Prepared to Ensure Quality Education for All? A Comparative Study of Pre-Service Teachers’ Self-Efficacy for Inclusion in Spain and the United States

Abstract

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development calls for quality, inclusive education for all through Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4). Given the central role of teachers in achieving this goal, this study examined (1) whether pre-service elementary teachers develop self-efficacy for inclusive teaching by graduation and (2) whether self-efficacy varies according to the type of teacher education program (general vs. dual) and the opportunities provided to learn inclusive teaching strategies. Using a non-experimental, cross-sectional comparative design, we surveyed 330 pre-service elementary teachers in the United States and Spain, enrolled in two distinct teacher education pathways. Participants completed the Teacher Self-Efficacy for Inclusive Practice (TEIP) and Opportunity to Learn to Teach Inclusively (OLTI) scales. Results revealed moderate levels of self-efficacy for inclusive teaching overall. Spanish participants in general teacher education programs reported significantly lower self-efficacy than U.S. participants in dual certification programs. Regardless of program type, those with greater opportunities to learn inclusive teaching strategies reported significantly higher self-efficacy. Notably, opportunity to learn was found to moderate the relationship between program type and self-efficacy. These findings highlight the critical role of practice-based opportunities in developing teachers’ confidence in inclusive education. Embedding such opportunities in teacher preparation is essential for advancing sustainable, inclusive education systems worldwide.

1. Introduction

Inclusive education remains a cornerstone of educational systems worldwide, aiming to provide equitable access to quality education for all students, regardless of their abilities or needs. This paradigm shift, driven by international agreements such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006) and the Education 2030 Framework for Action (UNESCO, 2015), highlights the importance of fostering inclusive educational environments where diversity is celebrated and all learners are supported. However, despite the widespread recognition of inclusive education as a fundamental human right, its implementation presents significant challenges across different educational systems (Beaton et al., 2021; Fränkel et al., 2023).

The complexity of inclusive education lies in the need for comprehensive systemic changes, including curriculum transformation, adequate resource allocation, and, most importantly, the preparation of teachers to address the diverse needs of their students. Research has consistently shown that teachers’ self-efficacy—defined as their beliefs in their ability to effectively implement inclusive practices—plays a critical role in the successful realization of inclusive education (Guskey & Passaro, 1994). High self-efficacy among teachers has been linked to positive attitudes toward inclusion, increased confidence in managing diverse classrooms, and greater collaboration with families and colleagues (Caprara et al., 2006; OECD, 2014; Wang et al., 2015; Zee & Koomen, 2016).

However, studies indicate that many teacher education (TE) programs do not provide sufficient training in inclusive education, leaving pre-service teachers feeling underprepared to work in diverse classrooms (Cretu & Morandau, 2020; United Nations, 2006). This gap in preparation is particularly concerning given the growing diversity in classrooms worldwide. The literature highlights two predominant approaches to preparing teachers for inclusion: the “additive” model, where content on diversity and inclusion is added as separate coursework, and the “infused” model, where inclusive education principles are integrated across all subjects (EASNIE, 2021). While the latter approach is considered more effective, there is limited evidence of its widespread implementation.

Considering these challenges, this study sought to explore how pre-service teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy for inclusive practice are shaped by their teacher education programs. By comparing pre-service teachers from the United States (U.S.) and Spain—two countries with distinct approaches to teacher preparation—this research aimed to identify key factors that may contribute to self-efficacy for inclusion. In particular, we examined whether the opportunity to learn to teach inclusively moderates the relationship between the type of teacher education program (general vs. combined) and self-efficacy for inclusive practice. Understanding how different teacher education models can affect self-efficacy is essential for informing curriculum design and improving teacher preparation. The findings of this study may contribute to the international debate on inclusive education by offering evidence-based recommendations for enhancing teacher competencies and fostering more equitable educational systems. This research underscores the critical role of teacher education in achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG4), which calls for inclusive and equitable quality education for all by 2030 (United Nations, 2015).

2. Literature Review

2.1. Background

The right to an inclusive education, encouraged internationally by the United Nations and articulated in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) and in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006), puts signatory countries under pressure to improve equity in education for all. Several global agreements led to the acquisition of a commitment that is now universally accepted:

• The 1960 UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination in Education and the 1990 World Declaration on Education for All (UNESCO, 1990), adopted in Jomtien and reiterated in 2020 in Dakar, called on countries to take measures to ensure “equality of treatment in education” and “no discrimination in access to learning opportunities” for underserved groups.
• The Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (United Nations, 2006) advanced the principle that all children should be at “the school that they would attend, if the child did not have a disability” and officially contributed to launching inclusive education as an international commitment and a fundamental right.
• The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (United Nations, 2015) established a timeline to make this right a reality through SDG4, recognizing quality inclusive education and sustainability as educational goals in Target 4.7, for which a prerequisite is “Substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers” (Target 4.c).

In response to this commitment, UNESCO has provided significant frameworks for guiding activity. One of the most significant is the recently introduced Framework for the Implementation of Education for Sustainable Development beyond 2019 (UNESCO, 2019), which spans from 2020 to 2030, and aims to reorient education and learning processes to ensure greater equity and sustainability. This endeavor requires, according to Antoninis et al. (2020), a significantly larger profile in terms of commitment, curriculum transformation, and indicators to monitor progress, all of which must be framed in skills and competencies, since what is not measured is rarely adopted and sustained. Most importantly, it requires improving the quality of teacher training by eliminating the barriers that currently exist in TE programs, namely, the dominance of an add-on approach, separate TE tracks, and inadequate preparation for inclusion (Fränkel et al., 2023).

2.2. Inclusive Education in the United States and Spain

The impact of worldwide inclusion efforts can be observed in the growth and evolution of inclusive education in the United States and Spain. Yet, due to their distinct historical, cultural, and social backgrounds, both countries have adopted rather dissimilar approaches to implementing and sustaining inclusion. The selection of the United States and Spain as comparative contexts is purposeful. Their differing approaches to inclusive education, shaped by unique historical and legislative landscapes, provide a valuable opportunity to explore how pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs are developed and supported within varying systems.

In the United States, a comprehensive set of legislations (the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the No Child Left Behind of 2001, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), and the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015), have collectively ensured the provision of a free and sustainable public education to children and youth with disabilities and/or other personal conditions in need of support. Although the concept of inclusion is not explicitly referenced in any U.S. legislation, the implementation of supports and services for students with special educational needs (SEN) has adhered to the premise of “least restrictive environment,” which has fostered inclusivity, and over time, less restriction has implied more inclusion in the U.S. education system (Hossain, 2012). This inclusive approach has been accompanied by the implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports, a framework that helps educators provide differentiated support for students based on their needs. But due to increasing demands, the education system has been compelled to critically re-examine whether TE programs are adequately preparing general education classroom teachers with the essential competencies to effectively cater to the unique and multiple needs of all students.

