The Portfolio of three research projects examined the perspectives that Itinerant Teachers of the Deaf (ITD), classroom teachers and students with hearing loss had towards the factors that, in their respective experience, influenced positive inclusion into mainstream classrooms. The Linking paper presents the context for the Research Projects by explaining the nature of significant hearing impairment and its potential impact on academic and social outcomes for students, as well as the features of the educational environment and personnel involved in the inclusive process. Each project was conducted separately, and outcomes for each study reported, but the collective perceptions of the three groups of participants informed the suggestions for practice for members of the students' support team. The Itinerant Teachers of the Deaf developed a range of support practices that responded to the students' individual needs within the context of their particular educational situation. Professional development for mainstream school staff, that was provided by the Itinerant Teachers of the Deaf, was highly valued by both the classroom teachers and the students, but the opportunity to provide this indirect form of support was at times limited by time constraints and mainstream schools failing to provide adequate opportunity. General training followed up by collaborative interactions between the Itinerant and classroom teachers was regarded as important as it provided the classroom teacher with specific information about the student in their class. Embedded in the findings was discourse about the importance of collegial and professional relationships, and the trust that develops between the Itinerant Teacher of the Deaf and the students. Overall, it seems professionally most practical to carefully assess and plan for support early in the inclusive process, both for the student and the classroom teachers. This is primarily the responsibility of the Itinerant Teachers of the Deaf, but the implementation of the plan relies on the willingness of all involved to work as a team to ensure this vulnerable group of students become equal members of the school community.

Teaching and learning practices in higher education have been the focus of educational research for more than a decade in many countries contributing to the international debate. In Bhutan however, relatively few studies have explored teaching practices in the tertiary sector and this study breaks new ground. This study examines the nature of teaching and learning practices in a representative sample of the colleges of the Royal University of Bhutan (RUB). The establishment of the Royal University of Bhutan saw the introduction of the 'Wheel of Academic Law', which introduced new policy guidelines for tertiary teaching. Its introduction was one of several factors that prompted this study. This policy obliges RUB staff to make a conceptual shift in their teaching, from earlier reliance on the input model (transmission/teacher-centred) to a learning-outcomes model with students becoming responsible for their own learning (facilitation/learner-centred). The motive was to improve teaching and learning practices at the RUB, a motive that led to the establishment of the Centre for University Learning and Teaching in 2008. Even more recently the RUB (July 2011) gained recognition as an autonomous organisation, separate from the Royal Civil Service Commission (RCSC) in Bhutan. This move has again generated interest in and commitment to enhancing the quality of its teaching and learning. It was critical and timely to examine the nature of the teaching and learning practices at the RUB with a view to the enhancement of practices. The purpose of this study was to identify the nature and the extent of the gap between what is intended by the RUB as set out in the 'Wheel of Academic Law' and what is actually practiced. This study employed qualitative research based on interpretivist principles using the case study design. A mixed-methods approach was used, that included lesson observations, questionnaires, interviews, and field notes. An analytical framework consisting of seven categories based on existing literature that covered planning, implementation, and evaluation classroom practices was developed to analyse the data. Participants included 36 academic staff, 805 students, and 15 academic support staff at five of the ten Colleges of RUB.

The overarching question for this research is: "What are the differences between 'espoused educational policy' and 'policy in use' in relation to suspension centres?" (Cohen, 2000; Schön, 1995). To answer this question, stakeholders were asked their opinions based on research sub-questions: what are the best things happening with suspension centres or what should be maintained with suspension centres?; what needs to be improved with suspension centres?; and what evidence is there that suspension centres are meeting the Purpose and Goals as outlined in the Guidelines? Disruptive student behaviour continues to be a serious issue in schools. Suspension centres are a recent government initiative to help address this issue in NSW government schools. The centres are for students on long suspension from school who have been identified as being likely to benefit from a structured program to assist their successful return to schooling. Schön (1995) makes the case for those people who design policy to "get interested" in what the policy means to practitioners in the field as the ways in which the policy is used can be very different from the "policy intention" (p. 33). Schön's concerns could be very pertinent in regard to the suspension centres which have never been formally evaluated. The research was conducted in two phases. Phase One, semi-structured interviews, were implemented with stakeholders including students, their parents, mentors, suspension centre staff, and regional personnel associated with the centres, while students were at the centres. Responses revealed that the best things happening or things that should be maintained were that: students were learning skills related to academic activities and behaviour and that suspension centre staff were using appropriate approaches and had good skills in managing students with disruptive behaviour. Such practices enabled the success of suspension centres.