Content uploaded by Lesley Eblie Trudel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lesley Eblie Trudel on Aug 12, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20
International Journal of Inclusive Education
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tied20
Promising practices for preparing Canadian
teachers for inclusive classrooms: analysis through
a transformative learning lens
Brent Bradford , Lesley Eblie Trudel , Jennifer Katz , Laura Sokal & Tim
Loreman
To cite this article: Brent Bradford , Lesley Eblie Trudel , Jennifer Katz , Laura Sokal & Tim
Loreman (2021): Promising practices for preparing Canadian teachers for inclusive classrooms:
analysis through a transformative learning lens, International Journal of Inclusive Education, DOI:
10.1080/13603116.2021.1882058
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1882058
Published online: 14 Feb 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 36
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Promising practices for preparing Canadian teachers for
inclusive classrooms: analysis through a transformative
learning lens
Brent Bradford
a
, Lesley Eblie Trudel
b
, Jennifer Katz
c
, Laura Sokal
b
and
Tim Loreman
a
a
Faculty of Education, Concordia University of Edmonton, Edmonton, Canada;
b
Faculty of Education,
University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Canada;
c
Faculty of Education, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
Canada
ABSTRACT
Teacher preparation in Canada benefits from innovative
programming that supports vibrant, inclusive classrooms. We
examine two Canadian-made programmes: The Three-Block
Model of Universal Design for Learning, with particular focus on
the social emotional learning block, and the Teaching Continuum,
a model for inclusive physical education settings. We use the 3H
Model of inclusive teacher education to analyze the fit of these
two approaches to pre-service teacher inclusive education
preparation and suggest ways they can become more entrenched
within Canadian schools.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Accepted 21 January 2021
KEYWORDS
Canada; inclusion; theory;
teacher education
Introduction
In 1985, Canada became the first nation to protect the right to an equal education for all
its citizens in its charter (Council of Canadians with Disabilities 2012): The Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms signalled an inclusive stance that protects the rights
of all Canadians, regardless of disability, and reflects a value system where difference is
respected and honoured (Government of Canada 1985). Although most educators are
in support of the philosophy of inclusion in schools as it pertains to students with dis-
abilities, as a nation Canada still struggles to operationalise this value (Sokal and Katz
2015,2020). Teachers serve as important agents in educational reform (Engelbrecht
2013), so much so that UNESCO (2013) supported quality teacher preparation for
inclusion as being as important as legislation and policy initiatives around inclusion.
In order to fulfil its potential, however, teacher education for inclusion must link
theory to practice in order to create agentic, effective, inclusive teachers (Sharma 2018).
In Canada, the education system is not a federal responsibility, and this arrangement
has allowed innovative programming to emerge from within individual provinces and
territories, therefore supporting teachers in enacting inclusive philosophy through
differing practices across Canada (Timmons and Wagner 2008). We explore two
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Brent Bradford brent.bradford@concordia.ab.ca Faculty of Education, Concordia University of
Edmonton, 7128 Ada Boulevard, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5B 4E4
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1882058
innovative approaches by which Canadian teacher education programmes are preparing
pre-service teachers (PSTs) to do so. First, we explore a programme of teacher pro-
fessional learning developed in Manitoba and British Columbia. The Three-Block
Model (TBM) of Universal Design for Learning (Katz 2012) combines tier one social
emotional learning and mental health programming involving Dialectical Behaviour
Therapy skills and Mental Health Literacy with universally designed instruction to
create a framework for designing trauma-informed inclusive classrooms. We then
move from the general classroom to the inclusive physical education setting. Here we
discuss a programme developed in Alberta called the Teaching Continuum (Bradford,
Hickson, and Berg 2020), an interpretation of the theoretical understanding surrounding
the Spectrum of Teaching Styles (Mosston 1966; Mosston and Ashworth 2008; Suesee,
Hewitt, and Pill 2020).
The two programmes were selected to highlight here for several reasons. First, two of
the authors (i.e. Katz and Bradford) have been personally immersed in the development
and implementation of the programmes (i.e. one programme each). Second, both pro-
grammes have not been developed ‘from scratch’. Like most programmes involved in
teacher education, both have been built upon the theoretical underpinnings of existing
models that have helped move inclusive education forward in the pedagogical landscape.
Third, we wished to highlight programmes in different stages of development. The TBM
has been continually enhanced throughout the past 10 years, garnering funding grants to
carry out empirical studies to support its effectiveness. Hence, its effectiveness has been
demonstrated over time, and continues to develop. In contrast, the Teaching Continuum
is currently in its infancy. Like the TBM, it is expected to move in the same direction as it
gains traction through the funding of empirical studies. Due to the fact that we are each
close to the programmes as we hold inside knowledge of their beginning and developing
stages, we understand the importance of gaining external validity to confirm their effec-
tiveness. We recognise that public critique is required to help move these programmes
forward. Thus, we chose to demonstrate how the TBM and Teaching Continuum have
evolved and are continuing to be strengthened. Although there are several programmes
that could have been selected to share, both described here are currently helping PSTs
develop skills, knowledge, and attributes pertaining to inclusive learning environments
and therefore serve as exemplars of the Canadian contributions to inclusive teacher edu-
cation. Although still evolving, they have been selected to demonstrate that teacher edu-
cators in Canada are striving to assist PSTs in their planning, implementing, and
assessing of inclusive learning environments through innovative measures.
