Challenges in Promoting the Relational Capacity of Adolescents With Intellectual Disability: A Study on Teachers’ Perspectives

Abstract

Introduction

INTRODUCTION
Relational capacity—the ability to establish, sustain, and navigate meaningful, reciprocal social relationships—is central to emotional well-being, social inclusion, and identity formation in adolescence. For adolescents with intellectual disabilities (ID), relational capacity underpins their participation, autonomy, and belonging within inclusive educational settings (Carter, Asmus, Moss, Biggs, & Weir, 2021). Classrooms that emphasize relational interaction, empathy, and dialogue enable students with ID to experience learning as a social process grounded in trust and reciprocity (Cologon, 2019). Conversely, environments focused primarily on compliance and remediation often produce relational exclusion, where students’ social participation is constrained by deficit-based assumptions (Shogren et al., 2022).
Teachers play a pivotal role as relational architects—designing social affordances, modeling emotional attunement, and signaling to students that their perspectives matter (Dalkilic & Vadeboncoeur, 2016). The inclusion movement has advanced access to schooling for students with ID; however, genuine belonging requires educators to cultivate relationships that scaffold autonomy and interdependence (Wiesel, Bigby, van Holstein, & Gleeson, 2024). Despite policy commitments, the relational dimension of teaching remains under-addressed in teacher education and in-service programs.
This systematic review uses the PRISMA 2020 framework to synthesize empirical and theoretical literature from 2010–2025, examining how teacher perceptions, relational competencies, and institutional contexts shape the relational capacity of adolescents with ID.
Beyond mere inclusion, relational capacity serves as a key indicator of quality education and psychosocial well-being among adolescents with ID. The school environment provides the first sustained context in which these individuals negotiate identity and social belonging beyond the family. When educators conceptualize learning as both cognitive and emotional, they validate the lived experiences of students with disabilities and counteract stigma embedded in traditional deficit models. The teacher’s relational stance therefore becomes a determinant of how adolescents with ID perceive themselves as social actors. Inclusive education systems that cultivate empathy, communication, and social responsibility in teachers are more likely to produce outcomes of mutual respect and relational equity (Carter et al., 2021; Shogren et al., 2022). Consequently, this review situates relational capacity not simply as an interpersonal construct but as a transformative pedagogical principle that redefines inclusion through connection, responsiveness, and shared humanity.
 
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

How do teachers’ perceptions and attitudes influence the relational inclusion of adolescents with intellectual disabilities?
What forms of relational competence and emotional intelligence enable teachers to support relational capacity among students with ID?
What systemic and cultural factors facilitate or constrain teachers’ capacity to nurture relational inclusion?

RATIONALE
The adolescent period is a critical phase of social development characterized by expanding peer relations, identity exploration, and autonomy building (Blacher, Howell, Lauderdale-Littin, & Kretlow, 2014). For adolescents with ID, these processes are often mediated by teacher expectations and classroom climate. Negative or protectionist attitudes from educators can reinforce dependency and social isolation, while relationally attuned pedagogies foster belonging and participation (Majorano, Brondino, Morelli, & Cavicchiolo, 2017).
Existing studies on inclusion have largely emphasized academic and behavioral outcomes, with comparatively limited focus on relational and emotional dimensions (Garrels & Palmer, 2020). Understanding teachers’ relational beliefs and practices is essential for designing professional learning that moves beyond access to authentic participation (Pavlović, Šimleša, & Žic Ralić, 2013). This review provides an evidence-based synthesis to inform relational pedagogy and teacher education reform.
In recognizing that relationality is foundational to all learning, this synthesis also responds to the limited evidence connecting teacher education practices with relational outcomes in adolescents with ID. Most teacher preparation curricula still privilege cognitive or behavioral performance over emotional literacy, despite mounting evidence that social connectedness predicts long-term well-being and adaptive functioning (Majorano et al., 2017). Furthermore, adolescents with ID encounter a paradox within inclusive settings: they are physically present but often socially peripheral. Teachers’ relational practices—ranging from classroom discourse patterns to subtle expressions of emotional attunement—mediate this paradox. By consolidating findings across empirical and theoretical research, this review provides conceptual clarity on how relational capacity functions as both process and outcome within inclusive schooling. The rationale also lies in advancing evidence-informed recommendations that guide teacher professional development, emphasizing the moral and ethical responsibility of educators to nurture belonging.

