Lev Vygotsky and Inclusive Education

A Critical Analysis of Lev Vygotsky

Lev Vygotsky was born in Russia by his Jewish Parents and grew up in Gomel a city which had a substantial Jewish population. Vygotsky was trained by her mother who was a qualified teacher. Vygotsky then entered public secondary school but being a Jewish restricted him from accessing higher education opportunities. Vygotsky had a passion of pursuing training as a teacher but once again being a Jewish he was not permitted thus had to pursue a different course. It was until he was in his last year when the Communist revolutionaries overthrew the Czar and his government and the new government ended snit-Semitism that Vygotsky got an opportunity to begin teaching in Gomel. His experience in learning in a Semitism era influenced his passion for psychology which advocates for inclusive education and provides valuable insights for psychology dissertation help.

Vygotsky’s social constructionist view on disability has been established to play an imperative role in the contemporary inclusive education. According to Lantolf and Poehner (2014), Vygotsky’s work gained prominence in inclusive education because they establish the link between sociocultural processes that take place in the society and the mental processes that occur in an individual. On the other hand, Anh and Marginson (2013) state that Vygotsky became popular for being able to develop a teaching approach that connects social and mental processes and focusses on socialization and development of human beings and how they affect learning. From Vygotsky’s view, learning is a shared process in a responsive social context (Morcom 2014). This implies that if teachers are able to create and sustain a learning environment that responds to the needs of all learners, inclusive education will be promoted. In fact, Vygotsky writes that children with special needs are capable of competent performance when they have proper assistance, which he terms as scaffolded learning (Radford et al. 2015). According to Wass and Golding (2014), Vygotsky’s aspect of zone of proximal development is what has been more essential in inclusive education. This is so because under the guidance of a more capable peer, a learner is able to establish the gap in skills and therefore independently works to attain the capability of the peer/mentor but in the company of the peer/mentor. Therefore, Vygotsky brings out the relevance of the guidance of a teacher, parent or peers in inclusive education. In support, Thompson (2013) writes that the idea of zone of proximal development is the domain of knowledge whereby a learner that is not capable of independent functioning gains excellence when guided by more capable persons.

Vygotsky’s key ideas are mediation, scaffolding, internalization, and private speech and each has a role in promoting inclusive education. Vygotsky defines mediation as a set of tools used by learners to achieve their targets. The idea of mediation is treated differently by other scholars in the field of inclusive education. For example, Lantolf, Thorne and Poehner (2015) understands mediation as the part played by the more capable person while Mishra (2013) views mediation as the shared understanding between the learner and the support/teacher. Scaffolding on the other hand refers to the support given to a learner to help meet cognitive potential (Goodman and Goodman 2014). Bickhard (2013) states that scaffolding plays an integral role in inclusive education because it involves an expert who better understands the needs of individual learners and offer them support to achieve higher performance. In the same vein, Shabani (2016) state that scaffolding is a cognitive help to learners that helps reduce the cognitive burden in the learning process. Vygotsky defines internationalization as ant function that appears in the cultural development of a learner. Internalization according to Vygotsky helps a learner develop socially and psychologically through the help of the people he/she interacts with. In support, Khaliliaqdam (2014) write that internalization is the process through of learning from social to individual, which is essentially important in helping learners gain problem-solving skills. Vygotsky holds that private speech helps is a learner’s social interaction which helps the learner enhance performance. According to Diaz et al. (2014), private speech enhances inclusive learning in that it provides a deep look into learners’ mental process enabling teachers to deliver what is more desirable to individual learners. In agreement, Montazeri, Hamidi and Hamidi (2015) state that private speech promotes inclusive education in that it helps individual learners overcome obstacles to achievement and facilitates problem solving.

Despite the usefulness of Vygotsky’s theory in inclusive education, its application has been more problematic and its influence has not always been fruitful in special education. According to McLeod (2014), Vygotsky fails to provide guidelines to effective use of zone of proximal development in classrooms. As a result, the learner is not ready to participate in the learning activity with the more knowledgeable other thus the views of the peer/teacher does not affect the actions of the learner. On the other hand, Murphy, Scantlebury and Milne (2015) critique Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development to reduce the learner’s role to passively depending on the more knowledgeable. In addition, Smagorinsky (2018) write that professionals in special education might not be able to understand Vygotsky’s texts because of psychological differences, which limits the effectiveness of Vygotsky’s theory in inclusive education. Still, Newman and Holzman (2013) write that Vygotsky has a non-academic and sometimes unsystematic way of expressing ideas which hinders the applicability of his ideas in the contemporary inclusive education.

