Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study explores the critical role of teacher efficacy in implementing inclusive education (IE) within China, focusing on three key dimensions: providing inclusive instruction, collaborating with colleagues, and managing student behavior. Despite China’s policy-level advancements in IE, challenges persist, particularly in teacher preparedness, confidence, and resource availability. This study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional design, analyzing survey data from 211 primary and secondary school teachers across four Chinese cities (Beijing, Tianjin, Chengdu, and Qingdao). Regression analysis examined how teacher self-efficacy in three core domains—collaboration, inclusive instruction, and behavior management—predicted implementation of inclusive practices. The findings reveal that teacher efficacy in collaboration with colleagues is the strongest predictor of inclusive practices, highlighting the importance of professional cooperation in IE. However, gaps in teacher confidence, particularly in behavior management and instructional adaptation, pose significant barriers to effective inclusion. These insights emphasize the need for targeted professional development programs and policy interventions to enhance teacher readiness for IE. By offering an empirical perspective from a non-Western educational setting, this study contributes to the growing body of literature on IE. The findings hold practical implications for policymakers, teacher training programs, and school leadership, providing strategies to foster a more inclusive educational environment in China.

Plain Language Summary

Teachers Stronger Together: How Collaboration Makes Inclusive Classrooms Work in China

This study investigates how Chinese teachers’ confidence in their abilities affects inclusive education practices. Focusing on three key domains – adapting teaching methods for diverse learners, collaborating with stakeholders, and managing classroom behavior – the research surveyed 211 teachers across four Chinese cities. Findings indicate that confidence in connection emerges as the strongest predictor of successful inclusive practices, surpassing the significance of individual pedagogical skills or behavioral strategies. While China has established progressive inclusive education policies, persistent implementation challenges remain. The data identifies notable deficiencies in teachers’ readiness for curriculum adaptation and behavioral support, even among those with professional training. Current development programs appear overly theoretical, lacking sufficient practical classroom orientation. Key recommendations include institutionalizing structured collaboration opportunities, such as regular co-planning sessions, and redesigning training programs to emphasize applied skills. Systemic improvements, including enhanced access to special education resources, are also suggested. These findings highlight the importance of collaborative frameworks and practical support systems for advancing inclusive education. The study contributes to global discussions on effective inclusion strategies, particularly in non-Western educational contexts facing similar implementation challenges.

Keywords

inclusive education teacher self-efficacy inclusive instructional strategies teacher collaboration behavior management inclusive practices

Introduction

Inclusive education (IE) policies have shaped global educational systems for over three decades. Beginning with the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, these policies emphasize the right of children with disabilities to full social participation and educational access (UNICEF, 1989). Key milestones, such as the World Declaration on Education for All (UNESCO, 1990) and the Salamanca Statement (UNESCO, 1994), reinforced the need for inclusive schooling. Further strengthening this commitment, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) mandates that countries ensure equitable educational opportunities for all children, including those with disabilities (UN, 2006). These international frameworks have spurred the global adoption of IE, focusing on adapting educational systems to meet the diverse needs of students, fostering engagement, and reducing educational exclusion (Ainscow, 2020; Amor et al., 2019). The socio-ecological perspective of IE underscores the interaction between students and their environment, emphasizing the need for schools to create adaptable, student-centered learning settings.

While this approach has been widely embraced, its implementation varies significantly across countries, particularly in China, where IE has expanded rapidly in recent decades (Malinen et al., 2012). China’s progress in IE is evident through policy and legislative reforms, yet its success largely depends on teachers’ capacity to deliver inclusive instruction, collaborate with colleagues, and manage diverse classroom behaviors (Yada & Alnahdi, 2021). Despite China’s strides in IE policy, significant challenges persist in practical implementation. Teacher self-efficacy, a crucial factor in IE, influences how effectively teachers create inclusive learning environments (Sharma & Sokal, 2016). However, research on teacher efficacy in IE remains scarce, particularly in non-Western contexts such as China (Yada & Savolainen, 2017). Additionally, resource disparities, economic inequalities, and inconsistent professional development opportunities create barriers to fully integrating inclusive practices across Chinese schools. Addressing these challenges is vital to ensuring all students, regardless of ability or socioeconomic background, receive quality education.

This study examines the role of teacher efficacy in implementing IE in selected Chinese schools and identifies challenges impeding effective inclusion. Specifically, it aims to:

To examine the relationship between teacher-inclusive efficacy and inclusive practices in primary and secondary schools in China.

To assess the impact of teacher efficacy collaboration on implementing IE in primary and secondary schools in China.

To identify the role of teacher efficacy in managing behavior in IE in primary and secondary schools in China.

By addressing these objectives, this study fills a critical gap in research on IE in non-Western contexts and offers practical insights for policymakers and educators seeking to improve IE in China.

Global Perspectives on IE

Approaches to IE vary widely depending on each country’s socio-economic conditions and educational priorities. Initially, IE efforts in both Western and non-Western countries focused on integrating students with disabilities into mainstream classrooms. Over time, the concept expanded to include students from diverse cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds (Srivastava et al., 2015). In the United States, nearly 95% of students with disabilities spend at least part of their school day in general education classrooms, though the level of inclusion depends on individual student needs (U.S. Department of Education, 2023). Studies show that teacher collaboration and ongoing professional development significantly enhance inclusive practices and improve student outcomes (Ferguson, 2021; Shogren et al., 2022).

In Spain, many students with disabilities attend mainstream schools, though separate educational structures remain for students with higher support needs (Triviño-Amigo et al., 2022). Finland, widely recognized for its IE system, emphasizes personalized learning plans, extensive teacher training, and differentiated instruction, ensuring that educators are well-equipped to accommodate diverse learners (Kivirauma & Ruoho, 2007; Saloviita, 2018). Research also suggests that teacher self-efficacy in Finland is strengthened through collaborative professional learning communities (Malinen & Savolainen, 2016).