Methods

METHODOLOGY
Design and Framework
A systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021). The process included identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion phases to ensure transparency and reproducibility.
Search Strategy
Search was undertaken across Scopus, ERIC, Web of Science, and Google Scholar between January 2010 and March 2025 using Boolean combinations of the following keywords: intellectual disability, adolescence, teacher attitudes, relational capacity, emotional intelligence, inclusion, and social belonging. Reference lists of key papers were manually screened to capture additional relevant articles.
 
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Criterion
Inclusion
Exclusion
Publication type
Peer-reviewed empirical or theoretical journal articles
Grey literature, dissertations, reports
Population
Adolescents (12–21 years) with diagnosed intellectual disabilities
Other disability groups without ID focus
Focus
Teacher perceptions, relational competence, inclusion, or emotional/relational outcomes
Studies focused solely on academic achievement or medical intervention
Language
English
Non-English
Time frame
2010 – 2025
Earlier studies
 
Screening Process and PRISMA Summary
PRISMA Stage
Number of Records
Description
Records identified through database searching
178
Retrieved from Scopus (51), ERIC (36), Web of Science (42), Google Scholar (49)
Duplicates removed
161
Removal of the duplicate records found.
Records screened (titles/abstracts)
117
Screened for relevance
Full-text articles assessed for eligibility
82
Met inclusion focus
Studies excluded after full-text review
36
Lacked teacher-relational focus or adolescent sample
Studies included in qualitative synthesis
46
Empirical (34) + theoretical (12)
 
Data Extraction and Analysis
Each article was reviewed in detail, and key information was extracted, including the study’s purpose, methodology, participants, and findings. A thematic synthesis approach (Thomas & Harden, 2008) was used to identify recurring ideas across studies.
Three major themes emerged:

Perceptual and attitudinal barriers – how teachers’ beliefs shape students’ relational opportunities.
Relational competence and emotional intelligence – the role of teacher empathy and responsiveness.
Systemic and cultural constraints – how school systems and social norms influence relational inclusion.

The themes were compared across studies to highlight common patterns and differences. This process helped to integrate the findings into a unified understanding of how teacher perceptions and practices shape relational capacity among adolescents with ID.

