INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Effective Teaching Strategies for Students with Disabilities in

Vocational Settings: A Narrative Review of Evidence Based and

Inclusive Approaches

Abdul Muqsith Ahmad^*1, Mohd Ridhuan Mohd Jamil², Azizul Qayyum Basri¹, Nur Hidayah Hamdan¹,

Siti Faizzatul Aqmal Mohamad Mohsin¹, Mohd Syaubari Othman², Mohd Muslim Md Zalli²

¹Faculty of Technical and Vocational, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 35900 Perak Darul Ridzuan

²Faculty of Human Development, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, 35900 Perak Darul Ridzuan

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.91100265

Received: 20 November 2025; Accepted: 30 November 2025; Published: 07 December 2025

ABSTRACT

This narrative review synthesizes current research on effective teaching strategies for students with disabilities

in vocational education settings. The review aims to identify core instructional approaches, contextual

challenges, and gaps in the literature to inform inclusive practice and guide future research. Students with

disabilities in vocational pathways often face barriers related to communication, skill mastery, workplace

readiness, and transition to employment. However, many also demonstrate strengths in practical learning,

persistence, and task engagement when instruction is appropriately structured and individualized. These varying

learner profiles highlight the need for teaching approaches that are both evidences based and responsive to the

demands of vocational training environments. A structured search across Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC,

PubMed, Semantic Scholar, and Google Scholar yielded 50 high quality studies meeting predefined criteria. The

included literature spans experimental, qualitative, mixed method, and review designs focusing on learners with

intellectual, developmental, physical, and sensory disabilities. Findings consistently support systematic

instructional strategies such as task analysis, response prompting, and video modelling, particularly for skill

acquisition in hands on vocational tasks. Inclusive frameworks including Universal Design for Learning,

differentiated instruction, and co teaching further enhance accessibility and participation. Technology enhanced

tools, such as mobile learning and augmented reality, show promising potential but remain underexplored in

terms of scalability and long-term outcomes. The review also underscores the importance of teacher

preparedness, professional learning, and institutional support as critical conditions for effective implementation.

Persistent gaps include limited culturally responsive practices, minimal research on learners with physical and

sensory disabilities, and challenges integrating individualized and whole class inclusive models. This review

contributes by consolidating evidence-based strategies and outlining context sensitive recommendations to

strengthen inclusive vocational education.

Keywords: vocational education, students with disabilities, teaching strategies, inclusive pedagogy, systematic

instruction, Universal Design for Learning, assistive technology.

INTRODUCTION

The need to identify and implement effective teaching strategies for students with disabilities in vocational

settings has become increasingly important as global education systems move toward more inclusive, skills

based, and employment-oriented models. Within the broader field of vocational education and training VET, the

question of how best to support diverse learners particularly those with intellectual, developmental, physical,

and sensory disabilities has gained significant attention due to shifting workforce demands, rapid technological

advancement, and strengthened policy commitments to equitable access. Although the field has developed a

substantial evidence base, ongoing debates remain regarding the scalability of interventions, the cultural

adaptability of instructional models, and the gaps between research and real-world implementation. These

Page 3331

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

challenges highlight the need for a comprehensive synthesis of strategies that are both empirically supported and

practically feasible for teachers, vocational trainers, and institutions.

Effective teaching strategies for students with disabilities in vocational settings are multifaceted, combining

evidence based instructional methods, inclusive pedagogical frameworks, and adaptive technologies. Research

consistently highlights the importance of systematic instruction, individualized supports, and community-based

learning to promote skill acquisition and workplace readiness for students with intellectual, developmental,

physical, and sensory disabilities (Gilson et al., 2017; Shepley et al., 2019; Schroeder et al., 2022; Damyanov,

2024; Jobir, 2024; Suyitno et al., 2024). Key strategies include direct instruction, task analysis, response

prompting such as the system of least prompts, video modelling, Universal Design for Learning UDL, co-

teaching, and the integration of assistive technologies (Gilson et al., 2017; Shepley et al., 2019; Schroeder et al.,

2022; Rao & Meo, 2016; Cook & Rao, 2018; Pancsofar & Petroff, 2016; King-Sears et al., 2021). The literature

also emphasizes the need for reflective practice, teacher training, and systemic support to address barriers and

ensure the sustainability of inclusive vocational education (Dahalan & Toran, 2023; Mabeza & Villacruz, 2025;

Jobir, 2024; Zhang et al., 2024). While no single strategy is universally best, a combination of individualized,

evidence based, and contextually adapted approaches yields the most positive outcomes for learners with

disabilities in vocational settings (Gilson et al., 2017; Shepley et al., 2019; Schroeder et al., 2022; Damyanov,

2024; Jobir, 2024; Rao & Meo, 2016; Cook & Rao, 2018; King-Sears et al., 2021).

