Chapter 6

Inclusive Instructional Practices

David Evans

Principles and practices of inclusive education

and special education

Collaboration
Effective teaching practices to respond to the
Attitudes

diversity of the classroom

Behaviour support
(whole-school and classroom)
Transitions
Linked scenaria: 1 (Max, Zeinab), 2 (Ms Marion McGregor), 3
(Craig) and 5 (Sarah)

Keywords Instruction · Adjustments · Assessment and evaluation

Outcomes: After reading this chapter, you will be able to:

• Illustrate through use of the literature, and own practice, examples of evidence-
based practices.
• Discuss the role of assessment and evaluation in deciding on effect of instruction
on student learning.
• Critically examine instructional adjustments in meeting the diverse needs of
students.

Introduction

In planning an education programme, the design and organisation of the content or

curriculum is important. Careful consideration must also be given to how it will be
implemented to assist all children and students to achieve the goals of the programme.
Curriculum and instruction are interrelated, with one informing the other:

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020 59

I. Spandagou et al., Inclusive Education in Schools and Early Childhood
Settings, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2541-4_6
60 6 Inclusive Instructional Practices

… most experts appear to agree with the following three premises: (a) curriculum and
instruction are related but different; (b) curriculum and instruction are interlocked and inter-
dependent; and (c) curriculum and instruction may be studied and analysed as separate, but
they cannot function in isolation. (Lederman & Nies, 2001, p. 3)

This chapter will examine features of instruction that maximise the opportunities
for all children and students to participate in learning to achieve curriculum and
personal goals. The focus will be on those instructional practices that have been
identified in the literature as “evidence-based”. The outline of differing practices
(e.g. explicit and systematic instruction, graphic organisers, peer-assisted instruction,
strategy instruction) will examine the versatility in which they can be used through
focused discussion of the scenario. This discussion will also include how applying
the principles of universal design for learning can assist meet a range of children and
student needs and how educators can differentiate instruction to accommodate the
diverse learning needs of all children and students. The concluding discussion will be
about the effectiveness of instruction through the link to assessment and evaluation
and how this informs how inclusive practices have been.

Inclusive Instructional Practices

The educator is the most influential person in terms of children and students learn-
ing. Teachers who have a significant impact on their students’ learning have a deep
understanding of their students’ interests, motivations, and the skills and knowledge
they have acquired. These teachers are passionate yet considerate of their students
(Hattie, 2012; Shaddock, 2012). The literature informs us about the elements of
teacher instruction that have a positive impact on student learning, often referring to
these practices as “evidence-based practices”.
An evidence-based practice is defined “as an instructional strategy, intervention,
or teaching programme demonstrating consistent positive results when tested by
scientifically based research methods” (Gukert, Mastropieri, & Scruggs, 2016, p. 63).
These practices have been shown to improve student outcomes across numerous
studies, from differing backgrounds, and in differing locations and contexts. Much
of this research has been undertaken outside of Australia, and as such research support
for these practices within the Australian context is limited.
The impact of these evidence-based practices on student learning is highly reliant
on how they are implemented. The research that supports these practices has ensured
a high degree of fidelity in their application, while achieving this fidelity within the
natural educational context can be difficult to uphold.
Teacher knowledge about the use of evidence-based practices in the classroom
is vital to students achieving positive learning outcomes (Klingner, Boardman, &
McMaster, 2013). In the hustle and bustle of the classroom, teachers may modify
practices to an extent that they no longer represent the original practice. This failure
to acknowledge the fidelity of implementation can impact student learning. Alterna-
tively, teachers need to be aware that every student brings a diverse learning profile
Inclusive Instructional Practices 61

to an educational context; teachers need to have the professional knowledge about

