Based on the identified theoretical gaps in research on inclusive education and neurodidactics, as well as the stated aim of developing and validating a structural model of teachers’ neurodidactic readiness, the present study addresses the following research questions:

Based on previous empirical findings and the theoretical framework of neurodidactics and inclusive education, the following hypotheses were formulated:

Inclusive education is recognized as a fundamental principle of modern educational systems and is aimed at ensuring equal access to quality education for all students, regardless of their physical, cognitive, or socio-emotional characteristics. Contemporary research emphasizes that inclusion is not limited to the physical placement of students with special educational needs (SEN) in mainstream classrooms but involves systemic changes in educational environments, teaching practices, and professional roles of teachers (Makoelle, 2020; Shalbayeva et al., 2021). This perspective highlights the necessity of flexible, individualized, and scientifically grounded pedagogical approaches capable of addressing learner diversity.

Within this context, neurodidactics has emerged as an interdisciplinary field integrating findings from educational neuroscience, developmental psychology, and pedagogy (Laferrière et al., 2006). Neurodidactic approaches aim to align instructional strategies with the functional characteristics of the human brain, including mechanisms of attention, memory, emotional regulation, and self-regulation (Gomez Paloma and Fragnito, 2013; Gran, 2021). Empirical studies demonstrate that neurodidactically informed instruction contributes to increased student engagement, improved emotional well-being, and more stable learning outcomes, particularly in heterogeneous and inclusive classroom settings (Nikulochkina et al., 2022).

For students with neuropsychological developmental disabilities, neurodidactic approaches are especially relevant, as they allow teachers to adapt educational content, regulate cognitive load, and create emotionally supportive learning environments (Efthymiou et al., 2025). Thus, neurodidactics provides a scientific foundation for inclusive education by offering tools and principles that respond to individual neuropsychological differences while supporting the learning of all students.

A substantial body of research highlights the central role of teachers in the successful implementation of inclusive education. Numerous studies indicate that teachers’ readiness significantly influences the quality of inclusive practices and students’ learning outcomes (Veiga-Branco and Ribeiro, 2018; Doukakis et al., 2022). At the same time, research consistently reports that many teachers experience difficulties when working in inclusive classrooms, including insufficient methodological preparedness, emotional tension, and uncertainty in selecting appropriate instructional strategies.

Various conceptual models have been proposed to describe teachers’ readiness for inclusive education. Alimuddin et al. (2024) conceptualize readiness as a three-component construct comprising cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions. Ozturk (2021) emphasizes the interdependence of cognitive readiness with motivational and personal factors, arguing that professional knowledge alone is insufficient for effective inclusive practice. Albanese and Compagno (2023) propose a multidimensional model that integrates informational competence, emotional–moral attitudes, motivational orientation, and operational effectiveness.

Similarly, Doukakis et al. (2022) present an expanded framework of teacher readiness that includes methodological competence, emotional acceptance of diversity, willingness for continuous professional development, and satisfaction with pedagogical activity. Despite differences in structure, these models share a common emphasis on the interaction between knowledge, attitudes, emotions, and practical skills. However, most existing approaches conceptualize readiness primarily in psychological or methodological terms and do not explicitly incorporate neurodidactic principles.

As a result, current models provide limited insight into how teachers’ readiness specifically supports neurodidactic practices in inclusive classrooms and how different components of readiness interact to influence inclusive teaching behavior.

Based on the synthesis of existing theoretical perspectives and empirical findings, the present study conceptualizes teachers’ neurodidactic readiness as a multidimensional professional construct that functions as a key mechanism for the implementation of neurodidactic support in inclusive education. Neurodidactic readiness reflects both internal conditions of professional preparedness and their manifestation in inclusive teaching practice.

The motivational–value component reflects teachers’ acceptance of inclusive and neuroinclusive values, their professional commitment to supporting students with special educational needs, and their intrinsic motivation to apply neurodidactic strategies. Previous research indicates that teachers’ value orientations and motivational attitudes significantly influence their willingness to adopt inclusive and innovative pedagogical practices (Frederickson et al., 2007; Doukakis et al., 2022).

The cognitive (methodological) component includes teachers’ knowledge of neurodidactic principles, educational neuroscience, developmental psychology, and differentiated instruction, as well as their understanding of the neuropsychological characteristics of students with special educational needs. This component provides the theoretical basis for informed pedagogical decision-making in inclusive classrooms (Gomez Paloma and Fragnito, 2013; Gran, 2021).

