Pathways to Inclusive Practice – Annotated Bibliography

Pathways to Inclusive Practice – An Annotated Bibliography

Since becoming an educator within the field of education, I have often struggled with how I can best meet the diverse needs and current abilities of all students I have been able to work with over the course of my teaching career. I think we can all agree that the goal of education is to provide equitable learning opportunities for students to grow to their full potentials. Despite our best interests, we still face many uphill challenges to create inclusive classrooms that meet an array of diverse learning needs in a typical classroom.

Fortunately, there is a large and growing body of research to support the need to move towards three areas of research that I’m interested in pursuing:

1. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) – this annotated bibliography includes an overview of UDL literature provided by Barteaux. Jennifer Katz’s Three block model of UDL provides some great follow-up literature within Indigenous and Canadian contexts.
2. Personalized Inquiry and strength-based approaches to learning – this annotated bibliography features a four-year impact study of a Strengths-based blended, personalized learning model implemented across an entire California school division.
3. Social and emotional learning – including explorations of channelling feelings into creative expression through the arts for holistic and inclusive education practices that situate each student as a unique being, with purpose, roles and responsibilities to explore and to serve within larger communities.

I have carefully chosen the following seven articles to share as they have provided me with some great insights into how I might want to pursue an applied action research project.

I have a long-time interest in community inquiry action-based projects that can make the research come alive. I am a social learner, and as part of my approach to gathering more research, I would like to share this annotated bibliography with like-minded education professionals, knowledge keepers, friends, family, colleagues and seek their guidance to connect me with other academic literature as well. The more I can get people on board with supporting similar approaches, the more informative, collaborative, and exciting this research can become.

Without further ado, here is an annotated bibliography that connects my academic journey with my experiential one and that best aligns with my educational aspirations that are taking shape over at www.creativeclassrooms.ca

Article Annotations

Barteaux, S. (2014). Universal Design for Learning. BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 6(2), 50-54. ERIC Number: EJ1230738. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1230738

In this article, Susan Barteaux, a grade three teacher from Carberry, Manitoba, demonstrates an understanding of what Universal Design for Learning (UDL) encompasses with basic concepts and definitions that provide a framework for what this would look like in any classroom. She does this by seamlessly referencing a long list of books and journal articles from well-known authors I am familiar with, including Jennifer Katz, Doug Willms, the National Centre for Learning Disabilities, and the National Centre on Universal Design for Learning. After an overview of where UDL began, Barteaux highlights the three core principles of UDL: respecting and allowing all students to explore and develop: 1) Multiple means of representation; 2) Multiple means of expression; and 3) Multiple means of engagement.

UDL is backed by nearly 40 years’ worth of brain research on how a child’s brain gathers information, acquires learning styles, and develops learning differences. “By providing multiple means of expression, teachers can create multiple opportunities for students to showcase their understanding” through a variety of tools, increased access to these tools, and strategies to overcome barriers to learning (Katz, 2012, cited in Barteaux, 2014, p 51).

This article contains numerous quotes with which I agree; however, it does not reference any specific studies that have gathered data on the immensely positive changes that UDL can have on the affective domains of all students. I appreciated that it was written by a teacher/practitioner, though. It did serve its purpose for providing a big-picture view of UDL and numerous great references to the supporting academic literature.

Bradshaw, R.D. (2016). Art integration fosters empathy in the middle school classroom. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(4-5), 109-117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2016.1170441

In this article, R.D. Bradshaw, from the Department of Art & Design, University of Dayton, Ohio, shares the findings from the second of two nine-day units delivered within a larger, four-month-long qualitative action research study set in a public middle school. This study looks at art education’s role in helping students become more empathetic and caring community members. (Eisner, 2002, as cited in Bradshaw, 2016). That is what this action research study set out to do.

Art educator Carol Jeffers (2009) argues for an art education of empathy that combines caring, relational pedagogy with cognitive growth and sociocultural awareness. In our complex, pluralistic society, art educators must not only adapt to the needs of learners; we must celebrate the value of art as a means of fostering empathy, developing creative and critical thinking skills, and finding solutions to the problems we face. (Bradshaw, 2016, p. 109)

The students in the study “engaged in creating collaborative ecological installations…and through making art, students built shared knowledge, engaged in safe discourse, and expressed empathy” (Bradshaw, 2016, p.109).

