Jane Sparrow 20144178

Over the years Australia has created inclusive schools for non-disabled

students with diverse cultural and religious backgrounds, however, only

recently has society started to embrace the educational and human rights that

children with disabilities have to be a part of these inclusive schools. With the

slow decline of social and academic segregation of students with physical,

intellectual, social and learning disabilities, schools are starting to embrace

and cater for all students no matter their difference. This has had a large

influence on processes and transition stages as well as teacher instruction

and curriculum design. One of the many responsibilities that teachers are now

facing is creating a safe and welcoming environment that caters to all

students’ individual needs. Government goals such as the Melbourne

declaration (MYCEETA, 2008), Australian Institute for Teaching and School

Leadership (AITSL, 2014) and the Salamanca Statement (United Nations,

1994) all support these environments for full inclusivity. This paper is based

upon the summary and analysis of Foreman and Arthur-Kelly’s (2014) article

‘Introducing Inclusion in Education’ with a focus on a key strategy, Universal

Design for Learning (UDL). It is essential for teachers when planning and

designing an inclusive classroom that they adopt key strategies such as UDL

to assist them in their abilities to cater for all individual needs.

1
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

Chapter Summary & Analysis

‘Introducing Inclusion in Education’ by Foreman and Arthur-Kelly (2014)

discusses the benefits of inclusive education and how it caters for students

with diversity. Foreman and Arthur-Kelly (2014) define the term ‘diversity’ in

education as a student’s cultural, social and family background, as well as

their intellectual and physical abilities. The article discusses the statistics that

classrooms in the 21st century are likely to include a minimum of one child

with a diagnosed intellectual, physical, sensory or learning disability (Foreman

and Arthur-Kelly, 2014). This is a result of the ever growing acceptance of the

value of every young Australian, with or without a disability, having the same

right as other students to fully participate in the school curriculum/program

(Foreman and Arthur-Kelly, 2014; MYCEETA, 2008).

The article defines many of the conventional disabilities that teachers may

encounter in their profession, for example physical, intellectual and learning

disabilities, and highlights how these might be compared to a person’s

measured “adaptive behaviour” ability (Foreman and Arthur-Kelly, 2014);

however the article continuously promotes the idea that inclusion requires

teachers to be able to cater to all individual needs of students rather than one

specific disability (Foreman and Arthur-Kelly, 2014). This suggests that for a

teacher to create an optimal learning environment, which caters to every

individual student’s diverse background, they must provide relevant and

contextual programs as well as an inviting and safe setting (Foreman and

Arthur-Kelly, 2014).

2
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

The article asks readers why students’ abilities are being grouped when, in

the same context, students are not grouped by other physical characteristics,

for example height and weight (Foreman and Arthur-Kelly, 2014). Affirming

the article’s point of view, the Salamanca Statement’s (United Nations, 1994)

guiding principle, that any ordinary school should accommodate all children,

regardless of any disability or diverse nature, suggests that inclusion is more

than just an action but is a human right. This is also supported in the UN

Human Rights Act (United Nations, 1948), as well as the Melbourne

Declaration (MYCEETA, 2008). Essentially it is critical for schools and

education systems to provide access that includes those with diverse needs

and backgrounds, as in not doing so they are withholding a basic human right.

With any new change or transformation comes processes and regulations to

uphold that can amount to added stress among professionals. Foreman and

Arthur-Kelly (2014) discuss the general animosity that can occur among staff

members in the education systems regarding the belief that including students

with special educational needs will create further challenges and stress for

teachers in their planning and classroom design. However, the article

discredits this argument, suggesting that a sound teacher already caters for

individual needs, whether for a student with disabilities or not, and that

challenges in the classroom do not necessarily come from those students with

disabilities (Foreman and Arthur-Kelly, 2014). For this reason, schools in

Australian society have departments and specialists in whom they can consult

to assist teachers and staff in structuring inclusive frameworks and

3
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

implementing policies and procedures in the school and classroom (AITSL,

2014). Changes to the classroom and school environment can range from

simple adjustments of physical features such as adding a wheelchair ramp, to

complex alterations such as designing curriculum activities that support

individual children’s needs (Foreman and Arthur-Kelly, 2014). The aim for full

inclusion is to create an environment that offers the greatest range of choice,

and provides all students with the least restrictive environment so that they

can be supported and achieve success.