In contrast, the implementation of inclusive education in Spain, which has a comparatively less advanced special education system than the United States, can be attributed to a lengthy and financially troublesome educational reform and democratization process initiated after Franco’s death in 1975. Inclusion has been conceptualized as a systematic process that seeks to ensure equitable access to high-quality education for all individuals, with particular emphasis on students facing greater marginalization. Since the enactment of PL13/1982 (Law for the Integration of People with Disabilities in Regular Schools, LISMI), there have been significant advancements in mainstreaming all students in regular classrooms. Specifically, inclusive approaches began to gain relevance in 1994 with the proclamation of the Salamanca Declaration (UNESCO, 1994) and a series of legislative measures such as PL 1/1990 on General Organization of the Education System, PL 10/2002 on Quality of Education, and PL 8/2013 for the Improvement of the Quality of Education, as amended by the LOMLOE (PL 3/2020 of December 29), that contributed to enhance the Spanish education system’s capacity for equity and inclusivity. Furthermore, with the UNESCO’s (2015) Incheon Declaration proposal for SDG4, the Spanish government mandated that mainstream schools must be adequately equipped to meet the needs of all students within a decade and emphasized the inclusion of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) in TE programs anticipating that, by the year 2025, it would be a requirement for all teaching personnel to have received qualifications pertaining to the goals outlined in the 2030 Agenda.

To date, all of these initiatives aimed to ensure quality, equity, and sustainability in education systems have yielded limited results in terms of modifying the curriculum, teaching methods, and teacher competencies, resulting in the recognition that TE programs are not effectively equipping prospective teachers with the necessary skills to foster inclusivity, as outlined in the global indicators (Antoninis et al., 2020) and the specialized research literature in the field (Cretu & Morandau, 2020; Nilholm, 2021). This gap in teacher preparation is a critical factor influencing teachers’ self-efficacy. If teachers do not feel adequately prepared to meet the diverse needs of their students, their self-efficacy beliefs may be negatively impacted.

2.3. Research on Initial Teacher Preparation for Inclusion

Teacher education research for inclusive teaching is limited and often referred to as poor and inadequate (Copfer & Specht, 2014; Cretu & Morandau, 2020; Mendoza & Heymann, 2022; Nilholm, 2021; Sharma, 2018; Symeonidou, 2017; Tristani & Bassett-Gunter, 2019). The existing body of research suggests that the topic is often overlooked in initial TE programs, even in prestigious universities worldwide (Best Grad Schools, 2023; Cretu & Morandau, 2020). This indicates that the task of adequately preparing teachers for teaching in inclusive classrooms is a universal challenge (Triviño-Amigo et al., 2022; UNESCO, 2020a). Countries typically offer different programs and pathways for teacher preparation, with two predominant approaches being the “additive” approach and the “infusing” approach (EASNIE, 2021). The first approach uses specialist input to add content knowledge about diversity/inclusion to TE programs, whereas the latter aims to incorporate specialist knowledge into all existing subjects. There has been a significant amount of discussion regarding the most effective approach; however, no clear evidence has emerged to establish the superiority of one model over the other (Loreman, 2010; Sharma, 2018). In the United States, specialized teacher training based on educational disability or special education needs is still the standard, while in the UK or Ireland, specialization is obtained after initial training. In Spain, it is a separate path within the generic model of initial training.

Several research studies have been conducted to examine the content of inclusion in initial TE programs. In Europe, one of the most influential initiatives comes from the Teacher Education for Inclusion, TE4I project (EADSNE, 2012), which explored how teachers in 25 countries were equipped to be inclusive in their classrooms in order to identify the fundamental competencies required to pursue a career in teaching, regardless of subject, specialization, or age group they intend to teach. The findings were outlined in the Profile of Inclusive Teachers, including the following areas of competency: supporting all learners, collaborating with others, appreciating learner diversity, and engaging in professional development. Based on this profile, the National Council for Special Education in Ireland carried out a study to explore the extent to which the 2012 Irish educational policy reforms effectively prepared prospective teachers to embrace inclusive practices (Hick et al., 2018). After conducting a content analysis of 27 programs from 13 universities, it was found that the inclusive teaching content incorporated into these programs continued to perceive SEN through a conventional lens. Similarly, a study by Sánchez-Serrano et al. (2021) in Spain reviewed the curricular components for inclusive teaching in the elementary education programs offered by the 39 public universities in the country. Despite the explicit acknowledgment of equity and social justice as basic principles in the programs, they found an unbalanced presence of diversity and inclusion content across the subjects. The inclusion of such content was inconsistent, with some programs offering no related subjects and others offering as many as three, typically as elective subjects. Therefore, it is not surprising that a significant proportion of general education teachers in Spain, specifically 57%, as reported in the TALIS 2018 research study led by the OECD (2019), indicated that they were not receiving sufficient training to serve students with diverse educational needs. In the context of secondary school TE programs, Nash and Norwich (2010) in the UK and López-Torrijo and Mengual-Andrés (2015) in Spain carried out similar studies examining the coverage of inclusive education in the Postgraduate Certificate in Secondary Education. Their findings revealed significantly less coverage of the topic compared to elementary education programs.

These findings align with those of Brownell et al. (2005) in the United States, who found that out of the 64 general TE programs surveyed in the country, only 50% of them explicitly addressed the topics of diversity and inclusion. In 2010, Harvey et al. (2010) administered a national survey called the Preservice Teacher Preparation for Inclusion Survey. The findings revealed that educational institutions were offering courses in special education and exceptionality but were not giving any courses on inclusion or related issues. Similarly, Metz et al. (2013) examined the curriculum content of the top five general education TE programs in the United States, as determined by the Best Grad Schools (2023). By analyzing syllabus descriptors, the researchers found a notable absence of the term “inclusion” in all programs. In another study, Allday et al. (2013) examined 109 general TE programs across the country to determine the specific number of instructional hours devoted to inclusion, instruction, and management of students with SEN. They found that student teachers had limited exposure, if any, to coursework and training related to special inclusive education. Out of the universities surveyed, only 73 of them required three-credit hours in special/inclusive preparation, with a specific focus on disability characteristics, and a limited number of programs offered courses on differentiation and collaboration between general and special education teachers.

Although a significant number of the general TE programs in the United States do not require inclusive education coursework, some programs have begun to include courses and practicum experiences that specifically address inclusive practice within content areas. Thompson (2012) developed a course aimed at secondary school pre-service mathematics teachers, which incorporated a practicum component within an inclusive mathematics classroom setting. The researcher found that student teachers who participated in this course exhibited not only more positive attitudes toward students with disabilities and inclusion but also felt better prepared to implement inclusive practices in comparison to their peers who did not take the course. This finding is substantiated by a comparable study conducted by Lucas and Frazier (2014), who surveyed a sample of 110 pre-service teachers before and after completing a practicum experience in an inclusive classroom. Most student teachers reported that their perceptions of students with SEN were more positive and that their confidence in implementing inclusive practices increased subsequently to this experience. In contrast, Shani and Hebel (2016) examined the effects of practicum experiences on pre-service teachers and found that student teachers who took courses lacking a practicum component experienced a disconnection between their theoretical understanding of inclusion and their ability to effectively use this knowledge in practice.

