Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

SustainabilitySustainability
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

18 May 2026

17 Pages

Teachers’ Attitudes and Intentions Towards the Use of Inclusive Practices in Saudi Arabian Schools

,
,
,
and
1
Department of Teaching and Learning, College of Education and Human Development, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, P.O. Box 84428, Riyadh 11671, Saudi Arabia
2
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, University of Nottingham Ningbo, Ningbo 315100, China
3
Faculty of Education, Monash University, 19 Ancora Imparo Way, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
4
Ministry of Education, King Abdullah Branch Rd, King Salman Neighbourhood, Riyadh 12435, Saudi Arabia
Sustainability2026, 18(10), 5087;https://doi.org/10.3390/su18105087
This article belongs to the Special Issue Education and the Sustainable Development Goals: A Global Agenda for Change
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

This study investigated the attitudes and intentions towards the use of inclusive practices among teachers in Saudi schools, with a particular focus on the role of professional training in shaping these factors. Teachers are key to the implementation of inclusive education, and their training and attitudes are essential to effective teaching. Data were collected from 175 teachers, with participants completing the Attitudes to Inclusion Scale, Intention to Teach in Inclusive Classroom Scale, and Inclusive Practice Scale. The results indicate that teachers with more positive attitudes towards inclusion were more likely to express stronger intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms. The findings also highlighted the importance of professional development, emphasising the need for comprehensive training that addresses both theoretical and practical aspects of inclusion. There is a need for teacher training programmes that integrate both special education and inclusive teaching strategies to support teachers’ readiness to implement inclusive education in their classrooms.

1. Promoting Inclusive and Sustainable Education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Inclusive education has gained increasing global attention as a foundational principle for achieving equitable learning opportunities for all students. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [1] defines inclusive education as access to mainstream schooling and the provision of the support required to ensure that all students, regardless of background, experience optimal wellbeing and opportunities for learning. Inclusion is an ongoing process of identifying and addressing barriers to education and enhancing the learning of all learners [2]. Sharma and Subban caution that we must be careful when addressing barriers to students’ learning and “identify context-sensitive and culturally relevant solutions to the barriers that learners face” [3] (p. 105). In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, this principle is deeply embedded within Vision 2030, which asserts that individuals with disabilities should “receive the education and employment opportunities that will ensure their independence and integration as effective members of society.” This national commitment aligns with global frameworks such as the Salamanca Statement and the Framework for Action on Special Needs Education [4] and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [1].
One of the most significant efforts in this regard is the Saudi Ministry of Education’s commitment to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), which emphasises “inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all” [5]. This goal encompasses key dimensions, including ensuring that all children complete free and high-quality primary and secondary education; eliminating gender disparities; guaranteeing equal access for marginalised groups, including persons with disabilities; and increasing the number of qualified teachers through international cooperation and professional development. These objectives reflect a broader focus on educational equity and capacity-building as essential components of sustainable educational reform.
In alignment with SDG 4, recent reforms by the Saudi Ministry of Education have positioned inclusive education as a strategic priority, particularly for students with disabilities. Policies now promote the integration of students with disabilities into mainstream classrooms at all educational levels [6]. Saudi Arabia began prioritising inclusive education in 1996 [7], and in 2002, the Ministry of Education introduced the Regulations of Special Education Programmes and Institutes (RSEPIs) to structure inclusive practices, focused on classifying disabilities and determining educational placement accordingly. However, a persistent challenge remains: the lack of conceptual clarity regarding the meaning of inclusive education. As noted by Madhesh [8], many Saudi academics and universities conflate inclusive education with related terms such as “integration,” “mainstreaming,” and “placement”. The overlap between inclusive and special education continues to generate ambiguity in both policy and practice. In this regard, the Ministry of Education [9] defined inclusion as “the education of students with disabilities in mainstream schools while providing them with special education services.”
There is broad agreement that mainstream classrooms are more beneficial than separate special education institutions [10], as mainstreaming supports the implementation of inclusive education and provides a flexible structure for meeting the needs of students with disabilities [11,12]. However, the effectiveness of inclusion is shaped by societal and school–community attitudes. In Saudi Arabia, growing concerns about the marginalisation of students with disabilities have intensified debates on inclusion and increased parental advocacy for mainstreaming [13,14].
Within this context, the Saudi Ministry of Education policy targets two groups for inclusion: students with disabilities in mainstream schools, including those placed in self-contained classes within mainstream settings, and students currently enrolled in special education institutions. Although there are self-contained classes in general education schools, students in these settings are educated separately from their same-age peers without disabilities and follow distinct curricula, instructional practices, and staffing arrangements [15,16].
According to the General Authority for Statistics, 7.1% of the Saudi population lives with disabilities, which shows the importance of Saudi Arabia’s commitment to strengthening inclusive and accessible services for all [17]. Moreover, the Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia [18] supports and promotes the principle of inclusive education through a comprehensive national system based on the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) principle. This system includes 3139 special education programmes, according to Ministry statistics for 2024. Approximately 82,000 students with disabilities, representing a wide range of disability categories, are enrolled in these programmes and are either fully or partially included within mainstream general education, based on their individual educational needs.
The implementation of inclusive education in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is based on a dual-professional system that brings together special education and general education teachers, forming a key institutional foundation for achieving the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Within this framework, the Ministry of Education has educated more than 15,000 male and female special education teachers, who are distributed across all regions of Saudi Arabia in the fields of special and inclusive education through multiple academic and professional pathways [19].
According to the Ministry of Education’s organisational guide [10], special education teachers are specialists in educating students with disabilities and receive formal university preparation, including undergraduate and graduate degrees in areas such as sensory disabilities, severe disabilities, and learning disabilities, as well as specialised professional training programmes that integrate both special education and inclusive teaching strategies. These teachers play a central role in supporting inclusion by providing in-class support to general education teachers, delivering individualised instruction, and adapting curricula to meet diverse learner needs. In contrast, general education teachers are trained in specific academic subject areas, such as mathematics, Arabic language, or science, and typically do not receive formal preparation in special education during their initial training. Nevertheless, they teach in mainstream classrooms that include students with disabilities. This structural arrangement makes professional collaboration between general and special education teachers essential to the effective implementation of inclusive education [10]. Despite their important role in inclusive classrooms, general education teachers often possess limited specialised pedagogical knowledge related to disability, creating a professional gap that may affect the quality of instruction provided to students with disabilities and highlighting the need for ongoing professional development and targeted training.
Nevertheless, progress has been notable. The Ministry of Education has incorporated inclusive education into its strategic plans [20], and in August 2023, the Council of Ministers approved the new Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, replacing the earlier Disability Code. This legislation prioritises independence, empowerment, and full inclusion for persons with disabilities and aligns closely with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Saudi Arabia ratified in 2008 [21].
Accordingly, teachers are expected to design adaptive and supportive learning environments that cater to the diverse needs of all learners [22]. To support this vision, the Ministry has launched extensive initiatives to train and empower special education teachers with the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary for inclusive practices [23]. In parallel, the national curriculum is undergoing modernisation to align with professional standards and teacher licencing frameworks, reinforcing the principles of quality, inclusivity, and sustainability [24].
Despite these advancements, the success of inclusive education largely depends on teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, their intentions to teach in inclusive settings, and their ability to translate policy into practice [25,26]. The existing research indicates that policy alone is insufficient; rather, teacher beliefs, self-efficacy, and professional preparation are critical determinants of effective inclusion [27]. Accordingly, this study investigates the relationships between teachers’ attitudes, intentions, and actual practices regarding inclusive education in Saudi schools, while also examining the role of teacher training and continuous professional development in shaping these outcomes.

