Inclusive education practice had a gradual change over the last few decades and

has been associated with broader social changes. Australia had a history of
exclusion and discrimination which was prevalent during the 1940-1970s.
(Forlin, 2006). The common practice was to segregate schools, ensuring limited
places in mainstream schools for students with disabilities (Forlin, 2006).
Students given access to mainstream schools were those thought to be capable
of benefiting from such schools. The practice of discrimination could be legally
prosecuted when the Australian Commonwealth Government introduced the
Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) in 1992 (Basser & Jones, 2002; Mitchell,
2014; Tyler, 1993). This was a historical landmark for students with disabilities.
Under these laws, schools could only limit access to mainstream schools for
students under extreme cases (Tyler, 1993). The DDA provided a legal basis to
take matters to the federal court but the law placed the burden of proof on
plaintiffs to prove they had been discriminated against and the law did not have
a specific code of standards for the schools to abide by (Allen, 2009; Slee,
2013). The Disability Standards for Education ( DSfE) was implemented much
later during 2004 and provided specific outlines on how schools can
accommodate students with disabilities by making reasonable adjustments
(Dickson, 2005). The Salamanca Declaration, 1994 set goals for greater
inclusion for students with disabilities. This was part of the international and
social movement which led the changes towards inclusive education. The
declaration was significant in the direction towards inclusive education so the
composition of schools reflected the diversity of society. Hence, schools
reflected the wide range of abilities and skills across the broader community
(Forlin, 2006).

The changing views on inclusive teaching practice were evident by legislative

changes internationally. The United Kingdom (UK), United States (US) and
Australia in similar periods brought about a number of policy and legal changes
(Forlin, 2006). Policies specific to inclusion were implemented following
legislative changes in all three countries. The Individual with Disabilities
Education Act 1990 USA, and the Education Act 1981 in the UK. The Warnock
Report 1978 changed traditional definitions of mainstream schools (Committee,
1978). Integration was advocated for students with disabilities ensuring access
to mainstream schools, and promoting social interaction for these students. This
redefined the normal definitions of education so that students with disabilities
were not labelled by their medical restrictions and were now considered to
benefit from mainstream education (Committee, 1978). During this period, a
number of advocacy groups rejected the policy of exclusion in mainstream
schools for students with special needs and stood against separated classrooms

1
based on abilities (Barr, McConkey, & McConaghie, 2003; Scotch, 1988).
Importantly changes in the discourse and narratives surrounding students with
disabilities, and such changes meant that people’s attitudes and beliefs
surrounding notions of education were being challenged (Barr et al., 2003;
Scotch, 1988).

The new scheme teacher’s approach to inclusive education will be influenced

by their own attitudes and beliefs towards inclusion. Research has demonstrated
that a teacher’s attitudes and beliefs towards inclusion does influence their
teaching practice. Teachers are still reluctant for the inclusion for students with
more severe disabilities. (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002). An application of
research findings is to ensure teachers are reflective in their practice and aware
of historical practices of exclusion and discrimination. Reflecting on teaching
practices incorporates the awareness of discourses of social change. The
awareness of past success and failures can promote socially aware teachers that
understand the need for inclusive teaching (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002).
Teachers that are aware of the historical perspectives of exclusion can use this
experience to challenges discourses against inclusive practice. Such discourse
can be ongoing barriers that prevent all students from being engaged in the
classroom.

New scheme teachers will be required by professional standards set by the NSW
Board of Studies which ensures that teachers meet the needs of all learners.
NSW schools are composed of a diverse group of students. In science
education, students from refugee backgrounds, Indigenous or Torres Strait
Islander backgrounds can often be marginalised because the content may not be
culturally meaningful (Frigo, Simpson, & Wales, 2000; Henderson, 2005). In
NSW schools, the syllabus has an endorsed cultural understanding component
(Henderson, 2005; Hilferty, 2008). New scheme teachers will need a diverse set
of teaching skills that can be accommodated to a wide range of students.
Understanding different social and cultural backgrounds is significant in order
to sustain these students engaged within the classroom.

In the current era of standardisation, it will be imperative for teachers to ensure

that marginalised students are not further disengaged. Current evidence shows
that teachers have been teaching towards standardisation testing with negative
impacts on the psychological wellbeing of students (Klenowski & Wyatt-Smith,
2012). With the emphasis of publication of school results, teachers will be under
high pressure to ensure that their schools will score well comparatively to other
schools. Evidence has already indicated that marginalised students have been

2
disadvantaged by standardisation testing (Elliott, Davies, & Kettler, 2012;
Klenowski & Wyatt-Smith, 2012). Inclusive teaching pedagogies can be
undermined by the current emphasis on standardisation of basic skills. In this
context, new scheme teachers will have to balance the individual student’s
needs against the political pressures of standardisations testing.

