Incorporating Inclusive Practices into Classroom Practice in the TAS

Discipline

Backed up by overwhelming evidence of success, the present policy for educating students who have
disabilities or other additional needs within Australian High Schools is to include them in mainstream
classrooms as often as possible and have them engage with mainstream curriculum to the greatest
degree possible (Edyburn, 2010, Keane, et al, 2012, Loreman 2007, McGuire, et al, 2006). This is
explicitly required by the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (BOSTES, 2014). Hence, the
job of a classroom teacher is somewhat changed. How then does a teacher accordingly adjust their
classroom practice in a manner which can be classified as “inclusive?” The answer lies in the
incorporation of principles of Universal Design for Learning as a core element of pedagogy and a
sensitive but rigorous approach to general practices of inclusive education. In the TAS (Technological
and Applied Studies) discipline, with the use of tools and workshop equipment being a core element
of the curriculum experience (Board of Studies, 2003, Board of Studies, 2009), closer attention must
be paid to safety considerations when working with students with disabilities, especially some
students who have an Autism Spectrum Disorder (Henceforth “ASD”), exhibiting particular types of
symptoms. As such, the needs of students with an ASD in TAS classrooms will be discussed
specifically, in depth.

Evidence points to Universal Design as an effective approach to the creation of a learning

environment which fulfils the needs of all students in mainstream education, including those with
disabilities and additional needs (Edyburn, 2010, McGuire, et al, 2006). Universal Design is a concept
borrowed, perhaps surprisingly, from architecture. In architecture, Universal Design includes
accommodations for disabilities as part of the original design, allowing it to be fully integrated in a
manner which is not at odds with the “flow” of the design and doesn’t appear to be an
“afterthought” (Edyburn, 2010, McGuire, et al, 2006). These adjustments tend to be beneficial for all
users, not only the individuals with disabilities they were aimed at. The go-to example of an element
of Universal Design is the humble curb cut (Edyburn, 2010, McGuire, et al, 2006); the point in the
gutter that is cut out to become a ramp where pedestrians are expected to cross the road. Curb cuts
are “useful for wheelchair users, but also accessed by individuals on skateboards, parents pushing
baby strollers, etc.” (McGuire, et al, 2006, 167-168). This is exemplary of the notion that Universal
Design can be beneficial for all. The methodology of Universal Design has been extrapolated to be
applied in an educational setting, wherein pedagogy embraces the principles and practices of
Universal Design, to the benefit of the full spectrum of learners within the classroom (Edyburn,
2010, McGuire, et al, 2006). “Curb cut(s)” is a convenient poetic pronoun for adjustments and
accommodations made in the classroom environment which have been created using Universal
Design principles (a metaphor).

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is a condition which causes the subject to experience difficulties
interpreting social prompts such as body language and facial expressions. The subject also lacks
some of the innate understanding of what is generally appropriate behaviour in social situations
enjoyed by people without an ASD. In the words of Boutot (2007):
Children with ASD may have difficulty reading social cues; initiating, sustaining, or terminating a
conversation; or behaving appropriately with peers. Further, many children with ASD have a
restricted repertoire of interests or behaviors (sic) that limits interaction with same-aged peers.
(Boutot, 2007, 156).

Boutot then goes on to discuss how the forging of friendships is of equal importance compared to
academic success for students with an ASD, in order to have a fulfilling and worthwhile schooling
experience, but is also a benefit to students’ academic success (Boutot, 2007). Whilst this is not an
immediately obvious consideration for the implementation of classroom practices which
accommodate the full spectrum of learners, it does highlight the importance of a feeling of
belonging within the class group for students with an ASD, a necessity identified by several more
studies than just Boutot’s as being important not only for a student’s own wellbeing, but is also
identified as highly beneficial to their academic achievement:
Positive relationships with peers were found to be a significant enabling feature of successful inclusive
experiences for students with ASD. Specifically, friendships were seen as enablers by adolescents with
ASD, in that they provided support and had a positive impact on their experiences of school. (Saggers,
2015, 38).