1.1. Inclusive Teaching Practices

Research highlights that specific teaching strategies, classroom adaptations, and collaboration with various stakeholders are key to ensuring that students with disabilities are meaningfully included [28,29]. Differentiated instruction is one of the most widely recommended strategies for inclusive classrooms [30]. It involves tailoring teaching methods, materials, and assessments to meet the diverse needs of students. By offering various ways for students to engage with content, demonstrate understanding, and participate in learning activities, teachers can ensure that all learners are included [31]. This approach allows teachers to support students with different abilities, learning styles, and backgrounds in the same classroom. Modifying and adapting the curriculum content is another area identified as essential for ensuring the inclusion of all students. Teachers often adjust the complexity of tasks, provide alternative formats for instructional materials (such as visual aids or audio resources), and break lessons into smaller manageable parts to facilitate learning for all students [32]. Such adaptations ensure that students with disabilities can access the general curriculum and participate meaningfully alongside their peers.
Cooperative learning strategies, such as peer tutoring and group work, have been shown to enhance inclusion by promoting collaboration between students. Peer support, where students with and without disabilities work together, fosters a sense of community and encourages the development of social skills [33]. These practices allow students with disabilities to be active participants in the classroom, improving both academic outcomes and social inclusion. Finally, research also suggests the importance of collaboration with families and paraprofessionals in inclusive education. Engaging with parents and guardians is crucial to understanding students’ needs and fostering a supportive learning environment at home and school [33]. Additionally, working closely with paraprofessionals ensures that students with disabilities receive the necessary one-on-one support while participating in general education activities [34]. Although these strategies have been shown to be effective, the research has predominantly focused on Western countries, with a need for future research to explore the transferability of these practices to other regions [35].
Despite the evidence-based reporting on effective strategies for supporting inclusion in classrooms, the extent to which these practices are taken up and sustained in schools depends largely on the teachers themselves. In particular, teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion have been shown to be a key factor influencing their willingness to implement inclusive practices, as well as their effectiveness.

1.2. Attitudes Towards Inclusion

The research suggests that teachers’ attitudes can significantly influence the overall success of inclusion efforts [36,37]. A number of factors have been identified as influencing teacher attitudes to inclusive education, as follows:
  • Personal experience and relationships with people with a disability and prior experience in teaching students with disabilities [37].
  • Teacher training and professional development, particularly training that combines both theory and practical strategies [36] and in-service training that builds teacher confidence and equips educators with the necessary skills to manage diverse classrooms [38].
  • Teacher efficacy, with a strong association identified between teachers’ belief in their ability to implement inclusive practices and their attitudes towards inclusion [39].
  • School culture and support, with teachers more likely to embrace inclusion when they feel supported by school leaders and their peers through access to adequate resources and through a culture of collaboration [37].
Aldosari [40] reported that teachers demonstrated slightly negative attitudes towards the inclusion of students with disabilities. While the study found no statistically significant relationship between teachers’ attitudes and demographic factors such as age or educational level, several variables were identified as influencing their perceptions. These included the nature of the student’s disability, the teacher’s gender, their professional role (general versus special education), and whether they had received proper training in inclusive education. These findings align with Alnahdi and Schwab [40], who emphasised that teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion were strongly linked to their self-efficacy in inclusive classrooms. Their study also found that teachers with a relative with a disability expressed more positive attitudes towards inclusion, although this did not significantly influence self-efficacy. Similarly, Alhartı and Evans [41] found that special education teachers generally held positive views about inclusion, with no significant differences based on gender. These studies highlight the complex interplay between teacher attitudes, personal experiences, and professional training in shaping inclusive educational practices.

1.3. The Theoretical Roots of Inclusion

The inclusion of students with disabilities is underpinned by a theoretical commitment to equity, human rights, and social justice, positioning inclusion as an ethical and political imperative rather than a pedagogical approach. Drawing from the human rights framework, inclusion is built on the belief that every learner has a basic right to quality education, regardless of their ability, background, or identity [1,4]. The principle of equity emphasises the need to provide differentiated support and remove systemic barriers so that all students can access and participate meaningfully in education [2]. Social justice theories further extend this foundation by challenging structural inequalities and advocating for the transformation of educational systems that have historically marginalised specific groups [42,43]. Together, these concepts reframe inclusion as a process of creating educational environments where diversity is not only acknowledged but valued and supported through responsive policy and practice.

