SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sakarya University Journal of Education / 2026 / Volume: 16 Issue: 2

An Examination of Secondary School Mathematics Teachers’ Experiences in Teaching Mathematics to Inclusive Education Students: A Phenomenological Study

Tuğba Kılcan(GAZI UNIVERSITY, GAZİ FACULTY OF EDUCATION)0000-0002-7154-6399
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-08-10
🏛️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)

The results indicate a structure consisting of two main components: ‘struggling with difficulties’ and ‘managing a special and meaningful process’.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This research explores the meaning of teaching mathematics in the context of inclusion, based on lived experiences.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The study’s findings are significant in revealing the meaning and essence of experiences in teaching mathematics to inclusive students.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results indicate a structure consisting of two main components: ‘struggling with difficulties’ and ‘managing a special and meaningful process’.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Secondary School Mathematics Teachers · Mathematics Lesson · Inclusive Education Students

Abstract

This research explores the meaning of teaching mathematics in the context of inclusion, based on lived experiences. Conducted in accordance with the phenomenological design within qualitative research methods, this study reveals how middle school mathematics teachers make sense of their experiences in delivering lessons for inclusion activities. Criterion sampling was used to determine the study group. The data were obtained through semi-structured interviews consisting of open-ended questions. In the data analysis, the steps of ‘bracketing’, ‘phenomenological reduction’, ‘imaginative variation’, and ‘synthesis of meanings and essences’ were followed. The results indicate a structure consisting of two main components: ‘struggling with difficulties’ and ‘managing a special and meaningful process’. Participants who described their experience teaching mathematics to inclusive education students as a struggle, found it difficult to break down the students’ preconceived notions about mathematics. They also had to adapt to each student’s level, which often led to time constraints. However, despite these challenges, participants viewed teaching inclusive education students as a special and meaningful experience, as it provided valuable insights and benefited the students. The study’s findings are significant in revealing the meaning and essence of experiences in teaching mathematics to inclusive students. In this context, the study offers a conceptual contribution to the literature on how inclusive education entails a special and meaningful process, along with its challenges. Based on these results, it is suggested that further studies focusing on different stakeholders in inclusive mathematics education should be conducted.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kılcan, T. (2026). An Examination of Secondary School Mathematics Teachers’ Experiences in Teaching Mathematics to Inclusive Education Students: A Phenomenological Study. Sakarya University Journal of Education, Volume: 16 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.19126/suje.1859763

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (75)

