Teaching and Teacher Education 132 (2023) 104225

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Research paper

Factors explaining teachers’ intention to implement inclusive practices

in the classroom: Indications based on the theory of planned
behaviour
Karolina Urton a, *, Jürgen Wilbert b, Johanna Krull c, Thomas Hennemann c
a
Faculty of Education and Social Sciences, University of Muenster, Germany
b
Department of Inclusive Education, University of Potsdam, Germany
c
Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation, University of Cologne, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In terms of inclusive school development, a question is what factors enhance successful implementation
Received 10 June 2022 of inclusive practices. The present study applies the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) as a whole and in
Received in revised form differentiated components related to the teacher intentions to implement inclusive practices. Data were
29 April 2023
collected from 585 primary school teachers in Germany. Multi-level multivariate regression models were
Accepted 10 June 2023
Available online 04 July 2023
computed to test the correlation of attitudes, norms and perceived behavioural control with teacher
intention to implement inclusion. All components investigated showed a significant relationship with
teacher intention. Differentiated examination provides indications of opportunities for the development
Keywords:
Theory of planned behaviour (TPB)
of an inclusive school system.
Inclusion © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
Teachers (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Germany

When Germany ratified the UN convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities in 2009, the vast majority of German
students with special educational needs (SEN) were still being
educated in separate schools. Despite efforts to move the education
system towards more inclusive teaching, the exclusion rate (the
number of students not attending regular schools in proportion to
all students required to attend school full-time) remained constant
at 4.2% (Autorengruppe, 2020). The reasons for this have been
explored extensively on cultural levels (established attitudes and
practices held by educators and teachers) and structural levels
(constitution and organization of schools and related institutions)
(Powell, 2015; Sharma & Mahapatra, 2007). Findings have sug-
gested that the willingness of teachers to support this change and
conduct their work accordingly is a key factor driving institutional
transformations towards inclusion. In particular, the intention of
teachers to support inclusive education and implement inclusive
practices in their teaching has been shown to be of central
importance (Armstrong, 2014), which raises the question of how
intentions emerge.
The theory of planned behaviour (TPB) has been successfully
made use of to investigate the psychological factors which may
predict and explain a person's intentions to act and behave in a
certain way in various contexts (e.g., McEachan et al., 2016;
Steinmetz et al., 2016) including both health psychology and edu-
cation research (Godin & Kok, 1996; Lee et al., 2010; McEachan
et al., 2016). Therefore, it seems that the TPB may also be a prom-
ising approach through which we can explain teachers' intentions
to practice inclusive education (Opoku et al., 2020). Thus, the pur-
pose of the present study is to explore the intention of primary
school teachers to arrange their lessons in an inclusive way; it
strives to develop an integrated understanding of this process by
applying the factors stated in the TPB to the context of inclusive
teaching. This, in turn, can be expected to help us understand the
behaviour of teachers, since intention is an indicator that a person
is willing to behave in a certain way (Ajzen, 2005, 2012; Ajzen &
Kruglanski, 2019).
1. The theory of planned behaviour