1.4. Conceptual Framework

Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour [44] is a widely used psychological framework for understanding human behaviour and decision-making. It has been applied in various fields, including education, to examine how attitudes, intentions, and perceived control influence behaviours. In the context of inclusive education, the Theory of Planned Behaviour provides valuable insights into understanding the factors that influence teachers’ decisions to adopt inclusive practices in their classrooms.
The Theory of Planned Behaviour posits that an individual’s behaviour is primarily determined by three key factors: attitude towards the behaviour, which includes the degree to which an individual has a favourable or unfavourable evaluation of the behaviour in question; subjective norms, which involve the perceived social pressure to perform or not perform the behaviour; and perceived behavioural control, which is the individual’s belief in their ability to perform the behaviour, closely related to the concept of self-efficacy [45]. These factors collectively influence an individual’s behavioural intentions, which are seen as the most immediate predictors of behaviour. In educational settings, teachers’ intentions to implement inclusive practices are shaped by their attitudes towards inclusion, the norms and expectations of their professional environment, and their perceived control over the resources and skills needed for inclusive teaching [37,38]. In Ajzen’s framework, behavioural intentions serve as the bridge between attitudes, subjective norms, perceived control, and actual behaviour. Teachers’ intentions to engage in inclusive practices are a strong predictor of whether they will actually adopt these strategies in the classroom [46]. Almalky and Alrabiah [46] studied teachers’ intention to apply inclusive practices in Saudi Arabian classrooms and found that teachers’ intentions are driven by various aspects, including student and teacher demographics, teachers’ attitudes, the school environment, support, and self-efficacy. Teachers who had received additional training in special education were identified as being more committed to applying inclusive practices in the classroom, highlighting the importance of teacher education and professional learning in building skills and efficacy for inclusive practices.
While the Theory of Planned Behaviour includes attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control as predictors of intentions and behaviour, the current study focuses specifically on the attitude–intention–behaviour pathway. Our intention in this paper was not to test the TPB model; it was to use the model to examine the relationship between attitudes and intentions. Subjective norms and perceived behavioural control were not measured in the present study, and the model tested therefore represents a partial application of Ajzen’s framework.

1.5. Current Study

This research investigates Saudi in-service teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, their intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms, and their use of inclusive teaching practices in Saudi schools. It further seeks to determine how teachers’ inclusive practices are impacted by the related aspects of attitudes towards inclusive education and their intention to teach in inclusive classrooms. The significance of this study lies in its focus on addressing the education system and teacher preparation/training as potential barriers to the inclusion of students with disabilities, rather than viewing disability as a problem that needs to be “fixed” in the child. This approach is crucial, as the full commitment of schoolteachers and staff is essential for the successful implementation of both national policies and international declarations on inclusion. While examining teachers’ attitudes offers some insight into their behaviour in the classroom, it provides only a partial view. To better understand and predict whether educators will include students with disabilities in their classrooms, it is necessary to assess their intentions towards teaching in inclusive environments.
Drawing on the attitude–intention–behaviour pathway of Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour and building on previous studies that have demonstrated that attitudes influence teachers’ intentions and that intentions predict inclusive practices, the current study hypothesised the following: (a) teachers who have received training in relation to inclusive education will have more positive attitudes to inclusive education, provide higher ratings of their intention to teach in inclusive classrooms, and report using more inclusive practices in their teaching, as compared to teachers who have not received such training, and (b) attitudes towards inclusive education will predict the intention to teach in inclusive classrooms, and intention will predict inclusive teaching practices.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

The participants were 175 teachers in public and private schools in the Riyadh District, Saudi Arabia, including teachers across preschool, primary, and secondary school settings, representing a broad range of ages, qualifications, and teaching contexts. The detailed demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Participant characteristics.
Overall, the sample reflected a workforce with substantial exposure to students with disabilities. More than half of the participants reported knowing someone with a disability in their personal or professional life, and a small proportion reported having a disability themselves. Most teachers indicated at least some experience teaching students with disabilities, although the levels of perceived effectiveness and confidence varied. While many teachers rated their effectiveness and confidence as average to high, a sizeable proportion reported limited opportunities to teach students with disabilities. Fewer than half of the participants reported receiving formal training in special education or inclusive education. Further details regarding the experience, perceived effectiveness, and confidence are summarised in Table 2.
Table 2. Self-reported experience, effectiveness, and confidence in teaching students with a disability.

2.2. Procedures

Data were collected from both general and special education teachers working in private and public schools in Saudi Arabia and from all education levels, including preschool, primary, middle, and high school. A link and barcode to the study were sent through the Saudi Ministry of Education to all Saudi regions. The online survey was then forwarded by email to each school, with school administrative staff forwarding it to their teachers. Approval for the project was granted by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University, along with authorisation from the Saudi Ministry of Education. Before starting the project, the survey tools were translated from English to Arabic and then back-translated into English to ensure accuracy. Informed consent was obtained from all participating teachers prior to collecting data.

2.3. Measures

Demographic Information and Disability Knowledge and Experience
The first part of the survey collected demographic information including the teacher’s gender, age, highest qualification, and teaching level, in addition to information regarding the participant’s training in inclusion and special education, their social relationships with people with a disability (i.e., friend, family member, colleague, acquaintance), and their self-reported experience, effectiveness, and confidence in teaching students with a disability rated on a three-point scale (low, average, high).
Training variables: Special education training and inclusive education training were measured using two self-report items that asked teachers whether they had ever received any training in (a) special education or (b) inclusive education (response options: yes/no). These items were intended to distinguish between exposure to training with a special education focus (e.g., disability-specific knowledge and supports) and exposure to training with an inclusion focus (e.g., inclusive pedagogy and strategies to support diverse learners in mainstream classrooms). The survey did not capture the duration, format, recency, provider, or content of training. Accordingly, in the analyses, these variables were treated as binary indicators of training exposure, rather than detailed measures of the training intensity or quality.