Jean Piaget was the most influential theorist in the field on education who came before Vygotsky. Piaget’s predominant theories focused on maturational processes that determine the cognitive competence of a learner (Beilin and Pufall 2013). Vygotsky’s theory has been seen as a counterbalance to Piaget’s theory as he considers learning a shared process in a social context. Vygotsky influenced the studies of Bruner which led to the emergence of Bruner’s theory of cognitive development. Bruner agree with Vygotsky that language mediates between environmental stimuli and a learner’s response but recognizes the role of technology in enhancing human capabilities (Kang 2014). According to Bruner, technology serves as an amplifier of human capabilities thus their role in cognitive development cannot be overlooked (Olson 2013). Bruner seemed to oppose his predecessors view on the role of education; according to him, the purpose of education is not to impart knowledge but to facilitate a learner’s thinking and problem solving skills. On contrary to Vygotsky’s view on the passive role of learners, Bruner holds that students are active learners who construct their own knowledge. Bruner also opposes Piaget’s notion of readiness and holds that learning institutions often waste time trying to match the complexity of subject material to a learner’s cognitive stage of development which holds back learners and deters them from attaining cognitive maturity (Van Geert 2017). In his view, Bruner believes that any learner is capable of understanding complex information when a spiral curriculum is adopted. In addition, Bruner holds that learners despite their special abilities are able to construct their own knowledge rather than being told by the more knowledgeable (Moon 2013). This implies that for a teacher to be more effective at delivering inclusive learning, the primary role should be facilitating the learning process rather than teaching information by rote learning.

A Critical Analysis of Balbay’s Paper: Vygotskian Sociocultural Theory of Learning

Vygotskian sociocultural theory of learning by Seher Balbay is well structured which guides the reader through the major concepts. The paper has an introduction that lays the foundation of the theory helping the reader understand who influenced the works of Vygotsky. In the body, the author identifies several the major constructs of the sociocultural theory of learning and gives more details about each, which helps the reader gain a deeper understanding of the theory. In the body, the author cites the works on others which adds to the depth of the paper. In addition, the author identifies the followers of Vygotsky’s sociocultural learning theory and establishes the ideas they share with Vygotsky, which helps build the credibility of the theory. In the body, the paper also gives practical examples of how the concepts of sociocultural theory can be applied in classroom, which enhances understanding. The paper also provides a conclusion which sums up the major ideas raised across the paper. The conclusion is concrete that sociocultural theory has influenced learning particularly language education. The role of mediational tools that learners are provided with in the learning process is said to be effective at promoting learner achievement. Structure wise, the paper is well organized and every paragraph leads to the next in a coherent manner which motivates readers.

Content wise, the paper dominantly focuses on the sociocultural theory of learning from the lens of Vygotsky and those who came before him. The paper does not entirely treat sociocultural theory as a concept of Vygotsky but acknowledges the influence of those that came before him. As such, Hegel and Spinoza and Marx and Engels are seen to be the founders of sociocultural theory of learning. In fact, the paper reveals that the works of Vygotsky are grounded in those of Marx. The paper also reveals that social interactions are at the core of learning but they differ across cultures. The author recognizes the role of individuals, society, and culture in learning and behavior. Indeed, the reflexive and social nature of humans is seen to play a pivotal role in the learning process. The author identifies three principles that he uses to summarize Vygotskian sociocultural theory of learning. These are learning being social rather than biological or cognitive, learning being a mediated process, and that learning can only be understood if examined more holistically rather than examining what occurs in human mind or what is observable in a learner’s behavior. The author adeptly discusses mediation and self-regulation and how they affect learning as seen for Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning. Language is seen paramount to learning and the author holds that when social mediation and dialogic negotiation are combines, higher performance is realized. The concepts on inner speech and private speech are also mentioned and their role on learning discussed. In addition, the paper discusses zone of proximal development from the lens of Vygotsky and his followers. Zone of proximal development is seen to facilitate collaborative dialogue which in turn promotes achievement. Lastly, the paper indicates that assessment should be dynamic such that the quality and quantity of mediation is informed by changes in performance.

