SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 19 Sayı: 3

Exploration of Quality Education Initiatives under Sustainable Development Goal 4 in Türkiye

Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Hedefi 4 Kapsamında Türkiye'de Nitelikli Eğitim Girişimlerinin İncelenmesi

Mehmet Fatih Döğer(Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı)0000-0001-5940-450X
Ahmet Göçen(AFYON KOCATEPE UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-9376-2084
Mehmet Akın Bulut(IBN HALDUN UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-7506-8750
Çelebi Kalkan(TC Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Kayseri)0009-0005-2418-3301
Pages
684–714
Publication Date
2026-07-27
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Policy recommendations include targeted infrastructure investment, comprehensive teacher development, meaningful curriculum updates, and enhanced industry-education partnerships.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates teachers' and school administrators' perspectives on the Ministry of National Education's (MoNE) implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using a sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach, data were collected from 1,066 participants through an 18-item survey and 18 semi-structured interviews across 81 cities.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Policy recommendations include targeted infrastructure investment, comprehensive teacher development, meaningful curriculum updates, and enhanced industry-education partnerships.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Eğitim Politikaları · Nitelikli Eğitim · Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçları

Abstract

This study investigates teachers' and school administrators' perspectives on the Ministry of National Education's (MoNE) implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education). Using a sequential explanatory mixed-methods approach, data were collected from 1,066 participants through an 18-item survey and 18 semi-structured interviews across 81 cities. This research provides empirical evidence of how Türkiye, as an upper-middle-income country, aligns national policies with global goals while addressing local challenges. Quantitative results reveal stakeholder agreement with MoNE's efforts in several areas, with the strongest support for adult literacy programs, preschool education access, teacher development, lifelong learning, and gender equality. However, significant concerns emerged regarding educational infrastructure quality and sustainable development awareness, which received neutral ratings, indicating stakeholder uncertainty. Analysis identified several key implementation challenges: inadequate learning infrastructure, curriculum adaptation needs, limited inclusivity, vocational-industry misalignment, regional disparities, and insufficient sustainability awareness. Despite large investments by MoNE, participants emphasized persistent educational disparities across regions in Türkiye, theoretically explained through the “Matthew effect”, where advantages tend to accumulate for those already advantaged. Policy recommendations include targeted infrastructure investment, comprehensive teacher development, meaningful curriculum updates, and enhanced industry-education partnerships.

Özet

Bu çalışma, öğretmenlerin ve okul yöneticilerinin Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı'nın Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Hedefi 4 kapsamındaki uygulamalarına ilişkin bakış açılarını incelemektedir. Sıralı açıklayıcı karma yöntem yaklaşımı kullanılarak 18 maddelik bir anket yoluyla 81 ilden 1.066 katılımcıdan veri toplanmış ve 18 yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bu araştırma, Türkiye'nin bir üst-orta gelirli ülke olarak yerel zorlukları ele alırken ulusal politikalarını küresel hedeflerle nasıl uyumlandırdığına dair ampirik kanıtlar sunmaktadır. Nicel bulgular, katılımcıların Bakanlığın en çok yetişkin okuryazarlık programları, okul öncesi eğitime erişim, öğretmen gelişimi, yaşam boyu öğrenme ve toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliği alanlarındaki girişimlerini gözlemlediğini göstermektedir. Ancak, eğitim altyapısının niteliği ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma farkındalığı konularında katılımcılar arasında önemli kaygılar ortaya çıkmıştır. Analiz, başlıca şu uygulama zorluklarını tespit etmiştir: yetersiz öğrenme altyapısı, müfredat uyarlama ihtiyacı, sınırlı kapsayıcılık, mesleki eğitim-endüstri uyumsuzluğu, bölgesel eşitsizlikler ve yetersiz sürdürülebilirlik farkındalığı. Bakanlığın yaptığı yatırımlara rağmen katılımcılar Türkiye'de bölgeler arasında devam eden eğitim eşitsizliklerine dikkat çekmiştir. Bu durum, mevcut avantajlara sahip olanların avantajlarının daha da artma eğiliminde olduğu "Matthew etkisi" ile açıklanmıştır. Politika önerileri arasında; hedefli altyapı yatırımları, kapsamlı öğretmen gelişimi, gerekli müfredat güncellemeleri ve güçlendirilmiş sanayi-eğitim iş birlikleri yer almaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Döğer, M. F., Göçen, A., Bulut, M. A., Kalkan, Ç. (2026). Exploration of Quality Education Initiatives under Sustainable Development Goal 4 in Türkiye. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, Cilt: 19 Sayı: 3, 684–714. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1836583

