Teachers’ Understanding of Implementing Inclusion in Mainstream Classrooms in Rural Areas

Abstract

This study explores teachers’ understanding and implementation of inclusive education in a rural mainstream secondary school in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Grounded in the inclusive pedagogy framework, the research employed a qualitative approach, combining classroom observations and semi-structured interviews with three purposively selected teachers. Findings revealed a significant disconnect between teachers’ conceptual support for inclusion and their classroom practices, which remained largely traditional and undifferentiated. Teachers expressed narrow or fragmented understandings of inclusion, often equating it solely with disability integration, and cited systemic barriers such as overcrowding, rigid curricula, and inadequate training as key challenges. Despite emotional discomfort and pedagogical insecurity, participants demonstrated a willingness to adopt inclusive strategies if provided with contextualised professional development and systemic support. The study underscores the need for strengthened pre-service and in-service teacher training, curriculum flexibility, and resource provision to bridge the policy-practice gap in rural inclusive education. Recommendations include collaborative learning communities, stakeholder engagement, and further research to advance equitable implementation.

1. Introduction

Inclusive education continues to gain momentum as a transformative force within global and national education systems. Grounded in principles of equity, access, and human rights, inclusive education ensures that all learners, regardless of their backgrounds, abilities, or socio-economic status, can participate fully in quality education. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4) calls for “inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all” by 2030, reinforcing the imperative for educational systems to remove barriers to learning (UNESCO, 2022).

In South Africa, inclusive education is anchored in Education White Paper 6 (DoE, 2001) and operationalized through policies such as the Screening, Identification, Assessment and Support (SIAS) Policy (DBE, 2014) and more recently, the Guidelines for Responding to Learner Diversity in the Classroom (DBE, 2021). Despite these developments, the implementation of inclusive education remains uneven, especially in rural schools where teachers face complex challenges, including overcrowded classrooms, limited training, insufficient teaching resources, and rigid curriculum structures (Makoelle, 2022; Walton & Engelbrecht, 2023).

Between 2021 and 2025, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted and intensified existing inequalities in the South African education system. Rural schools were disproportionately affected due to a lack of digital infrastructure and differentiated learning materials. This disruption reignited debates around the need to make inclusive education more resilient and responsive to learners’ diverse needs (Spaull & Carel, 2021; Donohue & Bornman, 2022). As a result, recent reforms have increasingly emphasised Universal Design for Learning (UDL), psychosocial support, and the need for improved teacher professional development in inclusive pedagogies (DBE, 2022).

However, despite the growing policy support, the reality on the ground suggests that many teachers, particularly in rural mainstream classrooms, still struggle to conceptualise and implement inclusion in ways that are pedagogically sound and socially just. Recent studies reveal that teachers often lack a clear understanding of inclusion beyond physical placement of learners with disabilities, and their attitudes may reflect confusion, reluctance, or uncertainty about their roles in inclusive settings (Engelbrecht et al., 2023; Phasha & Mahlo, 2024). Furthermore, professional development programmes continue to be fragmented, short-term, and misaligned with the practical demands of rural teaching contexts (Sethusha, 2023; Sepadi & Themane, 2025).

This study is situated within this pressing policy-practice divide. Using the theoretical lens of inclusive pedagogy, particularly its core expertise of knowing, doing, and believing (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011; Deppeler, 2022), the research explores how teachers in a rural Limpopo secondary school understand and implement inclusive education. The aim is to understand how their conceptual and practical engagement with inclusion either promotes or hinders learner participation and success.

By focusing on teachers’ voices, practices, and constraints, this study contributes to the ongoing discourse on the real conditions required to make inclusion achievable in rural South African classrooms. It underscores that teacher understanding is not merely a cognitive issue, but one deeply embedded in systemic, contextual, and emotional realities that must be addressed holistically if the goals of inclusive education are to be met by 2030 (UNESCO, 2023; Walton et al., 2025).