* Corresponding author. University of Muenster, Institute of Education, Bisping- The TPB (Ajzen, 1985; Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen, 2005; see Fig. 1) states
hof 5/6, 48143 Muenster. that behavioural intention is based on three factors: (a) a person's
E-mail address: karolina.urton@uni-muenster.de (K. Urton).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104225
0742-051X/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K. Urton, J. Wilbert, J. Krull et al.
Fig. 1. Theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 2005).
attitude towards the behaviour, (b) their perception of a normative
urge (subjective norm) to behave in a certain way, and (c) their
conviction that they are able to perform the behaviour (perceived
behavioural control). Each of these three factors derives from an
interaction between a belief and an evaluation component. A per-
son's attitude toward a behaviour is the result of the strength of
their belief about the outcomes of that behaviour (behavioural be-
liefs) and the extent to which these outcomes are desirable for them
(outcome expectation). A person's subjective normative pressure
derives from their beliefs about the opinions other people hold
about the behaviour (normative beliefs) and the extent to which
these other people are important to the person (motivation to
comply). A person's perceived behavioural control emerges from
their belief about the accessibility of internal and external factors
facilitating or hampering the execution of a behaviour (control be-
liefs) and the strength of the influence a person ascribes to each
factor (perceived power). These aspects are considered predictors of
a person's intention, and, in turn, it is postulated that intention is
the strongest determinant of future behaviour, along with
perceived behavioural control “as a proxy for actual control” (Ajzen,
2012, p. 10).
2. The intention to teach inclusively
In recent years, several studies have shown that the factors and
components assumed by the TPB are relevant predictors of in-
tentions and reported behaviour (Hellmich et al., 2019; Knauder &
Koschmieder, 2019; MacFarlane & Woolfson, 2013; Yan & Sin, 2014,
2015) and inclusive behaviour (Kuyini & Desai, 2007) of teachers
(Ahmmed et al., 2014; Batsiou et al., 2008; Hellmich et al., 2019;
Knauder & Koschmieder, 2019; Kuyini & Desai, 2007; MacFarlane &
Woolfson, 2013; Malak et al., 2018), preservice teachers (Gilor &
Katz, 2019) and principals (Yan & Sin, 2015). However, a closer
examination of these studies reveals clear differences regarding (1)
the definition and operationalization of the various factors and
components, (2) the examined outcome variables (i.e., interests or
actual behaviour), and (3) the data modelling and analyses. These
differences and the research results are outlined in the following
sections, which focus on attitudes, normative processes and self-ef-
ficacy related to the intention to implement inclusion in the
classroom.
2
Teaching and Teacher Education 132 (2023) 104225
3. Attitudes
Several authors have stated that a teacher's positive attitude
towards inclusion is a crucial prerequisite for its implementation
(Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Boer et al., 2011; van Mieghem et al.,
2018). Teachers' attitudes have been shown to predict their in-
tentions regarding the implementation of inclusive education
(Gilor & Katz, 2019; Hellmich et al., 2019; Knauder & Koschmieder,
2019; MacFarlane & Woolfson, 2013; Opoku, Cuskelly, Rayner, &
Pedersen, 2022; Yan & Sin, 2014, 2015). They have also been
shown to predict the intention of teachers to include students with
disabilities or behavioural problems in regular schools (Ahmmed
et al., 2014; Malak et al., 2018). This aspect was addressed either
as attitudes towards inclusive education (Hellmich et al., 2019;
Kuyini & Desai, 2007), or as attitudes towards students with SEN in
inclusive classes (Ahmmed et al., 2014; Gilor & Katz, 2019;
MacFarlane & Woolfson, 2013; Yan & Sin, 2014; 2015), or also as
attitudes towards the inclusion of students with inappropriate
behaviour (Malak et al., 2018), or, finally, as the subject's attitudes
towards the behaviour of including or teaching students with dis-
abilities in regular classrooms (Knauder & Koschmieder, 2019).
These differences indicate that the objective of inclusive education
is not only to teach academic learning content but to also promote
social-emotional development. These objectives are complemented
by the goal of promoting social participation (Koster et al., 2010).
3.1. Norms
Compared to attitudes and perceived behavioural control,
perceived norms have the weakest impact on a person's intentions
(Armitage & Conner, 2001). With respect to inclusion, perceived
norms address the extent to which a teacher's intention to imple-
ment inclusive practices is influenced by the conduct and attitude
of significant others (Hellmich et al., 2019; Gilor and Katz, 2019; Yan
& Sin, 2014, 2015). A study by MacFarlane and Woolfson (2013)
found that subjective norms did not have any significant effect on
intention. However, when the teacher's perceived support of the
school was included as a predictor of inclusive teaching and his or
her intention to implement inclusive education, the teacher's
perceived norms became a significant predictor (Ahmmed et al.,
2014).
K. Urton, J. Wilbert, J. Krull et al.
In the studies available so far, norms have been investigated in
relation to the expectations of different groups of people, i.e. in
relation to teachers' perceptions of the opinions of “important
others” regarding inclusive education: the important others being,
for example, the school principal, colleges or parents of students
with and without SEN (e.g., Ahmmed et al., 2014; Hellmich et al.,
2019; Knauder & Koschmieder, 2019; Kuyini & Desai, 2007;
MacFarlane & Woolfson, 2013; Yan & Sin, 2014, 2015). Other studies
emphasized teachers' perceptions of the support and encourage-
ment they receive from the school administration, school com-
munity and their social environment (Ahmmed et al., 2014; Batsiou
et al., 2008; Gilor and Katz, 2019; Knauder & Koschmieder, 2019;
Malak et al., 2018). Regarding the implementation of inclusion, we
can assume that all of the aforementioned groups influence the
teachers' willingness to implement inclusion to varying degrees.
Following the TPB (Ajzen, 2005, 2012), it is not only a teacher's
anticipation about the expectations of others that is important (e.g.,
‘The ministry expects me to support inclusion’) but also the level of
value the teachers personally attach to the opinions of these others
(e.g., ‘The expectations of the ministry are important to me.‘).
3.2. Perceived behavioural control/self-efficacy
Perceived behavioural control has seldom been addressed in
research on teachers' intent to implement inclusive practices,
whereas the nearly identical concept of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997)
has been the focus of many such studies (Opoku et al., 2020). A
review of research shows that teachers’ intentions regarding the
implementation of inclusive education are significantly predicted
by both their self-efficacy (Ahmmed et al., 2014; MacFarlane &
Woolfson, 2013; Malak et al., 2018) and their collective efficacy
beliefs (Hellmich et al., 2019).
In addition to efficacy, previous research has also evaluated the
significance of resources, collaboration, knowledge, and experience
and has found that these are also important factors in supporting
teachers and ensuring their willingness to implement inclusive
practices in schools. More specifically, this significance has been
attributed to professional development and experience, as well as
to opportunities for co-teaching and collaboration (Abegglen &
Hessels, 2018; Boer et al., 2011; van Mieghem et al., 2018). Thus,
feeling competent to teach inclusively and having adequate in-
service training also explains the variance in one's readiness to
teach inclusively (Gilor and Katz, 2019; Yan & Sin, 2015). In terms of
the TPB, measuring perceived behavioural control should be done
in a way that captures both the availability of each resource to
teachers and the degree of importance they place on each resource.
4. Research goals
An overview of the studies conducted so far indicates that the
TPB is well suited to predict the intention to teach inclusively.
However, it should be noted that, to date, only one study (by Gilor &
Katz, 2019, which focused on preservice teachers), provides a
comprehensive application of all the aspects of the model (atti-
tudes, perceived norms and perceived behavioural control). Ac-
cording to our literature research, which is in line with the review
by Opoku et al. (2022), no other study has examined all factors of
the complete TPB in relation to predicting a teacher's intention to
implement inclusive teaching strategies. The present study ad-
dresses this gap. To achieve this, we measure attitudes, subjective
norms and perceived behavioural control as the product of beliefs
(behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs, control beliefs) and value
(outcome expectation, motivation to comply, perceived power). We
sought to determine the degree to which each of these dimensions
contribute to primary school teachers' intentions to implement
3
Teaching and Teacher Education 132 (2023) 104225
inclusive teaching practices.
The second goal of this study is to provide a comprehensive
operationalization of attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived
behavioural control in relation to inclusive behaviour. Based on
previous studies, we determined that attitudes towards inclusion
addressed three key aspects: (a) academic learning, (b) social
development, and (c) social inclusion for students with and
without SEN. Regarding normative beliefs, the various groups of
people determined to be relevant to the school context included (a)
the ministry, (b) the school inspectorate, (c) the school principal, (d)
colleagues, (e) parents, and (f) students. Regarding perceived
behavioural control, the predictors identified included (a) cooper-
ation, (b) resources, and (c) knowledge.
5. Hypotheses and exploratory questions
In this study, with these goals in mind, we investigate the
following four hypotheses and the three exploratory questions
corresponding to the each related hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion are corre-
lated to their intention to implement inclusive practices in the
classroom. Specifically, we distinguish between attitudes towards
(a) academic learning, (b) social development, and (c) the social
inclusion of students with and without SEN in an inclusive context.
Exploratory question 1: To what extent can we observe differ-
ences in the behavioural beliefs and outcome expectations of teachers
for students with and without SEN in an inclusive context? Again,
we differentiate between (a) academic learning, (b) social devel-
opment, and (c) social inclusion.
Hypothesis 2: Teachers’ subjective norms (i.e., their perception of
the normative expectation to put inclusion into praxis) are corre-
lated to their intention to implement inclusive practices in the
classroom. Regarding normative expectations, we differentiate
between (a) the ministry, (b) the school inspectorate, (c) the school
principal, (d) colleagues, (e) parents, and (f) students.
Exploratory question 2: To what extent can we observe any dif-
ferences between teachers’ normative beliefs and their motivation to
comply in relation to various groups? Here, we differentiate be-
tween (a) the ministry, (b) the school inspectorate, (c) the school