In a comprehensive examination on a global scale, UNICEF (2013) analyzed TE programs across 111 countries. The report revealed that most programs exhibited deficiencies in adequately preparing teachers with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively teach students with diverse abilities within mainstream classroom settings. Only 33% of respondents reported that their TE programs included instruction on inclusive education. These findings are consistent with those presented in the 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report (UNESCO, 2020a), which highlighted that despite 61% of 168 countries claiming to provide TE on inclusion and 44% mentioning teacher training on inclusion in their legislative and policy frameworks, none of these countries explicitly outline the specific components of teacher training for inclusive teaching. This lack of specific training components directly relates to the potential for lower self-efficacy among pre-service teachers, indicating that insufficient preparation of teachers is a worldwide phenomenon (UNESCO, 2020b). Moreover, as Cretu and Morandau (2020) emphasized in their bibliometric study, research in initial TE for inclusion has been monopolized by a few countries and groups from the United States, Australia, Spain, Canada, and the UK, having produced at least 70% of the publications. This concentration of research further supports the need for studies, like the proposed one, that delve deeper into specific national contexts to provide nuanced understanding. Therefore, to advance the field, there is a growing need for cross-border research that goes beyond identifying the knowledge and skills pre-service teachers should acquire and instead examines the capacity of teacher education programs to foster their self-efficacy for inclusive practice.

2.4. Conceptual Framework for Examining Teacher Perceived Self-Efficacy for Inclusion

Building on the recognized need to enhance teacher preparedness for inclusive education, this study adopts teacher self-efficacy as a central construct for examining pre-service teachers’ readiness to support diverse learners. Self-efficacy—defined as teachers’ beliefs in their ability to produce desired student outcomes (Guskey & Passaro, 1994)—is widely regarded as a reliable indicator of teaching effectiveness and quality. Higher self-efficacy is associated with improved student achievement and motivation (Caprara et al., 2006), as well as greater instructional effectiveness, professional commitment, and job satisfaction, while also reducing stress and burnout among teachers (Wang et al., 2015; Zee & Koomen, 2016).

The theoretical foundation of this framework integrates social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) and constructivist learning theory (Piaget, 1952; Vygotsky, 1978), both of which offer valuable insights into how teacher education experiences shape perceived self-efficacy for inclusive practice. From the social cognitive perspective, self-efficacy is developed through four primary sources: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and emotional and physiological states. In the context of teacher education, these sources are activated through direct teaching practice, observation of experienced inclusive educators, constructive feedback, and emotional support during training. As Bandura (1997) explains, such experiences are instrumental in building confidence, persistence, and adaptability—qualities essential for implementing inclusive practices in diverse classrooms. Numerous empirical studies support the relationship between teacher preparation and self-efficacy for inclusion. Kim (2011) found that pre-service teachers enrolled in combined general and special education programs demonstrated significantly more positive attitudes toward inclusion compared to those in separate or general programs. Malinen et al. (2013), in a study of 552 pre-service teachers in China, identified a strong correlation between self-efficacy and inclusive attitudes, suggesting that those who feel more capable of teaching in diverse classrooms also hold more favorable views toward inclusion. Hecht et al. (2017) reported similar findings in a study of Italian and Austrian pre-service teachers: both groups reported high self-efficacy, but only efficacy in instruction and collaboration—not behavior management—was significantly associated with positive attitudes toward inclusion. These patterns are consistent with previous research (Alsarawi & Sukonthaman, 2023; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001; Woodcock et al., 2023), which shows that higher self-efficacy is linked to greater openness to inclusive practices and that knowledge of inclusive pedagogy is predictive of self-efficacy across instructional domains.

In parallel, constructivist learning theory emphasizes that knowledge is actively constructed through meaningful engagement, social interaction, and real-world application (Piaget, 1952; Vygotsky, 1978). In teacher education, this implies that hands-on experiences with inclusive teaching, guided reflection, and collaboration with mentors and peers contribute to teachers’ understanding and application of inclusive practices. This theory underscores that teacher learning is an active process where individuals build their understanding through direct interaction with students, participation in diverse classroom settings, and reflection on their teaching experiences (Bruner, 1996). A key principle of constructivist learning is that meaningful learning occurs when teachers are exposed to real-world teaching experiences in inclusive environments. Providing ample opportunities for student teachers to engage in authentic classroom situations allows them to internalize effective strategies for inclusive teaching. Without sufficient practical exposure, theoretical knowledge may not translate into effective teaching, making opportunities to learn an essential component of teacher preparation programs (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Therefore, from a constructivist perspective, opportunities to learn are essential because they enable future teachers to construct knowledge through engagement and practice. Coursework alone may provide theoretical understanding, but without hands-on application, teachers may struggle to implement inclusive teaching strategies effectively (Richardson, 1997). Exposure to inclusive settings, active participation in collaborative teaching, and direct engagement with students with diverse needs all contribute to strengthening teachers’ confidence in their ability to teach inclusively (Florian, 2012). Teachers who undergo sufficient opportunities to learn through practical experiences—such as student teachers teaching in inclusive classrooms, case-based learning, and reflective practice—are more likely to develop a deeper understanding of inclusive education principles. Alternatively, those with insufficient opportunities may lack confidence in their ability to adapt instruction, differentiate teaching strategies, and manage diverse classrooms effectively (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).

Consequently, this framework posits that two critical components—(1) the type of teacher education program (e.g., general vs. dual certification) and (2) the opportunity to learn inclusive teaching practices—are key factors in shaping pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusion. By drawing on social cognitive theory and constructivist learning theory, the framework explains how experiences and structured learning opportunities may impact teachers’ confidence in inclusive teaching. Programs that integrate structured, practical experiences within inclusive settings are more likely to produce teachers who feel confident in their ability to teach all learners. Conversely, limited opportunities to engage in inclusive practice may leave future teachers underprepared to meet the demands of diverse classrooms (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Based on these theoretical underpinnings, the purpose of this study was to investigate the perceived self-efficacy for inclusion of pre-service elementary school teachers enrolled in a general versus dual TE program and, particularly, determine whether the variable opportunity to learning to teach inclusively moderates the relationship between type of TE program and self-efficacy for inclusion. The objectives were (1) to describe pre-service elementary teachers’ level of self-efficacy for inclusion upon graduation and (2) to examine how self-efficacy for inclusion may vary by type of teacher preparation program (general vs. dual certification) and opportunity to learn to teach inclusively (sufficient vs. insufficient). The research questions posted were:

• What level of self-efficacy for inclusion do pre-service elementary school teachers enrolled in a general TE program versus in a dual certification TE program report at the end of their studies?
• Does this level of self-efficacy vary across type of TE program and opportunity to learn to teach inclusively?

