Exploring principles
Universal design for learning:
Re-establishing differentiation as
part of the inclusion agenda?
MIKE BLAMIRES
So, Mr. MChoakumchild began in his best manner. He
and some one hundred and forty other schoolmasters,
had been lately turned at the same time, in the same
factory, on the same principles, like so many pianoforte
legs. He had been put through an immense variety of paces,
and had answered volumes of head breaking questions.
Orthography, etymology, syntax and prosody, biography,
astronomy, geography, and general cosmography, the
sciences of compound proportion, algebra, land surveying
and levelling, vocal music, and drawing from models,
were all at the ends of his ten chilled fingers. He had
worked his stony way into Her Majestys most
Honourable Privy Councils Schedule B, and had taken
the bloom off the higher branches of mathematics and
physical science, French, German, Latin and Greek.
He knew all about the Water Sheds of all the world
(whatever they are) and all the histories of all the
peoples, and all the names of all the rivers and mountains,
and all the productions, manners, and customs of all the
countries, and all their boundaries and bearings on the
two-and-thirty points of the compass. Ah, rather overdone,
MChoakumchild. If he had only learnt a little less, how
infinitely better he might have taught much more!
He went to work in this preparatory lesson, not unlike
Morgiana in the Forty Thieves: looking into all the
vessels ranged before him, one after another, to see what
they contained. Say, good MChoakumchild. When
from thy boiling store, thou shalt fill each jar brim full
by-and-by, dost thou think that thou wilt always kill
outright the robber Fancy lurking within or sometimes
only maim him and distort him.
Charles Dickens, Hard Times
The above quotation suggests that a curriculum for initial
teacher education was in operation towards the end of the
last century. Dickenss criticism of a curriculum which was
overburdened with content at the expense of pedagogic
considerations will have many sympathisers today, not
least among advocates for inclusion. The problem of
158
ensuring that a common curriculum is relevant to a diversity
of learners is long-standing. The notion of entitlement to a
broad, balanced and relevant curriculum (Department of
Education and Science 1988) resulted in exhortations for
curriculum differentiation as a response to pupil diversity.
Peter (1992) noted that differentiation lacked focus as it
became a concept which lived up its definition and eventually
meant whatever the user wanted it to mean. Recent
developments in design (see, for example, Trace Research
and Development Centre 1998) may mean that differentiation
might be defined more formally by the adoption and
elaboration of universal design principles. These may then
be used to support inclusive practice within education,
provided that it can be agreed what inclusion is and when
it should occur.
What is inclusion?
The term inclusion has been contrasted with integration
(see, for example, Ainscow 1997). The latter has been
concerned with the physical placement of learners from
special schools to mainstream school and was often linked
to notions of readiness did the learner have the necessary
skills and attributes to literally fit into the mainstream
school? The former term is concerned with the acceptance
of diversity amongst the schools community.
Do mainstream teachers of the next century need to
develop new attitudes, understandings, skills and qualities
in order to teach the children in their schools community?
In other words, is inclusion an event or a process? This may
depend upon the degree of change that a school would face
in relation to inclusion. This would, in turn, depend upon a
number of factors. If a school already included all the
children from its community, then the degree of change
required may be less than for a school which had just begun
to do so. Obviously, a school which had no intention of
Support for Learning Vol. 14 No. 4 (1999)
NASEN 1999.
including an increasing diversity of its pupils would not
have to change the existing stock of knowledge amongst its
staff and school. To apply Vygotskys (1978) concept, this
would depend upon whether or not inclusion was a
proximal or distal zone of development for the school
(figure 1).
Point for discussion:
If you had a control panel controlling inclusion
within your school, would it be a binary switch or
an analogue control?
Inclusion less more
Exclusion
Figure 1
For some learners, inclusion has been experienced as
something that has suddenly been switched off or on but
this usually has been a result of the lack of school will or
expertise in accommodating the child and others with
similar needs. Pearpoint, Forrest and Snow (1993) state
that inclusion is all or nothing, like being pregnant. It is
unusual for inclusion advocates to adopt medical models
or analogies and it is ironic that the analogy does not
hold.
