4.2. QUESTIONNAIRE
4.2.2. The educator
This portion of the questionnaire consisted of 10 questions designed to determine the degree to which the participants practice inclusive education within their own classrooms. Each question in this section began with a statement to which the participants had to allocate a scaled answer indicating the level to which the statement is applicable to the teacher. One on the scale represented that the statement was completely false, whilst 5 on the scale represented a statement that is completely true.
I value all my learners equally.
For the first question of this section, the whole group achieved a mean score of 4.7 with a range of 3 and a mode of 5. The only school to have a range over 1 is that of School BP with a range of 3 and the lowest mean of 4.4. This was due to one of the teachers ranking himself a 2 on this scale. The best achieving school in this area was School CG with a mean of 4.9, followed closely by the only other government school in the group, School BG, with a mean of 4.8. School CI achieved a mean of 4.7, School GP scored a mean of 4.5 and the final school, School CP achieved a mean of 4.6.
450 500 550 600 650 700 750
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
School BP
School CP
School BG
School CG
School GP
School CI
School Environment Score
Annual School Fees 2012
School Fees Inclusion Scores
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
School BP
School CP
School BG
School CG
School GP
School CI
Mean Scores
School Environment Score
Inclusion Scores Staff Development Support Structures
Figure 4.2 Correlations between School Environment Score and Mean Scores for Staff Development and Support Structures
I have a clear understanding of what “inclusive education” is.
The scores for this question were similar for the majority of the schools. The whole group achieved a mean score of 4.2 with a range of 3 and a mode of 5. Of the 6 schools researched, the results from 3 of the schools had a range of 2 and a mode of 5, with a mean between 4.2 and 4.5. School GP achieved a mean of 4.4 with a range of 1 and a mode of 4. The remaining schools, School BP and School CI achieved means of 4.1 and 3.6 respectively.
I plan my lessons with the individual needs of learners in mind.
This question was designed to determine the degree to which the researched teachers make use of differentiated strategies in their lesson planning. The whole group achieved a lowered mean score of 3.9 with a range of 3 and a mode of 4. The top achieving school in this question was School CG which achieved a mean of 4.4 and a mode of 5, with the lowest score being given from this school of a 3.
School GP and School CP achieved identical scores with a mean of 4 with a range of 2 and a mode of 4. Again, the worst performing school in this question was School BP with a mean of 3.5 and a mode of 3.
I encourage all learners in the class to participate in my lessons.
The participation of all learners is of great importance in an inclusive classroom. This question achieved the best results for this section of the questionnaire with the whole group achieving a mean score of 4.7 with a range of 2 and a mode of 5. Three of the schools scored exactly the same
results of a mean of 4.8 with a range of 1 and a mode of 5, namely School CI, School GP and School BG. School CP achieved a mean of 4.7 with a range of 1 and a mode of 5. The lowest two achieving schools were School CG with a mean of 4.5 and School BP with a mean of 4.4. It should be noted that the scores of School BP may be under-represented due to one respondent consistently scoring himself below that of the remaining participants from this school, indicating that this individual does not have confidence in his own ability to be an inclusive practitioner.
I have a clear understanding of learning disabilities.
The results from this question indicate that there is a fairly mediocre understanding of what learning disabilities are amongst the respondents. The whole group achieved a mean score of 3.9 with a range of 3 and a mode of 4, as was the scores for School BG. Two schools scored below the mean, School CI and School BP with a mean of 3.6 and 3.5 respectively. School CG and School CP achieved a mean of 4.1 with a range of 2 and a mode of 5.
Figure 5.3 compares the scores from this question, with the question in the previous section of the questionnaire regarding staff development in the schools. As can be seen from the graph there is very little correlation between staff development and the teachers’ understandings of learning disabilities, indicating that the training received was not effective. Only one of the schools managed to achieve an equal score for both questions, indicating that the staff development was effective in improving the teachers’ understand of learning disabilities.
I am aware of the specific needs of the learners I teach that have learning disabilities.
For this question, the whole group achieved a mean score of 4.0 with a range of 3 and a mode of 4.
The two highest achieving schools in this question were School GP and School CP which achieved a mean of 4.4, although the former had a higher mode score of 5. For the first time in this section of the questionnaire, School BP did not score at the lowest end of the spectrum with a mean of 4.2 with a range of 2 and a mode of 4. The lowest achieving school in this particular category was School CG with a mean of 3.5.
Figure 4.3 Correlation between Staff Development and teachers’ understanding of learning disabilities.
Figure 5.4 shows the correlation between the teachers’ awareness of the learners’ specific needs and the question in the previous section addressing the degree to which teachers are informed about which learners in their classes have learning disabilities.
Figure 4.4 Correlation between teachers’ awareness of learners’ specific needs and an awareness of which learners have learning disabilities.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
SCHOOL BP
SCHOOL CP
SCHOOL BG
SCHOOL CG
SCHOOL GP
SCHOOL CI
Mean Scores
School Environment The Educator
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
SCHOOL BP
SCHOOL CP
SCHOOL BG
SCHOOL CG
SCHOOL GP
SCHOOL CI
Mean Scores
School Environment The Educator
The level of correlation between these two questions was far greater than in Figure 5.3. Three cross- over points in Figure 5.4 indicate that for 3 of the schools the teachers’ awareness of their learners’
specific needs is directly related to their awareness of which learners have learning disabilities. The only school in which the teachers were more aware of their learners’ needs was School CG, in spite of not receiving sufficient information regarding which learners have learning disabilities.
