The preceptions of pre and in-service teachers' self-efficacy regarding inlcusive practices: A systematised review

This study fundamental purpose is to explore pre and in-service teachers’ perceptions of selfefficacy regarding inclusive practices, as assessed through employing the TEIP (Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices) scale. This study was conducted by means of a systematised review. As preand inservice teachers’ self-efficacy can influence the quality of inclusive education, the researcher investigated studies that have addressed this issue in-depth. Eight databases were searched during this study, and 24 peer reviewed articles in which the TEIP scale was used, from 2012 to 2018, were selected for inclusion. The perceptions of preand in-service teachers’ selfefficacy towards inclusive education were examined through using the TEIP scale’s three sub-dimensions. The results show that the perceptions of preand in-service teachers’ self-efficacy towards inclusive education are associated with teachers’ field experience, age of teacher, level currently teaching, length of training, knowledge of local legislation, confidence in teaching significant interaction with disabled students, gender, level of education, different countries’ perspectives, attitude and subject major.


INTRODUCTION
Inclusion practice is based on the reality that all children vary in a number of aspects which is not restricted to their handicap and that educational institutions have to adapt their practices according to the children's needs (Kinsella and Senior, 2008;Oliver, 1990). The perspective of inclusion suggests that if a student encounters a challenge, it is related to school practices rather than the child as there are many schools that aim to meet student needs. Implementation of inclusive education requires effort and meaningful improvements in the manner in which teachers practise teaching in the classroom. Inclusive education does not only mean that children who have learning difficulties take lessons in normal education classes. Researchers state that placement is only one aspect of inclusion (Winter, 2006). It is related to the feature of school experience, as well as to what degree students are supported to achieve at school life (DfES, 2004, p12).
Teacher training based programmes are responsible for equipping novice teachers with skills and knowledge to include all students irrespective of individual differences (Winter, 2006). One of the effective ways to determine if pre-service instructors are ready to encounter this hardship is to inquire their conceived self-efficacy to represent inclusive applications.
For Bandura (1997), instructors' conceived efficiency impacts not only the surrounding that instructors generate for the learners but also their evaluations as regards to the multiple teaching approaches they might adopt to enhance student learning. Within the framework of this inclusive teaching scheme, an instructor with higher self-efficacy in representing mainstreaming applications would assume that children with specific requirements might be Malinen et al., 2012), it is crucial to investigate further how to promote teachers' self-efficacy when it comes to preparing teachers for success in inclusive classrooms.
The problem is that although teachers' self-efficacy beliefs have been related to positive student outcomes (Ying, Connor, Yanyun, Roehrig and Morrison, 2012) and teacher effectiveness (Gibbs and Powell, 2012), there is still a gap in our understanding of how selfefficacy is built in teachers, and it is necessary that all teachers are prepared to teach and accommodate special needs students in their classrooms (Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Orsati, and Cosier, 2011). High teacher self-efficacy levels are a meaningful element for all teachers to have, whether they teach special education or general education (Lee, Patterson and Vega, 2011). The specific problem is that the success of general education teachers regarding inclusive practices may be low. As teachers do not have sufficient self-efficacy levels to provide the success of such a programme (McCray and McHatton, 2011), the inclusion setting is unsuccessful. As a result, students with special needs might not benefit academically in an inclusive educational setting (Sharma, Loreman and Forlin, 2012).
Inclusive education has become an important trend in recent years. Many developed countries such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada have legislation underlining the importance of inclusive education practices for instructing learners with different requirements in classrooms. Likewise, a number of progressing countries have developed legislations which aid the wider principles of inclusive teaching to equip pupils with specific needs (Kuyini and Desai, 2007;Wu-Tien, Ashman and Yong-Wook, 2008). This transformation in students' needs at the classroom level during this time period has also made it a necessity for higher education to alter their instructor education methods (Nougaret, Scruggs and Mastropieri, 2005).
In the current project, pre-and in-service teachers' perceptions of self-efficacy towards mainstreaming practices and the factors which influence them will be investigated through a systematised review. It is anticipated that this research -in the context of the presented and discussed data -will be useful in directing future research and providing information about inservice training programmes.
In this dissertation, the aim is to investigate systematically the self-efficacy of teachers and teacher candidates (undergoing initial teacher education) in mainstreaming practices using the TEIP scale . The review will examine the following research questions: 1-What is the level of self-efficacy perceptions of pre-service teachers with regards to inclusive practices? 2-What is the level of self-efficacy perceptions of teachers with regards to inclusive practices?
3-What are the variables that determine the self-efficacy of in-service and pre-service teachers in inclusive practices?