Within this framework, the following relationships were expected: a general TE program with sufficient opportunities for learning inclusive teaching may produce teachers with self-efficacy levels comparable to those from dual programs, which suggests that extensive hands-on experience and targeted coursework can compensate for the lack of dual certification. Conversely, a dual program with insufficient opportunities may fail to maximize the potential self-efficacy benefits. If a dual program does not provide ample field experience or structured learning about inclusion, graduates may not feel adequately prepared to implement inclusive practices effectively. The following sections present the study’s research approach and methodology, followed by the results and a discussion of key findings, including their implications for practice and future research.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Approach and Design

An empirical, non-experimental cross-sectional research approach was employed, combining two distinct designs: a descriptive design and a comparative 2 × 2 factorial design (Johnson & Christensen, 2019). The descriptive, survey-based design aimed to capture respondents’ perceived self-efficacy for inclusion upon graduation. Meanwhile, the comparative ex post facto 2 × 2 factorial design was used to examine differences in self-efficacy for inclusion based on the Type of Teacher Education Program (TTEP) (general vs. dual) and the level of Opportunity to Learn to Teach Inclusive (OLTI) strategies (sufficient vs. insufficient). More specifically, the factorial design allowed for the exploration of a potential interaction effect between TTEP and OLTI on self-efficacy for inclusion among pre-service elementary school teachers; that is, it tested whether opportunity to learn moderated the relationship between the type of TE program and self-efficacy. As Johnson and Christensen (2019) explain, non-experimental research—particularly ex post facto designs—focuses on analyzing existing conditions and relationships rather than manipulating variables to establish causality. Therefore, hypothesis testing is not a required component of such designs. Nevertheless, a 2 × 2 factorial design remains appropriate even when not quasi-experimental is the case, as it allows for the examination of interactions between two independent variables and their combined effects on a dependent variable without requiring experimental control (Campbell & Stanley, 1963; Shadish et al., 2002).

3.2. Participants and Context

The present study was conducted at two public universities, one Spanish and the other from the United States. The participants were undergraduate pre-service teachers pursuing a degree in elementary education. Both institutions, according to their mission statements, prioritize providing high-quality education to their students, with a strong emphasis on equity and equal opportunities. But they differed in the focus of their programs, with the University of Alicante (UA) being characterized as generalist and the University of Minnesota (UMN) as dual/combined.

The Spanish institution is a publicly funded university located in the Valencian Community with a student population of approximately 30,000 individuals. Every year, about 1200 students graduate from the Faculty of Education, with 99% of them being Spaniards and predominantly female (71%). During the 2020–2021 academic year, the College experienced a total enrollment of 3426 undergraduate students (27% male; 73% female) pursuing degrees in Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education (University of Alicante, 2020). The Early Childhood and Elementary Education programs include four tracks, each consisting of 24-credit elective subjects: foreign language (English), physical education, music education, and special education. Within the general education program, there are only two required six-credit subjects related to diversity and inclusion, namely “Attention to Specific Educational Needs” and “Learning Disabilities and Developmental Disorders.” Equity and inclusion are considered transversal principles and values in all teacher education degrees. In this study, pre-service teachers in the Spanish institution were considered to be in a general TE program. The number of practicum hours completed was approximately 480 h (48 credits).

The U.S. institution is recognized as one of the leading public research universities in the United States. According to its official records, the campus had 31,367 undergraduate students and 12,100 graduate students (University of Minnesota, 2020). The College of Education and Human Development (CEHD) enrolled 4823 students during the Spring semester of 2020, with around 76% of them being female. It is listed as one of the top public schools of education in the world (Shanghai Ranking, 2023) and number 12 of the 277 best public graduate school institutions in the 2023 US News & World Report (Best Grad Schools, 2023). The CEHD offers three undergraduate teaching majors: Early Childhood, Elementary Education, and Special Education. Within the Elementary Education program, students can specialize in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. On the other hand, the special education program offers a dual license preparation in both Elementary Education and PreK-12 Special Education. In this study, pre-service elementary school teachers in the U.S. institution were in a combined (general and special education) program. The number of practicum hours completed by these pre-service teachers was approximately 315 h (21 credits).

Participants were selected using a non-probabilistic procedure, namely, convenience sampling. They were invited to participate in a survey during class sessions at the beginning of Spring semester in 2020. The study protocol received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of UMN, and it was deemed exempt from review by UA’s Human Subjects Committee due to the nature of the investigation (Approval Code: 605E88062/20 June 2019). After obtaining authorization from institutions and instructors, as well as securing informed consent from the participants, the authors proceeded to administer a questionnaire to classroom groups during scheduled class sessions. To ensure the representation of the entire last-year cohorts, a compulsory subject was selected for survey administration. Sample 1 (n = 271) was drawn from the Spanish College of Education from eight different groups representing the chosen subject. Their age ranged between 20 to 52 years (M = 21.77, SD = 3.60), and a majority were female (70%) and mono-cultural 99%. In total, 37% of the sample had chosen to graduate with the mention of special education. Sample 2 (n = 59) was drawn from the U.S. College of Education, from four different groups of the same cohort. Participants were between 19 to 31 years old (M = 21.44, SD = 2.11), with a majority being female (86%) and from diverse cultural and ethnic backgrounds (African American, 3.4%; Asian, 11.9%; European American, 66.1%; Hispanic-Latino, 1.7%; and Native American, 16.9%). All of them were on track to graduate with a dual licensing preparation in Elementary Education and PreK-12 Special Education.

3.3. Instrumentation

The data collection process involved the utilization of two scales: the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practice (Sharma et al., 2012) and the Opportunity to Learning to Teach Inclusively (Miralles-Cardona, 2022).

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy for Inclusive Practice (TEIP) is a self-report assessment tool used to measure the self-efficacy of pre-service teachers to teach inclusively. The English version (Sharma et al., 2012) consists of 18 items distributed in 3 subscales: Efficacy in Using Inclusive Instruction (6 items), Efficacy in Collaboration (6 items), and Efficacy in Managing Classroom Behavior (6 items). The Spanish adaptation of the TEIP scale consists of 15 items and maintains the same 3-factor structure (Cardona-Moltó et al., 2020). Both versions have been demonstrated to be reliable and valid, as shown in the studies conducted by Park et al. (2016) and Cardona-Moltó et al. (2020). In this study, the 15-item version of the instrument was used. Items were answered using a 6-anchor Likert scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 6 (Strongly Agree), which facilitated the calculation of individual scores by item, factors, and total score. A score approaching an average of 6 on the total scale was indicative of a strong sense of self-efficacy specific to teaching inclusively, whereas a score of 1 denoted inadequacy or lack of confidence in one’s own ability to teach in inclusive environments. Data from the present study showed that the TEIP scale has high reliability. Specifically, the alpha coefficient values for the U.S. and Spanish samples were 0.93 and 0.92, respectively. Furthermore, internal consistency for Behavior [B], Instruction [I], and Collaboration [C] was 0.88, 0.85, and 0.91 for the U.S. sample and 0.89, 0.84, and 0.85 for the Spanish sample. Correlations between factors were found to be high and statistically significant in both the U.S. sample (I-B = 0.66, I-C = 0.78, B-C = 0.56) and the Spanish sample (I-B = 0.65, I-C = 0.65, B-C = 0.52), p < 0.01). These results indicate that the TEIP scale demonstrates strong internal consistency and reliability in both the U.S. and the Spanish contexts.

Opportunity to Learning to Teach Inclusively (OLTI) (Miralles-Cardona, 2022) measures the extent to which individuals have the opportunity to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge for inclusive teaching practices through 15 items that evaluate on a 4-point scale (0 = None, 1 = Brief, 2 = In Depth, 3 = Extensive) the chance to acquire strategies for addressing student diversity and inclusion during coursework. These strategies include identifying specific educational needs, proposing and utilizing intervention strategies to adapt instruction, developing an inclusive curriculum, and engaging in fieldwork within inclusive schools or classrooms. The scale provides a total score that can be used to classify respondents for research purposes. In this study, participants’ responses on the Total Opportunity were divided into two categories using a median split method (Quartile 2). Scores at or below the median value of 1.80 were categorized as having insufficient opportunity to learn inclusive teaching practices, while scores above the median were classified as sufficient opportunity. The internal consistency and content validity of the OLTI were tested with the samples of this study. The full-scale demonstrated good consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha 0.92 for the whole sample and 0.89 and 0.88 for the Spanish and U.S. sub-samples, respectively. Additionally, Lawshe’s (1975) content validity indices were high, with values of 0.97 and 0.98 for the Spanish and U.S. sub-samples, respectively.