According to Lillis and Curry (2013), a high-quality paper must be able to clearly and simply outline the scientific history of the research which helps the reader understand the sequence of events that motivated the writing of the paper. In his paper, Balbay starts by discussing the roots of sociocultural theory of learning which helps the reader understand what influenced the writing of this piece; this builds the quality of the paper. According to Derntl (2014), a good paper must state its aim at the introduction which identifies the problem that the paper seeks to solve or the contribution it makes to existing literature. At the introductory section, Balbay does not state neither the aim of the paper or the contribution its makes to literature which is a room for improvement. On the other hand, Williams (2014) write that a good scientific paper must comprise key points in each section. In his paper, Balbay identifies the key ideas in Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and organizes his paper across these ideas, which improves its quality. This organization has helped Balbay arrange his ideas in a logic and concise manner. Cargill and O'Connor (2013) write that a good paper should have an analytical framework. In Balbay’s paper, reference is made to works of other researchers although this is not clearly articulated leaving a room for improvement. If this was attained, it would be easier to judge the usefulness of the paper in relation to what other researchers in this field have written. Hyland (2016) writes that a high-quality paper uses simple and direct language that can be easily understood by the reader. Goldie (2016) critiques Vygotsky’s language to be non-academic but Balbay helps improve the language level and pitches it to the level of academic researchers. Finally, the paper has a long list of references, which is an indication of extensive research. This implies that points raised in this paper are not the opinions of the author but are informed by works of other researchers which builds the quality of the paper.

A Critical Analysis of Vygotsky’s Socio-cultural Theory and Inclusion and Special Needs Education

Inclusion education refers to the process of enhancing an education system so that helps meet the needs of diverse learners (Lantolf et al. 2016). Inclusion ensures that learners with special needs access the benefits of full school experience when they are given the require support and modifications alongside their peers are access general education (Daniels and Garner 2013). Vygotskian inclusive social cultural theories advocate for social prejudices against the special needs. Vygotsky holds that special needs education should be a specially designed setting where all staff are able to exclusively serve the needs of learners with disabilities through having special needs trained teachers, differentiated curriculum, and special technologically auxiliary means for learners with special needs. In addition, Vygotsky holds that development through interaction creates new perspectives for teaching learners with special needs. Vygotsky later developed a more inclusive model of teaching learners with special needs which he termed as inclusion based on positive differentiation. Positive differentiation in this case refers to creating a favorable social outlook of learners with disabilities based on their strengths and not weaknesses (McNamara and Moreton 2016).

From Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning, there emerge three major practices in special and inclusive education (Leontiev, Lebedeva and Kostenko 2017). First, the sociocultural aspects of disability have helped shape an understanding on the nature of disability and the ways through which compensation can be attained. Second, the establishment that disability is a socio-cultural development phenomenon. Third, that disability consists of primary disability which is organic impairment and secondary disability which is distortions in higher psychological functions due to social segregation. According to Vygotsky, primary disability has minimal effect on the ability of a learner to acquire desired skills but secondary disability severely limit knowledge acquisition. Therefore, Vygotsky holds that if people with primary disability are equipped with social skills and an inclusive environment created, they would be able to achieve academic excellence the same way their peers without disability would. Here, Vygotsky writes that changing social attitudes should be the primary role of educators to promoting the excellence of learners with disabilities.

Vygotsky’s view of disability and the understanding of how a person with disability develops influenced him to come up with the concepts of zone of proximal development and dynamic assessment. Zone of proximal development is essential in establishing what a person with disability can achieve in the future which teacher in the field of special education should give more focus (Wass and Golding 2014). As a learner with special needs progress towards the tomorrow, there is a change in the skills and knowledge desired, which underscores the need for making assessment dynamic to match the changing needs. Nonetheless, learners with special needs should always have the required support and differentiated curriculum for them to achieve their educational targets.

Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning and its role of inclusive education has largely influenced works of other researchers in the field of special needs education. In addition, the theory has sparked debate and various scholars assess the applicability of the sociocultural theory in inclusive education. According to Hergenhahn and Henley (2013), Vygotsky was a Universalist and believed in logic, rationality, and believed that principles of scientific thinking are universally applicable. However, contemporary researchers have proved that logic is not context-specific but specific to activities, which implies the sociocultural theory is not applicable for all communities as they have different cultural beliefs and values. Therefore, Vygotsky is seen to be ethnocentric. In the same vein, Derry (2014) write that logic is not found on the internal hierarchical system of conceptual systems as Vygotsky holds but in the discursive process of changing modalities of the scientific claims and statements. Therefore, from this perspective inclusive education can be attained if teachers discovered realities in the natural world and provide differentiated support to match the needs of learners in different communities. As such, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning is not applicable in all communities: differentiation must be adopted for it to work. On the other hand, Nordlof (2014) critiques Vygotsky’s notion of the more knowledgeable other holding that this could only work where there is a wide gap in skills between the learner and the peer. However, in the real world activities, partners are more competent persons but they still learn from each other. Therefore, it would make sense if Vygotsky included this type of joint activity involving partners with equal competence.