Scientific Procedure
A systematic review is a review of an obviously formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to describe, distinguish, and appraise relevant research critically, and to collect and analyse data from studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (metaanalysis) might or might not be used to analyse and summarize the outcomes of the included studies. Meta-analysis attributes the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review for putting together the results of the included studies (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman and the PRISMA Group, 2009). Systematic reviews differ from traditional narrative reviews, such as systematised reviews, in different ways. Narrative reviews are inclined to be more phenomenological, do not cover a planned inquiry of the literature, and therefore frequently centre upon a subset of studies in an area selected on the grounds of availability or author selection. Thus, narrative reviews, while informative, might often involve a factor of selection bias. They might also cause confusion at times, especially given that same studies have variant consequences. Systematic reviews, as the name implies, usually consist of a detailed and comprehensive plan and search strategy derived a priori, with the aim of minimizing bias by describing, appraising, and synthesising all relevant studies on a particular topic. In general, systematic reviews contain a meta-analysis facet, which requires employing statistical ways of data collection to synthesise the data from various research items into a sole quantitative measure or summary impact size (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). Restricting studies for inclusion to a single study design, such as randomised controlled trials, may limit the application of this methodology to provide insights about effectiveness rather than seeking answers to more complex search questions; for instance, why a particular intervention is effective (Grant and Booth, 2009).
Systematised reviews undertake an enterprise to comprise one or more components of the systematic review process while stopping short of claiming that the resultant output is a systematic review. For the most part, the search stage possesses more easily defined factors of systematicity, and an author can conduct a comprehensive search; however, the researcher can do little more than simply cataloguing included studies. On the contrary, the author may only search one or more databases, and then code and analyse all of the retrieved results in a systematic manner. The resulting output 'models' the systematic review process and helps the author to demonstrate an awareness of whole process and technical proficiency in the component steps. Such a review, however, necessarily falls short of being able to claim the comprehensiveness so basic to the systematic review method. For such reviews, quality assessment and synthesis might be less definable. This means that these processes are not identified, that they are modelled using a small set of eligible articles, or that they are missing completely. While the attempt at systematicity is to be well-received, such reviews do possess a greater likelihood of bias than those that stay connected most certainly to guidelines on the conduct of systematic reviews (Grant and Booth, 2009).
This study was conducted relying on a systematised review which focused on a number of articles, in respect of the research questions. One advantage of conducting a systematised literature review is that only relevant articles were chosen for the study in order to increase the validity of the research project. Systematized review leads to involve components of the systematic review process while stopping short of a systematic review. This specifically refers to reviews compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document (Grant and Booth, 2009, p95).
This review is reported according to the PRISMA guidelines for the conduct and reporting of systematised reviews. The aim of the PRISMA statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. On the other hand, the PRISMA checklist is not a quality assessment instrument used to gauge the quality of a systematic review (Moher et al., 2009). In this study, however, PRISMA has been used since the first step of the systematic review, taking into account the fact that it is a much more accurate approach to fulfilling the requirements of the research methodology.

