INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
Students’ Psychological Preparedness for Inclusive Education: An  
Insight from Special and Inclusive Education Teachers  
A. Manimaran and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mastura Bt. Badzis  
Kulliyyah of Education, International Islamic University Malaysia  
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000788  
Received: 07 November 2025; Accepted: 14 November 2025; Published: 24 November 2025  
ABSTRACT  
The aim of inclusive education is to ensure that every child has equal rights to learning opportunities in  
mainstream classrooms regardless of ability or disability, physically or psychologically. The physical aspects of  
disability have been given much importance. However, special educational needs (SEN) students' inclusion  
depends not only on physical and institutional readiness but also on psychological preparedness. This study  
investigated the psychological preparedness of SEN students for inclusion in Malaysian national primary  
schools. The composition of this study represents the urban context, as it was carried out in schools around Klang  
Valley. By using a quantitative method, the research examined cognitive, social-cognitive, information-  
processing, and emotional aspects of students’ preparedness. These aspects are derived from the theoretical  
assumptions of Piaget, Vygotsky, Goleman, and the Information  
Processing model. Data were collected across Klang Valley from 34 teachers attached to primary schools with  
inclusive and special education programs. Results revealed moderate preparedness in cognitive and social-  
cognitive domains but lower preparedness in emotional and information-processing aspects. The need to  
emphasize and strengthen the psychological foundations of SEN students prior to inclusion through effective  
interventions was highlighted in this research highlight. This paper also highlights the need for a rethinking of  
the educational practices, teacher collaboration, and the assessment framework to enhance psychological  
preparedness and advancement as essential aspects of inclusive education.  
Keywords: inclusive education, psychological preparedness, special educational needs (SEN), cognitive, social-  
cognitive, information processing, emotional  
INTRODUCTION  
To ensure equitable access to quality learning, inclusive education has become a global priority for all children.  
Through the UNESCO Salamanca Statement (1994) an important decision has been made in global education  
policies. Through the adoption of the Framework for Action on Special Needs Education, 92 countries and 25  
organisations agreed that children with disabilities should be given the right to learn alongside their peers in  
regular schools. Through the Persons with Disabilities Act (2008), Malaysia ratified this statement. Its  
commitment was shown in the Malaysia Education Blueprint (2013–2025). Implementing inclusion at all levels  
of education reflected it as a national effort. (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2013)  
There are three types of structured programs in the Malaysian context. Special Education Schools, Special  
Education Integration Programs, and Inclusive Education Programs (IEP). The number of students with special  
needs - SEN (known locally as Murid Berkeperluan Khas, MBK) has been increasing in Malaysian education  
fraternity. Their inclusion into mainstream school has risen by 8.81% between 2021 and 2022 (Ministry of  
Education Malaysia, 2022). Since emphasis is given only on their academic progress, the students’ psychological  
preparedness remains a question before they’re sent for inclusion. A student’s life doesn’t just revolve around  
learning but involves his or her psychological aspects as well.  
Teacher preparedness and institutional support are critical to inclusion as mentioned in previous studies by  
Hargrove (2010), Mhlongo (2015) and Nedellec (2015). But how psychologically are students prepared for this  
Page 9640  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
transition has been given limited attention. Students’ success for inclusive education doesn’t just depend on  
academic skills. Cognitive, social, emotional, and information-processing abilities also determine how  
successful are they in adapting to a new learning environment (Ormrod, 2006).  
Therefore, this study focused on addressing the gap on students’ psychological preparedness to be given equal  
emphasis in determining the success of inclusive education. It examined how cognitively, socially, and  
emotionally prepared are SEN students in Klang Valley’s national primary schools before being integrated into  
mainstream classes. The findings from this study are also able to be used in educational policies and practices  
within Malaysia and beyond.  
LITERATURE REVIEW  
Inclusive Education and Policy Context  
Inclusive education is meant to give equal education to all child irrespective of physical, cognitive, or emotional  
differences. Its principle is grounded on equity. Therefore, through inclusive education every child is able and  
deserve to learn within the same educational environment (Ainscow & Miles, 2009). With the philosophy of  
inclusive education, students with disabilities aren’t segregated in educational settings. It challenges and alters  
segregation practiced previously and emphasizes full participation of SEN students in mainstream education  
(Haegele et al., 2020).  
Through the Education Act (1996), Ministry of Education Malaysia established inclusive education to ensure  
students with learning disabilities could participate in mainstream education system. The Malaysia Education  
Blueprint (2013–2025) targeted 75% participation in inclusive education by 2025 and this target has already  
been achieved in recent years. However, this achievement is only based on quantitative data. Learning outcomes  
and classroom adaptation are affected (Salmah Jopri et al., 2020) when students without adequate psychological  
preparedness enter inclusive programs. How well the students perform qualitatively is an issue that need to be  
researched.  