principal, (d) colleagues, (e) parents, and (f) students?
Hypothesis 3: Teachers’ perceived behavioural control regarding
the implementation of inclusive teaching is correlated to their
intention to implement inclusive practices in the classroom. We
assume that perceived behavioural control is derived from (a) the
intensity of cooperation, (b) the availability of personal and mate-
rial resources, and (c) their knowledge and experience with respect
to inclusion.
Exploratory question 3: To what extent can we observe differ-
ences in teachers’ control beliefs and perceived power with respect to
(a) cooperation, (b) personal, and material resources and (c)
knowledge and experience in relation to inclusion?
Hypothesis 4: Attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behav-
ioural control mutually contribute to the intention of primary school
teachers to implement inclusive practices in the classroom.
6. Methodology and methods
6.1. Participants
We collected data from 585 primary school teachers. 504
teachers (from 49 schools) returned valid responses, which were
included in this study. The teachers’ averageage was M ¼ 41.9
(SD ¼ 10.6) years and 94.1% were female. 90.8% were trained as
general primary school teachers and 9.1% as special education
teachers. On average, they had M ¼ 14.0 (SD ¼ 10.0) years of
K. Urton, J. Wilbert, J. Krull et al.
teaching experience and had worked at their current school for
M ¼ 7.6 (SD ¼ 7.3) years. On an average, each teacher taught
M ¼ 21.2 (SD ¼ 6.6) lessons per week. Teachers rated their expe-
rience in teaching students with and without SEN together on a
five-point Likert scale (0 ¼ no experience to 4 ¼ a lot of experience)
with an average of M ¼ 3.5 (SD ¼ 1.0). 26.4% of all teachers reported
having an additional qualification related to teaching students with
SEN (for further information see supplement material A).
6.2. Procedure and materials
6.2.1. Procedure
Data collection took place from April to June 2017 in the first
year of a three-year longitudinal research project (see Hennemann
et al., 2018; Urton et al., 2018). All schools were informed about the
project through the inspectorate and then we mailed the ques-
tionnaires to the interested schools. All teachers were able to
choose to participate in the study on a voluntary basis. They
received a letter of information explaining the data collection and
management. Data collection and transmission were anonymous. It
took about 10 min to complete the questionnaire.
6.2.2. Operationalizing the TPB
By adhering to the TPB, we sought to explain the intention of
primary-school teachers to bring inclusion into practice through
their attitudes towards the behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived
behavioural control. These three factors were each ascertained
through a belief component, an evaluation component, and the
interaction between these two components. Each teacher's attitude
toward a behaviour was calculated by multiplying the rating for the
strength of the beliefs about the outcomes of the behaviour
(behavioural beliefs) by the extent to which those outcomes are
desirable to the person (outcome expectation). Each teacher's sub-
jective norms were calculated by multiplying their rating for the
strength of their beliefs about other peoples' opinions of a behav-
iour (normative beliefs) by the extent to which these other people
matter to the person (motivation to comply). Teachers' perceived
behavioural control was derived from their rating of the strength of
their beliefs about the accessibility of factors that facilitate or
impede a behaviour (control beliefs) multiplied by the level of
importance they ascribe to each factor (perceived power).
6.2.3. Questionnaire
The questionnaire began with a description of the aim of the
study and an assurance that the anonymity of the participant would
be guaranteed. This was followed by questions about age, gender,
length of employment at the present school, weekly teaching
hours, and the experience of teaching students with and without
SEN together. Next, teachers were asked to respond to 52 questions
about their attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural
control on a five-point Likert scale (the exact wording of the poles
were adapted for each scale; for more details see Supplement B).
The items were developed by the authors specifically for the pre-
sent study. See Fig. 2 for more information on the TPB model. A full
list containing all items can be found in Supplement B.
Attitudes towards the behaviour. The assessment of the compo-
nent attitudes towards the behaviour was based on behavioural be-
liefs and a corresponding outcome expectation scale. Each of the
scales consists of six items. Attitudes towards the behaviour were
assessed for (a) academic learning, (b) social development, and (c)
the social inclusion of students with and without SEN.
Subjective norms. Subjective norms were assessed using 14 items
related to normative beliefs and motivation to comply. We
4
Teaching and Teacher Education 132 (2023) 104225
differentiated between six relevant persons/groups: (a) the minis-
try, (b) the school inspectorate, (c) the school principal, (d) col-
leagues, (e) parents, and (f) students.
Perceived behavioural control. To identify the teachers' perceived
behavioural control, both the control beliefs and the perceived power
that the person attributes to each of the different factors were
ascertained. Perceived behavioural control was assessed using
twenty-two items related to control beliefs and perceived power. The
items related to the areas of (a) cooperation (the school principal,
colleagues, parents, social networks), (b) resources (personnel,
material, rooms), and (c) knowledge of the subject being taught and
expertise/experience in SEN.
Intention to implement inclusion. The intention to implement
inclusive practices in the classroom was carried out on the basis of
two items. The scales described above showed acceptable to very
good internal consistencies (0.83  Cronbach's a  0.89). See
Table 1 and Supplement C for more information on the items and
item analyses of the TPB scales.
Through testing the construct validity of the scales, the assumed
structure (see Fig. 2) could be corroborated. For attitudes including
Behavioural Beliefs and the Outcome-Expectations, a four-factor so-
lutions showed to best reflect the data, accounting for 71%e80% of
the variance. Regarding Subjective Norms, which include Normative
Beliefs and Motivation to Comply, the parallel analyses revealed a
three-factor structure of the data that explained 61%e73% of the
variance. For Perceived Behavioural Control - including Control Be-
liefs and Perceived Power - the parallel analyses showed the data to
be best fit by a three-factor solution with explained variances of
51%e59%. For more details on the analyses see Supplements D and
E.
6.2.4. Design and analysis strategy
To investigate hypotheses 1 to 4 and exploratory questions 1 to
3, we applied multilevel multivariate regression models. This was
necessary to take the nested data structure into account (teachers
nested in schools). Following Snijders and Bosker (2012, p. 2), we
added a random slope factor (component) at the lowest level (level
1: component; level 2: teachers; level 3: schools). For example, the
items on the attitude scale were interpreted as six responses to one
attitude variable (this is very similar to modelling repeated mea-
surements with multilevel models). Additionally, we allowed for
different variances of all variables and different correlations be-
tween variables. The dependent variable was standardized (mean
zero and standard deviation one) and the intercept was set to zero.
The resulting model now provides estimators for each component
that depicts the difference in standard deviations from the overall
mean (which is zero due to the standardization). To estimate the
association of each component to the teacher's intention we added
an interaction term, component x intention, to the model. This
interaction depicts the strength of the association between the
respective component and the intention in standard deviations
(which have the same scale as a correlation coefficient).
To investigate hypothesis 4, we first built sum scores for the
items of the attitudes scale as well as for the items of the subjective
norms scale and those of the perceived behavioural control scale.
Secondly, we calculated a random intercept multilevel regression
(teachers nested in schools) with intention regressed for attitudes,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control.
All hypotheses were tested against models assuming no statical
differences in the respective aspects of the compared distributions
(null hypotheses).
All regression models were calculated using the nlme package in
R (Pinheiro, Bates & Core Team, 2022). Regression tables were
K. Urton, J. Wilbert, J. Krull et al.
Fig. 2. Application of the TPB in the present study.
created with the help of the sjPlot package (Lüdecke, 2021). Details
on the analysing syntax and reproducible analyses are available in
the supplement to this paper.
7. Results
Following the logic of the theory of planned behaviour, we now
present the results related to the exploratory questions followed by
those related to the hypotheses.
7.1. Components of attitudes towards inclusion (exploratory
question 1)
7.1.1. behavioural beliefs
On average, teachers either partially or strongly agreed that
inclusive teaching can be conducted in such a way that academic
learning, social development, and social inclusion show positive
results among students both with and without SEN. The average
agreement was strongest for the factor social development of stu-
dents without SEN (M ¼ 3.92, SD ¼ 0.83) and weakest for academic
learning of students with SEN (M ¼ 2.96, SD ¼ 0.82). Cohen's d for
this mean difference is 1.16. All components were moderately to
highly correlated (0.34 < r < 0.69, ps < .001, see Supplement D,
Table 1).
5
Teaching and Teacher Education 132 (2023) 104225
7.1.2. Outcome expectations
Outcome expectations revealed higher average values than
behavioural beliefs. Accordingly, teachers rated academic learning
for students with SEN as M ¼ 3.77 (SD ¼ 0.85) and without SEN as
M ¼ 4.16 (SD ¼ 0.88, Cohen's d for this mean difference is 0.45). For
social development, the average for students with SEN was
M ¼ 4.30 (SD ¼ 0.74) and without SEN M ¼ 4.36 (SD ¼ 0.71). Cohen's
d for this mean difference is 0.08. Furthermore, they emphasized
the social inclusion of students with SEN (M ¼ 4.31, SD ¼ 0.73) and
positive social inclusion in classes (M ¼ 4.54, SD ¼ 0.65). Cohen's
d for this mean difference is 0.33. Therefore, the outcome expec-
tation was marginally higher for the students without SEN. The
correlation matrix shows moderate to high correlations between all
dimensions (0.36 < r < 0.86, ps < .001, see Supplement D, Table 2).
7.1.3. Attitudes
Each attitude component was calculated by multiplying the
behavioural belief and outcome evaluation. The resulting scale was
linearly transformed to a theoretical range from 0 to 1. The attitude
was lowest for the academic learning of students with SEN
(M ¼ 0.35, SD ¼ 0.19) and highest for social learning of students
without SEN (M ¼ 0.62, SD ¼ 0.24) and social inclusion of students
without SEN (M ¼ 0.62, SD ¼ 0.23). Cohen's d for this mean dif-
ferences are 1.25 and 1.27. The correlation between components
ranged from r ¼ 0.39 to r ¼ 0.76 (Table 2).
K. Urton, J. Wilbert, J. Krull et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 132 (2023) 104225

