Assignment 1: Engagement With An Educational Issue

The Australian curriculum caters for most students however, not every student is the

same and require different approaches to learning. It is up to the teacher to create an

inclusive lesson so that every student can enjoy an equitable education (Choi, 1995).

For teachers to deliver an inclusive lesson they need to alter their pedagogy.

Effectively changing pedagogy requires informed decision making based off

evidence that will support the proposed changes (Moss, 2013; Wolk, 2008). The

importance of educational research continues to grow due to the spotlight being

place on student performance. There has been an importance placed on improving

education through evidence-based practice (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2015). This critical

analysis will highlight and discuss the educational issue of inclusive education using

educational research. Additionally, the findings will then be applied to a year 9

science lesson plan with the aim of creating a more inclusive lesson.

In the realm of education, inclusion refers to a “child’s right to participate and the

school’s duty to accept the child” (Moss, 2013; p. 148). In Australian schools, there

are a wide variety of intersections (race, ethnicity and class) and learning groups

which need to be catered for. It is important for teachers to recognise that not every

student is the same and an equitable approach to lessons is required (Lampert,

Burnett & Morse 2015). Equity and inclusion go hand in hand because in order for

students to be included in lessons the teacher needs to recognise and understand

the student’s individual needs.

History shows that schooling has been built around the privileged and groups outside

this demographic struggled to gain an education (Moss, 2015). This history highlights
the inequity that was in schools however, today policies are in place that aim to

provide an equitable approach to education. In Australian per The Education and

Training Reform Amendment (School Age) Bill 2009, all students are required to

complete schooling up to year 10. This means any student that wants to leave

school must be at least 17 with approved training (TAFE, traineeship,

apprenticeship) or full-time paid employment. This highlights the Australian

government’s attempts to force inclusion on all students even those who cannot

afford private/independent schooling.

Inside the classroom, the issue begins to show because even though all students are

required to attend school, there are many different learning abilities which will create

a differentiated learning experience. Intellectually disabled students require a

different educational approach due to their limitations in functioning and adaptive

behaviour (Vinodrao, 2016). There is an increasing number of students recognised

to have some form of intellectual disability (Forlin, Chambers, Loreman, Deppeler &

Sharma, 2013). Inclusion in and out of education has been a topic for decades with

many different organisations recognising the need to remove intellectual

discrimination. Locally, the Australian Human Rights Commission was established in

1986 to remove discrimination in Australia. Internationally, the United Nations

Education and Scientific Organisation (UNESCO) has assisted in establishing

education as a right of children (Moss, 2013). On multiple occasions UNESCO has

commented on inclusive education identifying inclusive schools as the most effective

in countering discrimination towards student. In 2009 UNESCO stated that “an

inclusive education system can only be created if ordinary schools become more

inclusive”. This is important as it identifies where inclusive education starts and

places the onus back on teachers to alter their pedagogy. In order to alter pedagogy
informed decision must be made through the use of evidence-based practice (Gall,

Gall & Borg, 2015).

The topic of inclusive education is examined in the article “The Inclusive Secondary

Teacher: ‘The Leaders’ Perspective” by Pearce, Gray and Campbell-Evans (2009).

The article is a qualitative study, aims use the expertise of teachers and scholars to

identify “the skills, knowledge and attributes deemed necessary for inclusion” (p.

101). The authors provide extensive background knowledge explaining the need for

inclusive education and relevant models that this study can build upon.

The background in the introduction draws upon a variety of aspects that define a

traditional teacher. The definitions of a traditional teacher and traditional special

education teacher (Pearce, Gray and Campbell-Evans, 2009, p. 102-104) provide a

historical insight into the expectations a teacher and student had. This highlights the

gaps in pedagogy that are to be addressed later in the article. Reference to the

‘Shulman’s model of teacher knowledge’ allows the author to discuss the conceptual

framework as the basis of the study (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2013). Overall this

introduction adequately provides relevant historical background however, it does not

distinctly outline the aim of the study leaving it open to interpretation.