Learning Disabilities and Inclusion Challenges  
Students with dyslexia, ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, and dyspraxia are considered to have learning  
disabilities (LD). They struggle with cognitive processing, communication, and social interaction (Kohli et al.,  
2018). Adapting into a mainstream classroom will be difficult for these students with learning disabilities since  
the instruction is typically designed for neurotypical learners (Mngo, 2017). Without targeted psychological and  
emotional support, research has shown that inclusive education could heighten anxiety and social isolation  
among SEN students (Cefai & Cavioni, 2015; Humphrey & Wigelsworth, 2016).  
Theoretical Perspectives  
Assumptions from four psychological theories have been used as the framework to understand and identify  
students’ psychological preparedness.  
1. The active process of constructing knowledge through interaction in learning.  
Cognitive Development Theory (Piaget, 1952)  
2. The emphasise of social interaction and scaffolding in learning.  
Social-Cognitive Theory (Vygotsky, 1978)  
3. The focus on receiving, storing, and retrieving information in learning (Wang, Liu, & Wang, 2003)  
Information Processing Theory  
4. The importance of emotional regulation, empathy, and self-awareness in learning.  
Page 9641  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
Emotional Intelligence Theory (Goleman, 1995)  
The assumptions from these four theories underpin the statement that successful inclusion requires not only  
academic proficiency but also psychological preparedness through cognitive, social, informational, and  
emotional domains.  
Psychological Preparedness  
SEN students anility in adapting cognitively, emotionally, and socially to a mainstream educational environment  
is what psychological preparedness refers to (Skuratovskaya et al., 2019). Psychological traits such as self-  
esteem, emotional stability, and motivation are key to success in inclusive settings as shown by prior studies on  
higher education (Crocker et al., 2003; Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2003). However, researches particularly  
at the primary level in Southeast Asia remains limited.  
This study examined and extended the knowledge on psychological dimensions of students’ preparedness for  
inclusive education in Malaysian primary schools. It also revealed the adequacy of the current assessment  
instrument using ‘Senarai Semak Kesediaan Inklusif Murid Berkeperluan Khas’ (SSKI MBK) in measuring the  
students’ psychological factors.  
METHODOLOGY  
Research Design  
This research used a quantitative method in providing data to understand in depth the psychological preparedness  
of the SEN students. The instrument used to collect the data measured teachers’ perceptions of students’  
cognitive, social-cognitive, information-processing, and emotional preparedness.  
Population and Sampling  
The study used mainstream and special education teachers that were involved with teaching SEN students. A  
total of 34 teachers responded being sufficient for a 95% confidence level and <5% margin of error (Bryman,  
2016).  
Research Instrument  
The researcher developed a structured questionnaire with 20 items grouped under four psychological dimensions  
namely Cognitive (5 items), Social-cognitive (5 items), Information processing (5 items) and Emotional  
development (5 items). Each item adopted a simplified 3-point Likert scale.  
The instrument was validated by five experts with more than 5 years of experience in inclusive education  
(Berliner, 2004). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.815 indicated high internal reliability (Cohen et al.,  
2018).  
Data Collection and Analysis  
The quantitative data were examined using simple statistical method to identify the percentages of psychological  
preparedness levels of SEN students across four domains through AGREE, DISAGREE and UNCERTAIN  
answers.  
RESULTS  
Quantitative Findings  
The data from this study showed that 62% of teachers agreed that their inclusive students showed adequate  
psychological preparedness across the domains, while 22% disagreed and 16% were uncertain. From the 62%  
of teachers who agreed across domain, the following data were acquired:  
Page 9642  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
DOMAIN  
%
LEVEL  
moderate  
moderate  
moderate  
low  
Cognitive Preparedness  
Social-Cognitive Preparedness  
Information-Processing Preparedness  
Emotional Preparedness  
70.4%  
63.6%  
64.2%  
51.8%  
Specifically, the emotional domain recorded the lowest mean score. It indicated that emotional preparedness is  
lacking in many students (51.8%). Constantly, teachers reported uncertainty (38.8%) on the emotional domain.  
This suggests a knowledge gap in assessing or supporting SEN students’ emotional preparedness.  
In conclusion, these findings display moderate cognitive and social readiness but affirms that emotional  
preparedness remains the most significant barrier for SEN students to be successfully included in inclusive  
education.  
DISCUSSION  
The results highlight the importance of psychological preparedness with its multidimensional nature in  
determining the success of inclusive education. With the quantitative findings demonstrating moderate  
preparedness across cognitive, social-cognitive, and information-processing domains, the emotional aspect  
appears to be the weakest link. This pattern is in tandem with prior studies that emphasized emotional regulation  
and socio-emotional adaptation as being the most challenging areas in entering inclusive settings for students  
with learning disabilities (Cefai & Cavioni, 2015; Humphrey & Wigelsworth, 2016).  