these practices and apply this “wisdom” to refine practices to meet the needs of
the student (Gukert et al., 2016). Teachers need to know their students (Standard 1,
AITSL, 2011) and use their professional wisdom in applying these evidence-based
practices based on student learning, and environmental constraints and riches.
At Fig Tree Road Public School, Ms. Marion McGregor is an experienced teacher.
She has developed a substantial professional knowledge, especially in regard to
working with students with English as an additional language. Marion is aware of
the importance of language in her class, as students can be excluded from lessons
when language used is unfamiliar. Hence, vocabulary instruction is a key practice
within her class for all students. It allows her to focus on core words for the class (i.e.,
a universal strategy), as well as specific words for students with differing language
strengths.
Poorly implemented evidence-based practices, or practices implemented without
strong understanding of students, can lead to practices excluding students from learn-
ing. In this sense, an evidence-based practice is only as good as it is implemented—at
any point in time.

Consider instructional practices you used, or observed, on your most recent

professional experience. What is the evidence from your studies and profes-
sional reading that supports this practice? What information, evidence, or data
was collected that allowed reflection on its effectiveness? Was it effective in
supporting learning for all students? What evidence did you encounter that
showed the practice may have excluded a student from learning?

Applying Education Practices

Hattie (2013) has been influential within the Australian education context in high-
lighting instructional practices that have a strong, positive impact on student learning.
This list of practices requires an understanding of the student, the curriculum content,
and the practice. Just “using” one of the instructional strategies that Hattie highlights
from his meta-analyses of research outcomes does not mean students will learn. The
educator is key to the instructional impact.
The following practices are ones that have been highlighted in the wider research
as being impactful on student learning. They are but some of the practices that can be
found within the work of Hattie and others (e.g. Marzano, 2018). A specific emphasis
of these practices is that they have been shown to impact learning for students from
diverse learning backgrounds, and students who can struggle within mainstream
school contexts that pose potential barriers to learning.
62 6 Inclusive Instructional Practices

• “Listening” to children and students through ongoing formal and informal

assessment.
• In considering these practices, consider how we as educators play a central
role in: Careful design and in ensuring children and students can access and
participate in learning experiences.
• Empowering children and students through developing success and inde-
pendence
• Considering the barriers that we as educators may pose in the design and
delivery process.

Systematic and explicit instruction. This practice is often associated with tra-
ditional “chalk and talk” teaching, teacher dominated teaching, or passive learning
by students. The central role of the teacher is very important, and to this extent this
portrayal of explicit and systematic instruction is appropriate. Systematic refers to
the “attention paid to the detail of the teaching process” (Hempenstall, 2016, p. 11).
The teacher understands the lesson content (i.e., formal and informal, academic,
social) and how it is organised; they understand the knowledge student brings to
the learning context; and they understand the learning history of their students. In
being systematic, the teacher has the professional wisdom to make decisions; this
could be in regard to a student response or action, type of feedback to provide, or
the need to review and revise or move onto the next step in learning. This process is
characterised as highly interactive, with the teacher and student/s exchanging ideas;
these are exchanges that are undertaken at the individual student level. As such, the
traditional view outlined above is in error.
Explicit instruction “involves the teacher directly instructing the students in
the content or skills to be learned, employing clear and unambiguous language”
(Hempenstall, 2016, p. 31). Explicit instruction, sometimes aligned with direct teach-
ing (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986), involves explicit review of prerequisite knowl-
edge, model of skill or content, guided practice, feedback, and systematic practice,
and ongoing revision. The intensity and focus of this instructional process can be
varied based on the needs of students.
The use of systematic and explicit instruction is conditional on frequent teacher
engagement with students. If teachers are to guide and scaffold student learning, they
need to have engaged with the students to collect data on where their learning is at. In
using this information (i.e., assessment data), they are providing feedback to students
(another powerful instructional practice). If students are to maintain learning, they
need to have the opportunity to practice or use their learning. When practice is
scheduled as part of another part of the school day (i.e., cross-curriculum planning),
this provides strong opportunities for learning to be maintained and/or generalised
(Hughes & Lee, 2019). All of this requires the teacher’s orchestration, but it must
involve active student participation.
Peer-assisted learning. Peer assisted learning (PAL) has been used in many forms
over the years. PAL is “a generic term for a group of strategies that involve the active
Applying Education Practices 63

