The Responses of All Participants on Competencies Questionnaire

This section objectively reviewed the responses to the teaching competencies. The theme of questions (Q) was shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1 Theme of the questions

Theme Question

Teaching strategies Q2, Q4, Q5, Q9, Q12, Q14, Q19, Q24

Curriculum Q l , Q20

Classroom management Q3, Q8

Assessment Q6, Q7, Q10, Q l 1, Q13, Q21, Q22, Q23 Perceptions on inclusion Q15, Q16, Q17, Q18

To explore the similarities and differences of the mainstream and special schools teachers, the frequency distribution of responses on competencies was computed and shown in Table 4.2. The responses were discussed in 5 aspects, teaching strategies, curriculum adaptation, classroom management, assessment and perceptions on inclusion.

Table 4.2 Frequency Distribution of Competencies Scale of All the Teachers

(F= Frequency, SA = Strongly Agree, A = Agree, U =

SA A U D S D

Question F % F % F % F °/o F %

Qi 17,0 15,3 52,0 46,8 35,0 31,5 7,0 6,3 0,0 0,0 Q2 15,0 13,5 54,0 48,6 41,0 36,9 1,0 0,9 0,0 0,0 Q3 26,0 23,4 68,0 61,3 13,0 11,7 3,0 2,7 1,0 0,9 Q4 13,0 11,7 66,0 59,5 29,0 26,1 3,0 2,7 0,0 0,0 Q5 37,0 33,3 63,0 56,8 10,0 9,0 1,0 0,9 0,0 0,0 Q6 54,0 48,6 51,0 45,9 5,0 4,5 1,0 0,9 0,0 0,0 Q7 22,0 19,8 49,0 44,1 35,0 31,5 5,0 4,5 0,0 0,0 Q8 55,0 49,5 50,0 45,0 5,0 4,5 1,0 0,9 0,0 0,0 Q9 34,0 30,6 59,0 53,2 18,0 16,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 Q10 17,0 15,3 48,0 43,2 41,0 36,9 4,0 3,6 1,0 0,9 Q l l 34,0 30,6 48,0 43,2 28,0 25,2 1,0 0,9 0,0 0,0 Q12 33,0 29,7 52,0 46,8 21,0 18,9 3,0 2,7 2,0 1,8 Q13 91,0 82,0 19,0 17,1 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,9 Q14 63,0 56,8 41,0 36,9 5,0 4,5 1,0 0,9 1,0 0,9 Q15 22,0 19,8 50,0 45,0 25,0 22,5 12,0 10,8 2,0 1,8 Q16 24,0 21,6 32,0 28,8 34,0 30,6 17,0 15,3 4,0 3,6 Q17 1,0 0,9 17,0 15,3 22,0 19,8 49,0 44,1 22,0 19,8 Q18 4,0 3,6 20,0 18,2 27,0 24,5 49,0 44,5 10,0 9,1 Q19 35,0 31,5 50,0 45,0 17,0 15,3 8,0 7,2 1,0 0,9 Q20 40,0 36,0 45,0 40,5 22,0 19,8 3,0 2,7 1,0 0,9 Q21 32,0 28,8 45,0 40,5 30,0 27,0 4,0 3,6 0,0 0,0 Q22 26,0 23,4 50,0 45,0 30,0 27,0 5,0 4,5 0,0 0,0 Q23 54,0 48,6 45,0 40,5 8,0 7,2 4,0 3,6 0,0 0,0 Q24 52,0 46,8 43,0 38,7 12,0 10,8 2,0 1,8 2,0 1,8

4.2.1 Teaching Strategies

As shown in Table 4.2, 62.1% of the teachers were confident to use classroom strategies to improve the academic achievement of students with SEN (Q2) and 71.2% of the teachers used child-centred approach with varieties of teaching aids as a teaching approach (Q4). 90.1% of the teachers mentioned that they had ability to modify instructional environment for students who needed it in varieties of ways (Q5). Moreover, 15.3% were unsure and 8.1% of the teachers disagreed the need to give more attention to students with SEN than to their class-mates (Q19). It showed that the majority of the participants were well-trained in teaching strategies and had the confidence in their teaching.

The majority of the participants had good knowledge in planning though 16.2% of the teachers were unsure about the planning of students activities based on their IEP (Q9). The unsure and disagreement percentage is 18.9% and 4.5% respectively regarding incapability of developing IEP for the students with SEN (Q12). Though majority of the teachers were found to have skills to plan the lessons, a significant number of teachers were not involved in the development of IEP or they were not provided the skills in planning.