Study Selection
A total of 24 studies were identified for inclusion in the review. However, the included studies were not rated for quality or risk of bias. As systematised reviews are generally descriptive, it did not contain a systematic inquiry of the related literature. For this reason, even though the systematised review was quite informative, it can usually involve a factor of selection bias. Moreover, since the systematised review did not include a meta-analysis, the quality of the included studies could not be checked. The search strategy of using the PsycINFO, MEDLINE, ERIC, Academic Search Complete, Social Sciences Citation Index, Complementary Index Science Direct, Pro Quest and Academic OneFile databases yielded 172 results. Following the removal of duplicates, 115 studies remained. 61 studies were excluded through reviewing the titles and abstracts, as these studies did not meet the inclusion criteria. The full text of the remaining 54 studies was examined, and 24 were considered relevant and met the inclusion criteria. Prior to the searches, the researcher limited the search engines to the last seven years, namely from 2012 to 2018. Apart from this, all of the articles that were selected for the study had to be peer reviewed. Moreover, the fact that they are reviewed by different researchers prior to being published reduces bias (Kelt, n.d). On the contrary, only relying on published work causes publication bias. Publication bias is derived from statistically significant selected published results (Normand, 1999). In this regard, the specific concern is that journals tend to reject studies which have statistically insignificant results. In other words, the probability of the publication of studies with statistically significant results is higher, which causes a bias in published literature, and then this bias is reflected in the literature-based studies (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins and Rothstein, 2009). The first step in reducing the risk of publication bias is to have information from the researcher's unpublished research. Therefore, it is necessary for the researcher to reach as many studies as possible, and to add all studies involving meaningful or meaningless findings (Borenstein et al., 2009;Normand, 1999;Rosenthal and DiMatteo, 2001;Stuebing, Barth, Molfese, Weiss and Fletcher, 2009). Figure 1 outlines the PRISMA flow diagram of the processes for study inclusion. Full-text articles excluded (n= 30) Teacher self-efficacy for ınclusive practices not an outcome variable ( n = 10) The structural validity of the TEIP scale (n = 8) Qualitative study ( n = 3) Conference presentation (n = 5) Systematic review (n=1) Commentary paper (n=3)

Inclusion criteria
Reports eligible for inclusion in the review were limited to peer-reviewed journal articles, reported in the English language, and published between January 2012 and June 2018. As the TEIP scale was published in 2012, the articles included in the study were selected starting from 2012. Participants were limited to pre-service and in-service teachers, and no age, gender, level of professional degree, area of training or level of teacher education programmes (or level currently teaching) factors were considered for exclusion. Some studies have also discussed other variables such as teachers' attitudes or behaviours regarding inclusive practices, apart from the variable of teachers' self-efficacy perceptions towards inclusive practices. In this case, only those parts that have predicted the self-efficacy perceptions of teachers towards inclusive education were included in the research.

Exclusion criteria
As this study did not allow for doing a wider search of the grey literature, due to the time, resources and word limitation of the dissertation, qualitative studies were not included. Moreover, conference presentations, studies in which teacher self-efficacy in terms of inclusive practices is not an outcome variable, studies reporting the structural validity of the TEIP scale, and qualitative studies have been excluded. Because the purpose of the research is to determine the self-efficacy perceptions of the teachers, studies involving only teacher self-efficacy without inclusive education settings have not been included in the study.

Search Strategy
A comprehensive search was conducted to identify and collate all relevant articles and theses that could be included and synthesized within the review. Studies were identified through systematically searching electronic databases for research articles, and hand-searching the reference lists of relevant articles. Search terms were applied to the PsycINFO, MEDLINE, ERIC, Academic Search Complete, Social Sciences Citation Index, Complementary Index Science Direct, Pro Quest and Academic OneFile databases. The last search was conducted on June 20th, 2018. A full strategy is shown in Figure 2.
Databases: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, ERIC, Academic Search Complete, Social Sciences Citation Index, Complementary Index Science Direct, Pro Quest and Academic OneFile databases. Search: 'Teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices' OR 'teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices (TEIP)' AND 'in-service teacher' AND 'pre-service teacher' AND 'initial teacher education' Limiters: All in English, January 2012 to June 2018, Journal articles FIGURE 2. The full search strategy