3.4. Data Analysis

Before conducting statistical analyses, the dataset was screened for missing values, outliers, and compliance with parametric assumptions. Preliminary tests were carried out to assess normality (using Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests), homogeneity of variances (Levene’s test), and the presence of outliers (inspection of boxplots, histograms, and stem-and-leaf plots). For details, see the Data Screening Section 4.1. To check the measurement invariance of the TEIP scale across sub-samples and, therefore, its validity for group comparisons, we tested the 18-item TEIP model (Sharma et al., 2012) using single-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with the full sample and then separately with the sub-samples of U.S. and Spanish pre-service elementary school teachers. Model fit was evaluated using multiple indices: the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA). TLI and CFI values above 0.90 and RMSEA values below 0.10 indicate acceptable fit (Bentler, 1990). After conducting single-group CFAs, we performed a multi-group CFA to assess whether the best-fitting TEIP model was equivalent across the two samples (invariance testing). Invariance testing examines whether a factorial model holds the same meaning across groups (Brown, 2006; Marsh et al., 2006). To examine measurement invariance, we followed Brown’s recommendation to test at least the equality of factor structure, factor loadings, and indicator intercepts. A significant decline in model fit indices suggests non-invariance (Brown, 2006). For multi-group model invariance, we applied Cheung and Rensvold’s (2002) criteria (ΔCFI ≤ ±0.015 and ΔRMSEA < 0.015). After establishing measurement invariance, we examined respondents’ self-efficacy levels and compared mean scores by type of TE program using descriptive statistics and independent samples t-tests (RQ1). The dependent variables included the TEIP total score, its three factors (Behavior, Instruction, and Collaboration), and individual item scores. To address RQ2, we conducted two-way between-groups ANOVAs to analyze whether self-efficacy for inclusion varied by teacher preparation program (general vs. dual) and opportunity to learn to teach inclusively (sufficient vs. insufficient opportunity). We evaluated the main effects of both factors on pre-service teachers’ perceived self-efficacy in managing student behavior, using inclusive instruction, and collaborating with colleagues and families. When the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated, Welch-adjusted 2 × 2 ANOVA models were employed to provide more robust estimates. Effect sizes were reported using Cohen’s (1988) d for pairwise comparisons and partial eta squared (η²) for ANOVA. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS-28, R software-4.4, and AMOS-23, with a significance level set at p < 0.05 for all tests.

4. Results

Findings are presented organized by the research questions addressed in this study, after an opening section reporting data screening results and evidence validity of the TEIP.

4.1. Data Screening Results and Validity Evidence of the TEIP

4.1.1. Data Screening and Assumptions Checks

All cases (N = 330) had complete data for the variables under study (Total TEIP, Behavior, Instruction, Collaboration, and individual items), resulting in no missing values. Mild outliers were observed across all variables, typically at the lower or upper extremes of the scales. For example, Total TEIP included a few low-end values (e.g., below 2.5), while Behavior and Collaboration showed some responses approaching the maximum value of 6.00. Instruction displayed a relatively symmetrical distribution with minimal deviations. No extreme outliers were identified, e.g., no values exceeded three interquartile ranges from the median. Given their limited frequency and the robustness of the statistical techniques employed, these outliers were retained as they did not materially affect the interpretation of the results.

Tests of normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov procedure revealed that the normality assumption was generally met, especially in groups with larger sample sizes. For example, among participants in the General Program with Sufficient Opportunity, all four variables showed non-significant results (p > 0.05), indicating normal distributions. Likewise, for participants in the Dual Program with Sufficient Opportunity, normality was confirmed for Total TEIP and Behavior. However, in smaller groups—particularly participants in the General Program with Insufficient Opportunity—some deviations from normality were observed, including for Behavior (D = 0.084, p = 0.008), Instruction (D = 0.090, p = 0.003), and Collaboration (D = 0.112, p < 0.001). These violations are likely due to the limited sample size in that subgroup. Overall, the assumption of normality was reasonably satisfied across the majority of groups, supporting the use of parametric tests, with caution applied to results from smaller subgroups.

Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances indicated that the assumption was met across Program Type groups, with non-significant results for Total TEIP, F(1, 328) = 2.14, p = 0.145; Behavior, F(1, 328) = 2.20, p = 0.139; Instruction, F(1, 328) = 1.81, p = 0.179; and Collaboration, F(1, 328) = 1.13, p = 0.288. In contrast, when grouping by Opportunity (Sufficient vs. Insufficient), the assumption was violated for all these variables except Collaboration. Levene’s test was significant for Total TEIP, F(1, 328) = 8.33, p = 0.004; Behavior, F(1, 328) = 10.70, p = 0.001; and Instruction, F(1, 328) = 8.05, p = 0.005. As variance equality across Opportunity Groups could not be assumed, Welch’s ANOVA 2 × 2 was used where appropriate to provide valid and robust estimates.

4.1.2. Validity Evidence of the TEIP

Our results suggested that the TEIP scale consists of 15 items and retains the same 3-factor structure as the original version (Cardona-Moltó et al., 2020). These factors were positively correlated and statistically significant (p < 0.01), explaining 64.65% of the total variance. To reach this conclusion, items 12, 13, and 19 were removed from the initial 18-item model due to factor loadings below 0.40. The remaining 15-item, 3-factor model was validated through single-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) (

Table 1. Goodness-of-fit indexes of measurement invariance across country.

	χ2	Df	χ2/df	CFI	TLI	RMSEA	ΔCFI	ΔRMSEA
Single-group
Spanish sample (n = 271)	443.80	103	4.31	0.842	0.839	0.111
U.S. sample (n = 59)	196.67	103	1.91	0.882	0.877	0.115
Multi-group
Equal form	646.32	206	3.14	0.841	0.838	0.081
Equal factors	647.27	208	3.11	0.841	0.840	0.080	0.000	0.001
Equal indicator intercepts	717.51	223	3.22	0.821	0.832	0.082	0.020	0.002

Note. χ² = chi-squared; df = degree freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker–Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation.

), yielding an acceptable fit to the data. The proposed factorial structure demonstrated an adequate fit for both the Spanish (χ²[103] = 443.80, χ²/gl = 4.31; RMSEA = 0.111, CFI = 0.842, TLI = 0.839) and U.S. (χ²[103] = 196.67, χ²/gl = 1.91; RMSEA = 0.115, CFI = 0.882, TLI = 0.877) samples, supporting the construct validity of the 15-item TEIP scale. All parameter estimates for this model were statistically significant.