Where school systems are based upon an expectation of
homogeneity rather than diversity, inclusion may be rather
akin to the Piagetian processes of assimilation rather
than accommodation, with similar experiences (familiar
learners) being assimilated into existing structures but new
experiences (different learners) not being accommodated
through the creation of new or the elaboration of existing
structures. When schools fail to recognise diversity in
this way, special educational needs may not warrant due
consideration.
The model shown in figure 2 results from discussions
with my colleagues Peter Dorman and Myra Tingle and
builds upon the continuum of provision recognised in
the Warnock Report (Department of Education and
Science 1978), and the Code of Practice on the
Identification and Assessment of Special Educational
Needs (Department for Education 1994). The lines
represent the different degrees of inclusion that an
individual may have as a result of all the three parameters.
For example:
Enabling Social Inclusion
Enabling Physical Inclusion Enabling Cognitive Inclusion
Figure 2: Extending horizons: a developmental model of
inclusion
Support for Learning Vol. 14 No. 4 (1999)
NASEN 1999.
A learner may be cognitively engaged in every lesson
she attends through her use of a laptop but she may have no
social involvement with the class or the life of the school.
A learner may attend a variety of social activities and
lessons in the school but not be included the teaching
and learning activities.
A learner might attend a local school but his social and
cognitive needs are not recognised or catered for.
A learner may not attend his local college but is engaged
in learning and social activities with tutors and peers via
mail, speech and video who form a virtual community
(but who are we to say this virtual community is not real?).
Each dimension of inclusion within the above figure may
result from the following the very tentative equation:
Inclusion = Access + Engagement
Inclusion can also be considered from an amelioration
standpoint in which the exclusivity of group composition is
questioned and the exclusion of an individual from a
group is minimised. The responsibility for the quality and
appropriateness of engagement of each member of a group
within an activity might also lie within that group but might
be shared or located amongst its leadership. This emphasises
the importance of peer interaction in supporting inclusion,
as noted by Allen (1999).
Points for consideration: To what extent are peers a
barrier or resource for inclusion?
From this model, inclusion is concerned with access and
engagement at a physical, social and cognitive level with
ones peers in tasks that are at an appropriate level and
worthwhile. The increasing engagement with a menu of
learning opportunities (Moore 1992 ) that is, a response
to the needs and rights of a diversity of learners. Being
included means being part of a dynamic relationship rather
than in a fixed state of homogeneity and tradition:
Inclusive education is thus about responding to diversity,
it is about listening to unfamiliar voices, being open and
empowering all members. This is a demanding task
particularly where there are limited forms of communication
on the part of some children. But also that listening
requires us not to talk. Given that teachers spend a great
deal of the time talking, it is not going to be an easy task.
(Barton 1998)
This skill may be a key aspect of professional development
for inclusion. As such, it can be considered as part of a
process of change which requires flexibility of thought and
action.
Points for consideration: Framed in this manner,
inclusion is not just concerned with those deemed to have
difficulties in learning. What other groups may it apply to
and on whom does the onus for change fall?
159
Who benefits from its presence or absence?
There is a rhetoric in some parts of the educational system
for inclusion (see, for example, Stainback and Stainback
1992, Ainscow 1997) as well as a pragmatic impetus for its
implementation (Thomas, Walker and Webb 1998), but
there are unequal forces operating against inclusion or the
quality of inclusion, poor quality inclusion being described
as maindumping rather than mainstreaming by Stainback
and Stainback (1990). Lack of clarity as to the purpose and
practice of inclusion has been attributed to a paucity of
theoretical underpinnings as suggested by Clarke, Dyson
and Millward (1998). This lack of a theoretical framework
can hinder the evaluation of inclusive practice.
Points for consideration: How can the degree and quality
of inclusion be measured? What are the indices of
inclusion?