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (82)

  1. Aggarwal, R., & Ranganathan, P. (2019). Study designs: Part 2—Descriptive studies. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 10(1), 34–36. https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_154_18
  2. Ataç, E. (2019). Modeling educational inequalities: Class, academic achievement, and regional differences in Turkey. Education and Urban Society, 51(5), 659–692. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517747036
  3. Ayar, M. C., & Özalp, D. (2021). Analyzing a human and environment unit at the fifth-grade science curriculum within the environmentally literate citizenship context. Academy Journal of Educational Sciences, 5(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.31805/acjes.839228
  4. Başdemir, H. Y. (2012). Türk eğitim sisteminin yapısal sorunları ve bir öneri [Structural problems of the Turkish education system and a proposal]. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, 17(67), 35–52.
  5. Baykaldı, G., Corlu, M. S., & Yabaş, D. (2024). An investigation into high school mathematics teachers and inclusive education for students with visual impairments. British Journal of Visual Impairment, 42(1), 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/02646196231175327
  6. Bayrakçeken, E., Çinici, M., & Alkan, Ö. (2025). School dropout among children aged 5–17 in Türkiye and related factors: A logistic regression analysis. BMC Pediatrics, 25, Article 661. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-025-06034-4
  7. Baysal, Z. N., Cebeci, G., Yıldız Kaya, S., & Ozan, C. (2022). Examining the third-grade life studies textbook in light of the 2030 sustainable development goals. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 99–114.
  8. Bespalyy, S., Akhrorova, A., Alnazarova, G., Adieva, A., & Petrenko, A. (2024). Education for sustainable development: Comparative analysis and prospects at universities in Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. Discover Sustainability, 5, Article 140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00343-x
  9. Biçer, R., & Bulut, B. (2023). The role and importance of education for sustainable development in teacher education: The case of Turkey. Kırşehir Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(2).
  10. Bolton, D., & Landells, T. (2020). Brundtland and after. In S. Seifi (Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of corporate social responsibility. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22438-7_9-1
  11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. In H. Cooper, P. M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology: Vol. 2. Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13620-004
  12. Carifio, J., & Perla, R. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths, and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2007.106.116
  13. Çelik Keskin, T., & Atay, D. (2025). Are Syrian children integrated into our education? Turkish teachers’ perspectives on the inclusive education project. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 19(2), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2023.2270093
  14. Çiftçi, S., Sağlam, A., & Yayla, A. (2021). Student, teacher, and educational environments in the context of 21st-century skills. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi, (24), 718–734. https://doi.org/10.29000/rumelide.995863
  15. Çokçalışkan, H., Okulu, H. Z., & Yorulmaz, A. (2024). Perceptions of the sustainable development goals: A Q-methodology study with Turkish preservice teachers. Environmental Education Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2024.2309589
  16. Coşanay, G., & Karalı, Y. (2022). Examination of classroom teachers’ 21st-century teaching skills. International Online Journal of Education and Teaching, 9(1), 432–448.
  17. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  18. Döğer, M. F. (2023). Sosyal ağlarda öğretmenler [Teachers on social networks] [Doctoral dissertation, Ankara University]. Council of Higher Education National Thesis Center.
  19. Döğer, M. F. (2024). The impact of virtual communities and eTwinning action on the education system and their implementation in classrooms. Türkiye Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 28(2), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.20296/tsadergisi.1465045
