How Does Multidimensional Professional Learning Change in Inclusive Secondary Mathematics Teacher Education? Evidence from a Graduate Course

Abstract

Inclusive secondary mathematics education is complex because teachers must respond to learner variability while preserving mathematical goals and participation. Using a mixed-methods design, we examined changes in multidimensional professional learning following participation in a graduate course on teaching students with special educational needs (SEN), focusing on inclusive practices, attitudes, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions. Participants were 29 master’s students in secondary mathematics education. Pre- and post-course measures were complemented by written reflections that illuminated practical and emotional dimensions of learning. Participants reported improvements in inclusive practices, attitudes, and self-efficacy, alongside more favorable achievement emotions: enjoyment, hope, and pride increased, whereas anger, anxiety, and hopelessness decreased. Qualitative findings revealed a shift from viewing adaptations as isolated techniques to diagnostically analyzing learner characteristics, task demands, and instructional design. Participants distinguished more clearly among content-related, cognitive, and executive-function difficulties and translated these distinctions into concrete supports. Findings underscore the value of sustained, differentiated, and reflective preparation for supporting multidimensional professional learning in inclusive mathematics classrooms.

1. Introduction

Growing international commitment to inclusive education has intensified the need to prepare teachers to educate increasingly diverse student populations in mainstream classrooms (UNESCO, 1994, 2020). This involves not only the placement of students with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream settings but also their meaningful participation in learning. In mathematics education, inclusion presents particular instructional demands, as teachers must create joint mathematical learning experiences for all students while also providing focused learning opportunities that respond to individual mathematical learning needs (Büscher & Prediger, 2024). This makes teacher preparation especially important: although students with disabilities receive much of their mathematics instruction in general education classrooms, general education teachers often receive limited preparation for supporting their engagement with mathematical content (Jones et al., 2026). These demands extend beyond instructional knowledge and practices. Teachers’ readiness for inclusive education also involves their attitudes toward inclusion, self-efficacy beliefs, and emotional experiences, highlighting the interconnected professional and affective dimensions of inclusive teaching (Nissim & Shamma, 2025).

Research in inclusive mathematics education has tended to examine particular dimensions of teacher learning, such as beliefs and self-efficacy or attitudes and self-efficacy (Scherer & Bertram, 2024; Nührenbörger et al., 2025). Relatively limited empirical attention has been given to how a professional learning experience may support changes across inclusive mathematics instructional practices, attitudes toward inclusion, self-efficacy, and emotions as interconnected dimensions of professional learning. In addition, professional development in inclusive mathematics education has focused predominantly on primary education, with relatively few programs and evaluations addressing teacher learning at the secondary level (Bastian et al., 2026).

The present study addresses these gaps by examining changes associated with participation in a graduate course in inclusive mathematics education for students in a master’s degree program in secondary mathematics education. The course was designed to support multidimensional professional learning by providing both direct and indirect opportunities to engage with the professional and affective dimensions of inclusive teaching. Accordingly, the study examines changes in participants’ inclusive teaching practices, attitudes, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions. An additional analysis explores whether patterns of change vary according to prior experience with inclusive education. Participants’ post-course reflections are further analyzed to provide qualitative insight into their multidimensional professional learning. By integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence, the study contributes to understanding how graduate mathematics teacher education may support multidimensional professional learning for inclusive secondary mathematics teaching.

1.1. Inclusive Secondary Mathematics Education

Inclusive education is understood as an ongoing process aimed at ensuring that all students can access, participate in, and benefit from meaningful learning in mainstream classrooms. Contemporary perspectives emphasize that inclusion involves more than physical access to regular educational settings; it requires identifying and addressing barriers to participation, learning, and belonging while responding to students’ diverse academic, cognitive, social, emotional, and behavioral needs (Edström et al., 2024; UNESCO, 2020). Within this framework, the present study focuses on the learning-support dimension of inclusion, which emphasizes academic support responsive to students’ learning needs and aimed at promoting learning progress (Piezunka et al., 2017). Although the present study frequently refers to students with SEN, its conceptualization of inclusion is broader. The emphasis on SEN reflects the focus of the graduate course and the study measures, whereas the pedagogical principles examined concern adaptive teaching that responds to learner variability in inclusive mathematics classrooms. Accordingly, inclusive teaching requires educators to adapt pedagogical practices and learning environments to enable diverse learners to participate meaningfully in shared mathematical learning (Bastian et al., 2026; Büscher & Prediger, 2024). Such adaptation can be particularly demanding in secondary mathematics, where abstract concepts and symbolic forms often require varied representations and scaffolding, while instruction must also meet curricular requirements. This creates a particular tension between increasing accessibility for diverse learners and preserving mathematical challenge, curricular goals, and participation in shared mathematical activity (Büscher & Prediger, 2024; Prediger & Buró, 2024). Consequently, effective inclusive mathematics education depends not only on pedagogical knowledge and skills but also on educators’ attitudes, self-efficacy beliefs, affect, and willingness to adopt adaptive instructional practices (Nissim & Shamma, 2025; Sharma & Sokal, 2016). From this perspective, mathematics teacher education programs play a critical role in supporting the multidimensional development of the pedagogical competencies, professional reasoning, and emotional resources required for inclusive teaching.

1.2. Understanding Mathematics Difficulties in Secondary Education

Mathematics learning relies on both domain-specific and domain-general cognitive skills. Domain-specific skills, including numerical processing, magnitude comprehension, and mathematical vocabulary, contribute to mathematical understanding and performance (Schneider et al., 2017). In secondary education, these skills are applied within increasingly abstract and multistep tasks involving movement across verbal, numerical, visual, and symbolic representations (Kieran, 2007). Difficulties in this domain may include weaknesses in numerical representation, arithmetic fact retrieval, and procedural efficiency (Geary, 2011; Kroesbergen et al., 2023).

Domain-general abilities also support mathematical learning. Spatial abilities and processing speed contribute to the interpretation and manipulation of mathematical information, particularly in complex and representational tasks (Atit et al., 2020; Cheng et al., 2022). Executive functions support information retention and updating, inhibition of irrelevant responses, shifting between strategies or representations, and progress monitoring during problem-solving (Cragg & Gilmore, 2014; Diamond, 2013). Studies of secondary mathematics students have highlighted the contribution of working memory and cognitive flexibility, particularly when tasks require coordinating multiple steps or adapting strategies to changing demands (Abreu-Mendoza et al., 2018; Živković et al., 2022). Difficulties may also involve information processing, working memory, updating during problem-solving, attentional control, planning, shifting between actions, and self-evaluation (Geary, 2011; Kroesbergen et al., 2023). Notably, adolescents with mathematical learning difficulties have demonstrated greater challenges in updating visual information than peers with typical mathematical performance (Abreu-Mendoza et al., 2018). Because mathematics learning difficulties in secondary education may arise from multiple sources, identifying the mathematical, cognitive, linguistic, and representational barriers affecting learners is essential for planning targeted instructional adaptations. For teachers, such understanding supports more precise pedagogical reasoning by linking observed learning difficulties to appropriate instructional responses.