Teacher Self-Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) Scale
The TEIP scale, which was developed by Sharma, Loreman and Forlin, (2012), contains 18 questions investigating various dimensions of self-efficacy for readiness to teach in inclusive settings. Three dimensions of teaching efficacy-efficacy to use inclusive instruction (EII), to efficacy in collaboration (EC) and to efficacy in managing behaviour (EMB) are evaluated by this 18 item scale. Each dimension covers six items in that the scale employs the following ranking: 1= strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= disagree somewhat, 4= agree somewhat, 5= agree, and 6= strongly agree. Sharma et al. (2012) reported the reliability coefficient (Cronbach's alpha) of the overall scale r= 0.89. The total score value may range from 18 to 108. When TEIP is considered, teachers' self-efficacy perceptions, which can be classified as high, moderate and low, are determined by the arithmetic mean. Higher scores on the TEIP suggest that a respondent is slightly more effective when teaching students with diverse learning needs in an inclusive classroom. Teachers 'replies on the three components supply an overview on their teaching efficacy from the point of all their students. In an attempt to comprehend how productive an instructor is in teaching a student (e.g. one with significant learning needs), the scale might be employed by considering the learning requirements of a specific student when reacting to every item (Loreman, Sharma and Forlin, 2013). That no qualitative data were gathered was a limitation of the scale, since the most significant objective was to form a scale for quantitatively measuring instructing productivity .
A teacher's ability to encourage inclusion in early childhood classrooms is a significant element which directly contributes to the teacher's effectiveness, although many teachers view themselves as inadequately prepared to support children's learning in inclusive settings (Darling-Hammond, 2006;Dozier and Berlotti, 2000). With the TEIP scale , this aspect of teacher self-efficacy is measured by items related to the EII scale. Some sample items in the sub-scale that measures efficacy in instruction (e.g. 'I am confident in designing learning tasks so that the individual needs of students with disabilities are accommodated; I can accurately gauge student comprehension of what I have taught').
Another sub-scale measured by the TEIP scale  is EMB. This sub-scale represents the perception that teacher's self-efficacy with regards to inclusion structures learners' success and behaviours just like instructors' behaviours and classroom leadership (Ahsan et al., 2012;Gibson and Dembo, 1984;Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001). The items in the sub-scale that measure efficacy in managing behaviour (e.g. 'I can control disruptive behaviour in the classroom; I am confident in my ability to prevent disruptive behaviour in the classroom before it occurs') concern mainly with a conceived competency to block and deal with disruptive learner attitude. It is necessary to be aware that solely one item in the instruction and leadership attitude sub-scales hints somewhat on instructing learners with specific needs. The other items in these two sub-scales display applications that could be the component of any general evaluation of teacher self-efficacy. That's why several inclusive education applications are highly common methods that are practical with respect to all learners from diverse educational settings (Mitchell, 2008).
The third sub-scale in the TEIP scale is EC. Collaboration between pre-service teachers validates and expands their knowledge of content and pedagogy, factors that enhance teachers' perceptions of self-efficacy (Guo et al., 2011). From the three TEIP sub-scales, EC is most closely linked to students with special needs. Most of the items in this sub-scale involve SEN pupils (e.g. 'I can assist families in helping their children do well in school; I am confident in my ability to get parents involved in school activities of their children with disabilities'). It also requires participants to judge their efficacy to coordinate with families, co-workers and other professionals when instructing pupils requiring special needs.

Overview of Results
A total of 24 studies were identified for the views of pre and in-service teachers on self-efficacy towards inclusive learning. Four studies out of 24 were cross-country studies. While one of the four studies sampled Finland and South Africa, the others sampled China, Finland and South Africa, Pakistan and Australia, and Italy and Australia. In the remaining 20 studies, three were conducted in Canada, two in Bangladesh, and two in Hong Kong. The remaining studies were conducted in China, Mexico, the United States of America (USA), Italy, Pakistan, the Republic of Ireland, Nicaragua, the United Kingdom (UK), Japan, Australia and Turkey. Two of the studies were done on the basis of the continent instead of the country. In one of these studies, 20 countries were selected as the sample. The samples considered in terms of continents were Europe, America, Asia, Australia and Africa. 17 of the studies were quantitative and used a cross-sectional design, whereas four of them were coursework studies, and three of them were mixed-method studies.14 of the studies were conducted with in-service teachers, and nine of them were conducted with pre-service teachers. However, one of the studies referred to both pre-service and in-service teachers.

