From Voices to Models: A Mixed-Methods Structural Equation Analysis of Teacher Efficacy, Attitudes, and Instructional Management Toward Inclusive Practice Intentions Among Cluster 1 Public Junior High School Teachers

Teachers continue to face challenges in implementing inclusive practices due to varying levels of efficacy, attitudes, and instructional management within school environments. This situation creates inconsistencies in the delivery of equitable and inclusive instruction in Cluster 1 public junior high schools in Davao City. The objective of this study was to determine the influence of teacher efficacy, attitudes, and instructional management on teachers’ intentions to implement inclusive practices. A convergent mixed-methods design was used, combining descriptive-correlational analysis, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), and thematic analysis of interview data. Quantitative data were gathered from 455 teachers using validated survey instruments, while qualitative insights were derived from semi-structured interviews with purposively selected participants. Findings revealed that teachers reported high teacher’s efficacy, positive attitudes, and strong endorsement of inclusive practices, but only moderate perceptions of instructional management. Correlation results showed that teacher’s efficacy had a very strong association with inclusive practices, while attitudes and instructional management showed weaker relationships. Regression analysis further revealed that teacher’s efficacy was the only significant predictor of inclusive practices. SEM results showed acceptable comparative fit but poor absolute fit, indicating the need for model refinement. Qualitative themes supported the quantitative results, emphasizing empowered teaching identity, empathy, collaborative supervision, and the moral commitment of teachers to inclusion despite structural barriers. The study concludes that teacher’s efficacy is the strongest driver of inclusive practices, while attitudes and instructional management provide indirect but meaningful support. These results imply that inclusive education thrives on strong teacher beliefs yet requires improved institutional support. It is recommended that school leaders strengthen instructional management systems and provide sustained professional development to reinforce teacher efficacy and advance SDG 4 on quality and inclusive education.

