Inclusive Education: Assignment Two

John is in Year 8, is fourteen years old and identifies as Indigenous and/or Torres Strait

Islander. This student has no diagnosed intellectual disability, although presents with diverse

learning needs in the classroom. This is significant as it is necessary for teachers to be

proactive in supporting students with diverse learning needs, ensuring that students are

supported through learning instead of using labels that are discriminatory and define

supposed deficits of students (Meyer, Rose, & Gordon, 2014; Loreman, 2007). A strength for

John is the fact that he is a vocal student when reading materials, and when asked will read

aloud, which is an effective means of engaging him into the learning environment. When

asked questions on materials that the class has been reading, John is engaged and is able to

provide observations from the materials and will engage in discussion and answer questions.

Furthermore, whilst working on reading activities, John is able to work independently and

presents no off-task behaviours. Arnett (2014) states that engagement often serves as being of

primary importance in ensuring on-task behaviours in the classroom, which is applicable to

John who presents off-task behaviours when not engaged in the classroom. John will refuse

to write in class, and as a result of this is failing across all subjects as a result of not

completing work. John will however write in the classroom, provided that there is effective

scaffolding and support provided so that there is an environment that is concomitant with

success. Hall, Meyers, & Rose (2012) note that students can be facilitated into writing

through effective scaffolding which removes barriers, and that such an approach encourages

students to take risks as it prevents students ‘failing’ in the learning.

John is new to the school, having had issues with bullying at his last school. The Wellbeing

Officer at the school advises that this has resulted in John having a lack of confidence and
self-efficacy, which is impacting upon his schoolwork. Swearer, Espelage, Vaillancourt, &

Hymel (2010) note that bullying can have lasting impacts upon student engagement and

belonging at school, which is something that John is being affected by. Coupled with this,

John suffers from home life issues, with John regularly absent from school. CESE (2017)

highlights that poor attendance leads to fragmented learning, meaning students can become

disengaged, which needs to be addressed in the case of John. When engaged, John will work

effectively both in groups and individually and will contribute to discussion. In order for

group work to be effective, John requires a structured environment, with scaffolding and

facilitation. Groups where John feels disadvantaged or where he feels he knows less than

other students will lead to disengagement. Theobald, Eddy, Grunspan, Wiggins, & Crowe

(2017) state that when group work is not scaffolded and structured it can lead to students

disengaging and presenting off-task behaviours. John when disengaged does present off-task

behaviours and will distract other students nearby. The underlying purpose of the behavioural

issues that John presents is likely rooted in his avoidance of work, and thus it is necessary to

ensure engagement so that John feels he can complete learning activities (Johnson-Harris &

Mundschenk, 2014). Coupled with this, McGrath & Van Bergen (2015) note that when

students do not feel a sense of belonging, off-task behaviours often occur. Furthermore,

research highlights that students with low self-efficacy and confidence are impacted in the

way they approach learning and will often purposefully fail as a result of the ‘fear’ of failing

(De Castella, Byrne, & Covington, 2013). This is an area that needs addressing, as when John

completes work it is of high quality, but his low-self efficacy results in his disengaging from

the learning in the classroom.

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is a proactive approach to designing learning that

caters to the diverse learning needs of every individual student in the classroom, where

diverse learning needs are recognised as the norm (McGuire, Scott, & Shaw, 2006). Not only
is UDL of benefit to students with more diverse learning needs, it is of benefit to all students

in the classroom (Loreman, Deppeler, & Harvey, 2011). Capp (2016) furthers this, stating

that UDL is an approach that champions diversity, viewing it as an asset that is at the heart of

learning. The proactive nature of UDL actually saves teachers time, reducing the need for

adjustment of lessons due to there being differentiation embedded into the heart of the

learning activities aa a fundamental component (Fitzgerald, 2016; Loreman et al., 2011). The

process of implementing UDL involves three components which are the provision of learning

that has multiple means of engagement, expression, and representation (Loreman et al., 2011;

National Centre on Universal Design for Learning, 2014; Rao & Torres, 2016; CAST, 2018).