For clarity, this review uses the term vocational settings to refer to school based vocational programs, technical

education centres, and community or industry-based training environments where learners acquire job related

skills. Specialized terms such as system of least prompts, task analysis, video modelling, and Universal Design

for Learning UDL are defined and contextualized in the subsequent sections to support reader understanding.

Given the evolving landscape of inclusive VET, marked by emerging digital tools, shifting policies, and growing

expectations for workforce participation among individuals with disabilities, this narrative review aims to

synthesize current evidence on what constitutes the most effective teaching strategies in these contexts. The

review will discuss instructional approaches, collaborative frameworks, technological supports, and system level

factors shaping successful implementation. By mapping these interconnected domains, the paper provides a

timely and comprehensive overview that can guide educators, program designers, and policymakers seeking to

strengthen inclusion and improve outcomes in vocational education.

METHOD

This narrative review synthesizes the existing body of knowledge on teaching strategies for students with

disabilities within vocational education settings. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across major

academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, ERIC, PubMed, Semantic Scholar, and Google Scholar,

to ensure broad and rigorous coverage of empirical studies, conceptual papers, and systematic reviews relevant

to the topic. To enhance completeness, the reference lists of key publications and review articles were also

manually screened to identify additional studies not captured through database searches. The search strategy

involved 21 unique queries targeting foundational theories, subgroup specific strategies, inclusive pedagogy,

critiques, interdisciplinary approaches, and adjacent topics. These searches employed combinations of keywords

and Boolean operators such as “vocational education,” “students with disabilities,” “special education

strategies,” “inclusive teaching,” “evidence based instruction,” “assistive technology,” “UDL,” “systematic

instruction,” “task analysis,” “co teaching,” and “video modeling.” Additional terms were introduced to capture

population specific needs (for example, “intellectual disability,” “autism,” “physical disability,” “sensory

impairment”) and vocational context terms (“technical training,” “workplace readiness,” “skills development”).

Searches were limited to articles published in English, with no lower publication date restriction to allow

inclusion of foundational work, while ensuring representation of current developments in the field.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria

Page 3332

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

1. Relevance to vocational settings including school based vocational programs, technical and vocational

education and training TVET institutions, workplace based training, or transition to employment

contexts.

2. Focus on learners with disabilities encompassing intellectual, developmental, physical, and sensory

disabilities.

3. Discussion of teaching strategies including instructional models, pedagogical frameworks, assistive

technologies, or inclusive support practices.

4. Empirical or conceptual contribution such as experimental studies, quasi experimental designs,

qualitative investigations, systematic reviews, or theoretical papers that advance understanding of

teaching strategies in VET.

Exclusion criteria included

1. Studies unrelated to vocational or skills-based education settings.

2. Papers exclusively addressing medical, therapeutic, or clinical interventions without instructional

relevance.

3. Articles lacking accessible abstracts or insufficient methodological detail.

A total of 1,052 records were initially retrieved from database searches. After removing duplicates and entries

without accessible abstracts, 781 studies remained for title and abstract screening. During this stage, 179 papers

were excluded due to limited relevance to vocational education or disability-related instructional strategies,

leaving 602 studies for full-text assessment. Each article was then evaluated for conceptual alignment,

methodological adequacy, and contextual suitability to the review’s scope. Following this detailed screening,

552 studies were excluded for reasons such as insufficient focus on teaching strategies, examination of unrelated

populations, or inadequate methodological rigour. Ultimately, 50 articles met all inclusion criteria and were

incorporated into the review. These selected studies included experimental designs, qualitative investigations,

mixed-method studies, and review papers, providing a comprehensive evidence base for the synthesis presented

(see Figure 1).

