Teacher Perceptions

I had designed this section to contribute the response on questions on how long the deaf learners take to learn reading and writing; the problems faced in the teaching of reading and writing to the deaf learners and to the question on what conditions are necessary for the deaf learners to learn to read and write.

The teachers‟ perception of the learners is very crucial in guiding the teacher regarding the choice of methods to select/use. The teachers unfortunately had a low opinion regarding the learners with deafness; given that they were qualified by the teachers to be slow learners; not readily able to learn.

The teachers all cried out on lack of instructional materials; some of which they could have made themselves using the local available materials (often in the environment-communities). I was tempted to think that the teachers were either not committed to their work (though it would not be possible to have all the teachers not committed) or were just ignorant of what they should have done as creative teachers. Perceptions regarding timing for teaching, reveals that all the teachers were in agreement that these learners took a long time to learn to read and write (slow learners at that); except Tr.2. Tr.1 claimed boldly that the learners took long to pick anything just because of their deafness (disability);

save the time allocated for the learning.

The teachers also alluded to various components of conditions relevant for teaching reading and writing to the deaf learners. Tr.2 stated, while responding to a question on how to determine that the learner had understood what was being taught said: “Ok, when he signs the word correctly, then he finger spells it.” On my probing further she reversed the order to: “when he can figure spell the word then sign…then sign the word” To her signing, for example, of the sign names of the birds was what she referred to as signing the words; and that was the exact moment to prove that one had understood

64 what was being taught, leading to further learning. Tr.3 capitalized on warm up activities before the lesson. She also had raised attention of all the learners before she began teaching and attempted to make sure that each child had fairly sufficient space around herself/himself. Every attempt or response by learners was rewarded with a clap from peers.

The teachers had not seriously taken into consideration relevant conditions for teaching reading and writing. The interview revealed an apparent ignorance of or interest in the subject. On inquiring, for example, about the subject, Tr.5 wondered: “Conditions like what?” With my example of „classroom learning space‟ as a possible condition, Tr.5 reported that they didn‟t have enough space. They had P.1, P.3, P.4 and a girl in P.6 in the same classroom. All the teachers would conduct different lessons to their classes, at the same time for example in the same room. She explained: “You find these ones are seated and may be they are taken up by the other lessons. “ I did, also, experience a lot of interruptions and noise from the other classes of the hearing learners, while following the lessons of my interest. Tr.6 orientation of the subject had a locus on methodology as she said: “You give short words, e.g. cup, in teaching you bring realia…object and you ask the child to name it, and then sign”.

She claimed this would make the teacher know that the learner was able to read; suggesting that the use and presence of real objects is a relevant condition to trigger learning of reading and writing by the deaf learners. Regarding when the learners began to read and write, all the teachers indicated that there was no specific time. Tr.6 specifically indicated that she had learners with varied ages in her class as she reported: “Some are at 10, some are at 12; 8 the age is varying”; and on the age mark when the learners began to read and write she claimed:”It is a continuous process.” To her there was need for support to this learner from primary 1 to 7 because it helps the learner even to take external examinations. She also revealed that in their school, reading and writing was only taught from P.1 to P.7 to the deaf and not to other, non-deaf learners. On the programs she followed or had while planning to teach the deaf reading and writing she replied: “…remedial time-table.” To her this was the time for patching up gaps where the learners with hearing impairment lost out.

Regarding the curriculum, Tr.6 claimed that she followed the same curriculum used by other ordinary schools, regarding the teaching of reading and writing to pupils. Tr.1 instead claimed that if there was to be any learning of reading and writing, it was dependent on the teacher‟s ability to explain the words clearly and to convey the right meanings of words; without which the learners would not be able to learn the words. She was emphatic on explaining to the learners the words; using figurative;

and where possible accompaniment with the use of real objects. She argued that for any teacher to be able to teach reading and writing, that person should be able to use observation, demonstration and

65 illustration methods concurrently; as to her these methods went hand in hand. Tr.2 was very sketchy with her response even when provoked further, and indicated that one had only to follow the books and the curriculum. She however, did not name the adapted curriculum guides that were provided to them by the Ministry of Education and Sports. Tr.2.b was in agreement with Tr.2.

To conclude this report on the findings, it will be observed that the discussion (chapter 5) that I proceeded, to was based on the findings; as reported in this chapter.

66

67