1.1. Literature Review

1.1.1. Understanding Inclusive Education

Inclusive education is broadly defined as the process of responding to the diverse needs of all learners by increasing their participation in learning, cultures, and communities, and reducing exclusion from and within education systems (UNESCO, 2023). It challenges the traditional deficit-based approaches and promotes the idea that all learners, regardless of ability, background, or context, can thrive in mainstream classrooms given the right support (Walton & Engelbrecht, 2023).

In the South African context, inclusive education is articulated through Education White Paper 6 (DoE, 2001), which envisions a single education system capable of accommodating diverse learning needs. It emphasises the shift from labelling learners to identifying and removing barriers to learning. However, the implementation of this vision has been uneven, with rural schools facing more pronounced challenges due to under-resourcing, overcrowding, and teacher preparedness (Phasha & Mahlo, 2024).

1.1.2. Global and National Trends

Globally, the COVID-19 pandemic magnified educational inequalities, reaffirming the urgency of building resilient, inclusive education systems. Reports by UNESCO (2022, 2023) argue that without targeted support for marginalised learners, including those with disabilities, SDG 4 will not be achieved. In South Africa, the pandemic highlighted the lack of readiness in rural schools to support remote or differentiated learning (Spaull & Carel, 2021).

Policy reforms in the 2020s, such as the DBE Guidelines for Responding to Learner Diversity in the Classroom (DBE, 2021), attempted to reframe inclusivity as a pedagogical imperative rather than a compliance issue. These reforms advocate for curriculum differentiation, the use of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), and the strengthening of institutional support systems. Despite these efforts, many teachers continue to express uncertainty about how to translate inclusive principles into classroom practice (Sethusha, 2023; Engelbrecht et al., 2023).

1.1.3. The Rural Reality of Inclusive Education Policy in South Africa

South Africa’s inclusive education policies, while progressive in principle, encounter profound implementation challenges in rural settings. The foundational Education White Paper 6 (2001) envisioned a unified system where all learners, including those with disabilities, would access equitable education in mainstream schools. However, rural schools particularly in provinces like Limpopo, Eastern Cape, and KwaZulu-Natal—face systemic barriers that render inclusive education an aspirational ideal rather than an operational reality.

1.1.4. Policy Intent vs. Rural Implementation Gaps

The Screening, Identification, Assessment, and Support (SIAS) Policy (DBE, 2014) exemplifies this disconnect. While SIAS mandates a structured support pathway for learners with disabilities, rural schools often lack the District-Based Support Teams (DBSTs) required for its execution. In urban districts, DBSTs might include psychologists, speech therapists, and special education specialists, but rural areas frequently have none—or teams that serve impossibly large geographic areas. For example, in Limpopo’s Sekhukhune District, a single DBST may cover 50+ schools, delaying assessments for years (Engelbrecht et al., 2023). Consequently, teachers already overburdened must improvise supports without training, leading to ad hoc and often ineffective accommodations.

Similarly, full-service schools, designed as inclusive model institutions, are disproportionately concentrated in urban areas. Only 3% of rural schools meet the criteria for full-service status (DBE, 2022), leaving mainstream classrooms to absorb learners with disabilities without the promised resources. A 2023 study in Limpopo found that 89% of rural teachers had never seen an Individual Support Plan (ISP), despite SIAS requiring them for all identified learners (Sepadi & Themane, 2025).

1.1.5. Material Conditions Undermining Policy

Rural infrastructure actively contradicts inclusive policy objectives:

Overcrowding: Classes of 60–80 learners (Spaull & Carel, 2021) make differentiation impossible, reducing inclusion to mere physical presence.

Resource Scarcity: Only 11% of rural schools have assistive technologies (e.g., Braille machines), and 63% lack accessible sanitation (Polat, 2021), excluding learners with physical disabilities.

Curriculum Rigidity: The CAPS curriculum’s fixed pacing forces teachers to “teach to the middle”, leaving behind both struggling and advanced learners (Makoelle, 2022).

1.1.6. Cultural and Attitudinal Barriers

Policy documents like the Guidelines for Responding to Learner Diversity of 2021 (DBE, 2021) assume teacher buy-in, but rural realities reveal resistance born of structural neglect:

Deficit Mindsets: Many teachers equate inclusion solely with disability integration (Phasha & Mahlo, 2024), overlooking broader diversity (e.g., language, poverty).