2.3.1. Attitudes to Inclusion Scale (AIS)

Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education were measured using the Attitudes to Inclusion Scale (AIS) [41]. The AIS consists of eight items (e.g., “I believe that inclusion benefits all students academically”) and is rated on a seven-point Likert scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (7). The scale consists of a total score, which is calculated as the sum of all item scores. The AIS has been demonstrated as having strong internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.80 [41]. The Cronbach’s alpha for the AIS total score in the current study was 0.93. The scale was translated into Arabic for this study and subsequently back-translated into English to ensure the original meaning remained intact.

2.3.2. Intention to Teach in Inclusive Classroom Scale (ITICS)

Participants’ intention to teach in inclusive classrooms was measured using the Intention to Teach in Inclusive Classroom Scale (ITICS) [41]. The ITICS consists of seven items (e.g., “Change the curriculum to meet the learning needs of a student with learning difficulty enrolled in your class”) rated on a seven-point Likert scale from Extremely Unlikely (1) to Extremely Likely (7). The scale includes a total score (sum of all items) and has demonstrated strong internal consistency with published alpha coefficients ranging from 0.73 to 0.83 [41]. The alpha coefficient for the current study was 0.89 for the ITICS total score. As with the AIS, the ITICS was translated into Arabic and then back-translated into English for the purposes of the current study.

2.3.3. Inclusive Practice Scale (IPS)

The participants’ use of inclusive practices in their teaching was measured using the Inclusive Practice Scale (IPS) [25], which was developed by drawing on an inclusive practice observational scale and a comprehensive review of the inclusive education literature. The Arabic-translated version of the IPS consists of 28 items, in which participants rate their responses on a five-point Likert scale ranging from Expert (4), Proficient (3), Developing (2), and Novice (1) to Not Applicable (0). An example item from the IPS is “I modify instruction to meet the diverse learning needs of students.” The scale consists of a total score, with higher scores indicative of a higher use of inclusive practices. The measure has been demonstrated to have strong internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.97. The alpha coefficient for the current study was 0.99 for the IPS total score. The IPS was translated into Arabic and then back-translated into English for the current study; it was then reviewed by experts to ensure its suitability in the Saudi context.

2.4. Data Analysis

Prior to analysis, the data were screened for accuracy and missing values, and preliminary diagnostics were conducted to examine the assumptions of normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, and multicollinearity. The normality was assessed through the visual inspection of histograms and Q–Q plots and by examining the skewness and kurtosis values for all items and scale totals, which were within acceptable ranges. The linearity and homoscedasticity were evaluated through the inspection of scatterplots of the standardised residuals against the predicted values. The multicollinearity was assessed using variance inflation factors (VIFs) and tolerance statistics, with no violations detected. The descriptive statistics were then computed, and the internal consistency of each scale was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. To examine differences in teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, the intention to teach in inclusive schools, and inclusive practices, according to their training in (1) special education and (2) inclusion, a series of independent-samples t-tests were conducted. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the bivariate relationships between teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, their intention to teach in inclusive classrooms, and inclusive practices. Finally, multiple regression analysis was used to examine the extent to which teachers’ attitudes and intention to teach in inclusive classrooms predicted inclusive practices.
Given the cross-sectional and self-report nature of the data, all analyses examine associations between variables rather than causal relationships, and the findings are interpreted in terms of relationships and predictive patterns rather than causal effects.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics and the Internal Consistency of the Study Measures

For all three measures, analyses were conducted using the total summed scale scores rather than item-level means. Accordingly, the ranges, means, and standard deviations reported below reflect the total scores across items.
The scores on the eight-item Arabic-translated version of the Attitudes to Inclusion Scale, calculated as the total summed scores, ranged from 8 to 56, with higher scores reflecting more positive attitudes towards inclusion. The results suggested that teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion overall were in the mid-range (M = 33.35; SD = 11.91). The Cronbach alpha coefficient showed a very strong internal consistency of 0.93 for this sample.
Scores on the seven-item Arabic-translated version of the Intention to Teach in Inclusive Classrooms Scale, calculated as the total sum of scores, ranged from 7 to 49, with higher scores indicating a stronger intention to teach in inclusive classrooms. The participants’ reported intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms also fell in the mid-range (M = 37.67; SD = 8.54). The scale had strong internal consistency for our study sample, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.89.
Scores on the 28-item Arabic-translated version of the Inclusive Practice Scale, calculated as the total summed scores, ranged from 28 to 168, with higher scores indicative of higher levels of teacher efficacy. Participants’ ratings of inclusive practices were in the mid-range (M = 76.17; SD = 26.59). The scale had very strong internal consistency for our study sample, with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.99.

3.2. Differences in Attitudes Towards Inclusion, the Intention to Teach in Inclusive Schools, and Inclusive Practices, According to Special Education and Inclusion Training

A series of independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare the differences in attitudes towards inclusion, the intention to teach in inclusive schools, and inclusive practices according to the level of training received in (1) special education and (2) inclusion. To control for Type 1 errors across multiple tests, Bonferroni’s adjustment was applied, resulting in a new alpha cut-off value of 0.01.
There were no significant differences in the attitudes towards inclusion for teachers who had received training in special education (M = 35.15; SD = 11.77) compared with teachers who had not (M = 31.86; SD = 12.10); t(169) = −1.79, p = 0.08. However, teachers who had received training in inclusion (M = 36.10; SD = 10.76) were found to have significantly more positive attitudes towards inclusion compared with teachers who had not (M = 31.40; SD = 12.20); t(172) = −2.60, p = 0.01. The magnitude of the differences in the means was small (eta squared = 0.03) [47].
Teachers who had received training in special education provided significantly higher ratings of their intention to teach in inclusive classrooms (M = 40.47; SD = 6.96) compared with teachers who had not (M = 35.43; SD = 9.12); t(169) = −3.96, p < 0.01, with a moderate effect size of 0.08 as measured by eta squared, as did teachers who had received training in inclusion (M = 40.62; SD = 6.12) compared with teachers who had not (M = 35.68; SD = 9.28); t(172) = −3.88, p < 0.01, with a moderate effect size (eta squared = 0.08).
Finally, teachers who had received training in special education also provided significantly higher ratings of their inclusive practices (M = 86.43; SD = 20.58) compared with teachers who had not (M = 68.29; SD = 28.11); t(131) = −4.09, p < 0.01, with a moderate to large effect size of 0.11 as measured by eta squared, as did teachers who had received training in inclusion (M = 86.50; SD = 20.15) compared with teachers who had not (M = 68.75; SD = 27.96); t(172) = −4.03, p < 0.01, with a moderate to large effect size of 0.11.