Figure 1. PRISMA-based Flow Diagram of Document Selection Process for Narrative Review

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

This narrative review draws together evidence from diverse methodological traditions to examine effective

teaching strategies for students with disabilities in vocational education. The literature collectively highlights the

need to understand not only what works but why certain approaches function across varied disability profiles and

vocational contexts. Research increasingly emphasises instructional approaches that balance structure with

Page 3333

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

flexibility, reflecting the practice-oriented nature of vocational learning (Gilson et al., 2017; Shepley et al., 2019;

King-Sears et al., 2021). Studies also show that effective teaching arises from the interplay of systematic

instruction, inclusive frameworks, and technology-mediated supports (Damyanov, 2024; Rao & Meo, 2016;

Almumen, 2020). Despite these strengths, the literature also points to ongoing challenges, including gaps in

teacher preparedness, inconsistent implementation, and limited institutional support, all of which influence the

sustainability of evidence-based practices (Dahalan & Toran, 2023; Assanbayev & Makoelle, 2024; Mabeza &

Villacruz, 2025). These complexities highlight the need for contextually grounded interpretations of instructional

effectiveness. The subsequent sections therefore organise the findings into key thematic areas that capture major

patterns, points of divergence, and emerging directions within the field, providing a coherent foundation for

understanding current knowledge and remaining gaps.

Synthesis Analysis

Overall Patterns in Effective Teaching Strategies

The research demonstrates that no single teaching strategy is universally optimal; rather, the most effective

approaches are individualized, evidence based, and contextually adapted to the needs of students and the

vocational setting (Gilson et al., 2017; Shepley et al., 2019; Damyanov, 2024; Jobir, 2024; Rao & Meo, 2016;

Cook & Rao, 2018; King Sears et al., 2021). Across the literature, a consistent pattern emerges in which

instructional clarity, structured learning environments, and repeated practice serve as core pillars of successful

teaching for learners with disabilities. This reflects broad agreement that vocational learning requires not only

skill acquisition but also opportunities for generalization to authentic work contexts. However, within these

general patterns, researchers highlight substantial variability in how strategies are implemented across settings,

subject areas, and disability subgroups. This variability underscores the field’s shift toward flexible, adaptive

models rather than rigid prescriptions.

Systematic Instruction and Skills Based Approaches

Systematic instruction methods including task analysis, response prompting, and structured practice continue to

receive the strongest empirical support, particularly for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities

(Gilson et al., 2017; Wenzel et al., 2021; Shepley et al., 2019; Stabnow et al., 2023; Brock et al., 2016). These

strategies are grounded in behavioral theory and emphasize consistent, scaffolded instruction with clear

performance criteria. Evidence also demonstrates that video modeling and technology enhanced strategies

support both initial skill acquisition and long term maintenance or generalization (Gilson et al., 2017; Shepley

et

al.,

2019;

Schroeder

et

al.,

2022;

Gallegos,

2019;

Kellems

et

al.,

2019).

Although scholars widely support these approaches, some debate exists regarding their adaptability to highly

complex or dynamic vocational tasks in rapidly evolving industries. Critics argue that systematic instruction may

over emphasize procedural fluency at the expense of problem solving and flexible thinking. This indicates a gap

in the literature: the need for hybrid approaches that balance structure with opportunities for autonomy and

authentic decision making.

Inclusive Frameworks: UDL, Differentiation, and Co Teaching

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and differentiated instruction frameworks are consistently positioned as

foundational to inclusive vocational teaching because they proactively design learning environments to

accommodate learner variability (Damyanov, 2024; Cumming Rose, 2021; Rao & Meo, 2016; Cook & Rao,

2018; Zhang et al., 2024; Almumen, 2020). These frameworks shift the emphasis from retrofitting supports to

embedding accessibility from the outset, which aligns well with diverse vocational classrooms. Co teaching

models, where general and special educators collaborate, also show moderate positive effects on academic

engagement and inclusive participation (Iacono et al., 2021; Pancsofar & Petroff, 2016; King Sears et al., 2021).