and interactive mediation of learning through other learners who are not professional
teachers” (Topping & Ehly, 2001, p. 113). PAL is the responsibility of the teacher,
yet enacted by peers, and should benefit all involved.
Over the years, peer tutoring is one of the most common forms of peer-assisted
learning found in schools. Peer tutoring can involve same aged peers, cross-aged
peers, or volunteers from within a school community. Peer tutoring is generally
reported in the literature as an evidence-based practice (e.g. Alegre, Moliner,
Maroto, & Lorenzo-Valentin, 2019) across differing academic areas (e.g. reading,
mathematics). While peer tutoring is often seen as a skilled tutor working with a less
skilled tutee, this does not have to be the case. Importantly, both members of the dyad
should benefit from the experience. The tutee benefits from practising or engaging
in a skill; the tutor in engaging in tutoring a peer strengthens their own learning.
Peer-mediated instruction (PMI) involves peers modelling and providing instruc-
tion to develop a range of academic and social behaviours. The specific use of peers
to deliver instruction in academic and social behaviours allows the natural con-
text of the educational environment to be utilised to promote learning. The use of
peers as instructors provides greater opportunities to strengthen social behaviours, for
example, that cannot be achieved by a single teacher. MacFarland and Fisher (2019)
illustrated that using PMI with another well supported instructional approach, video-
based group instruction, could further enhance acquisition and maintenance of social
behaviour for students with an autism diagnosis.
At Happy Kids Preschool, peer-mediated LEGO interventions (Hu, Zheng, & Lee,
2018; Little & Evans, 2019) are used to promote social communication behaviours
with Max within play-based contexts. This approach seeks to build Max’s social
communication and language that had been delayed due to a hearing loss (Chap. 10).
Max, who recently received a cochlear implant, engages in these opportunities
with his peers, despite the ongoing issues with the electrostatic discharge that he
sometimes experiences. The use of PMI can increase the intensity of interventions
through use of multiple peers across a range of contexts (Watkins et al., 2015).
Vocabulary instruction. Knowledge of vocabulary can be one of the most
empowering skills within the classroom for children and students; it can also be one
of the greatest barriers (see UDL Guideline 2.2: Clarify vocabulary and symbols). If
you do not understand the meaning of words that are being used in an English class,
like Sarah in Year 10, it prevents students from participating and engaging in learning
activities. Promoting vocabulary for all students is one of the strongest instructional
strategies for promoting literacy amongst adolescent learners (Kamil et al., 2008)
and can be directly impacted by the planning and instructional approaches of the
class teacher.
Planning considerations within a learning environment can start with recognising
the vocabulary that will be required by children and students to participate in learning.
Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2013) propose that teachers consider the vocabulary
demands within instructional context within three tiers:
Tier 1 Everyday words, ones that we might expect students to have acquired within
everyday contexts (e.g. classroom conversations, home, community).
64 6 Inclusive Instructional Practices