Next, we employ the 3H Model of inclusive teacher education (Sharma 2018) as a fra-
mework for critical analysis of both programmes. Although the TBM (Katz 2012) and
Teaching Continuum (Bradford and Hickson 2018) are both taught and well-received
in university-based PST education programmes in Canada, it is important that in learn-
ing these approaches they are further transferred and generalised into school-based class-
rooms and gymnasia if they are to contribute to the evolution and enhancement of
inclusive education in Canada. Sharma (2018) recently synthesised theories from
Shulman (2004) and Azjen (1991) to create the 3H Model of Inclusive Teacher Education
which builds on three key elements or ‘apprenticeships’(i.e. heart, head, and hands),
which are foundational to PST programmes. The 3H Model addresses attention not
only to the PSTs’‘hearts, heads, and hands’in terms of their capacity for including
2B. BRADFORD ET AL.
diverse learners, but also gives direction to transform this learned capacity in school set-
tings. The model proposed by Sharma will be used here to examine whether our two
exemplar programmes meet these three criteria: (1) Sharma referenced teaching to the
‘heart’, as educators must hold the attitudes and beliefs that support inclusion; (2) in
terms of the ‘head’, PSTs must have knowledge of the theories and research that underpin
inclusive practice; and (3) teaching to the ‘hands’addresses being able to implement
teaching strategies that support inclusion in schools. In other words, transformation to
inclusive practice in the classroom requires a holistic, human-centred approach which
we believe is demonstrated by the TBM and Teaching Continuum. ‘When transforma-
tional learning or growth occurs, there is a qualitative change in the structure of a
person’s meaning-making system, or way of knowing’(Drago-Severson 2012, 7). In
sum, the learning that is done in the two programmes not only adds to what PSTs
know, but it changes how they know it (Kegan 2000; Mezirow 2000).
Through exploration and critical analysis of these innovative inclusive approaches, the
contributions of Canadian inclusive teacher education are highlighted. From our per-
spective, theory is translated into practice and next steps are proposed in support of
creating more inclusive, engaging, and effective Canadian schools. A limitation should
be noted here, in that the two programmes differ in the amount of empirical study
that has taken place. In comparison to the Teaching Continuum, the TBM has received
much more research attention to date and can speak to its validity empirically, due to the
10 years of implementation. This process of validation and development will be described
further in subsequent sections, and speaks to the evolving nature of both research and
practices of inclusive education in Canada.
The three-block model of universal design for learning
Although Canadian teachers’attitudes towards inclusion are positive, they remain con-
cerned about their efficacy in implementing inclusive education, and both education
and experience are important in enhancing these constructs in teachers (Sokal,
Woloshyn, and Funk-Unrau 2014; Sokal and Sharma 2017). As such, a pedagogical fra-
mework that informs a practical ‘how-to’for teachers to intentionally design socially
and academically inclusive learning environments becomes critical to improving tea-
chers’efficacy. One such framework with a growing body of evidence to support it is
Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Rose and Meyer 2002). UDL includes three
guidelines intended to support the learning of all students, (a) multiple means of
engagement, (b) multiple means of representation, and (c) multiple means of action
and expression, rather than providing adaptations for only a select few (Gordon,
Meyer, and Rose 2016). Adapting and modifying for individual students singles
them out and can stigmatise them. When all students are provided with universal sup-
ports and challenged to learninavarietyofways,stigmaisreduced,andself-concept
grows (Katz and Porath 2011). Planning and teaching through UDL has been shown to
improve students’instructional engagement and academic achievement (Capp 2017;
Katz,Sokal,andWu2019), and also reduce teacher stress, increasing teacher job sat-
isfaction and self-efficacy related to inclusion (Katz 2014). However, until recently,
little research had been done to explore the effects of UDL on social emotional learning
and mental health.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 3
Globally, youth are experiencing elevated rates of mental illness, however, help-
seeking and access to needed supports are limited –roughly 75–80% of students with
mental health challenges do not receive intervention (Gulliver, Griffiths, and Christensen
2010). Moreover, according to the Mental Health Commission of Canada (2020), it is
estimated that 1.2 million children and youth in Canada are impacted by mental
illness –while less than 20% will receive appropriate care. As schools are the only
public institution with access to all youth, school-based programming is critical to
reach youth not currently accessing needed supports. When youth do reach out for
help to teachers within the school environment, they are less likely to attempt suicide,
suggesting that teachers may be an important resource for mental health support
(Smith et al. 2014).
Within the UDL guidelines for multiple means of engagement there are several prin-
ciples that promote mental health and well-being, including minimising threats and facil-
itating personal coping skills and strategies. Katz (2018) has recently expanded these to
include a greater focus on social emotional learning and mental health in the TBM. In the
original TBM (2012), the first block addresses the social and emotional needs and mental
health of students in inclusive classrooms. Social emotional learning and school-based
mental health programmes are implemented that support the development of a positive
self-concept, sense of belonging, coping skills, and respect for diverse others (Katz and
Porath 2011; Katz 2012). In the second block of the TBM, instructional practices are uni-
versally designed to take advantage of different learning strengths, experiences, and back-
ground knowledge as a means to show students how diversity can be advantageous and
create an interdependent learning community (Katz 2012). The third block of the TBM
focuses on systems change and scaling up inclusive education (Katz 2012). It explores
funding models for special education, reforms in staffing and roles (e.g. how a resource
teacher works in-class versus through pull-out), inclusive education policies and curri-
cula, and establishing collaborative cultures in schools.
Recently, programming involving adapted Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) skills
and a universally designed mental health literacy programme has been added to the first
block of the TBM (Katz 2018): teachers are provided core instructional goals in mental
health literacy and DBT skills with suggested lesson plans (see programme details in Katz
2018), but are encouraged to differentiate lesson plans and delivery methods (e.g. using
videos or role plays) to support implementation and student responsiveness. Lessons one
through four focus on basic neuroanatomy. Students explore the cortisol cycle and stress
responses including the role of cognitive triggers in their emotional responses, percep-
tions of events and negative thinking, and the fight, flight, and freeze mechanism. In
lesson five, students learn to interrupt the cortisol cycle when they feel themselves
being reactive using strategies for maintaining well-being including simple mindfulness
activities (e.g. breathing exercises). The relationship between the five senses and
emotional memory is explored in lesson six. Lesson seven introduces Keyes’(2002)
dual continua of mental health. As a means to developing emotional literacy, students
are introduced to the concepts of flourishing and languishing mental health, and place
emotion words and personal experiences along the continua. Lesson eight focuses on
the mental illness continuum and develops knowledge and understanding of mental ill-
nesses. Finally, lesson nine engages students in inquiry exploring how mental illness is
4B. BRADFORD ET AL.
portrayed by popular media and the connection to social stigma. Students then explore
the components of a supportive community for a person with mental illness.