3.3. Correlations Between Attitudes Towards Inclusion, the Intention to Teach in Inclusive Classrooms, and Inclusive Practices

Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to examine the bivariate relationships between teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, the intention to teach in inclusive classrooms, and inclusive practices. As shown in Table 3, the intention to teach in inclusive classrooms was strongly and positively correlated with attitudes towards inclusion (r = 0.588, p < 0.001). Inclusive practices were also positively correlated with both the intention to teach in inclusive classrooms (r = 0.353, p < 0.001) and attitudes towards inclusion (r = 0.210, p = 0.007). These results indicate that the variables were related in the expected directions and that the assumptions for conducting multiple regression analyses were met.
Table 3. Correlations between attitudes towards inclusion, the intention to teach in inclusive classrooms, and inclusive practices.

3.4. Predictors of Inclusive Practice

Given the significant bivariate correlations between the study variables, a series of standard multiple regression analyses were conducted to examine whether teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion predicted their intention to teach in inclusive classrooms and whether their intention to teach in inclusive classrooms predicted inclusive practices. The results of these regression analyses are summarised in Table 4.
Table 4. Summary of regression analyses predicting the intention to teach in inclusive classrooms and inclusive practices.
The teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion significantly predicted their intention to teach in inclusive classrooms (β = 0.588, t(173) = 9.55, p < 0.001), indicating that more positive attitudes were associated with stronger intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms. The model explained 34.5% of the variance in the intention to teach in inclusive classrooms (R2 = 0.345, adjusted R2 = 0.342), F(1, 173) = 91.24, p < 0.001.
The teachers’ intention to teach in inclusive classrooms also significantly predicted inclusive practices (β = 0.353, t(133) = 4.35, p < 0.001), indicating that stronger intentions were associated with higher self-reported use of inclusive practices. The model explained 12.5% of the variance in inclusive practices (R2 = 0.125, adjusted R2 = 0.118), F(1, 133) = 18.94, p < 0.001.

4. Discussion

This study examined the impact of special education and inclusion training on Saudi teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion, their intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms, and their self-reported inclusive practices. The findings offer important insights into the role of teacher education and professional development in fostering inclusive education [36,48,49], which is central to building teacher capacity required for achieving inclusive and equitable education under SDG 4. Additionally, the study explored the extent to which teacher attitudes predict their intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms and how these intentions influence their actual inclusive practices [46], providing evidence relevant to SDG 4 to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote equal participation among students with disabilities. Due to the cross-sectional design of this study, the observed relationships cannot be interpreted as causal. Readers should carefully interpret the results of the study. Although training, attitudes, intentions, and practices are discussed in relational terms, the direction of influence cannot be determined, and reciprocal or unmeasured influences are also possible.
The results revealed that inclusion-specific training was associated with more positive attitudes towards inclusion, while training in special education was not associated with a significant difference in attitudes. Teachers who received inclusion training reported more positive attitudes towards inclusion than those without such training, a finding consistent with the existing research that emphasises the importance of targeted inclusion training in fostering positive attitudes [36,50], which supports the development of inclusive teaching mindsets necessary for achieving SDG 4, particularly in ensuring inclusive and equitable education for students with disabilities. Although the magnitude of the difference was small, this result highlights the influence of inclusion-specific training in shaping teacher perspectives on the value and feasibility of inclusive education, thereby contributing to improved access and participation for diverse learners in line with SDG 4.
The lack of significant difference in attitudes between teachers with special education training suggests that while such training is essential for developing specialised skills, it may not be sufficient to shift attitudes towards a more inclusive mindset. Special education training typically focuses on specific disabilities and individualised interventions, which may reinforce a segregated view of education, rather than a broader inclusive approach, which may limit progress toward inclusive systems envisioned in SDG 4. This finding supports the argument that inclusion training should be integrated into special education programmes to promote a more comprehensive understanding of inclusive education [48,49], thereby aligning teacher preparation with the requirements of SDG 4 by strengthening inclusive teaching approaches for diverse student needs.
Both inclusion and special education training were significantly associated with higher teacher-reported intentions towards inclusive teaching, with those receiving training in either area reporting higher intentions compared to those without training. The effect sizes for both comparisons were moderate, indicating that such training and professional development play a meaningful role in enhancing teachers’ confidence and willingness to engage in inclusive teaching, a key factor in supporting inclusive and equitable education under SDG 4. These results align with Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour, which suggests that positive attitudes and perceived behavioural control are important correlates of behavioural intentions [46]. In the current study, training was associated with these constructs, which are foundational for promoting inclusive practices aligned with SDG 4 by supporting teachers’ capacity to address diverse learning needs in inclusive classrooms. However, the results also suggest a persistent gap between intention and actual implementation, influenced by institutional and structural constraints, indicating the presence of systemic barriers that must be addressed to advance inclusive and equitable education under SDG 4. This has significant implications for the realisation of SDG 4, as it underscores the need to ensure equitable access and meaningful participation in education for students with disabilities. The findings indicate that achieving SDG 4 requires moving beyond a narrow focus on individual attitudes toward a more comprehensive approach that addresses systemic barriers within education institutions, including school-level support, resources, and policy alignment.
The most striking findings emerged in relation to teachers’ self-reported inclusive practices. Both special education and inclusion training were associated with significantly higher ratings of inclusive practices, with moderate to large effect sizes. Teachers who had received training in either domain reported a higher use of inclusive strategies than those without such training [36,49], which aligns with SDG 4’s emphasis on improving teacher capacity to deliver inclusive and equitable quality education by enhancing teachers’ ability to support students with diverse learning needs, including those with disabilities. The strong association between training and inclusive practices highlights the need for continuous professional development that addresses both special education and inclusive teaching strategies [30,49] as part of strengthening education systems in line with SDG 4. While special education training provides essential skills for supporting students with disabilities, inclusion training likely promotes broader pedagogical approaches that benefit all students [36,49], which support equitable access to learning opportunities as advocated by SDG 4, and which facilitate greater participation of diverse learners in mainstream classrooms by enabling more inclusive engagement of students with diverse learning needs. The significant influence of both types of training on inclusive practices suggests that comprehensive teacher development programmes should integrate both specialised and inclusive teaching methods to ensure that educators are well-prepared to meet the needs of all students [48], contributing to the achievement of inclusive and equitable education under SDG 4 through improving access, participation, and learning outcomes for all students.
In line with Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour, this study found that teacher attitudes towards inclusion significantly predicted their intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms [46]. Teachers with stronger positive attitudes were more likely to express a commitment to inclusive teaching, explaining 34.5% of the variance in intentions, which is critical for advancing inclusive education as outlined in SDG 4, as positive attitudes underpin teachers’ willingness to implement equitable practices in diverse classrooms. This finding reinforces the idea that fostering positive attitudes through training is crucial for shaping teachers’ intentions to implement inclusive education [36,49], thereby supporting the broader goals of SDG 4 related to inclusive education systems by strengthening teachers’ readiness to accommodate all learners. Positive attitudes likely reflect teachers’ belief in the value of inclusion and their confidence in their ability to teach in diverse classrooms, which strengthens their intentions to adopt inclusive practices [30] and supports equitable participation for all learners in line with SDG 4, especially for students who are at risk of exclusion, such as those with disabilities.
Furthermore, teachers’ intentions to teach in inclusive classrooms were a significant predictor of their self-reported inclusive practices, explaining 12.5% of the variance in inclusive practices. This finding suggests that, while intentions are an important predictor of actual behaviour, other factors, such as the school environment, administrative support, and access to resources, may also play a role in shaping teachers’ inclusive practices [49], indicating that achieving SDG 4 depends on both individual and systemic enablers of inclusion. This has important implications for achieving SDG 4, as it highlights that inclusive and equitable education cannot be realised through individual intentions alone but requires supportive institutional and systemic conditions, including policies, resources, and leadership that enable inclusive teaching practices at scale.