Petrová (2013) writes that Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory of learning disregards the role of an individual in the learning process with greatly regarding the role of the social interaction. In this case, the authors assert that a learner can rise above the social norms based of individual ability to bring about personal understanding. The best example of such persons could be gifted learners who require little or no support from others to develop their talent. In agreement, Barker, Quennerstedt and Annerstedt (2015) write that the sociocultural theory of learning emphasizes on the role of social and collective but ignores the role of the individual. On the other hand, Ozfidan et al. (2014) criticize Vygotsky’s theory for failure to address how the external world is bridged across to the internal mind.

Role of Special Educators in Inclusion Education

The Green Paper for special educational needs (DFE 2011) and the Code of Practice for Special Educational Needs (DFE 2014) have provided a direction for inclusive education in England. These documents place emphasis on raising the level of achievement among learners with special educational needs which can be attained by ending the culture of low expectations on these learners (Mitchell 2015). Wamock 1978 report majorly influenced special needs education and policy in England as it advocated for inclusion of learners with special educational needs into the mainstream schools (Norwich 2014). This was hoped to help learners with special needs adapt to the rules, policies, and routines of the mainstream setting which would eventually increase the ability of the learner to compete with peers in the mainstream schools. Later in 1994, the government radically advanced the inclusive education policy which has retained its significance to date.

Inclusion in education relates to the proactive response of the education system so as to meet the diverse needs of learners (Clark et al. 2018). On the contrary, Visser and Upton (2018) argue that the term inclusive education is more of a cliché and politically used to silence all woes against mainstream education. Researchers agree that the main problem in inclusive education is that there is no universal understanding of the term. Therefore, inclusive education refers to different things that different schools and teachers do in order to meet the needs of diverse learners which are shaped by cultural values.

The concept of inclusion influences a deep cultural change in schools forcing them to examine pedagogical, curricular, and environmental factors to optimal performance of all learners inclusive of those with special educational needs (Terzi 2014). In the support, Glazzard (2013) writes that inclusion does not blame the impairments within a child for educational failure but the pedagogical, environmental, and curricular approach the school adopts. Policies on inclusive education advocate for socially just pedagogies while the marketization of education has provided more incentives for schools to become more inclusive (Lauchlan and Greig 2015). As a result, all schools in England and the world at large are seeking more ways to become more inclusive. With this, researchers in the field of inclusion and special education have widely investigated the role of special educators in inclusive education. This essay contributes to the existing literature on inclusive education by exploring the role of special educators in inclusive education.

Educators should demonstrate the highest expectations of all learners for education to be more inclusive. According to Kauffman and Badar (2014), setting high expectations for all learners regardless of their abilities creates a feeling of equality which builds the confidence of learners with special needs to compete with their peers in the mainstream schools. However, Allday et al. (2013) state that setting high standards for all learners may not always work in that some learners with disabilities and special educational needs will not be able to demonstrate the extent of educational achievement desired by teachers and other stakeholders in education. On the other hand, Ainscow, Dyson and Weiner (2013) write that special education teachers might be active in setting high expectation for all learners but passive in providing the required level of support in that it is challenging that a teacher fits in to the many different roles required in the educational environment. In the same vein, Sharma et al. (2013) argue that inclusive education requires a teacher to carry a variety of functions and responsibilities and may not excel in all. Therefore, being able to conduct these responsibilities only helps a special education teacher familiarize with his/her role and increase chances of success rather than building excellence for all learners.

Ashman (2014) argues that a special educator works with a given number of learners with disabilities in a special education classroom and must identify and provide the required level of support for each of these learners to achieve their educational targets. In such a setting, a special educator has a number of responsibilities such as developing the curriculum, conferring parents, pre and post-testing using group standardized tests, and attending annual reviews and meeting organized by educational bodies to discuss the progress of learners with special needs. In addition, Dettmer et al. (2013) state that a special educator is responsible for attending the evaluation meetings which seek to plan for delivery of the succeeding periods and suggesting modifications to the existing curriculum.

Tremblay (2013) state that special educators are adeptly trained on how to handle a classroom with diverse learners thus are better positioned to develop a curriculum that reflects the needs of all learners. In agreement, Fakolade et al. (2017) write that special educators are knowledgeable of how to assess learners with disabilities in order to establish their desired targets. Therefore, special educators are also tasked with conducting initial and diagnostic assessment on learners with special needs which ensures the curriculum is developed in the best interest of these learners. Having interacted with learners with disabilities, special educators are required to identify points of referral and decide the best support these learners require in order to compete with their peers. At this point, special educators are responsible for communicating these needs with other stakeholders such as parents, counselors, and the school management. This collective approach to teaching enhances social interaction which according to Vygotsky’s social-cultural theory of learning enhances cognitive development.