1.3. Inclusive and Adaptive Mathematics Teaching Practices

Inclusive teaching practices involve two complementary dimensions: differentiation and personalization (Schwab et al., 2022). Differentiation involves adapting instruction, classroom organization, assessment, and scaffolding to accommodate learner diversity within a shared classroom environment, whereas personalization focuses on individual cognitive profiles, learning trajectories, and support needs. In inclusive mathematics instruction, task adaptation can reflect both dimensions by addressing different learners’ needs while preserving their participation in shared mathematical activities (Bardy et al., 2024; Frischemeier et al., 2025). Achieving this balance can be challenging (Büscher & Prediger, 2024). When adaptation is perceived as incompatible with maintaining mathematical demands, it may lead to overly simplified tasks that produce short-term success at the expense of longer-term understanding, or to segregated instruction that limits meaningful mathematical engagement (Prediger & Buró, 2024).

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) provides a framework for planning inclusive instruction. It assumes that learner variability is an expected feature of every classroom and therefore emphasizes identifying potential barriers and designing flexible and accessible learning environments in advance, rather than relying solely on retrospective accommodations. Its three principles involve providing multiple means of engagement, representation, and action/expression (CAST, 2024). In mathematics, these principles may be reflected in tasks that provide varied forms of access and multiple ways for students to demonstrate understanding (Root et al., 2020). More specifically, a systematic review of research involving secondary-level students with learning disabilities highlights the potential benefits of explicit instruction, multiple representations, carefully sequenced tasks, and systematic instructional support (Lee et al., 2020). Accordingly, preparation for inclusive secondary mathematics teaching should develop pedagogical reasoning that links possible sources of students’ difficulties and mathematical task demands to instructional adaptations that increase accessibility without reducing mathematical challenge (Bastian et al., 2026; Frischemeier et al., 2025).

1.4. Attitudes, Self-Efficacy, and Achievement Emotions in Inclusive Mathematics Teaching

Teachers’ attitudes toward inclusive education can influence its implementation. These attitudes encompass teachers’ sentiments toward students with disabilities, their views regarding inclusion, and their concerns about its implementation (Forlin et al., 2011). In inclusive mathematics education, teachers’ attitudes and beliefs are reflected in how they understand learner diversity and their role in responding to students’ needs, while their experiences are also shaped by the availability of professional, collaborative, and institutional support (Vodičková et al., 2023). Importantly, attitudes toward inclusive mathematics instruction are not necessarily fixed and may develop through professional learning experiences that explicitly address inclusive teaching (Nührenbörger et al., 2025).

Teacher self-efficacy refers to teachers’ beliefs regarding their capability to successfully organize and execute instructional practices that support student learning (Bandura, 1997). In inclusive mathematics education, self-efficacy is particularly important because teachers are required to adapt explanations and mathematical tasks, respond to diverse mathematical learning needs, and make flexible instructional decisions, making it an important component of teachers’ professional competence for inclusive mathematics teaching (Scherer & Bertram, 2024). Research in inclusive mathematics teacher education indicates that self-efficacy can develop through targeted professional learning experiences, including increased confidence in differentiated and adaptive mathematics instruction addressing diverse learning needs (Nührenbörger et al., 2025). More broadly, teacher self-efficacy has been positively associated with attitudes toward inclusive education, suggesting that these dimensions of teachers’ professional beliefs are interrelated rather than independent (Yada et al., 2022).

Alongside teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion and self-efficacy beliefs, the emotional dimension of inclusive teaching also warrants attention. Recent research indicates that teachers’ readiness for inclusion reflects an interplay among attitudes, self-efficacy, and emotional concerns, underscoring the importance of considering affective dimensions alongside professional beliefs (Nissim & Shamma, 2025). Yet teacher affect remains comparatively underrepresented in models of professional development and is often treated as a secondary outcome rather than as an integral component of professional learning (Ehlert et al., 2025). Achievement emotions refer to emotions experienced in relation to achievement-related activities or their outcomes. According to Pekrun’s Control-Value Theory, these emotions are shaped primarily by individuals’ appraisals of the control they perceive over achievement-related activities and the value they assign to those activities (Pekrun, 2024). Research with teachers supports the relevance of such appraisal–emotion relations: teachers’ appraisals of attaining important teaching goals have been associated with emotions including enjoyment, anger, and anxiety (Frenzel et al., 2020). In secondary mathematics teaching specifically, teachers’ emotional experiences have also been linked to instructional approaches; inquiry-based instruction was positively associated with enjoyment and satisfaction, whereas direct instruction was positively associated with anger and anxiety (Jiang et al., 2021). However, considerably less is known about teachers’ achievement emotions in the specific context of inclusive secondary mathematics teaching or about how these emotions may change through professional learning. This gap is particularly relevant because inclusive mathematics teaching requires teachers to respond flexibly to diverse mathematical learning needs while maintaining meaningful participation in shared mathematical activity (Büscher & Prediger, 2024; Frischemeier et al., 2025).

1.5. The Current Study

The present study examined changes associated with participation in a graduate course in inclusive mathematics education among students enrolled in a master’s degree program in secondary mathematics education at a teacher education institution. The course was intentionally designed to address multiple dimensions of professional learning by combining explicit attention to inclusive and adaptive instructional practices with opportunities intended to support teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions related to inclusive mathematics teaching. By integrating pre- and post-course quantitative measures with participants’ post-course written reflections, the study sought to provide a comprehensive account of professional learning regarding the instruction of students with SEN in inclusive secondary mathematics classrooms. The following research questions guided the study:

RQ1: How do participants’ inclusive teaching practices, attitudes, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions related to teaching students with SEN in inclusive mathematics classrooms change following participation in a graduate course in inclusive mathematics education?

Based on prior research and the multidimensional design of the course, participants were expected to demonstrate increased use of inclusive teaching practices, more positive attitudes toward inclusion, stronger self-efficacy for inclusive teaching, increased positive achievement emotions, and decreased negative achievement emotions following the course.

RQ2: How do participants describe their professional learning following the graduate course in inclusive mathematics instruction, as reflected in their post-course written reflections?

In addition to the main research questions, exploratory moderation analyses were conducted to examine whether prior experience with inclusive education was associated with the extent of change in study variables.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Design

We used a mixed-methods pre–post design to examine changes associated with participation in a master’s degree course on inclusive secondary mathematics teaching. The quantitative component assessed changes in inclusive teaching practices, attitudes toward inclusion, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions from the beginning to the end of the course. The qualitative component drew on participants’ post-course written reflections to deepen the interpretation of these changes and examine how participants described the course’s contribution to their understanding of adaptive and inclusive mathematics instruction.