The affective component is associated with teachers’ emotional acceptance of inclusive education, their ability to manage anxiety and emotional tension, and their empathy toward students with neuropsychological developmental disabilities. Research shows that affective readiness shapes teachers’ attitudes and interactions in inclusive settings, although its influence on inclusive behavior may be indirect (Frederickson et al., 2007; Albanese and Compagno, 2023).

The operational component reflects teachers’ practical mastery of neurodidactic tools and adaptive teaching techniques, including the ability to regulate cognitive load, adapt educational content, and organize emotionally supportive learning environments in accordance with students’ neurophysiological characteristics. Empirical evidence suggests that operational readiness is a critical determinant of effective inclusive practice and mediates the relationship between teachers’ knowledge, values, and classroom behavior (Veiga-Branco and Ribeiro, 2018; Zulpykhar et al., 2025).

Finally, the behavioral component represents the observable implementation of neurodidactic and inclusive practices in the classroom, including individualized instruction, interaction with students with special educational needs, collaboration with specialists, and participation in inclusive educational initiatives. This component reflects the extent to which teachers’ internal neurodidactic readiness is translated into effective inclusive practice (Zulpykhar et al., 2025).

Based on the reviewed literature, a theoretical model integrating external professional conditions, internal components of neurodidactic readiness, and their behavioral manifestation in inclusive teaching practice was developed (Nurmaganbetova et al., 2020; Serik et al., 2022; Zhilmagambetova et al., 2023; Zulpykhar et al., 2023). This model provides the conceptual foundation for subsequent empirical validation using structural equation modeling (see Figure 1).

The study employed a quantitative cross-sectional research design aimed at empirically validating a theoretical model of teachers’ neurodidactic readiness in inclusive education using descriptive statistics, nonparametric analysis, and structural equation modeling (SEM).

The empirical basis of the study included 10 secondary schools across the Republic of Kazakhstan that implement inclusive educational programs. These institutions serve 150 students with disabilities enrolled in inclusive classes at various levels (primary, basic, and secondary general education).

100 teachers working in an inclusive education environment participated in the study as respondents. The sample included both primary school teachers and subject teachers with different teaching experience, qualification categories, as well as different levels of experience interacting with children with developmental disabilities. Special attention was paid to teachers who apply in their practice elements of neuro-didactic approaches aimed at developing the cognitive and psychomotor spheres of schoolchildren with special educational needs.

Participation in the study made it possible to diagnose the level of readiness of teachers to implement neurodidactic support, as well as to identify barriers and resource conditions that affect the effectiveness of their work in an inclusive educational environment Table 1.

An original author-developed questionnaire (Neurodidactic Readiness Questionnaire) was used in this study. The methodological readiness of teachers was assessed on the basis of answers to questions concerning knowledge of the specifics of teaching in inclusive classrooms, as well as the ability to develop and implement adapted educational programs taking into account the cognitive and neuropsychological characteristics of students with disabilities. The maximum score on this scale was 16.

The affective component was identified based on the self-assessment of teachers’ emotional states (anxiety, insecurity, internal tension) that arise in the process of interacting with children with special educational needs, including children with autism spectrum disorders, attention disorders, and other neuropsychological deficits. The maximum score is 62.

The motivational and value component was determined through the identification of teachers’ attitudes and ideas about the value of inclusive education, their willingness to accept students with disabilities, as well as internal motivation for professional realization in an inclusive environment. The maximum score is 61.

The operational component reflected the teachers’ proficiency in the tools of inclusive and neurodidactic education: the ability to adapt the content and teaching methods, plan the learning process taking into account the neuropsychological characteristics of students, as well as knowledge of the requirements for conducting intermediate and final assessment of students with disabilities. The maximum score is 40.

The behavioral component (inclusive practice) was assessed based on responses regarding real pedagogical behavior: organizing inclusive interaction at the individual level and in the classroom as a whole, participating in the implementation of inclusive strategies, and providing pedagogical support to students with special educational needs. The maximum score is 24.

The respondents’ responses were evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale (from “totally disagree” to “totally agree”). Verification of the reliability and internal consistency of the questionnaire scales showed a high level of methodological validity of the toolkit. The internal consistency of the scales was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (see Figure 2).

Verification of the normality of the distribution of scores on the scales of neurodidactic readiness showed satisfactory results only on the scale of the “Motivational and value component” (Shapiro–Wilk criterion: W = 0.995; p > 0.05; Kolmogorov–Smirnov criterion: λ = 0.34; p > 0.05). For the remaining scales, the null hypothesis of the normality of the distribution was rejected (p < 0.05), which led to the use of nonparametric methods of statistical analysis.

