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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

Global Perspectives on IE

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

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

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

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

IE in the Chinese Context

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

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

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

Theoretical Framework

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

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

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

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

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

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

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

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

Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Implementing Inclusive Practices

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

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

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

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Conceptual framework.

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

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

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

Methodology

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

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

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

Results

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

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Reliability Test Result.

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

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

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Demographic Information.

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

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

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

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

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Correlation Test Result.

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

**

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

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

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Hypotheses Results.

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

Note. Criterion: Inclusive practice.

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations and Future Study

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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