Cognitive and Social-Cognitive Preparedness  
The findings on cognitive and social-cognitive preparedness assert Piaget’s (1952) and Vygotsky’s (1978)  
theories of learning, which highlighted that cognitive development is based on knowledge construction and  
social interaction. As reported by many teachers, scaffolding and peer support when provided, could engage  
inclusive students with mainstream content. This is in support that structured inclusion enhances adaptation and  
learning as researched earlier by Mogharreban and Bruns (2009).  
However, the cognitive preparedness that remains “moderate” as observed in this study, suggested that even  
though SEN students are able to engage in mainstream settings, their progress excessively depended on teacher  
facilitation and individualized instructional strategies (Berry, 2021). Teachers who understood students’  
cognitive development and employed differentiated instruction were more successful in helping students’  
transition effectively (Odongo & Davidson, 2016).  
Emotional Preparedness: The Critical Gap  
The emotional dimension of preparedness through self-awareness, self-regulation, and resilience were found to  
be notably low by the respondents. This asserts that emotional regulation is foundational to learning and social  
participation as corroborated by Goleman’s (1995) Emotional Intelligence Theory. In inclusive classrooms,  
emotional unpreparedness manifests into behaviours such as anxiety, frustration, and withdrawal. These  
behaviours can disrupt not only the student’s learning process but also the classroom dynamics (Soares et al.,  
2022; McGuire & Meadan, 2022).  
In addition, the study also found that the existing Senarai Semak Kesediaan Inklusif Murid Berkeperluan Khas  
(SSKI MBK) did not emphasize psychological and emotional indicators but favouring cognitive and motor skills.  
Consequently, SEN students may be admitted to inclusive classes without sufficient emotional preparedness.  
This could be a flaw that compromises the teacher’s ability and experience in providing necessary support for  
Page 9643  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
SEN students. This is supported by the findings and concerns highlighted by Skuratovskaya et al. (2019)  
regarding the underemphasis of socio-psychological factors in readiness assessments.  
Implications for Teacher Collaboration and Practice  
The current research reaffirms that teacher collaboration to be essential in addressing the psychological needs of  
SEN students. This supports previous studies that successful inclusion depends on cooperation between  
mainstream and special education teachers (Jones et al., 2008; Razalli et al., 2020). This shows that classroom  
outcomes improve when both parties share insights on students’ cognitive and emotional development.  
However, many teachers still lack training in psychological assessment and differentiation as observed in prior  
literature (Mukhopadhyay, 2013; Rojo-Ramos et al., 2021). Therefore, the result of this study supported the  
initiative for professional development programs that integrate psychological theory, behaviour management,  
and emotional intelligence being a part of inclusive pedagogical training.  
Policy and Systemic Implications  
From the perspectives of Malaysia’s inclusive educational framework, these findings suggest that it requires  
further refinement in assessing and developing students’ psychological preparedness apart from being  
progressive in accessibility. This can be done by considering to revise the SSKI MBK checklist to could give  
greater emphasis to emotional and social-cognitive indicators. In addition, a pre-inclusion psychological  
profiling could be implemented in schools. This will assess students’ adaptability and emotional resilience before  
being integrated into the mainstream settings.  
On a wider level, the study also contributed to international debates on inclusion. This in particular with emerging  
education systems where infrastructure improvements are outpacing psychosocial preparedness (Banks et al.,  
2019; Woodcock, 2021). A reminder too for developing nations striving for inclusive education to balance  
educational expansion with carefully paying attention to students’ psychological foundations.  
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS  
This study highlights that inclusive education cannot succeed on accessibility alone. Psychological preparedness  
which is the missing dimension will determine and lead inclusive education towards a meaningful learning. The  
findings demonstrate that SEN students’ emotional preparedness in Klang Valley national primary schools  
remain low, even though they exhibit moderate cognitive and social preparedness. This poses a significant barrier  
to SEN students to be successfully integrated into inclusive education.  
Based on these results, several recommendations are proposed:  
1. Revise inclusion assessment tools such as the SSKI MBK to also emphasise psychological domains.  
2. Enhance and integrate psychological literacy, emotional intelligence, and behaviour management  
strategies into both pre and post teacher training programs.  
3. Develop collaborative support systems between special education and mainstream teachers to  
consistently ensure and monitor students’ psychological adaptation.  
4. Introduce orientation programs to build emotional preparedness among SEN students before full  
integration into inclusive education.  
5. Encourage further research across different cultural contexts to explore the relationship between  
psychological preparedness and various learning disabilities.  
By making psychological preparedness integral to inclusion, inclusive education can better nurture every SEN  
student’s potential in both academic and psychological domains.  
