International Journal of Inclusive Education

Vol. 14, No. 7, November 2010, 667–680

Modelling inclusive practices in postgraduate tertiary

education courses
Adrian Ashman*

School of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia

(Received 21 July 2009; final version received 14 November 2009)
Taylor and Francis
TIED_A_478364.sgm

International
10.1080/13603111003778429
1360-3116
Original
Taylor
02010
00
[email protected]
AdrianAshman
000002010
&Article
Francis
(print)/1464-5173
Journal of Inclusive
(online)
Education

This paper is a teaching reflection. It gives an account of the delivery of two

courses dealing with inclusive education. Both were delivered via external mode
at the postgraduate level (i.e. distance education including web-based
presentations and alternative resource delivery). While university education
lecturers often talk about, and promote, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and
curriculum differentiation as the foundations of inclusive education, they do not
appear to apply the relevant principle to their own teaching in tertiary education.
The delivery of the two courses described herein was based upon UDL, curriculum
differentiation and professional learning essentials. Overall, the participants
reported gaining knowledge and skills in a flexible learning context that they were
able to pass on to their own students in a variety of teaching-learning settings.
Keywords: online education; Universal Design for Learning; teacher education;
professional learning; inclusion

Introduction
It has been over four decades since the movement began toward inclusion rather than
exclusion of students with special learning needs in regular education settings. This
change in mindset emerged in recognition of social injustices that limited the oppor-
tunities of some students to learn alongside their peers who are progressing according
to age norms and learning expectations. Legislation and government policy in most (if
not all) Western countries, and in many others, have begun to redress this educational
inequity but we are still a considerable distance from the reality of fully inclusive
schools and classrooms (e.g. Curcic 2009; Drudy and Kinsella 2009; Melekoglu,
Cakiroglu, and Malmgren 2009). Furthermore, while one might be seduced by
policies and associated rhetoric to believe that inclusive education is not only common
but universal, the reality is quite different. In many Western classrooms and certainly
in most non-Western classrooms, there is still an implicit segregation of students with
special learning needs despite enthusiastic and forward-thinking government and
bureaucratic initiatives and sensible advocacy (see, e.g., Ashman 2007; Cook and
Semmel 1999; Forlin and Lian 2008; Hodge et al. 2006; Pavri and Monda-Amaya
2001; Petrou, Angelides, and Leigh 2009).
Some early writers argued that inclusion is a moral imperative that does
not require, and cannot wait for, empirical justification (see, e.g., Stainback,

*Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1360-3116 print/ISSN 1464-5173 online

© 2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13603111003778429
http://www.informaworld.com
668 A. Ashman

Stainback, and Ayres 1996). Others warned about a rush headlong into inclusion
because of the lack of support provided by school systems and administrators (e.g.
Kauffman, Gerber, and Semmel 1988), and it might not be surprising that resource
allocation remains an issue that stands as an impediment to the full inclusion of
students with special learning needs (see, e.g., Furtado 2005; Wu and Komesaroff
2007).
Beyond the issue of adequate funding, it is curious that the number of empirical
studies about the success of inclusive education relative to the vastness of the litera-
ture is small. Of the studies that have appeared in the professional literature, relatively
few have focused specifically on innovative teaching approaches (e.g. co-teaching,
strategy instruction, peer-mediated learning) that are aimed at improving academic
outcomes. While inclusive education remains an ideal that must be pursued vigor-
ously, there is a continuing need to address the barriers that inhibit the implementation
of inclusive classroom practices.
On the one hand, many parents report dissatisfaction with their children’s educa-
tional experiences; some complain that their children have been denied the opportuni-
ties to learn both functional and higher academic skills in (nominally) inclusive
settings (e.g. Starr et al. 2006). On the other hand, classroom teachers have argued that
they were not trained to deal with students who cannot cope with the regular curricu-
lum and certainly not with low-functioning students who present very challenging
behaviours or severe physical or sensory impairments. Many also assert that continu-
ing professional learning (PL) has not equipped them with the necessary knowledge
or skills so that their regular classrooms are inappropriate placements for very
demanding students (see DeSimone and Palmer 2006).
The importance of PL on disability and inclusion at the initial teacher education
(ITE) stage has been addressed in government reports, including several in Australia
(e.g. Australian Association of Special Education 2004; Education and Training
Committee 2005; Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References
Committee 2002; Ingvarson, Beavis, and Kleinhenz 2004). The authors of these
documents have all criticised the inadequacy of ITE on matters relating to students
with disability and inclusive education despite the teacher certification/credentialing
authorities in all Australian states and territories mandating one or more courses
devoted to those topics.
The impact of courses, such as these on teacher practice, has been reported in
various studies (Forlin et al. 2009). Researchers commonly report positive outcomes
in preservice teachers’ attitudes to inclusive education, although few (if any) docu-
ment the benefits to the newly credentialed teachers’ practices following employ-
ment. Brown et al. (2008), for example, studied the effects of special education
components within general preservice education courses. They claimed that when
instruction was embedded into courses/subjects focusing on specific curriculum
content areas, students’ knowledge of inclusion increased as did their confidence in
meeting the needs of students with special learning needs (learning difficulties in
this case), although there was no follow-up after the completion of their tertiary
education.
Of course, the development of effective teaching practices that encourage inclu-
sion does not end once newly trained teachers complete their ITE. PL continues
through acculturation in school (e.g. Johnston and Hayes 2007), through third-party
initiatives via university research (e.g. Englebrecht, Oswald, and Forlin 2006; Gill and
Chalmers 2007; Kershner 2007), and through education system initiatives that support
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 669