Table 1
Items and Item analyses of TPB scales.

Scale Example n Alpha (CI95%) Homo- Discrimi- |Loading|

items geneity nation

Behavioural Beliefs I am convinced that inclusive education can be organized to ensure that the subject 6 .86 (.84-.88) .51 .55e.74 .60e.82
matter is successfully learned by students with SEN
Normative Beliefs How strongly do you perceive the expectations of the following people/institutions 6 .67 (.63-.71) .26 .28e.51 .34e.63
regarding how well inclusive education is implemented in schools? My colleagues
have …
Control Beliefs How much do the following facilitate/support successful inclusive teaching: … the 11 .79 (.77-.82) .26 .38e.54 .39e.62
special education knowledge of the teacher?
Outcome With regard to inclusive teaching, ‘How important are the following things to you in 6 .89 (.88-.90) .59 .57e.82 .59e.89
Expectations relation to inclusive education: The successful learning of the subject matter by
students with special educational needs.
Motivation to How important is it to you in general (not only with regard to inclusion) to meet the 6 .83 (.80-.85) .45 .49e.72 .54e.82
Comply expectations of the following people/institutions … my colleagues?
Perceived Power How much can you draw on the following when implementing inclusive teaching … 11 .89 (.87-.90) .42 .50e.72 .53e.78
special education knowledge?
Intention How committed will you be in the future to ensuring that inclusive education is 2 .67 (.62e.72) .52 .52e.52 .73e.73
successfully implemented at your school?

Table 2
Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics for components of attitudes (behavioural beliefs x outcome expectations).

M SD 2 3 4 5 6

1 Academic Learning SEN 0.35 0.19 .47*** .59*** .45*** .50*** .45***
2 Academic Learning w/o SEN 0.54 0.22 .47*** .64*** .39*** .42***
3 Social Development SEN 0.53 0.25 .76*** .64*** .66***
4 Social Development w/o SEN 0.62 0.24 .55*** .64***
5 Social Inclusion SEN 0.51 0.24 .73***
6 Social Inclusion w/o SEN 0.62 0.23

Note. *** ¼ p < .001; w/o ¼ without.

7.2. Attitudes towards inclusion and intention to support inclusion lowest for the academic learning of students without SEN (b ¼ 0.20,
(hypothesis 1) p < .001).

Table 3 depicts the results of a multivariate-multilevel regres-

sion model. The attitude score was lowest for academic learning of
students with SEN (b ¼ 0.71; p < .001) and highest for social
development of students without SEN (b ¼ 0.40; p < .001) and
social inclusion of students without SEN (b ¼ 0.39; p < .001). All six
attitudes showed a significant positive interaction with the inten-
tion to put inclusion into practice. The correlation was highest for
the social inclusion of students with SEN (b ¼ 0.36, p < .001) and
Table 3
Regression model predicting the strength of an attitude by the attitudes’ component
parts and the interaction of these components with the teachers’ intention.
7.3. Components of subjective norms in the context of inclusion
(exploratory question 2)
7.3.1. Normative beliefs
The normative beliefs (the normative expectation perceived by a
group that inclusion will be put into practice) were highest for the
ministry (M ¼ 4.39, SD ¼ 0.86) and lowest for students (M ¼ 2.71,
SD ¼ 1.01). Cohen's d for this mean difference is 1.79. Correlations
ranged between r ¼ 0.04 (between the ministry and colleagues)
and r ¼ 0.67 (between the ministry and the school inspectorate).
See Supplement D, Table 3 for details.

Predictors ß se t p
7.3.2. Motivation to comply
Academic Learning SEN 0.71 0.03 23.05 <.001 The motivation to comply was highest regarding students
Academic Learning w/o SEN 0.05 0.04 1.30 .193
(M ¼ 4.05, SD ¼ 0.82) and lowest regarding the ministry (M ¼ 2.59,
Social Development SEN 0.03 0.05 0.63 .528
Social Development w/o SEN 0.40 0.05 8.94 <.001 SD ¼ 0.98). Cohen's d for this mean difference is 1.61. Correlations
Social Inclusion SEN 0.05 0.04 1.25 .212 ranged between r ¼ 0.13 (between the ministry and students) and
Social Inclusion w/o SEN 0.39 0.04 8.95 <.001 r ¼ 0.78 (between the ministry and the school inspectorate).
Intention  Academic Learning SEN 0.32 0.03 10.21 <.001 See Supplement D, Table 4 for details.
Intention  Academic Learning w/o SEN 0.20 0.04 5.19 <.001
Intention  Social Development SEN 0.36 0.04 9.04 <.001
Intention  Social Development w/o SEN 0.25 0.04 6.32 <.001
Intention  Social Inclusion SEN 0.30 0.04 7.85 <.001 7.3.3. Subjective norms
Intention  Social Inclusion w/o SEN 0.28 0.04 7.25 <.001 The subjective norms (the product of normative beliefs and the
Random Effects
motivation to comply) were highest regarding the school principal
s2 0.50
ICC .04 SEN (M ¼ 0.47, SD ¼ 0.19) and lowest regarding students (M ¼ 0.33,
N school 49 SD ¼ 0.23). Cohen's d for this mean difference is 0.66. Correlations
Observations 3144 ranged between r ¼ 0.20 (between the ministry and colleagues)
Marginal R2/Conditional R2 .30/.33 and r ¼ 0.78 (between the ministry and the school inspectorate).
Note. All degrees of freedom are 3048; w/o ¼ without. See Table 4 for details.
6
K. Urton, J. Wilbert, J. Krull et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 132 (2023) 104225

Table 4 perceived power showed them to be reciprocally correlated

Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics for components of subjective norms (0.22 < r < 0.84, p < .001, see Supplement D, Table 6).
(normative beliefs x motivation to comply).