2.2. Participants

The participants were 29 master’s degree students in secondary mathematics education at a teacher training institution who had enrolled in a semester-long course on inclusive mathematics instruction. They completed questionnaires at the course’s start (T1) and end (T2), approximately three months apart. The sample included 15 women (51.7%) and 14 men (48.3%). Participants ranged in age from 24 to 67 years (M = 41.50, SD = 11.93). All participants held a bachelor’s degree. Participants had, on average, 4.14 years of mathematics teaching experience (SD = 5.82) and taught across grades 7–12. Participants reported their pre-course experience with inclusive education using three items rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (no experience at all) to 5 (extensive experience). Mean ratings were 1.97 (SD = 1.27) for experience teaching mathematics to students with SEN, 1.72 (SD = 0.88) for participation in professional development related to inclusive education, and 2.72 (SD = 1.31) for familiarity with students with SEN.

2.3. Course Context and Structure

The three-month graduate course focused on inclusive mathematics instruction, and comprised ten 90 min in-person classes and three asynchronous sessions based on independent task completion. Specialists in secondary mathematics education and in special education and adaptive mathematics teaching co-taught the course at a teacher training institution. The course structure integrated mathematical, pedagogical, and special education perspectives by linking specific secondary mathematics content to learners’ characteristics and to the adaptive teaching practices needed to address them.

The course aimed to develop theoretical, diagnostic, and practical knowledge for teaching diverse learners in inclusive classrooms. Sessions combined theoretical input, workshops, case analysis, professional discussion, observation of instructional practices, and individual and collaborative reflection. Content addressed cognitive and executive functions, mathematics learning disabilities, and principles of adaptive and inclusive instruction, including Universal Design for Learning. Applied work focused on analyzing learner errors and profiles, identifying the cognitive and executive-function demands of mathematical tasks, and planning and teaching adapted mathematics lessons. Throughout the course, participants examined adaptations in relation to learner functioning, abilities, and difficulties through reflective analysis grounded in theory.

The iterative process of planning, teaching, analysis, and reflection, together with ongoing professional dialogue, also provided opportunities to address self-efficacy, emotional experiences, and attitudes toward inclusion. As participants progressively refined their lesson plans and their ability to identify learners’ strengths and difficulties and design appropriate adaptations, this progress was explicitly discussed and reinforced through instructor feedback and participants’ own reflective evaluations. The professional dialogue also invited participants to reconsider assumptions about learner diversity, inclusion, and the feasibility of adapting mathematics instruction for students with different needs. Participants were therefore able to observe and articulate their own development over the course, supporting a growing sense of competence and confidence in their capacity to teach mathematics inclusively.

The course required a minimum attendance rate of 80%, and all 29 participants met this requirement and successfully completed the course, including all required assignments and asynchronous tasks. All planned sessions and learning activities were implemented as intended. Course implementation was documented through Moodle, the institution’s learning management system (LMS), which included instructional materials, learning activities, assignments, and feedback.

2.4. Measures

2.4.1. Inclusive Teaching Practices

We assessed inclusive teaching practices at the beginning and end of the course using the teacher version of the Inclusive Teaching Practices Scale (ITPS-T; Schwab & Alnahdi, 2020). The scale comprises 14 items organized into two subscales: Personalization (e.g., “I take my students’ learning abilities into account”) and Differentiation (e.g., “I present the learning content in a variety of ways, such as texts, videos, and pictures”). For the present study, the scale was translated into Hebrew and framed in relation to mathematics teaching. Items were rated on a four-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating more inclusive teaching practices. Mean scores were computed for each subscale and for the overall scale. In the present sample, the overall scale showed good internal consistency at both time points (α = 0.81 at T1; α = 0.83 at T2). Internal consistency was acceptable for the Differentiation subscale (α = 0.75 at T1; α = 0.68 at T2), whereas the Personalization subscale showed lower internal consistency, particularly at T1 (α = 0.56 at T1; α = 0.68 at T2).

2.4.2. Attitudes Toward Inclusion of Students with Disabilities

We assessed attitudes toward the inclusion of students with disabilities using an adapted Hebrew version of the Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education—Revised scale (SACIE-R; Forlin et al., 2011). The questionnaire includes 15 items capturing teachers’ sentiments toward people with disabilities, attitudes toward inclusive education, and concerns about implementing inclusion. Items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). Example items include “I am afraid to look a person with SEN straight in the face.” (sentiments), “Students with SEN should have every opportunity to learn in regular classrooms” (attitudes), and “I am concerned that I do not have enough skills to teach students with SEN” (concerns). Negatively worded items were reverse-coded so that higher scores reflected more positive orientations toward inclusion (i.e., more positive sentiments and attitudes and fewer concerns). Mean scores were computed for each subscale and for the total scale. In the present sample, internal consistency for the total scale was acceptable at the beginning of the course (α = 0.76, T1) and good at the end of the course (α = 0.85, T2). Reliability for the Sentiments subscale was acceptable to good (α = 0.75, T1; α = 0.82, T2). The Concerns subscale showed acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.68, T1; α = 0.81, T2). Reliability for the Attitudes subscale was low at T1 (α = 0.43) but improved to acceptable levels at T2 (α = 0.73).

Given the low internal consistency of the Personalization and Attitudes subscales at T1 (α = 0.56 and 0.43, respectively), these two subscales were excluded from the pre–post comparisons. All other subscales and the overall scale scores were retained.

2.4.3. Self-Efficacy in Inclusive Teaching

We assessed self-efficacy in inclusive teaching using the Teacher Efficacy for Inclusive Practices scale (TEIP; Sharma et al., 2012), consisting of 18 items covering three domains: Inclusive Instruction, Collaboration, and Managing Behavior. Participants rated their agreement with each statement on a six-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Example items include “I can provide alternative explanations when students are confused” (Inclusive Instruction), “I can collaborate with other professionals to support students with SEN” (Collaboration), and “I can manage disruptive behavior in the classroom” (Managing Behavior). Mean scores were computed for each subscale and for the total scale, with higher scores indicating greater perceived self-efficacy for inclusive teaching. In the present sample, internal consistency was high for all subscales at both timepoints. At T1, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86 for Inclusive Instruction, 0.84 for Collaboration, and 0.85 for Managing Behavior; at T2, reliability coefficients were 0.89, 0.83, and 0.86, respectively. The total scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency at both time points (α = 0.94 at T1; α = 0.94 at T2).