The Results of the Examined Articles
The results are based on a narrative synthesis of the investigated studies. In other words, data synthesis was fulfilled by a narrative (vote counting) approach. A variety of terms are occasionally used to describe analyses in reviews when statistical methods (meta-analyses) are not used. These include 'qualitative syntheses and 'narrative syntheses. Neither of these terms is well defined nor appropriate as part of reviews of influences, which are seldom, if ever, nonquantitative or grounded on words or telling a story. An alternative term that might be used, if required, is a 'structured syntheses. This term may be used whether meta-analysis is used for some comparisons and outcomes or not at all. The analytic approach to a review of effects is similar with or without the use of meta-analysis; the difference between them is that the researcher does not used statistical methods in order to summarise the results.
There are some reasons for not calculating an average effect across studies. The first is missing information (e.g. unit of analysis errors and no reported intra-cluster correlations (ICCs) in reviews of cluster randomised trials). Secondly, unexplained heterogeneity can make the average effect difficult to interpret and potentially misleading. Finally, there are differences in populations, interventions, comparisons or methods that would make the average effect across studies meaningless. The results are shown in Figure 3.

Study Citation
Country of origin and Sample Study design, Predictor measure

Discussion of Pre-Service Teachers' Perception of Self-Efficacy Rely on Sub-Scales Regarding Inclusive Practices
Three of the studies included in the systematised review have illustrated that pre-service teachers showed the highest perception of self-efficacy towards mainstreaming practices in EII (Douglas, Moore andStoltz, 2013-2014;Hecht, Aiello, Pace and Sibilio, 2017;Peebles and Sal Mendaglio, 2014) compared to the other sub-scales, followed by EMB (Ahsan et al., 2012;Hecht et al., 2017;Specht, McGhie-Richmond, Loreman et al., 2016). The lowest self-efficacy was found in the EC sub-scales (Ahsan et al., 2012;Hecht et al., 2017;Peebles and Sal Mendaglio, 2014). Collaboration is important to providing a good service for children with a SEN statement in educational settings. It is essential that all teachers, teaching assistants and parents should be aware of disabled children's needs in order to develop logical strategies for both the school and home environments. Therefore, there has emerged a need to give importance to the establishment of training programmes for pre-service teachers to develop collaboration skills in order to improve their perceptions of self-efficacy towards inclusive practices.
Previous experience in communicating with disabled people is related to higher selfefficacy among pre-service teachers. Most teacher license programmes require pre-service teachers to spend time observing in-service teachers, teaching lessons, managing behaviours, collaborating, and reflecting on actual teaching situations that help develop the self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service teachers before they are licensed and are responsible for their own classrooms (Stephenson, ONeill and Carter, 2012). When pre-service teachers observe inservice teachers' teaching skills, their self-efficacy levels towards inclusive practices tend to increase (Loreman et al., 2013). Significant interactions and being in the final two years of study can also influence an increase in self-efficacy for pre-service teachers (Romero-Countreras, Garcia-Cedillo, Forlin and Lomeli-Hernandez, 2013). For this reason, in order to increase the perception of teachers' self-efficacy towards inclusive practices, it is necessary to increase the amount of time that teachers spend with their special needs students. In this regard, through the training of teachers at university, prolonging the amount of practical training which they have completed in inclusive classes can contribute to the increase in self-efficacy perceptions of teachers towards inclusive practices. In addition, the most important reason underlying the fact that students in the last two years of university are more likely to have higher self-efficacy regarding mainstreaming practices may be an increase in the information they possess about students with disabilities. As the education level increases, the knowledge of legislation about students with disabilities will also be increased, as well as increasing the teachers' knowledge and competence towards training for students with special needs. This situation illustrates the effectiveness of the curriculum in promoting positive attitudes, high self-efficacy and tolerance with regards to inclusive practices.
Moreover, even though gender was not a significant factor in determining the grade of self-efficacy, men scored higher than women in the behaviour management sub-scale (Ahsan et al., 2012). However, a weak correlation was found between age range and EMB (Hecht et al., 2017). Furthermore, the participants of two-year post-degree programmes indicated higher self-efficacy for managing behaviour and collaboration than those in the one-year post-degree and five-year first-degree programmes. Finally, more than 30 days' experience teaching students with special needs illustrated higher scores on all three TEIP sub-scales (Specht et al., 2016). The results suggest that the increment in pre-service teachers' practical training experience regarding students with special needs will help to improve teachers' perceptions of self-efficacy towards inclusive practices.