According to Lee et al. (2015), special education teachers have a structured way of working and they must use this time to meet the needs of all learners which is always a challenge. In agreement, Nance and Calabrese (2009) write that special educators experience stress due to job design which lowers their desire to stay in this field. Among the challenges include conflicting goals and expectations, severity of learners’ needs, issues in learner behavior, lack of building level of support, inadequate or no opportunities for professional development, and bureaucratic requirements. From a different account, He and Watson (2014) state that special educators lack building level of support of on-the-job learning which lowers their job satisfaction as well as effectiveness in inclusive education. Therefore, the authors conclude that even though special educators are tasked with promoting inclusion, this is not always possible for lack of support thus some learners receive more support as compared to others.

According to MacFarlane and Woolfson (2013), special education teachers are cognizant of the need of the diverse learners in a single classroom thus have to differentiate instructions for comprehension by all learners. On the other hand, Boyle et al. (2013) state that differentiation is what a teacher does when he/she has learners in a special education classroom which implies that differentiation is a primary role of special educators. Despite its essence, Black-Hawkins et al. (2016) write that the practice of offering differentiated instruction in special education classroom does not seem to be occurring. Roberts and Simpson (2016) state that learners in special education require something different thus special educators need to preplan for students with learning disabilities. On the other hand, Ainscow et al. (2013) state that preplanning might be done but special education teachers are not allowed enough time to deliver the planned content which invalidates the efforts towards realization of inclusive education. In teaching mainstream schools, special educators are tasked with co-planning and co-teaching. Engelbrecht (2013) emphasizes that co-planning and co-teaching should go hand-in-hand for teachers in mainstream schools to reap the benefits of inclusive education.

Bossaert et al. (2013) write that general educators use whole group instruction which does not always meet the needs of learners with disabilities thus special educators has to offer specialized instructions in a resource class environment. Nonetheless, special education teachers in mainstream schools do not always have enough time to provide specialized instruction as general educators normally use the remaining time to review the lesson and give assessments which hinders inclusive education. In agreement, Alderson (2014) writes that special educators enhance inclusion through offering specialized instruction but little specialized instruction is taking place in mainstream schools thus more is needed.

In an inclusive setting, special education teachers are required to review and re-teach material in order to meet the needs of all learners (Vaz et al 2013). However, Lorenz (2013) states that special educators in mainstream schools have little or no time to review and reteach material given the time limits and the wide range of activities to be completed in a single session. Therefore, the authors recommend that special educators should be allowed more time or the curriculum be compressed to create more time for personalizing and specializing instruction.

According to Hornby (2015), special educators monitor the progress of learners with disabilities in order to assess individual instructional needs, assess goal achievement, and plan for learner annual reviews. In agreement, Geldenhuys and Wevers (2013) write that special educators devote a substantial amount of their time in monitoring the progress of learners with disabilities to help them compete with their peers in the general population. Still, Farrell and Ainscow (2013) state that learners with disability even though in mainstream schools will not always understand whole group instructions, which implies that the special educator must find time to assess how well the while group instructions were comprehended and what needs to be re-taught in a specialized manner. In the same vein, Galloway (2013) states that general educators monitor the progress of the whole group thus might fail to establish the needs of learners with special needs which hinder inclusion education: special educators seek to restore this balance.

Davis (2013) states that at times the IEP Committee would find it fit for a learner to receive services within his/her on classroom rather than be placed in a different in a different program. When this happens, a special educator would be assigned to work with this learner right in the mainstream class. When this happens, the special educator would be responsible for modifying the curriculum to better meet the needs of the special education learner and offer specialized instruction. In addition, the special educator would have to closely work with the learner in order to assess progress and provide materials to helps the learner perform as the peers.

Itinerant teachers re special education teachers employed or hired by an agency to work with learners with special educational needs within a district. Given the rising demand of special education teachers in England, special educators could be hired as itinerant teachers to provide learners with disabilities auxiliary services to realize their full potential. If this happens, the special education teacher will be responsible for harmonizing the curriculum to better meet the needs of general learners as well as of those with special needs. In addition, the special education teacher would be responsible for developing a standardized test for all learners with disabilities within the district in order to monitor their progress and plan subsequent sessions. However, Butt (2016) states that itinerant teachers are required to closely work with other teachers in mainstream schools thus they lack direct control over panning instruction for learners with disability which hinders inclusive education.