In contrast, in many developing countries, the focus remains on ensuring educational access rather than full inclusion of students with disabilities (Srivastava et al., 2015). India, for instance, faces challenges not only in implementing IE but also in overcoming social stigma, economic disparities, and policy inconsistencies (Singal, 2019). Brazil’s inclusion policies recognize the social rights of students with disabilities, yet systemic challenges such as insufficient teacher training and inadequate infrastructure continue to hinder effective implementation (Guilherme & Becker, 2022). In South Africa, IE policies are driven by social justice principles to address historical inequalities. However, resource shortages and insufficient teacher training limit full inclusion (Engelbrecht, 2020). Similar barriers exist in many African nations, where large class sizes, limited infrastructure, and inadequate teacher preparation hinder IE efforts (Donohue & Bornman, 2015). Research in Vietnam and Saudi Arabia highlights the potential of teacher collaboration and professional learning communities in improving IE, similar to the Chinese context (Alquraini & Rao, 2017; Nguyen, 2021). In Indonesia, while IE is progressing positively, further improvements are needed in teacher understanding, student developmental documentation, individualized assessments, and the provision of specialized personnel and infrastructure to fully support students with diverse needs (Efendi et al., 2022).

Across diverse international contexts, the focus often remains on access to primary education rather than the full inclusion of students with disabilities. International organizations are crucial in advocating for IE as a human rights issue. For instance, the European Union Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education views inclusion as essential for building a more equitable society. It emphasizes that education systems should accommodate learners of all ages and abilities in their local communities (Kefallinou et al., 2020). Similarly, UNESCO has been instrumental in promoting IE globally through initiatives such as the Salamanca Statement (1994), which urges governments to ensure that children with special educational needs access mainstream schools. Although the implementation of IE differs across countries, the ultimate goal remains the same: to ensure that all students, regardless of their abilities or backgrounds, actively participate in a shared learning environment and are valued as members of the school community. This educational philosophy aims to enhance academic performance and foster student participation (Moriña, 2017).

IE in the Chinese Context

China has made substantial progress in developing IE, influenced by both international policies and domestic initiatives. The 1990 World Declaration on Education for All and the 1994 Salamanca Statement laid the groundwork for IE globally, urging countries, including China, to ensure equitable access to education for children with disabilities (UNESCO, 1994). In response, China launched the Learning in Regular Classrooms (LRC) initiative in the mid-1980s, integrating children with disabilities into mainstream schools to provide equal learning opportunities (Lu et al., 2020). However, in China, the term inclusive education (quán nà jiào yù or róng hé jiào yù) is primarily used in academic discussions, while in practice, “learning in regular classrooms” (suí bān jiù dú) is the commonly accepted phrase for the placement of students with special needs in mainstream schools (Malinen, 2013).

Traditionally, China has followed a dual-track system, where special education schools provide support to mainstream schools. However, current policies prioritize integrating most children with special educational needs (SEN) into mainstream schools, while specialized institutions continue to serve students with severe or complex disabilities (Malinen et al., 2012; Malinen, Savolainen, and Xu, 2013). In recent years, China has intensified its efforts to align IE policies with global trends. A key initiative was the Second Special Education Enhancement Program (2017–2020), aimed at improving educational quality for students with disabilities. This policy was developed by the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Civil Affairs, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, and the China Disabled Persons’ Federation (Zhu et al., 2022).

Further strengthening these efforts, the Education Modernization 2035 Plan, introduced in 2019 by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council, outlined an ambitious goal to establish an equitable and IE system by 2035. According to Yao et al., (2024), there were 435,800 students with special needs enrolled in regular classes, representing 49.47% of all SEN students nationwide. Despite these policy advancements, significant challenges remain. Issues such as teacher preparedness, uneven resource distribution, and limited infrastructural support continue to hinder the effective implementation of inclusive practices across China’s diverse educational landscape (Ji, 2024; Xie et al., 2023). Addressing these challenges is critical for realizing a fully inclusive educational system. Empirical research suggests that professional learning communities and teacher collaboration can enhance inclusive practices in Chinese schools (Zhang et al., 2023). Strengthening these areas are essential as China continues modernizing its education system to create a more inclusive and equitable learning environment for all students.

Theoretical Framework

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), initially developed by Albert Bandura (1977), provides a comprehensive framework for understanding human behavior by emphasizing the interaction of personal, behavioral, and environmental factors. Central to SCT is self-efficacy, which refers to an individual’s belief in their ability to perform specific tasks or actions to achieve desired outcomes successfully. This belief is not just a static trait but is influenced by several factors, including past experiences, social persuasion, and emotional arousal (Bandura, 1997). According to SCT, individuals with high self-efficacy are more likely to exhibit perseverance, adopt new strategies when facing difficulties, and ultimately achieve their goals. In contrast, those with low self-efficacy may give up easily and feel less motivated. This dynamic relationship between personal agency, behavior, and environment is triadic reciprocal causation (Bandura, 2012).

In education, SCT is particularly relevant as it helps explain how teachers’ beliefs about their capabilities (self-efficacy) influence their teaching practices, the classroom environment they create, and their overall effectiveness in promoting student learning (see Figure 1). Teachers with high self-efficacy believe they can positively influence student outcomes, even in challenging or diverse classroom settings. They are more likely to adopt innovative teaching methods, maintain a positive attitude toward students with differing abilities, and seek professional development opportunities to enhance their teaching skills further (Woodcock et al., 2022). When applying SCT to IE, self-efficacy becomes a critical determinant of whether teachers can successfully implement inclusive practices. Teachers with high self-efficacy are likelier to believe that all students, including those with special educational needs, can benefit from learning in a regular classroom environment. These teachers proactively develop differentiated instructional strategies, effectively manage classroom behavior, and foster collaboration with other educators, specialists, and parents to support students with varying needs (Sharma et al., 2012). They are also more resilient in facing challenges, such as limited resources or lack of support, which are common in IE settings, particularly in developing countries (Malinen et al., 2012).

Figure 1.

The model of social cognitive theory (adapted from Bandura, 2012).

One of the most widely used tools for measuring teacher self-efficacy in IE is the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) scale, developed by Sharma et al. (2012). This scale focuses on three key areas:

Efficacy in using inclusive instructions: Teachers’ confidence in adapting instructional methods to meet the diverse learning needs of all students.

Collaboration efficacy: Teachers believe in working effectively with colleagues, parents, and external professionals to support IE.