Discussion of In-Service Teachers' Perceptions of Self-Efficacy Rely on Sub-Scales Regarding Inclusive Practices
The six studies included in the systematised review have illustrated that in-service teachers demonstrated the highest perception of self-efficacy towards mainstreaming practices in EII compared to the other sub-scales (Delkamiller, Swain, Leader-Janssen and Ritzman, 2013;Ekins, Savolainen and Engelbrecht, 2016;Hosford and O'Sullivan, 2016;Montgomery and Mirenda, 2014;Tasnuba and Tsokova, 2015), followed by EMB (Ekins et al., 2016;Forlin et al., 2014;.The lowest self-efficacy was observed in the collaboration sub-scale (Ekins et al., 2016;Tasnuba and Tsokova, 2015). These results demonstrate that both pre-and in-service teachers had similar self-efficacy perceptions in the three sub-scales of the TEIP scale, namely collaboration, managing behaviour, and inclusive instructions. Additionally, it seemed that pre-service teachers continue to have the same perceptions of self-efficacy which they have for inclusive practices after starting to provide teaching services. However, as a result of the increased teaching experience, it is expected that self-efficacy towards inclusive practices will increase in all of the TEIP sub-scales.
There was a positive correlation between special education in-service teachers and the collaboration sub-scale. Mainstreaming teachers showed the highest self-efficacy in managing behaviour. It appears that since mainstreaming teachers have taken a more comprehensive course on applied behaviour analysis at university than the other branch teachers, they may feel more comfortable with behaviour management regarding students with special needs. Additionally, males had greater self-efficacy in managing behaviour compared to their female counterparts (Malinen, Savolainen, Engelbrecht et al., 2013). In this regard, it can be said that men need to show a more authoritarian attitude than females in terms of basic impulse and existence, which leads to this result. Moreover, even if the demographic factor played a role in some of the cases related to behavioural management, Hosford and O'Sullivan (2016) reported a contradictory conclusion, which is that none of the demographic variables were connected with teaching efficacy beliefs. This is because, according to Hosford and O'Sullivan (2016), much more than demographic features, teachers have a strong belief that the availability of school resources, collaborative structures, and teachers' self-efficacy play a greater role regarding the three sub-scales, particularly in managing disruptive behaviour. A positive relationship was also found between the perception of challenging behaviours and confidence in managing them. In this study, it was found that teachers feel confident to manage challenging behaviours when they receive support from the principal and parents, government policy, resource support from home, and collaboration with parents. As a matter of fact, one of the factors affecting the quality of education in schools is the professional work relations between the 'manager-teacher and teacher-teacher'. For this reason, a successful school principal should adopt a participatory approach by sharing the leadership and adding teachers to the management of the school, the planning of the training programme, and the management of expenditures and other policy decisions (Çınkır and Çetin, 2010).
On a side note, according to Ekins et al. (2016), no differences were found between selfefficacy and gender or teachers holding a BA or MA degree. Possibly, the reason for this is that English teachers have found themselves more satisfied with the social-emotional, cognitive and psychological sense in the classroom environment due to the experience and age factors they have. On the other hand, age or teaching experience did not influence the inclusive instructor or managing behaviour sub-scales. There was a positive correlation, however, between the collaboration sub-scale and age or teaching experience, particularly when teachers were working with young peers, on account of the fact that working with young peers helps special education school teachers to increase their collaboration skills in the classroom environment.

