1 Q What is your role in the school?
5.6 Observation data
In this section I analyse observations data from the classrooms and resource rooms. Observational data complemented the data collected from interviews to determine whether participants did what they said they did (Robson, 2002).
5.6.1 Analysis of reading difficulties of students with SpLD and teachers’ responses
During the observation, I noted that there was a lot of distraction during lessons, for example, while carrying on with the lessons of Cd1 from School 1, another teacher just opened the door and starting asking loudly about things which were not related to the lesson to the teacher who was in class teaching. When she saw me sitting with the students she said to the classroom teacher loudly. “Oh you have the SpLD researcher in your classroom? Poor you – you have SpLD students in your class this year!” Then she said, “Thanks God I don’t have any SpLD students in my classroom this year, otherwise I’d be crazy!” (Appendix 21.2, Classroom Field Notes).
From the above observation, it was evident that the teachers were generally not comfortable teaching students with SpLD in their classes. It was also evident that they hardly cared about distracting students during lessons. It was evident that the teachers lacked awareness about how to deal with students with SpLD.
173
The literature review in Chapter three confirmed that most teachers feel that they lack the knowledge and training to teach students with dyslexia in their classrooms. Findings of the past literature indicate that teachers do seem to know that dyslexia involves issues with reading and processing. However, teachers are not aware of the strategies to deal with students with dyslexia. During the observation, it was evident that the teachers from School 1 were getting tired of the students with SpLD, hence they kept shouting at them whenever they were unable to read during lessons. From the classroom observation, it can also be said that the teachers were often frustrated and had a negative attitude towards students with SpLD and did not integrate especial strategies to enhance the learning of these students (Appendix 21.1, 21.2, 21.3, Classroom Field Notes).
5.6.2 Writing difficulties of SpLD students and teachers’ responses
From what I observed in School 1, during writing and spelling lessons, I noted that initial strategies adopted by Teacher 1 for introducing the words and letters in during lessons were inappropriate. Even when the teacher was aware of the presence of students with SpLD in the class, she used the general methods of teaching, disregarding the needs of students with SpLD. The teacher did not consider the use of formal Arabic language while teaching as states in the education policy in KSA (Ministry of Education, 2008). She also did not consider the use of modern technologies like a laptop and a projector, which could have helped in gaining the cognition of the students in the classroom. In addition, the teacher did not use the handout strategy as suggested by the MoE (Ministry of Education, 2008) (Appendix 21.1, Classroom Field Notes).
174
The classroom teachers in School 1 dealt with all the students the same, including students with SpLD, instead of giving extra time to the students with SpLD so that they could complete the tasks.
In contrast Teacher 2 from School 2 used initial strategies and adapted appropriate educational and pedagogic practice during her literacy lessons. The teacher used strategies and rewarding methods as well as supporting students with SpLD during the lessons and engaging them in classroom activities. The teacher used the formal Arabic language during her teaching and also while talking to the students. (Appendix 21.4, Classroom Field Notes).
Teacher 2 from School 2 was the only classroom teacher in this study who had a degree in Arabic language while the other three classroom teachers had only a diploma in teaching for more than 20 years ago. This might give an indication of the importance of subject specialization in teaching particularly at primary stage.
5.6.3 Teachers’ effectiveness in spelling lessons in the resource room
Another issue noted during observation was that the SEN Teacher in School 1 started the lesson with an interesting game, which encouraged the participation of the students with SpLD. I noted during the observation that the teacher gave chances to students to identify their mistakes. Another key issue from observation was that the strategies employed by the SEN Teacher were student-centred and created learning interest in the students. Instead of shouting when students made mistakes, the SEN Teacher would assist them in learning the words. A rewarding strategy is always considered as an effective tool for motivating students (Appendix 20.2, Resource Room Field Notes).