Survival Pedagogy: “Covering the syllabus” trumps inclusive practices when teachers are evaluated on completion rates (Sethusha, 2023).

1.1.7. Toward Contextual Policy Reform

The failure of inclusive education in rural schools is not a teacher deficit but a systemic design flaw. Policies must:

Decentralise Support: Deploy mobile DBSTs and telehealth specialists to remote areas.

Rethink Class Size Caps: Tie funding to enforceable learner-teacher ratios (e.g., 25:1 for inclusive classrooms).

Adapt Curriculum Pacing: Allow rural teachers to modify CAPS timelines without penalty.

Without such shifts, inclusive education will remain a privilege of urban resourcing rather than a universal right.

1.1.8. Teachers’ Role and Understanding

Teachers are central to the successful implementation of inclusive education. Their beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes shape classroom practices and determine whether inclusion is promoted or hindered (Florian & Spratt, 2022; Sepadi, 2023). Research suggests that many South African teachers, particularly those in rural areas, still view inclusive education narrowly as the integration of learners with disabilities into mainstream settings rather than as a comprehensive pedagogical approach that benefits all learners (Phasha & Mahlo, 2024; Makoelle, 2022).

Moreover, studies have consistently shown that professional development programmes for inclusive education remain insufficient. These programmes are often short-term, lack practical classroom strategies, and do not adequately prepare teachers for curriculum differentiation or learner support (Donohue & Bornman, 2022; Walton et al., 2025). Teachers’ lack of confidence and competence can result in resistance or superficial implementation of inclusive strategies.

1.1.9. Barriers to Implementation

Several key barriers to effective inclusive education have been identified:

Curriculum Inflexibility: A rigid curriculum pacing structure (e.g., CAPS) often forces teachers to prioritise content coverage over individual learner needs, limiting differentiation opportunities (Sethusha, 2023).

Resource Constraints: Many rural schools lack assistive technologies, learner support materials, and multi-disciplinary teams essential for inclusion (Polat, 2021).

Classroom Overcrowding: Overburdened teachers struggle to manage diverse learning needs when classes are large and poorly resourced (Makofane, 2019).

Training Gaps: Teachers often report completing education degrees or in-service programmes without engaging with learners experiencing barriers to learning (Engelbrecht et al., 2023).

These factors contribute to the limited translation of inclusive policies into inclusive classroom practice. As highlighted by Walton and Engelbrecht (2023), sustainable inclusion requires systemic reform that addresses both pedagogical and structural dimensions.

1.1.10. Theoretical Framework: Inclusive Pedagogy and the “Core Expertise” Model

This study is guided by the inclusive pedagogy framework, particularly the core expertise model as proposed by Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011) and further developed by Deppeler (2022). This framework moves away from learner deficit models and instead emphasises what teachers can do to accommodate all learners, especially those often marginalised in traditional classrooms.

The inclusive pedagogy framework is underpinned by three key domains:

• Knowing: Understanding diversity as a normal feature of human development and being informed about learner needs and support mechanisms.
• Doing: Employing a range of flexible instructional strategies that promote participation, collaboration, and learner agency.
• Believing: Holding high expectations for all learners, grounded in the belief that everyone can learn and succeed when appropriately supported.

Inclusive pedagogy thus aligns with social justice principles by challenging the status quo and encouraging teachers to rethink traditional assumptions about ability, normality, and learner potential (Florian & Spratt, 2022). It recognises that meaningful inclusion requires more than physical integration; it demands that teachers continuously adapt their practices and reflect on their beliefs to better serve diverse classrooms.

This theoretical lens is particularly useful in the South African rural context, where teachers often work in under-resourced schools and must balance systemic limitations with the ethical obligation to support every learner. The framework allows for a critical analysis of how teachers’ understanding of inclusion shapes their attitudes and daily classroom practices.