Yet the literature reveals mixed findings. Successful co teaching depends heavily on role clarity, teacher

preparation, and administrative support. When implemented poorly, co teaching can result in fragmented

instruction or unequal distribution of responsibilities. This highlights an ongoing challenge in the field:

translating conceptual frameworks like UDL or co teaching into high fidelity classroom practice.

Page 3334

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Technology Enhanced and Assistive Approaches

The integration of assistive technologies such as screen readers, adaptive keyboards, and mobile learning

platforms enhances access and participation for students with physical, sensory, and cognitive disabilities

(Damyanov, 2024; Ismaili Ibrahimi, 2017; Almumen, 2020). These tools provide alternative means for

engagement, expression, and material access, thereby complementing UDL based approaches.

Emerging technologies including augmented reality and metaverse based learning environments offer innovative

possibilities for vocational preparation (Lee et al., 2023; Kellems et al., 2019). These approaches simulate

authentic job tasks and create immersive training scenarios that may be especially beneficial for learners who

require repeated exposure before engaging in real world environments. Despite their potential, these newer

technologies remain under researched. Questions persist regarding cost, scalability, accessibility, and long term

learning outcomes. More rigorous evaluation is needed before such tools can be considered reliably evidence

based.

Teacher Capacity, Professional Learning, and Systemic Barriers

Across the literature, teacher preparedness emerges as a critical determinant of successful implementation for all

strategies discussed. Studies emphasize the importance of ongoing professional development, reflective practice,

and institutional support to ensure effectiveness (Dahalan Toran, 2023; Naseem et al., 2025; Mabeza & Villacruz,

2025; Assanbayev Makoelle, 2024; Jobir, 2024).

However, many vocational settings continue to face barriers such as insufficient training, limited resources, and

systemic constraints that impede consistent application (Mabeza & Villacruz, 2025;Assanbayev Makoelle, 2024;

Jobir, 2024; Zhang et al., 2024). These challenges create disparities between recommended practices and what

teachers are able to implement realistically.

As a result, the literature calls for comprehensive reforms including targeted professional learning, stronger

policy mechanisms, and institutional investment in assistive technology infrastructure (Damyanov, 2024;

Mabeza &Villacruz, 2025; Jobir, 2024; Ismaili Ibrahimi, 2017; Zhang et al., 2024). Without systemic alignment,

even high-quality teaching strategies cannot achieve their intended impact.

Cultural Adaptability and Contextual Challenges

Studies from various countries reveal that cultural context significantly shapes the implementation of inclusive

vocational education. Teachers in the Philippines and Kazakhstan, for example, face challenges such as

inadequate resources, limited training, and the need for curriculum adaptation to local realities. Coping strategies

include individualized instruction, peer teaching, and the use of ICT, but systemic support and culturally relevant

materials are often lacking (Mabeza & Villacruz,, 2025; Assanbayev & Makoelle, 2024). In South Africa,

teachers’ low awareness of multicultural and age-diverse needs underscores the necessity for ongoing

professional development in cultural competence (Mahlangu & Mtshali, 2024).

Culturally responsive pedagogy is essential for effective inclusion. Teachers must understand students’ cultural

backgrounds, values, and languages, and adapt teaching methods accordingly. This includes flexible curriculum

design, differentiated instruction, and the integration of culturally relevant content. Collaborative teaching,

family involvement, and reflective practice further enhance adaptability and inclusivity (Singh, 2023; Moriña,

2020; Kulkarni et al., 2023; Misador & Cangayao, 2025).

Global reviews emphasize that policy support, resource allocation, and teacher training are critical for equitable

vocational education. However, disparities in resource distribution and policy enforcement persist, affecting the

cultural applicability of strategies. Interdisciplinary collaboration and technological advancements are

recommended to bridge these gaps and ensure strategies are contextually relevant (Wang, 2025; Miller et al.,

2025; Posso-Pacheco et al., 2025).

Page 3335

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

Gaps, Contradictions, and Future Directions

Although systematic instruction and UDL hold strong empirical support, unresolved issues persist. The long-

term effectiveness and scalability of emerging approaches such as metaverse based learning and augmented

reality remain unclear (Lee et al., 2023; Kellems et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2024). Additionally, there is limited

research on culturally responsive practices within vocational settings, the role of peer mediated approaches, and

strategies tailored to specific vocational sectors.