UDL is beneficial through the fact that such an approach alleviates the barriers that students

face in learning by providing a learning where students do not have room to fail (Grasmick,

2017). This is pertinent in relation to John, as a UDL approach to lesson design provides a

scaffolded learning that contains adequate educational challenge whilst enabling all students

to succeed.

The multiple means of engagement component of UDL refers to the pedagogical approaches

that are used to encourage and maintain the motivation and engagement of students in the

classroom (National Centre on UDL, 2014: CAST, 2018). This can be understood as the

‘entry’ to which students can interact with the learning, and as such is integral in ensuring

students understand the relevance and value of learning. The importance of this is grounded

in the fact that students have a variety of different learning styles and as such will find

different ways of engaging with the content that is suitable to their needs (Loreman et al.,

2011). In reference to John, the provision of multiple means of engagement may ensure that

he is motivated to engage in the learning and complete the work, which will may lead to

more on-task behaviours. This will enable the building of self-efficacy and confidence in
learning for John, as more successful encounters with education will develop these

capabilities (Hislop & Stracke (2017).

, and John being able to build self-efficacy and confidence in the learning. Evidence of

multiple means of engagement being provided through this lesson is through students being

able to have scaffolded support through being able to work in collaborative settings, as well

as through the opportunities for feedback on learning through discussion and questioning

(Nelson, 2014; Johnson-Harris & Mundschenk, 2014).

Multiple means of representation is the way that students are able to access the content of the

learning, and involves there being a variety of ways for students to engage with the ‘what’ of

learning (CAST, 2018; National Centre on UDL, 2014). The implementation of multiple

means for students to access information is necessary as it allows for all students to be able to

attain understanding of the content in the classroom. In reference to John, the importance of

this is through the fact that there are multiple materials that are presented in a variety of

ways, with John enjoying reading activities, and as such, can be involved in these activities

whilst other students can engage in other forms. The provision of both digital and print copies

of this information in the lesson, with written and visual forms means that a diverse range of

students are supported in the learning, which supports the further engagement of students.

Rapp (2015) attests to this, stating that digital versions of texts are engaging due to the

relevance that these texts have to the digital worlds that students are now situated. These

digital texts also allow for students to be able to clarify vocabulary, and change the font and

size and background, meaning that a diverse range of students are supported. Hall, Meyers, &

Rose (2012) note that through having different forms through which to digest information,

students are able to develop confidence in learning which will remove barriers for students. in
the case of John, the Interactive PDF version of the resource means that he will be able to

understand and look at sentence structure meaning that confidence in writing can be

developed. Research highlights that digital tools allow for learning to be more accessible and

engaging which is fundamental to the approach of UDL (Spencer & Aguinaga, 2015). The

lesson plan has evidence of such approaches through the digital and printed versions of

information, as well as pictorial, captioned video, and audio versions of texts.

Multiple means of expression is to the ‘how’ of learning, being the way in which students are

able to demonstrate their understanding of learning, as well as the way students work in the

classroom (CAST, 2018; National Centre on UDL, 2014). Such an approach allows for

students to be able to operate according to strengths, rather than through utilising a one-size-

fits-all approach, which is not inclusive or effective for all learners (Loreman et al., 2011).

Coupled with this, this approach removes stress from learning due to students being able to

work according to strengths (Rao & Torres, 2016). John will be supported through these

approaches as it means that the activities of note-taking will be directed towards his

individual strengths. Yunkaporta & Kirby (2011) has been utilised in the expression forms in

the lesson as well, with visual means of expression through symbols and images, learning

maps and story sharing being encouraged in the lesson. The provision of this allows for a

contextualised learning that is more engaging due to its alignment with Aboriginal thinking

(Craven, 1999). Haydn, Stephen, Arthur, & Hunt (2015) also note the importance in History

of providing opportunities for students to be able to go about learning in a variety of ways,

noting that this is essential to ensuring engagement and ‘deep’ understanding. Multiple means

of expression have been implemented in the lesson through the differing modes of which

students can complete tasks. Grasmick (2017) states that this is effective in allowing for

students to be able to engage in and show learning achievement in a way that is attuned to
their learning needs. Furthermore, the differing means of expression will support John as this

allows for different opportunities to connect with the learning, thus promoting engagement

and providing conditions that are concomitant with the presentation of on task behaviours.