The methodology uses a qualitative approach from leaders that were “expected to be

familiar with the practices, theories, processes, thoughts, values and emotions of

secondary teachers, students with and without disabilities and their parents” (Pearce,

Gray and Campbell-Evans, 2015, p. 105). Despite having a large range of opinions,
the rest of the methodology is very vague. Methodology needs to be thorough so that

anyone reading the study can reproduce the method (Fox and Jennings, 2014). This

study however, does not outline the questions being asked, the environment the

study is being conducted in or the recording techniques. Removing these details

from a method does not allow the study to be reproduced. The studies participants

are detailed in appendix 1 (p. 106) however, looking at the information provided

there is not a very diverse selection despite claiming to have participants from “all

Australian states and sectors” (p. 105). The majority participants are from Western

Australia (36), the second most were NSW and Victoria(4). This can create a bias in

opinion as each state has its own pedagogy. If each state/territory had an even

number of participants the bias in the results section would decrease (Gall, Gall &

Borg, 2015). Another area of concern with the participants is the qualifications and

current role. Majority of participants come from a primary background and only one

secondary school teacher is interviewed despite the study targeting secondary

education. Ultimately this was cause a bias that does not completely recognise the

needs in secondary education.

The answers from each participant were grouped and interpreted to form the

discussion of this essay. The article recognises that “the findings are restricted to the

opinions of the participants and cannot be generalised or assumed to be

representative” (p. 107). These limitations restrict the reliability of the study as they

will contain a large bias which may not be applicable to a wider audience.

The remainder of this section discusses the interpreted responses from each

participant. The article successfully draws on background knowledge identified in the

introduction and uses it to structure the data. By basing the data off theoretical

framework, it provides substance that will or will not support the results. Shulman’s

domains of knowledge specifically mention pedagogical content knowledge (Ball,

Thames & Phelps, 2008 and Shulman, 1987). Given this study aims to create an

inclusive classroom through the development of pedagogy the relation back to

Shulman (1987) provides the framework for recommendations to improve inclusion.

The article identifies and discusses the skill and attributes the participants believe to

be essential for inclusive education. The overall theme is knowledge with many of

the subheadings drawing back to having an extensive knowledge of each

skill/attribute, “really competent and comfortable in their subject” (p. 107) and

“Leaders observed inclusive teachers linking new learning to previous knowledge

and explaining the relevancy of the task to students’ lives” (p. 109). This links to the

Australian Professional Standards for Teachers and the NSW quality teaching

model. These two areas recognise deep understanding being crucial to providing

quality learning (inclusive education) (Moss, 2013). Despite the acknowledgement of

all these skills and attributes it does not specify ways to achieve and improve on

these skills. The participants identify and explain why it is important to have these

skills and attributes however leave it open to interpretation as to ‘how’ to achieve.

Gall, Gall & Borg (2015) believes teachers should conduct their own research and

not just rely on “knowledge available in mainstream research literature” (p. 396).

Moreover, this discussion identifies the skills and attributes that are supported by

literature and relevant theoretical models however, it does not act as a how-to

manual to achieving inclusion in the classroom.

The articles conclusion adequately summarises the ideas presented earlier without

introducing any new ideas. The author present their final comments and

recommendations with open questions that are left open to the readers’

interpretation. This qualitative study cannot be generalised hence the overall validity

can be questioned (Gall, Gall & Borg, 2015). The article recognises this issue by

stating that the skills and attributes can be “outside the control of the teacher” (p.

116). Furthermore, this article provides a summary of the study identifying what is

required to be more inclusive, however its conclusion is not certain due to the validity

of the study being questioned.