on- and off-campus programmes that deal with one or more categories of exceptional
learners such as indigenous students, those with autism spectrum disorder and
students with intellectual disability (e.g. Timmons 2006). Some programmes are
presented via a more generic approach by, for example, dealing with diversity in areas
such as literacy or mathematics.
Such PL activities typically are aimed at improving teachers’ knowledge,
specific curriculum units and teaching practices that can be applied in their own
classrooms. They encourage teachers to take control of their own PL in collabora-
tive and supportive ways that generate a whole-of-school approach to inclusive
education.
In this paper, I direct attention to another PL opportunity undertaken in postgrad-
uate education programmes at universities. There are several characteristics that
differentiate involvement in system/school PL and what occurs at a tertiary institution.
One of the key challenges in providing effective PL on any topic or in any area is the
provision of a relevant programme framework and effective learning activities.
Toward this end, I sought to break away from the traditional, prescriptive approach
that involves primarily lecturer-directed learning tasks. This required re-consideration
of a conceptual framework that I could apply to the courses dealing with inclusive
education that I offer.

A framework for professional learning

Munro (2009) provided guidance here. He argued that we must examine and challenge
the traditional ways in which teachers have been encouraged to work, and some other
writers have advocated a change in teachers’ orientation away from the traditional role
of classroom teachers to facilitators of inclusion. Jorgensen, Schuh, and Nisbet had
previously argued that facilitators are change agents who transcend the role of teacher
and ‘emerge within the larger context of teaching for social justice and recognize the
relationship between individual learning, environmental influences, social attitudes,
and part experiences’ (2005, 19). They argued for a fundamental restructuring of
teacher education so that it focuses on the skills needed to support organisational and
personnel changes necessary to bring about full inclusion. They claimed that there are
few institutions of higher education that prepare their graduates to achieve and
manage change and that this necessitates reconceptualising the teaching and learning
process to concentrate on competence rather than disability.
In undergraduate and postgraduate courses that I have taught over the past half
decade, I have emphasised the importance of Universal Design for Learning (UDL),
curriculum differentiation and individualised learning as key elements in inclusive
practices. I have given these three notions some consideration when developing
course content and preparing teaching resources, but I have infrequently taken the next
step, that is to integrate these ideas with university requirements for standardised
methods of course delivery, content selection and assessment. In tertiary teaching, the
demand for equity and transparency in delivery and assessment across internal (i.e.
face-to-face teaching via lectures and tutorials) and external courses (distance educa-
tion via web and internet delivery) appears to constrain innovation even if, in reality,
it might not.
To set the context for the present project, I begin by briefly mentioning UDL,
curriculum differentiation and PL experiences. These were the building blocks on
which my courses were developed.
670 A. Ashman

Universal Design for Learning

Universal design (UD) came to prominence in the field of education in the late
1990s, based upon the architectural principle that buildings and spaces must be
readily accessible to all, including those with disability or impairment (Center for
Universal Design 1997; Mace 1998). By the end of the 1990s, UD became a
primary goal when developing education curricula and Universal Design for Learn-
ing (UDL) emerged along with the emphasis on access, participation and progress.
Bauer and Kroeger (2004) stated that UDL attempts to create a curriculum without
adaptation, one that allows students to control the method of gaining access to infor-
mation. This is said to encourage students’ self-sufficiency, imparts knowledge and
facilitates learning. Of importance, UDL does not remove challenges but removes
barriers to access.
Writers such as Curry, Cohen, and Lightbody (2006), Scott, McGuire, and Shaw
(2003), and van Kraayenoord (2007a, 2007b) argued that UDL is particularly relevant
to special and inclusive education as it addresses equal educational access, meets
students’ needs and learning preferences, challenges the need for education of
students in special setting, and eliminates marginalisation.
UDL embodies alternative representations of essential concepts, the design of
work units to accommodate various levels of skill, preferences and interests, and the
provision of alternative means of expression that allows mastery to be demonstrated
in various ways. The Center for Universal Design (1997) proposed seven principles:
equitable use, flexible use, simple and intuitive application, perceptible information,
tolerance for error, low physical effort, and accessible size and space. Two additional
principles were added for instruction in post-secondary education: the establishment
of a community of learners and a positive instructional climate (see McGuire, Scott,
and Shaw 2006; Scott, McGuire, and Shaw 2001, 2003).