  20. Eranıl, A. K. (2024). School dropout causes in the Turkish education system (2009–2022): A Pareto analysis by grade level. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 17(2), 451–477. https://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1291174
  21. Ergün, Z., Gencel, N., & Memiş, K. E. (2023). The sustainability trend in education in all its aspects: A meta-synthesis investigation of studies in Turkey. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(3), 1435–1473. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1288310
  22. Elitaş, Z. (2025). Early school dropouts in Türkiye: The influence of personal and family characteristics. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 47(2), 300–323. https://doi.org/10.14780/muiibd.1668888
  23. García-González, E., Jiménez-Fontana, R., & Azcárate, P. (2020). Education for sustainability and the sustainable development goals: Pre-service teachers’ perceptions and knowledge. Sustainability, 12(18), Article 7741. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187741
  24. Global Teachers for a Sustainable Future. (n.d.). Global teachers for a sustainable future. Retrieved May 26, 2024, from https://globalteachers.eu/
  25. Goad, D. (2020). Mapping the mainstreaming of education for sustainable development across SDG 4.7: A comparative analysis of the mainstreaming of ESD in Cyprus, Greece, Malta, and Turkey. UNESCO Regional Bureau for Science and Culture in Europe.
  26. Göçer, A. (2016). An important stage of lifelong learning: Adult literacy and its benefits—The case of Kayseri, Turkey. Eğitim ve Bilim, 41(183), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.4600
  27. Graetz, N., Friedman, J., Osgood-Zimmerman, A., Burstein, R., Biehl, M. H., Shields, C., Mosser, J. F., Casey, D. C., Deshpande, A., Earl, L., Reiner, R. C., Jr., Ray, S. E., Fullman, N., Levine, A. J., Osman, W., Bärnighausen, T. W., Brown, J. C., Templin, T., Dwyer-Lindgren, L., & Hay, S. I. (2020). Mapping local variation in educational attainment across Africa. Nature, 577(7789), 235–238. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1872-1
  28. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
  29. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05282260
  30. Karacan Özdemir, N., Aras Kemer, F. N., Arslan, A., & Tuna, B. (2024). A qualitative study of unveiling school dropout complexity in Türkiye. Child Indicators Research, 17(3), 1001–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-024-10116-7
  31. Kasap, S. (2024, March 8). MEB, 3 bin 500 okula yenilikçi sınıf kuruyor. Anadolu Ajansı. https://www.aa.com.tr/tr/egitim/meb-3-bin-500-okula-yenilikci-sinif-kuruyor/3174270
  32. Kaya, N., Çobanoğlu, M. T., & Artvinli, E. (2010). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma için Türkiye’de ve dünyada çevre eğitimi çalışmaları [Environmental education studies in Turkey and worldwide for sustainable development]. In VI. Ulusal Coğrafya Sempozyumu bildiriler kitabı (pp. 407–417). Ankara University. http://tucaum.ankara.edu.tr/wp-content/uploads/sites/280/2015/08/semp6_44.pdf
  33. Kesbiç, K., Terzi, G. N., Korlu, Ö., Gencer, E. G., & Arık, B. M. (2025). Eğitim izleme raporu 2025 [Education monitoring report 2025]. Eğitim Reformu Girişimi.
  34. Korkmaz, G. (2020). Yenilenen öğretmen yetiştirme lisans programlarının sürdürülebilir kalkınma için eğitim bağlamında incelenmesi [An examination of revised undergraduate teacher-education programs in the context of education for sustainable development]. Journal of Advanced Education Studies, 2(2), 111–132.
  35. Korlu, Ö. (2024). 2025’e doğru göstergelerle eğitimde fırsat penceresi [The window of opportunity in education: Indicators toward 2025]. Eğitim Reformu Girişimi.
  36. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316447003000308
  37. Küçük, M., & Ekinci, S. B. (2021). What do Turkish experts say about sustainable development goals and teaching about achieving these goals? Education Quarterly Reviews, 4(3), 290–303. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1993.04.03.323
  38. Lamichhane, S., Eğilmez, G., Gedik, R., Bhutta, M. K. S., & Erenay, B. (2020). Benchmarking OECD countries’ sustainable development performance: A goal-specific principal component analysis approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 287, Article 125040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125040