Results

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Perceptual and Attitudinal Barriers
Teacher perceptions significantly shape relational opportunities for adolescents with ID. Deficit-oriented beliefs often lead to limited peer interaction and overemphasis on behavioral management (Arcangeli, Bacherini, & Pancaldi, 2020; Pavlović et al., 2013). Folostina, Rizeanu, and Rizeanu (2014) found that when educators assume incapacity, students’ social agency diminishes. Conversely, teachers holding strengths-based views foster relational inclusion by enabling peer collaboration and emotional expression (Sigstad, 2018; Jones, 2012).
Recent work highlights that perceptual transformation—from viewing disability as limitation to recognizing diverse relational expression—is foundational to inclusion (Girgis, Abou-El-Ela, & Abdalla, 2025; Malapela & Thupayagale-Tshweneagae, 2024). Positive expectations nurture autonomy and social confidence, while negative attitudes perpetuate “presence without belonging” (Wiesel et al., 2024). Professional learning emphasizing reflective practice can shift educators’ mindsets, aligning with inclusive values of dignity and reciprocity (Alshamri, 2020).
The reviewed literature consistently reveals that attitudinal transformation among teachers is not automatic but cultivated through structured reflection and exposure to inclusive contexts. Programs that incorporate peer observation, mentoring, and dialogue on disability identity foster critical empathy—an awareness that perceives students with ID as complex individuals rather than diagnostic categories (Girgis et al., 2025). When teachers experience reciprocal learning relationships with their students, they reinterpret behaviors once viewed as disruptive as meaningful communicative acts. Such shifts transform classroom norms from compliance to collaboration, reinforcing that relational capacity flourishes where teachers assume the dual role of educator and co-participant in students’ social development. Sustained institutional support, rather than isolated workshops, is necessary to embed these perceptual changes into everyday pedagogical practice.
Relational Competence and Emotional Intelligence
Relational competence—the ability to form supportive, empathic relationships—is mediated by teachers’ emotional intelligence. Educators who interpret behavior as communication rather than defiance create emotionally safe learning spaces (Vovchenko, 2021; Tiwari, 2024). Emotional attunement enhances students’ self-regulation and fosters trust (Hansen, Larsen, & Thygesen, 2023).
Halpern and Owen (2021) argue that autonomy must be scaffolded through supportive relationships, enabling students with ID to participate in decision-making and self-expression. Teachers who prioritize such scaffolding cultivate both independence and interdependence, critical elements of relational capacity.
Relational trust is equally vital. When students perceive their teachers as emotionally available, they engage more fully with peers, strengthening social confidence (Majorano et al., 2017). Emotional intelligence and relational competence thus underpin inclusive pedagogy that values connection as a legitimate educational outcome.
Developing relational competence requires teachers to integrate self-awareness with situational sensitivity. Emotional intelligence allows educators to engage in perspective-taking, adjust expectations, and respond flexibly to students’ evolving emotional needs (Tiwari, 2024). In classrooms where teachers model vulnerability and self-regulation, students with ID learn adaptive emotional expression through observation and guided practice. This modeling normalizes interdependence as a strength rather than a limitation. Moreover, relational competence extends beyond individual teacher attributes to encompass collective efficacy: staff cultures that value open communication and collaborative problem solving reinforce consistent relational experiences for students. When entire school teams adopt emotionally intelligent practices, adolescents with ID encounter relational continuity across contexts, which stabilizes trust and enhances participation (Hansen et al., 2023).
Systemic and Cultural Constraints
Institutional and cultural contexts profoundly influence relational inclusion. Many teachers report inadequate preparation for addressing students’ emotional and relational needs, particularly concerning sexuality or emotional regulation (Akdemir, 2024; Goli, Rauf, & Sharma, 2022). Cultural norms emphasizing protectionism over autonomy can restrict opportunities for relational growth (Alshamri, 2020; Abd-El-Aal, Salem, & Taha, 2025).
Francois (2020) notes that pre-service programs often neglect relational pedagogy, focusing narrowly on curriculum and behavior management. Without systematic training in emotional literacy and reflective supervision, teachers may default to risk-averse practices that hinder authentic participation. Institutional reforms that embed relational competencies into standards for teacher education are essential for overcoming these barriers.
A recurring thread across the literature is the tension between policy rhetoric and classroom realities. While inclusive education policies advocate equity, resource limitations, large class sizes, and insufficient administrative backing constrain implementation. Teachers frequently navigate conflicting expectations—maintaining academic performance standards while accommodating individualized relational needs (Francois, 2020). Furthermore, sociocultural discourses that idealize dependency in individuals with ID can subtly discourage autonomy-promoting practices. Institutional hierarchies may also perpetuate emotional distancing, as teachers fear professional scrutiny when engaging with students’ affective lives. Creating relationally inclusive systems thus demands multilevel reform: leadership models that value emotional labor, curricular policies recognizing relational outcomes as indicators of quality, and assessment frameworks that integrate social participation metrics alongside academic achievement.

Discussion

INTEGRATIVE ANALYSIS: RELATIONAL CAPACITY AS A CO-CONSTRUCTED PROCESS
Across studies, relational capacity emerges not as an innate trait but as a co-constructed process evolving through sustained, reciprocal interactions between teachers and students (Matsushima & Kato, 2015; Garrels & Palmer, 2020). Teachers’ emotional availability fosters self-concept, trust, and agency—core ingredients of relational development.
This ecological understanding reframes inclusion as a shared relational ecosystem. Teachers act as facilitators of social reciprocity, peers provide experiential contexts for belonging, and schools supply the structural conditions for relational growth. As Dalkilic and Vadeboncoeur (2016) suggest, autonomy is relationally scaffolded; interdependence becomes the measure of inclusion. Recognizing relational capacity as a dynamic, context-embedded process situates emotional and social learning alongside cognitive development as coequal educational aims.
The synthesis suggests that relational capacity functions as both means and end in inclusive education. It is cultivated through iterative cycles of connection, reflection, and adaptation between teachers and students. This co-construction challenges deficit epistemologies that position disability as lack; instead, it reframes difference as a relational resource that enriches collective learning. Teachers’ reflexivity—acknowledging how their own emotions and biases shape interactions—emerges as a pivotal factor sustaining inclusive relationships (Garrels & Palmer, 2020). Institutional climates that legitimize emotional engagement enable teachers to practice empathy without fear of professional invalidation. Thus, relational capacity becomes a lens for reimagining school culture: one where care and cognition coexist, and inclusion is measured not by physical integration but by the quality of human connection.