Curriculum differentiation
Curriculum differentiation appears to be an alternative way of framing UDL. The
notion of differentiation is hardly new. Hart (1996), Page and Valli (1990), and
Tomlinson (2003) all suggested that curriculum differentiation is a key element in
creating flexible learning environments that encourage inclusive practices in regular
schools.
Curriculum differentiation refers to a flexible approach to teaching that addresses
the different learning needs of students including learning interests, styles and rates
within specific learning contexts. In general terms, the curriculum can target a range
of outcomes by concentrating on content mastery (e.g. learning ideas and skills),
concept mastery (e.g. systems of knowledge) and process mastery (e.g. research and
information management skills).
Maker (1982), arguably one of the earliest advocates of differentiation, and
VanTassel-Baska (1998) suggested that curriculum differentiation requires consider-
ation of the learners’ characteristics, their skill and knowledge, the pace of presenta-
tion, the complexity of the information and the depth of learning required. If there is
a difference between UDL and differentiation, it may be in the delivery of a differen-
tiated curriculum that can be both planned and spontaneous (Tomlinson 2001). This
becomes most evident when students design their own learning activities and
especially when students are advanced beyond classroom peers, a point supported by
Lewis and Batts (2005).
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 671

The goal of curriculum differentiation, therefore, is an improvement in the way in

which the curriculum is delivered. This can be achieved by making changes to the
learning environment, the content, the process or methods for teaching and learning
that content, the methods for assessment or the products, and the human and material
assistance needed to achieve the adjustments and adaptations. In tertiary education,
differentiation is difficult to identify due to the (often) prescriptive nature of the
curriculum especially in the biological and physical sciences.
At the tertiary education level, consideration can be given to the purposes of a
particular course or programme, the discipline or domain, the intentions of particular
teaching-learning sequences, the knowledge and understandings that an instructor
wishes to encourage or foster, and the learning outcomes sought. In my experience,
such considerations are not often at the forefront of lecturers’ minds when developing
a course of study, although many, if not most, universities require the consideration
and achievement of graduate outcomes. These include effective communication,
independence and creativity, critical judgement, and ethical and social understanding
with each of these being subdivided in component attributes. For example, an in-depth
knowledge of the field of study would encompass a broad understanding of the field,
including how other disciplines relate to it, a comprehensive and in-depth knowledge
in the field, an international perspective on the field and an appreciation of the link
between theory and practice.
At the tertiary level, graduate attributes aim to encourage the acquisition of
important professional knowledge and a disposition toward ongoing PL. But how can
a provider be assured that professional development experiences lead to changes in
practice?

Professional learning experiences

Most teachers develop and consolidate their classroom practices in an environment in
which they teach alone and where they have learned to accommodate a range of student
behavioural idiosyncrasies and learning needs. Often there is little formal support from
teaching peers or other professionals. Because of this, changing the classroom culture
to an inclusive education environment is bound to encounter some resistance.
There has been only modest systematic research conduced on the effectiveness of
staff development. Arguably, Duffy (1993) reported a landmark in staff development
literature. In a study undertaken over four years, he taught teachers how to incorporate
cognitive strategies into their reading programmes. He described a nine-step process
that was not linearly developmental but recursive, suggesting that teacher may
progress through nine stages during their attempts to acquire, assimilate and apply
new teaching strategies to their own instructional settings.
In the first phase, teachers attend professional development sessions but resist
initiatives when there is no prescriptive format to follow and when they are required
to develop their own materials, and this means that many do not persist beyond the
initial sessions. The second phase involves attempts to employ the newly acquired
knowledge; teachers do not fully understand the processes but are willing to trial ideas
and practices although the implementation is often rigid and unsuccessful. The third
phase involves embedding the new ideas into existing practices, often with less
concern for the specifics than the appropriateness of the applications. The final phase
includes some uncertainty and doubts about full application but also leads to
confidence when using the new ideas/processes. Teachers release control of the ideas
672 A. Ashman

to others (their students) and tolerate ambiguity. The last step is the application of the
newly acquired knowledge in day-to-day lives.
Duffy (1993) provided not only a training continuum along which teachers move
as they begin to facilitate and apply new ideas into their classrooms and beyond, but
in more general terms, an indication of how to proceed in providing preparatory and
ongoing professional development. His work illustrates the importance of providing
teachers with phased professional development. Such experiences must address the chal-
lenges that they confront when attempting to implement new ideas, procedure, or practice
into the classroom or school, together with ongoing support over an extended period.