Behavior management efficacy: Teachers believe in their capacity to manage diverse classroom behaviors to promote a positive learning environment for all students.

Research shows that the TEIP scale has been validated across various cultural contexts, including China. Malinen et al. (2012) found that teachers’ self-efficacy in IE strongly predicted their willingness to implement inclusive practices. In China, as in many other countries, the success of IE depends mainly on teachers’ attitudes and sense of self-efficacy. The findings suggest that teachers who believe they can manage diverse classrooms and collaborate effectively with others are more likely to support including students with special needs in regular classrooms (Ardenlid et al., 2025).

Globally, the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and IE is a well-researched topic, and findings consistently highlight that higher levels of teacher self-efficacy led to more successful inclusive practices (Forlin et al., 2014). In countries such as Finland, Australia, and the U.S., where IE has been integrated into the educational policy framework, studies show that professional development programs to improve teachers’ self-efficacy are essential for fostering a more inclusive educational environment (Yada & Savolainen, 2017). In contrast, in countries where IE is still emerging, such as China and India, teacher self-efficacy remains a key barrier to fully implementing inclusive practices (Singal, 2019).

Moreover, SCT provides a lens through which to understand the challenges of IE and potential interventions. For instance, improving teacher self-efficacy through professional development, mentoring, and collaboration with particular education experts can significantly enhance teachers’ ability to manage inclusive classrooms and ensure that students with disabilities or special needs are not marginalized (Engelbrecht, 2020). These interventions are especially critical in contexts with limited resources, such as rural or economically disadvantaged regions, where teachers may feel less equipped to address the needs of diverse learners.

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Implementing Inclusive Practices

Teacher self-efficacy stands as a pivotal factor in the successful implementation of IE, with extensive research demonstrating its influence on classroom practices and student outcomes. Teachers who possess strong self-efficacy beliefs—particularly in managing diverse classrooms and addressing individual student needs—are significantly more likely to implement effective inclusive strategies (Sharma & Sokal, 2016). While systemic barriers such as rigid curricula and resource limitations present challenges, self-efficacy empowers educators to develop innovative, context-specific solutions that transcend these constraints (Woodcock et al., 2022). Empirical evidence from diverse contexts supports this assertion: Australian studies highlight how self-efficacy enables teachers to translate inclusion policies into practice, while research from Greece and Italy underscores its role in enhancing collaborative approaches to diverse learning environments (Buzzai et al., 2023; Kazanopoulos et al., 2022).

Beyond fostering confidence, self-efficacy supports resilience, enabling teachers to persist despite challenges such as behavioral management difficulties or bureaucratic hurdles. For instance, Hong Kong teachers with high self-efficacy demonstrated greater adaptability in modifying instruction for low-performing students (Chao et al., 2017). Crucially, self-efficacy also mitigates resistance to inclusion by shifting teacher perceptions—from viewing inclusive practices as an added burden to recognizing them as integral to their educational mission. This mindset shift is evident in studies from Canada and Flanders, where high-efficacy teachers exhibited greater willingness to adapt pedagogical methods and foster inclusive classroom climates (Keppens et al., 2021; Sharma & Sokal, 2016).

As illustrated in Figure 2, these constructs were examined in relation to Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) and inclusive practices using the Inclusive Practice Scale (IPS). This theoretical foundation led to the formulation of three key hypotheses.

Figure 2.

Conceptual framework.

Teachers’ self-efficacy in applying inclusive instruction notably influences their capacity to implement inclusive practices. Teachers are confident in using diverse instructional strategies to effectively provide students with varying needs, resulting in a more inclusive classroom environment (Forlin & Chambers, 2011). However, inadequate teacher training limits teachers’ confidence in inclusive instruction. The results of this relationship are crucial as effective instruction is foundational to IE, directly impacting student outcomes. Strengthening teacher efficacy in inclusive instruction through professional development can enhance inclusive practices.

Hypothesis 1: Efficacy in using inclusive instruction positively impacts inclusive practice among primary and secondary school teachers.

Collaboration between teachers and exceptional education professionals is vital for IE. According to de Boer et al. (2011), teachers with high efficacy in collaboration tend to integrate diverse perspectives, leading to improved inclusive practices. However, many schools face organizational barriers that limit opportunities for teamwork. Collaboration efficacy might be a predominant predictor as it enhances resource sharing and the development of more adaptable teaching strategies, which is essential for inclusion. Addressing this issue could lead to a more robust implementation of inclusive practices in schools.

Hypothesis 2: Efficacy in collaboration favors inclusive practice among primary and secondary school teachers.

Effective behavior management is essential for maintaining an inclusive classroom environment. Research shows that teachers with high efficacy in managing behavior create supportive learning spaces that accommodate all students, promoting inclusivity (Jordan et al., 2009). The problem arises from insufficient teacher preparation in handling diverse behavioral challenges, which limits IE. Therefore, identifying the impact of Efficacy in managing behavior has a significant role as it directly influences the classroom climate, affecting how well inclusion is implemented. Improving teacher training in this area can enhance overall inclusive practices.

Hypothesis 3: Efficacy in managing behavior has a constructive effect on inclusive practice among primary and secondary school teachers.

Methodology

In this research, the predictor variables included efficacy in using inclusive instruction, collaboration, and managing behavior, while the criterion variable was inclusive practice. The conceptual framework illustrating these relationships is presented in Figure 2, outlining the proposed links between teacher efficacy and the adoption of inclusive practices. A quantitative method was employed to investigate these relationships, grounded in a deductive approach, which aims to test pre-established hypotheses based on existing theories (Saunders et al., 2019). A causal research design was utilized to identify whether changes in teacher efficacy directly impact the implementation of inclusive practices in educational settings.

A cross-sectional survey design was used to collect data from teachers at a single point in time, allowing for a comprehensive analysis of the associations between the predictor variables (teacher efficacy in instruction, collaboration, and behavior management) and the criterion variable (inclusive practice). The cross-sectional design is advantageous for examining current trends and relationships across a broad sample of teachers, providing a snapshot of their efficacy beliefs and practices (Fowler, 2014). The study sample was drawn from primary and secondary school teachers, ensuring diversity across teaching levels and contexts. Data were collected through standardized survey instruments for numerical measurement and statistical analysis.