2.4.4. Achievement Emotions

We assessed achievement emotions related to teaching mathematics to students with SEN in inclusive classrooms using an adapted version of the 32 learning-related items of the short-form Achievement Emotions Questionnaire (AEQ-S; Bieleke et al., 2021), which is based on Pekrun’s (2006) Control-Value Theory of Achievement Emotions. The instrument included 32 items representing eight emotions: enjoyment, hope, pride, anger, anxiety, shame, hopelessness, and boredom, with four items assessing each emotion. Item wording was adapted to refer to teachers’ experiences of teaching mathematics to students with SEN in inclusive classrooms. Participants rated each item on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Example items include “I enjoy the challenge of teaching mathematics to students with SEN in an inclusive classroom” (Enjoyment), “I am confident that I can successfully teach mathematics to students with SEN in an inclusive classroom” (Hope), and “I get annoyed that I have to teach mathematics to students with SEN in an inclusive classroom” (Anger). Mean scores were computed for each emotion. For the purposes of the present study, composite indices of positive emotions (enjoyment, hope, and pride) and negative emotions (anger, anxiety, shame, hopelessness, and boredom) were also calculated. In the present sample, internal consistency was acceptable to excellent across the eight emotion subscales. At T1, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were 0.86 for enjoyment, 0.90 for hope, 0.91 for pride, 0.74 for anger, 0.76 for anxiety, 0.84 for shame, 0.74 for hopelessness, and 0.95 for boredom. At T2, the corresponding coefficients were 0.82, 0.90, 0.86, 0.87, 0.84, 0.80, 0.80, and 0.95, respectively. The broader composite scales also showed excellent internal consistency, with α = 0.95 for positive emotions and α = 0.92 for negative emotions at T1, and α = 0.91 for positive emotions and α = 0.96 for negative emotions at T2.

2.4.5. Prior Inclusive Education Experience

We assessed prior inclusive education experience by asking participants to rate their levels of (a) experience teaching mathematics to students with SEN, (b) participation in professional development related to inclusive education, and (c) familiarity with students with SEN, on a scale from 1 (no experience at all) to 5 (extensive experience). Internal consistency was acceptable, α = 0.69. A composite score was calculated by averaging the three items, with higher scores indicating greater prior experience with inclusive education. This composite was used in the exploratory moderation analyses.

2.4.6. Perceptions of Professional Learning

We examined participants’ perceptions of their professional learning experience through individual written reflections completed one month following course completion. The reflections included two open-ended prompts designed to capture participants’ professional and pedagogical insights: “How did the course contribute to you?” and “What insights did you gain from the course regarding inclusive teaching in mathematics?” We analyzed the responses thematically to examine how participants interpreted their learning experience and described changes in their understanding of adaptive and inclusive mathematics instruction.

2.5. Procedure

We used a pre–post design within the context of a graduate course. At the beginning of the course (T1), participants completed a set of questionnaires assessing their demographics, attitudes toward inclusion, inclusive teaching practices, self-efficacy for inclusive teaching, and emotions about teaching mathematics to students with SEN in inclusive classrooms. We administered the same questionnaires, excluding the demographic questionnaire, again three months later at the end of the course (T2) to examine potential change. Additionally, one month after course completion, participants submitted written reflections regarding their course-related learning experiences.

2.6. Data Analysis

We analyzed the data using a mixed-methods approach. We conducted quantitative analyses to examine changes in the study variables and associations among them, whereas we used qualitative analysis of the written reflections to deepen the interpretation of these changes and to examine how participants described their professional learning following the course.

Quantitative data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 31.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). We calculated zero-order Pearson correlations between the main study variables and conducted paired t-tests to examine differences between measurements. As we performed multiple comparisons (19 tests), we applied the Benjamini–Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) correction to control the expected proportion of false-positive findings (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995), a procedure widely recommended when testing multiple related hypotheses. We also conducted supplementary exploratory regression analyses predicting change scores (T2–T1), examining demographic variables (age, gender), general teaching experience, and the composite measure of prior experience with inclusive education. Given the modest sample size, we evaluated regression coefficients using bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap confidence intervals based on 1000 resamples.

Qualitative data analysis focused on participants’ written reflections using a thematic approach combining deductive, top-down analysis with inductive, bottom-up analysis (Bingham, 2023). As the reflection prompts did not directly address each of the study dimensions but instead included open-ended questions regarding the contributions and insights gained from the course, the research questions, course structure, and underlying conceptual framework guided the deductive analysis. This framework included the relationship between learner characteristics, the demands of mathematical tasks, adaptive instruction, and inclusive teaching practices. Accordingly, initial deductive codes included learner characteristics, mathematical task demands, adaptive instructional responses, and inclusive teaching practices. Simultaneously, we used open coding of the reflections to identify patterns and themes emerging from participant accounts. The analysis included repeated reading of the reflections, identification of meaning units, initial coding, grouping related codes into broader themes, refining themes through comparison across participants’ reflections, and selection of representative excerpts. The two researchers discussed coding decisions and theme development and reached agreement regarding the final interpretation of the data.

2.7. Ethics

The academic institution’s ethics committee approved the study (Approval No. 102-211025). To minimize any potential coercion, a research assistant who was not involved in teaching, assessing, or grading the course provided participants with written and oral information about the study and obtained their informed consent. Participants were explicitly informed that participation was entirely voluntary and that choosing not to participate would have no effect on their course grades or standing in the program. During the course, the researchers were not informed about which students had or had not consented to participate. The questionnaires did not collect names or other directly identifying information and were linked across measurement points only through a unique participant-generated code consisting of the last four digits of each participant’s identification number. The course instructors did not have access to information linking these codes to individual students and therefore could not determine who had or had not completed the questionnaires. Participants’ written reflections were accessed and analyzed only after final course grades had been submitted. All names were subsequently replaced with single-letter codes to protect participants’ confidentiality.

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Associations Among Study Variables

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations among the study variables.

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables.

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1. Experience teaching mathematics (years)	4.14	5.82	—
2. Prior inclusion experience (5-1)	2.14	0.92	0.08	—
3. Self-efficacy in inclusive teaching T1	4.42	0.84	0.09	0.24	—
4. Inclusive teaching practices T1	2.92	0.45	−0.04	−0.11	0.47 *	—
5. Attitudes toward inclusion T1	2.59	0.38	0.23	0.55 **	0.43 *	−0.01	—
6. Positive emotions T1	3.06	0.92	0.00	0.54 **	0.72 **	0.28	0.56 **	—
7. Negative emotions T1	1.72	0.59	−0.05	−0.24	−0.35	−0.09	−0.49 **	−0.53 **	—
8. Self-efficacy in inclusive teaching T2	5.08	0.67	0.07	0.06	0.67 **	0.20	0.42 *	0.43 *	−0.35	—
9. Inclusive teaching practices T2	3.41	0.38	−0.12	−0.00	0.27	0.41 *	0.12	0.18	−0.22	0.53 **	—
10. Attitudes toward inclusion T2	3.01	0.46	0.23	0.41 *	0.44 *	−0.03	0.57 **	0.58 **	−0.53 **	0.62 **	0.21	—
11. Positive achievement emotions T2	3.97	0.67	0.03	0.14	0.48 **	0.11	0.37 *	0.45 *	−0.22	0.61 **	0.28	0.64 **	—
12. Negative achievement emotions T2	1.30	0.48	−0.10	−0.12	−0.34	0.10	−0.37	−0.16	0.41 *	−0.54 **	−0.19	−0.65 **	−0.62 **	—

Note. Values are Pearson correlations, N = 29, * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01.