  1. Abdulah, N. N., Bahari, S. S. F., Zakaria, N. A., Talib, R. A., & Maat, S. M. (2025). Inclusive mathematics education for students with special educational needs: A systematic review and bibliometric analysis of strategies and interventions. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 15(5), 564-585. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v15-i5/25486
  2. Akbaş, E. E., Cancan, M., & Toygan, T. (2022). Examining secondary school inclusive students’ levels of mathematics abstraction. Ahi Evran University Journal of Kırşehir Education Faculty (KEFAD), 23(Special issue), 427-471. https://izlik.org/JA75GW36GD
  3. Akman, B., Mercan Uzun, E., & Yazıcı, D. N. (2018). Comparison of pre-school teachers’ and preservice teachers’ views on inclusion. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 14(1), 96-114. https://doi.org/10.17860/mersinefd.305108
  4. Aktan, O., & Budak, Y. (2021). Evaluation of teachers’ opinions about using team-assisted individualization technique in mathematics course in inclusive education practices. Marmara University Atatürk Education Faculty Journal of Educational Sciences, 53, 69-96. https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.732256
  5. Altıntaş, E., İlgün, Ş., & Uygun, S. (2021). Opinions of elementary school mathematics teachers on special education lesson and mathematics education through inclusion. Uşak University Journal of Educational Research, 7(3), 21-38. https://doi.org/10.29065/usakead.1020053
  6. Ataman, A. (1996). Effective teacher training and total quality management in education for teacher training faculties. New Türkiye (Education Special Issue), 2(7), 382-389.
  7. Avcı, G., & Sakallı Demirok, M. (2022). The opinions of secondary school teachers working in different branches with special needs students in the classroom on inclusive education. International Anatolian Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 501-520. https://doi.org/10.47525/ulasbid.1033233
  8. Avcıoğlu, H. (2011). Mental handicapped class teachers’ thoughts on Preparing IEP (Individualized Education Program). Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 12(1), 39-53. https://doi.org/10.1501/Ozlegt_0000000156
  9. Başkale, H. (2016). Determination of validity, reliability and sample size in qualitative studies. Journal of Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Nursing, 9(1), 23-28.
  10. Büyükköse, D., & Çolaklıoğlu, O. (2025). Preservice mathematics teachers’ views on inclusive education. Kocaeli University Journal of Education, 8(2), 783-802. https://doi.org/10.33400/kuje.1733157
  11. Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 14(3), 295-309. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246698001400304
  12. Chander, R. (2016). Attitudes of teachers and students towards mainstreaming. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 6(2), 381-394.
  13. Clarke, B., & Faragher, R. (2015). Inclusive practices in the teaching of mathematics: Supporting the work of effective primary teachers. Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED572439
  14. Çuhadar, Y. (2006). Determining the views of the form masters and the principals concerning the preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the IEP for the students that are subject to coalescence education in classes 1-5 of elementary education. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Zonguldak Karaelmas University.
  15. Doğan, Z., & Türkkal, A. (2019). The investigation of educational identification processes in the counseling and research center of primary school students with inadequate math skills. Journal of Turkish Studies, 14(3), 1391-1410. https://doi.org/10.29228/TurkishStudies.22593
  16. Faradiba, S. S., Sunismi, Ilmi, Y. I. N., & Fuat. (2024). Empowering special needs children: Community outreach for inclusive mathematics education. International Journal of Community Service Learning, 8(3), 226-235. https://doi.org/10.23887/ijcsl.v8i3.80816
  17. Freeman, S., & Alkin, M. (2000). Academic and social attainments of children with mental retardation in general education and special education settings. Remedial and Special Education, 21(1), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193250002100102
  18. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Instructional adaptation for students at risk. Journal of Educational Research, 86(2), 70-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1992.9941143
  19. Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28(2), 235-260. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916297X00103
  20. Giorgi, A. (2007). Concerning the phenomenological methods of Husserl and Heidegger and their application in psychology. Collection du Cirp, 1, 63-78.
  21. Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Duquesne University.
  22. Glesne, C. (2012). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (A. Ersoy & P. Yalçınoğlu, Trans. Eds.). Anı.
  23. Glomb, N. K., & Morgan, D. P. (1991). Resource room teachers’ use of strategies that promote the success of handicapped students in regular classrooms. The Journal of Special Education, 25(2), 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699102500206
  24. Gök, G., & Erba, D. (2011). Early childhood teachers’ opinions about and suggestions for inclusion programs. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education, 3(1), 66-87. https://izlik.org/JA93PR37JT
  25. Greenstein, S., & Baglieri, S. (2018). Imagining mathematical thinking for inclusive curriculum: A conversation, Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 10(3), 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/19477503.2018.1467091