Education of children with learning difficulties including those with special needs requires special education teacher to develop behavior support plans in order to promote performance for these learner. After the adoption of the Equality Act, Robertson et al. (2013) write that learners with disabilities placed in mainstream classes experience low-level of disruption in terms of violence against learners with disabilities. However, McAllister and Hadjri (2013) write that incidences of bullying in the form of verbal abuse against learners with disabilities have been persistently reported which underscores the need for protecting learners with special educational needs in mainstream schools. Given that special education teachers better understand the needs of learners with disabilities, they are better positioned to advocate for a safe environment and its realization could even involve punishing abusive behavior. In agreement, Florian et al. (2016) write that better behavior influences better learning thus special education teachers should be active at punishing bad behavior in order to create and sustain a safe environment for learners with disabilities in mainstream schools. When special educators are hired and itinerant teachers, they can advocate for collaboration between schools in order to promote positive behavior and prevent misbehavior against learners with disabilities.

The positive role of special educators in enhancing inclusive education has been widely agreed but a significant number of researcher reveal that time and the workload of the special educators challenge their effectiveness at promoting inclusive education. According to Peer and Reid (2016), special educators in mainstream schools are seen as support services thus are given limited time to interact with learners which implies that learners with disabilities must be fast learners to be at par with their peers. On the other hand, Armstrong et al. (2016) write that general teachers even take up the time of special educators in reviewing the lesson leaving no time for special educators to differentiate and specialize instruction to the disadvantage of learners with disabilities. To overcome these limitations to inclusion in mainstream schools, Arduin (2015) states that special education teachers significantly rely on socialization for learners with disabilities to learn from their peers. Classroom relationships are seen to be essentially important whereby the teacher facilitate group formations to ensure a learner with special needs is in the company of more knowledgeable peers so he/she can learn from them. On the other hand, Tzivinikou (2015) writes that special education teachers have come to heavily rely on pair works to help learners with disabilities find a sense of belonging in mainstream classrooms. With these appropriate classroom relationships, learning with disabilities have found a sense of belonging in mainstream classes and general learners have accepted their peers with special needs which has led to the realization of a safe and inclusive learning environment.

Conclusion

Inclusive education has become popular in England and across the world and therefore schools seeking to attract more learners are leveraging on providing inclusive education. As a result, schools have become extremely active in devising ways of enhancing inclusiveness which has raised the demand for special educators/special education teachers. The aim of this essay was to establish the role of special educators in inclusive education. The essay reveals that special educators have an integral role to play in inclusive education but if not effectively planned could hinder inclusive education. Special educators set higher expectations for all learners seeking to motivate learners to high performance, they facilitate learning for diverse learners, differentiate and specialize instruction for learners with disabilities in mainstream schools, create a safe environment for special education learners, monitor progress for improved performance, offer behavior support plan and develop appropriate classroom relationships to the advantage of learners with special educational needs. Therefore, special educators are indispensable in inclusive education.

References

Ainscow, M., Dyson, A. and Weiner, S., 2013. From Exclusion to Inclusion: Ways of Responding in Schools to Students with Special Educational Needs. CfBT Education Trust. 60 Queens Road, Reading, RG1 4BS, England.

Alderson, P., 2014. Learning and Inclusion (Routledge Revivals): The Cleves School Experience. Routledge.

Allday, R.A., Neilsen-Gatti, S. and Hudson, T.M., 2013. Preparation for inclusion in teacher education pre-service curricula. Teacher education and special education, 36(4), pp.298-311.

Anh, D.T.K. and Marginson, S., 2013. Global learning through the lens of Vygotskian sociocultural theory. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), pp.143-159.

Arduin, S., 2015. A review of the values that underpin the structure of an education system and its approach to disability and inclusion. Oxford Review of Education, 41(1), pp.105-121.

Armstrong, F., Armstrong, D. and Barton, L., 2016. Inclusive education: Policy, contexts and comparative perspectives. Routledge.

Ashman, A., 2014. Education for inclusion and diversity. Pearson Australia.

Barker, D., Quennerstedt, M. and Annerstedt, C., 2015. Inter-student interactions and student learning in health and physical education: A post-Vygotskian analysis. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 20(4), pp.409-426.

Beilin, H. and Pufall, P.B., 2013. Piaget's theory: prospects and possibilities. Psychology Press.

Bickhard, M.A., 2013. Scaffolding and self-scaffolding: Central aspects of development. In Children's development within social context (pp. 43-62). Psychology Press.