School improvement and the effective school
Within his consideration of effective schools for all,
Ainscow (1991) emphasises the importance of two factors
that are central to inclusive practices: the opportunity to
consider new possibilities and the availability of support
for experimentation. But such experimentation needs the
checks and balances that arise from the views and expertise
of all the stakeholders being taken into account if institutional
effectiveness for all is not to become the tyranny of the
majority. In the context of competitive schools, the
rhetoric and practice of school improvement and zero
tolerance of non-conformity have often resulted in exclusion
as cognitive/academic aims are emphasised the at the
expense of aesthetic or vocational aims (see, for example,
Armstrong 1995).
However, the challenge is for schools to improve and
become more effective at the same time as they become
more inclusive. This involves:
students having a stake in the learning and its outcomes;
being engaged in tasks that are perceived as being
worthwhile by the people involved;
having high expectations which do not lead to self
percepts of being a failure.
Inclusion and individual rights: A two-edged sword
The above process may be supported by the slow and slight
trend away from needs, which might or might not be
addressed towards, recognising the rights of future citizens
as reflected in the following documents:
The English and Welsh National Curriculum (1998)
which included The entitlement to access a curriculum
which includes the national curriculum and which is
broad, balance and relevant
The Salamanca Statement (UNESCO 1994)
160
Education should occur in the Least Restrictive
Environment (IDEA 1994)
Articles 23 and 29 of the UN Convention on the Rights
of the Child (1989)
Within this context, inclusion is process characterised by
evolution rather than revolution, building upon existing
knowledge and experience. The subliminal message from
some advocates of inclusion might be forget the past and
create the future. We need to be wary of losing established
critical frameworks or we might be approaching Year
Zero, not the next millennium.
Points for consideration: To what extent does an individual
have a right not to be educated alongside their peers?
Does this depend upon who your peer is and who should
be your mentor?
What is the professional stock of knowledge that
underpins inclusive practice? Arguments against
increased professionalism with special educational
needs
Some, such as Thomas, Walker and Webb (1998), have
argued that special needs expertise has been complicity
employed to segregate learners with special needs and
deskill mainstream teachers: experts and professionals
have in the past promoted the idea that only those with
special qualifications are equipped to assess, teach and make
decisions about children significantly different from others.
The key phrase in the quotation above should be in the
past. The Teacher Training Agency (TTA 1998b) have
recently proposed standards for specialist special needs
teachers. A key outcome of their requirements includes:
SEN Specialists who are involved in the formulation of
strategies to increase inclusiveness in mainstream schooling.
Thomas, Walker and Webb (1998) further argue that
mainstream teachers need to feel confident that they can
teach learners with special needs and go on to suggest that
one of the principles for successful inclusive schools is:
de-professionalisation: an inclusive school is one where
there is an assumption amongst staff (shared by students)
that all staff share in the contribution they make to childrens
learning.
However, their use of de-professionalisation as a name for
this process is also deskilling, as well as misleading, and
gives credence to the practice where the least skilled person
in a school (the teaching assistant or learning support
assistant) ends up attempting to meet the needs or minding
the learner with the most complex needs. They may be
actually referring to the blurring of educational demarcations
within an institution, a limited empowerment of all staff
without qualified teacher status. The thrust of this article
contradicts this and suggests that inclusion requires more
professional skills amongst all staff, not less, as well as
ongoing professional development.
Support for Learning Vol. 14 No. 4 (1999)
NASEN 1999.
 Points for consideration: To what extent do you agree
with the argument proposed by Thomas, Walker and
Webb (1998) that the expectation of the requirement for
increased skills militates against inclusion?
Inclusion requires innovative thinking
Hart (1996) has proposed a method of innovative thinking
which may be employed to avoid the attribution of deficits
to a child so that the teacher can act positively to include
a learner within classroom activities. She suggests the
following.
Five questioning moves help us to move beyond what we
already think and know about the situation by probing
what has not so far been examined within our existing
thinking about the situation
Making connections: This move involves exploring how
the specific characteristics of the childs response might
be linked to features of the immediate and wider context.
We ask ourselves: What might be helping to produce
this response?
Contradicting: This move involves teasing out the
underlying norms and assumptions that lead us to perceive
the childs response as problematic. It asks, how else
might this response be understood? It seeks to uncover
the norms and assumptions underlying a judgement, so
that these can be reviewed and evaluated.