In addition, the multi-group CFA analysis (see Table 1) provided evidence for factorial invariance across country, confirming that the 3-factor structure was equivalent between the Spanish and U.S. samples, thus validating the model for cross-national comparisons. The goodness-of-fit estimates indicated a close-to-acceptable fit for both samples, with a relatively poorer fit observed in the Spanish group of pre-service teachers. Tests of equal form and equal factor loadings yielded acceptable model fit (ΔCFI and ΔRMSEA < 0.01). However, the test of equal indicator intercepts showed a significant decrease in model fit for CFI (ΔCFI = 0.02), though not for RMSEA (ΔRMSEA = 0.002). These findings suggest that the scalar invariance of the 15-item TEIP model was not fully supported, indicating non-equal indicator intercepts across the Spanish and U.S. samples. Consequently, caution is advised when interpreting mean differences between the two groups.

4.2. RQ1: Respondents’ Level of Self-Efficacy for Inclusive Practice by Type of TE Program

Table 2. Teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practice by type of TE program: descriptives and comparison of means.

	Program Type	M	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d	Dir
Total Scale	General	4.19	0.71	−4.00	<0.001	0.737	US > SP
	Dual	4.61	0.72
Factors		M	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d	Dir
Managing Behavior	General	3.96	0.95	−1.98	0.024	0.933	US > SP
	Dual	4.22	0.85
Using Inclusive Instruction	General	4.23	0.75	−4.35	<0.001	0.750	US > SP
	Dual	4.72	0.73
Collaboration	General	4.40	0.92	−4.21	<0.001	0.913	US > SP
	Dual	4.95	0.89
Items by Factors
Managing Behavior		M	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d	Dir
7. Prevent disruptive behavior.	General	3.70	1.12	−3.31	<0.001	1.101	US > SP
	Dual	4.22	1.02
8. Control disruptive behavior.	General	3.83	1.14	−2.68	0.004	1.110	US > SP
	Dual	4.25	0.97
9. Calm a student who is disruptive.	General	4.14	1.16	−2.17	0.015	1.138	US > SP
	Dual	4.49	1.04
10. Get children to follow rules.	General	4.25	1.00	−2.65	0.004	0.980	US > SP
	Dual	4.63	0.87
11. Deal with students who are physically	General	3.86	1.26	1.94	0.026	1.258	SP > US
aggressive.	Dual	3.51	1.25
Using Inclusive Instruction		M	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d	Dir
2. Provide alternate explanation.	General	4.72	0.93	−3.32	<0.001	0.903	US > SP
	Dual	5.10	0.76
3. Accommodate learning needs.	General	4.06	1.05	−3.99	<0.001	1.043	US > SP
	Dual	4.66	0.99
4. Gauge student comprehension.	General	4.35	0.98	−1.77	0.039	0.968	US > SP
	Dual	4.59	0.91
5. Challenges capable students.	General	3.95	0.96	−7.25	<0.001	0.945	US > SP
	Dual	4.93	0.87
6. Get students to work together.	General	4.66	0.94	−1.98	0.024	0.941	US > SP
	Dual	4.93	0.96
20. Adapt school/statewide assessments.	General	3.75	1.17	−1.99	0.024	1.187	US > SP
	Dual	4.08	1.26
Collaboration		M	SD	t	p	Cohen’s d	Dir
15. Work jointly with other professionals.	General	4.44	1.08	−3.77	<0.001	1.069	US > SP
	Dual	5.00	1.03
16. Get parents involved in school.	General	4.44	1.06	−0.82	0.207
	Dual	4.56	1.04
17. Make parents feel comfortable.	General	4.25	1.11	−6.02	<0.001	1.087	US > SP
	Dual	5.10	0.96
18. Collab. in designing educational plans.	General	4.47	1.18	−4.64	<0.001	1.146	US > SP
	Dual	5.14	0.96

Scale range 1–6 (Min. 1, Max. 6, midpoint 3.50); df (328).

displays the descriptive statistics, mean, and standard deviation, as well as t-tests used to compare each group of participants by TEIP factors and items. Overall, the participants reported a moderate level of self-efficacy (M = 4.19 vs. 4.61, Spanish and U.S. samples, respectively) on a scale of 1 to 6. This suggests that the respondents did not feel fully confident in their ability to effectively teach in inclusive classrooms. Specifically, respondents from Spain, who were enrolled in a general TE program, reported feeling less confident in their sense of self-efficacy compared to their U.S. counterparts, who were enrolled in a dual certification TE program, with a large effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.737).

By subscale, both Spanish and U.S. respondents reported significantly lower self-efficacy in managing behavior (M = 3.96 and 4.22, respectively) and in using inclusive instruction (M = 4.23 and 4.72) compared to their confidence in collaboration (M = 4.40 and 4.95). These differences between the two groups were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.01) with a large effect size (Cohen, 1988). Therefore, upon graduation, pre-service elementary teachers who pursued a dual preparation program demonstrated a higher level of confidence in their ability to implement inclusive practices across all three TEIP domains compared to their counterparts from Spain enrolled in a general TE program (see Figure 1).

Comparison of individual items revealed that across the various items comprising the TEIP scale, respondents from the United States (enrolled in a dual certification TE program) consistently scored significantly higher compared to their Spanish counterparts (see Table 2) enrolled in a general TE program. Exceptions were found in Item 11, “Efficacy in dealing with students who are physically aggressive,” with Spanish respondents scoring significantly higher than U.S. pre-service teachers (M = 3.86 vs. 3.51) and in Item 16, “Get parents involved in school,” with no statistically significant differences found between groups (M = 4.44 vs. 4.56, p > 0.05). However, a closer examination revealed that although U.S. respondents regularly felt more confident in their ability to manage behavior and use inclusive instruction than their counterparts from Spain, none of the items of these dimensions of self-efficacy achieved a score of 5, with the exception of Item 2, “Provide alternative explanations/examples when students are confused”.

4.3. RQ2: Differences in Self-Efficacy Across Program Type and Opportunity to Learn to Teach Inclusive Practices

The comparison of self-efficacy for inclusion by Program Type and Opportunity to Learn to Teach Inclusively revealed a statistically significant main effect of Opportunity to Learn across all three dimensions of self-efficacy: Managing Behavior, Inclusive Instruction, and Collaboration (p < 0.001 for all comparisons, see

Table 3. Pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs for inclusive practice by type of program and opportunity to learn to teach inclusively (Welch’s 2 × 2 ANOVA).

	General		Dual		Total					Bonfer. †
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	SV	WJ	p	adj. p	η²
Managing Behavior
Insufficient	3.77	0.93	3.88	0.93	3.78	0.93	Program	0.34	0.561	n.s.
Sufficient	4.66	0.66	4.39	0.77	4.55	0.71	Opport.	28.55	<0.001	0.001	Large
							P × O	2.09	0.155	n.s.
Inclusive Instruction
Insufficient	4.10	0.73	4.34	0.84	4.12	0.75	Program	2.47	0.124	n.s.
Sufficient	4.79	0.55	4.91	0.60	4.84	0.57	Opport.	30.29	<0.001	0.001	Large
							P × O	0.26	0.590	n.s.
Collaboration
Insufficient	4.28	0.91	4.44	1.06	4.29	0.93	Program	3.40	0.072	n.s.
Sufficient	4.84	0.78	5.21	0.65	4.99	0.76	Opport.	21.79	<0.001	0.018 (ns)
							P × O	0.54	0.468	n.s.