Tier 2 High-frequency words that are used across differing curriculum domains.
They are key to participating in classroom conversations and need to be
understood across differing domains.
Tier 3 Domain or subject specific words. Used in classroom conversations but also
with texts.
All children and students require access to vocabulary if they are to participate in
learning. Providing multiple opportunities to engage with vocabulary with differing
levels of support to learn and revise. Some key vocabulary will need to be explic-
itly taught; independent reading of texts helps build vocabulary knowledge; while
ensuring content area materials provide access to word definitions (e.g. in context,
glossaries, hyperlinks) on multiple occasions.
Mr. David Flanagan, the English teacher at Blackwater Creek Secondary School,
is acutely aware of the power of vocabulary. In his English and drama classes, he
analyses the demands of the vocabulary and makes sure there are multiple supports
for students (e.g. glossaries, electronic vocabulary networks apps [e.g. Visuwords]).
Sarah comes to his classes with a limited vocabulary due to the impact of her hearing
loss. While Mr. Flanagan uses these universal strategies to support Sarah, he also
uses peer mediate support or buddy system, and an electronic pen that helps Sarah
decode words and provide meaning at the point of decoding.
Feedback. The work of John Hattie has highlighted the importance of feedback
in learning across all contexts. Feedback is “conceptualized as information provided
by an agent (e.g. teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of
one’s performance or understanding” (Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 81). This con-
ceptualisation of feedback links in with the universal design for learning framework
at differing levels. First, feedback can be provided in multiple representations (e.g.
verbal, written, non-verbal, symbolic). Second, feedback can be provided by multi-
ple persons or agents. Third, feedback can be provided directly and explicitly by the
teacher or can be sought or developed by the students themselves (see Guideline 8.4:
Provide mastery-orientated feedback.).
In viewing feedback as part of the instructional process, it becomes a dynamic part
of your teaching. Feedback requires you, the educator, to have a clear understanding
of the learning goal (key feature of UDL framework). In an inclusive education
environment this should be at the student level, with every student working towards
goals that may be broadly similar, but different at the micro-level. The type, frequency,
and focus of feedback will therefore be child or student specific.
The staff at Happy Kids Preschool may support Zeinab work towards her learning
goals when she is engaged in her passion—creative arts. They could provide infor-
mation to her about the goal she is working towards (feed-up); they could provide
her with information on how she is progressing towards her goal (feed-back); or staff
could provide information on what she might do next (feed-forward). In achieving
this level of feedback, educators are supporting Zeinab to move from where she is at,
to new and desired levels of learning. Feedback is embedded with the instructional
and learning process, and how it is used can have a powerful effect on individual
child and student learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
Applying Education Practices 65

Graphic organisers and visual supports. Observing, “seeing” and organising

relationships between facts, concepts, and rules to develop understanding of content
and knowledge can pose difficulties for many students. It is an important part of learn-
ing in any content area of context. Teachers often use systematic and explicit instruc-
tion to support students to make these links. Graphic organisers are one instructional
approach that has been shown to support student learning, assisting them to locate
links, relationships and networks between facts and concepts. Graphic organisers “are
spatial arrangements of visual and verbal prompts that normally embed schemas
associated with specific learning skills such as making comparisons, identifying
sequences, categorizing elements and defining concepts” (Ponce, Mayer, Lopez, &
Loyola, 2018, p. 974).
While students may not locate or develop these relationships themselves, being
let into the secret about these links provides students with opportunities to participate
in classroom learning opportunities. Jitendra and colleagues (Jitendra, Harwell, Im,
Karl, & Slater, 2018; Jitendra, Lein, Im, & Alghamdi, 2018) provide evidence of the
power in using visual schema to support students in mathematics problem-solving.
Like graphic organisers, they assist students in identifying relationships between
parts of mathematics word problems. A key finding within these studies is that these
strategies, applied with differing levels of scaffolding and explicit instruction and
personal support, provide access to participating and learning for all students.
At Clearview Secondary School, the learning support team met to plan and sup-
port Craig to achieve greater levels of academic outcome. Using his interest in rugby
league, it is suggested that visual supports are used to promote links with techni-
cal language within rugby (e.g. matching visual representations with written words
to support vocabulary development). Another idea the learning support team brain-
stormed was to consider using visual schemas to support Craig complete mathematics
problems. The use of the schema was to be explicitly taught, with fading of support
applied once Craig became confident in solving problems. The problem could use
authentic examples from rugby, while using peer assistance to provide systematic
feedback on how he is progressing with problems.
Technology. Technology has promised much in relation to enhancing student
learning, as seen in its use across the UDL framework (see Hall, Cohen, Vue,
& Ganley, 2015, for strong use of technology within an education programme design-
ing using the UDL framework.). It has opened up many opportunities for students
to communicate, with the advent of differing augmentative devices that provide the
unique opportunities for students to participate in learning with their peers (Chap. 10).
The development of cochlear implants is another example of how advances in tech-
nology have provided persons with hearing impairments one way to participate with
their hearing peers.
The development of technology itself does not guarantee that students learning
will be enhanced. The attitude of the educator towards the use of technology is
important. Some teachers see it is “unfair” or giving students with disability an
advantage if they have access to technology to support participation in learning or to
complete a task. This idea that being able to complete a task “by oneself” without the
aid of technology has been termed “naked independence” (Edyburn, 2006, p. 26).
66 6 Inclusive Instructional Practices