A recurring contradiction in the literature involves the tension between individualized instruction and whole

class inclusive frameworks. While both are supported, studies rarely examine how they can be integrated

coherently in practice. Furthermore, most research focuses on students with intellectual and developmental

disabilities, leaving gaps regarding learners with physical, sensory, or multiple disabilities. These gaps present

opportunities for future research to develop more comprehensive models of vocational inclusion.

Limitations

This narrative review, while comprehensive in scope, is subject to several methodological and conceptual

limitations that should be acknowledged when interpreting its findings. First, the review relies heavily on

available literature indexed in major scholarly databases. Although these sources encompass extensive coverage,

they may omit relevant studies published in local journals, non-indexed repositories, or practitioner-oriented

outlets. As a result, teaching strategies that are widely implemented in specific vocational contexts or cultural

settings may be underrepresented. The inclusion of studies only available in English also introduces a potential

language bias that may limit insights from non-English speaking regions where vocational education systems

serve large populations of students with disabilities.

Second, the evidence base itself is uneven across disability categories and instructional approaches. Research on

intellectual and developmental disabilities is relatively robust, yet studies examining effective strategies for

learners with physical, sensory, or multiple disabilities in vocational settings remain comparatively scarce. This

imbalance may skew the synthesis toward strategies suited to certain disability groups while underemphasizing

the needs of others. Additionally, many studies employ small sample sizes, single subject designs, or short term

interventions, making it difficult to assess the generalizability and long term sustainability of the strategies

reviewed.

Third, narrative reviews inherently introduce subjectivity in study selection, interpretation, and synthesis.

Although a structured search and screening process was applied, decisions about relevance and thematic

organization may reflect reviewer judgment rather than fully objective criteria. The absence of formal meta-

analytic procedures also limits the ability to quantify effect sizes or compare the relative strength of different

instructional strategies. Furthermore, the diversity of study designs, outcome measures, and vocational contexts

presented challenges in synthesizing findings consistently across sources. Differences in terminology and

conceptual frameworks across disciplines further complicate comparisons and increase the risk of interpretive

bias.

Finally, the rapid emergence of innovative technologies, such as augmented reality and metaverse based

vocational training tools, poses a limitation for any review that synthesizes a field undergoing fast paced

evolution. Much of the literature on these tools is exploratory or theoretical, resulting in an evidence base that

has not yet matured sufficiently to support strong conclusions. Future research should therefore prioritize

longitudinal designs, cross disability studies, culturally diverse samples, and mixed methods approaches that

capture the complexity of vocational learning environments. Expanding global representation, employing

systematic or scoping review methods, and incorporating practitioner-based evidence would also strengthen

future syntheses and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the best teaching strategies for students

with disabilities in vocational settings.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this narrative review demonstrates that the best teaching strategies for students with disabilities

in vocational settings are those that are individualized, evidence based, and adapted to the unique demands of

Page 3336

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

both learners and training environments, aligning directly with the review’s objective to identify effective,

scalable, and inclusive instructional approaches. Systematic instruction, UDL based frameworks, differentiated

pedagogy, co teaching, and assistive technologies consistently emerged as key strategies that support skill

acquisition, engagement, and workplace readiness, addressing the initial gap concerning which methods hold

the strongest empirical grounding. At the same time, the synthesis revealed persistent challenges including

uneven teacher preparation, limited resources, and the underrepresentation of students with physical, sensory, or

multiple disabilities in current research. These gaps underscore the need for future studies that examine long

term outcomes, evaluate emerging technologies such as augmented reality and metaverse based training, and

develop integrative models that combine individualized instruction with inclusive classroom practices.

Advancing research in these areas will strengthen the evidence base, enhance the practical implementation of

inclusive vocational pedagogy, and support more equitable pathways into employment for learners with

disabilities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Faculty of Technical and Vocational Education, Universiti

Pendidikan Sultan Idris, for the academic support and conducive environment that enabled the completion of

this paper. My gratitude is also extended to all researchers and colleagues whose insights informed and

strengthened this work.