M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7.5.3. Perceived behavioural control

1 Ministry 0.34 0.23 .78*** .42*** .20*** .30*** .28*** For perceived behavioural control (the product of control beliefs
2 Inspectorate 0.40 0.21 .52*** .30*** .40*** .32*** and perceived power) the highest value revealed was for the
3 Principal 0.47 0.19 .61*** .51*** .37*** cooperation of the educators (M ¼ 0.66, SD ¼ 0.25) and the lowest
4 Colleagues 0.39 0.19 .49*** .42***
for staff resources (M ¼ 0.31, SD ¼ 0.25). Cohen's d for this mean
5 Parents 0.41 0.22 .61***
6 Students 0.33 0.23 difference is 1.40. (see Table 6 for details). No significant to high
correlations were found between any of the dimensions
Note. *** ¼ p < .001.
(0.05 < r < 0.76, see Table 6).

7.4. Subjective norms and the intention to support inclusion 7.5.4. Perceived behavioural control and the intention to support
(hypothesis 2) inclusion (hypothesis 3)
The results of the multivariate multilevel regression model for
In the results of the multivariate multilevel regression model perceived behavioural control proved to be lowest in relation to
regarding the subjective norm score was lowest for the students knowledge of the subject matter (b ¼ 0.46, p < .001) and highest
(b ¼ 0.26, p < .001) and highest for the school principal (b ¼ 0.38, in relation to cooperation with parents (b ¼ 0.92, p < .001). For all
p < .001). For all six subjective norms, there was a significant eleven domains of perceived behavioural control, significant posi-
positive interaction with the intention to put inclusion into prac- tive correlations were shown for the intention to put inclusion into
tice. The correlation was highest for students and colleagues practice. The correlation was highest for the cooperation with ed-
(b ¼ 0.29, p < .001) and lowest for the ministry (b ¼ 0.17, p < .001). ucators and with the principal (b ¼ 0.36, p < .001) and lowest for
See Table 5 for details. cooperation with the support system (b ¼ 0.19, p < .001). See
Table 7 for details.
7.5. Components of perceived behavioural control with respect to
7.5.5. Attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control
inclusion (exploratory question 3)
and the intention to implement inclusion (hypothesis 4)
To test for the complete model, we predicted the strength of
7.5.1. Control beliefs
intention by evaluating the strength of attitudes, subjective norms,
The teachers' ratings for control beliefs varied from partially
and perceived behavioural control (see Table 8). Therefore, the
agree to fully agree. The mean agreement was strongest for coop-
different attitude components were condensed by calculating an
eration with special educators (M ¼ 4.03, SD ¼ 0.80) and weakest
average attitude score for each participant. The average subjective
for staff resources (M ¼ 2.52, SD ¼ 1.08). Cohen's d for this mean
norms and average perceived behavioural control were calculated
difference is 1.59. There were no significant to high correlations
in a similar fashion.
between the teachers' control beliefs and any of the various areas
Perceived behavioural control was the strongest predictor of
(0.03 < r < 0.72, see Supplement D, Table 5).
intention (b ¼ 0.33, p < .001), followed by attitudes (b ¼ 0.25,
p < .001) and subjective norms (b ¼ 0.11, p < .01). The variance of
7.5.2. Perceived power intention between schools was low (t2 ¼ 0.02) resulting in a low ICC
The teachers' perceived power in the different areas was of 3%.
consistently rated as high. This was strongest for cooperation with Extended regression tables are found in the Supplement F.
special educators (M ¼ 4.40, SD ¼ 0.76) and room-resources
(M ¼ 4.40, SD ¼ 1.00) and weakest for cooperation with principal 8. Discussion
(M ¼ 3.46, SD ¼ 1.16). Cohen's d for this mean difference is 0.96 and
0.87. The correlation matrix indicated that the dimensions of The purpose of the present study was to examine the extent to
which the intention of primary teachers to implement inclusive
practices in the classroom is associated with their attitudes, sub-
Table 5
Regression model predicting intention by components of subjective norms. jective norms, and perceived behavioural control, in relation to
inclusion. Following Ajzen (2005), the three major TPB dimensions
Predictors ß se t p
were operationalized as the product of beliefs (behavioural beliefs,
Ministry 0.21 0.05 4.17 <.001 normative beliefs, and control beliefs) and values (outcome
Inspectorate 0.04 0.04 0.86 .392
expectation, motivation to comply, and perceived power). Each
Principal 0.38 0.05 8.21 <.001
Colleagues 0.02 0.04 0.45 .651 dimension was then divided further into more detailed compo-
Parents 0.10 0.05 2.05 .041 nents, in the attempt to determine which aspects are most relevant
Students 0.26 0.05 5.38 <.001 to the implementation of inclusive classroom practices.
Intention  Ministry 0.17 0.05 3.74 <.001 Consistent with hypothesis 1, an in-depth examination revealed
Intention  Inspectorate 0.18 0.04 4.41 <.001
Intention  Principal 0.19 0.04 5.11 <.001
that teachers' attitudes toward (a) academic learning, (b) social
Intention  Colleagues 0.29 0.04 7.88 <.001 development, and (c) the social inclusion of students with and
Intention  Parents 0.20 0.04 4.58 <.001 without SEN in an inclusive context correlated with their intention
Intention  Students 0.29 0.05 6.17 <.001 to implement inclusion in the classroom. Considering all di-
Random Effects
mensions (academic learning, social development, and social in-
s2 1.12
ICC .01 clusion), teachers’ attitudes were less positive with respect to the
N school 49 implementation of inclusive education practices for students with
Observations 3074 SEN. This was particularly pronounced in relation to their academic
Marginal R2/Conditional R2 .08/.09 learning. Overall, the results suggest that attitudes toward inclusive
Note. All degrees of freedom are 3014. teaching are associated with both the domain (academic learning,
7
K. Urton, J. Wilbert, J. Krull et al. Teaching and Teacher Education 132 (2023) 104225

Table 6
Correlation matrix and descriptive statistics for components of perceived behavioural control (control beliefs x perceived power).

M SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 Coop-Colleagues 0.53 0.27 .59*** .48*** .38*** .34*** .31*** .22*** .18*** .24*** .16*** .17***
2 Coop-Educators 0.66 0.25 .50*** .40*** .38*** .32*** .24*** .21*** .34*** .19*** .22***
3 Coop-Principal 0.37 0.28 .44*** .36*** .25*** .24*** .22*** .21*** .05 .07
4 Coop-Parents 0.34 0.22 .43*** .24*** .30*** .22*** .30*** .23*** .23***
5 Coop-Support System 0.37 0.22 .35*** .28*** .28*** .33*** .28*** .20***
6 Res-Rooms 0.44 0.27 .60*** .58*** .23*** .32*** .27***
7 Res-Materials 0.36 0.23 .76*** .28*** .28*** .29***
8 Res-Staff 0.31 0.25 .23*** .28*** .24***
9 Know-Special Ed 0.47 0.22 .41*** .33***
10 Know-Teaching Subject 0.38 0.26 .66***
11 Know-Experience 0.45 0.25

Note. *** ¼ p < .001.