Several theoretically meaningful patterns emerged. First, at the course outset, prior experience with inclusive education was positively associated with attitudes toward inclusion and positive emotions about teaching mathematics to students with special needs in inclusive classrooms, suggesting that participants with greater previous exposure to inclusive education entered the course with more favorable orientations toward inclusive teaching. Second, teachers’ self-efficacy about inclusive teaching showed strong associations with positive emotions and attitudes about inclusive teaching, both pre- and post-course, indicating that participants who felt more capable of implementing inclusive practices perceived teaching students with SEN more positively. Negative emotions were found negatively associated with favorable inclusion attitudes and positive emotions over time, suggesting a coherent emotional pattern surrounding inclusive teaching. Finally, participants’ self-efficacy beliefs about inclusive teaching at the course start were strongly related to their beliefs at the course end, suggesting stability in perceived teaching competence across the semester.

3.2. Changes Following Graduate Course Participation

The first research question examined changes from T1 to T2 in participants’ inclusive teaching practices, attitudes toward inclusion, self-efficacy for inclusive teaching, and achievement emotions related to teaching students with SEN in inclusive mathematics classrooms following participation in the graduate course. To address this question, paired-samples t-tests were conducted to compare scores at the course’s beginning (T1) and end (T2). Results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Changes in inclusive teaching practices, attitudes, self-efficacy, and emotion from T1 to T2.

Variable	T1 Mean (SD)	T2 Mean (SD)	t (28)	p (FDR)	Cohen’s d
Inclusive teaching practices
Differentiation	2.94 (0.55)	3.49 (0.37)	−5.17	<0.001	0.96
Inclusive teaching practices total	2.92 (0.45)	3.41 (0.38)	−5.84	<0.001	1.09
Attitudes toward inclusion
Sentiments	2.90 (0.67)	3.30 (0.58)	−3.27	0.003	0.61
Concerns (reversed)	2.35 (0.55)	2.81 (0.61)	−4.18	<0.001	0.78
Total	2.59 (0.38)	3.01 (0.46)	−5.71	<0.001	1.06
Self-efficacy in inclusive teaching
Instruction	4.29 (0.93)	5.12 (0.68)	−5.52	<0.001	1.03
Collaboration	4.61 (0.87)	5.24 (0.73)	−4.93	<0.001	0.92
Behavior management	4.36 (0.91)	4.87 (0.79)	−4.63	<0.001	0.86
Total	4.42 (0.84)	5.08 (0.67)	−5.64	<0.001	1.05
Achievement emotions: Positive
Enjoyment	2.99 (0.90)	3.96 (0.76)	−5.34	<0.001	0.99
Hope	2.81 (0.95)	3.92 (0.80)	−6.53	<0.001	1.21
Pride	3.39 (1.15)	4.03 (0.85)	−2.91	0.008	0.54
Total	3.06 (0.92)	3.97 (0.67)	−5.66	<0.001	1.05
Achievement emotions: Negative
Anger	1.78 (0.69)	1.34 (0.54)	3.83	<0.001	0.71
Anxiety	2.20 (0.89)	1.45 (0.61)	4.41	<0.001	0.82
Shame	1.66 (0.83)	1.37 (0.56)	2.00	0.058	0.37
Hopelessness	1.77 (0.76)	1.22 (0.47)	3.66	0.001	0.68
Boredom	1.20 (0.49)	1.13 (0.46)	0.64	0.529	0.12
Total	1.72 (0.59)	1.30 (0.48)	3.82	<0.001	0.71

Note. N = 29. Paired-samples t-tests compare scores at the course start (T1) and end (T2). Effect sizes are Cohen’s d based on the standard deviation of the difference scores. Because multiple comparisons were conducted, p-values were adjusted using the Benjamini–Hochberg False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure.

The results indicate consistent positive changes from T1 to T2. Participants reported higher levels of inclusive teaching practices at T2, reflected in increased differentiation and overall inclusive teaching practices scores. Similarly, for attitudes toward inclusion, improvements were observed in two of the three subscales (Sentiments and Concerns), as well as in the overall inclusion score at the course end.

Teachers also reported higher levels of self-efficacy in inclusive teaching at T2 across all domains, including instructional practices, collaboration with colleagues, and classroom behavior management. Additionally, positive emotions (enjoyment, hope, and pride) increased, whereas several negative emotions (anger, anxiety, and hopelessness) decreased, at course completion. These changes were also reflected in the composite indices: increased positive emotions and decreased negative emotions (changes in shame and boredom were not statistically significant).

After the main pre–post analyses, exploratory supplementary analyses examined whether prior experience with inclusive education moderated changes in participants’ inclusive teaching practices, attitudes, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions following course participation. A general linear model indicated that prior inclusive education experience significantly moderated change in positive emotion about inclusive teaching, with greater prior experience associated with smaller increases in positive emotion post-course, B = −0.44, SE = 0.16, t(27) = −2.74, p = 0.011, BCa 95% CI [−0.67, −0.15], explaining 21.8% of variance in change scores (R² = 0.22), and lesser prior experience associated with larger increases in positive emotion post-course. However, this association was no longer significant when controlling for baseline positive emotions (B = −0.11, p = 0.479). No other variables significantly moderated changes in the analyses.

3.3. Professional and Pedagogical Meaning of Learning Post-Course

Reflection analysis aimed to deepen the quantitative findings by elucidating how post-course change manifested in participants’ perceptions and practices. It revealed shifting perceptions of adaptations from ‘concessions’ to accessible, diagnostic, needs-based pedagogical planning. Analysis yielded four central themes: (1) broadened understanding of adaptive instruction; (2) increased diagnostic perspectives on learner characteristics given mathematical task demands; (3) enhanced translation of inclusive teaching theory into practices; and (4) increased inclusive education self-efficacy while recognizing one’s current limits.

3.3.1. Theme 1: Broadening Understanding of Adaptive Instruction

The first theme identified a conceptual change in participants’ understanding of adaptive mathematics instruction. It revealed that, post-course, participants considered adaptations less as reduced academic demands, and more as enabling alternative access modes to achieving shared mathematical task goals: “The course sharpened our understanding that adaptive instruction is not a collection of concessions, but thoughtful pedagogical planning based on a deep understanding of students’ cognitive, executive, and emotional functioning” (G); “Adaptive instruction is not ‘lowering the level’ but making learning accessible using focused terminology or scaffolds. The accommodations do not lower the mathematical level, but enable students to reach it” (S).

An additional dimension of the conceptual shift observed was increased understanding that adaptive instruction can benefit not only students with SEN experiencing difficulties in mathematics, but all students within heterogeneous classrooms: “The insight that cognitive accommodations, such as reducing load and using varied representations, also serve stronger students and give them the confidence to challenge themselves was, for me, a moment of pedagogical breakthrough” (L); “All students should engage with the same mathematical idea, but in different ways, at different paces, and with varying levels of support that lead them toward solving the task; there is no need to separate the struggling students” (S).