To find out if the article produces valid and reliable information, it should be applied

to a lesson plan. Doing this in a practical situation allows teachers to use a trial and

error approach to identify methods that work. A year 9/stage 5 science lesson plan

will be used to see if the skills and attributes presented in Pearce, Gray and

Campbell-Evans (2015) can be adapted everyday learning. This lesson plan has

been taken from the NSW Education Standards Authority.

Breaking down this lesson plan, it is a heavy content based lesson that promotes

deeper understanding of the topic. It requires students to complete previous work

that acts as prior knowledge. This is an individualised task which does not cater to

the needs of intellectually disabled students. In the second stage of the lesson plan,

student are required to read a passage and mark key information. Once again this is

a task that is catered for individualised learning. Inclusive education relates to every

student having an equal and equitable opportunity to learn (Moss, 2013). The third
stage of this lesson requires students to make notes about the previous passage

learnt. This can be a class or an individual activity, depending on the intellectual

disability the level of content being discussed may be to much to comprehend. The

final stage of the lesson is a joint construction of notes. If students did not

comprehend the previous content it will be hard for the student to understand to

collaborative effort in this task.

Using the recommendations of the Pearce, Gray and Campbell-Evans (2015), there

are elements of the example lesson that can be altered to create a more inclusive

learning environment. The main recommendation of the article was having

knowledge of content, students and pedagogy (pp. 107-105). Other skills/attributes

mentioned in the article are; empathy, respect, high expectations, dedication,

flexibility, eagerness to learn, confidence, effective communication and creative

problem solving skills. These skills/attributes are more personal traits the teacher

should adopt but can still be incorporated into the lesson plan.

As a teacher knowing the students is crucial, altering activities that will allow a

collaborative learning environment which creates an inclusive lesson. Working

together teachers students skills that can be used outside of the classroom and

reduces stress (Jackson, Hickman, Power, Disler and Potgieter, 2014). For the

second stage, the entire class could read together and student can suggest areas of

key information. This allows the entire class to hear the exact same content and

explanation thus reducing the risk of students being left behind. The third and fourth

stages, a think, pair, share strategy could be applied for note making. Alternately for

the third stage students can be placed in pair or groups and create a set of notes on
one of the topics studied earlier in the lesson. Collaborative learning will allow

student to openly discuss the topic and it reduces the workload each student is

required to do. Godhino (2013) identifies group work as essential for developing

interpersonal skills. Placing students in groups requires the teacher to understand

which students will work best together and which elements of the content will best

suit the students. This creates an environment in the class where students become

more comfortable.

Since this is a content heavy lesson it is important to realise that it may be too much

for some students to handle. The NSW quality teaching model recommends that

teachers provide deeper knowledge, engagement and knowledge integration into

their pedagogy (Gore, 2014; ACARA, 2016). Student engagement is essential to

inclusive education, this requires the teacher to alter tasks in each lesson. Too much

reading and writing will reduce student engagement and potentially reduce

achievement in the class, hence the need for alternative activities.

Accommodating every student is a challenge that will present itself in all classroom,

it is the teachers duty to be mindful and acknowledge the needs of their students. To

provide an inclusive learning environment teachers need to understand a variety of

factors but most importantly; their students. In order to improve inclusion, informed

decisions must be made through the use of research and evidence-based practice.

Furthermore, it is up to the teacher to make these decisions to provide all student the

best chance of quality learning.

Appendix

Appendix 1 - Participants in study (Pearce, Gray and Campbell-Evans, 2015)

References

- Choi, J. (1995). Critical pedagogy: Theory and practice of a pedagogy of hope

(Order No. 9705225). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I.

Moss 2013,

- Wolk 2008 (304199074). Retrieved from https://search-

proquestcom.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/304199074?accountid=36155

- Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2015). Applying educational research:

How to read, do, and use research to solve problems of practice. Pearson

Higher

- Ed.Lampert, J., Burnett,B. Morse, K. (2015). Destabilising privilege: Disrupting

deficit thinking in white pre-service teachers on field experience in culturally

diverse, high-poverty schools. In T. Ferfolja, C.J. Diaz & J. Ullman (eds.),

Understanding Sociological Theory For Educational Practices. (pp. 76-92).