175
During observation I also noted that the SEN Teacher employed visual aids such as modelling clay for helping students learn. Visual aids were considered effective learning tools, as they foster the participation of the students in the lessons. I also noted that each student with SpLD had a doll in the resource room; the SEN Teacher used them as part of their rewarding strategies in order to encourage the students to learn. They would put a poppy pin or a clip on the doll’s hair every time a student answered questions correctly; if the student collected five clips then she would be rewarded. Rewarding was viewed as an effective pedagogy and it assisted the students in learning words (Appendix 20.3, Resource Room Field Notes). Data from interviews further confirmed the earlier data observations. SEN teachers from both schools stated that the students were not given extra time in the classroom in order to recall what they had taught in the resource room. That, they said, was the reason students failed in their tests. My field notes observations in the classroom and resource room confirmed that the classroom teachers and SEN teachers sometimes were not giving proper attention to the children with SpLD and doing other tasks side by side like attending to phone calls, or talking with other teachers and students. It was found that a poor teaching environment and lack of attention from teachers further worsened the cases and did not contribute to the improvement of learning components of a cognitive level in a learner (Appendix 20.4, Resource Room Field Notes; Appendix 21.6, 21.7, Classroom Field Notes).
5.7 Conclusion
The main aim of this chapter has been to correlate the findings gathered through primary investigation with the literature related to the provision for students with
176
SpLD, and with the MoE policies. Four key themes emerged from participants’ responses and the findings of past studies. The themes which emerged after the data analysis related to educational provision for students with SpLD in KSA, participants’ awareness of the concept of SpLD, identification and assessment of SpLD and participants’ perceptions of the inclusion of students with SpLD in the regular schools.
The data suggested a lack of follow-up of the implementations of the policy for students with SpLD, with teachers citing lack of supervision by the MoE. The data also suggested lack of awareness programmes concerning the concept of SpLD, with some participants stating that they hardly ever have seminars or workshops in the schools. The data also suggested that the assessment of students with SpLD was not performed by multidisciplinary teams, so that only the SEN teachers were conducting the assessments, with very little input from the classroom teachers and the parents. There was discrepancy among the teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of students with SpLD in the regular classrooms, with some teachers suggesting that there should be special classrooms for students with SpLD which should have teachers who were specialists in handling such children.
There was a huge gap found between policy and practice. Some of the factors which emerged as barriers to the inclusion of students with SpLD in the regular schools included understaffing in schools, high population in classrooms, and overworked teachers. Shortage of funding meant that SEN teachers were sometimes forced to equip the resource room themselves, and finally teachers were not adequately trained to handle students with SpLD. Thus, these identified gaps further
177
led to the need to re-examine the theoretical framework in the next chapter (which is drawn from Frith’s framework of understanding dyslexia) by examining individually the biological, cognitive and behavioural perspectives associated with dyslexia in order to identify the areas for future improvement (Frith, 1995).
The fact that dyslexia is found regardless of the language spoken has been carried out in various discussions regarding the study’s observations, as given above. The requirement for a culturally-appropriate identification test for dyslexia in the Arabic language is supported by these observations. These also confirm that the key to successful provision of dyslexia is sufficient counselling and support services that centre on the individual needs. To give support to learners with SpLD, it is as vital to understand their experiences as to identify their needs.
Therefore the primary objective of this study has been to illustrate the requirement to recognize students’ needs in addition to the provision of sufficient counselling services. The classroom observations suggested the inefficacy of the current framework of counselling as well as the social, emotional and academic complications of the students with dyslexia. These observations verify the need for a more specific support programme for the students with dyslexia. The requirement for the mechanisms of support to assist students with dyslexia in identifying their aims and goals is supreme to their success in education. The complications reported by the students with dyslexia in the classrooms are obvious in the following areas: the expression of ideas in writing; taking notes; organizing work; and understanding the procedures of exams. These academic problems can have a negative impact on self-esteem and self-confidence, especially when written work
178
is criticized for poor presentation, grammar, spelling and punctuation, which in turn have a negative impact on students with dyslexia.
Development of the support programmes for students with SpLD by the SEN teachers had the purpose of addressing the issue of avoiding the exclusion of students with dyslexia. SEN teachers provide appropriate teaching approaches as well as offering training in learning approaches, study expertise and time management, self-awareness and self-estimation. Positive outcomes were obtained from this programme of training. Advances in teaching have led to the improvement of academic and non-academic skills in the students with SpLD. The students with SpLD were able to improve their learning strategies, time management and self-estimation in the resource room.
179