4.1. Implications for Policy and Practice

This study has important implications for educational policy and practice. The findings suggest that achieving SDG 4 is influenced not only by individual attitudes but also by the wider systems that either support or hinder inclusive practices. First, the significant impact of inclusion training on teachers’ attitudes, intentions, and practices regarding inclusion underscores the need for targeted teacher training and development that focuses on inclusive education [36,49]. Policymakers and school leaders should prioritise the integration of inclusion training into both pre-service and in-service teacher education programmes to foster positive attitudes and promote the adoption of inclusive practices [49].
Second, the findings highlight the limitations of special education training in shaping attitudes towards inclusion. While such training is critical for developing skills to support students with disabilities, it may not be sufficient to foster a more inclusive mindset [49], which may limit its contribution to achieving SDG 4 in ensuring more equitable learning experiences for students with disabilities. Incorporating inclusive education principles into special education training programmes could help bridge this gap and promote a more holistic approach to teaching all students, regardless of their abilities [48].
Finally, the modest predictive power of teacher intentions in relation to inclusive practices suggests that additional support is needed to ensure that intentions translate into action, indicating that achieving SDG 4 requires moving beyond individual teacher intentions to addressing contextual and institutional factors. School administrators should provide ongoing support, including access to resources, collaborative planning opportunities, and mentorship, to help teachers implement inclusive practices effectively [34], as these supports enhance the conditions necessary for delivering inclusive and equitable quality education under SDG 4. Creating a supportive school environment that prioritises inclusion can reinforce teachers’ intentions and encourage the sustained use of inclusive strategies [49], thereby contributing to improved access, participation, and learning outcomes in line with SDG 4 by supporting more inclusive and equitable educational experiences for diverse learners.

4.2. Limitations

While this study provides valuable insights into the impact of training on teachers’ attitudes, intentions, and practices regarding inclusive classrooms, several limitations must be acknowledged.
First, the study relied exclusively on self-reported measures for attitudes, intentions, and inclusive practices. Although these measures demonstrated strong internal consistency, self-report data are vulnerable to response biases, particularly social desirability bias, whereby participants may provide responses they believe are expected or socially acceptable, rather than fully reflecting their actual beliefs or classroom practices. This limitation is especially relevant for the measurement of inclusive practices, as inclusive education is strongly endorsed in policy and professional discourse, which may have led some teachers to overestimate the extent to which they implement inclusive strategies in practice. Future research would benefit from multi-method approaches, such as classroom observations, interviews, teaching artefact analysis, or supervisor and peer reports, to triangulate the self-reported data and provide a more objective and comprehensive assessment of inclusive practices.
Second, a central focus of this study was the distinction between special education training and inclusive education training; however, training was assessed using binary self-report indicators (trained vs. untrained), and we did not collect information about the duration, intensity, recency, delivery mode, provider, or specific content of the training experiences. Future research would benefit from more detailed training measures, including the training length, coverage of inclusive pedagogy, practical classroom components, and perceived usefulness, as well as objective indicators (e.g., completion records where available).
Third, the cross-sectional design precludes any conclusions about causal direction. For example, it is equally plausible that teachers who hold positive attitudes towards or use inclusive practices are more likely to seek out training. While the study suggests that inclusion and special education training may influence attitudes, intentions, and practices, longitudinal research is needed to assess how these factors evolve over time and the long-term effects of such training on inclusive education. Finally, the study did not fully account for other factors that may influence teachers’ attitudes and behaviours, such as school policies, administrative support, or the availability of resources. These external factors could play a significant role in shaping teachers’ practices and should be considered in future research.
Finally, the size and composition of the sample represent an additional limitation. Although the sample size (N = 175) was sufficient for the statistical analyses conducted, it is relatively modest given the national scope and policy relevance of inclusive education in Saudi Arabia. Moreover, the participants were drawn primarily from the Riyadh region, and the sample was unevenly distributed across teaching levels, with relatively low numbers of teachers in some sectors (e.g., preschool). As educational resources, professional development opportunities, and the implementation of inclusion policies may vary across regions and school contexts, these factors may limit the generalisability of the findings to the wider Saudi teaching workforce. Future studies should aim to recruit larger, regionally diverse, and more evenly stratified samples to strengthen the external validity of the conclusions.
Despite these limitations, the study provides a strong foundation for understanding the importance of training in promoting inclusive education and offers valuable implications for policy and practice. Future research should address these limitations to build on the findings and provide a more comprehensive understanding of teachers’ roles in inclusive education.