Table 7 social learning, or social interaction) and the group of students

Regression model predicting intention by components of perceived behavioural (with or without SEN) being surveyed.
control. Regarding question 1, comparing behavioural beliefs with
Predictors ß se t p outcome expectations reveals that the latter are somewhat higher,
Coop-Colleagues 0.37 0.07 5.25 <.001
especially for students with SEN. This indicates that teachers place
Coop-Educators 0.17 0.05 3.35 .001 a high value on academic and social learning for all students in
Coop-Principal 0.10 0.05 2.14 .033 inclusive classrooms although their beliefs about whether this can
Coop-Parents 0.92 0.05 16.85 <.001 be done successfully are weaker. This finding is also consistent with
Coop-Support System 0.22 0.08 2.68 .007
the reviews of Avramidis and Norwich (2002) and Boer et al., 2011,
Res-Rooms 0.29 0.05 5.65 <.001
Res-Materials 0.18 0.05 3.98 <.001 who found that teachers were positive about implementing in-
Res-Staff 0.03 0.06 0.43 .668 clusion in principle, but whether they believed it was possible to
Know-Special Ed 0.27 0.05 5.06 <.001 achieve depended on the particular students in the class and their
Know-Teaching Subject 0.46 0.06 7.20 <.001 specific needs.
Know-Experience 0.18 0.04 4.29 <.001
Intention * Coop-Colleagues 0.23 0.04 5.38 <.001
In support of hypothesis 2, the opinions of all relevant groups
Intention * Coop-Educators 0.36 0.04 9.12 <.001 (the ministry, the school inspectorate, the principal, colleagues,
Intention * Coop-Principal 0.36 0.04 9.31 <.001 parents, and students) were significantly correlated to the teachers'
Intention * Coop-Parents 0.20 0.04 5.03 <.001 intention to implement inclusion in the classroom. This was espe-
Intention * Coop-Support System 0.19 0.04 4.50 <.001
cially pronounced for the groups with whom teachers have
Intention * Res-Rooms 0.28 0.03 8.25 <.001
Intention * Res-Materials 0.20 0.03 5.94 <.001 frequent contact in everyday school life: their colleagues and
Intention * Res-Staff 0.26 0.04 6.26 <.001 students.
Intention * Know-Special Ed 0.25 0.03 7.21 <.001 Regarding explanatory question 2, it appears that the normative
Intention * Know-Teaching Subject 0.22 0.04 5.94 <.001 beliefs are strongest at the administrative level (the ministry and
Intention * Know-Experience 0.21 0.04 5.85 <.001
Random Effects
the school inspectorate), although the motivation to comply is
s2 0.81 lowest for the same groups. A contrary picture emerges for those
ICC .10 with whom teachers frequently come into contact in everyday
N school 49 school life (colleagues and students). Here, expectations that in-
Observations 5739
clusive practices will be implemented are perceived as lower, while
Marginal R2/Conditional R2 .18/.27
teachers' motivation to comply is higher in relation to these groups.
Note. All degrees of freedom are 5669. Thus, the results provide a first indication that the more distant
administration has less of an impact on teachers' motivation to
implement inclusive teaching practices than it does for the groups
Table 8
Multilevel model predicting intention by perceived behavioural control, subjective of people with whom teachers have daily contact in school.
norms, and attitudes. Hypothesis 3, which stated that perceived behavioural control
related to the implementation of inclusive education would
Predictors Intention
correlate with the intention to implement inclusion in the class-
ß se t p room, was also confirmed for cooperation, availability of resources,
Intercept 0.00 0.04 0.10 .917 and knowledge and experience. Consistent with the literature, our
Attitudes 0.25 0.04 6.33 <.001 results point to the centrality of cooperation (Abegglen & Hessels,
Subjective Norms 0.11 0.04 2.87 <.01
2018; Boer et al., 2011; van Mieghem et al., 2018). This is espe-
Perceived Behavioural Control 0.33 0.04 8.27 <.001
cially true for the possibility to cooperate with special education
Random effects
teachers and principals.
s2 0.68 When considering control beliefs in comparison to perceived
t2 0.02 power (exploratory question 3), all areas (cooperation, the avail-
ICC .03
ability of human and material resources, and knowledge and
N schools 49
Observations 559 experience regarding inclusion) are relevant to the teacher's level
Marginal R2/Conditional R2 .29/.31 of perceived power. However, the control beliefs are strongest for
Note. All degrees of freedom are 50. the different cooperation's and special education expertise.
In line with hypothesis 4 and consistent with previous research,