Scale range 1–6 (Min. 1, Max. 6, midpoint 3.50); SV = source of variation; df (3, 326); ^† Bonferroni correction: p above the threshold of 0.0167 was marked as non-significant (n.s.).

). Pre-service teachers who reported sufficient opportunity to develop inclusive teaching skills consistently demonstrated higher levels of self-efficacy compared to those with insufficient opportunity. In the Managing Behavior subscale, mean scores were significantly higher among participants with sufficient opportunity (General: M = 4.66, 95% CI [4.49, 4.83]; Dual: M = 4.39, 95% CI [4.15, 4.63]) than among those with insufficient opportunity (General: M = 3.77, 95% CI [3.65, 3.89]; Dual: M = 3.88, 95% CI [3.47, 4.29]). Similarly, for Inclusive Instruction, higher self-efficacy was reported by participants who had sufficient opportunity (General: M = 4.79, 95% CI [4.63, 4.95]; Dual: M = 4.91, 95% CI [4.70, 5.12]) compared to those with insufficient opportunity (General: M = 4.10, 95% CI [4.00, 4.20]; Dual: M = 4.34, 95% CI [3.97, 4.71]). In the domain of Collaboration, the same trend emerged: participants with sufficient opportunity reported significantly stronger self-efficacy (General: M = 4.84, 95% CI [4.63, 5.05]; Dual: M = 5.21, 95% CI [5.01, 5.41]) than those with insufficient opportunity (General: M = 4.28, 95% CI [4.16, 4.40]; Dual: M = 4.44, 95% CI [3.91, 4.97]). No main effects of Program Type or interaction effects between Program Type and Opportunity to Learn were observed across any of the dimensions (p > 0.05), indicating that program enrollment (general or dual) alone was not a significant predictor of self-efficacy. These results suggest that the opportunity to learn to teach inclusive practices plays a more critical role in shaping self-efficacy than the type of TE program itself. Consistent with these findings, the main effect of Opportunity to Learn was confirmed through Welch’s 2 × 2 ANOVA for each subscale: Managing Behavior, WJ(3, 326) = 28.55, p = 0.000, η² = 0.076; Inclusive Instruction, WJ(3, 326) = 30.29, p = 0.000, η² = 0.092; and Collaboration, WJ (3, 326) = 21.79, p = 0.000, η² = 0.068 (see Figure 2). These effect sizes indicate large practical significance and underscore the importance of providing structured and meaningful opportunities to learn to teach inclusive strategies to prepare pre-service teachers. After Bonferroni adjustment, only the main effects of Opportunity to Learn to Teach for Managing Behavior and Inclusive Instruction remained statistically significant (adjusted p < 0.01), while the effect for Collaboration, although in the expected direction, was no longer significant at the corrected alpha level. This indicates that having sufficient opportunity to learn to teach inclusive practices significantly increases pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy in these areas, independent of program type and that Opportunity to Learn modulates the relationship between program type and self-efficacy for inclusion. No significant interactions or program-level differences were found after correction. A more detailed description of item-level findings is provided in Appendix A.

5. Discussion

This study examined the perceived self-efficacy for inclusion among pre-service elementary school teachers in the United States and Spain, focusing on how self-efficacy varied based on the type of teacher preparation program and opportunities to learn inclusive teaching. As a preliminary step, the construct validity and factor invariance of the TEIP scale across countries were assessed, acknowledging the potential need for adapting measurement instruments in new contexts or languages. Single-group CFA analyses evaluated the fit of the 15-item, 3-factor TEIP model for both Spanish and U.S. samples, followed by multi-group CFA to test measurement invariance across the two groups. Results supported the TEIP as a valid and reliable measure of self-efficacy for inclusive teaching, with a consistent 3-factor structure across both country samples. Evidence of configural and metric invariance indicated that Spanish and U.S. pre-service teachers conceptualized self-efficacy similarly and interpreted the scale items equivalently. However, full scalar invariance was not achieved, suggesting differences in how respondents from each country rated their self-efficacy levels. Despite this, partial scalar invariance permits cross-national comparisons with appropriate caution, as full invariance is rarely attained in practice.

The study found that pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusion was moderate, particularly in classroom behavior management and in using inclusive instructional practices. This aligns with participants’ reports of insufficient preparation in inclusive education. Notably, 50% of U.S. and 34% of Spanish respondents (enrolled in a dual certification vs. general TE program, respectively) indicated they lacked sufficient opportunities to learn inclusive teaching, while 61% in the United States (dual TE program) and 92% in Spain (general TE program) expressed a need for more diversity and inclusion content in their programs. Respondents emphasized the importance of practical, hands-on learning experiences over theoretical instruction. These findings reinforce existing literature highlighting the gap between initial teacher education and the demands of inclusive education. Considering these results, more practical experiences in inclusive classrooms, alongside coursework on individualized instruction, accommodations, and content adaptation, are needed to better prepare pre-service teachers to meet the diverse needs of all students.

Our findings also reveal significant differences in perceptions of self-efficacy for inclusion between Spanish and U.S. respondents. Specifically, Spanish elementary pre-service teachers, who followed a general TE program, consistently reported lower confidence in their ability to manage classroom behavior, implement inclusive teaching practices, and collaborate with colleagues and families compared to their U.S. counterparts, who were enrolled in a dual certification TE program. This outcome is expected due to two primary factors: first, special and inclusive education is more deeply embedded in teacher education programs in the United States than in Spain; second, U.S. respondents were enrolled in a dual certification program covering both general and special/inclusive education, whereas Spanish participants were trained solely in general education. These findings support those of Alsarawi and Sukonthaman (2023) and Woodcock et al. (2023), who found that pre-service teachers’ attitudes, knowledge, and sense of self-efficacy about inclusion contribute to predicting teachers’ efficacy to use inclusive instruction strategies, collaborate with others, and manage students’ disruptive behaviors. However, these results contrast with those of Kim (2011), who concluded that while the type of TE program influences attitudes toward inclusion, it does not significantly impact teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practice. This discrepancy suggests that additional factors may contribute to the observed differences beyond program type. Variables such as coursework hours dedicated to diversity and inclusion, the conceptualization of inclusive education, and the historical and institutional traditions surrounding inclusion may all play a role. Further research is needed to examine how these variables can influence teacher self-efficacy in inclusive practices.

A closer examination of individual items on the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) scale highlights specific areas where pre-service elementary school teachers may require further development. With the exception of four items—Item 2 (“Provide alternative explanations”), Item 15 (“Work jointly with other professionals”), Item 17 (“Make parents feel comfortable when they come to school”), and Item 18 (“Collaborate in designing educational plans”)—which received scores of 5 or close to 5, respondents did not demonstrate sufficient mastery of key competencies for effective inclusion. This information can inform curriculum development in elementary teacher education programs, ensuring that identified gaps in self-efficacy are addressed. Faculty members should determine how and where these competencies can be effectively integrated into coursework and training experiences. Several frameworks can guide this process, including the Inclusion Practice Project in Scotland (Florian & Rouse, 2009), the National Council for Special Education’s (NCSE, 2019) Initial Teacher Education for Inclusion Project in Ireland, and Villegas et al. (2017) framework for preparing inclusive educators.