An interesting insight also emerged in R’s reflection, in which she described the gap between general familiarity with UDL principles and differentiated instruction and their actual implementation in the classroom: “The course made it clear to me that the principles of UDL, Universal Design for Learning, and differentiated instruction, which I thought I was implementing, were not always optimally applied.”

In sum, this theme noted participants shifting from perceiving adaptive instruction as simplification or segregation toward greater methodological diversification and opportunities for participation and learning within heterogeneous classrooms.

3.3.2. Theme 2: Developing Diagnostic Perspectives on Learner Characteristics and Mathematical Task Demands

The second theme identified developing participant abilities to interpret and analyze difficulties in mathematics learning. One component of this theme described increased consideration of learner characteristics, especially functional obstacles: “My perception shifted from focusing only on the mathematical content to a broader understanding of the learner, of the way the student processes information, manages a task, regulates emotions, and functions within a noisy and dynamic classroom environment” (M); “The course strengthened my distinction between cognitive functions, such as information processing, retrieval, and visual understanding, and executive functions such as planning, self-monitoring, emotional regulation, and response inhibition, while highlighting that many mathematical tasks require the simultaneous activation of both” (A).

Alongside learner characteristics, participants also described a shift away from analyzing tasks only according to their specific mathematical content toward examining the full range of demands they pose, including cognitive, executive, linguistic, and emotional demands: “It is not only the mathematical topic that raises or lowers the level of the task. We need to examine the cognitive, executive, linguistic, and emotional aspects that are expressed differently in different tasks” (Y).

We learned to analyze mathematical tasks not only according to the level of content difficulty, but also according to the demands they pose: load on working memory, broad visuospatial perception, the ability to abstract symbols that are not intuitive, planning a sequence of actions in complex tasks, and coping with frustration. (G).

Participant “D” expanded on this insight in relation to error analysis.

During the course, we were exposed to a variety of tasks that dealt with analyzing students’ errors, and we understood what cognitive and metacognitive challenges the tasks require. We learned to see an error as a source of information about the child, which enables understanding of the student and the task, rather than merely as a mistake that needs to be corrected. (D).

This theme suggests post-course development of diagnostic perspectives on difficulties in mathematics learning through more comprehensive consideration of learner characteristics, task demands, and their interrelationship.

3.3.3. Theme 3: Translating Theoretical Knowledge into Inclusive Teaching Practices

The third theme described transitioning from theoretical understanding of inclusive teaching to practice. Participants indicated that knowledge acquired in the course was translated into pedagogical decisions adapted to student needs: “Implementing accommodations in the teaching process, such as slowing the pace, using varied representations such as visual scaffolds, consistent language, and graduated worksheets, enables a response to classroom diversity, strengthens students’ sense of self-efficacy, and reduces cognitive load” (B); “The use of a navigation card helped students manage the sequence of steps independently and reduced feelings of confusion and being stuck” (L); “Suddenly, I understood how the broad, abstract models we had learned about could be translated into practice” (G).

H added, also referring to the educational environment: “I suddenly understood what accessibility and an adapted educational environment really mean. I began to examine the design of the environment critically and learned how to adapt it to learner variability.”

The practices described by participants can be seen less as a collection of technical tools, and more as pedagogical decisions stemming from informed assessment of learning difficulties and task demands. Theoretical and diagnostic knowledge was translated into inclusive teaching that enabled students to cope with mathematical tasks with more accessibility and independence.

3.3.4. Theme 4: Increased Inclusive Education Self-Efficacy While Recognizing One’s Current Limits

The fourth theme presents a complex picture of participants’ sense of professional self-efficacy in inclusive education following the course. On the one hand, participants described a strengthening sense of self-efficacy in identifying learning difficulties and implementing adaptive teaching practices: “The course significantly strengthened my sense of self-efficacy. I feel more confident in identifying learning needs, choosing appropriate accommodations, and making pedagogical decisions during teaching” (B); “I am leaving it [the course] with a more precise professional language, a deeper understanding of my students, and a sense of responsibility, curiosity, and confidence in building adaptive, meaningful, and inclusive learning environments” (L).

Simultaneously, participants described greater recognition of the complexity of adaptive instruction in mathematics and the need for additional knowledge and experience: “I feel that in this area I still lack significant knowledge in order to reach a high level of precision. Now I understand how much we need to deepen and understand, and that the basis for everything is the initial assessment of the student” (M); “I would have liked further expansion on the connection between emotional regulation, learning anxiety, and executive functions, especially practical intervention tools during lessons rather than only at the planning stage. This is not a simple area, and it requires responsibility” (R).

Although these responses may initially appear to emphasize the remaining gaps in participants’ knowledge, they reflect a more mature and nuanced professional awareness of the complexity of adaptive mathematics instruction. Recognizing the limits of their existing knowledge and the need for further learning and experience may itself indicate professional development and a shift from viewing adaptations as simple solutions to understanding them as an ongoing process of assessment, judgment, and learning.

The qualitative component of this study therefore not only complemented the quantitative findings but also added interpretive depth by clarifying what changed following the course, particularly the shift toward diagnostic, needs-based adaptive instruction and stronger professional agency, and the pedagogical processes underlying these changes. Integrating the quantitative and qualitative findings thus provided a broader and more precise account of the course’s contribution to the current cohort and of priorities for strengthening future teacher preparation.

4. Discussion

The present study examined changes associated with participation in a master’s-level course in inclusive secondary mathematics teaching using a mixed-methods approach. Findings indicated multidimensional change in participants’ inclusive teaching practices, attitudes, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions. The qualitative findings further illuminated the pedagogical reasoning underlying these changes. The significance and implications of these findings are discussed below.

Contributions of the course to participants were first evident in inclusive teaching practices. In line with the view that inclusive teaching relies on combining a flexible response to the class as a whole with more precise adaptation to the needs of different students within it (Schwab et al., 2022), the quantitative findings indicated an increase in differentiation (i.e., adapting instruction, organization, assessment, and scaffolding to accommodate learning diversity within a heterogeneous classroom) and in the overall inclusive teaching practices score. Qualitative analysis of participants’ reflections expanded this finding by showing that change was expressed not only in increased use of inclusive practices, but also in their quality: participants moved from intuitive or technical practices toward adaptations based on integrated analysis of learner characteristics and the cognitive, executive function, organizational, emotional, linguistic, and mathematical demands of specific tasks. More specifically, participants began to distinguish among difficulties related to mathematical content, broader cognitive skills, and executive functions. This distinction reflects growing awareness that mathematics learning depends on the interaction between domain-specific skills, such as numerical and magnitude processing (Schneider et al., 2017), and domain-general skills, such as visuospatial processing (Atit et al., 2020).