If you see technology as a tool that provides students the opportunity to participate
in learning, then it can be of great benefit for all students (e.g. can all students have
access to a spell checker; correct spelling still requires the learner to have knowledge
of spelling).
The manner in which technology is selected and/or used to enhance learning is key
to the benefits that it can offer. The SETT framework (Zabala, 2019) was developed
to support educators in the selection of assistive technology. The emphasis is on
learning support teams collaborating to develop an understanding of students (e.g.
involve the student in this collaboration), the environment they will be located, and
what the children and students are required to do and learn so they can participate
on the same basis as their peers. Selection and use of technology is based on the
foundational understanding of the learning demands.

Consider the instructional practices of graphic organisers and visuals, peer-

mediated learning, and explicit and systematic instruction. Describe and dis-
cuss which UDL guidelines and checkpoints would employ and support the use
of these strategies; give examples of how you would use them when planning
using the UDL framework.
Consider the three strategies again, but this time discuss how you might
differentiate the use of these strategies. Does your differentiation of the strategy
break the core features (and hence fidelity) of the strategy? Why? Why not?

Exclusionary Practices

The role of instructional practices that maximises learning for children and students
within education contexts have been widely promoted in the literature (e.g. Cook &
Cook, 2016; Hattie, 2013). These practices are not a magic formula for supporting
children and student learning; learning comes about through understanding the chil-
dren and students in your classroom and having a clear idea of what children and
students are to achieve. This learning will come from formal curriculum frameworks,
informal experiences within the learning context, and from the personalised goals
that are established with and for learners.
Planning to implement effective instructional practices requires careful thought
of the learner, their needs and the expertise you bring to the learning context. Imple-
menting a practice because it is “evidence-based” without considering the learning
environment can disable or exclude learners. The use of feedback in one context or
with one child may result in enhanced or ongoing learning; the same form or type
of feedback may well result in another student not seeking to participate in learning.
Using language with one learner may exclude them from learning, while for another
Exclusionary Practices 67

learner it draws them in and motivates their participation. Ongoing assessment, eval-
uation and reflection of the learning outcomes and context are important parts of all
education contexts to ensure education practices have the impact envisaged.

Making Adjustments

The Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992) through

the Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2005)
upholds the right of students with disability to participate in education programmes
on the same basis as their peers without disability (see Chap. 1). Facilitating this
participation is represented in the National Consistent Collection of Data (NCCD)
(Australian Government, Department of Education and Training, n.d)., where teach-
ers are required to make a professional judgement about the level of adjustment a
student with a disability may require for them to participate on the same basis as
their peers. The first level of the NCCD is quality differentiated teaching practice.
Teachers will differentiate instruction to meet the individual needs of all students,
at some point, within a learning activity. But not all students may have a disabil-
ity; quality differentiated teaching practice is part of robust universal practice that
aims to include all students. Differential is a foundational element of the Australian
Professional Standards for Teaching (Standard 1.5; AITSL, 2011).
Using evidence-based practices as part of making adjustments raises questions
about how you maintain the fidelity of the practice (i.e., upholding the key features
of the practice; Cook & Cook, 2016), while also meeting the unique needs of the
student. The identification and use of an adjustment, following consultation with the
student and their parents/carers, can be observed in classrooms and assessed and
evaluated through the professional expertise of the teacher. This adjustment could be
used occasionally (e.g. the use of technology to support vocabulary development),
or more intensively (e.g. use of peer supports during classes). The key to using
evidence-based practices is that teachers understand core features or principles of
the evidence-based practice, and the learning goals students are working towards.
In using peer-assisted learning strategies, for example, making sure that the peer is
well supported in how to use the strategy, and when, is key.