2. Materials and Methods

This study adopted a qualitative research approach underpinned by the interpretivist paradigm. The aim was to explore how teachers understand and implement inclusive education in rural mainstream classrooms. Qualitative research was deemed appropriate because it allows for an in-depth investigation of participants’ lived experiences, perceptions, and practices. As Denzin and Lincoln (2018) explain, qualitative research is well suited to contexts where meaning-making and human experience are central. This approach was necessary to uncover the subjective realities of teachers working within the complexities of rural schooling environments in South Africa.

2.1. Research Design

The study employed a classroom action research design. Action research was selected because it facilitates inquiry into real-life educational practices while enabling reflection and potential transformation. According to McNiff and Whitehead (2020), action research is particularly effective in education as it focuses on improving teaching and learning processes. In this study, the researcher engaged directly with participants in their natural teaching environments to observe their inclusive practices and then facilitated reflective interviews. The classroom action research model made it possible to capture both actual teaching behaviours and reflective professional thinking, which are essential for understanding the gap between policy and practice in inclusive education.

2.2. Research Setting

The research was conducted at a rural secondary school in the Mogodumo area of the Sekhukhune District in Limpopo Province. This site was purposefully selected due to its representativeness of typical rural schooling contexts in South Africa, characterised by limited resources, overcrowded classrooms, and undertrained teachers. The school, referred to using a pseudonym (“Tau High School”) to maintain confidentiality, is a public institution that serves learners from disadvantaged backgrounds. The contextual realities of this school provided a rich environment in which to examine the tensions between inclusive education policy and classroom practice.

2.3. Participants and Sampling

Three teachers participated in the study. They were purposefully selected based on their differing professional qualifications and years of teaching experience, which offered diverse perspectives on inclusive education. The sample included one teacher with a Bachelor of Education in Senior Phase and Further Education and Training (BEDSPF), another with a Senior Teacher’s Diploma (STD), and a third with a Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE). This heterogeneity allowed the study to explore whether training background influenced understanding and implementation of inclusive practices.

Purposive sampling was used to ensure that participants had the knowledge and experience relevant to the research objectives. The selection process was informed by Creswell’s (2013) recommendation that qualitative research seeks information-rich cases, rather than statistically representative ones. All participants gave informed consent, and ethical clearance was obtained from the University of Limpopo’s research ethics committee.

2.4. Data Collection Methods

Data collection consisted of two primary methods: classroom observations and semi-structured interviews. Observations were conducted to document how teachers engaged with diverse learners during real-time classroom instruction. The researcher used a structured observation checklist grounded in the “core expertise” of inclusive pedagogy, assessing competencies such as curriculum differentiation, classroom management, use of inclusive teaching strategies, and responsiveness to learners with behavioural or learning difficulties. Observations enabled the researcher to gain first-hand insight into the practical aspects of inclusion and to identify any disconnects between theoretical understanding and enacted practice.

Following the observations, semi-structured interviews were conducted with each teacher. The researcher aimed to elicit deeper insights into their conceptual understanding of inclusive education, their perceived challenges, and their attitudes toward inclusive teaching. This method allowed for flexibility in questioning, enabling participants to express their views openly and provide detailed narratives about their experiences. Interviews were conducted face-to-face in a private setting within the school premises to ensure confidentiality and comfort. All interviews were audio-recorded with permission and later transcribed for analysis.

The combination of observations and interviews created a comprehensive data set that captured both observable behaviours and internalised beliefs. Triangulating these two methods strengthened the credibility of the findings and allowed for richer interpretation.

2.5. Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted using thematic analysis, following the approach proposed by Braun and Clarke (2019). Transcripts from interviews and field notes from observations were read and re-read to identify recurring patterns and themes. Initial codes were generated manually, and categories were created based on both theoretical and empirical considerations. The theoretical framework of inclusive pedagogy, particularly the domains of knowing, doing, and believing, informed the development of themes.

The researcher then grouped the data into thematic clusters, comparing findings across participants to identify convergences and divergences. Observational data were cross-checked with interview responses to confirm or challenge emerging interpretations. This iterative and reflexive process ensured that the analysis remained grounded in participants’ lived realities while also being theoretically informed.