This approach is appropriate for testing the conceptual framework’s proposed relationships and generalizing the findings to a broader population (Cohen et al., 2018). Descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, and regression models were employed to examine the strength and direction of the relationships between the predictor variables and the criterion variable. This methodology was chosen to provide a detailed understanding of how teacher efficacy in key areas contributes to the effective implementation of inclusive practices in classrooms, helping to bridge gaps in existing literature on teacher preparedness for IE.

Instrument

Demographic Variables

Several demographic variables were collected to understand the participants’ background characteristics and their potential impact on the research outcomes. These variables were selected based on prior literature and factors specific to the Chinese education system (Malinen et al., 2012, Malinen, Savolainen, and Xu 2013; Opoku et al., 2021). The demographic information included: Gender; Age; Teaching experience; Training in IE; and Knowledge of regional policies on IE. These demographic elements are crucial for contextualizing the findings and identifying any patterns or relationships between background characteristics and the variables under investigation. Such factors could provide deeper insights into how personal and professional attributes influence the implementation of inclusive practices within the Chinese educational context.

Survey Scales

To ensure consistency and reliability in measuring teacher efficacy and inclusive practices, validated scales from prior research were used to develop the survey instrument. The teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) scale (Sharma et al., 2012) was employed to assess the extent to which teachers felt confident in their ability to implement IE. The TEIP scale consists of 18 items, each rated on a six-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Higher scores on this scale indicate greater teacher efficacy in inclusive classrooms. The TEIP scale encompasses three subscales: Efficacy in using inclusive instruction; Efficacy in collaboration; and Efficacy in managing behavior. The Inclusive Practice Scale (IPS) developed by Sharma et al. (2021) was utilized to measure inclusive practices. This instrument allows teachers to self-report the degree to which they adopt or are likely to adopt inclusive teaching practices. The IPS consists of 26 items and is scored on a five-point Likert scale, where:

4 = Expert

3 = Proficient

2 = Developing

1 = Novice

0 = Not applicable

Participants and Data Collection

This study employed purposive sampling, a non-probability sampling technique where the researcher deliberately selects participants based on their knowledge, experience, or relevance to the central phenomenon under investigation (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). In this case, schools with knowledge or experience in IE were identified through discussions with multiple school principals in different regions. These principals, who had insight into the implementation of inclusive practices in their schools, played a critical role in facilitating data collection. They distributed the questionnaires to teachers within their respective institutions, ensuring that the survey reached educators familiar with or practicing IE.

Before data collection, all participants were provided with a consent form, ensuring that they understood the study’s purpose and participation rights. The form guaranteed confidentiality and emphasized that participation was voluntary. To ease accessibility, the teachers received an email containing a hyperlink to the online survey, allowing them to participate at their convenience. This method helped enhance participation rates while maintaining ethical standards in data collection. The survey instruments included the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices (TEIP) scale and the Inclusive Practice Scale (IPS) and demographic questions to gather relevant background information. The unit of analysis for this study was teachers. A total of 211 teachers from primary and secondary schools in Beijing, Tianjin, Chengdu, and Qingdao, China, participated in the study. These regions were selected to ensure geographic diversity and represent a range of educational contexts.

Data Analysis

The collected data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics 27 to ensure a comprehensive statistical examination of the relationships between the study variables. The analysis proceeded through several stages to ensure the findings’ accuracy, reliability, and validity. Frequency analysis was performed to summarize the demographic characteristics of the participants. This included generating a frequency distribution table that displayed the precise number of respondents and the corresponding percentages for key demographic variables such as gender, age, teaching experience, and knowledge of IE policies. Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and percentages) were also calculated to provide an overview of the demographic data and participants’ responses to the survey items.

Subsequently, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was employed to determine normality in the data distribution. This non-parametric test assessed whether the data significantly deviated from a normal distribution, ensuring that the assumptions for subsequent parametric tests were met. In cases where normality was violated, appropriate transformations or alternative non-parametric tests were considered (Field, 2018). Pearson correlation analysis examined the relationship between the predictor variables (efficacy in inclusive instruction, collaboration, and managing behavior) and the criterion variable (inclusive practice). Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) was used to assess the strength and direction of the relationships between the variables. This parametric test was chosen because it provides insight into whether increases in one variable (e.g., efficacy in collaboration) are associated with increases or decreases in another variable (e.g., inclusive practice). A significance level of p < .05 was used to determine whether these correlations were statistically significant.

Finally, multiple regression analysis was conducted to assess the predictive power of the three efficacy variables (inclusive instruction, collaboration, and behavior management) on inclusive practice. This analysis allowed for the examination of the unique contribution of each predictor variable to the criterion variable while controlling for the effects of the other predictors. The standardized beta coefficients (β), R² value, and p-values were reported to indicate the strength and significance of the predictors in explaining variations in teachers’ inclusive practices. Using multiple regression, this study identified which aspects of teacher efficacy significantly impacted the likelihood of adopting inclusive practices in the classroom (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019).

Results

This study explored teachers’ efficacy in inclusive instruction, collaboration, and behavior management, with inclusive practice as the outcome variable. To ensure participant confidentiality, all responses were collected anonymously and securely stored, safeguarding personal information and privacy. The reliability of these subscales was confirmed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, with scores of .860 for efficacy in inclusive instruction, .851 for efficacy in collaboration, and .867 for efficacy in managing behavior. These values indicate the scale’s satisfactory internal consistency and reliability for measuring teacher efficacy (Pallant, 2016). The reliability data is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Reliability Test Result.

	Efficacy in using inclusive instruction	Efficacy in collaboration	Efficacy in managing behavior	Inclusive practice
Cronbach’s α	.860	.851	.867	.953

Higher scores on the IPS indicate a greater likelihood or extent of using inclusive practices. In this study, the IPS demonstrated high reliability, as indicated by a Cronbach’s alpha score of .953, confirming its robustness for measuring the intended outcomes. The demographic characteristics of the participants are summarized in Table 2. Most respondents were between 41 and 50 years old and had 5 and 10 years of teaching experience. Of the participants, 150 teachers (71.7%) were female, and 61 (28.9%) were male, reflecting the gender distribution typical in education sectors. Additionally, 136 teachers (64.4%) reported having received somewhat to very much training in teaching students with special needs in mainstream classrooms, indicating a moderate level of experience with IE.