  26. Güleryüz, Ş. O. (2009). Evaluation of disabled students who are in inclusive education and their problems which are faced with their pers. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Selçuk University.
  27. Gün Şahin, Z., & Gürbüz, R. (2016). On the proficiency of secondary teachers educating inclusive students. Adıyaman University Journal of Educational Sciences, 6(1), 138-160. https://doi.org/10.17984/adyuebd.89881
  28. Güzel-Özmen, R. (2005). Instructional adaptations in inclusive settings. In A. Ataman (Ed.), Children with special needs and introduction to special education (pp. 71-103). Gündüz.
  29. Hacısalihoğlu-Karadeniz, M. (2017). Opinions of preservice teachers about special education course and mathematical applications in ınclusive education. KALEM International Journal of Educational and Human Sciences, 7(1), 119-158. https://doi.org/10.23863/kalem.2017.78
  30. Hacısalihoğlu-Karadeniz, M. (2019). An overview of the application process of teacher candidates’ mathematical skill-based instructional activities to mainstreaming student. İnönü University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 20(3), 1021-1041. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.427710
  31. Hacısalihoğlu-Karadeniz, M., Şen, H., & Akar, Ü. (2015). Reflections from the process of maths applicatıons in inclusive educatıon. Milli Eğitim Journal, 207, 169-188.
  32. Hauwadhanasuk, T., Karnas, M., & Zhuang, M. (2018). Inclusive education plans and practices in China, Thailand, and Turkey. Educational Planning, 25(1), 29-48.
  33. İlik, Ş. Ş., & Deniz, S. (2020). Observations of teacher candidates from different branches relating to inclusive education practices during their teaching practice. Kastamonu Education Journal, 28(1), 338-351. https://doi.org/10.24106/kefdergi.3611
  34. Johnson, L. J., & Pugach, M. C. (1990). Classroom teachers’ views of intervention strategies for learning and behavior problems: Which are reasonable and how frequently are they used? The Journal of Special Education, 24(1), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699002400106
  35. Kollosche, D., Marcone, R., Knigge, M., Penteado, M. G., & Skovsmose, O. (2019). Inclusive mathematics education: An introduction. In D. Kollosche, R. Marcone, M. Knigge, M. G. Penteado, & O. Skovsmose (Eds.), Inclusive mathematics education: State-of-the-art research from Brazil and Germany (pp. 3–6). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11518-0_1
  36. Kırcaali-İftar, G. & Batu, S. (2005). Kaynaştırma. Kök.
  37. Kuş, S., & Gökbulut, Y. (2021). Teacher opinions on mainstream and mathematics teaching. TÜBAD, 6(2), 345-358.
  38. Lambert, R., & Tan, P. (2020a). Book review: David Kollosche, Renato de Souza, Michel Knigge, Miriam Godoy Penteado, and Ole Skovsmose (Eds.) (2019) Inclusive mathematics education: State-of-the-art research from Brazil and Germany. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 103(2), 231-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09930-6
  39. Lambert, R., & Tan, P. (2020b). Does disability matter in mathematics educational research? A critical comparison of research on students with and without disabilities. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 32(1), 5-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-019-00299-6
  40. Lange, T. (2009). Difficulties, meaning and marginalisation in mathematics learning as seen through children’s eyes [Doctoral dissertation, Aalborg University]. Aalborg University Institutional Repository. https://vbn.aau.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/549521105/PHD_9788791543722_Troels_Lange.pdf
  41. Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200303
  42. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
  43. Ljungblad, A. L. (2020). Pedagogical tactfulness: A fundament in inclusive mathematics education. Educare, 4, 60–87. https://doi.org/10.24834/educare.2020.4.3
  44. Maag, J. W. (2005). Social skills training for youth with emotional and behavioral disorders and learning disabilities: Problems, conclusions, and suggestions. Exceptionality, 13, 155-172. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327035ex1303_2
  45. Martinez, R. S. (2003). Impact of a graduate class on attitudes toward inclusion, perceived teaching efficacy and knowledge about adapting instruction for children with disabilities in inclusive settings. Teacher Development, 7(3), 473-494.
  46. Mayer, S. E. (2003). What is a disadvantaged group? Effective Communities Project.
  47. McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1993). Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60(3), 249-261. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299406000306
  48. Moisă, F. (2012). Social inclusion in Romania. From Concept to the Implementation of Public Policies for the Inclusion of the Roma [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj Napoca Faculty of Sociology and Social Work.
  49. Özaydın, L., & Çolak, A. (2011). The views of preschool education teachers over mainstreaming education and over in-service education program of mainstreaming education at preschool education. KALEM International Journal of Educational and Human Sciences, 1(1), 189-226. https://doi.org/10.23863/kalem.2017.6
  50. Padilla, A., & Tan, P. (2019). Toward inclusive mathematics education: A metatheoretical reflection about countering ableism in mathematics standards and curriculum. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 32(3), 299–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1576941