The ‘essential’ elements

In recent years, there have been numerous professional development approaches taken
in education, all aiming to convey new knowledge to teachers across the broadest
universe of topics. Guskey (2003) provided insights into characteristics that US educa-
tion policy-makers and staff trainers believe should be apparent in in-service activities.
His contribution was an examination of 13 lists of essential professional development
programme components to determine if there was consensus among the list-makers.
Guskey (2003) found common elements among the lists but no characteristic
appeared in all 13. While many of the list-makers argued that theirs were based on
research evidence, lists rarely included indications of improvements in instructional
practice or student learning outcomes. The most frequently mentioned characteristic
of effective professional development was the focus on helping teachers to understand
the content they teach and how students learn although there was no apparent link
between duration of programmes and activities and successful programme outcomes.
Collegiality and collaboration were consistently noted across many lists as was struc-
ture, purpose and evaluations of improvements in learning. Only three of the 13 lists
included accommodation of diversity and promotion of equity.
In Australia, ongoing PL is considered to be a vital part of teacher education and
state registration/credentialing authorities now prescribe such involvement for contin-
ued registration. The authors of a report by the House of Representatives Standing
Committee on Education and Vocation Training (2007) stated that ongoing PL must
be a shared responsibility among employing authorities and schools but teachers must
also take responsibility for ensuring that they continue to invest time and effort in
learning. The authors also noted a decline in the number of teachers engaging in post-
graduate studies. This is attributed to the introduction of fees for postgraduate
programmes, an increase in teachers’ workloads, the aging workforce, lack of
financial rewards for gaining postgraduate qualification and the perceived lack of
connection between career advancement and postgraduate studies.

Differentiation in tertiary courses

For many years, I have taught postgraduate courses on special needs education and
inclusive education. The overwhelming majority of students enrolling in these courses
have been teachers working in a widest range of contexts from early childhood,
through to tertiary education. A much smaller number of my students are school coun-
sellors and other education or health professionals.
These courses generally attract relatively low enrolments compared with others
having a discipline base (e.g. mathematics, reading). In 2008, I taught two compulsory
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 673

courses within an inclusive and special needs specialisation. Historically, each has
attracted an enrolment of less than 15 students.
The first course was designed in the late 1990s to explore the breadth of issues that
relate to the education of students with special learning needs including cultural influ-
ences, legislation and policy, internationalisation in education, information and
communication technologies, peer-mediated learning and school environments. The
second has a shorter history and practical orientation and includes topics on assess-
ment, working with families, UDL, reading, mathematics, instructional support and
affective components of learning.
In an ideal world, students would take the first course in one semester and the second
in the next and both would be offered internally with the majority of students attending
classes each week, and externally (via distance/web-based studies). Practically, up to
half of those enrolled at any time take both courses simultaneously and nearly all have
had a preference for external mode due to a range of circumstances including their resi-
dential location, family commitments that limit attending classes on campus, timetable
conflicts and the desire to self-initiate and self-regulate their learning. In 2008, both
courses were offered in external mode only due to the enrolment profile.
As I have adopted the same general principles to instruction, I have taken this
group as a collective to report the implementation and the outcomes of the courses in
this report.

The students
The first course had 13 enrolments initially. Eleven continued beyond the second
week of semester. The second attracted 14 students, with 13 continuing through the
semester. Three students were enrolled in both courses. There were 20 students in the
cohort.
The students were enrolled in four programmes: a Graduate Certificate in Educa-
tion (n = 1), Graduate Certificate in Educational Studies (n = 4), Graduate Diploma in
Educational Studies (n = 2), and Master of Education Studies (n = 13). Not surpris-
ingly, only three of the 20 students were male and the average age of the group was
32.6 years (SD = 11.09) with a range of 22–58 years. Ten students lived within the
Brisbane metropolitan area, eight lived in regional cities, one lived in a rural commu-
nity, and the last was located overseas.
The professional background of the students was teaching with one exception, a
health professional. Of the 19 teachers, four specialised in early childhood, five in
primary education, seven in secondary education, and three had broader experiences
from early childhood through the secondary years. Nine teachers held specialist roles
in schools (e.g. special education teacher, learning support, counselling), eight indi-
cated that they had an ongoing experience with students with special needs within
their own classes. Only two reported no direct professional contact with such students.