Table 2.

Demographic Information.

Gender	71.1% female28.9% male
Age	18.5% 20–30 years 30.3% 31–40 years 32.2% 41–50 years 19.0% 51–60 years
Teaching experience	11.4% less than 1 year 29.9% 1–5 years 30.3% 5–10 years 28.4% more than 10 years
Inclusive education training	17.5% no training 18.0% little training 34.1% somewhat much training 19.9% much training 10.4% very much training
Knowledge of local policies related to inclusive education	11.4% none 13.7% poor 38.4% moderate 24.6% good 11.8% very good

A significant number of teachers, 158 participants (74.8%), also reported having moderate to extensive knowledge of local laws and regulations concerning students with special needs. This high level of awareness highlights the relevance of the sample for exploring inclusive practices and teacher efficacy in handling students with diverse needs. These characteristics ensured that the sample was well-suited to examine the relationships between teacher efficacy, inclusive instruction, collaboration, behavior management, and inclusive practices. By carefully selecting participants with relevant experience and ensuring a clear understanding of the study’s objectives, this study gathered valuable data to address its research questions.

The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test revealed no significant evidence of deviation from a normal distribution for the variable of inclusive practice, suggesting that the data distribution closely approximates normality. This finding allowed parametric tests, such as Pearson correlation and multiple regression analysis, to explore the relationships between the independent and dependent variables. Pearson correlation analysis was employed to examine the strength and direction of the relationships between the three predictor variables—efficacy in using inclusive instruction, collaboration, and managing behavior—and the criterion variable, inclusive practice. The results indicated moderate positive relationships between the independent and dependent variables, with correlation coefficients of .457, .473, and .422, respectively. These results suggest that higher levels of teacher efficacy in these areas are associated with greater engagement in inclusive practices. Specifically, the strongest correlation was found between efficacy in collaboration and inclusive practice (r = .473, p < .01), highlighting the importance of teachers’ ability to work collaboratively with colleagues, parents, and other stakeholders in nurturing inclusive environments. Similarly, the correlation between efficacy in using inclusive instruction and inclusive practice (r = .457, p < .01) was also significant, indicating that teachers who feel confident in their ability to deliver inclusive lessons are likelier to implement inclusive practices in their classrooms. This underscores the role of instructional efficacy in shaping teachers’ approaches to addressing the diverse needs of students.

Lastly, the correlation between efficacy in managing behavior and inclusive practice (r = .422, p < .01) was also positive and significant. Teachers who feel competent in managing classroom behavior, particularly when working with students with special educational needs, are likelier to adopt inclusive practices. This finding aligns with previous research emphasizing behavior management skills’ importance in IE (Sharma et al., 2012). These correlations suggest that all three dimensions of teacher efficacy—inclusive instruction, collaboration, and behavior management—play crucial roles in determining how much teachers engage in inclusive practices. However, the moderate strength of these relationships indicates that while teacher efficacy is an essential factor, other variables may also contribute to inclusive practice implementation. The detailed results of the correlation analysis are presented in Table 3, showing significant positive relationships between all predictor variables and inclusive practice. These findings provide a foundation for further analysis through multiple regression, which will examine the unique contribution of each predictor variable to inclusive practice.

Table 3.

Correlation Test Result.

	Inclusive practice	Efficacy in using inclusive instruction	Efficacy in collaboration	Efficacy in managing behavior
Inclusive practice	1.000	.457**	.473**	.422**
Efficacy in using inclusive instruction	.457**	1.000	.879**	.873**
Efficacy in collaboration	.473**	.879**	1.000	.849**
Efficacy in managing behavior	.422**	.873**	.849**	1.000

Correlation is significant at .01 level (two-tailed).

Table 4 presents the collinearity diagnostics for the regression analysis. The tolerance values for the three predictor variables—efficacy in using inclusive instruction, efficacy in collaboration, and efficacy in managing behavior—were well above the critical threshold of .10, with values of .170, .199, and .209, respectively. This indicates that multicollinearity was not a concern in this model. Complementarily, these variables’ Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values were 5.886, 5.024, and 4.793, well below the standard threshold 10. These results confirm that the predictor variables do not exhibit problematic levels of multicollinearity, supporting the robustness of the regression analysis. The multiple regression analysis revealed that the model, including efficacy in using inclusive instruction, collaboration, and managing behavior, explains 23.1% of the variance in inclusive practice. This indicates that while the model accounts for a notable portion of the variance, additional factors not included in this study might further influence inclusive practice. Among the predictor variables, efficacy in collaboration demonstrated the highest beta coefficient of .214. This suggests that, after accounting for the influence of the other predictors in the model, efficacy in collaboration has the most substantial effect on inclusive practice. The significance level for this variable was less than .05, and the t-value exceeded 1.96, confirming that the relationship between efficacy in collaboration and inclusive practice is statistically significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 (H2) was supported, indicating a positive and significant relationship between efficacy in collaboration and inclusive practice.

Table 4.

Hypotheses Results.

	β	t	Sig.	Tolerance	VIF	R ²
Efficacy in using inclusive instruction	.128	1.263	.208	.170	5.886
Efficacy in collaboration	.214	2.356	.019	.199	5.024	.231
Efficacy in managing behavior	−.010	−0.015	.913	.209	4.793

Note. Criterion: Inclusive practice.

In contrast, efficacy in using inclusive instruction and efficacy in managing behavior had beta coefficients of .010 and .012, respectively. Both variables had t-values below 1.96 and significance levels greater than .05, suggesting that these relationships were not statistically significant. As a result, Hypothesis 1 (H1) and Hypothesis 3 (H3) were retained, indicating no significant relationships exist between efficacy in using inclusive instruction and inclusive practice and between efficacy in managing behavior and inclusive practice. These findings suggest that while efficacy in collaboration is a crucial predictor of inclusive practice, the other dimensions of teacher efficacy explored in this study do not show significant direct effects on implementing inclusive practices. This highlights the importance of fostering collaborative skills among teachers to enhance IE outcomes while also indicating areas where further research may be needed to explore other potential influences on inclusive practice.