DBT skills are taught across four adapted modules with three lessons per module,
using acronyms drawn from DBT but delivered through differentiated activities with
adaptations for age, communication skills, and learning modalities (e.g. using role
plays, stories, videos, and games rather than workbooks). In the first module, students
are taught about interpersonal effectiveness skills including assertiveness, asking for
what is needed, sustaining positive relationships, setting boundaries, and self-respect.
The second module focuses on emotional regulation (i.e. its biological bases, identifying
and labelling emotions, and how nutrition, exercise, and sleep contribute to mental
health). The mindfulness module teaches students self-soothing skills including mindful-
ness meditations. Students explore non-judgment of self and others, methods for balan-
cing emotions and rational thought and awareness of self and the environment. Finally,
the fourth module targets distress tolerance by teaching how acute distress affects
emotions and reasoning, and strategies for coping with acute distress.
A growing body of research has provided evidence that implementing the TBM can
lead to significant increases in students’willingness to engage with out-groups (Katz
and Porath 2011), self-concept and belonging (Katz and Porath 2011; Katz, Mercer,
and Skinner 2020), and prosocial behaviour of diverse students, including those with
learning and behavioural challenges (Glass 2013). A recent (pilot) randomized control
trial indicated that implementing the mental health literacy and DBT programming sig-
nificantly increased students’self-concept, coping skills, and perceptions of social
support, with large effect sizes for all three variables (Katz et al. 2020).
One of the populations most at risk for mental health challenges is youth with devel-
opmental disabilities (Leoni, Corti, and Cavagnola 2015). Despite high rates of co-
morbid mental health challenges, with estimates ranging from 40–60%, youth with devel-
opmental disabilities have often been assumed to be incapable of participating in thera-
peutic interventions, or at least thought to require intensive one-to-one intervention that
is rarely available (Whitney et al. 2018). In a secondary analysis of the data from the
above randomized control trial, participants with developmental disabilities were also
able to benefit significantly from DBT and mental health literacy universal/tier one
mental health programming. Thus, universally designed mental health programming
may offer an opportunity to support both students with and without disabilities, although
there remains a need for replication and further investigation (Katz et al. 2020).
In addition to preparing to teach effectively in inclusive classroom settings, PSTs must
also develop skills for inclusion in other subject areas that take place away from the tra-
ditional classroom. Like the TBM, a Canadian-made model has responded to this need.
The teaching continuum
Typically, elementary schools in Canada choose to employ generalist-trained teachers
(GTs) to meet the demands of most, if not all, curricular areas, and GTs become respon-
sible for addressing the needs of all students to minimise any exclusionary practices
(UNESCO 2005). Hence, when planning for inclusive physical education learning
environments, for example, many pedagogical considerations must be considered,
including accessible, flexible curricula (UNESCO 2015). The Teaching Continuum
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 5
(Bradford, Hickson, and Berg 2020) is an inclusive interpretation of the theoretical
understanding surrounding the Spectrum of Teaching Styles (Mosston 1966; Mosston
and Ashworth 2008; Suesee, Hewitt, and Pill 2020) currently being taught to PSTs in
Alberta, Canada.
Accounting for student diversity should occur in all curricula (UNESCO 2005): stu-
dents learn in numerous ways and enter the learning environment with varied levels
of movement experience leading to an array of learner needs and aspirations (Byra
2006). Such natural variances in cognitive and physical abilities are highly visible in phys-
ical education, and so the necessity for differentiation is magnified due to performative
learning objectives that lead to, for instance, fundamental movement skill development
(Griggs and Medcalf 2015).
To help PSTs learn to plan, deliver, and assess quality, meaningful pedagogy for
inclusive physical education, it is helpful to examine PSTs’knowledge base and
efficacy. Bradford and Loreman (2018) found that their sample of generalist PSTs sup-
ported inclusive physical education learning environments, although they expressed
reservation regarding their levels of teaching preparedness (alternatively, some seemed
rather overconfident in their abilities). Hence, stemming from the work of Bradford
and Loreman along with Bradford and Hickson (2018), in the teacher education pro-
gramme at Concordia University of Edmonton, generalist PSTs are challenged in phys-
ical education to think critically about diversity and inclusion in a way that encourages
setting aside assumptions and developing effective strategies for planning, delivering, and
assessing while remembering that teaching impacts each student as an individual.
As Loreman (2010) argued, inclusive education is not without challenges: ‘One area
that is consistently outlined as being of concern relates to teacher preparation’(124).
Loreman identified seven key areas as being important to beginning teachers’success
in a generalist inclusive classroom. The most salient of these areas with respect to
teacher education for inclusive physical education are instructing in ways conducive to
inclusion and engaging in inclusive instructional planning.
There are any number of ways to engage in inclusive instruction. Loreman (2010)
suggested constructivist and multi-modal strategies that allow for universal access to
the content, with teachers differentiating instruction through the provision of multiple
paths to content, process, and product. With respect to planning, Loreman suggested
that PSTs need to learn to modify and/or adapt long-term and individual lesson plans
to account for diversity in each subject area taught, bearing in mind the need for univer-
sal access and variations in pace, style, and format. These outcomes might seem daunting
to a PST. To deliver effective programming, GTs require, among other facets, appropriate
pedagogical expertise to support students’knowledge acquisition. How a teacher
chooses, designs, and sequences such learning opportunities can impact the learning
potential (Mosston and Ashworth 2008). While a large number of specific inclusive phys-
ical education teaching strategies, including planning, are outlined throughout the litera-
ture and in PST education programmes (Gleddie, Hickson, and Bradford 2018), it is
sometimes difficult for PSTs to incorporate these into an overarching teaching philos-
ophy and style. They need a model for reference and the Teaching Continuum can
fulfil this need.