Course structure
In both courses, I based my approach on the belief that if I was urging my students to
adopt inclusive education principles, I should teach by example. In other words, I
should apply the principles and practices of UDL. This meant that I should differenti-
ate the curriculum for my students to the greatest extent possible and apply adult
learning procedures in line with effective PL characteristics.
674 A. Ashman

UDL provided some challenges because of the imperative to integrate content and
resources, provide multi-sensory teaching, tap multiple intelligences, differentiate
instruction, use information and communication technologies, and employ perfor-
mance-based assessment (see Rose and Meyer 2002). Such principles seem eminently
reasonable in a school or early childhood settings but more of an implementation chal-
lenge at the tertiary level. I decided to focus on applying the principles of equitable
and flexible use, simple and intuitive application, perceptible information, tolerance
for error, low physical effort, and accessible size and space, the establishment of a
community of learners, and a positive instructional climate, each to the greatest extent
possible. Added to these were recommendations (again coming from a school context)
from Algozzine and Anderson (2007) and Rock et al. (2008) that promoted (among
other ideas) choice and flexibility in delivery of a curriculum, a responsiveness to indi-
vidual student needs, the integration of assessment with instruction and ongoing
adjustments to instruction to meet student needs. Below is a list of the course delivery
issues that guided my teaching practice:

● Model high-quality engagement – interest in student progress, quick turn around

on queries and assessment feedback, positive and critical feedback.
● Focus on school- and site-based PL – practical application of new knowledge by
encouraging students to focus their assignments on practical procedures that will
change their classroom (or professional) practices, perhaps by collaborating
with a colleague in their own school.
● Demonstrate improvements in school/classroom outcomes – the aim is to make
a difference to children’s and teenagers’ learning outcomes.
● Take into consideration the needs and characteristics of the students – paying
attention to the teachers’ backgrounds and by providing as much guidance and
resource support as possible.
● Flexible delivery options – picking up the foundations of UDL by providing
individualised learning approaches and assessment alternatives aiming at devel-
oping expert learners, that is learners that are strategic and goal-directed,
resourceful, purposeful and motivated.

All lecturing staff at my university are required to provide a digital course profile
on the university’s ‘Courses’ website. This site includes a general description of the
course aims and objectives, learning resources, graduate attributes that the course is
aiming to achieve, assessment details the way in which the students’ final grades are
calculated, available course files (generally about assignment marking criteria) and
university policies and guidelines. Many lecturing staff also provide material via the
course Blackboard sites.

Dialogue
The fundamental issue was regular engagement with the students. Having taken exter-
nal courses many years ago during my pre-university studies, I recall the isolation that
I felt due to the lack of personal contact with the teacher and fellow students. There-
fore, I encouraged a dialogue with my students via email and the Blackboard site
before the commencement of the semester and once enrolments had been finalised to
give each an idea of my background, interests and idiosyncrasies. I invited them to
give me a brief biography of themselves. Students responded very positively, writing
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 675

about their personal and professional lives. Some wrote lengthy emails, expressing
their concerns about studying via external mode, which was new to them. Several
stated that this was a challenging experience. One wrote about her immigration to
Australia and her wish to become a guidance counsellor and the strategy that she
adopted by getting a full-time job at a high school as a special education teacher.
Another wrote a lengthy email indicating apprehensions about the prospect of starting
a master’s programme via an external course.
Two weeks into the semester, I sent an email inviting students to give me their
impressions of the course structure and to identify their interests so that I could pass
on resources that might assist their study programme. I also asked about their purpose
for enrolling in the course, their expectations about the development of their teaching
skills, the suitability of the resources that I had already made available, and topics or
teaching interests. This generated additional interactions. One student, for example,
responded that the lack of lectures or tutorials meant that it was hard to meet and share
information with other students and that this had an impact on motivation to study
alone. Another drew attention to a hectic professional and personal life but found my
interactive approach to the course enjoyable, especially as I appeared to care genu-
inely about each student’s progress and was willing to share personal experiences.
Some students also raised specific needs. One, for example, wrote about trying to
relate the first assignment to a particular issue of discrimination and bullying that was
a specific professional concern. Another struggled to find relevant material relating to
the Index for Inclusion. I was able to pass on a copy of the Index to the student who
lived in a rural/remote area and wanted to use it in her assignments.