  51. Pavri, S., & Luftig, R. (2000). The social face of inclusive education: Are students with learning disabilities really included in the classroom? Preventing School Failure, 45, 8-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/10459880109599808
  52. Radzi, N.M., & Mahmud, M.S. (2025). Inclusive mathematics pedagogy: A systematic literature review of practices, innovations, and equity in primary schools. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 24(3), 29-54. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.24.3.2
  53. Rolim, C. L. A., Lima, S. M. A., & Lagares, R. (2017). Atividade docente em contexto inclusıvo: Um olhar sobre o ensino de matemática. HOLOS, 2, 229–238. https://doi.org/10.15628/holos.2017.3461
  54. Romstein, K., & Mlinar, L. P. (2017). Teaching and learning in inclusive settings: Analysis of curriculum of compulsory education in five European countries. In Z. Kolar-Begović, R. Kolar-Šuper & L. Jukić Matić (Eds.), Mathematics Education as a Science and a profession,(pp. 269-276). Element.
  55. Salend, S. J., & Garrick-Duhaney, L. M. (1999). The impact of inclusion on students with and without disabilities and their educators. Remedial and Special Education, 20(2), 114-126. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259902000209
  56. Sánchez, P. A. (2012). Escuelas eficaces e inclusivas: Cómo favorecer su desarrollo. Educatio Siglo XXI, 30(1), 25-44. https://revistas.um.es/educatio/article/view/149121
  57. Saraç, T., & Çolak, A. (2012). Elementary school teachers’ views and suggestions regarding the problems encountered in the process of inclusive applications. Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 8(1), 13-28. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/160833
  58. Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1991). Making adaptations for mainstreamed students: General classroom teachers’ perspectives. RASE: Remedial & Special Education, 12(4), 18-27. https://doi.org/10.1177/074193259101200404
  59. Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1992). Planning for mainstreamed special education students: Perceptions of general classroom teachers. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 3(2), 81-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362839209524799
  60. Sebti, L., & Iqtadar, S. (2025). I still want to challenge my special ed kids, but i don’t know how! Secondary teachers’ perceptions and practices of inclusive math and science education in the United States. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 25(4), 930-944. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.70021
  61. Smith, T. E. C., Polloway, E. A., Patton, J. R., & Dowdy, C. A. (2001). Teaching students with special needs in inclusive settings (3rd ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
  62. Söğüt, D. A., & Deniz, S. (2018). Rigours which class teachers encounter with preparing individualized education program (IEP) and assessment of views related to inclusive practices. Erzincan University Journal of Education Faculty, 20(2), 423-443. https://doi.org/10.17556/erziefd.402532
  63. Sucuoğlu, B., & Kargın, T. (2006). İlköğretimde kaynaştırma uygulamaları yaklaşımlar yöntemler teknikler. Morpa.
  64. Sun, M. (2025). Cultivating inclusive math classrooms: A reflective journey of teaching students with special needs. The Asian Educational Therapist, 3(3), 17-22. https://doi.org/10.64663/aet.6
  65. Şimşek, Ü., & Kılcan, B. (2019). Inclusive education through the eyes of teachers. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 6(3), 29‐39. https://doi.org/10.17220/ijpes.2019.03.004
  66. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1994). The salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000098427
  67. van Manen, M. (2007). Phenomenology of practice. Phenomenology & Practice, 1(1), 11-30. https://doi.org/10.29173/pandpr19803
  68. Vural, M., & Yıkmış, A. (2008). A determination of the studies made on instructional adaptation by inclusive classroom teachers. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education, 8(2), 141-159.
  69. Yaşar, A., & Kara, A. (2024). Secondary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education and the teaching profession. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 21(3), 1199-1213. https://doi.org/10.33437/ksusbd.1437719
  70. Yıkmış, A. (2005). Interactive mathematics teaching. Kök.
  71. Yıkmış, A., Öncül, N., & Acar, Ç. (2014). The views of special education teachers working with the students with mental deficiencies on the studies related to the mathematics course. The Journal of Sakarya University Education Faculty, 25, 35-59. https://izlik.org/JA88KL74YT
  72. Yıldırım, A. (1999). Qualitative research methods. Education and Science, 23(112), 7-17.
  73. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2011). Social sciences in qualitative research methods (8th ed.). Seçkin.
  74. Yılmaz, K., & Şahin, T. (2016). An examination of the professional experience of research assistants serving in college of education: A phenomenological study of the meaning of being a research assistant. The Journal of Educational Sciences of Marmara University Atatürk Faculty of Education, 44, 143-168. https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.286491
  75. Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Volonino, V. (2009). What, where, and how? Special education in the climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17(4), 189-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362830903231986