2.6. Trustworthiness and Rigour

To ensure trustworthiness, the study employed the four criteria proposed by Lincoln and Guba (1985): credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. Credibility was achieved through prolonged engagement in the field and triangulation of data sources. The researcher spent extended time observing each teacher and conducting interviews, thereby gaining an in-depth understanding of the school context.

Transferability was enhanced by providing a thick description of the research setting, participants, and data collection process, allowing readers to assess the applicability of the findings to similar contexts. Dependability was supported by maintaining a detailed audit trail, including observation checklists, interview guides, and data coding records. Confirmability was ensured by practising researcher reflexivity and maintaining neutrality during data collection and analysis.

2.7. Ethical Considerations

The study adhered to strict ethical standards. Ethical clearance was granted by the University of Limpopo. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, who were assured of their right to withdraw at any time without consequence. Pseudonyms were used to protect participants’ identities and the anonymity of the school. All data were securely stored in password-protected digital files, and participants were debriefed about the purpose and use of the study findings.

The research design, methodology, and ethical protocols were all tailored to ensure a respectful and accurate representation of the teachers’ voices and realities, especially given the sensitivity and complexity of inclusion in rural education.

3. Results

This section presents the findings derived from two primary data collection methods: classroom observations and semi-structured interviews. Data were thematically analysed using the inclusive pedagogy framework, particularly focusing on the domains of knowing, doing, and believing. The findings from each method are presented separately before being synthesised to offer a coherent interpretation of teachers’ understanding and implementation of inclusive education in a rural mainstream classroom.

3.1. Findings from Classroom Observations

Classroom observations focused on actual teaching practices and teachers’ capacity to enact inclusion in real-time learning environments. A structured observation checklist was used, based on key competencies in inclusive pedagogy.

3.1.1. Theme 1: Limited Differentiation and Traditional Instruction

Across all observed lessons, teaching remained highly traditional and teacher-centred. Instruction was delivered using lecture methods and boardwork, with little to no use of differentiated materials or learner-centred approaches. Learners who were disengaged or struggling received minimal support, and there was no visible attempt to adapt the content, pace, or format to cater for varying learning needs. Only one teacher occasionally used group work and learner discussion, but this was not consistent across lessons.

3.1.2. Theme 2: Difficulty Managing Overcrowded and Diverse Classrooms

All teachers struggled with managing overcrowded classrooms, which had a direct impact on their ability to individualise instruction. The physical layout of classrooms limited movement, making it difficult to reach all learners or group them for collaborative tasks. Behaviour management also posed a challenge, particularly with learners exhibiting behavioural or emotional difficulties. None of the observed lessons included strategies for supporting such learners, such as behaviour regulation tools or individual learning plans.

3.1.3. Theme 3: Minimal Application of Inclusive Pedagogy Principles

Observation data revealed a limited application of inclusive pedagogy’s “doing” component. There were no examples of scaffolding, curriculum adaptation, or the use of visual aids, which are often essential for engaging learners with diverse abilities. While some teachers demonstrated positive relationships with learners, the lack of inclusive instructional strategies limited the extent to which all learners could participate meaningfully.

3.2. Findings from Interviews with Teachers

Semi-structured interviews provided rich, nuanced insights into teachers’ conceptual understandings, emotional orientations, and practical challenges related to the implementation of inclusive education. The responses were thematically analysed and are presented under four key themes, supported by direct quotes from the participants to illustrate their lived experiences and viewpoints.

3.2.1. Theme 1: Varied and Often Narrow Understandings of Inclusion

Teachers’ conceptualisations of inclusive education varied, reflecting differing levels of familiarity with the principles underpinning the practice. One teacher understood inclusion primarily through the lens of disability integration. Teacher B remarked, “Inclusive education is when a child with disabilities is included in the general classroom, instead of being sent to special school”. This reflects a narrow, integration-focused understanding that limits inclusion to learners with visible disabilities.