The Disability Standards for Education 2005 outlines the obligations that
education providers have in place reasonable adjustments for students with
a disability to participate in education programmes on the same basis as their
peers.
68 6 Inclusive Instructional Practices

Identify and describe an instructional adjustment that you have observed being
made within a classroom. Locate literature that underpins the evidence for
this instructional adjustment. Outline the procedural fidelity for implementing
this adjustment: to what extent was the adjustment implemented with fidelity?
What is your evidence? What is the evidence for reflecting on the effectiveness
of this adjustment in supporting the student? In what way did the educator use
their professional wisdom to alter the implementation of the practice to meet
the needs of the student/s?

While extolling the benefits of evidence-based practices and their impact on stu-
dent learning, teachers will often use instructional practice within their classrooms
that may not fit the evidence-based practices criteria. Yet teachers are strong in
their beliefs that these practices “work”, they support student learning. These prac-
tices are born out teacher’s professional wisdom. These practices are often seen
as “experientially-based” practices (Chorzempa, Smith, & Sileo, 2019, p. 82), or
promising practices. Promising practices are defined as “A programme or interven-
tion which meets a set of criteria, which describes what works to improve the lives of
individuals and which is sustainable or replicable in a specific context.” (Sammon,
Jagmag, Martinez, & Wahyudi, 2017, p. 2). In these cases, teachers are encouraged
to assess and evaluate the practice, share findings with colleagues, and work to estab-
lish an evidence-base for them. This process is also important when reporting as part
of the Nationally Consistent Collection of Data. See the additional reading Torres,
Farley, and Cook (2014) for an outline of how to develop this evidence-base.

Conclusion

Any instructional strategy used in the classroom must be assessed and evaluated
in regard to the learning goals set for students. If the learning goals are stated in
an inclusive manner, this process should be relatively easy to undertake. Educators,
however, are often challenged by the idea that children and students will demonstrate
their learning in differing ways and at differing levels of mastery or complexity. This
diversity in levels of achievement should be welcomed—the key issue is the learning
that the child or student has been able to achieve. In looking at this learning, can you
say that an evidence-based practice or instructional practice used has been able to
contribute to the child’s or student’s learning? If not, is it a case that the evidence-
based practice was not implemented with fidelity, or could it be that in this instance
the evidence-based practice was not the best choice to support the learner’s learning.
References 69