Because inclusive physical education encourages meaningful participation in activities
that are physical and often cooperative by design (Griggs and Medcalf 2015), the
6B. BRADFORD ET AL.
interactional nature of the learning environment leads to a spectrum of experiences.
Bradford and Hickson (2018) aimed to simplify the understanding of utilising various
teaching styles in elementary school physical education. As GTs are immersed in teach-
ing that extends well beyond physical education, it can be problematic for GTs, who may
have received minimal, if any, inclusive physical education teacher education program-
ming, to completely comprehend and effectively implement heavily researched theoreti-
cal frameworks into practice (Bradford, Hickson, and Berg 2020). Hence, the Teaching
Continuum (Bradford and Hickson 2018; Bradford, Hickson, and Berg 2020) includes
three general styles –Teacher as a Guide; Shared Guides; and Student Self-Guide –
and can serve as an inclusive, engaging, and effective framework for GTs when planning,
delivering, and assessing inclusive physical education.
Teacher as a guide
Several physical education learning outcomes require specifically designed learning
opportunities. An array of skills, such as performing a forward roll, leaves minimal
room for discovery and exploration due to numerous safety issues (Bradford, Hickson,
and Berg 2020). In this approach, the teacher makes the majority, if not all, of the
decisions in the teaching episode. Similar to Spectrum styles such as Command Style
(Mosston and Ashworth 2008), a significant characteristic of Teacher as a Guide includes
‘precision performance –reproducing a predicted response or performance on cue’(76).
The teacher, for example, plans and demonstrates the activities, and assesses learning
using pre-determined criteria (Bradford, Hickson, and Berg 2020).
Shared guides
Certain physical education learning outcomes can afford opportunities for teachers and
students to work together. Activities, such as performing a gymnastics-type sequence,
can call for a teacher-student decision-making partnership (Bradford, Hickson, and
Berg 2020). Performing a gymnastics-type sequence requires specific criteria (e.g.
length in time, use of space, types of supports), while other sequence components can
be installed through student creativity and risk-taking (e.g. levels, qualities, relation-
ships). Students, therefore, are provided with specific decision-making opportunities,
while the teacher maintains influence over various aspects (Mosston and Ashworth
2008). Similar to Spectrum styles such as the Self-Check Style (Mosston and Ashworth
2008), a significant characteristic of Shared Guides includes ‘performing a task and enga-
ging in self-assessment guided by specific teacher provided criteria’(141). Students, for
example, can discover a wide range of ways to perform the movement sequence, while the
teacher employs pre-determined assessment criteria (Bradford, Hickson, and Berg 2020).
Student self-guide
Some physical education learning outcomes provide students with opportunities to
explore and discover. For example, creative movement activities can afford students
opportunities to create their own story through movement, while listening to a song
(Bradford, Hickson, and Berg 2020). Similar to Spectrum styles such as the Learner-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 7
Designed Individual Program Style (Mosston and Ashworth 2008), a significant charac-
teristic of Student Self-Guide includes ‘the independence of each learner to discover a
structure that resolves an issue’(274). Students, for example, discover multiple ways to
perform the activities, and assess their learning employing pre-determined criteria (Brad-
ford, Hickson, and Berg 2020).
Inclusive physical education includes planning for, supporting, and celebrating diver-
sity within the learning environment. Inclusive physical education involves teaching to
student strengths in a holistic programme that develops the physical, social emotional,
and cognitive domains of each student (UNESCO 2015; Gleddie, Hickson, and Bradford
2018). Hence, the Teaching Continuum is a fitting initial step for GT PSTs in developing
a broader scope of knowledge and understanding of available teaching styles for inclusive
physical education. The Teaching Continuum helps introduce GTs to the seminal work
of Mosston (1966), the Spectrum of Teaching Styles (Mosston and Ashworth 2008), while
developing further understanding of exemplary inclusive physical education teaching
(Bradford, Hickson, and Berg 2020).
Pre-service teacher education for inclusion –meeting the 3H model
Both programmes endeavour to meet the criteria proposed by Sharma (2018): heart,
head, and hands. In terms of ‘heart’, the TBM (Katz 2012) clearly includes units on
both social emotional learning and mental health literacy. Research shows that when tea-
chers are responsible for these aspects of curriculum, they too develop better social
emotional skills (Jones, Bouffard, and Weissbourd 2013). The TBM meets the ‘head’
component by clearly requiring knowledge of theoretical constructs such as UDL
(Rose and Meyer 2002), Bloom’s Taxonomy (Bloom et al. 1956), and Backward
Design (Wiggins and McTighe 1998) in order for PSTs to demonstrate competency
with this approach. Finally, the focus on the ‘hands’in terms of clear pedagogical strat-
egies is a strength of this approach. Moreover, when teachers see the success of their
implementation of the TBM on children’s social and academic achievement, they feel
more efficacious (Katz 2014), which further supports the ‘heart’aspect of this inclusive
approach.
The Teaching Continuum (Bradford, Hickson, and Berg 2020) also addresses the
heart, head, and hands. In terms of the ‘heart’, the Teaching Continuum (Bradford,
Hickson, and Berg 2020) is taught as part of a suite of classes, and it extends the
content (which already addresses the heart component) of those lessons into physical
education. The model meets the ‘head’component by deeply acknowledging the theor-
etical underpinnings of the seminal work of Mosston (1966) and Mosston and Ashworth
(2008) related to the Spectrum of Teaching Styles in order for PSTs to demonstrate
understanding and mastery of the teaching styles along a non-hierarchical continuum
to promote a conducive learning environment for all. Moreover, for all students to
develop fundamental movement skills (in physical education, for instance), in addition
to the declarative and procedural knowledge related to the subject area, teachers
require pedagogical expertise to support student understanding and knowledge acqui-
sition (Bradford, Hickson, and Berg 2020). Further, the primary focus of the Teaching
Continuum is on the hands: showing how we take these beliefs and attitudes into a
new setting as part of inclusive physical education. That said, the focus on the ‘hands’
8B. BRADFORD ET AL.
in terms of clear pedagogical strategies is a strength of the Teaching Continuum. The very
existence of the Teaching Continuum is based on inclusive, engaging, and effective ped-
agogical attempts to reach all learners in inclusive physical education. When students are
afforded opportunities to participate in learning activities in various ways and, in turn,
meet the learning outcomes, teachers become more confident in employing the
different teaching styles to meet all learner needs. In the end, it is really about ‘slanting
the rope’as Mosston alluded to in his seminal work related to the Spectrum of Teaching
Styles (Mosston and Ashworth 2008). Based on inclusivity, Mosston’s deep-rooted theory
about ‘slanting the rope’when teaching ‘accomplishes the objectives to create conditions
of inclusion (choice of the degree of difficulty within the same task)’(Mosston and Ash-
worth 2008, 158).
