ORGANISING THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS IN INCLUSIVE EDUCATION SETTINGS: PRINCIPLES, MODELS AND PRACTICES
Keywords:
Inclusive education; educational process organisation; Universal Design for Learning; co-teaching; differentiated instruction; special educational needs; adaptive curriculum; Uzbekistan.Abstract
Background: The organisation of the educational process in inclusive settings remains one of the foremost challenges in contemporary pedagogy. While international policy frameworks strongly advocate for inclusive schooling, the translation of these principles into coherent, day-to-day classroom practice requires systematic attention to curriculum design, instructional methodology, physical environment, professional collaboration, and assessment. Objectives: This article aims to (1) analyse the foundational principles guiding the organisation of inclusive education; (2) examine evidence-based models for structuring teaching and learning in diverse classrooms; (3) review instructional strategies and environmental adaptations that facilitate full learner participation; and (4) present findings from a two-year observational and survey-based study conducted in Uzbek mainstream schools (2022–2024). Methods: A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was employed. Quantitative data were collected from 148 teachers across 15 inclusive schools via a validated Inclusive Classroom Organisation Scale (ICOS). Qualitative data comprised classroom observations (n = 60) and semi-structured interviews with teachers (n = 18), school administrators (n = 6), and parents (n = 14). Results: Findings indicate that structured lesson planning informed by Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, combined with collaborative co-teaching arrangements and differentiated assessment practices, significantly improved both academic engagement (η² = 0.19) and social participation (η² = 0.21) among students with special educational needs (SEN). Systemic barriers — notably inadequate specialist staffing, large class sizes, and insufficient curricular flexibility — were identified as primary impediments to effective organisation. Conclusions: Effective organisation of the inclusive educational process demands a whole-school, systemic approach underpinned by clear leadership, specialist expertise, flexible curricula, and sustained professional development.
References
1. Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: Lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587
2. Armstrong, A. C., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I. (2021). Inclusive Education: International Policy and Practice (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
3. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2002). Index for Inclusion: Developing Learning and Participation in Schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education.
4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
5. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Harvard University Press.
6. CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines (Version 2.2). http://udlguidelines.cast.org
7. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
8. Florian, L. (Ed.). (2023). The SAGE Handbook of Special Education (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
9. Friend, M., & Cook, L. (2017). Interactions: Collaboration Skills for School Professionals (8th ed.). Pearson.
10. Guardino, C., & Antia, S. D. (2012). Modifying the classroom environment to increase engagement and decrease disruption with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 17(4), 518–533. https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/ens026
11. Guetterman, T. C., Fetters, M. D., & Creswell, J. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554–561. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1865
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ideal Journal of Multidisciplinary Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