While this article shared some practical applications towards art and ELA outcomes through projects that Bradshaw lead with middle school students, it was limited in its scope and sequence to two nine-day units. I feel like this would be easy enough to pull off. It provided a great example of a qualitative action research project rooted in both the Arts, Culture and its strong connections and appeal to Social and Emotional Learning.

Bunch, G. (2015). An analysis of the move to inclusive education in Canada. What Works. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 18(1), 1-15. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/reifop.18.1.21431

This article examines the Canadian federal government’s role in Inclusive Education and the roles provinces and territories have taken, or not taken, with regard to where Inclusive Education flourishes and where it does not. As a result of Canada’s constitution and the balance of powers, education falls under provincial/territorial jurisdiction, and the federal government has no authority at the provincial levels. “Change and practice are the essentials of Inclusive Education” (Bunch, 2015 p. 2), and this article examines evidence showing some provinces are leading the evolution towards inclusive education and other provinces that are lagging behind.

Until the late 1980’s the Special Education terms “mainstreaming” and “integration” were in general use across Canada with reference to students with disabilities who are placed full-time or part-time in regular school settings or in special schools or in segregated special classes within regular schools. A great quote from the introduction reads:

Many educational authorities confuse integration with Inclusive Education and use the terms as if they were synonymous. Inclusive Education is a completely different model that does not use the term integration, nor does it divide students with disabilities based on their degree or type of disability. Many (provincial) governments and educators do not appear to understand the difference between the two Models. (Bunch, 2015, p. 2)

Another quote from this article that really resonates with me as to why I feel somewhat uncomfortable that my M.Ed will be recognized as a master’s in Special Education when it is essentially an Inclusive model of education that I am looking to pursue, and in many ways sits in opposition to special education. As Bunch states on p. 5, “the inclusive Education Model rejects almost all of the beliefs supporting the Special Education model. The foundational belief of Inclusive Education is that students with disabilities learning with their typical peers, and in ways similar to their peers, are academically and socially more beneficial for all students involved.”

This article provides a great overview of the move towards inclusive education across different provinces in Canada. I found this article by consulting the references of Saskatchewan’s Inclusive Education publication in 2017. A couple of great quotes from the article above were featured in the summary section of this publication that I think strikes to the heart of why it is so important for us to strive to create inclusive classroom environments for all students, regardless of current abilities: “classrooms are the only places where all children of a community come together to make their future friends and acquaintances” (Bunch, 2015, p 8). Bunch also says:

…Students who are accustomed to the segregation of their peers will carry that experience throughout their lives to the detriment of their peers…The students who were segregated often “live lives of isolation and loneliness” due to a lack of bonding opportunities in life. (Bunch & Snowdon 2013 as cited in Bunch 2015, p. 6).

I was also heartened by the fact that since this article was written, Saskatchewan’s Ministry of Education has taken this research to heart, and I believe, as a province, we are Sfulton Pathways Towards Inclusive Practice Annotated Bibliographymoving in the right directions towards inclusive educational practices that can meet diverse learning needs.

Katz, J. (2013). The Three Block model of Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Engaging students in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 153-194. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/canajeducrevucan.36.1.153

This is an article that I had my eyes on after reading Barteaux’s Universal Design for Learning (UDL) overview. I was already familiar with Dr. Katz’s work after being gifted a copy of her book, Ensouling Our Schools, by my former employer Treaty Education Alliance, shortly after its release in 2018.

By reading this article, I was able to identify the three major building blocks for UDL to create truly inclusive classroom environments. As Katz states, “the first block examines Social and Emotional Learning and involves building compassionate learning communities” (Katz, 2012a, as cited in Katz 2013 p. 158). The second block examines Inclusive Instructional Practice and outlines a step-by-step planning and instructional framework (Katz, 2013). The third block focuses on the systems and structures that need to be in place to support UDL in the classroom. Before I read this article, I was not yet familiar with what each of the three blocks entailed. By reading the article, I also made the connection that Ensouling Our Schools is really focused on the first block of the model, and this research article focused almost exclusively on the second block of the model. Together they provide some great helpful teaching strategies to meet the first and second blocks of this model.