Meeting the fourth H (Holism)
Although teaching to the heart, head, and hands is a good starting point in preparing
PSTs for an inclusive setting, this approach will not transcend from university-based
coursework and into classrooms and gymnasia unless it is planned and purposeful.
Sharma (2018) provided four interdependent structures by which this deployment can
take place. Together, these four structures comprise what we call the fourth H:
Holism. Holism proposes that parts of a whole are connected and best understood
within the context of the whole, which in turn is greater than the sum of its parts
(Auyang 1999). Sharma’s four structures allow us to understand how the heart, head,
and hands work within a broader framework of teacher education to support the
process of inclusive education.
First, Sharma (2018) suggested that close partnerships between schools and univer-
sities should be evident in terms of who instructs PSTs during their university-based
coursework. Having teams of teachers and professors teaching together during univer-
sity-based instruction is recommended as a way to address the efficacy and attitudes
necessary for inclusive practice and break barriers to inclusion in schools (Sharma and
Loreman 2014). By learning these strategies from teachers who also enact them with
their students in their own K-12 classrooms, PSTs are provided with models for
enhanced practical credibility (Cornbleth and Ellsworth 1994). In Canada, it is not
unusual to have master teachers as contract faculty who are integral part-time
members of the university faculty. In this way, the methods proposed by Katz’s TBM
(2012) and Bradford and Hickson, 2018,2020) Teaching Continuum are validated and
modelled by teachers who use them in their own practice.
Second, Sharma (2018) proposed that the content of PST courses should align with
inclusive philosophy and be based on strong evidence. As previously demonstrated,
the TBM (2012) has undergone extensive testing and analysis in schools across
Canada and continues to be validated empirically. Likewise, the Teaching Continuum,
in its early stages, has acted as a ‘fitting initial step for GTs in developing a broader
scope of knowledge and understanding of available teaching styles for the teaching of
elementary school physical education’(Bradford, Hickson, and Berg 2020, 164). More-
over, the Teaching Continuum is based on the seminal work of Mosston (1966) and
Mosston and Ashworth (2008), which has been empirically supported and developed
over time: ‘…the Spectrum has undergone extensive verification and, without
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 9
equivocation, there is no question of its validity. Furthermore, these research results have
enriched our practice of teaching physical education and have provided new insights
about effective teaching’(Mosston and Ashworth 2008, 11). Hence, in this new configur-
ation which has been revised to support the PST education of GTs in physical education
teacher education (as previously mentioned) –the Teaching Continuum –this process of
validation continues. Furthermore, both programmes have the explicit goal of supporting
inclusion, so they clearly align with this philosophy and fulfil the second aspect of
Sharma’s 3H + 1 framework. Inclusive education is a process (Ainscow 2005), and tea-
chers must continue to search for ways to respond to diverse learning environments.
Both programmes discussed here are aiming to do just that –with an intent to
provide all students with conducive learning opportunities.
Third, Sharma (2018) advocated that university professors should work in schools as
partners with classroom teachers as PSTs enact the approaches during the practicum
blocks in schools. In this way, the team that teaches the theory in the university classroom
is also there to support its implementation in schools. Although PSTs are supervised
during practicum by both in-service teachers and university personnel in Canada, it is
not always the case that these university personnel are also faculty members who teach
courses in inclusive education. Rather, in Canada these faculty supervisors are sometimes
retired master teachers and sometimes faculty members. In order to add practicum
supervision to faculty members’professional obligations for teaching, research, service,
and governance, a major paradigm shift would need to occur in Canadian universities.
In this regard, the third aspect of the framework proposed by Sharma is only partially
fulfilled and only in some universities in Canada. Magudu and Gumbo (2018) recently
found the same concerns in the nature, scope, and coherence of partnerships between
teacher education programmes and schools in Zimbabwe, suggesting that less than
optimal partnerships between universities and schools is not limited to the Canadian
context.
Finally, Sharma (2018) posited that PSTs should be assessed for inclusive teaching
competence as part of the required skill sets on practicum and as a signal that inclusive
hearts, heads, and hands are an expectation of the profession. Inclusion is a clear mandate
of the government of education departments across Canada (Timmons and Wagner
2008), and these same standards are used to assess PSTs for certification. Given that
Canadian PSTs who fail to enact inclusive pedagogy during their practica do not
qualify for teacher certification, there is certainly alignment between the intentions of
the models cited here and the fourth aspect of Sharma’s framework.
By defining this additional element of apprenticeship, we encompass Sharma’s
(2018) four interdependent structures to demonstrate how PST programmes generate
learning and change. From an organisational perspective, PST programmes such as the
TBM (Katz 2012) and the Teaching Continuum (Bradford, Hickson, and Berg 2020)
serve to enhance inclusion in the Canadian educational environment in authentic
and meaningful ways. Programme planning has been found most effective and func-
tional when it creates opportunities to share, reflect, and learn (Eblie Trudel 2013).