Taking a childs eye view: This move involves trying to
enter the childs frame of reference and see the meaning
and logic of the childs response from the childs
perspective. It asks, what meaning and purpose does
this activity have for the child?
Noting the impact of feelings: This move involves
examining the part that our own feelings are playing in
the meaning we bestow on the situation and in leading
us to arrive at a particular interpretation. It asks, how do
I feel about this? and What do these feelings tell me
about what is going on here?
Suspending judgement: This move involves recognising
that we may lack information or resources to have
confidence in our judgements and therefore holding
back from making judgements about the childs
needs while we take the steps to add to our
resources.
This approach is rather like one that a parental advocate
might adopt in a meeting to discuss a learners individual
education plan. If it is not to take on the solipsism of
Schons (1983) model of the Reflective Practitioner,
accountable only to his own conscience, then other
voices need to be heard and responded to. The five
questions provide us with a framework for listening to the
voices we need to take into account. They may be good
questions to ask but one person is unlikely to be able to
answer them. Perhaps they are the questions implicit in the
procedures of an inclusive school and ones that a revised
Code of Practice should raise with individual education
planning.
Support for Learning Vol. 14 No. 4 (1999)
NASEN 1999.
Points for consideration: To what extent is such an
approach relevant to a classroom teacher working within
the mainstream? Can it be adopted by teacher educators
to support novice teachers?
What opportunities are afforded for the next century?
Information communities
The advent of information communications technology
has created mechanisms for communication amongst
geographically or temporally distant individuals who share
a common concern or interest. Examples in the UK are the
forum for SEN co-ordinators and the SENIT discussion group
for advisors/trainers in the field of enabling technology.
Universal Design Principles
Universal Design Principles are well established for
buildings and technology devices such as mobile phones
and hi-fi equipment. A full account of these principles is
beyond the scope of this article (see the Trace Research
and Development Centre web site) but they are an
acknowledgement that facilities within our communities
should be not only be accessed, but engaged with successfully
by the majority of the community. By utilising these
principles within education, we may be able to move
beyond the exhortation to include different learners to find
ways to engage them within worthwhile learning activities
alongside their peers.
The Centre for Augmentative and Special Technology
(CAST 1998) have proposed three principles of Universal
Design for Learning which can be applied to curriculum
and set a working agenda for inclusion. They take
advantage of the fact that the Internet enables many
people with a common interest to work together and share
perspectives and resources despite being thousands of
miles apart. It also builds upon the world wide webs
design principle that content should not be bound up in
structure. Many individuals can work together sharing and
benefiting from their work with common resources. This
means that a publication can be dynamic interaction
between user and creator so that the user has some control
over how it can be used.
Principle 1: Provide multiple representations of content
Key information is represented in alternative modalities
textual, visual or auditory. Unlike the printed page,
computers can present information in multiple media
formats. Using electronic media, pages, content and structure
are not locked together and unchangeable. Resources
across the Internet can combined in many different ways for
different learning needs to become part of a commonwealth
for learning.
CAST note that some content cannot truly cross from one
modality to another without loss of meaning for example,
161
a painting, poem or music. Therefore, it is important to
consider the purpose of the learning task and the learner
characteristics if compromises have to be made. A picture
may be worth a thousand words but the right word may
evoke a thousand pictures. Because learners have more
ways of representing their understanding, teachers will also
have more information about their learning: Computer
hardware and software often provide tools for both teachers
and students to facilitate and strengthen cognitive and
metacognitive strategies (Sitko and Sitko 1996).
As a result of work using Logo with children with a variety
of learning difficulties, Weir (1987) suggested that it was
possible to examine the childs learning strategies and
understanding. She argued that this resulted from the way
they worked and that what they produced could be seen on
the screen. Weir (1987), like many Logo researchers (such
as Lawler 1985), was able to work on an infrequent
basis with individual children for substantial periods of
time. It might be that technology might not have been the
significant factor which facilitated her investigation of
learning needs. However, the application of microworlds such
as Logo and My World have enriched the ways in which
learners have been able to communicate their understanding
of curriculum. Instead of using verbal language or written
text, a learner can now build representations of his or her
understanding with a variety of means which can be readily
be changed and re-presented.