One concern that I have after reading this article is around the compulsory nature of research studies having to be so limited in their scope that they often miss an opportunity to share the big picture and holistic views on which this three-block model of UDL was built.

In this study, “teachers were not asked to implement the RD (respecting diversity) program or classroom meetings. The research was intended to determine the outcomes of Block 2, instructional practices inherent in the model only. For that reason, significant outcomes for social variables other than interactions were not expected” (Katz, 2013 p. 180).

Although the three-block model is very holistic in nature, for the purposes of the research article, Katz chose to limit the study to a compartmentalized scope within this holistic model. The reader is never properly introduced to what the third block of the model entails until flipping to the Appendix A on p. 192 that shares a graphic organizer providing a basic overview of the framework.

This quote highlights the emotional blocks and impediments to the greater implementation of UDL within our classrooms. I can now see myself building an applied project around this recommended research area.

McCarthy, E., Liu, Y. & Schaurer, L. (2020). Strengths-based blended, personalized learning: An impact study using virtual comparison group. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(3), 353-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1716202

This was an interesting article that I created a critique presentation for my MEDS 530 course. This article shares the results of an impact study on the intervention of a Strengths-based, blended, personalized learning model (SBPL). This model was implemented across an entire school district in California over a three-year period. The fourth and final year was considered to have been the full implementation of the SBPL model. The school district has a diverse population of approximately 3,900 pre-K to eighth-grade students, with a sample group of 1,911 students who were enrolled in kindergarten to fifth grade (fall 2013), of which 64% of these students came from socioeconomically disadvantaged households (McCarthy, et al., 2020, p. 360).

The SBPL model is defined by the attributes of Personalized Learning that include: (i) competency-based progressions; (ii) flexible learning environments; iii) personal learning paths (iv) frequent informal and formal measurement. The SBPL model is also characterized by the following Strengths-based attributes: (i) measurement of strengths; (ii) personalization of learning experiences considering student strengths; (iii) affirmation of strengths with others; and (iv) intentional application and development of each student’s strengths (McCarthy, et al., 2020, p. 353).

Each trimester, students would meet with their teacher, using a personal learning plan (PLP) to facilitate reflection on learner strengths, future aspirations and goal setting around growth and achievement that would become part of their Learner Profile. Learner strengths are measured using the Strengths Explorer assessment designed to identify students’ top three constructs for strengths that included: Achieving, caring, competing, confidence, dependability, discoverer, future thinker, relating, organizing, presenting (McCarthy et al., 2020, p. 357).

Digital learning curricula, including Khan Academy, Accelerate Reader, and Lexia, were purchased by the school district as part of this study to aid competency-based progressions in mathematics and English language arts and were aligned with the Common Core Standards used in California (McCarthy et al., 2020, p. 355). I am familiar with Khan Academy. However, Accelerate Reader and Lexia are new to me and will require further inquiries, and the researchers did not provide information on these programs, nor did they research or share what teachers and/or students felt about the use of these programs.

The SBPL impact study conducted a quantitative analysis of a series of summative M.A.P. standardized assessments, comparing the results of the students in their SBPL intervention to an innovative virtual comparison group (VCG). This VCG was made up of many students from similar schools who had similar baseline scores to the treatment group of students at the beginning of the study. The researchers wanted to know the average change of students’ academic achievement every year after baseline, respective to the average change of the VCG. Their results showed that students in the treatment group increasingly outperformed the students in the VCG over the four-year study (McCarthy et al., 2020).