Through a process of reflection and purposeful action, collectively operationalising
Sharma’s structures within the fourth element of Holism, the relationship between
PST programmes and classroom practice is effectively recoupled. By reflecting in
action, we identify ways in which current practices can be enhanced or improved
10 B. BRADFORD ET AL.
(Argyris 2010; Argyris and Schon 1974,1978;Kolb1984;Senge1990), transforming
university-based coursework to classroom settings. Mezirow (2000) indicates that
transformative learning is a ‘process by which we transformourtaken-for-granted
frames of reference to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open, emotionally
capable of change and reflective’(7–8). As more in-service teachers receive professional
development on inclusive practices and as more new teachers are hired with this edu-
cation and mindset in place as a result of strong inclusive education preparation, we
continue to work together for the day when inclusion will be viewed as ‘business as
usual’rather than innovation.
Next steps
As mentioned, the two programmes discussed here were selected for specific reasons.
Ultimately, two of the authors have taken the lead on the development and implemen-
tation of one programme each (i.e. Katz and Bradford). Moreover, due to the fact that
one programme (i.e. TBM) has received much research attention since its inception
over 10 years ago, it is the aim of Bradford and colleagues (2018,2020) to see the
Teaching Continuum reach the same level of research attention moving forward.
Next steps for each programme include following up with empirical studies that can
enhance the effectiveness of each programme while strengthening teacher education
programming and, more specifically, inclusive learning environments in schools.
Such research can include monitoring student learning as PSTs implement the pro-
grammes during their practicum experiences; investigating PST teaching efficacy con-
cerning the programmes; and follow-up studies including the PSTs’first years of
teaching (i.e. in-service teaching) to examine whether or not the programmes are
being employed effectively in their new school environments (a current national
study is taking place to examine the outcomes of the 2018 version of the TBM). As
demonstrated here, there are innovative programmes in Canadian teacher education
programming aimed to help move forward the landscape of inclusive education. The
TBM and Teaching Continuum are merely two out a range of effective programmes
striving to improve the learning of all students, and both continue to be enhanced to
meet the highest levels of effectiveness.
Conclusion
As part of a global community, Canada is working to develop sound bridges between
theory and practice in order to prepare PSTs to support an inclusive education
agenda. While these promising innovations are still in development in terms of clearly
linking school and faculty personnel more closely in their teamwork to support
implementation, the evidence base supporting the TBM and Teaching Continuum is
strong and continues to grow. The additional apprenticeship element of the 3H + 1
model exemplifies reflection and purposeful action, recoupling the work of the heart,
head, and hands in order to both inform and transform the learning in PST programmes
to instructional practice. This observation speaks to the evolving understanding of best
practices for inclusion, and our collective commitment toward meeting our Charter
duties to ensure equal education for all Canadians.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 11
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Dr. Brent Bradford (Concordia University of Edmonton [CUE]). Brent Bradford is an Associate
Professor (Faculty of Education) and the Chair (Department of Physical Education & Wellness).
Along with extensive K-9 teaching experiences (2000–2009), Brent, an award-winning educator,
has been teaching pre-service teachers since 2009 (CUE, University of Alberta). Dr. Bradford
has presented and published extensively on physical and health education, is an Erasmus+ and
Mobile+ Scholar (University of the Basque Country, 2016), and was awarded CUE’s 2019
Gerald S. Krispin ‘President’s’Research Award. Brent is the volume editor of ‘The Doctoral
Journey: International Educationalist Perspectives’(BRILL | Sense, 2021), and is President of
the Education Society of Edmonton.
Dr. Lesley Eblie Trudel (University of Winnipeg). Lesley Eblie Trudel has been successfully
involved in public education in Manitoba for over thirty years. She has held positions of classroom
teacher, resource teacher, consultant and principal, working with diverse populations in both
urban and rural settings. Lesley recently retired as an Assistant Superintendent of Schools and
is currently Associate Dean in the Faculty of Education at the University of Winnipeg. She is
the former President of the Student Services Administrators’Association of Manitoba, collabo-
rated in leadership development with the Manitoba Association of School Superintendents, and
is an Associate of Inclusive Education Canada. Lesley has a keen interest in organisational learning
and systemic change, as it pertains to diverse educational communities.
Dr. Jennifer Katz (University of British Columbia [UBC]). Dr. Katz is the author of ‘Teaching to
Diversity: The Three-Block Model of Universal Design for Learning’,‘Resource Teachers: A Chan-
ging Role in the Three-Block Model of UDL’, and ‘Ensouling Our Schools: A Universally Designed
Framework for Mental Health, Well-Being, and Reconciliation’. She taught in diverse classrooms
from K-12 in Winnipeg and Vancouver for 16 years, in addition to working as a special education
teacher, resource teacher, guidance counsellor, district coach and consultant, and is currently an
Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at UBC. Jennifer has worked with Ministry of Edu-
cation personnel, district and school leaders, and teachers internationally, and is currently working
with the Neuroscience, Well-Being, and Education research cluster at UBC.
Dr. Laura Sokal (University of Winnipeg). An award-winning teacher, Laura has published over
60 articles and three books about the psycho-social development of school children. Aside from
working in schools, she has worked as a child life therapist, a director of programming for at-
risk children, and as Associate Dean of Education at the University of Winnipeg. In her current
position as Professor at the University of Winnipeg, she enjoys learning with and from her
students.
Dr. Tim Loreman (Concordia University of Edmonton [CUE]). Tim Loreman is President and
Vice Chancellor at Concordia University of Edmonton, where he has worked for 16 years as a Pro-
fessor in the Faculty of Education, also serving at various times as Dean of Research and Faculty
Development, and Vice-President Academic and Provost. Before joining CUE, Dr. Loreman
worked at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, where he completed his PhD. Prior to
that, Tim was an elementary and junior high school teacher in Australia and Edmonton,
Canada. His research interests are in the areas of inclusive education, pedagogy, and teacher
education.
ORCID
Lesley Eblie Trudel http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0602-7402
Tim Loreman http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6666-1720
12 B. BRADFORD ET AL.
References
Ainscow, M. 2005.“Developing Inclusive Education Systems: What Are the Levers for Change?”
Journal of Educational Change 6: 109–124. doi:10.1007/s10833-005-1298-4.