References

Alegre, F., Moliner, L., Maroto, A., & Lorenzo-Valentin, G. (2019). Peer tutoring in mathematics
in primary education: A systematic review. Educational Review, 71(6), 767–791.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). (2011). Australian professional
standards for teachers. Carlton South, VIC: Education Council.
Australian Government, Department of Education and Training. (n.d). Nationally consistent col-
lection of data on school students with disability (NCCD). Retrieved from https://www.nccd.
edu.au/.
Commonwealth of Australia. (1992). Disability discrimination act 1992. Retrieved from http://
www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dda1992264/.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2005). Disability standards for education 2005. Plus Guidance Notes.
Retrieved from https://docs.education.gov.au/node/16354.
Edyburn, D. (2006). Assistive technology and mild disability. Special Education Technology
Practice, 8(4), 18–28.
Gukert, G., Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2016). Personalising research: Special educators’
awareness of evidence-based practice. Exceptionality, 24, 63–78.
Hall, T., Cohen, N., Vue, G., & Ganley, P. (2015). Addressing learning disabilities with UDL and
technology: Strategic Reader. Journal of Learning Disability Quarterly, 38, 72–83.
Hattie, J. (2012). What makes great teaching. Paper presented at the London Festival of Education,
London, England.
Hattie, J. (2013). Visible learning for teachers: Maximising impact on learning. Melbourne: Corwin.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77,
81–112.
Hempenstall, K. (2016). Read about it: Scientific evidence for effective teaching of reading. Sydney:
Centre for Independent Studies.
Hu, X., Zheng, Q., & Lee, G. (2018). Using peer-mediated LEGO play intervention to improve
social interactions for Chinese children with autism in an inclusive setting. Journal of Autism and
Development Disorders, 48, 2444–2457.
Hughes, C., & Lee, J. (2019). Effective approaches for scheduling and formatting practice:
Distributed, cumulative, and interleaved practice. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51, 411–423.
Jitendra, A., Harwell, M., Im, S., Karl, S., & Slater, S. (2018). Using regression discontinuity to
estimate the effects of a tier-1 research-based mathematics program in seventh grade. Exceptional
Children, 85, 46–65.
Jitendra, A., Lein, A., Im, S., Alghamdi, A., Hefte, S., & Mouanoutoua, J. (2018b). Mathematical
interventions for secondary students with learning disabilities and mathematics difficulties: A
meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 84, 177–196.
Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving
adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE
#2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assis-
tance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.
ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/adlit_pg_082608.pdf.
Klingner, J., Boardman, A., & McMaster, K. (2013). What does it take to scale-up and sustain
evidence-based practices? Exceptional Children, 79, 195–211.
Lederman, N., & Nies, M. (2001). Editorial—curriculum and instruction: Whose life is this anyway?
School Science and Mathematics, 101, 54–55.
Little, C., & Evans, D. (2019). Using peer-mediated LEGO play to promote social communication in
young students with autism. Peer refereed paper for International Association of Special Education
Conference, Tanzania.
MacFarland, M., & Fisher, M. (2019). Peer-mediated social skills generalization for adolescents
with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability. Exceptionality. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09362835.2019.1579722.
Marzano, R. (2018). The new art and science of teaching. Bloomington, IN: ASCD/Solution Tree.
70 6 Inclusive Instructional Practices

Ponce, H., Mayer, R., Lopez, M., & Loyola, M. (2018). Adding interactive graphic organizers to a
whole-class slideshow lesson. Instructional Science, 46, 973–988.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. Witrock (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376–391). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Sammon, E., Jagmag, M., Martinez, M., & Wahyudi, R. (2017). How do you know what’s good for
me? An overview of promising practices in adolescent programming in Indonesia by UNICEF
(and other partners). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321420149_How_
do_you_know_what’s_good_for_me_An_Overview_of_Promising_Practices_in_Adolescent_
Programming_in_Indonesia_by_UNICEF_and_other_partners_Final_Report.
Shaddock, A. (2012). Responding to diversity: Personal and professional sustainability. Paper
presented at the Successful Learning Conference, Epping, Australia.
Topping, K., & Ehly, S. (2001). Peer assisted learning: A framework for consultation. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 113–132.
Watkins, L., O’Reilly, M., Kuhn, M., Gevarter, C., Lancioni, G., Sigafoos, J., et al. (2015). A review
of peer-mediated social interaction interventions for students with autism in inclusive settings.
Journal of Developmental Disorders, 45, 1070–1083. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/
s10803-014-2264-x.
Zabala, J. (2019). SETT framework. Retrieved from https://assistedtechnology.weebly.com/sett-
framework.html.

Additional Readings

Chorzempa, B., Smith, M., & Sileo, J. (2019). Practice-based evidence: A model for heling educators
make evidence-based decisions. Teacher Education and Special Education, 42, 82–92.
Cook, B., & Cook, L. (2016). Leveraging evidence-based practice through partnerships based on
practice-based evidence. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 14, 143–157.
Torres, C., Farley, C., & Cook, B. (2014). A special educator’s guide to successfully implementing
evidence-based practices. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 47(2), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0040059914553209.