Participants’ written post-course reflections further indicated that mathematical difficulties may arise from the interaction between learner characteristics and mathematical task demands. This insight is consistent with research showing that mathematical difficulties may extend beyond insufficient mathematical knowledge and reflect a complex profile of learner-related and task-related factors (Holm et al., 2018; Kroesbergen et al., 2023).

Participants translated this understanding into concrete mathematical pedagogical decisions, including slowing their teaching pace, using clear and consistent instructional language, navigation cards, visual scaffolds, multiple representations, graduated worksheets, structured task decomposition, and scaffolding. Such supports are particularly important in secondary mathematics teaching, as students must coordinate verbal, numerical, visual, and symbolic representations while managing multiple steps and executive demands involved in the solution process (Abreu-Mendoza et al., 2018; Cragg & Gilmore, 2014; Kieran, 2007); by facilitating organization and monitoring of this process, these instructional supports may reduce demands competing for learners’ cognitive resources and enable more independent engagement with mathematical tasks. Participants also described adaptations as strengthening learners’ sense of self-efficacy and reducing feelings of confusion and paralysis, thereby demonstrating that their value extended beyond cognitive accessibility to students’ emotional experience of mathematical participation.

Viewed through the lens of adaptive task design, the qualitative findings suggest that participants developed more than an expanded repertoire of instructional techniques. The course methodology, which combined identifying learner difficulties and their sources with selecting adaptations based on learner needs and mathematical task demands, appeared to support the translation of such analysis into adaptive instructional design. This interpretation aligns with Bardy et al. (2024), who conceptualized the evaluation and selection of adaptive tasks as core teaching practices, and with Frischemeier et al. (2025), who showed that professional development can broaden teachers’ task-adaptation knowledge and use. Participants’ reflections further suggest that the course broadened not only the range of adaptations but also the pedagogical reasoning guiding their use by linking learner characteristics, task demands, and instructional design.

Improvement in attitudes toward inclusion was evident in the overall score, as well as in more positive sentiments and fewer concerns about implementing inclusion. This finding is consistent with the literature that has found teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion involve not only principled support for integration, but also their sentiments toward students with SEN, concerns about implementing inclusion in the classroom, and perceptions of whether inclusion can be realized in practice (Forlin et al., 2011; Sharma & Sokal, 2016). Participants’ written reflections indicated a broader change: inclusive teaching was no longer perceived as relevant only to struggling students or as mere simplification of mathematical content. Instead, participants increasingly understood adaptive teaching as maintaining shared mathematical goals while providing varied pathways for students to access and engage with them. Accessibility was therefore viewed not as reduced mathematical rigor, but as a feature of intentional instructional design and a pedagogical principle relevant to all learners, consistent with Universal Design for Learning principles (CAST, 2024). Such evolution is particularly important in light of pedagogical tensions described in the literature on inclusive mathematics teaching between promoting personalized learning and maintaining shared, mathematically rigorous learning experience in heterogenous classrooms (Büscher & Prediger, 2024). Participants’ written reflections suggest they increasingly understood this tension need not be resolved by lowering mathematical expectations or segregating learners: shared mathematical goals could be attained through varied pathways, pacing, and support levels.

Increased self-efficacy in inclusive teaching is another of the course’s contributions. Self-efficacy in teaching does not reflect only a general sense of confidence, but also participants’ judgment of their ability to organize and carry out teaching actions that support students’ learning (Bandura, 1997). In the context of inclusive teaching, teachers need to implement a complex skill set: to identify learning difficulties and assess their causes, to respond to cognitive, emotional, and behavioral diversity, and sometimes to modify goals during instruction. Therefore, the increase in self-efficacy across all three dimensions—adaptive instruction, collaboration with colleagues, and classroom behavior management—suggests greater self-reported confidence in teaching in heterogeneous classrooms, beyond planning inclusive instruction alone. This finding aligns with Sharma et al.’s (2012) conception of efficacy for inclusive teaching, which emphasizes that effective inclusive teaching integrates instructional ability, collaborative work, and management of classroom behavioral complexity. The importance of this finding is heightened in light of the broader literature showing that teacher self-efficacy in inclusive education is related to attitudes, concerns, and actual implementation of inclusive practices in the classroom (Sharma & Sokal, 2016; Woodcock et al., 2022). In the context of teacher education for inclusive mathematics teaching, this relationship has particular significance, as beliefs such as self-efficacy are viewed as central components in the professional development of teachers charged with translating inclusion principles into the teaching of mathematical content (Scherer & Bertram, 2024). The current study cohort’s written reflections further refine this notion by identifying that the self-efficacy that developed following the course was not described as a general increase in confidence, but rather as feeling more self-assured as a result of acquiring more precise professional language, greater diagnostic competence, and clearer understanding of the interaction between learner characteristics and mathematical task demands. Interestingly, participants also reported greater recognition of the complexity of inclusive and adaptive mathematics teaching and the need for continued learning. Thus, the combination of increased theoretical knowledge and practical experience, alongside simultaneous appreciation of the limits of their current levels of these, appeared to facilitate the development of mature, nuanced self-efficacy, which will hopefully lead to continued pursuit of professional development in inclusive mathematics teaching.

Another dimension examined in this study was teachers’ achievement emotions related to teaching students with SEN in heterogeneous mathematics classrooms. This dimension is particularly noteworthy because, although research on inclusive mathematics teaching has emphasized the complex demands of responding to diverse learners and adapting instruction while maintaining meaningful mathematical learning opportunities (Büscher & Prediger, 2024; Vodičková et al., 2023), our understanding of teachers’ achievement emotions in this context remains limited. The present study therefore extends existing research by bringing teachers’ achievement emotions into the study of inclusive mathematics teaching. The findings showed an increase in positive emotional experiences, including enjoyment, hope, and pride, alongside a decrease in negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, and hopelessness. Several participants described approaching challenging students with pedagogical curiosity rather than apprehension, experiencing less tension when students did not understand, and showing greater willingness to try alternative instructional approaches without viewing unsuccessful attempts as failure. In this sense, emotional change can be seen not as a professional development by-product but rather as one of its primary objectives.

Exploratory analyses examined whether participants’ prior experience in inclusive teaching was associated with changes in positive emotions. In the initial analysis, participants with less prior experience in inclusive teaching showed a greater increase in positive emotions, whereas the change among more experienced participants was more moderate. This pattern suggests that teachers entering training with limited exposure to inclusive teaching may experience greater increases in positive emotions. Importantly, this finding was not robust after accounting for baseline positive emotions. Thus, the possibility that the original association reflects baseline differences or regression to the mean should be considered, and the finding should be interpreted cautiously. Future research could examine whether tailoring professional learning to teachers’ prior experience, with greater emphasis on foundational knowledge and practice for less-experienced teachers and on advanced reflection and refinement for more experienced teachers, may offer additional benefits.

