determined that teachers express negative attitude toward the inclusion of students with behavioral problems the most.From the context of our research, the results of the above mentioned studies are not surprising, since, if teachers feel that they have lower efficacy in controlling disruptive behavior, it is clear that their attitude toward the inclusion of children with behavioral problems will be extremely negative.The fact that teachers need help in this field is further supported by the result of this research that teachers very highly self-assess efficacy in making their expectations clear about student behavior (AM 7.51; SD 1.21), and in getting children to follow classroom rules (AM 7.26; SD 1.07), and that, at the same time, they feel inefficient in controlling disruptive behavior.Apparently, teachers lack strategies for working with a group of children who do not respond to standard strategies of maintaining classroom discipline.It seems that alternative strategies of both teaching and maintaining classroom discipline are the most urgent problems teachers from our sample are faced with in assessing self-efficacy, and that they are the biggest obstacle to successful implementation of inclusion.Our attitude is further supported by the research conducted by M. Skaalvik and S. Skaalvik (2007:614), who, when referring to challenges that inclusive education sets before regular school teachers and greater need for teacher engagement in setting individual goals and adapting instructional strategies, say "However, the results from Norwegian schools indicate that teachers perceive this goal as extremely challenging, and many teachers do not know how to respond to different needs and abilities of students (Skaalvik & Fossen, 1995)".Martinez (2003: 473) points out that "… a significant number of regular school teachers (Vaughn, 1999) and those preparing to become one (Sprague & Pennell, 2000) state that they feel inadequately prepared for educating students with disabilities in inclusive classes."

CONCLUSION
This research, the aim of which was to examine teachers' sense of self-efficacy and, by analyzing it, to point to teachers' existing strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of inclusive education, showed that teachers from our sample generally have a very high sense of self-efficacy.High sense of self-efficacy was determined in all the subscales, and was the highest in the "Efficacy in Instructional Strategies" subscale.Thus, according to the results of this research, teachers do not lack patience and willingness to pay extra attention to students, regardless of whether they are students who have difficulty in comprehension of what has been taught, or students who have more potential than their peers, which is a resource that can be used for motivating teachers to work in inclusive education.The results of this research are encouraging, since, as Bandura (1997) points out, some studies have shown that teachers with high sense of self-efficacy expressed greater willingness to work in a more challenging environment, which inclusive education certainly is.
However, our results also indicate that it is necessary to raise the level of teachers' self-efficacy in the application of alternative instructional strategies, as well as alternative strategies in working with children with behavioral problems.Gao and Magere (2011:105) confirmed that "teachers' perceived self-efficacy and their attitude toward inclusion, as well as their beliefs about diversity, are in positive correlation" and that "improvement in any of these three aspects may lead to a positive influence on the other two."With regard to that, adequate teacher training, more precisely, raising the level of teachers' self-efficacy, may lead to the improvement of attitudes toward inclusive education and increasing teachers' willingness to implement this type of education.
Ilić-Stošović, D., Nikolić, S., Popadić, M.: Teachers' sense of efficacy and implications for implementation of inclusive education NASTAVNIČKI OSEĆAJ EFIKASNOSTI I IMPLIKACIJE ZA REALIZACIJU INKLUZIVNE NASTAVE Danijela Ilić-Stošović*, Snežana Nikolić*, Mirjana Popadić** *Univerzitet u Beogradu -Fakultet za specijalnu edukaciju i rehabilitaciju **Dnevni boravak "Sunce" Beograd Sharma et al. (2011) cite the results of numerous studies (Soodak et al., 1998; Wiesel & Dror, 2006; Shechtman, 2007; Sharma et al., 2008; Forlin et al., 2009; 1) Efficacy in Student Engagement (items: How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students?, How much can you do to help your students think critically?, How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work?, How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work?, How much can you do to help your students value learning?, How much can you do to improve the understanding of a student who is failing?, How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school?, How much can you do to foster student creativity?); 2) Efficacy in Instructional Strategies (items: How well can you respond to difficult questions from your students ?, How much can you gauge student comprehension of what you have taught?, To what extent can you craft good questions for your students?, How much can you do to adjust your lessons to the proper level for individual students?, How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies?, To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused?,How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom?, How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable students?)and 3) Efficacy in Classroom Management (items: How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom?,To what extent can you make your expectations clear about student behavior?, How well can you establish routines to keep activities running smoothly?, How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules?, How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy?, How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students?, How well can you keep a few problem students form ruining an entire lesson?, How well can you respond to defiant students?).

Table 1 -
Factor structure of the ScaleOn the basis of detailed items analysis and original titles of the subscales, the items in our research are grouped in the following way: 1) Efficacy in Instructional Strategies (items: How well can you respond to difficult questions from your students?, How much can you gauge student comprehension of what you have taught?, To what extent can you craft good questions for your students?, How much can you do to adjust your lessons to the proper level for individual students?, How much can you use a variety of assessment strategies?, To what extent can you provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused?,How well can you implement alternative strategies in your classroom?, How well can you provide appropriate challenges for very capable students?, How well can you establish routines to keep activities running smoothly?, How much can you do to help your students value learning?, How much can you do to foster student creativity?, How much can you do to get students to believe they can do well in school work?, How much can you assist families in helping their children do well in school?and How much can you do to improve the understanding of a student who is failing?); 2) Efficacy in Challenging Goals (How much can you do to motivate students who show low interest in school work?, How much can you do to help your students think critically?, How much can you do to get through to the most difficult students?, To what extent can you make your expectations clear about student behavior?);3) Efficacy in Classroom Discipline (How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom?, How much can you do to get children to follow classroom rules?, How much can you do to calm a student who is disruptive or noisy?, How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students?, How well can you keep a few problem students form ruining an entire lesson?, How well can you respond to defiant students?).

Table 2 -
Distribution of teachers' answers in the completeScale and in the subscales.Descriptive statistics

Table 3 -
Correlation between the subscales and the Scale in total

Table 4 -
Efficacy in applying instructional strategies.

Table 5 -
Teachers' self-efficacy in challenging goals.Descriptive statistics

Table 6 -
Teachers' efficacy in classroom discipline.Descriptive statistics