Nowicki, E. & Brown, J.D. (2013). “A kid way”: Strategies for including classmates with learning or intellectual disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51(4), 253-262. DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-51.4.253

This was one of my favourite articles that I have read so far. All too often, in our academic studies, we turn to experts for advice. However, this study chose to consult with thirty-six children between the ages of 9 and 12 for their advice or “ideas on how to socially include classmates with learning or intellectual disabilities” (Nowicki & Brown, 2013, p. 253). These students shared great advice as well generating a total of 80 strategies that we condensed down into 7 major themes:

1. the need for teachers to intervene in academic and social situations;
2. child-to-child instructional strategies;
3. being supportive
4. focusing on similarities between children with and without disabilities;
5. modelling appropriate behaviours;
6. intervening in negative interactions;
7. structured inclusive activities and non-inclusive activities. (Nowicki & Brown, 2013, p.253)

It was heart-warming to note that these students “were aware of the challenges experienced by classmates with disabilities and recognized the need to work with classmates and teachers towards the social inclusion of children with intellectual and learning disabilities” (Nowicki & Brown, 2013, p.253).

More than a third of student responses can be viewed as “an appeal for teachers to become more proactive when it comes to including students with disabilities, and to use their status to correct perceived inequities in instructional and social settings.” Students also noted some student-to-student instructional strategies, such as “reading together and taking more time to teach new games or skills,” and how important these can factor into creating an inclusive classroom (Nowicki & Brown, 2013, p. 260).

Interesting to note that “the participants in this study attended schools in a district that had been using a full-inclusion model for over two decades. Teachers and students were likely well-acclimatized to the principles of inclusion” (Nowick & Brown, 2013, p. 262). The researchers note this fact as a limitation to the study. Still, I see it as a benefit to the study as it largely reveals positive attitudes towards inclusive education within schools using inclusive models. However, it also reveals, from students’ perspectives, the need to work together with teachers to become more inclusive.

Sokal, L & Sharma, U. (2013). Canadian in-service teachers’ concerns, efficacy, and attitudes about inclusive teaching. Exceptionality Education International, 23(1), 59-71.

This article from Sokal and Sharma looks at teachers’ concerns, efficacy, and attitudes towards inclusive education. This study provides some great insights into how a research study could be conducted that focuses on teacher attitudes, efficacy, and concerns. I recognize there is a huge need for further research in this area.

This article raises and answers many questions for the field of Special/Inclusive Education. Namely, it questions whether teachers have the necessary training and resources to feel confident and competent in their abilities to meet a diverse range of learning needs in their classrooms.

The specific research questions which guided this inquiry were (a) What background factors predict teachers’ attitudes, efficacies, and concerns about inclusion? (b) Is there a significant relationship between teacher attitudes and teacher efficacy related to inclusive education? (c) How does training in special education influence teachers’ concerns about inclusive education? (Sokal & Sharma, 2014, p. 62)

This article speaks to the importance of providing pre-service and in-service teachers with professional learning opportunities to resolve these questions.

New concepts (constructs, ideas) that I encountered in this article were the variety of surveys and Likert scales used to assess teachers’ levels of competence, confidence, attitudes, and concerns towards inclusive education. I noted the names of the different surveys and scales used to gather this feedback from the 131 in-service Kindergarten to Grade 8 teachers across three school divisions in southern MB (Sokal & Sharma, 2014 p. 62). One such study was School Principals’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion (Bailey 2004), which measured attitudes toward inclusion. The 21-item Concerns about Inclusive Education Scale (Sharma & Desai, 2002) measured levels of concern about practical aspects of implementing inclusive education, and The Teacher Efficacy of Inclusive Practice scale (Sharma, Loreman, & Forlin) measured perceived levels of teacher efficacy” (Sokal & Sharma, 2014, p. 62).

The researchers were able to represent their results as reliability alpha coefficient scores. Although I am still unsure what this means or how to calculate them, the corresponding scores were easy to read and interpret. Results showed teachers’ biggest concerns surrounding inclusive education, wherein the following areas: lack of resources (α = 0.84), concerns about schools’ declining academic standards, (α = 0.82), followed by concerns about an increase in workload (α = 0.76). Lack of acceptance was the least of teachers’ concerns at (α = 0.69) (Sokal & Sharma, 2014, p. 63).

One interesting finding of the study “suggests that participants who had obtained some form of training in special education were likely to feel more positive…and more confident in teaching and including students with disabilities in their classrooms” (Sokal & Sharma, 2014, p. 64). These findings support the crucial need to offer professional development opportunities to collaborate on inclusive educational practice and what that might look like for teachers in their own classrooms.