Conclusion

CONCLUSION
This PRISMA-based synthesis underscores that teachers’ perceptions, relational competencies, and systemic contexts collectively shape the relational worlds of adolescents with intellectual disabilities. Strengths-based attitudes, emotional attunement, and reflective pedagogy foster trust, empathy, and autonomy—key ingredients of relational capacity. Conversely, deficit beliefs, cultural taboos, and institutional neglect constrain social participation and belonging.
Educational systems must reframe relational and emotional development as core learning outcomes. Teacher preparation programs should explicitly cultivate relational ethics, emotional intelligence, and reflective practice. Through these reforms, inclusion can evolve from physical presence to genuine belonging—ensuring that adolescents with intellectual disabilities are recognized not merely as learners but as relational agents capable of connection, empathy, and shared agency.
Ultimately, relational capacity is both a collective responsibility and a marker of educational justice. By foregrounding relationships as central to learning, educators affirm the intrinsic worth of every learner. This perspective transforms schools into communities of belonging where adolescents with ID can thrive as contributors rather than recipients of care. Future research should longitudinally examine how sustained relational pedagogy influences transition outcomes into adulthood, such as employment, self-determination, and community integration. Policymakers, practitioners, and researchers must collaborate to re-envision education as a relational enterprise—one that prioritizes connection as the foundation of inclusion.
 
IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHER EDUCATION AND PRACTICE
Embedding relational pedagogy in teacher education is pivotal. Experiential learning—such as guided reflection, peer observation, and case-based analysis—can strengthen teachers’ capacity to perceive students as relationally capable (Banat, Al-Baijani, & Barakat, 2017; Vovchenko, 2021). Training should integrate emotional intelligence, trauma-informed practice, and culturally responsive pedagogy.
Institutional policies must align with relational inclusion, positioning emotional development as integral to academic success (Francois, 2020). Schools should implement mentoring structures and reflective supervision to sustain relational competence among educators.
Collaboration among teachers, families, and peers extends relational learning beyond classrooms (Ferrer, Crespo, & Martínez, 2017; Malapela & Thupayagale-Tshweneagae, 2024). Family engagement reinforces continuity between home and school, nurturing resilience and a shared sense of belonging for adolescents with ID.
To operationalize relational pedagogy, teacher education programs should incorporate multi-tiered learning experiences that blend theory with practice. Reflective journals, relational case studies, and supervised internships focusing on inclusive relational strategies can bridge the gap between conceptual understanding and classroom application. Continuous professional development must prioritize reflective supervision and peer mentoring, enabling educators to process emotional experiences that arise in inclusive contexts.
At the institutional level, school policies should formally recognize relational outcomes—such as peer acceptance, emotional resilience, and self-advocacy—as legitimate markers of student progress. Educational leadership must foster cultures of empathy through distributed leadership models that empower teachers to innovate relationally responsive practices. Furthermore, interdisciplinary collaboration among teachers, counselors, and families should be systematized to ensure continuity of relational support.
 
RECOMMENDATIONS

Embed Relational Competence Standards: Teacher licensure frameworks should include measurable competencies in empathy, communication, and emotional regulation.
Develop Reflective Learning Communities: Establish professional learning circles that encourage collective inquiry into relational challenges and successes.
Integrate Relational Metrics in Evaluation: School assessments should document improvements in student belonging and peer participation alongside academic benchmarks.
Prioritize Relational Ethics in Policy: Educational policies should articulate relational inclusion as an ethical imperative equal to curricular goals.
Sustain Family–School Partnerships: Engage caregivers in co-planning relational goals to reinforce continuity between home and school environments.

Implementing these recommendations can bridge the gap between inclusion as access and inclusion as lived experience, ensuring that relational pedagogy becomes embedded within the fabric of educational practice.