4.3. Conclusions

This study highlights the important associations between professional development, teachers’ attitudes, intentions, and self-reported practices related to inclusive education, providing evidence on key factors that support the implementation of inclusive and equitable education under SDG 4. Both special education and inclusion training significantly enhance teachers’ readiness to implement inclusive practices, with inclusion-specific training particularly effective in fostering positive attitudes which are essential for enabling equitable participation of students with diverse needs, including those with disabilities, in line with SDG 4, by supporting inclusive and equitable participation for all learners. The findings emphasise the importance of comprehensive teacher development programmes that address both the philosophical and practical aspects of inclusive education, ensuring that teachers are well-equipped to meet the diverse needs of all students [36,49], thereby strengthening teachers’ capacity to improve access, participation, and learning outcomes, as required for achieving SDG 4.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.A. and U.S.; methodology, N.A., U.S., M.A. (Maha Alsulaiman), F.M.; software, F.M.; validation, F.M., N.A., U.S., M.A. (Maha Alsulaiman); formal analysis, F.M.; investigation, M.A. (Majed Alqahtani); resources, N.A.; data curation, M.A. (Majed Alqahtani), F.M., M.A. (Maha Alsulaiman) and N.A.; writing—original draft preparation, N.A., U.S., F.M.; writing—review and editing, F.M., M.A. (Maha Alsulaiman); supervision, N.A., U.S., M.A. (Maha Alsulaiman); project administration U.S.; funding acquisition, N.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University Researchers Supporting Project number (PNURSP2026R615), Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted under the requirements of the Institutional Review Board Statement at Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University (HAP-01-R-059 9 May 2023).

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Glossary

Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour: The Theory of Planned Behaviour posits that an individual’s behaviour is primarily determined by three key factors: attitude towards the behaviour, which includes the degree to which an individual has a favourable or unfavourable evaluation of the behaviour in question; subjective norms, which involve the perceived social pressure to perform or not perform the behaviour; and perceived behavioural control, which is the individual’s belief in their ability to perform the behaviour and is closely related to the concept of self-efficacy [46]. Attitudes to inclusive education: The perceptions, beliefs, and dispositions that influence a teachers’ approach to inclusive education. Inclusive education: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [1] defines inclusive education as access to mainstream schooling and the provision of the support required to ensure that all students, regardless of background, experience optimal wellbeing and opportunities for learning. Inclusive practices: The specific pedagogies that facilitate the full involvement and engagement of all students in learning. Inclusion training: Professional learning that builds the capacity of teachers to incorporate pedagogical approaches that support the engagement of all students in learning, regardless of background. Intention to teach in inclusive classrooms: In Ajzen’s framework, behavioural intentions serve as the bridge between attitudes, subjective norms, perceived control, and actual behaviour. Teachers’ intentions to engage in inclusive practices are a strong predictor of whether they will actually adopt these strategies in the classroom [46]. Special education training: Teachers’ professional learning that provides skills for supporting students with disabilities.