Contribution/Originality

This review synthesizes fragmented evidence on teaching strategies for students with disabilities in vocational

education, offering a clearer understanding of effective practices and highlighting key gaps that require further

investigation.

REFERENCES

1. Almumen, H. (2020). Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Across Cultures: The Application of UDL

in Kuwaiti Inclusive Classrooms. SAGE Open, 10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020969674

2. Assanbayev, A., & Makoelle, T. (2024). Practices Promoting the Inclusion of Adult Students with

Disabilities in the Classroom: A Case of a Technical Vocational Education and Training College in

Kazakhstan. Education Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14050529

3. Brock, M., Cannella-Malone, H., Schaefer, J., Page, J., Andzik, N., & Seaman, R. (2016). Efficacy of

training job coaches to implement evidence-based instructional strategies. Journal of Vocational

Rehabilitation, 45, 351 - 364. https://doi.org/10.3233/jvr-160835

4. Bunbury, S. (2020). Disability in higher education – do reasonable adjustments contribute to an inclusive

curriculum?.

International

Journal

of

Inclusive

Education,

24,

964

-

979.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1503347

5. Cannella-Malone, H., & Schaefer, J. (2017). A Review of Research on Teaching People With Significant

Disabilities Vocational Skills. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40, 67 -

78. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143415583498

6. Cook, S., & Rao, K. (2018). Systematically Applying UDL to Effective Practices for Students With

Learning

Disabilities.

Learning

Disability

Quarterly,

41,

179

-

191.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717749936

7. Cumming, T., & Rose, M. (2021). Exploring universal design for learning as an accessibility tool in

higher education: are view of the current literature. The Australian Educational Researcher, 49, 1025-

1043. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-021-00471-7

8. Dahalan, K., & Toran, H. (2023). Teaching Vocational Skills to Students with Low Functioning

Disabilities. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development.

https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarped/v12-i2/17357

9. Damyanov, P. (2024). Effective Pedagogical Strategies and Support Mechanisms for Enhancing the

Learning Outcomes of Students with Special Educational Needs: A Systematic Approach. International

Journal of Scientific Research and Management (IJSRM). https://doi.org/10.18535/ijsrm/v12i10.el03

Page 3337

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

10. Gallegos, M. (2019). Teaching Vocational Skills: Use of Video Prompting for Young Adults with

Intellectual Disabilities.

11. Gilson, C., Carter, E., & Biggs, E. (2017). Systematic Review of Instructional Methods to Teach

Employment Skills to Secondary Students With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. Research

and

Practice

for

Persons

with

Severe

Disabilities,

42,

107

-

89.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796917698831

12. Iacono, T., Landry, O., Garcia-Melgar, A., Spong, J., Hyett, N., Bagley, K., & McKinstry, C. (2021). A

systematized review of co-teaching efficacy in enhancing inclusive education for students with disability.

International

https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1900423

13. Ismaili, J., & Ibrahimi, E. (2017). Mobile learning as alternative to assistive technology devices for

special needs students. Education and Information Technologies, 22, 883-899.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9462-9

14. Jobir, T. (2024). The Implementation of Inclusive Education in TVET Institutions: A Systematic Review.

International Journal of Vocational Education and Training Research.

https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijvetr.20241002.15

Journal

of

Inclusive

Education,

27,

1454

-

1468.

15. Kellems, R., Cacciatore, G., & Osborne, K. (2019). Using an Augmented Reality–Based Teaching

Strategy to Teach Mathematics to Secondary Students With Disabilities. Career Development and

Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 42, 253 - 258. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143418822800

16. King‐Sears, M., Stefanidis, A., Berkeley, S., & Strogilos, V. (2021). Does Co-Teaching Improve

Academic Achievement for Students with Disabilities? A Meta-Analysis. Educational Research Review.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100405

17. Kulkarni, S., Miller, A., Nusbaum, E., Pearson, H., & Brown, L. (2023). Toward disability-centered,

culturally sustaining pedagogies in teacher education. Critical Studies in Education, 65, 107 - 127.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2023.2234952

18. Lee, S., Lee, Y., & Park, E. (2023). Sustainable Vocational Preparation for Adults with Disabilities: A

Metaverse-Based Approach. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151512000