Learning guide and course readings

Both courses used different resource sets. The learning guide for the first contained an
introductory component for each of the 12 topics, each of which provided a broad
background to a topic. This was followed by two recommended readings and an
abstract of each. The readings were available in full text digitally via a library website
specifically created for the course. I adopted a different approach in the second course.
Each topic in that learning guide was prefaced by an extended introductory piece. The
course-specific website contained a resource of 126 articles and chapters. Two from
the recommended readings were assigned for each topic. There were no resource over-
laps across the two courses.
I did not consider the learning guides to be especially innovative as they were typi-
cal of the many provided to external students that I have seen over the years. Notwith-
standing this, the guides seem to have hit the target with a few students. One wrote
that the guide was very helpful and another wrote that my comments in the guide were
informative and highly amusing.
The readings also attracted positive responses. While I leaned toward including
papers that had a practical orientation, there were also others that were important for
providing substance to assist the students when formulating their general approach to
their chosen assignments. Some were more attractive to the students than others. One
student wrote that the articles on cyberbullying only scratched the surface of a very
important area but gave a good understanding of bullying in the current technological
age. Another student found one reading very challenging, saying that it took three
days to complete the 73 pages, and another chose to read only articles of interest from
the reading list but had researched further via the reference lists found at the end of
676 A. Ashman

articles and chapters and had also learnt a great deal about navigating through the
university’s databases.

Assessments
I was very keen to allow students as much flexibility as possible when selecting their
study activities and assignments so that they would be relevant to their work environ-
ments and their reasons for enrolling in the course. I anticipated that all students would
have an education background but this created a complication for one student who was
a practising therapist. Our dialogue drew out the problems that stemmed from the lack
of classroom experiences and the limitation of having worked only in a special school
context with very young students with the highest support needs.
Other students found the opportunity to pursue personal interests of considerable
value even though the open-endedness of the task was initially challenging. One
student wrote about being overwhelmed by the prospect of choosing a topic for the
first assignment and took some time to settle on an issue of interest. Another student
wrote about the positive impact of being able to explore and elaborate on teachers’
attitudes to inclusion in the first paper. And yet, another was surprised and pleased
about the practicality of the readings and the importance of these in the preparation of
both assignments.

Student reception
During the semester I engaged with students via email on a daily basis. Some were
more interactive than others; one student had only one interaction with me over the
course of the semester other than via my margin and final notes on assignments. Two
students found the course to be challenging throughout but completed the programme
with very satisfactory grade outcomes. One student, for example, wrote that she had
not provided a personal profile at the beginning of the semester because she intended
to withdraw from the course due to the trouble she was having getting started on the
first assignment, due to family, work and other commitments. She completed the
course very successfully and expressed her considerable pleasure at this achievement.
Many of the students spontaneously referred to the value of the interactions and
my interest in their progress. One student stated that this was refreshing in what would
have otherwise been a very isolating way of studying. Another said that my approach
to the course was appreciated and valued because this was not characteristic of
most external courses in which there is limited interaction between lecturers and
coursemates.
It is useful here to consider one of the key points raised by Guskey (2003) about
PL, namely, the flow from such programmes to classroom practices and student
outcomes. This was the reason for providing teachers with the opportunity to work on
topics that were of professional importance to them. Several comments were made
that emphasised the application of new knowledge gained during the course of the
semester to the teachers’ own professional situations.
One teacher commented that the course had opened her eyes to issues in inclusive
education to the extent that she had developed a great respect for classroom teachers
who can juggle their various responsibilities and the expectations placed upon them.
She reflected critically on her own teaching practices and working relationships with
colleagues, parents, administrators, and her students and realised the importance of
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 677

her advocacy on behalf of students. Another wrote that the course had been the most
rewarding subject ever taken. He stated that he believed that the students and families
with whom he worked had benefited as a direct result of study during the semester.
He said that he had made some substantial changes and the students’ families had been
so happy with the results they had gone to the principal and to the parent committee
to praise those who had worked with their children. He concluded that this had been
the most rewarding outcome; that the students had found their place within their class-
room and had a strong feeling of belonging.

Some concluding remarks

For me, the experience of that semester was enlightening and rewarding. I thoroughly
enjoyed the interactions with the teachers, albeit in a somewhat remote way via
emails. I was surprised when I began receiving positive comments from them after my
first set of interactions and I admit that these encouraged me to work even harder to
help them achieve their goals. Throughout the semester, I returned to the literature
about UDL and curriculum differentiation several times to find inspiration about ways
in which I could apply the principles to external postgraduate teaching. There are
some principles that I was never able to apply. For example, I do not believe that I
achieved a community of learners where students could interact with others via a
bulletin board, although there are certainly some student comments that indicated
connection with the course and with me.
Notwithstanding this, I believe that I addressed and achieved the fundamentals of
UDL:

● Student to control the method of accessing information that was equitable and
flexible
● Encouragement of students’ self-sufficiency that reduced the probability of error
● Knowledge and the facilitation of learning by supporting independence and
resource acquisition
● Removal of barriers to access rather than removal of challenges through a posi-
tive instructional environment
● Alternative means of gaining knowledge and essential concepts via flexible
delivery options
● Work units that accommodated levels of skill, preferences, and interests
● Alternative ways of expression mastery via assessment choice