School support staff have an important role in helping new scheme teachers.
They provide important guidance and practical experience in supporting
students. It is important in the area of teaching science to ensure that
collaboration is maintained with school support staff. Collaboration should
extend to parents and caregivers of students with special needs. Research has
demonstrated that teachers can be concerned with their ability to manage
classrooms with students with more severe behavioural problems (Forlin, 2001).
Current evidence supports the practice of support staff in assisting the teacher
with special education students (Forlin, 2006). This draws on their expertise and
experience and can be viewed as a collaborative learning environment. In the
area of science, when students observe teachers and support teachers working
collaboratively, students can acquire meaningful knowledge and experience on
how to work collaboratively.

Cooperative learning, and Peer Assisted Learning strategies in science

education can benefit students with learning difficulties by promoting
cooperation. (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2000). When students cooperate
and share ideas, they construct their own learning. This pedagogical approach is
based on the concept that knowledge is constructed through social discourse and
that social interaction can facilitate students’ own learning (Vygotsky, 1967).
All students can be engaged in social interactions with other students and this
can facilitate the development of language skills and foster new experiences
(Johnson et al., 2000). Further benefits of PAL is improved relationship
between peers and the acquisition of knowledge is more meaningful (Johnson et
al., 2000). Research has demonstrated that in science classrooms, when the
classroom is appropriately structured for cooperative learning, students assist
their peers and are less likely to engage in self-orientated behaviours (Osborne,
2010).

Cooperative and PAL is beneficial for a diversity of students as it promotes

emotional and social aspects of students which can result in a positive
psychological well-being. This enhanced psychological wellbeing is critical
when entering adulthood and seeking independence (Johnson et al., 2000).
Research has demonstrated that students working in a structured group rather

3
than unstructured groups work better together and are able to demonstrate more
mutually beneficial behaviours (Chinn, O'donnell, & Jinks, 2000). Moreover,
new scheme teachers would need the skill and ability to appropriately assign
groups within the classrooms. It is ideal to consider the seating and classroom
arrangement in order for collaborative learning to be successful. Students that
find it difficult to concentrate on the content material can be paired with a
student who has good concentration skills. This can beneficial to both students
by promoting collaboration and social and emotional learning.

New scheme teachers can build on learning for all students with PAL by
adopting universal design learning UDL strategies. The UDL fundamental
principle is to remove the many barriers to learning and is a critical tool in
inclusive education (Meyer & Rose, 2000). UDL increases accessibility to
learning by providing different ways of learning, and differing options to
demonstrate learning of content, with varied methods of engagement (Meyer &
Rose, 2000; Scott, McGuire, & Shaw, 2003). The UDL approach promotes the
diverse learning needs of all students and allows learning environments that
provide more positive learning outcomes. UDL in the science classroom can be
exemplified by providing students the option to read content, listen to auditory
recordings, watch an online video, or be provided the digital version of the
content.

Teachers will need the skill of identifying barriers to students learning in the
classroom. This includes teachers having an understanding of student
differences in motor skills, concentration, working memory, attention, interests,
and abilities (Scott et al., 2003). The traditional classroom does not cater for the
diversity of learning needs. Research has demonstrated many students can be
marginalised and disengaged with this approach (Meyer & Rose, 2000).
Furthermore, gifted or talented students often have underperformed in
traditional classrooms due to boredom or not being challenged. In teaching
science, evidence has indicated that UDL has been effective (Cawley, Foley, &
Miller, 2003). This can be implemented in the classroom by implementing
multiple modes of expressing and demonstrating the information. A barrier in
understanding quantifiable information can be mathematical concepts and
formula. Students can often be anxious regarding mathematical concepts and
may not engage in learning without real world applications. Quantifiable data
can be taught by using real world examples of motor cars that can engage
students by making the content meaningful and applicable to real world
experiences.

4
Differentiation instruction is a key feature of UDL. This is an important skill for
new scheme teachers in the science classroom because the content is varied
according to the level of the learner and their learning styles. Differentiation
instruction is characterised by multiples methods of presenting and testing
information (Terwel, 2005). This allows students to learn according to their
learning preference. The traditional classroom presents information in
predominately one method, which can marginalise many students who may not
learn according to direct teacher instruction (Terwel, 2005). Students with
learning difficulties have often been marginalised and disengaged with the
traditional pedagogical approach. In teaching science, students with learning
difficulties can be accommodated by differentiated classrooms. Smaller group
sizes and varying tasks with different groups is an example of differentiation. At
the end of the lessons students can collaborate their learning by sharing their
experiences according to the objectives of the tasks. Differentiation can also be
integrated into science learning by accommodating testing according to the level
of the learners (Hayes & Deyhle, 2001). In the example of understanding the
physical world, students could have the options to select testing according to
their level of learning. This level of differentiation can keep students with
learning difficulties engaged by accommodating to their level of abilities. To
address the varying levels of abilities and learning styles in the classroom,
teachers can set up different levelled activities based on the same content.