19. Mabeza, M., & Villacruz,, J. (2025). Challenges and Coping Strategies of Technical-Vocational Teachers

in Implementing Inclusive Education for Learners with Disabilities. International Journal of Research

and Scientific Innovation. https://doi.org/10.51244/ijrsi.2025.12060032

20. Mahlangu, S., & Mtshali, T. (2024). Inclusive Education Strategies for Knowledge Development of

Teachers Enrolled in the Advanced Vocational and Training Education Program. International Journal of

Religion. https://doi.org/10.61707/bdbp4z72

21. McLucas, A., & Gonçalves, B. (2025). Using Practitioner-Implemented Video Models to Teach

Vocational Social Skills in a Rural Public School. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional

Individuals. https://doi.org/10.1177/21651434251328271

22. Miller, E., Franco-Jenkins, X., Duncan, J., Reddi, A., & Ward, C. (2025). Strengthening Education

Through Equitable and Inclusive Evidence-Based Teaching Practices: A Scoping Review. Education

Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci15030266

23. Misador, I., & Cangayao, L. (2025). Lived Experienced of Teachers Handling Students with Intellectual

Disabilities in the Virtual Learning System. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social

Science. https://doi.org/10.47772/ijriss.2025.90400120

24. Moriña, A. (2020). Faculty members who engage in inclusive pedagogy: methodological and affective

strategies

for

teaching.

Teaching

in

Higher

Education,

27,

371

-

386.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1724938

25. Naseem, A., Sami, A., & Haleem, B. (2025). Effective Teaching Strategies for Physically Disabled

Students: A Reflective Approach. ProScholar Insights. https://doi.org/10.62997/psi.2025b-42061

26. Pancsofar, N., & Petroff, J. (2016). Teachers’ experiences with co-teaching as a model for inclusive

education.

International

Journal

of

Inclusive

Education,

20,

1043

-

1053.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1145264

27. Posso-Pacheco, R., Maqueira-Caraballo, G., Isaac, R., Caicedo-Quiroz, R., Iglesias, S., & Barba-

Miranda, L. (2025). Curricular adaptations in physical education: A global study on the inclusion of

students with specific educational needs. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development.

https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd10564

Page 3338

ww w .rsisinternational.org

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)

ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XI November 2025

28. Rao, K., & Meo, G. (2016). Using Universal Design for Learning to Design Standards-Based Lessons.

SAGE Open, 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016680688

29. Schroeder, C., Ragotzy, S., & Poling, A. (2022). Young adults with intellectual and other developmental

disabilities acquire vocational skills with video prompting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 56,

181 - 200. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.963

30. Shepley, C., Lane, J., & Ault, M. (2019). A Review and Critical Examination of the System of Least

Prompts. Remedial and Special Education, 40, 313 - 327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517751213

31. Singh, I. (2023). Culturally Responsive Practices in Special Education. Global International Research

Thoughts. https://doi.org/10.36676/girt.2023-v11i1-09

32. Stabnow, E., Rieger, H., & Sweeney, W. (2023). Increasing Pizza Box Assembly Using Task Analysis

and a Least-To-Most Prompting Hierarchy. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 45, 169 - 191.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07317107.2023.2170197

33. Suyitno, S., Purwoko, R., Widiyono, Y., Jatmoko, D., Setuju, S., & Marsono, M. (2024). Work-based

learning design for students with disabilities in vocational high schools. Edelweiss Applied Science and

Technology. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v9i1.3622

34. Wang, Z. (2025). Fairness of Disabled Students in Vocational Education. Lecture Notes in Education

Psychology and Public Media. https://doi.org/10.54254/2753-7048/2025.22627

35. Wenzel, J., Fisher, M., & Brodhead, M. (2021). Preparing Job Coaches to Implement Systematic

Instructional Strategies to Teach Vocational Tasks. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional

Individuals, 45, 71 - 85. https://doi.org/10.1177/21651434211041918

36. Zhang, L., Carter, R., Greene, J., & Bernacki, M. (2024). Unraveling Challenges with the Implementation

of Universal Design for Learning: A Systematic Literature Review. Educational Psychology Review.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09860-7

Page 3339

ww w .rsisinternational.org