Principle 2: Provide multiple options for expression and
control
The dominant mode of expression on web pages has been
through the production of text, but there has been a move
towards the use of multimedia authoring, which encompasses
artwork, photography, drama, music, voice recording and
animation, because they can be stored digitally and
manipulated. This convergence of digital media facilitates
different ways for learners to explore and build understandings
and then demonstrate what they have learnt through
publication.
In addition, differences in students ability to use different
kinds of tools mean that a wide range of ways of using the
computer have to be considered. Many current curriculum-based
activities are locked into one method of expression and control.
This is probably a result of the limitations of systems of
assessment as well as an artefact of available technology,
e.g. Write a story (when you only have pencil and paper)
rather than Create narrative (when you have more resources).
The problem of generalisation and transfer
When learners with special needs first used computers, the
emphasis was on the need to encourage transfer and
generalisation (Hope 1986). It was as if any achievement of
a child with special needs using a computer was in doubt
until they could achieve the same feat with more prevalent
162
technology such as pen and paper. For example, Keane
(1986) stated that There is the need to show that the
skills learned together on the word-processor are in fact
transferable to the realm of everyday writing. In 1986
word-processing was not part of everyday writing.
Technology was then at the at the margins of education but
we argue that it has since earned it place as a powerful tool
for inclusion and participation in society.
Within the principle of multiple forms of expression, the
problem of generalisation and transfer is a problem of
metacognition. What has the learner actually learned about
applying the rules and concepts she has used? Does she have
a framework for applying this knowledge to other problems
presented in different ways? Transfer and generalisation are
about proving you can carry out a task in a range of media
and contexts. We need to be aware of the assumptions
which prefer one context and modality over another.
With appropriate technology I can get across the
Atlantic in twelve hours. Honestly, it isnt cheating to
use a jumbo jet. But please do not ask me to generalise
the achievement using a rowing boat!
Do we expect some of our students to achieve similar
unrealistic feats?
Principle 3: Provide multiple options for engagement and
motivation
This acknowledges the diversity of backgrounds, hopes and
purposes of learners. That learning has an important
emotional component. Learners need to feel safe and
confident in their ability to respond to the challenges
presented to them:
For any given student, teachers need to be able to provide
content that is interesting; an appropriate level of
challenge; appropriate supports and scaffolds that can be
withdrawn as skill improves; timely, personally relevant
feedback so that the student can observe progress and make
adjustments; options for learning context (e.g. exploratory
versus structured, individual versus collaborative;
real-life versus fictional); and a clear purpose for
learning. (CAST 1998)
Without the flexibility resulting from innovative use of
technology and innovative thinking, this may not be possible.
The TTA (1998b) has suggested a set of standards for SEN
co-ordinators in schools which, in turn, has implications for
the role of teachers:
Teachers who are familiar with and support the schools
SEN policy and approaches to meeting the needs of pupils
with SEN: identify pupils who may require special
provision and prepare individual education plans as
appropriate; communicate effectively with the SENCo
and all other staff with responsibilities for special
Support for Learning Vol. 14 No. 4 (1999)
NASEN 1999.
 educational needs, including those from external agencies;
have high expectations of pupils progress, set realistic
but challenging targets, provide appropriate support,
recognise and reward success and foster pupils self-esteem
and training confidence; organise their teaching in a way
which recognises that their pupils have a range of needs,
and provide different tasks, support and resources as
appropriate; draw on a range of teaching skills and
strategies to meet the varied needs of the their pupils,
including those with behavioural difficulties; make
effective use of information technology to aid learning
and participate in a range of training opportunities.
Building inclusive systems
Such skills may be developed as a result of a consideration
of Universal Design Principles in relation to the following
questions:
1 The landscape of need and the territory of inclusion
How well do we know the diversity within our educational
community?
What are the implicit or explicit boundaries of our
educational territory?
Do these boundaries need elaboration to foster inclusion?
How should these be elaborated and who should be
involved?
2 The indices of inclusion
What counts as quantity and quality of evidence for inclusion?
How can this be gauged?
