Article review examines humanistic theory's role in enhancing emotional well-being for inclusive education.
HRMARS - Humanistic theory places the learner at the center of education by recognizing that every student has emotions, needs, dignity, personal experiences and the potential for growth. In special education, this theory is especially relevant because students with special educational needs often require emotional security, acceptance, belonging, confidence and meaningful participation before academic learning can occur effectively. This article review examines the application of humanistic theory learning in special education within inclusive schools. This review is motivated by the continuing gap between the policy commitment to inclusive education and the limited attention given to the emotional, relational and psychological conditions that enable students with special educational needs to participate meaningfully in inclusive classrooms. By synthesizing recent literature through a humanistic lens, this review contributes an integrated framework comprising six interrelated dimensions: emotional safety, teacher empathy, student autonomy, peer belonging, flexible pedagogy and teacher well-being. The review is based on 15 Scopus focused articles published between 2022 and 2026. Although not all selected articles directly mention humanistic theory, their findings are closely related to humanistic principles such as learner centered support, teacher empathy, emotional well-being, social inclusion, self-determination, student voice and flexible pedagogy. The findings show that humanistic theory can strengthen inclusive education through six major areas: emotional safety, teacher empathy, student autonomy, peer belonging, flexible teaching and teacher well-being. The review concludes that inclusive education should not only focus on placement and academic access but also on the development of the whole child. Humanistic theory provides an important foundation for building inclusive schools that are caring, responsive and meaningful for students with special educational needs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jasmin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: