Inclusive Education Assessment Two Liam Culhane 18361777

Harry Potter Year 8 – Universal Design for Learning Applied:

Learning Intention:
Students familiarize themselves PETAL paragraph structure while building a collection of Rowling’s literary techniques through close readings,
in preparation for their essay assessment.

UDL Legend:
Engagement
Representation
Expression

Materials

17 school laptops
Philosophers Stone
PETAL paragraph scaffold
PETAL Sentence Starters - Scaffold
Chapter 5 Close Reading Printout
Textas

Time Organisation Teaching/ learning activities

10mins Students Silent Reading Time:
access Students read Philosopher’s Stone - Settling Activity and necessary for upcoming assignment on the book.
Philosophers Can read using book or E-book.
Stone

15mins Textas and Chapter 5 Close Reading:

extracts

1
Inclusive Education Assessment Two Liam Culhane 18361777

shared out Teacher reads through extract, which is also displayed on the board using the projector. Students follow along with the
between reading, listening to the way sentences are read, and using their textas mark any words of phrases that the author uses
tables before to position Malfoy as an unlikable character to readers.
students These may include:
arrive a) They know to be a literary device or technique
b) They think may be a literary device/technique
Whiteboard c) Stand out - have an effect on them as the reader
markers Ask for student examples, using whiteboard markers to mimic their highlighting on the board. The teacher draws
Projector attention to the following in particular and using active questioning and examples prompts students to question how
these techniques make them feel:
*One - Dialogue
earphone - Juxtaposition
allowed - Italics
activity
15mins PETAL Wand Construction:
The following items are stuck to the board with their explanations, as visual steps for students to follow in addition to
verbal instruction:
- Giant Paddle Pop stick (the magical wand core) – choose one of your highlighted quotes from the reading you
find most interesting. Using your table textas, write this on your paddle pop stick.
- Colourful Origami paper (the wand wood) – Name the technique in this quote and its effect on readers which
we spoke about earlier. Wrap this around your paddle pop stick.

2
Inclusive Education Assessment Two Liam Culhane 18361777

- Post-It note (the spell) - How does this technique position Malfoy as an unlikable character to readers? What
does this say about him? Write one to two sentences on your post-it note.
- Pipe cleaners to connect spells to wands.
Using the physical wands, have students explain some of the examples they chose. Displaying the PETAL framework
on the board (scrolled down from the extract projection), ask students to try match the part of the wand with a part of
the PETAL framework.
- Giant Paddle Pop stick (the magical wand core) – Evidence
- Colourful Origami paper (the wand wood) –Technique
- Post-It note (the spell) – Analyse
- (refer students to the question – explain this is the Point)
15mins Teacher PETAL Writing:
moves around Using their PETAL wands, their PETAL Scaffolds on HAPARA, and the PETAL Sentence Starters Scaffold
class displayed on the board, students convert their wands into a PETAL paragraph to answer the question:
How does the author use language to position Malfoy as an unlikable character to readers?
PETAL
wands For early finishers:
Students copy and paste their PETAL lines into one paragraph underneath the scaffold, and support their one
PETAL technique/quote with another technique/quote.
Scaffolds
uploaded to Students show the teacher before leaving for recess.
HAPARA

3
Inclusive Education Assessment Two Liam Culhane 18361777

PETAL
Sentence
Starters
Scaffold
displayed on
the board

Homework

4
Inclusive Education Assessment Two Liam Culhane 18361777

Student’s Strengths and Areas of Need:

To understand this student’s learning needs and strengths, his educational context must first be explained. The student is a male of approximately

14 years of age, and a part of what his teacher referred to as “essentially a learning support” Year 8 class of seventeen students. Although in a

low-socioeconomic status public high school, the class was characterized by positive teacher-student and student-student relationships. This

particular student has a non-specified learning disability which intersected with additional welfare issues and his inclusion on a behaviour

management card system for avoidance of and refusal to work in addition to swearing at teachers. His placement on this behaviour card system

seemed to unintentionally recognize the manifestation of the student’s needs in three key areas: productivity, behaviour, and participation.

Productivity was the student’s main barrier to learning and positive relationships with other teachers. He remarked to me on numerous occasions

that he found work boring, that he didn’t like reading or writing, or that a cut on his hand sustained from skateboarding would prevent him from

writing fast. The reality is that this student was likely experiencing low self-efficacy when it came to learning as a result of his learning

disability. He did not believe in his capacity to attain teacher expectations, and consequently did not feel as though he was in control of his

learning (Karmvir, 2015). Additionally, the student was often off task, either zoned out or fidgeting. He frequently wore earphones in class,

which based on his behaviour card each day was a major point of contention with other teachers. These academic performance outcomes are in

line with characteristic learning disability academic difficulties in reading, writing, listening, speaking and reasoning, manifesting as the

unexplained disconnect between a person of average intelligence and their ability to receive, process, store and respond to information (Cen &

5
Inclusive Education Assessment Two Liam Culhane 18361777

Aytac, 2017; Karmvir, 2015). His work avoidance and refusal were less about poor attitude or laziness as interpreted by other teachers, but rather

the consequence of a lack of responsiveness in instructional variables to the multiplicity of factors influencing this student’s engagement needs

(Florian & Linklater, 2010; McLeskey & Waldron, 2011). The student’s fidgeting and earphone use suggests a need for sensory engagement. As

an adolescent male, the student required more of a physical and sensory outlet in learning that was experiential due to the adolescent male

brain’s preference for spatial mechanical functioning (Bonomo, 2010). Secondly, music and the earphones clearly served as a comforting device

for the student which could be utilised to increase teacher-student relationships and productivity. A teacher-facilitated ‘chalk and talk’ approach

clearly did work with this student, who needed to be engaged. Therefore, a student-responsive pedagogy required shortened task lengths, defined

by modelling and guided scaffolding alongside varied and repeated explicit instruction to support the student in formulating and expressing their

ideas and developing their own self-regulation (Boyle & Topping, 2012; Bunning, Muggerridge & Voke, 2018; McLeskey &Waldron, 1998;

McLeskey & Waldron, 2011).

Interestingly, when Chromebooks (laptops) were used to complete tasks and writing the student was more inclined to be productive, especially

when it came to reading content. Yet, the structure of the lesson still inhibited technology use from being an authentic strength. Additionally,

providing students with learning disabilities time to process before responding to questions is vital to their learning and a positive relationship

between student and teacher, as demanding quick responses from a male adolescent with processing and expression difficulties will certainly

result in confrontation (Bonomo, 2010). The student demonstrated on multiple occasions a surprising learning strength in his willingness to

6
Inclusive Education Assessment Two Liam Culhane 18361777

contribute and fuel class discussion, often with perceptive questions, because he had time to consider his position. However, the ramifications of

his negative outbursts which stem from frustration are damaging to the fulfilment of the student’s social needs, as students with learning

disabilities already experience feelings of isolation and can struggle to express emotion and initiate interactions (Boyle & Topping, 2012; Cen &

Aytac, 2017; Threlfall & Delaney, 2013). This is exemplified by the student’s preferred solitary working style, and his choice to sit alone in

class, with earphones on when arriving in class – suggesting this is how he walks around. Therefore, fostering positive social participation and

recognition that is respectful of his learning style is vital to this student’s wellbeing. It must be noted that the following adjustment justifications

are imbued with the Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, features and tools, which are dedicated to the accessibility of learning to

all students without need for retrofitting or differentiation (Boyle & Topping, 2012). Therefore, while these accommodations are made with our

student in mind, they serve to make knowledge and understanding accessible to all seventeen students in this class.

7
Inclusive Education Assessment Two Liam Culhane 18361777

Justification of Approaches Taken:

As a student with a learning disability, the student’s chief struggle is the disconnect in ability to receive, process, store and respond to

information (Cen & Aytac, 2017; Karmvir, 2015). The subsequent frustration and isolation the student feels in class is likely directly linked to

his confrontational behaviour with teachers, which manifests in his avoidance of and refusal to work (Boyle & Topping, 2012). Therefore,

making instructional design and delivery accessible was vital to a UDL-based adjustment.. Karmvir (2015) and McLeskey and Waldron (2011)

emphasise that students with processing and expression difficulties require high-quality, intensive instruction with targeted focus in each lesson,

while Boyle and Topping (2012) highlight that this instruction should be explicit and systematic. Influenced by UDL’s focus on multiple models

of representation, instruction delivery is given verbally and in written form in all three activities, both on the board and also in the close reading

handout, as well as visually for the more complex PETAL wand task through the sequenced display of task materials. Along with frequent active

questioning, for example “Okay, what are the three things we are looking for? (while gesturing to the list on the board)”, this offers multiple

delivery methods which are short and therefore repeated for information access in order to allow time for the student to process and respond,

while building his confidence. Additionally, the display of this information throughout the whole lesson in various forms acts as an individual

and class priming strategy as a targeted support (Koenig, Bleiweiss, Brennan, Cohen & Siegal, 2009). Similarly, a devotion to instruction design

tailored to student engagement abilities is fulfilled in the creation of and class-wide access to multiple scaffolds in multiple forms, given that

student-responsive resources are key to the student’s need for explicit instruction (McLeskey &Waldron, 1998; McLeskey & Waldron, 2011).

Mirroring the student’s actions with textas and his printout through whiteboard markings on an extract projection, or plotting argument points

8
Inclusive Education Assessment Two Liam Culhane 18361777

through the creation of PETAL wands may seem like a superficial low-quality task. However, these succeed in modelling best practice for

textual analysis and making these processes accessible, promoting a sense of ownership in the student’s own learning – something he clearly

feels that he is lacking (Bunning, Muggerridge & Voke, 2018).

The targeting of both creative and kinaesthetic learning styles is perhaps the largest adjustment made to the above lesson, as it totally reshapes

the lesson structure and student engagement in the above tasks. While originally a more lecture-styled lesson designed for the top Year 8 class,

the inclusion of a kinaesthetic texta annotation joint construction aims to fulfil a simple and intuitive engagement application yet informs the

direction of the lesson in a memorable way by appealing to student creative interests. These alternative representations of material seek to disrupt

traditional patterns of independent seatwork and worksheets described by McLeskey and Waldron (2011) and seeks to challenge and redefine the

brand of whole-class instruction they discredit. It has been expressed that the student requires sensory stimulation, a product of his personal

needs as a young male adolescent. The use of textas on printed extracts delivers a physically engaging task for the student and provides a

physical outlet for external behaviour manifestations like fidgeting, by adding an experiential element that engages spatial mechanical

functioning to improve processing and memory retention (Bonomo, 2010). This is vital as a key need of the student is related to his own

confidence in the acquisition and application of English skills and content which is exacerbated by his learning disability. The common

unevenness of quality instruction in inclusive education would continue however, if this creative engagement of the student was an isolated task

within the lesson (McLeskey & Waldron, 2011).

9
Inclusive Education Assessment Two Liam Culhane 18361777

The ‘PETAL Wand Construction’ task totally replaces the original, based on particular attention to the UDL framework’s representation

principle (Boyle & Topping, 2012). The alternative presentation of such an essential concept in a topical format, is designed to increase the

student’s access to content and process a familiar analytical concept in a kinaesthetic way, while building on basic skills, and increasing

engagement and participation. Importantly, the immediate relevance of the task to the PETAL framework is directly highlighted to students,

where they are able to physically match the elements of their wands to the scaffold which they will be using. This connection is therefore made

explicit, supported by group conversation which we know our student is surprisingly comfortable in and only mode of sharing, creating the level

of instruction required for this student to be successful. Negotiation with the student regarding his earphone use is also important for his

engagement and sense of support. Instead of rehearsing the daily confrontation, allowing him to keep one earphone in while completing creative

tasks as a reward for achieving tasks, dramatically increased his productivity and gave him a sense of expression. Similarly, involving

Chromebooks in opening reading increased his willingness to read due to his strength and interest in technology, achieving short and targeted

practice in the fundamental skill.

While the student is comfortable sharing his opinions which are often insightful, he is only comfortable sharing these verbally having had time to

consider how to express himself. While this ability is perhaps somewhat uncharacteristic of students with learning disabilities and something that

should be fostered, his choice to sit alone and general introverted nature are all externalizing manifestations of his learning disability needs. His

10
Inclusive Education Assessment Two Liam Culhane 18361777

difficulties in regulating his own behaviour, emphasised by the swearing at students and teachers reported on his behaviour card, are emphatic of

both his frustration and anger towards content and his lower self-esteem which would undoubtedly result in difficulties connecting with other

students (Cen & Aytac, 2017; Kamvir, 2015; Threlfall & Delaney, 2013). Therefore, the choice to include group discussion throughout the two

activities where students acquire, and revise skills is a UDL accommodation that presents an alternative way the student and his class can gain

access to information but also creates a sense of social recognition in an unobtrusive manner, as our student prefers to work alone (Boyle &

Topping, 2012). This class-wide comparison and scaffolding of the extract close reading serves as a knowledge support structure and alternative

means of representation, as this teacher-facilitated aural priming and knowledge representation combined with student-directed verbal

identification and participation, features alongside the kinaesthetic and visual elements of the explanation. Similarly, the explicit comparison

between the PETAL wands and the PETAL paragraph structure ensures information is perceptible (Boyle & Topping, 2012). This verbal

discussion of literary techniques and the sharing of PETAL wand paragraphs with the class also facilitates the promotion of the student’s self-

efficacy by enabling verbal interaction as a valued alternative means of expression, allowing our student and indeed all students a mode to

demonstrate their mastery that does not involve writing. Lastly, as students with learning difficulties struggle to recall and express ideas, by

targeting discussion as the student’s preferred form of engagement, he is involved in high quality social skills training, empowering him to share

and connect to others (Bunning, Muggerridge & Voke, 2018). By respecting his need for time to process, this lesson structure will therefore

improve his own sense of agency in the class and among his peers.

11
Inclusive Education Assessment Two Liam Culhane 18361777

References

Bonomo, V. (2010). Gender matters in elementary education: Research-based strategies to meet the distinctive learning needs of boys and girls.

Educational Horizons, 88(4), 257-264.

Boyle, C., & Topping, K. (Eds.). (2012). What works in inclusion? Berkshire, England: McGraw Hill Education.

Bunning, K., Muggerridge, R., & Voke, K. (2018). Teachers and students with severe learning difficulties working together to co-construct

personal narratives using storysharing: the teacher perspective. Support for Learning, 33(1), 23-37.

Cen, S., & Aytac, B. (2017). Ecocultural perspective in learning disability: Family support resources, values, child problem behaviours.

Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(2), 114-127.

Florian, L. & Linklater, H. (2010). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: using inclusive pedagogy to enhance teaching learning for all.

Cambridge Journal of Education, 40(4), 369-386.

Kamvir. (2015). Self-efficacy and emotional competence of learning disability students: A correlational analysis. Department of Psychology,

6(1), 133-135.

Koenig, K. P., Bleiweiss, J., Brennan, S., Cohen, S., & Siegal, D.E. (2009). A model for inclusive public education for students with autism

spectrum disorder. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(1), 6-13.

McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N.L. (1998). The effects of an inclusive school program on students with mild and severe learning disabilities.

Exceptional Children, 64(3), 395-405.

12
Inclusive Education Assessment Two Liam Culhane 18361777

McLeskey, J., & Waldron, N.L. (2011). Educational programs for elementary students with learning disabilities: Can they be both effective and

inclusive? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 26(1), 48-57.

Threlfall, T., & Delaney, C. (2013). Breaking down barriers. Learning Disability Practice, 16(2), 13.

13