Argyris, C. 2010.Organizational Traps. Leadership, Culture, Organizational Design. Oxford, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Argyris, C., and D. A. Schon. 1974.Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., and D. A. Schon. 1978.Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective.
Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.
Auyang, S. Y. 1999.Foundations of Complex-System Theories: In Economics, Evolutionary Biology,
and Statistical Physics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Azjen, I. 1991.“The Theory of Planned Behavior.”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 50 (2): 179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Bloom, B. S., M. D. Engelhart, E. J. Furst, W. H. Hill, and D. R. Krathwohl. 1956.Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive
Domain. New York, NY: David McKay Company.
Bradford, B., and C. Hickson. 2018.“Impacting Student Learning: An Introduction to the
Teaching Continuum in Elementary School Physical Education.”Active + Healthy Journal 25
(1): 41–48.
Bradford, Brent, C. Hickson, and S. Berg. 2020.“The Teaching Continuum: A Framework for
Generalist Trained Elementary School Teachers in Physical Education.”In The Spectrum of
Teaching Styles in Physical Education, edited by Brendan Suesee, Mitch Hewitt, and Shane
Pill, 152–165. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bradford, B., and T. Loreman. 2018.“Canadian Preservice Teacher Views of Inclusive Physical
Education.”Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education,1–19. doi:10.1017/jsi.
2018.4.
Byra, Mark. 2006.“Teaching Styles and Inclusive Pedagogies.”In Handbook of Physical Education,
edited by David Kirk, Doune Macdonald, and Mary O’Sullivan, 449–466. London, UK: Sage.
doi:10.4135/9781848608009.n25.
Capp, M. J. 2017.“The Effectiveness of Universal Design for Learning: A Meta-Analysis of
Literature between 2013 and 2016.”International Journal of Inclusive Education 21 (8): 791–
807. doi:10.1080/13603116.2017.1325074.
Cornbleth, C., and J. Ellsworth. 1994.“Teachers in Teacher Education: Clinical Faculty Roles and
Relationships.”American Educational Research Journal 31 (1): 49–70. doi:10.3102/
00028312031001049.
Council of Canadians with Disabilities. 2012.“Constitutional Equality Rights: People with
Disabilities Still Celebrating 30 Years Later.”Winnipeg, MB: Council of Canadians with
Disabilities. April 17. Accessed 6 November 2020. http://www.ccdonline.ca/en/humanrights/
promoting/charter-press-release-17apri2012.
Drago-Severson, E. 2012.Helping Educators Grow: Strategies and Practices for Leadership
Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Eblie Trudel, Lesley. 2013.“Defining Effective and Functional School Division Planning Practices.”
In Inclusive Special Education in Manitoba: 2001–2012, edited by John VanWalleghem and
Zana Marie Lutfiyya, Manitoba Education Research Network (MERN) Monograph Series,
Issue 6: 41–51. Accessed 8 November 2020. http://mbtrc.org/data/documents/Inclusive_
Special-Education_English_web.pdf.
Engelbrecht, P. 2013.“Teacher Education for Inclusion: International Perspectives.”European
Journal of Special Needs Education 28 (2): 115–188. doi:10.1080/08856257.2013.778110.
Glass, Theresa. 2013.“Creating Learning Environments for Disengaged Boys: Bridging the Gender
Gap with Universal Design for Learning.”MEd Thesis., University of Manitoba. Accessed 6
November 2020. https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1993/17596/Thesis
%20March%202013.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 13
Gleddie, D., C. Hickson, and B. Bradford. 2018.Physical Education for Elementary School Teachers:
Foundations of a Physical Literacy Journey. Victoria, BC: Ripon.
Gordon, D., A. Meyer, and D. H. Rose. 2016.Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice.
Wakefield, MA: CAST.
Government of Canada. 1985.“Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, R.S.C, 1985 Appendix
II No. 44.”see also Part I (ss.1–34) of the Constitution Act, 1982. Accessed 7 November 2020.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/
latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html.
Griggs, Gerald, and Richard Medcalf. 2015.“Inclusive Pedagogy in Physical Education.”In
Inclusive Perspectives on Inclusive Education: Vol. 7. Inclusive Pedagogy Across the
Curriculum, edited by Joanne M. Deppeler, Tim Loreman, Ron Smith, and Lani Florian,
119–137. Melbourne, AU: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. doi:10.1108/S1479-
363620150000007013.
Gulliver, A., K. M. Griffiths, and H. Christensen. 2010.“Perceived Barriers and Facilitators to
Mental Health Help-Seeking in Young People: A Systematic Review.”BMC Psychiatry 10:
113. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-10-113.
Jones, S. M., S. M. Bouffard, and R. Weissbourd. 2013.“Educators’Social and Emotional Skills
Vital to Learning.”Phi Delta Kappan 94 (8): 62–65. doi:10.1177/003172171309400815.
Katz, J. 2012.Teaching to Diversity: The Three-Block Model of Universal Design for Learning.
Winnipeg, MB: Portage & Main Press.
Katz, J. 2014.“Implementing the Three-Block Model of Universal Design for Learning (UDL):
Effects on Teachers’Self-Efficacy, Stress, and Job Satisfaction in Inclusive Classrooms K-12.”
International Journal of Inclusive Education 19 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1080/13603116.2014.881569.
Katz, J. 2018.Ensouling Our Schools: A Universally Designed Framework for Mental Health, Well-
Being, and Reconciliation.Winnipeg, MB: Portage & Main Press.
Katz, J., V. Knight, S. H. Mercer, and S. Y. Skinner. 2020.“Effects of a Universal School-Based
Mental Health Program on the Self-Concept, Coping Skills, and Perceptions of Social
Support of Students with Developmental Disabilities.”Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders 50 (11): 4069–4084. doi:10.1007/s10803-020-04472-w.
Katz, J., S. H. Mercer, and S. Skinner. 2020.“Developing Self-Concept, Coping Skills, and Social
Support in Grades 3–12: A Cluster-Randomized Trial of a Combined Mental Health Literacy
and Dialectical Behavior Therapy Skills Program.”School Mental Health 12 (2): 323–335.
doi:10.1007/s12310-019-09353-x.