In contrast, another participant expressed a broader, though still somewhat ambiguous, interpretation. Teacher C stated, “It is a policy of blending learners of different abilities, even if they are incompatible. Inclusion is on a mission to foster equality”. While the idea of equality is acknowledged, the description of learners as “incompatible” suggests an internal conflict or discomfort with inclusive ideals.

Only one teacher articulated inclusion in a way that aligns with its social justice goals. Teacher A explained, “I think inclusion helps learners that are less gifted attain higher grades. It’s about treating all learners equally in the classroom and making sure no one is left behind”. This view aligns more closely with the inclusive pedagogy philosophy that seeks to accommodate all learners regardless of ability.

3.2.2. Theme 2: Emotional Discomfort and Pedagogical Insecurity

Interviews revealed a strong emotional component to teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Many expressed discomfort and frustration, particularly when inclusion was seen as conflicting with curriculum delivery. Teacher C admitted, “I don’t really cater for diversity in the classroom because the curriculum is fast-paced, and we’re expected to cover everything on time. There’s just no room to slow down”.

Teacher B expressed feelings of inadequacy, saying, “Sometimes I don’t know what to do with a learner who doesn’t understand. I was never trained for this. I just try my best, but it’s hard”. This sense of unpreparedness left teachers uncertain and hesitant to modify their teaching approaches, even when they recognised learner struggles.

These statements reflect a broader concern about professional competence and workload. Teacher A confessed, “Inclusion sounds good, but in practice, it’s overwhelming. You end up feeling like you’re failing everyone, those who need more time, and those who want to move faster”.

3.2.3. Theme 3: Perceived Systemic Barriers to Implementation

Participants were unanimous in identifying external systemic constraints that limit their ability to practice inclusive education effectively. Teacher B stated, “The biggest problem is that we don’t have resources. We don’t have projectors, learning aids, or even space to group learners. It’s just not possible with what we have”.

Time constraints and policy expectations were also mentioned. Teacher C commented, “We’re expected to follow the pacesetter no matter what. Even if learners are not following, we must move on. It’s stressful”. This illustrates the tension between curriculum compliance and responsive teaching.

Teacher A echoed these sentiments, adding, “There’s no support staff like learning support teachers or psychologists. If a learner is struggling emotionally or academically, it’s all on me. That’s not fair”. The lack of multi-disciplinary support structures was a recurring theme across all interviews.

3.2.4. Theme 4: Suggestions for Professional Development and Support

Despite the challenges, all three teachers demonstrated a willingness to improve and identified key areas where they needed support. Teacher B advocated for targeted in-service training: “We need more workshops real workshops that show us how to teach differently, how to manage behaviour, how to support slow learners”.

Teacher A suggested that inclusive education should be better integrated into initial teacher education. “Honestly, it should be part of our degrees from the beginning. Not just a chapter in a textbook or one module. We need to practise it before we get to the classrooms”.

Teacher C proposed peer learning as a helpful support mechanism: “It would help if we worked with other teachers who are good at this. Sometimes you learn better from someone who’s dealing with the same challenges as you.

These responses show that although teachers feel overwhelmed, they are not resistant to inclusion. Rather, they lack the knowledge, tools, and institutional support necessary to realise its goals in their classrooms.

3.3. Synthesis of Observational and Interview Findings

The synthesis of data from classroom observations and interviews reveals a significant disconnect between what teachers know and believe about inclusive education and what they do in practice. While interviews revealed a generally supportive attitude toward the idea of inclusion, observations confirmed that inclusive strategies were rarely implemented in classrooms. This disparity illustrates a critical implementation gap: although teachers may intellectually accept inclusion, their practical application is constrained by inadequate training, systemic pressures, and resource limitations.

Teachers’ limited understanding of inclusive education, as revealed in interviews, helps to explain their reliance on traditional teaching methods and their hesitation to differentiate content. The absence of inclusive strategies observed in practice is consistent with their admitted lack of confidence and professional training. In terms of inclusive pedagogy, the domain of “believing” was partially present teachers expressed moral commitment to all learners but the “knowing” and “doing” components were significantly underdeveloped.