Strategy

Teachers in western society are faced with the every day challenge of

creating goals, methods and assessment of instruction to cater for the

demands of the range of diverse learners in today’s classroom. Universal

design (UD) is the concept of creating an environment that can be used or

‘accessed’ by anyone and everyone (Schreiber, 2017). Similarly, inclusive

education seeks to create access and support the social and academic

development of all students, with and without disabilities (Katz, 2013). In

educational terms, UD is a learning framework designed upon a set of

principles that is applied to the classroom to assist in teaching instructions

(Courey, Tappe, Siker & Lepage, 2013). The framework supports the design

of instructions that ensures diverse learners are able to access the curriculum

along with any other student (Newman Thomas, Van Garderen, Scheuermann

& Ju Lee, 2015). UDL recognises the Melbourne Declaration goals

4
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

(MYCEETA, 2008) and fulfils these goals through three key principles that

enable educators to create opportunities during curriculum design (Hitchcock,

2001). Each of the UDL principles is defined here with relevant examples to

model the application and its usefulness. It is also essential to consider when

using the strategy of universal design that what might change for one student

is then made available for every other student, with or without a disability

(Katz, 2013).

Principles of the Universal Design for Learning Framework (including

usefulness)

1. Providing multiple means of representation (Newman Thomas, et al.,

2015).

This principle is the “what” of learning, requiring multiple modes of presenting

information and content for the learner (Newman Thomas, et al., 2015). As

students learn differently to each other excluding their abilities and learning

styles, it is essential that educators provide different ways of approaching

content (CAST 2011). The principle breaks down further methods of

representation, these are:

a) Options for perception

b) Options for language and symbols, and

c) Options for comprehension.

(Newman Thomas, et al., 2015).

5
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

Options for perception refers to sight, hearing or touch (Newman Thomas, et

al., 2015). Providing these different modes of perception enables students to

have a greater chance of comprehending information. For students with

difficulties in mathematics, different perception modes should include

concrete, representational and abstract form (Mancl, Miller & Kennedy, 2012).

By providing these different modes of perception, students have a higher

chance of success, as it provides access to all learners as well as supports

students in building connections between previous learnt information (Mancl,

Miller & Kennedy, 2012).

Options for language and symbols provide a variety of demonstrations and

additional support to students (Newman Thomas, et al., 2015). Students with

difficulties in spelling or writing may benefit from having traditional or

technology-enhanced dictionaries (Benton-Borghi, 2013). This allows students

the independence to find spelling or words without the direct assistance from

the teacher.

Options for comprehension involves providing students tasks ranging between

remembering and applying the concept (Meltzer, 2007). Students need to be

provided different ways in which they can develop their comprehension so

that they are able to assimilate new information with prior knowledge

(Newman Thomas, et al., 2015). Highlighting and colour coding key texts or

elements of the word problems assist students who struggle with

comprehension (Newman Thomas, et al., 2015).

6
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

2. Providing multiple means of action and expression (Newman Thomas,

et al., 2015).

This principle addresses the alternative means in which students can make

sense of their learning and demonstrate their understanding; the “how” of

learning (Newman Thomas, et al., 2015). By providing learners with multiple

means of opportunities to demonstrate their understanding, teachers are able

to fairly assess students’ knowledge (Newman Thomas, et al., 2015). Multiple

opportunities may include:

a) Options for physical action

b) Options for expressive skills and fluency, and

c) Options for executive functions

(Newman Thomas, et al., 2015).

Options for physical action include providing learners other ways to

demonstrate what they know (Newman Thomas, et al., 2015). Often in

mathematics students are required to demonstrate their understanding

through written text (Freeman & Crawford, 2008). However, providing

students alternative means such as manipulative materials and assistive

technology breaks down barriers and provides students opportunities to

express their knowledge (Newman Thomas, et al., 2015).