8
K. Urton, J. Wilbert, J. Krull et al.
the overall TPB model (Ajzen, 2005) provided a suitable theoretical
basis for explaining the intention to implement inclusive teaching
(e.g. Hellmich et al., 2019; Knauder & Koschmieder, 2019; Malak
et al., 2018). Accordingly, all dimensions, albeit to varying de-
grees, showed a unique association with the intention to imple-
ment inclusive teaching. Supporting previous research, the
association was strongest for perceived behavioural control and
attitudes, while normative beliefs are comparatively less pro-
nounced (e.g. Hellmich et al., 2019; Opoku et al., 2022).
Our results clearly show that different dimensions of attitudes,
norms, and perceptions about behavioural control impact teachers'
intention to implement inclusive teaching practices. Therefore, as
suggested by (Gilor & Katz, 2019; Yan & Sin, 2015), providing
teachers with appropriate professional development opportunities
is key to encouraging the implementation of inclusion.
Furthermore, it seems crucial to not only examine the attitudes
and experiences of efficacy of individual teachers, but also to
evaluate the processes at the school level (Urton et al., 2014). The
results of our study indicate that the groups of people with whom
teachers have daily contact are crucial for significantly influence for
their intention to implement inclusive education. Indeed, in terms
of attitudes, norms, and collaborative processes, this relates to the
concept of inclusive school climate (Hennemann et al., 2018). Tar-
geted school development activities are important for ensuring the
long-term development of inclusive schools that go beyond
accepting the ‘placement’ (Go € ransson & Nilholm, 2014, p. 265) of
students with SEN and function as truly collaborative schools which
develop classrooms and that also promote interaction within the
social context. Specifically, this means developing practices at the
school level which support both academic and social-emotional
learning and at the same time ensure the participation of all stu-
dents. According to the theory of the ecological environment of
students, the quality of an inclusive school that supports this can be
further developed in a school - development model for inclusive
schools on the following five levels: (1) ‘students and their indi-
vidual needs’, (2) ‘inclusive teaching’, (3) ‘multiprofessional coop-
eration’, (4) ‘inclusive school concept and school life’, and (5)
‘external support and community networking’ (Schurig et al., 2020,
p. 1). At level two, inclusive teaching, this means improving the
practice of additional support from peers and additional support
from teachers (van Mieghem et al., 2018). This is the case, for
example, when teachers implement peer-assisted learning strate-
gies in the classroom which allow students to practice the learned
content in a cooperative way (Bowman-Perrott et al., 2013;
Moeyaert et al., 2021). Teacher support can be implemented
through co-teaching arrangements in which “several professionals
work together in a co-teaching team, based on a shared vision, in a
structured way, over an extended period of time, during which they
are equally responsible for good teaching and good learning for all
students in their classroom” (Fluijt et al., 2016, p. 197). Furthermore,
collaboration in an inclusive school should not only refer to
collaboration between teachers but also to multi-professional
cooperation (e.g., teaching assistants, school social work, school
psychology) which not only includes collaboration within the
school but involves external support and community networking as
well (Chapman and Fullan, 2007; Muijs et al., 2010).
8.1. Limitations
The findings of the current study must be considered against the
backdrop of the following limitations.
In terms of the generalizability of the results, there are limita-
tions regarding the selection of the sample. Firstly, the survey
exclusively involved teachers who worked in primary schools with
inclusive education and who had already had some experience in
9
Teaching and Teacher Education 132 (2023) 104225
this area. Secondly, the survey was conducted entirely within the
federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany). Accordingly, it
would be of interest for future studies to investigate how teachers
who work in inclusive schools differ from those who have had no
experience with inclusive education. It might also be of interest to
consider differential effects between teachers with and without
training in SEN. A further suggestion would involve investigating
whether the results can be replicated in studies carried out in other
school types as well as in other (international) regions.
Opoku et al. (2022) point out that studies that have investigated
teacher intentions based on interviews have, in part, arrived at
different and more nuanced results than questionnaire studies. A
mixed-method approach might have revealed a more subtle pic-
ture of the relevant dimensions of attitudes, normative beliefs, and
perceived levels of behavioural control. Thus, it must also be noted
about our study that our statements are to be interpreted only in
relation to the aspects we surveyed, and that these make no claim
of being exhaustive, since we did not, as suggested by Sutton et al.
(2003), previously ascertain to what degree the formulated beliefs
are supported, accepted or have been taken into consideration
altogether by the teachers.
Furthermore, we have only examined teacher intention through
personal reports. To be able to make statements about whether and
how inclusion is implemented in practice, classroom observations
could be more rigorous. However, this also raises the fundamental
question of how to define inclusive teaching. An article by Sharma's
research group (2019) demonstrated that the question of the
characteristics of inclusive teaching has received little attention.
These observation categories must be operationalized before
further research in this direction can be undertaken.
Further limitations of our study are also related to the limita-
tions of the TPB. Even though the TPB represents one of the central
theories for explaining behaviour, the limited predictive power of
the theory represents one of the central criticisms of the TPB. For
example, research suggests that the variability of intentions and
observed behaviors can only be partially explained by the pre-
dictors of the TPB (Sniehotta, et.al, 2014). Thus, studies have
repeatedly shown that individuals have expressed an intention but
then fail to act on it (Orbell & Sheeran, 1998). Furthermore, the
theory's reduction to attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioural
control has also been criticized because it ignores an individual's
behavioural history and the role which broader social influences
may also play in a person's behaviour (Conner & Sparks, 2015).
Another criticism is that the theory is limited to rational aspects
and does not consider other affective/emotional, unconscious, or
irrational determinants of human behavior (Sheeran et al., 2013;
Sniehotta, et.al, 2014). Regarding the intended purpose of our
study, however, it is important to keep in mind that we used the
TPB as a theoretical basis for investigating the factors which may
explain a teacher's intention to implement inclusive practices in the
classroom; we did not intend to test the TPB as such.
9. Conclusion
Even now, after more than ten years since the ratification of the
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, what
motivates teachers to exhibit the intention to put inclusion into
practice remains a central question that we need to understand
better. The present study examined this question using a differen-
tiated operationalization of the TPB (Ajzen, 2005) for inclusive
teaching. The results indicate that different content areas may
indeed be mapped using a differentiated approach. In turn, this
confirms that further studies utilizing differentiated indications
may well be suitable for establishing indications for the continuing
development of the inclusive school systems.
K. Urton, J. Wilbert, J. Krull et al.
Author contributions
KU and JW conceived and designed the study; KU and JW wrote
the paper; JW performed the analyses; JW curated the data; JK and
KU organized and supervised the data collection; TH, JK and KU
administrated the project; TH raised the funding.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104225.
References
Abegglen, H. J., & Hessels, M. G. P. (2018). Measures of individual, collaborative and
environmental characteristics predict Swiss school principals’, teachers’ and
student teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education. Psychoeducational
Assessment, Intervention and Rehabilitation, 1e24. https://doi.org/10.30436/
PAIR18-01
Ahmmed, M., Sharma, U., & Deppeler, J. (2014). Variables affecting teachers' in-
tentions to include students with disabilities in regular primary schools in
Bangladesh. Disability & Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09687599.2013.796878
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl,
& J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control (pp. 11e39). Springer. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-642-642-69746-3 2.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and human
decision processes. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior. In Mapping social psychology.
Open Univ. Press.
Ajzen, I. (2012). The theory of planned behavior. In P. A. M. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski,
& E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp.
438e459). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n22.
Ajzen, I., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2019). Reasoned action in the service of goal pursuit.
Psychological Review, 774e786. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000155
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A
meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 471e499. https://
doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
Armstrong, D. (2014). Educator perceptions of children who present with social,
emotional and behavioural difficulties: A literature review with implications for
recent educational policy in england and internationally. International Journal of
Inclusive Education, 731e745. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2013.823245