Summary of Findings

            All seven of these articles helped inform possible directions, scope, and sequences I might want to pursue as part of an applied project research study. Barteaux’s (UDL) literature review provided a great overview of one of my main areas of research interest. Bradshaw’s article provided insights into the key roles art, and artistic expression can play in fostering greater empathy and understanding in the classroom. Bunch’s article helped me situate how Saskatchewan compares to other provinces implementing inclusive educational practices. Katz’s articles provided affirmations that my professional practice has largely been centred around strategies within the first and second block of the model Three-Block Model of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). McCarthy, Liu, and Schaurer’s (2020) impact study of the four-year implementation of a Strengths-based Blended Personalized Learning (SBPL) model across a California school district was a great example of a district-wide intervention.  Nowacki & Brown’s brought student voice to their Strategies for Including Classmates with Learning or Intellectual Disabilities. And finally, Sokal and Sharma’s (2013) study looks at In-service Teachers’ Concerns, Efficacy, and Attitudes about Inclusive Teaching. These articles have helped clarify what type of applied project I may want to pursue by looking at quantitative and qualitative research studies examples.

Analysis/Critique of Summary of Findings

One question that these articles raised for the field of Special/Inclusive Education is how we, as teachers, can design our classes to best meet the diverse learning needs of all students in ways that make the learning process better for everyone involved? This is a question that I have been developing my professional practice around since I began teaching, and I am looking forward to continuing these inquiries through this M. Ed. Program.

Each of these articles shared the strengths and limitations of the researchers’ studies. After reading these articles, one concern that I have after reading these articles is the nature of research studies having to be so limited in their scope. I am a big picture thinker and often worry that too narrow of focus in an applied project will render it meaningless or of little value. I feel that Bradshaw’s delivery of two, nine-day units over a four-month study was too limited by time. Katz’s 2013 article was limited in its scope by focusing only on the second block (inclusive instructional strategies) of the three-block model. McCarthy, Liu, and Schauer’s impact study was limited only to quantitative results of improved standardized test scores but did not have access to qualitative research data around implementing the strengths-based blended, personalized learning model.

I had an “Ah-Ha” moment while reading Sokal and Sharma’s (2013) study regarding the meta-analysis conducted by Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, and Shapley (2007) of 1300 studies. I found that “the most effective professional learning was 30-100 hours in duration, and spread over a period of 6-12 months…In contrast, shorter professional development programs from 5-14 hours have been shown to have no significant effect on student learning” (as cited in Sokal & Sharma, 2014, p. 67). This gave me good insight into the scope and sequence of developing a meaningful applied project around teacher attitudes and efficacy, should I pursue a study in this area.

Connections to Previous Thinking and Knowledge

I can establish all kinds of connections between these articles and my previous roles with Treaty Education Alliance. As Learning the Land coordinator and student engagement facilitator, my colleagues and I lead a lot of fun and informative PD opportunities with in-service teachers in developing inclusive learning communities and teaching strategies both in and outside of the classroom that I’m now connecting to the very same strategies with the first and second block of the three-block model of UDL.

In my latest role as remote learning supports the teacher with Prairie Valley School Division, I have become more familiar with adaptive, personalized reading programs like Rax-kids and Mathletics. I also was provided with a one-month trial of an ELA and Math skills-based program called IXL, which comes with a personalized diagnostic tool for math that can detect current skills levels through a series of diagnostic questions that help quickly determine the current skills and abilities of our students. Students then practice certain skills until they can demonstrate a sense of mastery (or at least competency) before moving on to the next skill. IXL shows alignments with Saskatchewan’s curriculum outcomes. It leaves me wondering what other digital learning curricula and adaptive technologies are out there, and are effective, that I have not heard of yet? What roles do these personalized learning curricula have in providing equitable access for all students to grow to their full potentials?

