Inclusive Education Assessment 2
Inclusive Education Assessment 2
Inclusive Education Assessment 2
Profile:
Toby is in year 9. He was born with a hearing impairment, and participates in mainstream classes.
He is able to converse with peers, to some degree, by lip reading, however, he relies on an interpreter to
translate his reply. He requires a personal aid, specifically for this translation of sign language. Despite
his hearing impairment, he is acknowledged as Gifted and Talented (G&T). This student has an
Individualised Education Plan, (IEP) which means his learning is only evaluated through written or
artistic elements. Toby enjoys art, reading novels, and he excels at writing. His written responses are
sophisticated and enlightened. His contributions to discussion are rare; however, when he does offer his
insights, it is valuable, and it often extends his peers’ learning. The area Toby needs to improve upon is
his behaviour. He rarely completes class work, preferring to swing on his chair and make clicking noises
with his tongue. He often tries to converse with friends, at inappropriate times, like silent reading, but
the interpreter refuses to translate for him. This causes him to become frustrated and he resorts to
Part 1:
Blizzard & Foster (2007) advocate the building of respect and conscientiousness in peers, and
teachers, regarding the accommodation of Toby’s needs in the classroom. Hearing-impairment often
incurs a delay, as sign language is translated. This can be especially difficult during classroom discussion
when students speak all at once. The interpreter won’t know which opinion to value to translate, and the
student does not want to miss anything by looking away from the interpreter to read lips. One person
speaking at one time gives Toby the opportunity to read lips or follow the interpreter without confusion.
Blizzard & Foster (2007) recommend a ‘beanie baby’ [a stuffed toy] to be used as a tool in classroom
discussion. Whoever is holding the beanie baby is able to express their opinion, without interruption.
When someone wants to speak they put their hand in the air, and once the person speaking is finished,
they will pass it on. Toby will find this easier to maintain a visual on his interpreter’s sign language, and
have the time for translation, while his peers pass around the beanie baby. The delay time in passing
around the beanie baby is useful for all students to slow discussion and allow students to formulate the
best response. The use of an object to structure class discussions will also work for students who speak
English as a Second Language (ESL), as the delay allows for self-translation and articulation. By
incorporating a beanie baby into the classroom, all students’ expression will become more structured,
Martins & Gaudiot (2012) argue that students with hearing-impairment require a highly-visual
classroom environment. The physical environment, such as the seating arrangement, needs to be
considered, and the schools overall sound-based systems need to be modified. The seating plan must
address the students’ need to see the whole classroom. Martins & Gaudiot (2012) believe a U-shaped
design, with Toby near the back would be best, as it would allow him to see his peers’ reactions in front
of him, the teacher’s lips, and his interpreter’s hands, as well as the words written on the whiteboard
(p.3665). Most importantly, all sound queues must be modified, as they are invisible to the hearing
impaired. For example, the school bell must coincide with a light signal, such as classroom lights flicking
on and off (p.3665). Additionally, the teacher cannot conventionally raise their voice to gain Toby’s
attention. Martins & Gaudiot (2012) recommend using a visual queue to gain attention, such as a
smartboard projected image that means ‘attention’. This signal will allow the classroom to regroup and
ensure Toby is ready. A signal like this would also work well with students with Autism Spectrum
Disorder (ASD) or Behaviour Disorders (BD), as it provides structure and circumvents raised voices
Toby’s weakness is his behaviour. He understands the content, however, chooses not to
participate. Toby appears to lack engagement with the classroom materials, because they seem to be
beneath his academic ability. Morawska & Sanders (2008) completed a study on behaviour of Gifted
and Talented (G&T) students. While their study was mainly based on parental influence, they did
highlight difficulties with peer groups, or educational setting as a precedent for behavioural issues
(p.824). Since Toby is acknowledged as a G&T student, and his antecedent for misbehaviour is boredom,
the teacher’s allocated classwork appears to be mismatched to his educational vigour. Usually, G&T
students tend to accelerate a year group, however, this can cause social issues for the student, as their
interests may differ greatly to their more mature classmates, and so, find it difficult to socialise
(Morawska & Sanders, 2008, p.824). The other option is to stay in the same year group, and be provided
with more stimulus. Clarke & Pittaway (2014) state that it is the “teacher’s responsibility to recognise
these needs and to devise and tailor programs that can optimise students’ talents” (p.245). Differentiation
in the classroom would provide Toby with more suitable material and extend his learning; such as,
setting questions of increasing difficulty for the whole class, by employing terminology from Blooms
Taxonomy (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). This is an easy modification, but it does require a teachers’
knowledge of all their students’ ability level, and how they learn best.