Options for expressive skills and fluency allow students to display what has

been learnt along with the ability to develop fluency of the skills and in turn

develop conceptual understanding (Katz, 2013). For students who struggle

7
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

with this, providing choices increases their chances of responding and

interacting with the main ideas of the activity (Capp, 2016). Technology-based

environments and programs can assist students in expressing their skills as

well as peer learning can develop fluency (Newman Thomas, et al., 2015).

Hmelo-Silver, Duncan & Chinn (2007) suggest that these should be done

through faded scaffolds that support the progress of independence and critical

thinking.

Options for executive function is the intellectual capacity to “plan, organise,

monitor and evaluate progress toward goals” (Newman Thomas, et al., 2015,

pg. 221). Students who experience difficulties with classroom activities may

also find difficulty in planning and organising their own progress and goals

(National Center on Universal Design for Learning, 2011). To support this,

providing student with diaries and checklists, as well as clear instruction and

objectives, can alleviate difficulties in organisation (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan &

Chinn, 2007).

3. Providing multiple means of engagement (Newman Thomas, et al.,

2015).

Generally being the “why” of learning (Newman Thomas, et al., 2015), this

principle focuses on motivation and engagement as well as ways in which to

keep students engaged and motivated to learn (Katz, 2013). To increase

engagement three multiple means were adapted:

a) Options for recruiting their interest

8
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

b) Options for sustaining their effort and persistence

c) Options for supporting self-regulation

(Newman Thomas, et al., 2015).

Options for recruiting interest focuses on student attention during activities

and is essential for cognitive engagement (Hitchcock, 2001). For students

with behavioural problems it is essential to provide these students with

choices in how they are going to learn, this can include choosing their own

topics for writing (Rose, Hasselbring, Stahl & Zabala, 2005). Learners are

more engaged when the material is personally relevant (Newman Thomas, et

al., 2015).

Options for sustaining effort and persistence consists of providing students

with long-term objectives broken down into shorter more approachable tasks

(Newman Thomas, et al., 2015). By providing students with ways in which

they can establish and monitor their progress such as checklists (Rose &

Meyer, 2002), students are encouraged to continue their effort and

persistence (Newman Thomas, et al., 2015).

Options for self-regulation are similar to encouraging sustained effort and

persistence as it supports learners to effectively manage their own progress

and goal achievements (Newman Thomas, et al., 2015). Self-management

ICT programs can help motivate students towards independence and

encourages responsibility of own learning (Newman Thomas, et al., 2015).

9
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

Limitations of the Strategy

With any strategy it is essential to look at ways in which it will not benefit.

Kortering, McClannon & Braziel, (2008) suggest that a limitation of UDL is the

inability to separate influences of teacher quality. This refers to the inability to

guarantee that all teachers will be motivated to develop and implement UDL

designs (Kortering, McClannon & Braziel, 2008).

Resources are also another limitation of the UDL framework, as some schools

simply do not have the funds to provide further access and support materials

for students with disabilities (Tzivinikou, 2014). For example, the use of

technology in remotely located schools could be limited and therefore they

may be unable to cater for students who require digital texts or programs such

as text-to-speech.

According to Kortering, McClannon & Braziel (2008), one of the most

important limitations is the lack of research-evidence to link student

participation with UDL designs to “indepent measures of having learned

content” (pg. 359) including final grades, NAPLAN and other standardised

testing. As questions do not cater to diversity in standardised testing like

NAPLAN (Westwood, 2015), the success of a UDL designed curriculum may

be obstructed.

Whilst UDL provides a framework to support teachers in developing

instructions and curriculum designs to meet the individual needs of students,

evidence base research is still in progress (Kortering, McClannon & Braziel,

10
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

2008). Newman Thomas, et al. (2015) strongly recommends corresponding

the UDL principles with evidence-based practices to further cater for individual

needs and overcome these limitations.

Conclusion

‘Introducing Inclusion in Education’ by Phil Foreman and Michael Arthur-Kelly

argues the benefits and practices of inclusive education, suggesting it is

essential to be established and used globally in all schools. The Universal

Design for Learning framework is a key strategy of inclusion and offers

teachers the ability to design a curriculum and environment that can be readily

accessed by any student, including those with diverse backgrounds or

disabilities. As stated previously in this paper, every child has the right to

education and that includes being able to attend a regular school. Therefore, it

is essential and integral to all education systems and schools that they

incorporate and base their curriculum and environmental strategies upon the

learning framework of Universal Design to create a fully inclusive setting and

cater to the individual needs of students.