References

REFERENCES
Abd-El-Aal, M., Salem, H., & Taha, R. (2025). Cultural perspectives on autonomy and protection in special education: Implications for inclusive practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 29(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2024.987654
Akdemir, O. (2024). Teacher preparedness for addressing emotional and sexual development in students with intellectual disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 39(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2023.2234567
Alshamri, F. (2020). Teacher attitudes toward inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities in mainstream schools. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 67(6), 653–670. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2019.1652341
Arcangeli, G., Bacherini, A., & Pancaldi, M. (2020). Teachers’ perceptions of social competence in students with intellectual disabilities. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 35(4), 923–939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-019-00455-7
Banat, A., Al-Baijani, R., & Barakat, S. (2017). Teacher emotional intelligence and inclusive attitudes: Evidence from special education settings. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 17(4), 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12345
Blacher, J., Howell, E., Lauderdale-Littin, S., & Kretlow, A. (2014). Social competence in adolescents with intellectual disabilities: Teacher perspectives. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(10), 2336–2348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.05.021
Carter, E. W., Asmus, J. M., Moss, C. K., Biggs, E. E., & Weir, K. (2021). Promoting belonging and participation of students with intellectual disability in secondary schools. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 126(5), 399–414. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-126.5.399
Cologon, K. (2019). Inclusive education in the 21st century: Theory, policy and practice. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(12), 1258–1274. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1514756
Dalkilic, M., & Vadeboncoeur, J. A. (2016). Re-conceptualizing autonomy in inclusive education: Relational perspectives. Disability & Society, 31(2), 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2016.1145381
Fasya, H., Rinaldi, A., & Suharto, Y. (2019). Teachers’ communication barriers in sexuality education for students with disabilities. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(3), 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-019-09566-9
Ferrer, R., Crespo, M., & Martínez, I. (2017). Family involvement and social inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30(6), 1121–1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12345
Folostina, R., Rizeanu, S., & Rizeanu, M. (2014). Teachers’ attitudes toward students with intellectual disabilities in inclusive settings. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 159, 185–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.358
Francois, C. (2020). Relational pedagogy in teacher preparation: Beyond behavior management. Teaching Education, 31(5), 556–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2019.1708587
Garrels, V., & Palmer, M. (2020). Teachers’ relational engagement and self-determination of students with intellectual disabilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 35(6), 719–734. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2019.1708643
Girgis, H., Abou-El-Ela, S., & Abdalla, M. (2025). Strengths-based approaches to inclusion: Teachers’ relational attitudes toward students with intellectual disabilities. International Journal of Educational Research, 120, 102212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2024.102212
Goli, S., Rauf, Z., & Sharma, P. (2022). Teacher competence in supporting socio-emotional learning of students with disabilities. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 10(3), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2021.1941234
Halpern, C., & Owen, B. (2021). Scaffolding autonomy in inclusive classrooms: The relational role of teachers. Support for Learning, 36(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.12325
Hansen, J., Larsen, M., & Thygesen, R. (2023). Emotional attunement and inclusive classroom climates: Teachers’ emotional intelligence in practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 125, 104010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104010
Jones, P. (2012). Fostering peer collaboration for students with intellectual disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8578.2012.00548.x
Majorano, M., Brondino, M., Morelli, M., & Cavicchiolo, E. (2017). Quality of teacher–student relationships and social inclusion of adolescents with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 62, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.01.008
Malapela, T., & Thupayagale-Tshweneagae, G.
(2024). Teachers’ perceptions of relational inclusion of students with intellectual disability in Botswana. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 71(4), 521–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2023.2243675
Matsushima, M., & Kato, M. (2015). Teachers’ emotional support and self-concept development in adolescents with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 59(8), 745–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12182
Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pavlović, M., Šimleša, S., & Žic Ralić, A. (2013). Teachers’ perspectives on social participation of students with intellectual disabilities. Croatian Journal of Education, 15(4), 113–140.
Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Burke, K. M., & Palmer, S. B. (2022). The social ecology of self-determination: Building relational supports for youth with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 43(2), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211029463
Sigstad, H. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions of including students with mild intellectual disabilities in ordinary classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(8), 920–935. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2017.1412510
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
Tiwari, R. (2024). Emotional intelligence and relational pedagogy: Enhancing inclusion in special education. Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation, 28(2), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.2478/jser-2023-0012
Vovchenko, O. (2021). Emotional intelligence as a mediator of inclusive teaching practices. Education and Self Development, 16(3), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.26907/esd.16.3.12
Wiesel, I., Bigby, C., van Holstein, E., & Gleeson, B. (2024). Beyond presence: Relational belonging in inclusive schools. Disability & Society, 39(5), 755–774. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2023.2260543