Johnson-Harris & Mundschenk (2014) highlight how the Universal Design for Learning (UDL)
can be used to combat Behaviour Disorders (BD) in the classroom. Their analysis, (while irrelevant to
Toby who understands content), outlines how students that fail to understand content taught through
only one instructional method, might give up and turn to misbehaving instead. Students who fail to
understand content, then misbehave could succeed by being offered UDL principles. UDL has a
framework with three principles; which are Multiple Means of Representation, Multiple Means of
Expression, and Multiple Means of Engagement. The definition of Multiple Means of Representation is
when students are given numerous examples of lesson content, whether image, text, or media. This will
allow students to avoid the frustration of ‘not-getting-it’, as they are provided multiple avenues, and
more opportunities to ‘get-it’ (Johnson-Harris & Mundschenk, 2014, p.169). The Multiple Means of
Expression is when the teacher offers many activities, for students to interact with the content. This
might be extending a math lesson by practising math equations in notebooks, through online educational
games, or as a group on the whiteboard. The Multiple Means of Engagement intersects with the activities
above, for students to use what they have learnt, the activities must offer authentic, and relevant learning,
and must maintain students interest, but put emphasis on effort (Johnson-Harris & Mundschenk, 2014,
p.170). As a result, students are taught self-regulation, and self-motivation by having the opportunity to
choose what works best for them. Therefore, UDL offers students choice, and opportunity to think for
The Expression principle of UDL seems to be where we lose Toby. The Multiple Means of
Expression must be personalised for Toby, to ensure he is reaching lesson goals, and producing work
that can go towards his report card. The position of teachers in this scenario is to supply enough activities,
that Toby will find one that works to help embed the lesson content; thereby, leading to more motivation,
and improved engagement with material. UDL helps students who lack engagement by implementing
multiple learning opportunities that will work for students’ unique learning styles; such as working
alone, or working in a group, or some students might “prefer open ended, highly subjective tasks,
whereas other prefer structured, objective tasks” (Rapp, 2014, p.18). It is up to the teachers to understand
what the students’ needs are, and utilise UDL principles to aid students in self-regulation, and
motivation. Therefore, Toby needs to be offered choice, and extension activities, that do not single him
out for his disability. For example, if the lesson objective is to read two chapters of a novel. Optional
activities may include reading via e-book, or reading via traditional paperback books, which can be read
at tables, laying on the floor, or sitting in bean bags. There are even audio-books. Toby may choose the
e-book version, and to read on the floor. If Toby were to finish reading before his peers, online
As evidenced above, technology often assists in delivery of UDL in classrooms. Alsalam (2015)
undertook research into the specific academic needs of students with a hearing-impairment in the Saudi
Arabian context. The mixed method study found that an increase in the use of technology was needed
for UDL to function as intended. Alsalam (2015) states “deaf and hard of hearing students need to
interact with digital materials that includes texts, pictures, graphics, 3D, animation, and videos that
represent the content in multiple ways […]. Modelling UDL through technology will enhance the
teacher's’ performance and students’ achievements […]” (p.112). Technology that Toby could engage
with would range from e-books, blogs, online archives, YouTube videos that have subtitles, to online
games. Keeping him engaged would be easy enough, as modern-day students love replacing old
textbooks with the unlimited supply of knowledge to be found on the internet. Providing internet use is
undertaken in a controlled way, teachers can show students the way to use technology to further their
We have discussed physical accommodations for Toby in the classroom, however, there are also
some teaching adjustments that can be made. Martins & Gardiot (2012) recommended an increase in
visual tools in the classroom, and here is one that works universally. At the beginning of every class,
write up the days’ lesson objective, connection to prior learning, step-by-step activities, and the ‘do-I-
get-it?’ checklist on the board for students to reference throughout the lesson. During Professional
Practice, I encountered this policy at a Positive Behaviour for Learning (PBL) school. PBL is basically
a Universal Design for Behaviour (Cowie, 2017). During my time at this school, I found that by using
this tool, students were able to self-regulate their learning, and let me know if they did not adequately
achieve the lesson objective by the end of the lesson. This informed my formative assessment, and unit
planning, and led me to perhaps revisit the content in the next lesson. In addition, by highlighting the
lessons connection to students’ prior learning, students can see the relevance of the lesson content (NSW
DET, 2003). The other successful part is the step-by-step lesson outline, which is useful to make students
aware of transitions throughout the lesson. This prevents disruptions when it is time to start the second
or third activity. This tool is universally helpful and all students, including Toby, will be able to interact
with this visual tool throughout the lesson, to self-regulate, without the need of an interpreter, or the
teacher.
Part 2:
Lesson Objective:
All students will be able to explain what it means to position the audience. Most students will be able to explain how they were positioned during the
clips shown. Some students will be able to analyse the clips shown, and explain how the positioning was achieved.
Youtube video
Youtube video
References:
Alsalam, M. A. (2015). Considering and Supporting the Implementation of Universal Design for
Learning Among Teachers of Students Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing in Saudi Arabia.
ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1-209. Retrieved Sept 25, 2017, from https://search-
proquest-com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/1708665311?accountid=36155
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). Bloom’s Taxonomy Revised. Retrieved Sept 26, 2017, from The
http://thesecondprinciple.com/teaching-essentials/beyond-bloom-cognitive-taxonomy-
revised/
Blizzard, D., & Foster, S. (2007). Feminist Pedagogy and Universal Design in a Deaf and Hearing
World: Linking Cultures Through Artifacts and Understanding. Feminist Teacher, 17(3), 225-
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/stable/40546028
Clark, M., & Pittaway, S. (2014). Meeting the Diverse Needs of the Students. In M. Clark, & S.
Cowie, S. (2017, Aug 29). Lecture 7. Promoting Positive Behaviour. Kingswood, NSW, Australia:
Johnson-Harris, K. M., & Mundschenk, N. A. (2014). Working Effectively with Students with
Behaviour Disorders in a General Education Classroom: The Case for Universal Design for
Learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87(4),
Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. R. (2008). Parenting Gifted and Talented Children: What Are the Key
Child Behaviour and Parenting Issues? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 42(9),
819-827.
NSW Department of Education & Training. (2003). Quality Teaching in NSW Public Schools: A
h.schools.nsw.edu.au/technology/Programs/Template/Quality%20Teaching%20Guide.pdf
Rapp, W. (2014). Universal Design for Learning in Action : 100 Ways to Teach All Learners. Maryland:
Brookes Publishing.