To identify differences in the level of neurodidactic readiness of teachers depending on socio-demographic characteristics (gender, teaching experience, subject specialization, experience working with children with special educational needs), nonparametric criteria of differences were used, including the Mann–Whitney U criterion and the median test using Pearson’s χ² criterion.

As part of the analysis of teachers by the profile of the subjects taught, all subject areas were grouped into three enlarged categories:

The STEM field includes teachers teaching technical, natural science, physics and mathematics disciplines.

The social and humanitarian field includes teachers of history, social studies, law, languages, and other socio-scientific disciplines.

Other fields - include primary school teachers, psychological educators, physical education teachers, art teachers.

The influence of experience working with children with special educational needs (presence or absence) on the severity levels of each component of neurodidactic readiness was also tested.

To verify the validity of the proposed theoretical integrative model of a teacher’s neurodidactic readiness for inclusive learning in school, the method of structural equation modeling (SEM) using an asymptotically nonparametric assessment was used.

Statistical data processing and modeling were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software (version 23) and the AMOS module, which ensured the necessary accuracy of model verification.

Participation was voluntary. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Anonymity and confidentiality were ensured, and data were used exclusively for research purposes.

This section presents the descriptive results of the empirical assessment of teachers’ neurodidactic readiness in inclusive education based on self-reported questionnaire data.

The results indicate that the motivational–value component is the most pronounced element in the structure of teachers’ neurodidactic readiness (Figure 3). This suggests that a substantial proportion of the participants share inclusive values, demonstrate high intrinsic motivation to support students with special educational needs, and express readiness for cooperative interaction grounded in humanistic principles.

The remaining components are expressed to a lesser extent. The lowest scores were observed for the operational component, indicating insufficient development of teachers’ practical and instrumental skills necessary for the effective implementation of neurodidactic approaches in inclusive educational environments (Nurbekova et al., 2025).

The affective component, reflecting teachers’ emotional acceptance of inclusive education, also did not reach high levels in the studied sample. This finding may indicate emotional tension or insufficient emotional involvement in working with students with special educational needs, highlighting the need for targeted emotional and psychological support within teacher professional development programs (Serik et al., 2019).

Differences in teachers’ neurodidactic readiness were examined in relation to socio-demographic characteristics and professional experience.

The experience of participating in inclusive educational practice (e.g., teaching in inclusive classrooms) was positively associated with higher levels of all components of teachers’ neurodidactic readiness, underscoring the importance of sustained professional engagement in inclusive settings.

Gender differences were identified only for the affective component: willingness to interact with students with disabilities differed significantly between male and female teachers (U = 16,179; p < 0.05). No statistically significant gender differences were found for the motivational–value, methodological, operational components, or inclusive practice.

Teaching experience and professional position did not result in statistically significant differences in neurodidactic readiness indicators. However, differences were observed depending on the subject area of teaching (Figure 4), suggesting that disciplinary context may influence opportunities for applying neurodidactic strategies.

The most pronounced differences in teachers’ neurodidactic readiness were identified between teachers with and without experience working with students with special educational needs (Table 2).

Teachers with personal or professional experience interacting with individuals with disabilities demonstrated significantly higher levels of:

motivational–value component (U = 29,116; p < 0.0001),

At the same time, methodological preparedness did not show statistically significant differences between the compared groups (U = 24,913; p = 0.87), indicating the need for systematic methodological training regardless of personal experience with individuals with disabilities.

The proposed theoretical model of teachers’ neurodidactic readiness was validated using structural equation modeling (SEM; Table 3).

The final model demonstrated excellent fit to the empirical data (χ² = 1.716; df = 1; p = 0.19; CFI = 0.996; AGFI = 0.971; RMSEA = 0.041).

Methodological preparedness had a strong and statistically significant effect on the operational component (β = 0.50, p < 0.001). The motivational–value component significantly predicted operational readiness (β = 0.42, p < 0.01) and exerted a direct positive influence on inclusive teaching practice (β = 0.22, p < 0.01).

The affective component demonstrated a weak but significant indirect effect through the operational component (β = 0.18, p < 0.05) and did not show a direct effect on inclusive practice (β = 0.085, p > 0.05). The operational component emerged as the strongest predictor of inclusive teaching practice (β = 0.30, p < 0.001), confirming its central mediating role.

Overall, the SEM results confirm the internal consistency and empirical validity of the proposed model of teachers’ neurodidactic readiness.