Beyond examining each study variable independently, studying correlations among the variables offers a more comprehensive illustration of the outcomes of this inclusive mathematics teaching professional development course. The findings showed that greater self-efficacy in inclusive teaching was associated with more positive attitudes toward inclusion and with more positive achievement emotions, whereas negative emotions were negatively associated with positive attitudes and positive emotions toward inclusive teaching. Although causality cannot be inferred from these correlations, they may indicate that inclusive mathematics teaching does not rely on pedagogical knowledge alone, but involves interrelated professional and affective dimensions in which teachers’ sense of capability, perceptions, and emotional experiences are intertwined. This interpretation aligns with broader research showing interrelationships among teachers’ self-efficacy, attitudes toward inclusion, and efficacy for inclusive practices (Woodcock et al., 2022; Yada et al., 2022), as well as with recent research in mathematics education (Charitaki et al., 2026). In the specific context of teacher education for inclusive mathematics instruction, recent research emphasizes that beliefs and self-efficacy are central components of teachers’ professional development in this field (Scherer & Bertram, 2024).

4.1. Contribution of the Study

The present study expands knowledge of teacher education for inclusive secondary mathematics teaching. The study addresses a gap in teacher preparation by developing and evaluating a graduate course specifically designed for inclusive secondary mathematics teaching, an area in which professional development and its evaluation remain limited (Bastian et al., 2026). Using a multidimensional mixed-methods design, the study documented changes in inclusive teaching practices, attitudes toward inclusion, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions following participation in the graduate course, providing a more comprehensive understanding of professional learning for heterogeneous secondary mathematics classrooms.

Beyond documenting multidimensional change, the qualitative findings suggest a plausible developmental mechanism underlying this professional growth: participants gradually shifted from viewing accommodations as isolated techniques toward understanding adaptive teaching as a diagnostic process linking learner characteristics, mathematical task demands, and instructional design. This conceptual shift illustrates how teachers may reconstruct their professional understanding of inclusive mathematics teaching rather than merely acquire additional instructional strategies.

4.2. Implications for Teacher Preparation and Practice

The findings point to the importance of designing secondary mathematics teacher preparation as a coherent and sustained process that integrates knowledge from mathematics education and special education. These knowledge domains should not be treated as separate or competing areas of expertise, but as complementary components of preparing teachers for inclusive mathematics classrooms. Their integration may help teachers attend simultaneously to mathematical content, task demands, levels of challenge, and learning goals while responding to variability in students’ cognitive, linguistic, executive-function, social, and emotional characteristics. Such preparation may support accessible and responsive instruction without compromising students’ participation in shared mathematical activity or the mathematical goals of instruction (Bastian et al., 2026; Büscher & Prediger, 2024; Prediger & Buró, 2024).

Teacher preparation should also promote a deeper understanding of the educational, professional, and social meaning of inclusion. Rather than presenting inclusion merely as a policy requirement or a collection of technical accommodations, programs should provide opportunities to examine the experiences and perspectives of students with SEN and to understand inclusion as the creation of conditions that support meaningful participation, learning, and belonging (Edström et al., 2024; UNESCO, 2020). Such learning may foster empathy and help address concerns or resistance arising from limited knowledge, low confidence, or the belief that responding to learner variability is incompatible with meaningful mathematics instruction (Forlin et al., 2011; Vodičková et al., 2023).

Alongside inclusive understandings and attitudes, candidates need opportunities to develop diagnostic reasoning by examining the relationships among learner characteristics, mathematical task demands, and the instructional environment. In particular, they should learn to distinguish difficulties associated with mathematical content from those related to information processing, language, representations, executive functions, and emotional factors. This analysis can guide the purposeful selection of representations, scaffolds, instructional practices, and forms of participation, rather than reliance on isolated accommodations that are not grounded in the needs of the learner and the task (CAST, 2024; Root et al., 2020).

These learning opportunities should be structured progressively throughout the course rather than concentrated in a final assignment. Repeated cycles of analyzing learners and mathematical tasks, designing and implementing instructional responses, receiving feedback, and reflecting on decisions may help candidates recognize their professional growth and become more confident in addressing complex classroom situations. In this way, sustained practice and reflection may jointly support inclusive practices, attitudes, self-efficacy, and achievement emotions, including increased enjoyment, hope, and pride and reduced anxiety and hopelessness (Pekrun, 2024; Sharma et al., 2012).

Teacher educators may support candidates at different levels of prior experience through case analysis, the design and teaching of mathematics activities, structured reflection, observation of instructional practices, and collaborative examination of instructional decisions, with the complexity of these opportunities adapted to candidates’ experience. Such differentiation may also model inclusive teaching by demonstrating how instruction can respond to learner variability while maintaining shared learning goals. Opportunities to engage with mathematics teachers in inclusive classrooms, special educators, diagnosticians, and related service providers may also help candidates understand the value of interdisciplinary consultation and collaboration. Carefully structured visits to inclusive classrooms may further connect theoretical principles with the complexities of practice.

Future iterations of such preparation may address a broader range of learner characteristics, including autism and emotional or mental health difficulties, while emphasizing how cognitive, social, and emotional characteristics influence participation and learning rather than relying on diagnosis-specific lists of accommodations (Edström et al., 2024; UNESCO, 2020).

Finally, preparation for inclusion should extend beyond a single course. Teacher education programs may benefit from developing a shared professional language and a consistent focus on learner variability, accessibility, participation, and responsive instruction across pedagogical and disciplinary coursework. Although the present study focused on secondary mathematics, its underlying principles may also inform teacher preparation in other subject areas.

4.3. Limitations and Future Research

The study has several limitations. First, the relatively small sample was drawn from a single master’s-level course; future studies should examine similar courses with larger samples across multiple teacher education institutions. Second, the pre–post design lacked a control group; future research should use controlled or comparative designs to assess the course’s contribution relative to other forms of training or no comparable training. Third, the low internal consistency of the Personalization and Attitudes subscales at T1 limited our ability to examine changes in these specific dimensions. Accordingly, these subscales were excluded from the pre–post comparisons. Future research should examine the reliability of these subscales in larger samples and across different teacher education contexts. Fourth, although self-efficacy and achievement emotions were assessed using two separate, established instruments designed to measure theoretically distinct constructs, some conceptual overlap may exist between self-efficacy and the Hope and Pride subscales, particularly regarding confidence in teaching capability. Future research could further examine the relationships and distinctions between these constructs to better understand their respective roles in multidimensional professional learning. Finally, the quantitative measures relied on self-report and assessed participants only during the course period. Although suitable for assessing perceptions, attitudes, self-efficacy, and emotions, future studies should incorporate classroom observations and analyses of teaching products to examine instructional practices more objectively, as well as in-depth interviews and longitudinal follow-up. Such research could determine whether the observed changes persist, how teachers translate their learning into classroom practice, and whether and how their participation ultimately influences the learning and participation of students with SEN.