Boutot (2007), Keane, et al (2012) and Saggers (2015) all laud the building of positive relationships
within a learning environment where students feel that they belong and are appreciated by their
peers and their teacher, as a strong foundation on which to build classroom practice which meets
the needs of students with ASDs. No stretch of the imagination is required to see that the same is
true for the average student, in keeping with the tenets of Universal Design. As such, fostering such
relationships and an environment in which students can build positive interrelationships should be
considered an integral part of a teacher’s classroom practice. The question remains; how is this to be
achieved? A whole body of research exists on this subject; a pedagogical strategy exists by which the
teaching of social emotional skills is embedded in classroom practice (Arum, 2011, Dutton Tillery, et
al, 2013, Fenty, et al, 2008, Roache and Lewis, 2011). The development of positive relationships
between students and teachers and the teaching of social emotional skills has been shown to ease
behaviour management in and out of the classroom and benefit students academically (Arum, 2011,
Roache and Lewis, 2011). Strategies for the fostering of positive relationships with learners include
many straightforward approaches, such as treating reprimands for behaviour infringements as
opportunities for “coaching” – advising the student in question about how they perhaps should have
carried themselves instead, and teaching self-regulation – rather than as a proverbial “rap on the
knuckles.” (Roache and Lewis, 2011). Although explicit straightforward strategies such as this one
are difficult to apply to something as fluid and complex as student – teacher relationships, the
overall strategy of fostering warm and caring relationships is straightforward if a common sense
approach is adopted. Practices such as this are expected of teachers by way of the Australian
Professional Standards for Teachers with standards such as the very first standard in the list, coming
before any academic considerations; “1. Know students and how they learn: 1.1 Physical, social and
intellectual development and characteristics of students” (BOSTES, 2014).

Studies find that “the noisy, bustling and chaotic environment of secondary school” (Saggers, 2015,
40) triggers heightened levels of anxiety and stress among students with ASDs. As such, the often
noisy and potentially dangerous workshop environment of a TAS learning space may not initially
seem to be the kind of space suitable for a student with an ASD to be learning in, among mainstream
students. This is a concern, however the arrangement has to be made to function properly. Research
shows that transitioning students with ASDs into mainstream classrooms out of non – mainstream
educational settings is most successful if the students in question are eased into the transition and
guided throughout the process (Keane, et al, 2012). Similarly, the classroom teacher’s practice may
benefit from giving warning before holding potentially noisy practical lessons – simply by informing
the class at the close of the lesson beforehand. The “chaos” of a practical lesson in which every
student works on their own projects can simply be alleviated, somewhat, by putting systems and
rules in place by which the likelihood of arguments between students over materials or tools are less
likely to occur and by which the “hustle and bustle” of such a workshop environment becomes more
orderly. In the spirit of maintaining positive reciprocal relationships with the class, as previously
discussed, these rules and systems can be agreed upon as a whole class, rather than simply imposed
by the teacher. Once again, the tenets of Universal Design for Learning are proven here, because
there is not a single thing about this approach which would not be beneficial for the whole body of
learners in a mainstream classroom including, potentially, other learners with additional needs aside
from the student/s with an ASD in question here.

Behaviours associated with ASD can include compulsive and occasionally self - harming behaviours,
for example; hand flapping and head banging, respectively (Boutot, 2007, 158, 159). Such behaviours
are disruptive in a mainstream classroom and have the potential to become dangerous in the
workshop environment of a TAS learning space. Teachers must write risk assessments if necessary
and if an actual safety concern is identified, the student in question might have to participate in a
modified program, but the aim of the exercise remains to include them in the mainstream class and
have them engage with the mainstream curriculum to the greatest degree safely possible. Short of
such extenuating circumstances, however, it is up to the teacher to assist the student/s in question
to control or mitigate potentially disruptive behaviours as instructed by the student’s Individual
Education Plan – a document set out in collaboration between the student, their parents, and school
representatives such as the Principal and the Head of Learning Support, outlining how the student is
to be included in mainstream classes, how behaviours particular to the student in question are to be
handled, how much the student is to self – manage these, whether the student is to engage with the
mainstream curriculum entirely or with some modifications, et cetera (Department of Education and
Training, 2005, Ruddock, 2005). If a teacher feels that the guidelines in the Individual Education Plan
are inappropriate for whatever reason, they must continue to adhere to them in the classroom and
challenge them only through the proper channels. Obviously, this could be problematic for the
continuing implementation of what the teacher feels are appropriate measures in their classroom
but this is an issue which must be overcome on a case by case basis.