Black-Hawkins, K., Florian, L. and Rouse, M., 2016. Achievement and inclusion in schools.

Bossaert, G., Colpin, H., Pijl, S.J. and Petry, K., 2013. Truly included? A literature study focusing on the social dimension of inclusion in education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(1), pp.60-79.

Boyle, C., Topping, K. and Jindal-Snape, D., 2013. Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion in high schools. Teachers and Teaching, 19(5), pp.527-542.

Butt, R., 2016. Teacher assistant support and deployment in mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(9), pp.995-1007.

Cargill, M. and O'Connor, P., 2013. Writing scientific research articles: Strategy and steps. John Wiley & Sons.

Clark, C., Dyson, A. and Millward, A., 2018. Towards inclusive schools?. Routledge.

Daniels, H. and Garner, P., 2013. Inclusive education. Routledge.

Davis, P., 2013. Including children with visual impairment in mainstream schools: A practical guide. David Fulton Publishers.

Derntl, M., 2014. Basics of research paper writing and publishing. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 6(2), pp.105-123.

Derry, B.J., 2014. Abstract rationality in education: From Vygotsky to Brandom. In Knowledge, expertise and the professions (pp. 43-56). Routledge.

Dettmer, P., Knackendoffel, A. and Thurston, L.P., 2013. Collaboration, consultation, and teamwork for students with special needs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Diaz, R.M., Berk, L.E. and Diaz, R. eds., 2014. Private speech: From social interaction to self-regulation. Psychology Press.

Engelbrecht, P., 2013. Teacher education for inclusion, international perspectives.

Fakolade, O.A., Adeniyi, S.O. and Tella, A., 2017. Attitude of teachers towards the inclusion of special needs children in general education classroom: The case of teachers in some selected schools in Nigeria. International Electronic Journal of elementary education, 1(3), pp.155-169.

Farrell, P. and Ainscow, M., 2013. Making special education inclusive: mapping the issues. In Making special education inclusive (pp. 11-22). David Fulton Publishers.

Florian, L., Rouse, M. and Black-Hawkins, K., 2016. Achievement and inclusion in schools. Routledge.

Galloway, D., 2018. Schools, pupils and special educational needs. Routledge.

Geldenhuys, J.L. and Wevers, N.E.J., 2013. Ecological aspects influencing the implementation of inclusive education in mainstream primary schools in the Eastern Cape, South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 33(3).

Glazzard, J., 2013. A critical interrogation of the contemporary discourses associated with inclusive education in E ngland. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(3), pp.182-188.

Goldie, J.G.S., 2016. Connectivism: A knowledge learning theory for the digital age?. Medical teacher, 38(10), pp.1064-1069.

Goodman, Y.M. and Goodman, K.S., 2014. Vygotsky in a whole language perspective. In Making sense of learners making sense of written language (pp. 98-114). Routledge.

He, W. & Watson, S. 2014, "Designing a field experience tracking system in the area of special education", Campus - Wide Information Systems, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 290-303.

Hergenhahn, B.R. and Henley, T., 2013. An introduction to the history of psychology. Cengage Learning.

Hornby, G., 2015. Inclusive special education: development of a new theory for the education of children with special educational needs and disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 42(3), pp.234-256.

Hyland, K., 2016. Methods and methodologies in second language writing research. System, 59, pp.116-125.

Kang, H.S., 2014. Bruner's educational theory since structure of knowledge: Narrative turn. ASTL, 47, pp.258-269.

Kauffman, J.M. and Badar, J., 2014. Instruction, not inclusion, should be the central issue in special education: An alternative view from the USA. Journal of International Special Needs Education, 17(1), pp.13-20.

Lantolf, J.P. and Poehner, M.E., 2014. Sociocultural theory and the pedagogical imperative in L2 education: Vygotskian praxis and the research/practice divide. Routledge.

Lantolf, J.P., Thorne, S.L. and Poehner, M.E., 2015. Sociocultural theory and second language development. Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction, pp.207-226.

Lauchlan, F. and Greig, S., 2015. Educational inclusion in E ngland: origins, perspectives and current directions. Support for learning, 30(1), pp.69-82.

Lee, F.L.M., Yeung, A.S., Tracey, D. and Barker, K., 2015. Inclusion of children with special needs in early childhood education: What teacher characteristics matter. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 35(2), pp.79-88.

Leontiev, D., Lebedeva, A. and Kostenko, V., 2017. Pathways of personality development: Following Lev Vygotsky’s guidelines. Вопросы образования, (2 (eng)).