Teacher’s efficacy, attitude, instructional management, inclusive practices

1. Ahsan, M. T., Deppeler, J. M., & Sharma, U. (2013). Predicting pre-service teachers’ preparedness for inclusive education: Bangladeshi pre-service teachers’ attitudes and perceived teaching-efficacy for inclusive education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 517-535. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control: From cognition to behavior(pp. 11-39). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Baumard, P., Budzinski, H., & Garrigues, P. (1998). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sediments and mussels of the western Mediterranean Sea. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 17(5), 765-776. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Boyle, C., & Anderson, J. (2020). Inclusive education and teacher efficacy: A systematic review of recent literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(9), 925–940. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1516821 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Boyle, C., & Anderson, J. (2020). Inclusive education and teacher efficacy: A systematic review of recent literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(9), 925–940. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1516821 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Brown, T. A. (2021). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Byrne, B. M. (2021). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315757421 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Campano, J. P., & Munakata, T. (2004). Anger and aggression among Filipino students. Adolescence, 39(156). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Candeias, A. A., Rebelo, N., & Oliveira, M. (2020). Burnout and stress vulnerability in regular and special education teachers: A study in Portugal. Journal of Educational Psychology and Counseling, 34(2), 45–59. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Cannon, M. D., & Meltzer, D. J. (2004). Early Paleoindian foraging: examining the faunal evidence for large mammal specialization and regional variability in prey choice. Quaternary Science Reviews, 23(18-19), 1955-1987. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. COLLEGES, R. M. (2012). Behavioral Problems Amidst Initial Face-to-Face Classes: Intervention of Teachers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Espina, L. G., Villanueva, C. R., & Gador, R. P. (2024). Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education: Evidence from Bohol, Philippines. Journal of Education and Learning Research, 18(2), 45–58. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. GLORIA, F. M. (2024). School Discipline Practices: Narratives Of Sirawan National High School Teachers. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231111116699 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hirak, R., Peng, A. C., Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. M. (2012). Linking leader inclusiveness to work unit performance: The importance of psychological safety and learning from failures. The leadership quarterly, 23(1), 107-117. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2020). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Jugan, R. P., Castillo, J. L., & Villanueva, S. M. (2024). Exploring teachers’ perceptions and barriers toward inclusive education in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Educational Studies, 38(1), 88–104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Jury, M., Crahay, M., & Devos, G. (2023). Attitudes and perceived appropriateness of inclusion among French teachers: A correlational study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 38(2), 145–162. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Kilag, A. P., Ramirez, C. G., & Lopez, R. T. (2025). Barriers to implementing inclusive education in Philippine public schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education Research, 41(4), 302–319. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Kim, L. E., & Asbury, K. (2020). ‘Like a rug had been pulled from under you’: The impact of COVID-19 on teachers in England during the first six weeks of the UK lockdown. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4), 1062–1083. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12381 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). The Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Liu, S., & Hallinger, P. (2020). Principal instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher professional learning in China: Testing a mediated-effects model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(2), 312–343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X19861127 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Mahat, M. (2008). The development and validation of a multidimensional attitudes toward inclusive education scale (MATIES). International Journal of Special Education, 23(1), 82–92. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Martin, N. K., & Sass, D. A. (2010). Construct validation of the Behavior and Instructional Management Scale. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(5), 1124–1135. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Mejoy, C. F., Sarmiento, D. L., & Tan, M. P. (2024). Collaboration and institutional support in inclusive classroom implementation. Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 39(2), 176–190. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Mertel, A., Gärtner, H., & Müller, R. (2024). Cross-national comparisons of teachers’ attitudes and self-efficacy toward inclusive practices. International Review of Education, 70(1), 33–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Moseley, C., Reinke, W. M., & Herman, K. C. (2021). The role of teacher efficacy in classroom management and student outcomes: A contemporary review. Journal of School Psychology, 85, 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.01.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Moseley, C., Reinke, W. M., & Herman, K. C. (2021). The role of teacher efficacy in classroom management and student outcomes: A contemporary review. Journal of School Psychology, 85, 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.01.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543066004543 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Phirun, S., & Chhem, R. (2025). Teachers’ self-efficacy and intentions in implementing inclusive education in Cambodian primary schools. Asian Journal of Inclusive Education, 13(1), 22–39. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Rahman, N. A., Ismail, H., & Tan, C. K. (2025). Perceived practicality and teacher resistance in inclusive classroom implementation in Malaysia. International Journal of Educational Research and Innovation, 29, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Sharma, U., Loreman, T., & Forlin, C. (2019). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices: Further validation of the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) Scale. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(5), 574–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1454879 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Shaukat, S., Vishnumolakala, V. R., & Alghamdi, A. K. H. (2020). Science teachers’ perceptions of personal science efficacy beliefs and science teaching in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United Arab Emirates. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 16(8). https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/8290 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Siddique, M. F. (2020). Principals’ self-efficacy beliefs regarding managing bullying in schools (MPhil thesis). University of Management and Technology, Lahore [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2007). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy and relations with strain factors, perceived collective teacher efficacy, and teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.611 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00036-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Tumkaya, G. S., & Miller, S. (2020). The perceptions of pre- and in-service teachers’ self-efficacy regarding inclusive practices: A systematised review. Elementary Education Online, 19(2), 1061-1077. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2020.696690 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. UNESCO. (2020). Global Education Monitoring Report 2020: Inclusion and education – All means all. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2020). Inclusion and education: All means all. Global education monitoring report 2020. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000373718 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Wang, L., Chen, S., & Zhang, Y. (2025). Teachers’ intentions and inclusive instructional effectiveness: A structural model analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 134, 104260. Aas, H. K., Uthus, M., & Løhre, A. (2023). Inclusive education for students with challenging behaviour: development of teachers’ beliefs and ideas for adaptations through Lesson Study. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 39(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2023.2191107 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Whitehouse, E. (2024). " Nobody to Support With That": Teacher Perceptions of Climate, Student Misconduct, and School Violence. California State University, Long Beach. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Yap, J., Perez, N. M., & Perrone, D. M. (2025). The Effects of School Climate on Student Perceptions of School Safety at an Urban Middle School. Journal of School Violence, 1-15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2020). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student engagement, and student achievement: A multilevel meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 31, 100352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100352 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study