There are some suggestions that I have incorporated in my recent teaching. For
example, I have prepared mini-lectures on selected topics to augment written material
and have worked on developing communities of learners through interactions that I
have encouraged between students.
There is much more I could report about students’ and my reaction to the course.
The final words, however, come from one teacher whose comments reflect the
achievement of the goals I established for the course and for myself at the beginning
of the semester. The student wrote about not being overly concerned about the final
mark. The important outcome was what had been gained from the course via the
support and feedback, my prompt responses to questions, and the flexible approach to
the course that facilitated personal reflection about teaching practices and led to
improved learning outcomes for school students.
678 A. Ashman

Notes on contributor
Adrian Ashman is a professor in the School of Education at The University of Queensland. He
has been engaged in teaching and research in special needs education for over 30 years.

References
Algozzine, B., and K.M. Anderson. 2007. Differentiating instruction to include all students.
Preventing School Failure 51: 49–54.
Ashman, A. 2007. School and inclusive practices. In The teacher’s role in implementing coop-
erative learning in the classroom, ed. R.M. Gillies, A. Ashman, and J. Terwel, 163–83.
New York: Springer.
Australian Association of Special Education. 2004. Pre-service training. http://
www.aase.edu.au/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=59&Itemid=97
(accessed October 15, 2008).
Bauer, A.M., and S. Kroeger. 2004. Inclusive classrooms: Video cases on CD-ROM – Activity
and learning guide. Upper Saddle, NJ: Pearson.
Brown, K.S., L.A. Welsh, K.H. Hill, and J.P. Cipko. 2008. The efficacy of embedding special
education instruction in teacher preparation programs in the United States. Teaching and
Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies 24: 2087–94.
Center for Universal Design. 1997. Environments and products for all people. Raleigh: Center
for Universal Design, North Carolina State University. http://www.design.ncsuedu/cud/
univ_design/ud.htm (accessed January 30, 2004).
Cook, B., and M.I. Semmel. 1999. Peer acceptance of included students with disabilities as a
function of severity of disability and classroom composition. Journal of Special
Education 33: 50–61.
Curcic, S. 2009. Inclusion in PK-12: An international perspective. International Journal of
Inclusive Education 13: 517–38.
Curry, C., L. Cohen, and N. Lightbody. 2006. Universal design in science learning. The
Science Teacher 73: 32–7.
DeSimone, J.R., and R.S. Palmer. 2006. Middle school mathematics teachers’ beliefs about
inclusion of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice
21: 98–110.
Drudy, S., and W. Kinsella. 2009. Developing an inclusive system in a rapidly changing
European society. International Journal of Inclusive Education 13: 647–63.
Duffy, G.G. 1993. Teachers’ progress towards becoming expert strategy teachers. The
Elementary School Journal 94: 109–20.
Education and Training Committee. 2005. Step up, step in, step out: Report on the inquiry
into the suitability of pre-service teacher training in Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian
Government Printer.
Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References Committee. 2002. Education of
students with disabilities. Canberra: Commonwealth Government.
Englebrecht, P., M. Oswald, and C. Forlin. 2006. Promoting the implementation of inclusive
education in primary schools in South Africa. British Journal of Special Education 33:
121–53.
Forlin, C., and M.G.J. Lian. 2008. Reform, inclusion and teacher education: Towards a new
era of special and inclusive education in Asia-Pacific regions. Abingdon: Routledge.
Forlin, C., T. Loreman, U. Sharma, and C. Earle. 2009. Demographic differences in changing
pre-service teachers’ attitudes, sentiments and concerns about inclusive education. Inter-
national Journal of Inclusive Education 13: 195–209.
Furtado, M. 2005. The end of modernist approaches to school funding policy in Australia: A
new rationale for funding with inclusive implications for all Australian schools? Interna-
tional Journal of Inclusive Education 9: 431–48.
Gill, H., and G. Chalmers. 2007. Documenting diversity: An early portrait of a collaborative
teacher education initiative. International Journal of Inclusive Education 11: 551–70.
Guskey, T.R. 2003. The characteristics of effective professional development: A synthesis of
lists. Paper presented at the 84th annual meeting for the American Educational Research
Association, April, in Chicago, IL.
 International Journal of Inclusive Education 679