Page 9644  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
REFERENCES  
1. Ainscow, M., & Miles, S. (2009). Developing inclusive education systems: How can we move policies  
forward? Prospects, 38(1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-008-9058-4  
2. Amr, M. (2011). Teacher education for inclusive education in the Arab world: The case of Jordan.  
Prospects, 41(3), 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-011-9203-9  
3. Banks, L. M., Kuper, H., & Polack, S. (2019). Poverty and disability in low- and middle-income  
countries:  
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189996  
4. Berliner, D. C. (2004). Describing the behavior and documenting the accomplishments of expert teachers.  
Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society, 24(3), 200-212.  
https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467604265535  
A
systematic  
review.  
PLoS  
ONE,  
12(12),  
e0189996.  
5. Berry, R. A. (2021). The role of collaboration in special education. International Journal of Inclusive  
Education, 25(5), 512–528.  
6. Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.  
7. Cantor, N. (2008). Learning to learn in higher education: The role of self-knowledge and contextual  
intelligence. Syracuse University.  
8. Cefai, C., & Cavioni, V. (2015). Social and emotional education in primary school: Integrating theory  
and research into practice. Springer.  
9. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality traits and academic examination  
performance. European Journal of Personality, 17(3), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.473  
10. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.  
11. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.).  
SAGE.  
12. Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003). Contingencies of self-worth in  
college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 894–  
908. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894  
13. Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.  
14. Haegele, J. A., Sutherland, S., & Zhu, X. (2020). Inclusive education in physical education: A review of  
research. European Physical Education Review, 26(1), 46–69.  
15. Hargrove, L. (2010). Teacher preparedness and inclusive education. Journal of Special Education, 44(2),  
85–97.  
16. Humphrey, N., & Wigelsworth, M. (2016). Making the case for universal school-based mental health  
promotion. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 21(1), 22–42.  
17. Jones, N., Forlin, C., & Gillies, R. (2008). Working together: Towards collaborative teaching in inclusive  
classrooms. Australasian Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 1–17.  
18. Kohli, A., Sood, N., & Sharma, S. (2018). Learning disabilities: A review. International Journal of  
Education and Management Studies, 8(2), 65–72.  
19. McGuire, A., & Meadan, H. (2022). Supporting students with emotional and behavioral disorders in  
inclusive classrooms. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 30(3), 145–158.  
20. Mhlongo, K. (2015). Educators’ readiness to implement inclusive education: The case of Umzumbe rural  
schools, Sayidi Circuit (Master’s thesis). University of KwaZulu-Natal.  
21. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2013). Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013–2025 (Preschool to Post-  
Secondary Education). Putrajaya: MOE.  
22. Ministry of Education Malaysia. (2022). Annual Education Report 2022. Putrajaya: MOE.  
23. Mogharreban, C. C., & Bruns, D. A. (2009). Moving to inclusive pre-kindergarten classrooms: Lessons  
from the field. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(5), 407-414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-008-  
0301-0  
24. Mngo, Z. Y. (2017). Teachers’ perceptions of inclusion in Cameroon. International Journal of Special  
Education, 32(2), 358–369.  
25. Mukhopadhyay, S. (2013). Inclusive education for children with disabilities: Implementing the right to  
education in India. Social Change, 43(4), 543–560.  
26. Nedellec, C. M. (2015). Teachers’ understanding of differentiated instruction in Swiss elementary schools  
(Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (Order No. 3718012)  
Page 9645  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)  
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025  
27. Odongo, G., & Davidson, R. (2016). Teacher preparedness in inclusive education settings: A review.  
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(10), 1123–1140.  
28. Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners (5th ed.). Pearson.  
29. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. International Universities Press.  
30. Razalli, N., Hashim, N., Mamat, M., & Ariffin, R. (2020). Teachers’ readiness towards inclusive  
education in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Education, 45(2), 115–130.  
31. Rojo-Ramos, J., García, A., & Fernández, D. (2021). Teacher preparedness for inclusive education:  
Challenges and perspectives. Education Sciences, 11(2), 90.  
32. Salmah Jopri, S., Ismail, N., & Mamat, M. (2020). Teachers’ ability to identify students with special  
educational needs in inclusive classrooms. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 17(1), 65–83.  
33. Skuratovskaya, M. L., Klimova, T. V., & Volodina, I. S. (2019). Psychological readiness of students with  
disabilities for learning in inclusive education. Psychological Science and Education, 24(3), 14–27.  
34. Soares, C., Pereira, A., & Lopes, J. (2022). Emotional and behavioral disorders in inclusive education:  
Challenges and strategies. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 37(4), 512–529.  
35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard  
University Press.  
36. Wang, Q., Liu, H., & Wang, Z. (2003). Information processing theory: Applications in education. Journal  
of Cognitive Development, 4(2), 123–136.  
37. Woodcock, S. (2021). Barriers and facilitators to inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive  
Education, 25(9), 1021–1036.*  
Page 9646  
www.rsisinternational.org