Holistically, approaching lesson design from a UDL standpoint ensures that all learners are

catered to in the learning in the classroom. The provided lesson utilises the concepts of UDL

through providing a learning that enables students multiple means of representation,

engagement, and expression which allows for an inclusive approach to learning where

diverse learning needs are at the heart of the learning. Furthermore, John and students like

him are engaged and included in the learning environment, meaning increased likelihood of

on-task behaviour, and increased engagement and motivation to do work. This is apparent

through the embedded differentiation that provides a scaffolded learning that encourages

students to take risks whilst ensuring that they will not fail which is at the heart of UDL.
 Lesson Plan

Key

Engagement

Representation

Expression
History
Topic: Depth Study 4a: Vikings
Outcomes - HT4-2
SLA Viking Homelands are, and timeline of the Viking age
SLT identify location of Viking homelands.
Timing Organisation Teaching Strategies
PowerPoint https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEWaFhty824
Mark roll Students read PDF transcript, listen/watch captioned video.
YouTube Students take notes using mind-map, table, prompts, narrative,
or sketch (handwritten / computer). Work individually, pairs or
table groups.
Scaffolds Use questions / answers to create discussion and introduce
PowerPoint learning intentions. Teacher note background knowledge,
students partake, submitting/ commenting on online mind-map
or discussing.
Students have access to PowerPoint (printed and electronic).
Students take note during discussion using any means.
Students work individually, in pairs, with teacher or in table
groups to understand. Teacher adds to mind-map linking to
how this will evolve over term.
Scaffold Students create timeline (digital / printed), teacher models and
PowerPoint does events with class. Students work individually, with
SmartBoard teacher, in groups/pairs creating (handwritten/digital) timeline,
table, dot points, narrative, picture representation that is
chronological.
PowerPoint Discuss timeline, highlighting importance. Students view PDF,
PowerPoint, pictures, videos (captioned), print out to
understand where Vikings came from. Working individually, in
groups/ pairs or with teacher.

Class discussion, representing answer on map.

Students create visual representation shading, noting, drawing,
sketching, writing, or adding to mind map/ table (computer or
written).
Link activities to learning intentions, questioning students over
the learning of the lesson asking questions.
Link to next lesson, thanking students for working hard.
 References

Arnett, J. (2014). Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood (5th ed.). Pearson Education Limited.

Capp, Matt. (2016). Is your planning inclusive? The universal design for learning framework for an

Australian context. Australian Educational Leader, 38(4), 44-46.

CAST. (2018). Universal design for learning guidelines version 2.2 [graphic organizer]. Wakefield,

MA: Author. Retrieved on 5th May 2018, from: http://udlguidelines.cast.org

Craven, R. (1999). Towards an appropriate pedagogy for Aboriginal children, Allen and Unwin,

Sydney.

De Castella, K., Byrne, D., & Covington, M. (2013). Unmotivated or motivated to fail? A cross-

cultural study of achievement motivation, fear of failure, and student disengagement. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 105 (3), 861-880 DOI: 10.1037/a0032464

Edyburn, D. (2010). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten

propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability

Quarterly, Vol 33. Retrieved on 5th May, 2018, from:

http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1177/073194871003300103

Fitzgerald, P. (2016). Differentiation for all literacy levels in mainstream classrooms. Literacy

Learning: The Middle Years, 24(2), 17-25.

Grasmick, N. (2017). UDL: Moving from exploration to integration. CAST Professional Publishing.