Overcrowded classrooms and curriculum demands emerged in both data sets as major barriers to implementation. The inability to manage diversity effectively in the classroom stems not only from external constraints but also from internalised beliefs that certain learners cannot succeed in mainstream settings. These deficit-based views contribute to teachers’ reluctance to innovate or take pedagogical risks, thereby reinforcing exclusionary practices even in supposedly inclusive environments.

Despite these challenges, the willingness of teachers to recommend solutions such as training and peer collaboration points to potential for growth. Teachers did not reject inclusion outright but rather called for systemic and professional support that would enable them to practise it meaningfully.

4. Discussion

Authors should discuss the results and how they can be interpreted from the purpose of this study was to investigate teachers’ understanding and implementation of inclusive education in a rural mainstream classroom. The findings revealed a disjuncture between teachers’ conceptual support for inclusion and the practical realities of enacting inclusive pedagogical practices. Drawing on the inclusive pedagogy framework, specifically the core domains of knowing, doing, and believing, this section explores how these elements intersect in the teachers’ responses and observed behaviours, and what this means for inclusive education in under-resourced rural settings.

4.1. Understanding Inclusion: A Confused and Fragmented Concept

A key finding was that teachers held fragmented and often narrow understandings of inclusive education. While some participants viewed it as an approach aimed at achieving equality and educational access for all learners, others equated it primarily with integrating learners with disabilities into the mainstream classroom. This aligns with research by Engelbrecht et al. (2023), who found that many South African teachers lack a comprehensive grasp of inclusive education, often interpreting it through a limited lens shaped by their training and immediate teaching experiences.

The inconsistency in definitions among participants reflects what Florian and Black-Hawkins (2011) describe as the “dilemma of difference”, the tension between treating learners equally and responding to individual needs. Teachers were unsure how to resolve this tension, particularly when they felt that inclusive efforts might compromise curriculum coverage or disadvantage high-performing learners. Teacher C’s description of learners with different abilities as “incompatible” underscores the persistence of deficit thinking and a lack of preparedness to address learner diversity.

The domain of knowing in the inclusive pedagogy framework is compromised when teachers have not been adequately introduced to the theoretical and practical dimensions of inclusion during pre-service training. As Walton and Engelbrecht (2023) note, many teachers complete their qualifications with limited or no interaction with learners experiencing barriers to learning, which weakens their ability to translate inclusive ideals into practice.

4.2. Classroom Practices: Traditional Pedagogy and the Absence of Differentiation

Despite expressing moral support for inclusive education during interviews, classroom observations showed that teachers relied heavily on traditional, teacher-centred methods. Lessons were largely inflexible, with little differentiation or adaptation to support diverse learning needs. Only isolated instances of group work or peer interaction were observed, and even these were not structured in ways that supported inclusive engagement. This suggests a weak application of the doing domain of inclusive pedagogy.

This contradiction between belief and practice is consistent with international literature that shows how teachers, while philosophically aligned with inclusion, struggle to implement inclusive strategies in real classrooms (Florian & Spratt, 2022; Donohue & Bornman, 2022). The lack of differentiated instruction observed in this study suggests that teachers either lack the skills or the confidence to modify their teaching to accommodate learner diversity. Teacher B’s admission, “Sometimes I don’t know what to do with a learner who doesn’t understand. I was never trained for this”, speaks directly to the need for competency-based professional development.

4.3. Attitudinal and Emotional Barriers: Belief Without Practical Capacity

Although teachers generally believed in the principles of inclusion, they simultaneously expressed frustration, fear, and emotional fatigue in managing inclusive classrooms. This emotional discomfort expressed in comments such as “Inclusion sounds good, but in practice, it’s overwhelming” is indicative of what Florian and Spratt (2022) term “pedagogical insecurity”. When teachers do not feel equipped to meet diverse needs, it results in avoidance, stagnation, or outright resistance to change, even when they ideologically support inclusive goals.

The inclusive pedagogy framework stresses the importance of believing in the expectation that all learners are capable of progress. While participants expressed this belief in principle, their practices and language suggested lingering doubts about the feasibility of inclusion in their context. In rural schools, these doubts are compounded by systemic constraints such as overcrowding, lack of resources, and high teaching workloads (Sethusha, 2023; Spaull & Carel, 2021).

4.4. Structural Constraints: A Systemic Misalignment with Inclusive Ideals

Findings from both the interviews and observations point to significant structural barriers that hinder inclusion in rural schools. These include rigid curriculum pacing guides, the absence of learning support teams, insufficient classroom resources, and minimal access to ongoing professional development. All participants noted that they had not received adequate training in inclusive teaching strategies, and one remarked that “We need real workshops that show us how to teach differently”.

This points to a gap between policy intention and school-level capacity, as highlighted by Phasha and Mahlo (2024), who argue that inclusive education cannot be implemented effectively without systemic alignment, particularly in teacher development and resource allocation. The CAPS curriculum, while intended to ensure consistency, is often experienced by teachers as inflexible and prescriptive, discouraging the differentiation and reflection that inclusion demands.

In rural schools, where multigrade classrooms, high learner-teacher ratios, and infrastructural deficits are common, the burden of inclusion often falls entirely on teachers who feel ill-prepared and unsupported. This study affirms Walton et al.’s (2025) argument that for inclusion to be sustainable, schools must be equipped with the resources, structures, and professional communities necessary to support inclusive pedagogical practices.

4.5. Emerging Opportunities: Teacher Willingness and Contextual Solutions

Despite the many challenges, a promising finding is that teachers were not resistant to inclusion; rather, they expressed a clear willingness to grow and improve if provided with relevant support. Their suggestions, including ongoing workshops, peer mentorship, and more practical university training, reflect an appetite for professional learning that is grounded in classroom realities.

This openness is vital. As inclusive pedagogy asserts, inclusive teaching is not about having all the answers but about a commitment to continually adapt and learn (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). Teacher A’s call for inclusion to be embedded in initial teacher education, “It should be part of our degrees from the beginning”, speaks to the importance of systemic reform in professional preparation.

Collaborative teacher learning communities, contextualised in rural realities, could be a powerful mechanism for improving inclusive practices. As suggested by the participants, learning from peers who face similar challenges can offer practical strategies and emotional validation, reducing the isolation that often accompanies inclusion work in resource-constrained settings.

5. Conclusions

This study set out to explore teachers’ understanding and implementation of inclusive education in a rural mainstream classroom within the Mogodumo Circuit, Limpopo Province. Drawing on the inclusive pedagogy framework particularly its core domains of knowing, doing, and believing the research illuminated the complexities, contradictions, and contextual barriers that shape teachers’ efforts to create inclusive learning environments.

The findings revealed that while teachers express a general commitment to the values of inclusion, their practical enactment of inclusive education is constrained by a limited conceptual understanding, traditional pedagogical practices, emotional discomfort, and overwhelming systemic challenges. In particular, rigid curriculum structures, overcrowded classrooms, and a lack of resources and professional development significantly hinder teachers’ ability to differentiate instruction and support learners with diverse needs.

Classroom observations highlighted a minimal application of inclusive strategies, with teaching largely reliant on conventional, one-size-fits-all methods. Interviews further revealed that teachers often feel underprepared, unsupported, and emotionally strained by the demands of inclusive teaching, even as they show a willingness to learn and grow. These insights reflect a broader policy-practice gap in the implementation of inclusive education in rural South African schools.

Despite these challenges, the study also uncovered important opportunities for transformation. Teachers’ willingness to improve, their calls for practical training, and their openness to collaborative learning all signal a readiness for change provided that systemic, institutional, and policy-level support is strengthened. By investing in teacher development, revising curriculum frameworks, and fostering school-based support systems, inclusive education in rural schools can move from policy rhetoric to classroom reality.

Ultimately, this study contributes to the growing body of research highlighting the urgent need to contextualise inclusive education within the lived realities of rural teachers. It affirms that inclusion is not merely about placing learners with diverse needs into mainstream classrooms but about reshaping pedagogy, attitudes, and support structures to ensure that all learners are valued, supported, and enabled to succeed.