Hart, S. 1996. Differentiation and the secondary curriculum: Debates and dilemmas. New
York: Routledge.
Hodge, J., P.J. Riccomini, R. Buford, and M.H. Herbst. 2006. A review of instructional inter-
ventions in mathematics for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavior
Disorders 31: 297–311.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Vocation Training. 2007.
Top of the class: Report on the inquiry into teacher education. Canberra: Parliament of
the Commonwealth of Australia.
Ingvarson, L., L. Beavis, and E. Kleinhenz. 2004. Teacher education courses in Victoria:
Perceptions of their effectiveness and factors affecting their impact. Melbourne: Victorian
Institute of Teaching.
Johnston, K., and D. Hayes. 2007. Supporting student success at school through teacher
professional learning: The pedagogy of disrupting the default modes of schooling. Inter-
national Journal of Inclusive Education 11: 371–81.
Jorgensen, C.M., M.C. Schuh, and J. Nisbet. 2005. The inclusion facilitator’s guide. Balti-
more, MD: Brookes.
Kauffman, J.M., M.M. Gerber, and M.I. Semmel. 1988. Arguable assumptions underlying the
Regular Education Initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities 21: 6–12.
Kershner, R. 2007. What do teachers need to know about meeting special educational needs.
In The Sage handbook of special education, ed. L. Florian, 486–98. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Lewis, S.G., and K. Batts. 2005. How to implement differentiated instruction: Adjust, adjust,
adjust. Journal of Staff Development 26: 26–31.
Mace, R. 1998. Universal design in housing. Assistive Technology 10, no. 1: 18–21.
Maker, J. 1982. Curriculum development for the gifted. Rockville, MD: Aspen.
McGuire, J.M., S.S. Scott, and S.F. Shaw. 2006. Universal design and its application in
educational environments. Remedial and Special Education 27: 166–75.
Melekoglu, M.A., O. Cakiroglu, and K.W. Malmgren. 2009. Special education in Turkey.
International Journal of Inclusive Education 13: 287–98.
Munro, J. 2009. Education systems and services. In Education for inclusion and diversity, ed.
A. Ashman and J. Elkins, 93–122. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia.
Page, R., and L. Valli. 1990. Curriculum differentiation: Interpretive studies in U.S. second-
ary schools. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Pavri, S., and L. Monda-Amaya. 2001. Social support in inclusive schools: Student and
teacher perspectives. Exceptional Children 67: 391–411.
Petrou, A., P. Angelides, and J. Leigh. 2009. Beyond the difference: From the margins to
inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education 13: 439–48.
Rock, M.L., M. Gregg, E. Ellis, and R.A. Gable. 2008. REACH: A framework for differenti-
ating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure 52: 31–47.
Rose, D.H., and A. Meyer. 2002. Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal Design
for Learning. http://www.cast.org/teachingeverystudent/ideas/tes/ (accessed October 19,
2008).
Scott, S.S., J.M. McGuire, and S.F. Shaw. 2001. Principles for Universal Design for instruc-
tion. Storrs: Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability, University of Connecticut.
Scott, S.S., J.M. McGuire, and S.F. Shaw. 2003. Universal Design for Instruction: A new
paradigm for adult instruction in postsecondary education. Remedial and Special Educa-
tion 24: 369–79.
Stainback, S., W. Stainback, and B. Ayres. 1996. Schools as inclusive communities. In Contro-
versial issues confronting special education: Divergent perspectives, ed. W. Stainback and
S. Stainback, 31–43. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Starr, E.M., J.B. Foy, K.M. Cramer, and H. Singh. 2006. How are schools doing? Parental
perceptions of children with autism spectrum disorders, Down syndrome and learning
disabilities: A comparative analysis. Education and Training in Developmental Disabili-
ties 41: 315–32.
Timmons, V. 2006. Impact of a multipronged approach to inclusion: Having all partners on
side. International Journal of Inclusive Education 10: 469–80.
Tomlinson, C.A. 2001. How to differentiate instruction in mixed ability classrooms (2nd ed.).
Alexandra, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
680 A. Ashman

Tomlinson, C.A. 2003. Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and
tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curricu-
lum Development.
van Kraayenoord, C.E. 2007a. Universal Design for Learning and students with learning
disabilities. Paper presented at a Discussant for the Roundtable ‘Universal Design for
Learning and Students with Learning Disabilities’, International Academy for Research in
Learning Disabilities Conference, April, in Bled, Slovenia.
van Kraayenoord, C.E. 2007b. Universal Design for Learning: Key ideas and applications to
planning. Workshop presented at the Australian Government Quality Teacher Program
2007, Planning for All Learners Project, Independent Schools Queensland, April, in
Brisbane, Queensland.
VanTassel-Baska, J. 1998. Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners. Denver, CO:
Love Publishing.
Wu, C.C., and L. Komesaroff. 2007. An emperor with no clothes? Inclusive education in
Victoria. Australasian Journal of Special Education 31: 129–37.
Copyright of International Journal of Inclusive Education is the property of Routledge and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.