Teachers need also be aware of the value of such gratuities as learning support teachers. Teachers
would do well to remember to draw upon the expertise of learning support teachers, both in general
and when they are assigned to their classes. Keane, et al (2012) asserts that the most successful
transitions of students with an ASD from “satellite classes” to mainstream classes occurred when;
“there was an ongoing exchange of information and support between the satellite class teachers and
the mainstream class teachers” (Keane, et al, 2012, 1010). However, Saggers (2015) warns that:
“Although students appreciated support given by specialists… they wanted any additional support to
be done subtly and skilfully, especially in the mainstream classroom.” (Saggers, 2015, 41).

The students in this study wanted additional support to be invisible to their peers so they weren’t
singled out as being different (Saggers, 2015). This brings us full circle to Boutot’s (2007) observation
that “fitting in” is of paramount importance to students with ASDs.

As with many aspects of teaching practice, there is no single answer to how inclusive pedagogy can
be achieved within the classroom. We have explored here some strategies for inclusive practices
within the TAS discipline, with particular attention to students with ASDs. While adopting
pedagogical practices which treat the issue in a sensitive yet rigorous fashion is a complex matter,
we have here discussed a variety of straightforward strategies backed up by existing research which
can hopefully help build a strong foundation that, with experience, may support a teaching practice
which strives to become, as far as possible, truly inclusive.
Bibliography

Arum, Richard. (2011). Improve Relationships to Improve Student Performance. Kappan Magazine
October 2011, 8-13.

Board of Studies (2003). Design and Technology: Years 7-10 Syllabus. Sydney. Board of Studies NSW.
Retrieved from: http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_sc/design-technology.html

Board of Studies NSW. (2009). Design and Technology Stage 6 Syllabus. Sydney. Board of Studies
NSW. Retrieved from: http://www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/syllabus_hsc/pdf_doc/design-
technology-st6-syl.pdf

BOSTES. (2014). Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Sydney, NSW, Australia. Retrieved
from: www.nswteachers.nsw.edu.au/DownloadDocument.ashx?DocumentID=1122

Boutot, Amanda. (2007). Fitting In: Tips for Promoting Acceptance and Friendships for Students With
Autism Spectrum Disorders in Inclusive Classrooms. Australia. Intervention in School and Clinic 2007
42: 156-161.

Department of Education and Training. (2005). Planning for Personalised Learning and Support: A
National Resource. Australia. Creative Commons. Retrieved from:
https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/planningforpersonalisedlearningandsupportn
ationalresource.pdf

Dutton Tillery, Amy, Varjas, Kris, Roach, Andrew T, Kuperminc, Gabriel P, Meyers, Joel. (2013). The
Importance of Adult Connections in Adolescents’ Sense of School Belonging: Implications for Schools
and Practitioners. Journal of School Violence, 12: 2013, 134–155.

Edyburn, Dave L. (2010). WOULD YOU RECOGNIZE UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING IF YOU SAW
IT? TEN PROPOSITIONS FOR NEW DIRECTIONS FOR THE SECOND DECADE OF UDL. Milwaukee.
Learning Disability Quarterly. Volume 33, Winter 2010, 33-41.

Fenty, Nicole S, Miller, Melissa A, Lampi, Andrea. (2008). Embed Social Skills Instruction in Inclusive
Settings. Intervention in School and Clinic, Vol. 43, No. 3, January 2008, 186-192.

Keane, Elaine, Aldridge, Fiona Jane, Costley, Debra and Clark, Trevor. Students with autism in regular
classes: a longterm follow-up study of a satellite class transition model. Australia. International
Journal of Inclusive Education. 16:10, 1001-1017.

Loreman, Tim. 2007. Seven Pillars of Support for Inclusive Education. International Journal of Whole
Schooling, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2007, 22-38.

McGuire, Joan M, Scott, Sally S and Shaw, Stan F. (2006) Universal Design and Its Applications in
Educational Environments. Connecticut. Remedial and Special Education, Volume 27, Number 3,
May/June 2006, 166-175.

Roache, Joel Edmund and Lewis, Ramon. The carrot, the stick, or the relationship: what are the
effective disciplinary strategies? (2011). Melbourne. European Journal of Teacher Education Vol. 34,
No. 2, May 2011, 233–248.

Ruddock, Philip. (2005). Disability Standards for Education. Australia. Federal Register of Legislative
Instruments. Retrieved from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2005L00767
Saggers, Beth. (2015). Student perceptions: Improving the educational experiences of high school
students on the autism spectrum. Queensland. Improving Schools, 2015, Vol. 18(1) 35–45.