Discussion

This study highlights the critical role of teacher self-efficacy in shaping IE practices in Chinese schools. While most teachers in the study reported receiving training in IE and demonstrated awareness of relevant policies, policy knowledge alone does not translate into effective practice. The findings indicate that teacher efficacy in collaboration was the strongest predictor of inclusive practices, aligning with existing literature that emphasizes the power of professional collaboration in fostering inclusive learning environments (Sharma et al., 2012; Van Mieghem et al., 2023). However, the real issue lies in the structural and administrative barriers that prevent collaboration from being fully realized. Schools often lack the organizational frameworks, leadership support, and time allocation necessary for teachers to engage in sustained collaborative efforts (Mullick et al., 2025). Without institutional backing, collaboration remains a theoretical ideal rather than a practical reality (Kuok et al., 2022).

Moreover, this study challenges the prevailing assumption that improving teacher training automatically leads to better inclusive practices. Despite extensive teacher training programs, efficacy in managing student behavior and implementing inclusive instructional strategies had limited impact on actual classroom practices. This suggests that current professional development programs are failing to provide teachers with the practical, hands-on skills needed to manage diverse learning environments (Yada & Savolainen, 2019). The focus of training must shift from policy awareness to skill-building, particularly in differentiated instruction, classroom management, and behavioral interventions (Malak & Mullick, 2025). Schools should move beyond generic training sessions and adopt experiential learning models such as peer mentoring, simulated teaching, and real-time classroom coaching (Sokal & Sharma, 2024).

Another pressing issue is the disconnect between policy ambition and classroom realities. While China has made significant strides in policy development for IE, implementation remains inconsistent across regions and school types. The study’s findings suggest that IE policies are often top-down, with little consultation with teachers, who are the key implementers (Mullick et al., 2013). The assumption that teachers will seamlessly adopt inclusive practices ignores the chronic lack of resources, rigid curriculum structures, and high student-teacher ratios, all of which create an environment where inclusive teaching is seen as an additional burden rather than an integral part of pedagogy (Ji, 2024). This highlights the urgent need for more teacher-driven policymaking, where educators are actively involved in shaping inclusion strategies.

Additionally, the study found that collaboration with external professionals, such as special education experts and psychologists, was a key factor in enhancing teacher efficacy. However, many schools do not have access to these specialized resources, creating a gap between best practices and actual capacity (Wang et al., 2024). If collaboration is to be a driving force behind IE, governments must invest in specialist support networks within schools, ensuring that mainstream teachers are not expected to implement inclusion in isolation.

Finally, the study underscores the need for a cultural shift in how IE is perceived within Chinese schools. IE should not be viewed as an exceptional practice reserved for students with disabilities but as a fundamental component of quality education for all learners (Engelbrecht, 2020). This requires a shift in teacher attitudes, school leadership priorities, and national education policies to create a system where inclusivity is embedded, rather than imposed. While teacher collaboration is crucial, without systemic reform in training, policy implementation, and resource allocation, IE in China will remain more aspirational than operational.

Limitations and Future Study

Despite the contributions of this study, several limitations must be acknowledged. Firstly, although the research encompassed schools across four regions in China, the use of purposive sampling limits the generalizability of the findings. Future research should employ stratified random sampling to enhance representativeness and ensure findings apply to a broader range of educational settings. Secondly, the study did not account for variations between school types (e.g., public vs. private) or educational levels (e.g., elementary vs. secondary), which may have significantly influenced teachers’ experiences with inclusive practices, resource availability, and professional development opportunities. Future studies should include comparative analyses across these variables to determine how institutional contexts shape IE implementation.

Additionally, while the questionnaire was translated from English to Chinese, the potential for linguistic discrepancies and cultural differences in interpretation remains a concern. Despite extensive back-translation and expert validation, some nuances may have been lost or misinterpreted. Future research should refine translation methods by incorporating cognitive interviews and pilot testing with bilingual educators to enhance linguistic validity and cross-cultural comparability.

Beyond these methodological considerations, further research should investigate the role of school leadership and policy support in fostering inclusive practices. Examining how school administrators implement inclusive policies, allocate resources, and support teacher development can provide valuable insights into systemic enablers and barriers. Additionally, exploring the interaction between national policies and localized implementation strategies can help identify best practices for scaling IE reforms. By addressing these gaps, future studies can contribute to a more holistic understanding of the institutional and policy-level factors that enhance teacher efficacy and IE outcomes across diverse educational contexts.

Conclusion

This study underscores the critical role of teacher collaboration efficacy as the strongest predictor of inclusive practices in Chinese schools, while revealing persistent gaps in instructional adaptation and behavior management. These findings highlight both the progress and challenges in China’s IE implementation, reflecting broader tensions between policy aspirations and classroom realities. Based on the quantitative findings of this study, three key recommendations emerge to strengthen IE practices in Chinese schools.

First, given that collaboration efficacy was the only statistically significant predictor of inclusive practices (β = .214, p < .05), schools should prioritize structured collaborative opportunities such as weekly co-planning sessions and professional learning communities. Second, despite not reaching significance in regression analysis, the moderate positive correlations between both instructional efficacy (r = .457, p < .01) and behavior management efficacy (r = .422, p < .01) with inclusive practices suggest these areas warrant targeted professional development, particularly given their relatively lower mean scores (instruction: M = 4.2; behavior: M = 4.0 vs. collaboration: M = 4.5). Third, the association between policy knowledge and higher efficacy scores (trained teachers: 71.7% reporting moderate-to-high efficacy) indicates that systematic training on IE policies should be integrated into teacher preparation programs, especially considering that nearly two-thirds of participants (64.4%) reported prior training yet still demonstrated implementation gaps.