Discussion of Variables Affecting Overall Teacher Self-Efficacy Regarding Inclusive Practices
According to the articles, length of training, knowledge of local legislation on disability, confidence in teaching a student with a disability, having significant interaction with disabled students, and level of training all play an important role regarding pre-service teachers's selfefficacy towards mainstreaming practices (Ekins et al., 2016;Peebles and Sal Mendaglio, 2014;Romero-Contreras et al., 2013;Sharma, Shaukat and Furlonger, 2015). On the other hand, it seemed that gender was the weakest predictor of the variables with regards to pre-service teacher's self-efficacy in inclusive education settings, whereas males had a higher level of perceived teaching efficacy compared to females (Ahsan et al., 2012;Romero-Contreras et al., 2013). Moreover, in light of the studies, it appears that subject major was also quite a significant predictor. In other words, a pre-service teacher whose major is special education teaching had higher self-efficacy towards mainstreaming practices compared to general education teachers, possibly due to the familiarity of special education teachers in dealing with students with limited verbal fluency, learning difficulties or any other additional needs.
It was determined that the difference between the scores obtained from the teacher selfefficacy scale and the sub-dimension scores of the mainstreaming practices was found to be statistically significant according to the level of education of the teachers in relation to special education. As this difference is due to the teachers who are educated in terms of special education at the upper level, the scores of the teachers who had received upper level education are higher than the other teachers. In the direction of these findings, it can be said that the education received in terms of applying mainstreaming practices in the classroom environment leads to an increase in the self-efficacy perceptions of teachers regarding inclusive practices. Avradimis, Bayliss and Burden (2000) stated that teachers who have been well-trained in terms of inclusive education and SEN pupils would have better attitudes towards inclusive practices in the educational setting, and thus they would provide more benefit to students. According to the study conducted by Orel, Zerey and Töret (2004), it was stated that the opinions of the teachers who took courses on inclusive education in the undergraduate programme were more positive. These supported the findings of the current research. In many studies, it has been found that the majority of teachers do not have any knowledge about mainstreaming practices, and they are not trained with regards to inclusion and special needs education (Babaoğlan and Yılmaz, 2010;Berry, 2011;Çankaya and Korkmaz, 2012;Çerezci, 2015). Moreover, the scores of teachers who stated that they do not have knowledge about legislation and policy related to special education were found to be significantly lower than the other teachers. On the other hand, the scores of the teachers who defined their knowledge of the legislation and politics of inclusive education as good were higher than the teachers who defined it as weak (Orel et al., 2004).
The research conducted in Australia showed that getting in touch with disabled people really affects the level of pre-service teachers' self-efficacy towards mainstreaming practices. Furthermore, most studies have illustrated that the amount of training, experience, subjects, policy knowledge, confidence in teaching a student with a disability, subject major, working with young peers, primary and special education teachers, gender, professional development training about inclusion and SEN, and demographic variables played an important role regarding in-service teacher's self-efficacy in relation to mainstreaming practices (Sharma and Nuttal, 2016). Nevertheless, studies conducted in Armenia, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Haiti, India, Jordan, Mali, Nicaragua, the Niger Republic, Poland, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, Yemen, and Zambia have revealed that gender, demographic variables, previous training experience with dyslexic students, level of education, being a special education or mainstream schools teacher, years of teaching experience, legislation knowledge, and experience of students with a SEN statement were not significantly important in terms of increasing self-efficacy among in-service teachers (Boynton Hauerwas and Mahon, 2018).