  39. Lee, H., & Lee, J.-W. (2024). Educational quality and disparities in income and growth across countries. Journal of Economic Growth, 29(3), 361–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-023-09239-3
  40. Lee, Y.-F., Lee, L.-S., Tran, D. H. T., & Nguyen, T.-P.-V. (2025). An international comparison of education for sustainable development in 10 highly competitive countries. In Y.-F. Lee & L.-S. Lee (Eds.), Status, trends and issues of education for sustainable development in highly competitive countries: Country reports and international comparison (pp. 511–552). Technological and Vocational Education Research Center, National Taiwan Normal University.
  41. Leicht, A., Heiss, J., & Byun, W. J. (Eds.). (2018). Issues and trends in education for sustainable development. UNESCO.
  42. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science: The reward and communication systems of science are considered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.159.3810.56
  43. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  44. Ministry of National Education. (2019). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı 2019–2023 stratejik planı [Ministry of National Education 2019–2023 strategic plan]. https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=550
  45. Ministry of National Education. (2021). 2020 yılı idare faaliyet raporu [2020 administrative activity report]. Directorate of Strategy Development.
  46. Ministry of National Education. (2022a). 2021 yılı idare faaliyet raporu [2021 administrative activity report]. Directorate of Strategy Development.
  47. Ministry of National Education. (2022b). Türkiye’de eğitimin 20 yılı: 2000–2019 [Twenty years of education in Türkiye: 2000–2019].
  48. Ministry of National Education. (2023a). İklim değişikliği farkındalığının temel eğitime entegrasyonu çalıştayı raporu [Workshop report on integrating climate change awareness into basic education]. General Directorate of Basic Education.
  49. Ministry of National Education. (2023b). Millî eğitim istatistikleri: Örgün eğitim 2022/’23 [National education statistics: Formal education 2022/2023]. Directorate of Strategy Development.
  50. Ministry of National Education. (2024). Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı 2024–2028 stratejik planı [Ministry of National Education 2024–2028 strategic plan]. https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=550
  51. Ng, P. T. (2015). What is quality education? How can it be achieved? The perspectives of school middle leaders in Singapore. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 27(4), 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9223-8
  52. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
  53. OECD. (2022). The short and winding road to 2030: Measuring distance to the SDG targets. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/af4b630d-en
  54. OECD. (2023). PISA 2022 results: Vol. 1. The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en
  55. Our World in Data. (2023). Ensure inclusive and quality education for all and promote lifelong learning. https://ourworldindata.org/sdgs/quality-education
  56. Özer, M. (2023). The Matthew effect in the Turkish education system. Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education, 12(4), 704–712. https://doi.org/10.14686/buefad.1359312
  57. Özer, M., & Perc, M. (2022). Improving equality in the education system of Türkiye. İstanbul University Journal of Sociology, 42(2), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2022.42.2.0001
  58. Öztekin Bayır, Ö., & Tekel, E. (2021). Problems of the Turkish education system and suggested solutions: What do pre-service teachers think? Journal of Pedagogical Research, 5(1), 275–292. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.2021167573
  59. Paoli, M. (2024). Hindrance to sustainable development: Global inequities, non-progressive education, and inadequate science–policy dialogue. Microbial Biotechnology, 17(6), Article e14486. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.14486
  60. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  61. Pimentel, J. L. (2010). A note on the usage of Likert scaling for research data analysis. USM R&D Journal, 18(2), 109–112.
  62. Presidency of Strategy and Budget. (2019). Sürdürülebilir kalkınma amaçları değerlendirme raporu [Sustainable development goals assessment report]. Republic of Türkiye Presidency of Strategy and Budget.