These evidence-based recommendations directly address the study’s robust findings while acknowledging the complex ecosystem of factors shaping inclusive practices, including China’s unique policy implementation challenges (Ji, 2024; Zhang et al., 2023). The lessons from China’s experience offer particularly valuable insights for other non-Western education systems facing similar challenges between rapid policy adoption and classroom-level execution, as seen in studies from Brazil (Guilherme & Becker, 2022), Indonesia (Efendi et al., 2022) and Saudi Arabia (Alquraini & Rao, 2017), South Africa (Engelbrecht, 2020), and Vietnam (Nguyen, 2021). These cross-context parallels suggest that while teacher collaboration emerges as a significant predictor of inclusion success (Van Mieghem et al., 2023), its implementation must account for local institutional constraints.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

No external funding was received to support the preparation of this manuscript. However, we would like to express our gratitude to educational leaders, and school principals who assisted in data collection, and all the teachers participated in this study.

ORCID iD

Jahirul Mullick

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were conducted by Qiusu Wang and Midya Yousefi. Qiusu Wang drafted the initial manuscript, and all authors provided feedback on earlier versions. Jahirul Mullick edited, revised, and proofread the manuscript. Midya Yousefi contributed to the data analysis and interpretation of the findings. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: ?This work was supported by the Internal Faculty Research Support Program (Grant Number: IRSPK202104) of Wenzhou-Kean University.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Ainscow

(2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587

Alquraini

Rao

S. M.

(2017). Inclusion in Saudi Arabian schools: Teachers’ perspectives and practices. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 21(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1184322

Amor

A. M.

Hagiwara

Shogren

K. A.

Thompson

J. R.

Verdugo

M. Á.

Burke

K. M.

Aguayo

(2019). International perspectives and trends in research on inclusive education: A systematic review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(12), 1277–1295. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1445304

Ardenlid

Lundqvist

Sund

(2025). A scoping review and thematic analysis of differentiated instruction practices: How teachers foster inclusive classrooms for all students, including gifted students. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 6, 100439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedro.2025.100439

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.191

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Bandura

(2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606

Buzzai

Passanisi

Aznar

M. A.

Pace

(2023). The antecedents of teaching styles in multicultural classroom: teachers’ self-efficacy for inclusive practices and attitudes towards multicultural education. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 38(3), 378–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2022.2107679

Chao

C. N. G.

Chow

W. S. E.

Forlin

F. C.

(2017). Improving teachers’ self-efficacy in applying teaching and learning strategies and classroom management to students with special education needs in Hong Kong. Teaching and Teacher Education, 66, 360–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.004

10.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315456539

11.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.

12.

de Boer

Pijl

S. J.

Minnaert

(2011). Regular primary schoolteachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15(3), 331–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110903030089

13.

Donohue

Bornman

(2015). The challenges of realizing inclusive education in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 35(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v35n3a1090

14.

Efendi

Pradipta

R. F.

Dewantoro

D. A.

Ummah

U. S.

Edivanto

Yasin

M. H. M.

(2022). Inclusive education for student with special needs at Indonesian public schools. International Journal of Instruction, 15(2), 967–980. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15253a

15.

Engelbrecht

(2020). Inclusive education: Developments and challenges in South Africa. Prospects, 49(3–4), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09499-6

16.

Ferguson

D. L.

(2021). Collaborative teaching and inclusive practices: Building effective professional learning communities. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(4), 456–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.123456

17.

Field

(2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-95839-3

18.

Forlin

Chambers

(2011). Teacher preparation for inclusive education: Increasing knowledge but raising concerns. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(1), 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2010.540850

19.

Forlin

Loreman

Sharma

(2014). A system-wide professional learning approach about inclusion for teachers in Hong Kong. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2014.906564

20.

Fowler

F. J.

(2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452251656

21.

Guilherme

A. A.

Becker

(2022). Inclusive education in the Brazilian context: Opportunities and challenges. In Hodkinson

Williams-Brown

(Eds.), International issues in SEND and inclusion (pp. 184–197). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003177135

22.

(2024). The study on the dilemma of teachers in inclusive education in China. Transactions on Social Science, Education, and Humanities Research, 5, 340–346. https://doi.org/10.62051/496d3g73

23.

Jordan

Schwartz

McGhie-Richmond

(2009). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(4), 535–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.010

24.

Kazanopoulos

Tejada

Basogain

(2022). The self-efficacy of special and general education teachers in implementing inclusive education in Greek secondary education. Education Sciences, 12(6), Article 383. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12060383

25.

Kefallinou

Symeonidou

Meijer

C. J. W.

(2020). Understanding the value of inclusive education and its implementation: A review of the literature. Prospects, 49(3–4), 135–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09500-2

26.

Keppens

Consuegra

De Maeyer

Vanderlinde

(2021). Teacher beliefs, self-efficacy and professional vision: Disentangling their relationship in the context of inclusive teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53(3), 314–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2021.1881167

27.

Kivirauma

Ruoho

(2007). Excellence through special education? Lessons from the Finnish school reform. Review of Education, 53(3), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11159-007-9044-1

28.

Kuok

A. C. H.

Teixeira

Forlin

Monteiro

Correia

(2022). The effect of self-efficacy and role understanding on teachers’ emotional exhaustion and work engagement in inclusive education in Macao (SAR). International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 69(5), 1736–1754. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2020.1808949

29.

Zou

Chen

Pang

(2020). Knowledge, attitude and professional self-efficacy of Chinese mainstream primary school teachers regarding children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 72, Article 101513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2020.101513

30.

Malak

M. S.

Mullick

(2025). Teacher education reform in Bangladesh: How far is inclusive education? In Wyse

Baumfield

Mockler

Reardon

(Eds.), The BERA-SAGE international handbook of research-informed education policy and practice (pp. 574–593). BERA-SAGE.

31.

Malinen

O.-P.

Savolainen

(2016). The effect of perceived school climate and teacher efficacy in behavior management on job satisfaction and burnout: A longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.012

32.

Malinen

O.-P.

Savolainen

Engelbrecht

Nel

Tlale

(2013). Exploring teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices in three diverse countries. Teaching and Teacher Education, 33, 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.02.004

33.

Malinen

O.-P.

Savolainen

(2012). Beijing in-service teachers’ self-efficacy and attitudes towards inclusive education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(4), 526–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.12.004

34.

Malinen

O.-P.