Recommendations

The move towards inclusive educational practice and Universal Design for Learning (UDL) places a huge emphasis on each classroom teacher being able to adapt curriculum and differentiate instruction to meet the diverse learning needs of their students. Yet, all too often, teachers are not provided adequate resources, training, and other supports to implement inclusive educational practices confidently and effectively. My concern is that teachers will see the move towards inclusive education as just one more thing to add to their already way too long list of other things they need to do first. How do we get those teachers on board – the ones who are hesitant to implement inclusive educational practices and strategies into their classrooms?

I would be interested in developing an applied project around improved professional opportunities and resource supports for teachers to feel confident and competent in inclusive educational settings. An alternative viewpoint I now want to consider in my research are the viewpoints of teachers who are less motivated and inclined to implement UDL and consider strategies for addressing their concerns. What resources or training opportunities would best support these teachers to get them to a place where they see the benefits for themselves and their students?

Implications for Teaching or Research

Collaboration needs to be a priority, and teachers need to have opportunities to work together and be creative in their approaches to developing inclusive practice. The variety of findings support the crucial need for inclusive education and what that might look like for teachers in their own classrooms. I will certainly continue to benefit from further research into areas of Universal Design for Learning, Social and Emotional Learning, and Strengths-based Personalized Learning.

I am also in possession of three key books informing my research and practice in these three main areas of interest, which are worth noting in this annotated bibliography. Ensouling our schools: a universally designed framework for mental health, well-being, and reconciliation by Katz and Lamoureux (2018) (as mentioned earlier) provide insights into building inclusive learning communities through an Indigenous lens aligned with the holistic framework within UDL (Katz, 2018). Shanker’s Self-Reg: how to help your child (and you) break the stress cycle and successfully engage with life, continues to offer concrete strategies to develop self-regulation skills and how to encourage students to do the same (Shanker, 2016). Finally, I have recently received a book order in the mail entitled, A Handbook for Personalized Competency-based Education by Marzano, Norford, Finn, and Finn III). This book was published out of Indiana in 2017 and provides insights into practices teachers can use in creating more personalized approaches for students (Marzano et al., 2017). I am looking forward to taking a deeper dive into how these three books can inform my pathway towards an applied project around inclusive practice, training, and development.

Through my next contract as a transition teacher with Prairie Valley School Division this school year, I am looking forward to developing my professional practice informed by the research I am learning about. I hope that these cycles of research and practice will ultimately lead me toward an applied project that is meaningful and worthwhile of the time and energy that I am bound to spend while striving to attain my Master of Education in Special Education through Vancouver Island University.

References

Barteaux, S. (2014). Universal Design for learning. BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 6(2), 50-54. ERIC Number: EJ1230738. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1230738

Bradshaw, R.D. (2016). Art integration fosters empathy in the middle school classroom. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(4-5), 109-117. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2016.1170441

Bunch, G. (2015). An analysis of the move to inclusive education in Canada. What works. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 18(1), 1-15. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/reifop.18.1.21431

Katz, J & Lamoureux, K (2018). Ensouling our schools: A universally designed framework for mental, health, well-being, and reconciliation. Portage and Main Press.

Katz, J. (2013). The Three-Block Model of Universal Design for Learning (UDL): Engaging students in inclusive education. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(1), 153-194. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/canajeducrevucan.36.1.153

Marzano, R., Norford, J., Finn M. & Finn III, D. (2017). A handbook for personalized competency-based education. Marzano Research.

McCarthy, E., Liu, Y. & Schaurer, L. (2020). Strengths-based blended, personalized learning: An impact study using virtual comparison group. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 52(3), 353-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1716202

Nowicki, E. & Brown, J. D.(2013). “A Kid Way”: Strategies for including classmates with learning or intellectual disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51(4), 253-262. DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-51.4.253

Shanker, S. (2016). Self-Reg: How to help your child (and you) break the stress cycle and successfully engage with life. Penguin Random House.

Sokal, L & Sharma, U. (2013). Canadian in-service teachers’ concerns, Efficacy, and attitudes about inclusive teaching. Exceptionality Education International, 23(1), 59-71.

For a PDF version of this Annotated Bibliography, click here: Sfulton Pathways Towards Inclusive Practice Annotated Bibliography