References:

11
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2014).

Australian professional standards for teachers. Retrieved from
http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professionalstandards-for-teachers

Benton-Borghi, B. H. (2013). A Universally Designed for Learning (UDL)

infused Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)
practitioners' model essential for teacher preparation in the 21st
Century. Journal of educational computing research, 48(2), 245-265.

Capp, Matt. (2016)Is your planning inclusive? The Universal Design for
Learning framework for an Australian context. [online]. Australian
Educational Leader; v.38 n.4 p.44-46; Retrieved from: https://search-
informit-com-au.ipacez.nd.edu.au/fullText;dn=214257;res=AEIPT

Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). (2011). Universal design for
learning guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author.

Courey, S. J., Tappe, P., Siker, J., & Lepage, P. (2013). Improved Lesson
Planning With Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Teacher Education
and Special Education, 36(1), 7-27. doi: https://doi-
org.ipacez.nd.edu.au/10.1177/0888406412446178

Freeman, B., & Crawford, L. (2008). Creating a middle school mathematics

curriculum for English-language learners. Remedial and Special
Education, 29(1), 9–19. doi:10.1177=0741932507309717

Foreman, P., & Arthur-Kelly, M. (2014). Inclusion in action (4th ed.). South
Melbourne, VIC: Cengage Learning Australia.

Hitchcock, C. (2001). Balanced instructional support and challenge in

universally designed learning environments. Journal of Special
Education Technology, 16(4), 23-30.
doi:10.1177/016264340101600404

12
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and

achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to
Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42,
99–107. doi:10.1080= 00461520701263368

Mancl, D. B., Miller, S. P., & Kennedy, M. (2012). Using the concrete‐
representational‐abstract sequence with integrated strategy instruction
to teach subtraction with regrouping to students with learning
disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(4), 152-166.

Meltzer, L. (2007). Executive function in education: From theory to practice.

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs

(MCEETYA). (2008). Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for
Young Australians. Melbourne, Victoria: MCEETYA

National Center on Universal Design for Learning. (2011). What is meant by

the term curriculum? Retrieved from
http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlcurriculum

Newman Thomas, C., Van Garderen, D., Scheuermann, A., & Ju Lee, E.
(2015). Applying a Universal Design for Learning Framework to
Mediate the Language Demands of Mathematics. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 21(3), 207-234. doi: https://doi-
org.ipacez.nd.edu.au/10.1080/10573569.2015.1030988

Katz, J. (2013). The Three Block Model of Universal Design for Learning
(UDL): Engaging students in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of
Education / Revue Canadienne De L'éducation, 36(1), 153-194.
Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ipacez.nd.edu.au/stable/canajeducrevucan.36.1.15
3

13
 Jane Sparrow 20144178

Kortering, L. J., McClannon, T. W., & Braziel, P. M. (2008). Universal Design

for Learning: A Look at What Algebra and Biology Students With and
Without High Incidence Conditions Are Saying. Remedial and Special
Education, 29(6), 352–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932507314020

Rose, D. H., Hasselbring, T. S., Stahl, S., & Zabala, J. (2005). Assistive
technology and universal design for learning: Two sides of the same
coin. Handbook of special education technology research and practice,
507-518.

Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age:
Universal design for learning. Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development, 1703 N. Beauregard St., Alexandria, VA
22311-1714

Schreiber, J. (2017). Universal Design for Learning: A Student-Centered

Curriculum Perspective. Curriculum and Teaching, 32(2), 89-98. doi:
https://doi-org.ipacez.nd.edu.au/10.7459/ct/32.2.06

Tzivinikou, S. (2014). Universal Design for Learning - application in higher

education: A Greek Paradigm. Problems of education in the 21 st

century, 60(1) 156-166.

United Nations. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved from

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

United Nations. (1994). The Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action
on Sprecial Educational Needs. Salamanca: Ministry of Education and
Science. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF

Westwood, P. (2015). Commonsense methods for children with special

educational needs (7th ed.). Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge.

14