Retrieved on 5th May 2018, from:

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwsau/detail.action?docID=4941957

Hall, T., Meyer, A., Rose, D. (2012). Universal design for learning in the classroom practical

applications (What works for special needs learners). New York: Guilford Press.

Retrieved on 5 th May 2018, from:

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/UWSAU/detail.action?docID=981495
Haydn, T., Stephen, A., Arthur, J., Hunt, M. (2015). Learning to teach history in the secondary

school (4th edition). Routledge Publishing

Hislop, J., Stracke, E. (2017). ESL students in peer review: An action research study in a university

English for academic purposes course. University of Sydney Papers in TESOL. University of

Sydney Papers in TESOL.

Johnson-Harris, K. M. & Mundschenk, N. A. (2014). Working effectively with students with BD in a

general education classroom: The case for Universal Design for Learning. Issues and Ideas,

87(4), 168-174. doi: 10.1080/00098655.2014.897927

Loreman, T. (2007). Seven pillars of support for inclusive education. International Journal of Whole

Schooling, 3(2), 22- 38.

Loreman, T., Deppeler, J. & Harvey, D. (2011). Inclusive education: Supporting diversity in the

classroom (2nd ed.). Crows Nest, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

McGrath, K., & Van Bergen, P. (2015). Who, When, Why, and to what end? Students at risk

of negative student-teacher relationships and their outcomes. Educational Research

Review, 14, 1-17.

McGuire, J., Scott, S., Shaw, S. (2006). Universal Design and its applications in educational

environments. Remedial and Special Education, 27 (3), P 166-175. Retrieved on 5th May

2018, from :

http://journals.sagepub.com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1177/07419325060270030501

Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Gordon, D. (2014) Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice.

CAST Professional Publishing. Retrieved on May 5th 2018, from:

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwsau/detail.action?docID=4603679

National Centre on Universal Design for Learning. (2014). Three principles of UDL. Retrieved on 5th

May, 2018, from: http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl/3principles

Nelson, L. (2014). Design and Deliver: Planning and Teaching using Universal Design for

Learning. Brookes Publishing. Retrieved on 5th May 2018, from:

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/UWSAU/detail.action?docID=1787427

Novak, K. (2016). UDL Now! A Teacher’s Guide to applying Universal Design for Learning in

today’s classrooms (Revised and Expanded Edition). CAST Professional Publishing.

Retrieved on 5th May 2018, from:

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwsau/detail.action?docID=4705711

NSW Centre of Education Statistics and Evaluation. (2017). Improving high school engagement,

classroom practices and achievement. Learning Curve, 18. Retrieved on 5th May 2018, from:

https://www.cese.nsw.gov.au/images/stories/PDF/2017_engagement_NAPLAN_AA_DN_v4

.pdf

Rao, K. & Torres, C. (2016). Supporting academic and affective learning processes for English

language learners with Universal Design for Learning. Tesol Quarterly, 0(0), 1-13. doi:

10.1002/tesq.342

Rapp, W. (2015). Universal Design for Learning in action: 100 Ways to Teach All Learners.

Retrieved on 5th May 2018, from:

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uwsau/detail.action?docID=1787418

Spencer, S., & Aguinaga, N, contributor. (2015). Making the Common Core writing standards

accessible through Universal Design for Learning (1st ed.).

Swearer, S., Espelage, D., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010). What can be done about school

bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39(1), 36-47.

doi: 10.3102/0013189x09357622.

Theobald, E., Eddy, S., Grunspan, D., Wiggins, B., & Crowe, A. (2017). Student perception of group

dynamics predicts individual performance: comfort and equity matter. PLOS ONE 12(7):

e0181336. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181336
Yunkaporta, T & Kirby, M 2011, ‘Yarning up Indigenous pedagogies: A dialogue about eight

Aboriginal ways of learning’, in R Bell, G Milgate & N Purdie (eds.) Two Way Teaching and

Learning: Toward culturally reflective and relevant education, ACER Press, Camberwell

Victoria.