Katz, J., and M. Porath. 2011.“Teaching to Diversity: Creating Compassionate Learning
Communities for Diverse Elementary School Students.”International Journal of Special
Education 26 (2): 1–13. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ937173.pdf.
Katz, J., L. Sokal, and A. Wu. 2019.“Academic Achievement of Diverse K-12 Learners in Three-
Block Model Classrooms.”International Journal of Inclusive Education. doi:10.1080/13603116.
2019.1613450.
Kegan, R. 2000.“What ‘Form’Transforms? A Constructive-Developmental Approach to
Transformative Learning.”In Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory
in Progress, edited by Jack Mezirow, 35–70. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Keyes, C. 2002.“The Mental Health Continuum: From Languishing to Flourishing in Life.”
Journal of Health and Social Behavior 4 (2): 207–222. doi:10.2307/3090197.
Kolb, D. 1984.Experiential Learning. Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Leoni, M., S. Corti, and R. Cavagnola. 2015.“Third Generation Behavioural Therapy for
Neurodevelopmental Disorders: Review and Trajectories.”Advances in Mental Health and
Intellectual Disabilities 9 (5): 265–274. doi:10.1108/AMHID-06-2015-0031.
Loreman, T. 2010.“Essential Inclusive Education-Related Outcomes for Alberta Preservice
Teachers.”The Alberta Journal of Educational Research 56 (2): 124–142.
Magudu, S., and M. T. Gumbo. 2018.“Efficacy of Teacher Education Institutions and Primary
Schools in Teacher Preparation in Zimbabwe.”South African Journal of Higher Education 32
(5): 104–123. doi:10.20853/32-5-2595.
14 B. BRADFORD ET AL.
Mental Health Commission of Canada. 2020.“Children and Youth.”Ottawa, ON: Mental Health
Commission of Canada. Accessed 6 November 2020. https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/
English/what-we-do/children-and-youth.
Mezirow, Jack. 2000.“Learning to Think Like an Adult: Core Concepts of Transformation
Theory.”In Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress, edited
by J. Mezirow and Associates, 3-33. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mosston, M. 1966.Teaching Physical Education: From Command to Discovery. Columbus, OH:
Charles E. Merrill Books.
Mosston, M., and S. Ashworth. 2008.Teaching Physical Education (1st online ed. –6th ed.).
https://spectrumofteachingstyles.org/index.php?id=16.
Rose, D., and A. Meyer. 2002.Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for
Learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Senge, P. M. 1990.The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
New York, NY: Doubleday Currency.
Sharma, Umesh. 2018.“Preparing to Teach in Inclusive Classrooms.”In Oxford Research
Encyclopedia of Education, edited by George W. Noblit, 1–22. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.113.
Sharma, Umesh, and T. Loreman. 2014.“Teacher Educator Perspectives on Systemic Barriers to
Inclusive Education: An International Conversation.”In Bringing Insider Perspectives into
Inclusive Teacher Learning: Potentials and Challenges, edited by Phyllis Jones, 168–177.
Abbingdon, UK: Routledge.
Shulman, L. S. 2004.The Wisdom of Practice: Essays on Teaching, Learning, and Learning to Teach.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, A., D. Stewart, C. Poon, M. Peled, and E. Saewyc, and McCreary Centre Society. 2014.
“From Hastings Street to Haida Gwaii: Provincial Results of the 2013 BC Adolescent Health
Survey.”Vancouver, BC: McCreary Centre Society. Accessed 6 November 2020. https://www.
mcs.bc.ca/pdf/From_Hastings_Street_To_Haida_Gwaii.pdf.
Sokal, L., and J. Katz. 2015.“Oh Canada: Bridges and Barriers to Inclusion in Canadian Schools.”
Support for Learning 30 (1): 42–54. doi:10.1111/1467-9604.12078.
Sokal, L., and J. Katz. 2020.“Inclusive and Special Education in Canada and the United States.”In
Oxford Encyclopedia of Inclusive and Special Education, edited by Umesh Sharma. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1023.
Sokal, L., and U. Sharma. 2017.“Do I Really Need a Course to Learn to Teach Students with
Disabilities? I’ve Been Doing It for Tears.”Canadian Journal of Education 40 (4): 739–760.
https://journals.sfu.ca/cje/index.php/cje-rce/article/view/3186.
Sokal, L., D. Woloshyn, and S. Funk-Unrau. 2014.“How Important Is Practicum to Pre-Service
Teacher Development for Inclusive Teaching? Effects on Classroom Management Efficacy.”
Alberta Journal of Educational Research 59 (2): 285–298.
Suesee, B., M. Hewitt, and S. Pill, eds. 2020.The Spectrum of Teaching Styles in Physical Education.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Timmons, V., and M. Wagner. 2008.“Inclusive Education Knowledge Exchange Initiative: An
Analysis of Statistics Canada Participation and Activity Limitation Study: Final Report.”
Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Learning. Accessed 7 November 2020. http://en.copian.
ca/library/research/ccl/inclusive_edu_know/inclusive_edu_know.pdf.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2005.“Guidelines
for Inclusion: Ensuring Access to Education for All.”Paris, FRA: UNESCO. Accessed 6
November 2020. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000140224.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2013.“Promoting
Inclusive Teacher Education: Introduction.”Bangkok, TH: UNESCO. Accessed 6 November
2020. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000221033.
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 2015.“Quality
Physical Education: Guidelines for Policy-Makers.”Paris, FRA: UNESCO. Accessed 6
November 2020. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000231101.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 15
Whitney, D. G., D. N. Shapiro, M. D. Peterson, and S. A. Warschausky. 2018.“Factors Associated
with Depression and Anxiety in Children with Intellectual Disabilities.”Journal of Intellectual
Disability Research 63 (5): 408–417. doi:10.1111/jir.12583.
Wiggins, G., and J. McTighe. 1998.Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
16 B. BRADFORD ET AL.