Melbourne, Vic: Cambridge

- http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/department/legislation/Pages/act2006a

ge.aspx

- Vinodrao, S. V. (2016). Benefits of inclusive education for students with

intellectual disabled. International Journal of Education and Management

Studies, 6(2), 186-189. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/1864037198?accountid=36155

- Forlin, C., Chambers, D., Loreman, T., Deppeler, J., & Sharma, U. (2013). A

review of the literature on inclusive education: Best evidence in relation to

theoretical and practical findings. Canberra: Department of Education.

Retrieved from https://www.aracy.org.au/publications-

resources/command/download_file/id/246/filename/Inclusive_education_for_s
 tudents_with_disability_-

_A_review_of_the_best_evidence_in_relation_to_theory_and_practice.pdf

- UNESCO (2009). Policy guidelines on inclusion in education. Retrieved from

http://www.inclusive-education-in-

action.org/iea/dokumente/upload/72074_177849e.pdf.

- Fox, B. H., & Jennings, W. G. (2014). How to write a methodology and results

section for empirical research. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 25(2),

137. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/1538590848?accountid=36155

- Loewenberg Ball, D., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge

for teaching: What makes it special?. Journal of teacher education, 59(5),

389-407. Retrieved from http://harringtonmath.com/wp-

content/uploads/2013/11/Content-knowledge-for-teachers.pdf

- Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.

Harvard educational review, 57(1), 1-23. Retrieved from

http://www.hepgjournals.org/doi/abs/10.17763/haer.57.1.j463w79r56455411?

code=hepg-site

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

Professional Standards for Teachers. Retrieved from

http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian-professional-standards-

forteachers/standards/list

- Moss, J. (2013). Introducing teaching as a profession. In R. Churchill, P.

Ferguson, S. Godhino, N. F. Johnson, A. Keddie, W. Letts, J. Mackay, M.

McGill, J. Moss, M. C. Nagel, P. Nicholson, M. Vick (eds.), Teaching Making A

Difference. (pp. 2-33). Milton, QLD: John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd.
- Godinho, S. (2013). Planning for practice: connecting pedagogy, assessment

and curriculum. In R. Churchill, P. Ferguson, S. Godhino, N. F. Johnson, A.

Keddie, W. Letts, J. Mackay, M. McGill, J. Moss, M. C. Nagel, P. Nicholson,

M. Vick (eds.), Teaching Making A Difference. (pp. 210-249). Milton, QLD:

John Wiley & Sons Australia Ltd.

- Gore, J. (2014). Towards quality and equity: The case for Quality Teaching

Rounds. In Proceedings of the Australian Council for Educational Research

(ACER) research conference. Quality and equity: What does research tell us

(pp. 86-91). Retrieved from https://www.acer.org/files/Gore.pdf

- ACARA. (2016). Personalised Learning. Retrieved from

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/studentdiversity/gifted-and-talented-

students-personalised-learning

- Jackson, D., Hickman, L. D., Power, T., Disler, R., Potgieter, I., Deek, H., &

Davidson, P. M. (2014). Small group learning: Graduate health students'

views of challenges and benefits. Contemporary Nurse : A Journal for the

Australian Nursing Profession, 48(1), 117-28. Retrieved from https://search-

proquest-com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/1629654856?accountid=36155

- Pearce, M., Gray, J., & Campbell-Evans, G. (2009). The inclusive secondary

teacher: The leaders' perspective. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,

34(6), 101-119. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-

com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/docview/870282872?accountid=36155

- Board of Studies. (n.d) Sample lesson plan – science. Retrieved from

https://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/7-10-literacy-numeracy/pdf-

doc/science-sample-lesson-plan.pdf