Another significant finding in this study is that, regardless of the type of TE program, self-efficacy for inclusive practice was strongly influenced by opportunities to learn inclusive teaching methods. Our data indicates that respondents who reported sufficient opportunities to learn inclusive teaching strategies during their initial training exhibited significantly higher self-efficacy than those who reported insufficient opportunities. This finding supports previous research by Shani and Hebel (2016) and Lucas and Frazier (2014), reinforcing the argument that (1) coursework on inclusion and practicum experiences involving direct engagement with diverse learners are essential components of quality teacher education and that (2) inclusive education must be embedded across all teacher preparation programs, regardless of specialization. Furthermore, our findings also reinforce our expectation that a general TE program that offers sufficient opportunities to learn about inclusive teaching can foster levels of self-efficacy comparable to those achieved in dual certification programs. This suggests that targeted coursework and extensive hands-on experience may compensate for the absence of dual certification. Conversely, a dual program that lacks adequate opportunities—such as structured learning experiences or field-based practice—may fall short of cultivating the full self-efficacy potential of its graduates. As highlighted in the literature, without intentional preparation in inclusive practices, even specialized programs may not adequately equip future teachers to implement inclusive strategies effectively (Florian, 2012; Florian & Rouse, 2009; Forlin & Sin, 2010; Jordan et al., 2010).

5.1. Implications

These findings have several implications for both practice and research. First, we recommend expanding data collection to include a larger and more diverse sample of pre-service teachers from multiple institutions in the United States and Spain. A broader dataset would allow for more generalizable conclusions regarding self-efficacy for inclusion among pre-service elementary teachers in these countries. Additionally, it would be beneficial to survey general education teachers from other educational levels (e.g., early childhood and secondary education) and special education pre-service teachers, who collaborate with general educators to support diverse student needs. A mixed-methods approach, incorporating both surveys and interviews, would provide deeper insight into teacher self-efficacy for inclusion from multiple perspectives. Second, further research is needed to analyze the content and structure of teacher preparation programs in greater depth. It is crucial to examine not only the presence of inclusive education coursework but also its quality, content, and delivery methods. Understanding how pre-service teachers are prepared to integrate students with diverse educational needs into general classrooms will help identify the most effective instructional strategies. Future studies should investigate which curricular components contribute most to fostering self-efficacy in inclusive teaching and explore different models for delivering this content, such as specialized courses on inclusion strategies and field experiences in inclusive classrooms. Third, our findings underscore the critical importance of providing sufficient opportunities for pre-service teachers to develop self-efficacy in inclusive teaching. Teacher preparation programs should prioritize learning experiences that enable pre-service teachers to acquire and refine essential competencies, particularly in behavior management, inclusive instructional strategies, and collaborative teamwork (Beaton et al., 2021). Structured practicum experiences in inclusive settings, guided by well-prepared mentor teachers, could further support the development of these skills.

5.2. Limitations

This study has several limitations that should be considered for an adequate interpretation of the results. First, data collection was limited to two TE institutions with two different TE paths, which may reduce the generalizability of the findings to other educational contexts with diverse TE programs. Additionally, the sample was imbalanced in terms of gender distribution, with a higher proportion of female respondents, which may further limit representativeness. Given the diversity of TE programs worldwide, replicating this study in other countries with the same or other diverse TE paths may yield different and valuable insights. Second, our data rely on self-reported survey responses. Considering the socially sensitive nature of the topic, participants may have provided responses they perceived as aligning with prevailing educational norms rather than their genuine beliefs about their self-efficacy in inclusive settings. Moreover, the use of closed-ended survey questions may have constrained respondents’ ability to fully articulate their experiences and perspectives. Future research incorporating qualitative methods such as interviews could provide a more comprehensive understanding of pre-service teachers’ self-efficacy and identify specific factors that influence its development. Third, this study assessed self-efficacy for inclusion at a general level without controlling for potential moderating variables, except opportunity to learn to teach inclusively, such as the number of hours dedicated to special/inclusive education coursework, conceptual understanding of inclusion, or the quality of teacher education programs. Future research should explore how these variables may influence pre-service teachers’ self-perceptions of efficacy and document their impact empirically. Finally, as this study employed a non-experimental, cross-sectional comparative 2 × 2 factorial design without repeated measures, additional methodological limitations must be acknowledged. A key limitation of this design is the lack of experimental control. Without random assignment, it is difficult to ensure that groups are equivalent in all relevant variables, increasing the risk that extraneous (confounding) factors may influence the results. This is closely related to internal validity concerns, as the absence of a rigorous experimental framework limits the ability to establish causal relationships definitively. Selection bias, historical effects, and other threats to internal validity may impact the findings. Additionally, without repeated measures, this study cannot capture dynamic effects or changes over time in the same participants, restricting the ability to analyze how self-efficacy evolves throughout teacher preparation. Similarly, the non-experimental nature of the study makes it challenging to control for unmeasured or unknown extraneous variables that could influence the relationship between independent and dependent variables. Although a factorial design allows for the examination of main effects and interactions, the absence of longitudinal data or additional controls over time complicates the interpretation of interactions and increases the risk of misattributing effects. Consequently, generalizability remains a concern, as the findings may be influenced by the specific characteristics of the sample and study context, making it difficult to extrapolate results to broader populations or settings. Future studies aiming to strengthen causal inferences in non-experimental research contexts should explore designs that incorporate repeated measures, larger and more diverse samples, and mixed method approaches to provide a deeper and more nuanced understanding of self-efficacy development in inclusive education.

6. Conclusions

This study provides valuable insights into the perceived self-efficacy of pre-service elementary school teachers for inclusive teaching in the United States and Spain. The findings highlight that pre-service elementary teachers enrolled in two different TE programs reported only moderate confidence in their ability to implement inclusive practices, particularly in managing classroom behavior and delivering inclusive instruction. These outcomes underscore the persistent gap between initial teacher education and the practical demands of inclusive education. The descriptive and comparative analysis addressed the two research questions posed, offering key conclusions. First, the study revealed that pre-service elementary teachers in dual certification programs, particularly from the United States, reported significantly higher self-efficacy levels than those in general teacher education programs. This finding indicates that combined/dual certification programs that integrate both general and special education better prepare future teachers to adopt inclusive practices. Second, the opportunity to learn to teach inclusively emerged as a critical factor influencing self-efficacy perceptions. Regardless of the type of program, pre-service teachers who reported sufficient opportunities for learning inclusive practices demonstrated significantly higher self-efficacy. This highlights the importance of practical, hands-on learning experiences during teacher education.

Although concerns remain regarding the lack of full scalar invariance of the TEIP scale across the two samples and the violation of homogeneity of variance assumptions across opportunity groups, these findings—interpreted with appropriate caution—contribute meaningfully to the growing body of evidence supporting the integration of more comprehensive, practice-oriented inclusive education content within teacher preparation programs. Future research should continue to investigate how the quality, duration, and design of inclusive education training influence self-efficacy outcomes. To advance inclusive education effectively, TE programs must prioritize experiential learning opportunities, such as practicum placements in inclusive classrooms, alongside coursework that emphasizes individualized instruction and collaborative practices. Embedding inclusive principles throughout the curriculum, while ensuring sufficient practical experiences, will enhance the capacity of pre-service teachers to address the diverse needs of all learners—aligning with the broader objectives of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4): inclusive and equitable quality education for all.