References

  1. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2006; Available online: https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2024).
  2. Ainscow, M.; Booth, T.; Dyson, A. Improving Schools, Developing Inclusion; Routledge: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  3. Sharma, U.; Subban, P. International Encyclopedia of Education; Tierney, R.J., Rizvi, F., Erkican, K., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; Volume 9, pp. 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. UNESCO. The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education; UNESCO: Paris, France, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  5. UNESCO. Global Report on Inclusion: Best Practices in Inclusive Education; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  6. Abu-Alghayth, K.M.; Catania, N.; Semon, S.; Lane, D.; Cranston-Gingras, A. A brief history of special education policy on the inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities in Saudi Arabia. Br. J. Learn. Disabil. 2022, 50, 178–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Al-Mousa, N. The Experience of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in Mainstreaming Students with Special Educational Needs in Public Schools; Ministry of Education: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2008.
  8. Ministry of Education. The Regulation of Special Education Programs and Institutes of Saudi Arabia (RSEPI); Ministry of Education: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2002.
  9. Madhesh, A. The concept of inclusive education from the point of view of academics specialising in special education at Saudi universities. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Ministry of Education. Organizational Guide for Special; King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Public Education Development Project (Tatweer); Ministry of Education: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2015.
  11. Lingard, B.; Sellar, S. Globalization, edu-business, and network governance: The policy sociology of Stephen J. Ball and rethinking education policy analysis. Lond. Rev. Educ. 2013, 11, 265–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Alharbi, A.; Madhesh, A. Inclusive education and policy in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Educ. Res. Rev. 2018, 6, 946–956. [Google Scholar]
  13. Friend, M.; Bursuck, W.D. Including Students with Special Needs: A Practical Guide for Classroom Teachers, 7th ed.; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  14. Alenizi, M.A.K. An Investigation into the Adopted Supervisory Practices in the Teaching Practice of Special Education Needs Student Teachers in Saudi Arabia: Different Perspectives. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  15. Aldabas, R.A. Special education in Saudi Arabia: History and areas for reform. Creat. Educ. 2015, 6, 1158–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Alsalem, M. Considering and Supporting the Implementation of Universal Design for Learning Among Teachers of Students Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing in Saudi Arabia. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  17. Alkhattabi, S.O.; Alshuayl, M.S.; Ryndak, D.L. Inclusive education for students with intellectual disabilities in Saudi Arabia: A systematic review. J. Int. Spec. Needs Educ. 2025, 28, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Digital Government Authority. Introductory Guide: Digital Inclusion Program; Digital Government Authority: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2023; Issue No. 1.0.
  19. Ministry of Education. We Care About Their Future… Persons with Disabilities: Programs, Services, Partnerships, Initiatives, and Tools [Infographic]; Ministry of Education: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2024. Available online: https://www.moe.gov.sa (accessed on 23 April 2024).
  20. Ministry of Education. Equality in Education for Students with Disabilities; Ministry of Education: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2022. Available online: https://moe.gov.sa/ar/education/generaleducation/Pages/PeopleWithSpecialNeeds.aspx (accessed on 23 April 2024).
  21. Council of Ministers. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act; Council of Ministers: Vatican City, Italy, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  22. Alsolami, A. The Educational Journey of Students with Disabilities in Saudi Arabia: From Isolation to Inclusive Education. Remedial Spec. Educ. 2024, 45, 359–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Alabdulwahab, R.A. Evaluating the Special Education Professional Development Program Based on the Council of Exceptional Children’s Advanced Preparation Standards: A Mixed-Method Inquiry. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Alharbi, M.S.; Albidewi, I.A. Initial teacher preparation program in Saudi Arabia: History and framework for transformation toward a new era. Front. Educ. 2024, 9, 1442528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Sharma, U.; Sokal, L.; Wang, M.; Loreman, T. Measuring the use of inclusive practices among pre-service educators: A multinational study. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2021, 107, 103506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Forlin, C.; Lian, M.G.J. Reform, inclusion and teacher education. In Towards a New Era of Special Education in the Asia-Pacific Region; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lindsay, G. Educational psychology and the effectiveness of inclusive education/mainstreaming. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2007, 77, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Friend, M.; Cook, L. Interactions: Collaboration Skills for School Professionals, 8th ed.; Pearson: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kisbu-Sakarya, Y.; Doenyas, C. Can school teachers’ willingness to teach ASD-inclusion classes be increased via special education training? Uncovering mediating mechanisms. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2021, 113, 103941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Sharma, U. Preparing to Teach in Inclusive Classrooms. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  31. Aftab, M.J.; Amjad, F.; Chaudhry, H. Inclusive education: Strategies for successful inclusion of students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. Acad. Educ. Soc. Sci. Rev. 2024, 4, 439–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. UNESCO. Background Paper Prepared for the 2020 Global Education Monitoring Report: Inclusion and Education; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  33. Giangreco, M.F. Teacher assistant supports in inclusive schools: Research, practices and alternatives. Australas. J. Spec. Educ. 2013, 37, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Powell, D.R.; Son, S.H.; File, N.; San Juan, R.R. Parent–school relationships and children’s academic and social outcomes in public school pre-kindergarten. J. Sch. Psychol. 2010, 48, 269–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Avramidis, E.; Norwich, B. Teachers’ attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2002, 17, 129–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Sharma, U.; Sokal, L. Can Teachers’ Efficacy, Concerns, Attitudes Towards Inclusion Predict their Inclusive Classroom Practices? Australas. J. Spec. Educ. 2016, 40, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Boyle, C.; Topping, K.; Jindal-Snape, D. Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in high schools. Teach. Teach. 2013, 19, 527–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Sharma, U.; Loreman, T.; Forlin, C. Measuring teacher efficacy to implement inclusive practices. J. Res. Spec. Educ. Needs 2012, 12, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Aldosari, M.S. Perceptions of Saudi Arabian school teachers in private general education schools toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2022, 130, 104342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Alnahdi, G.H.; Schwab, S. Special Education Major or Attitudes to Predict Teachers’ Self-Efficacy for Teaching in Inclusive Education. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 680909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Alhartı, N.; Evans, D. Special education teachers’ attitudes towards teaching students with learning disabilities in middle schools in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Mod. Educ. Stud. 2017, 1, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Slee, R. The Irregular School: Exclusion, Schooling and Inclusive Education; Routledge: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  43. Fraser, N. Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing World; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Almalky, H.A.; Alrabiah, A.H. Predictors of teachers’ intention to implement inclusive education. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2024, 158, 107457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
  47. Lewis, I.; Corcoran, S.L.; Juma, S.; Kaplan, I.; Little, D.; Pinnock, H. Time to stop polishing the brass on the Titanic: Moving beyond ‘quick-and-dirty’ teacher education for inclusion, towards sustainable theories of change. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2019, 23, 722–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Forlin, C.; Loreman, T.; Sharma, U.; Earle, C. Demographic differences in changing pre-service teachers’ attitudes. Int. J. Incl. Educ. 2009, 13, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Karni Vizer, N.; Arslan, M.; Hazan-Liran, B. Transforming Attitudes: How Training and Culture Shape Teachers’ Views on Inclusion. Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Sharma, U.; Forlin, C.; Loreman, T. Impact of training on pre-service teachers’ attitudes and concerns about inclusive education and sentiments about persons with disabilities. Disabil. Soc. 2008, 23, 773–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
How Does Message–Language Congruity in Tourism Carbon Emission Messages Shape Boosting Policy Behavior?
Previous
TMT’s R&D Background and Enterprise Digital Transformation—A Perspective of Power
Next