Autorengruppe, B. (2020). Bildung in Deutschland 2020. Ein indikatorengestützter
Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Bildung in einer digitalisierten Welt. In [Education
in Germany 2020. An indicator-based report with an analysis of education in a
digitalized world.]. wbv Media. https://doi.org/10.3278/6001820gw.
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration/inclu-
sion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education,
129e147. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.
Batsiou, S., Bebetsos, E., Panteli, P., & Antoniou, P. (2008). Attitudes and intention of
Greek and Cypriot primary education teachers towards teaching pupils with
special educational needs in mainstream schools. International Journal of In-
clusive Education, 201e219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110600855739
Boer, A. de, Pijl, S. J., & Minnaert, A. (2011). Regular primary schoolteachers' atti-
tudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 331e353. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13603110903030089
Bowman-Perrott, L., Davis, H., Vannest, K., Williams, L., Greenwood, C., & Parker, R.
(2013). Academic benefits of peer tutoring: A meta-analytic review of single-
case research. School Psychology Review, 42(1), 39e55. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02796015.2013.12087490
Chapman, C., & Fullan, M. (2007). Collaboration and partnership for equitable
improvement: Towards a networked learning system? School Leadership &
Management, 27(3), 207e211. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632430701379354
Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (2015). The theory of planned behaviour and reasoned
action approach. In M. Conner, & P. Norman (Eds.), Predicting and changing
10
Teaching and Teacher Education 132 (2023) 104225
health behaviour: Research and practice with social cognition models (3rd ed., pp.
142e188). Open University Press.
Fluijt, D., Bakker, C., & Struyf, E. (2016). Team-reflection: The missing link in co-
teaching teams. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(2), 187e201.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2015.1125690
Gilor, O., & Katz, M. (2019). Pre-service teachers’ willingness to engage in inclusive
teaching: An explanatory model. Journal of International Special Needs Educa-
tion, 77e89. https://doi.org/10.9782/17-00011
Godin, G., & Kok, G. (1996). The theory of planned behavior: A review of its ap-
plications to health-related behaviors. American Journal of Health Promotion,
87e98. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-11.2.87
Go€ ransson, K., & Nilholm, C. (2014). Conceptual diversities and empirical
shortcomingsea critical analysis of research on inclusive education. European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 265e280. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08856257.2014.933545
Hellmich, F., Lo €per, M. F., & Go€ rel, G. (2019). The role of primary school teachers'
attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs for everyday practices in inclusive classrooms
e a study on the verification of the ‘theory of planned behaviour’. Journal of
Research in Special Educational Needs, 36e48. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-
3802.12476
Hennemann, T., Hillenbrand, C., Fitting-Dahlmann, K., Wilbert, J., & Urton, K. (2018).
Auf dem Weg zum inklusiven Schulsystem im Kreis Mettmann e konzeption
der wissenschaftlichen Begleitevaluation" [Towards an inclusive school system
in the district of Mettmann - conception of the scientific evaluation]. Zeitschrift
für Heilpa€dagogik, 4e16.
Knauder, H., & Koschmieder, C. (2019). Individualized student support in primary
school teaching: A review of influencing factors using the theory of planned
behavior (TPB). Teaching and Teacher Education, 66e76. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2018.09.012
Koster, M., Pijl, S. J., Nakken, H., & Van Houten, E. (2010). Social participation of
students with special needs in regular primary education in The Netherlands.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59e75. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10349120903537905
Kuyini, A. B., & Desai, I. (2007). Principals' and teachers' attitudes and knowledge of
inclusive education as predictors of effective teaching practices in Ghana.
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 104e113. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1471-3802.2007.00086.x
Lee, J., Cerreto, F. A., & Lee, J. (2010). Theory of planned behavior and teachers’
decisions regarding use of educational technology. Journal of Educational
Technology & Society, 152e164.
Lüdecke, D. (2021). sjPlot: Data visualization for statistics in social science. https://
strengejacke.github.io/sjPlot/.
MacFarlane, K., & Woolfson, L. M. (2013). Teacher attitudes and behavior toward the
inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in
mainstream schools: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 46e52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.006
Malak, M. S., Sharma, U., & Deppeler, J. M. (2018). Predictors of primary school-
teachers' behavioural intention to teach students demonstrating inappropriate
behaviour in regular classrooms. Cambridge Journal of Education, 495e514.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2017.1364698
McEachan, R., Taylor, N., Harrison, R., Lawton, R., Gardner, P., & Conner, M. (2016).
Meta-Analysis of the reasoned action approach (RAA) to understanding health
behaviors. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 592e612. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12160-016-9798-4
van Mieghem, A., Verschueren, K., Petry, K., & Struyf, E. (2018). An analysis of
research on inclusive education: A systematic search and meta review. Inter-
national Journal of Inclusive Education, 1e15. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13603116.2018.1482012
Moeyaert, M., Klingbeil, D. A., Rodabaugh, E., & Turan, M. (2021). Three-level meta-
analysis of single-case data regarding the effects of peer tutoring on academic
and social-behavioral outcomes for at-risk students and students with dis-
abilities. Remedial and Special Education, 42(2), 94e106. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0741932519855079
Muijs, D., West, M., & Ainscow, M. (2010). Why network? Theoretical perspectives
on networking. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(1), 5e26.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450903569692
Opoku, M., Cuskelly, M., Rayner, C., & Pedersen, S. (2022). The impact of teacher
attributes on intentions to practice inclusive education in secondary schools in
Ghana.International Journal of Disability (pp. 382e398). Development and Ed-
ucation. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2020.1731434
Orbell, S., & Sheeran, P. (1998). ‘Inclined abstainers’: A problem for predicting
health-related behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 151e165.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998. tb01162.x
Pinheiro, J., Bates, D., & Core Team, R. (2022). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed
effects models. R package version, 3, 1e157. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package
¼nlme.
Powell, J. J. (2015). Barriers to inclusion: Special education in the United States and
Germany. Routledge.
Schurig, M., Weiß, S., Kiel, E., Heimlich, U., & Gebhardt, M. (2020). Assessment of the
quality of inclusive schools A short form of the quality scale of inclusive school
development (QU! SS)ereliability, factorial structure and measurement
invariance. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1e16. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13603116.2020.1862405
Sharma, K., & Mahapatra, B. C. (2007). Emerging trends in inclusive education. IVY
K. Urton, J. Wilbert, J. Krull et al.
Publication House.
Sheeran, P., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2013). Nonconscious processes and
health. Health Psychology, 32, 460e473. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029203
Sniehotta, F. F., Presseau, J., & Araújo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to retire the theory of
planned behaviour. Health Psychology Review, 8(1), 1e7. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17437199.2013.869710
Sniehotta, F. F., Presseau, J., & Araújo-Soares, V. (2014). Time to retire the theory of
planned behaviour. Health Psychology Review, 8, 1e7. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17437199.2013.869710
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic
and advanced multilevel modeling. Sage.
Steinmetz, H., Knappstein, M., Ajzen, I., Schmidt, P., & Kabst, R. (2016). How effective
are behavior change interventions based on the theory of planned behavior? A
three-level meta-analysis. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 216e233. https://doi.org/
10.1027/2151-2604/a000255
Sutton, S., French, D. P., Hennings, S. J., Mitchell, J. O., Wareham, N. J., Griffin, S.,
Hardeman, W., & Kinmonth, A. L. (2003). Eliciting salient beliefs in research on
11
Teaching and Teacher Education 132 (2023) 104225
the theory of planned behaviour: The effect of question wording. Current Psy-
chology, 22(3), 234e251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-003-1019-1
Urton, K., Bo€rnert-Ringleb, M., Krull, J., Wilbert, J., & Hennemann, T. (2018). Ink-
lusives Schulklima: Konzeptionelle Darstellung eines Rahmendmodells [Inclu-
sive school climate: Conceptual presentation of a framework model]. Zeitschrift
für Heilpa€dagogik, 40e52.
Urton, K., Wilbert, J., & Hennemann, T. (2014). Attitudes towards inclusion and self-
efficacy of principals and teachers. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal,
151e168.
Yan, Z., & Sin, K.-F. (2014). Inclusive education: Teachers' intentions and behaviour
analysed from the viewpoint of the theory of planned behaviour. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 72e85. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13603116.2012.757811
Yan, Z., & Sin, K.-F. (2015). Exploring the intentions and practices of principals
regarding inclusive education: An application of the theory of planned behav-
iour. Cambridge Journal of Education, 205e221. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0305764X.2014.934203