Lillis, T. and Curry, M.J., 2013. Academic writing in a global context: The politics and practices of publishing in English. Routledge.

Lorenz, S., 2013. Effective in-class support: The management of support staff in mainstream and special schools. David Fulton Publishers.

MacFarlane, K. and Woolfson, L.M., 2013. Teacher attitudes and behavior toward the inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream schools: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Teaching and teacher education, 29, pp.46-52.

McAllister, K. and Hadjri, K., 2013. Inclusion and the special educational needs (SEN) resource base in mainstream schools: Physical factors to maximise effectiveness. Support for Learning, 28(2), pp.57-65.

McLeod, S., 2014. Lev vygotsky. Simply psychology, pp.1-13.

McNamara, S. and Moreton, G., 2016. Understanding differentiation: a teachers guide. Routledge.

Mishra, R.K., 2013. Vygotskian perspective of teaching-learning. Innovation: International Journal of Applied Research, 1(1), pp.21-28.

Mitchell, D., 2015. Inclusive education is a multi-faceted concept. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 5(1), pp.9-30.

Montazeri, M., Hamidi, H. and Hamidi, B., 2015. A closer look at different aspects of private speech in SLA. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(3), pp.478-484.

Moon, J.A., 2013. Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. Routledge

Morcom, V., 2014. Scaffolding social and emotional learning in an elementary classroom community: A sociocultural perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 67, pp.18-29.

Murphy, C., Scantlebury, K. and Milne, C., 2015. Using Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development to propose and test an explanatory model for conceptualising coteaching in pre-service science teacher education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), pp.281-295.

Nance, E. & Calabrese, R.L. 2009, "Special education teacher retention and attrition: the impact of increased legal requirements", The International Journal of Educational Management, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 431-440.

Newman, F. and Holzman, L., 2013. Lev Vygotsky (classic edition): Revolutionary scientist. Psychology Press.

Nordlof, J., 2014. Vygotsky, scaffolding, and the role of theory in writing center work. The Writing Center Journal, pp.45-64.

Norwich, B., 2014. Changing policy and legislation and its effects on inclusive and special education: a perspective from E ngland. British journal of special education, 41(4), pp.403-425.

Olson, D.R., 2013. Cognitive development: The child's acquisition of diagonality. Psychology Press.

Ozfidan, B., Machtmes, K.L. and Demir, H., 2014. Socio-cultural factors in second language learning: A case study of adventurous adult language learners. European Journal of Educational Research, 3(4), pp.185-191.

Peer, L. and Reid, G. eds., 2016. Special educational needs: A guide for inclusive practice. Sage.

Radford, J., Bosanquet, P., Webster, R. and Blatchford, P., 2015. Scaffolding learning for independence: Clarifying teacher and teaching assistant roles for children with special educational needs. Learning and Instruction, 36, pp.1-10.

Petrová, Z., 2013. On the relevancy of using Vygotsky’s theoretical framework to legitimize dialogic teaching/learning. Journal of Pedagogy/Pedagogický Casopis, 4(2), pp.237-252.

Roberts, J. and Simpson, K., 2016. A review of research into stakeholder perspectives on inclusion of students with autism in mainstream schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(10), pp.1084-1096.

Robertson, C., Childs, C. and Marsden, E., 2013. Equality and the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs in physical education. In Issues in physical education (pp. 63-79). Routledge.

Shabani, K., 2016. Applications of Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach for teachers’ professional development. Cogent education, 3(1), p.1252177.

Sharma, U., Forlin, C., Deppeler, J. and Yang, G.X., 2013. Reforming teacher education for inclusion in developing countries in the Asia Pacific region. Asian Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(1), pp.3-16.

Smagorinsky, P., 2018. Deconflating the ZPD and instructional scaffolding: Retranslating and reconceiving the zone of proximal development as the zone of next development. Learning, culture and social interaction, 16, pp.70-75.

Terzi, L., 2014. Reframing inclusive education: Educational equality as capability equality. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(4), pp.479-493.

Thompson, I., 2013. The mediation of learning in the zone of proximal development through a co-constructed writing activity. Research in the Teaching of English, pp.247-276.

Tremblay, P., 2013. Comparative outcomes of two instructional models for students with learning disabilities: inclusion with co‐teaching and solo‐taught special education. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(4), pp.251-258.

Tzivinikou, S., 2015. Collaboration between general and special education teachers: Developing co-teaching skills in heterogeneous classes. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 64, pp.108-119.

Van Geert, P., 2017. The development of perception, cognition and language: A theoretical approach. Routledge.

Continue your journey with our comprehensive guide to Learning Strengths.