Savolainen

(2013). Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy for inclusive practices among mainland Chinese pre-service teachers. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 16(2), 82–93. https://doi.org/10.9782/2159-4341-16.2.82

35.

Moriña

(2017). Inclusive education in higher education: Challenges and opportunities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 32(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2016.1254964

36.

Mullick

Sharma

Deppeler

(2013). School teachers’ perception about distributed leadership practices for inclusive education in primary schools in Bangladesh. School Leadership & Management, 33(2), 151–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2012.723615

37.

Mullick

Tang

Lin

(2025). Building inclusive pathways for children with disabilities in Chinese preschools: An inclusive school leadership perspective. Early Childhood Education Journal.

38.

Nguyen

T. L. H.

(2021). Professional learning communities and inclusive education in Vietnam: Teachers’ collaboration and self-efficacy. Asian Pacific Journal of Education, 41(2), 200–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1815642

39.

Opoku

M. P.

Cuskelly

Pedersen

S. J.

Rayner

C. S.

(2021). Attitudes and self-efficacy as significant predictors of intention of secondary school teachers towards the implementation of inclusive education in Ghana. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 36(3), 673–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-020-00490-5

40.

Pallant

(2016). SPSS survival manual (6th ed.). Open University Press.

41.

Saloviita

(2018). Attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education in Finland. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(2), 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2018.1541819

42.

Saunders

Lewis

Thornhill

(2019). Research methods for business students (8th ed.). Pearson.

43.

Sharma

Loreman

Forlin

(2012). Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices: Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 12(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2011.01200.x

44.

Sharma

Sokal

(2016). Can teachers’ self-reported efficacy, concerns, and attitudes toward inclusion scores predict their actual inclusive classroom practices? Australasian Journal of Special Education, 40(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/jse.2015.14

45.

Sharma

Sokal

Wang

Loreman

(2021). Measuring the use of inclusive practices among pre-service educators: A multi-national study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 107, Article 103506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103506

46.

Shogren

K. A.

Wehmeyer

M. L.

Kurth

J. A.

(2022). The role of teacher collaboration in improving inclusive practices and student learning outcomes. Journal of Special Education Research, 45(3), 325–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669221012345

47.

Singal

(2019). Challenges and opportunities in efforts towards inclusive education: Reflections from India. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(7–8), 827–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1624845

48.

Sokal

Sharma

(2014). Canadian in-service teachers’ concerns, efficacy, and attitudes about inclusive teaching. Exceptionality Education International, 23 (1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.5206/eei.v23i1.7704

49.

Srivastava

de Boer

Pijl

S. J.

(2015). Inclusive education in developing countries: A closer look at its implementation in the last 10 years. Educational Review, 67(2), 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.847061

50.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(2019). Using multivariate statistics (7th ed.). Pearson.

51.

Tianyu

Masnan

A. H.

(2023). The impact of parental involvement and self-efficacy in anchoring the psychological resilience among Chinese adolescents with learning difficulties: Mediating role of achievement motivation. South Asian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(6), 16–49. https://doi.org/10.48165/sajssh.2023.4602

52.

Triviño-Amigo

Barrios-Fernandez

Mañanas-Iglesias

Carlos-Vivas

Mendoza-Muñoz

Adsuar

J. C.

Acevedo-Duque

Á.

Rojo-Ramos

(2022). Spanish teachers’ perceptions of their preparation for inclusive education: The relationship between age and years of teaching experience. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(9). Article 5750. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19095750

53.

UN. (2006). United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convention_accessible_pdf.pdf

54.

UNESCO. (1990). World declaration on education for all and framework for action to meet basic learning needs. https://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-attachments/UNESCO_World_Declaration_For_All_1990_En.pdf

55.

UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427

56.

UNICEF. (1989). The United Nations convention on the rights of the child. https://www.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/unicef-convention-rights-child-uncrc.pdf

57.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2023, May). Students with disabilities: Inclusion of. Fast Facts. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp&quest;id=59

58.

Van Mieghem

Verschueren

Struyf

(2023). Professional development initiatives as a lever for inclusive education: A multiple case study using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). Professional Development in Education, 49(3), 551–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1853593

59.

Wang

Huang

Deng

Zhang

(2024). Enhancing inclusive teaching in China: Examining the effects of principal transformational leadership, teachers’ inclusive role identity, and efficacy. Behavioral Sciences, 14, Article 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14030175

60.

Woodcock

Sharma

Subban

Hitches

(2022). Teacher self-efficacy and inclusive education practices: Rethinking teachers’ engagement with inclusive practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103802

61.

Xie

Deng

(2023). Measuring social support perceived by inclusive education teachers in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 43(1), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2021.1925224

62.

Yada

Alnahdi

G. H.

(2021). A comparative study on Saudi and Japanese in-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education and self-efficacy in inclusive practices. Educational Studies, 50(4), 539–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2021.1969646

63.

Yada

Savolainen

(2017). Japanese in-service teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education and self-efficacy for inclusive practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 64, 222–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.02.005

64.

Yada

Savolainen

(2019). Japanese and Finnish Teachers’ Perceptions and Self-Efficacy in Inclusive Education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 19, 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12478

65.

Yao

Liu

Xin

Chen

(2024). Much more than just being present: Participation of children with intellectual disabilities in mainstream schools. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 70(5), 833–848. https://doi.org/10.1080/20473869.2022.2152161

66.

Zhang

Wang

Chen

(2023). Professional learning communities and peer collaboration: Pathways to improving inclusive practices in Chinese schools. Asian Pacific Journal of Education, 42(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2023.123456

67.

Zhu

Wang

Shi

(2022). Special teacher education in China: Based on teacher roles reorientation and professional development in China. In Khine

M. S.

Liu

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 827–846). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-9785-2&lowbar;42

Confidence in Connection: Teacher Collaboration as the Strongest Predictor of Inclusive Practices in Chinese Schools

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introduction

Global Perspectives on IE

IE in the Chinese Context

Theoretical Framework

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Implementing Inclusive Practices

Methodology

Instrument

Demographic Variables

Survey Scales

Participants and Data Collection

Data Analysis

Results

Discussion

Limitations and Future Study

Conclusion

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iD

Author Contributions

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References