DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/empati.2025.52660

MAPPING THE TEACHERS' PSYCHOLOGICAL COMPETENCIES: A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF COGNITIVE AND SOCIO-EMOTIONAL DOMAINS

1Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Sebelas Maret, , Indonesia

2Jl. Ir. Sutami No.36, Jebres, Kec. Jebres, Kota Surakarta, Jawa Tengah 57126, Indonesia

Available online: 30 Aug 2025; Published: 29 Sep 2025.

Citation Format:
Abstract

The increasing demands of inclusive education have revealed critical gaps in pre-service teachers' psychological preparedness, necessitating a systematic investigation of core competency domains and their development trends. This study aims to address this gap by systematically analyzing 42 years (1983-2025) of global research on pre-service teachers' psychological competencies. Using bibliometric methods, we examined 911 Scopus-indexed publications with VOSviewer for co-citation and keyword co-occurrence analysis. This study identified four pivotal competency areas: (1) Emotional Regulation and Well-being (Clusters 2 & 5), highlighting the need for stress management and resilience training to address burnout risks; (2) Self-Efficacy and Professional Identity (Clusters 2 & 6), emphasizing cultural competence and reflective practices for diverse classrooms; (3) Cognitive-Metacognitive Strategies (Cluster 4), where self-regulated learning and adaptive teaching significantly enhance instructional outcomes; and (4) Motivational Competencies (Cluster 7), focusing on intrinsic motivation and autonomy-supportive techniques to sustain engagement. These findings provide a roadmap for integrating these four competency domains into teacher training programs, offering actionable insights for developing psychologically resilient educators equipped for inclusive education demands.

Fulltext View|Download Email colleagues
Keywords: teacher psychological competencies; emotional regulation; metacognition; motivational strategies; inclusive education

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Articles
Language : EN
  1. Ainscow, M., & Miles, S. (2008). Making education for all inclusive: Where next? Prospects, 37(1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-008-9055-0
  2. Ainscow, M., Slee, R., & Best, M. (2019). The Salamanca Statement: 25 years on. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7-8), 671–676. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1622800
  3. Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250210129056
  4. Brackett, M. A., & Katulak, N. A. (2007). Emotional intelligence in the classroom: Skill-based training for teachers and students. In J. Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Applying emotional intelligence (pp. 1–27). Psychology Press
  5. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
  6. Ebersold, S., Schmitt, M. J., & Priestley, M. (2016). Inclusive education for young disabled people in Europe: Trends, issues and challenges. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 31(4), 437–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1223441
  7. European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education. (2017). Teacher education for inclusion across Europe: Challenges and opportunities. https://www.european-agency.org
  8. Florian, L. (2014). What counts as evidence of inclusive education? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(3), 286–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2014.933551
  9. Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
  10. Mitchell, D. (2015). Inclusive education is a multi-faceted concept. Routledge
  11. Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. J. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. Profesional de la Información, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03
  12. OECD. (2017). The OECD handbook for innovative learning environments. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264277274-en
  13. OECD. (2018). Teaching for the future: Effective classroom practices to transform education. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264293243-en
  14. OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en
  15. OECD. (2020). Teachers as designers of learning environments: The importance of innovative pedagogies. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264085374-en
  16. OECD. (2021). Education at a glance 2021: OECD indicators. https://doi.org/10.1787/b35a14e5-en
  17. Schleicher, A. (2018). World class: How to build a 21st-century school system. OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264300002-en
  18. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411
  19. UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report 2020: Inclusion and education – All means all. UNESCO
  20. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. United Nations
  21. Waitoller, F. R., & Artiles, A. J. (2013). A decade of professional development research for inclusive education: A critical review and notes for a research program. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 319–356. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313483905
  22. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update:

No citation recorded.