Research findings have demonstrated that social and emotional development

promotes self-awareness which has numerous benefits to student lives (Johnson
et al., 2000). Social and emotional development is significantly important to life
skills for all students. Research in neuroscience demonstrates when the social
and emotional regions of the brain are stimulating through positive learning
environments, learning is enhanced by reducing anxieties that can be associated
with learning content (Immordino‐Yang & Damasio, 2007). In learning science,
students could develop anxieties resulting in negative self-esteem and
confidence if provided with content which is not differentiated according to
their learning style and abilities. In teaching science, teachers can monitor social
interactions between peers and thus promote social and emotional learning.

In conclusion inclusive teaching has far reaching implications for both teachers
and students. Teachers will be required to reflect on their own attitudes and
beliefs to approach the diversity of learners and learning styles within the
science classroom. Research has demonstrated the effectiveness of Universal
Design Learning, Collaborative and Peer Assisted Learning, social and
emotional learning, and differentiated classrooms. It is imperative for a new
scheme teachers to be well skilled in these teaching pedagogies in order to

5
successfully teach all students within the science classroom. Legislative
requirements and state based policies mean teachers are obligated to teach
inclusively for all students.

References

Allen, D. (2009). Reducing the burden of proving discrimination in Australia. Sydney L. Rev., 31, 579.
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes towards integration / inclusion: a review of
the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(2), 129-147. doi:
10.1080/08856250210129056

6
Barr, O., McConkey, R. O. Y., & McConaghie, J. (2003). Views of People with Learning Difficulties
about Current and Future Accommodation: The use of focus groups to promote discussion.
Disability & Society, 18(5), 577-597. doi: 10.1080/0968759032000097834
Basser, L. A., & Jones, M. (2002). Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (CTH): A Three-Dimensional
Approach to Operationalising Human Rights, The. Melb. UL Rev., 26, 254.
Cawley, J. F., Foley, T. E., & Miller, J. (2003). Science and Students with Mild Disabilities Principles of
Universal Design. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38(3), 160-171.
Chinn, C. A., O'donnell, A. M., & Jinks, T. S. (2000). The structure of discourse in collaborative
learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 69(1), 77-97.
Committee, W. (1978). Special educational needs: The Warnock report. London. DES.
Dickson, E. (2005). Disability Standards for Education and the Obligation of Reasonable adjustment.
/11 Austl. & NZJL & Educ., 10, 23.
Elliott, S. N., Davies, M., & Kettler, R. J. (2012). Australian students with disabilities accessing
NAPLAN: Lessons from a decade of inclusive assessment in the United States. International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 59(1), 7-19. doi:
10.1080/1034912X.2012.654934
Forlin, C. (2001). Inclusion: Identifying potential stressors for regular class teachers. Educational
Research, 43(3), 235-245.
Forlin, C. (2006). Inclusive education in Australia ten years after Salamanca. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 21(3), 265-277.
Frigo, T., Simpson, L., & Wales, N. S. (2000). Research into the numeracy development of Aboriginal
students: Implications for the NSW K-10 mathematics syllabus: Board of Studies NSW.
Hayes, M. T., & Deyhle, D. (2001). Constructing difference: A comparative study of elementary
science curriculum differentiation. Science Education, 85(3), 239-262.
Henderson, D. (2005). What is education for? Situating history, cultural understandings and studies
of society and environment against neo-conservative critiques of curriculum reform.
Australian Journal of Education, 49(3), 306-319.
Hilferty, F. (2008). Teacher professionalism and cultural diversity: Skills, knowledge and values for a
changing Australia. The Australian Educational Researcher, 35(3), 53-70.
Immordino‐Yang, M. H., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of
affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, brain, and education, 1(1), 3-10.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. (2000). Learning together and alone: Cooperation,
competition, and individualization: Taylor & Francis.
Klenowski, V., & Wyatt-Smith, C. (2012). The impact of high stakes testing: The Australian story.
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(1), 65-79. doi:
10.1080/0969594X.2011.592972
Meyer, A., & Rose, D. H. (2000). Universal Design for Individual Differences. Educational Leadership,
58(3), 39-43.
Mitchell, D. (2014). What Really Works in Special and Inclusive Education : Using evidence-based
teaching strategies Retrieved from
http://UWSAU.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1596944
Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science,
328(5977), 463-466.
Scotch, R. K. (1988). Disability as the basis for a social movement: Advocacy and the politics of
definition. Journal of Social Issues, 44(1), 159-172.
Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction a new paradigm for
adult instruction in postsecondary education. Remedial and Special Education, 24(6), 369-
379.
Slee, R. (2013). How do we make inclusive education happen when exclusion is a political
predisposition? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(8), 895-907.

7
Terwel, J. (2005). Curriculum differentiation: Multiple perspectives and developments in education.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(6), 653-670.
Tyler, M. C. (1993). Disability Discrimination Act 1992: Genesis, Drafting and Prospects, The. Melb.
UL Rev., 19, 211.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet psychology,
5(3), 6-18.