I know how to meet the needs of learners with learning disabilities.
The scores for this question were somewhat deflated indicating that although the teachers are aware of the learners needs, they are not confident about how these needs should be accommodated in the classroom. The whole group achieved a mean score of 3.5 with a range of 4 and a mode of 3. The top school in this category was School GP with a mean score of 3.8 indicating that teachers’ at this school feel that they know how to meet the specific needs of the learners’ with learning disabilities. Similarly teachers at School CG and School CP shared similar feelings to the teachers at School GP. The lower scores in this question indicate a need for the teachers to be given guidance on how to meet the needs of learners as well as being made aware of which learners have specific needs. School CI achieved the lowest mean score of 3.2 and a mode of 3.
I differentiate my teaching style to accommodate learners with learning disabilities.
This question determines the degree to which teachers make use of differentiated strategies in the classroom to meet the needs of all their learners in an inclusive setting. Again, the scores for this question were quite deflated indicating that this would be an area that needs to be addressed through staff development. The whole group achieved a mean score of 3.8 with a range of 3 and a mode of 4. School CP achieved above group average with a mean of 4.1. This was closely followed by School GP and School CG who both scored a mean of 4. Once again, School CI and School BP achieved the poorest scores with means of 3.1 and 3.5 respectively.
I accommodate the needs of learners with learning disabilities during assessment tasks.
For this question, the whole group achieved a mean score of 3.5 with a range of 4 and a mode of 4.
School GP achieved a mean of 3.8 however the mode of 3 indicates a greater degree of scatter in the answers received from this school. On the other hand, School CP achieved a lower mean of 3.6 but a higher mode of 4. School CG achieved a mean of 3.5 with a range of 3 and a mode of 4, with School BG achieving the same range and mode but a mean that is 0.4 points lower. School CI and School BP remain the poorest achievers in this regard with means of 3.2 and 3.3 respectively.
I keep myself up to date with latest research regarding the education of learners with learning disabilities.
Whilst question one of this questionnaire dealt with the training staff received from the school, this question looks specifically at the effort made by the individuals to keep their knowledge current in the area of learning disabilities. The whole group achieved a mean score of 2.8 with a range of 4 and a mode of 3. The standard deviation for this particular question was relatively high with 1.1 indicating that the situation varies significantly from school to school.
Figure 4.5 Correlation between staff development and continued learning on the part of the teacher.
Figure 5.5 analyses the relationship between these two questions. A pattern emerged revealing that in schools where there is greater staff development offered by the school, the teachers were more reluctant to do their own research in the area. Conversely, in schools where there is little staff development, the teachers are more motivated to improve their knowledge of their own accord. Of great concern is School CI which indicated poor levels of staff development and poor levels of teachers educating themselves in this area, indicating the presence of a laissez faire attitude towards all forms of staff development within this school.
Total score
As for the previous section in this questionnaire, a total number of points were allocated to each school based on the responses of all the teachers. The maximum obtainable number of points for this section was 500 from the 10 questions. This section revealed very different results to that of the
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
SCHOOL BP
SCHOOL CP
SCHOOL BG
SCHOOL CG
SCHOOL GP
SCHOOL CI
Mean Scores
School Environment The Educator
section dealing with the school environment, as can be seen in Figure 5.6. The scores were significantly closer. The top scoring school in this section was School GP with 476 points, followed closely by School CG with 474 points. School CP scored a total of 472, with School B achieving 450 points. The two schools to perform the most poorly in this section were School BP with 432 points and School CI with 421 points.
Figure 4.6 Comparison of School Environment score to Educator score
The variation between the points scored for each of these sections does not indicate a clear pattern.
Whilst School BP scored the best result for an inclusive school environment, they scored poorly for scores amongst the teaching taking place in the classroom. This could indicate that whilst the staff is receiving adequate training and the school’s management is creating an environment conducive to inclusive education, the training and staff development is ineffective as it is not being carried over into the classroom situation. On the other hand, whilst the environment at School CP is less conducive to inclusive education, the staff is employing inclusive education practices to a greater degree in the classroom. In School GP the school environment is not supportive of inclusive education, but the teachers are making an effort to use inclusive practices within their classroom.
This may indicate that whilst the teachers themselves are keen to implement inclusive education, there is a lack of support from the management teams in ensuring that these teachers are provided with a supportive environment in which to do so. School CI scored poorly in both sections indicating that there is an atmosphere of disrespect for inclusive education within the school.
400 450 500
450 500 550 600 650 700 750
SCHOOL BP
SCHOOL CP
SCHOOL BG
SCHOOL CG
SCHOOL GP
SCHOOL CI
Educator Score
School Environment Score
School Environment The Educator