CONCLUSION
The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of pre-and in-service teachers' selfefficacy regarding inclusive practices by using the TEIP scale. In this regard, one of the most noticeable findings in this study was that both pre-and in-service teachers perceived themselves as most adequate in the inclusive instruction sub-scale, compared to the other subscales of the TEIP. This means that pre-and in-service teachers perceived themselves to be sufficient in designing learning tasks to accommodate learners bearing disabilities at school, using a variety of assessment strategies, measuring learner understanding of what they have instructed, supplying proper challenges for highly competent learners, supplying an extra description or clue if learners are puzzled, and getting learners to study in cooperation as pairs or as small groups. Pre and in-service teachers perceived themselves moderately in the behaviour management sub-scale. Conversely, pre-and in-service teachers felt themselves most inadequate in terms of collaboration, compared with the other sub-scales.
The strongest predictor was found to be field experience for pre-service teachers' selfefficacy regarding inclusive applications. Gender was the weakest predictor variable, even though males had a higher grade of perceived teaching productivity compared to females, among the pre-service teachers. It was found that subject major was also an important predictor for pre-service teachers whose major was special education. It was conceived that special education instructors had more self-efficacy with regards to mainstreaming practices compared to general education teachers. Moreover, previous experience in engaging with disabled people illustrated significantly more self-efficacy among pre-service instructors.
It was apparent that special education in-service teachers had higher self-efficacy in the collaboration sub-scale. Mainstreaming teachers demonstrated the greatest self-efficacy regarding the managing behaviour sub-scale. Additionally, males had the highest self-efficacy in managing behaviour in comparison with their female peers. Moreover, school resources, collaborative structures and in-service teacher efficacy beliefs had an important effect with regards to the three sub-scales, specifically in managing disruptive behaviour. A positive correlation was also found between the perception of challenging behaviours and confidence in managing them. Subsequently, the management of challenging behaviours was linked to support from principals and parents, government policy, resource support from home and collaboration with parents. It was seen that there was no similarity between the degree of inservice instructors' with respect to self-efficacy in mainstreaming applications. Furthermore, working with young peers had a meaningful impact in the sense of in-service teachers' selfefficacy. Age or teaching experience, however, did not influence the inclusive instruction or managing behaviour sub-scales. On the other hand, it was observed that there was a positive correlation between the collaboration sub-scale and age or teaching experience. It was shown that special education school teachers and specialist provisions had a degree of importance regarding higher efficacy in collaboration.
According to the included studies, the factors affecting the overall instructor self-efficacy for inclusive applications covering both pre-and in-service instructors contained: experience, length of training, knowledge of local legislation or disability, confidence in teaching a student with a disability, having significant interaction with disabled students, and level of training.
Four academic preparation studies out of the six which were conducted to evaluate the self-efficacy perceptions of pre-service teachers showed that teacher training contributed to the development of pre-service teachers' collaboration, knowledge of legislation, and selfconfidence in teaching skills. On the other hand, two academic preparation studies illustrated that there was no significant differences between pre-and post-test scores in terms of increasing the perception of self-efficacy regarding inclusive practices.
The results of four cross-country studies have shown that teachers' self-efficacy perceptions towards mainstreaming practices differ from country to country. In my opinion, this might be due to different education policies in each country. Additionally, it was concluded that collaboration was an important sub-scale in terms of teachers' self-efficacy regarding mainstreaming practices, and teaching experience was an effective predictor of the collaboration sub-scale.

Recommendations
According to this systematized review's results, it can be suggested that future pre-service and in-service teacher training programmes ought to developed teachers' self-efficacy with an emphasis on it, especially their collaboration skills, as well as training their self-efficacy in behaviour management and inclusive instruction. It might be useful to change teacher training programmes in order to improve the collaboration skill of teachers regarding mainstreaming practices. Therefore, in the direction of the findings of this study, teachers' attitudes can be more favourable regarding inclusive practices if they had faced more proper learning experiences on mainstreaming practices in cooperation with their peer instructor trainees at the time of their first teacher education programmes.