  63. Rosenberg, E., Lotz-Sisitka, H., & Ramsarup, P. (2020). The curriculum response to sustainable development in South Africa. In G. Nhamo & V. Mjimba (Eds.), Sustainable development goals and institutions of higher education (pp. 45–62). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26157-3_4
  64. Sarı, T., Nayır, F., & Kahraman, Ü. (2020). A study on inclusive education in Turkey. Journal of Education and Future, (18), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.642954
  65. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2014). Cross-national policy borrowing: Understanding reception and translation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2013.875649
  66. Süklün, H., & Bengü, E. (2024). Raising awareness of sustainable development goals in higher education institutions. Research in Educational Administration & Leadership, 9(1), 39–72. https://doi.org/10.30828/real.1357661
  67. TEDMEM. (2023). 2022 eğitim değerlendirme raporu [2022 education evaluation report] (TEDMEM Değerlendirme Dizisi No. 9). Türk Eğitim Derneği.
  68. Tunca, E., Kesbiç, K., Gencer, E. G., Korlu, Ö., & Akay, S. S. (2022). Eğitim izleme raporu 2022 [Education monitoring report 2022]. Eğitim Reformu Girişimi.
  69. United Nations. (1987). Our common future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (United Nations Document A/42/427). https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/139811
  70. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development (General Assembly Resolution A/RES/70/1). https://undocs.org/A/RES/70/1
  71. United Nations Development Programme. (2024). Human development report 2023/2024: Breaking the gridlock—Reimagining cooperation in a polarized world. https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2023-24
  72. UNESCO. (2020). Global education monitoring report summary, 2020: Inclusion and education—All means all. UNESCO.
  73. UNESCO. (2021). Global education monitoring report 2021/2: Non-state actors in education—Who chooses? Who loses? UNESCO.
  74. UNESCO Türkiye National Commission. (2022). 2020–2021 faaliyet raporları [2020–2021 activity reports].
  75. Veisson, M., & Kabadayı, A. (2018). Exploring the preschool teachers’ views on professionalism, quality of education, and sustainability: International study in Estonia and Turkey. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 20(2), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.2478/jtes-2018-0011
  76. Wackernagel, M., Hanscom, L., & Lin, D. (2017). Making the sustainable development goals consistent with sustainability. Frontiers in Energy Research, 5, Article 18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00018
  77. Webb, S., Holford, J., Hodge, S., Milana, M., & Waller, R. (2017). Lifelong learning for quality education: Exploring the neglected aspect of sustainable development goal 4. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 36(5), 509–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370.2017.1398489
  78. Wipulanusat, W., Panuwatwanich, K., Stewart, R. A., & Sunkpho, J. (2020). Applying mixed methods sequential explanatory design to innovation management. In B. K. K. Kumar, R. A. Stewart, & K. Panuwatwanich (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Engineering, Project, and Production Management (pp. 485–495). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1910-9_40
  79. Wu, K. B. (2017). Global variation in education outcomes at ages 5 to 19. In D. A. P. Bundy, N. de Silva, S. Horton, D. T. Jamison, & G. C. Patton (Eds.), Child and adolescent health and development (3rd ed., pp. 67–83). The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0423-6_ch4
  80. Yenil, S., & Şahan, G. (2024). Hayat boyu öğrenme alanında 2013–2023 yılları arasında Türkiye’de yapılmış araştırmaların incelenmesi [An examination of studies conducted in Türkiye between 2013 and 2023 in the field of lifelong learning and adult education]. Bayburt Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(41), 1843–1869.
  81. Yılmaz Fındık, L., & Erçetin, Ş. Ş. (2023). How do universities in Türkiye integrate sustainable development goals into their strategies? Sustainability, 15(24), Article 16799. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152416799
  82. Yılmaz, R. K., & Yeganeh, E. (2021). Who and how do I include? A case study on teachers’ inclusive education practices. International Journal of Progressive Education, 17(2), 406–429. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.332.25