As shown in Table 4.2, the majority (93.7%) of the teachers felt the importance to continue in further education in the area of

inclusive/integrative education (Q14). However, 10.8% were unsure and 3.6% of the teachers disagreed for having enough opportunities for further education (Q24). It showed that there was no enough training provided to all the teachers. Some teachers seemed to get rare opportunity for in-service trainings.

4.2.2 Curriculum Adaptation

As shown in Table 4.2, the majority of the teachers seemed to have good knowledge to adapt curriculum depending upon the needs of the students. Generally, about 62.1% of the total teachers were confident enough to adapt curriculum to the needs of the students with SEN and 76% have rated for having appropriate curriculum and support services for students with SEN in their schools. This result indicated that teachers had good knowledge on curriculum adaptation. However, it also indicated that many schools did not seem to follow the general curriculum but tried to make specific curriculum that suited the students with SEN. Moreover not all the teachers were confident to adapt curriculum which meant that they did not have knowledge to adapt even the curriculum which was designed purposely for students with SEN.

4.2.3 Classroom management

Regarding the management of classroom as shown in Table 4.2, 11.7% of the teachers were unsure and 3.6% disagree on their

ability to manage the disciplined behaviour of their students in the classroom (Q3). The reason might be the young graduates who were inexperienced entering into teaching profession. It could be also explained that many schools had employed some people without any qualification. Classroom management needs experienced and understanding of the characteristics and needs of the students.

4.2.4 Assessment

As shown in Table 4.2, the majority of the teachers (94.5%) had good knowledge on assessment. The classroom assessment was based on the ability of the students rather than on standardized tests (Q6). However, around 36% of the participants were not sure to have enough knowledge about developmental stages and learning process of the students with SEN (Q7). Moreover 36.9%

of the teachers were unsure and 4.5% disagreed that they did not have skills to identify, recognize and solve the educational needs of students with SEN (Q10). The basic reason could be lack of training and staff development activities in the schools. The other reason could be unwillingness to ask and learn from senior teachers.

As collaboration is very important from the point of inclusion, it seemed that both the schools maintained (almost 100%) sound relation with important personnel such as teachers, parents and

personnel from special education centres (Q13). However, the context was bit different when 25.2% of the teachers responded that they were unsure from where to get support and resources for their students with SEN ( Q l l ) . It indicated that they either did not consider those personnel involved in collaboration as sources of supports or they did not have idea about collaboration. Might be the question was misunderstood by the teachers.

The results indicated that teachers had knowledge to facilitate students with SEN (Q21) and there was support to special education teachers from the heads and teachers of the schools (Q22 & Q23). 69.3% of the teachers mentioned that most of the teachers in their schools have knowledge on special education (Q22). 68.4% felt the support from others teachers and 89.1%

felt the support from their supervisor(s) to try new ideas and implement creative strategies (Q23).

The results indicated that teachers were not provided with adequate trainings on teaching strategies and schools were not provided with enough resources to support students with SEN. In other words trainings were not equally provided to all the teachers. The general frequency distribution of responses showed high percentage in every question because of the more positive responses by the teachers of special schools that were more qualified and experienced than mainstream schools. Let us

the look at their comparative results.

4.2.5 Perceptions on Inclusion

There was no significant difference in the perceptions of teachers on inclusion. 64.8% of the teachers believed to have positive views but there was also significant number of teachers who were unsure (22.5%) and (12.6%) who rated that inclusion of students with SEN into regular classes was generally not an effective strategy (Q15). It was similar case with question 16 which was on inclusion of all students in regular environments to the greatest extent possible. Only 50.4% agreed for inclusion and rest 30.6% unsure and 19% disagreed for inclusion.

On the other hand, teachers had good attitudes towards students with SEN. Majority of the teachers (63.9%) believed that inclusion of students with SEN would not bring adverse affect in the educational progress of the student without a special need (Q17). However, there was also a huge percentage under unsure scale with (19.8%) and 24.3% of teachers believed that inclusion of students with SEN would hurt the educational progress of other students. It was the same case with question 18 about the behaviour of students with SEN in the mainstream schools. Only 21.8% felt that placement of a student with a special need into a regular classroom would be disruptive to students without SEN.

24.5% of the teachers were unsure.

The results looked like having positive attitudes towards inclusion.

However, it seemed that teachers were in the stage of confusion.

They liked to accept students with SEN but they were not confident and there were no resources in the schools. If they did not accept, there were policies on education in favour of students with SEN. The acceptance of students with SEN also depends on the readiness of the schools and the decision of the heads of the schools.

4.3 The Comparison of Responses on Competencies