3 Engagement in interactivities which foster:
the elaboration of meaning through a quality engagement
in authentic learning tasks,
giving and sharing moral perspectives,
giving and expecting due consideration,
shared cultural events.
The versatile school
Could the versatile school be the sum of all the opportunities
for education that are available to a community rather than
a specific part of the day or place? This would result in
groupings that vary in size according to their function.
These groups would form periodically for different activities
and varying duration according to need. Differentiation
could then be central to inclusive practice. This leads to a
consideration of how we map the landscape of inclusive
educational practice which will be central to the emerging
research agenda of staff and students within our Special
Needs Research and Development Group.
Support for Learning Vol. 14 No. 4 (1999)
NASEN 1999.
References
AINSCOW, M. (ed.) (1991) Effective Schools for All. London: David Fulton.
AINSCOW, M. (1997) Towards inclusive schooling. British Journal of
Special Education, 24, 36.
ALLEN, J. (1999) Actively Seeking Inclusion: Pupils with special needs
in mainstream schools. London: Falmer Press.
ARMSTRONG, D. (1995) Power, Partnership and Education: Parents,
children and special educational needs. London: Routledge.
BARTON, L. (1998) Markets, managerialism and inclusive education. In
P. Clough (ed.), Managing Inclusive Education: From policy to
experience. London: Paul Chapman.
CENTRE FOR AUGMENTIVE AND SPECIAL TECHNOLOGY
(1998) Universal Design Education Project.
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uplan/UDEPweb/MainUDEP.html
CLARKE, C., DYSON, A. and MILLWARD, A. (1998) Theorising
Special Education. London: Routledge.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1978) Special
Educational Needs (The Warnock Report). London: HMSO.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1988) The National
Curriculum. London: HMSO.
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION (1994) Code of Practice on the
Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs. London:
HMSO.
HART, S. (1996) Beyond Special Needs: Enhancing childrens learning
through innovative thinking. London: Paul Chapman.
HOPE, M. (1986) The Magic of the Micro: A resource for children with
learning difficulties. London: C.E.T.
KEANE, P. (1986) Writing: A group and a computer. In M. Hope (ed),
The Magic of the Micro: A resource for children with learning
difficuties. London: C.E.T.
LAWLER, R. W. (1985) Computer Experience and Cognitive Development:
A childs learning in a computer culture. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
MOORE, J. (1992) Good planning is the key. British Journal of Special
Education, 19, 1.
PEARPOINT, J., FOREST, M. and SNOW, J. (1993) The Inclusion
Papers: Strategies to make inclusion work. Toronto: Inclusion Press.
PETER, M. (1992) Editorial. British Journal of Special Education, 19, 1619.
SCHON, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals
think in action. New York: Basic Books.
SITKO, M. C. and SITKO, C. J. (eds) (1996) Exceptional Solutions:
Computers and students with special needs. Ontario: The Althouse Press.
STAINBACK, S. and STAINBACK, W. (1990) Support Networks for Inclusive
Schooling: Interdependent Integrated Education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
TEACHER TRAINING AGENCY (1998a) National Standards for Special
Educational Needs (SEN) Specialist Teachers: Consultation. London: TTA.
TEACHER TRAINING AGENCY (1998b) National Standards for
Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators. London: TTA.
THOMAS, G., WALKER, D. and WEBB, J. (1998) The Making of the
Inclusive School. London: Routledge.
TRACE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTRE (1998)
Principles of Universal Design. www.trace.wisc.edu
UNESCO (1994) The Salamanca Statement and Framework on Special
Educational Needs. Paris: UNESCO.
UNITED NATIONS (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child. New
York: United Nations.
VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1978) Mind in Society: The development of higher
psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
WARNOCK, M. (1978) Special Educational Needs. London: HMSO.
WEIR, S. (1987) Cultivating Minds: A Logo case book. New York: Harper
Row.
Correspondence
Mike Blamires
Principal Lecturer
Special Needs Research & Development Group
Centre for Educational Research
Faculty of Education
Canterbury Christ Church University College
North Holmes Road
Canterbury
Kent CT1 1QU
163