Chapter 5: Discussion
5.5 Training
The participants in this study were asked if they felt that their initial teacher training had equipped them adequately for dealing with the oppositional and defiant learners in their classrooms. The majority of the teachers felt that their initial teacher training had been inadequate and many of them had felt the need to complete additional qualifications in order
95 to cope with the oppositional and defiant learners in their classrooms. This was supported by the reviewed literature which stated that teachers had felt underprepared and inadequately trained, when they were asked directly (Mohamed and Laher, 2012; Mclean and Dixon, 2006). The teachers in the current study also voiced a need for more specialised training by experienced experts in the special needs educational field rather than the workshops that were provided with a focus on including special needs learners in mainstream schools. The
teachers did not speak specifically about receiving training on the adaptation of the CAPS curriculum as Erradu and Weeks (2013) did, however they did discuss the need for a more suitable curriculum for the learners in their classes, which would need to be workshopped with the relevant stakeholders and then training would follow.
The teachers in this current study varied in the number of years that they had been teaching and how recently they had qualified. These teachers, both the long serving teachers and the more recently qualified teachers, indicated that they believed their initial training to have been inadequate. Many of the teachers had completed additional qualifications in order to better prepare themselves for dealing with learners with barriers to learning, including those who displayed oppositional and defiant behaviour. This was the case, regardless of how recently the teachers had initially qualified. The previously reviewed literature provided a limited focus on teachers views on the training they had received and did not differentiate between those teachers who had qualified more recently and those teachers who were longer serving in the profession.
The participants in this study placed great value in their practical experiences in the classroom over the initial training that they had received. While they believed that training would benefit both themselves and the learners in keeping them up to date with the latest developments in special needs education and helping them to identify learners who displayed oppositional and defiant behaviour, they believed that their experiences and those of the staff around them were of more value to them. This was supported by Mohamed and Laher (2012) who said that teachers found their own experience in the classroom environment more useful in their profession and daily teaching than the training that they had received. The teachers in this current study said that they relied heavily on their own intuition and the strategy of trial and error, both of which were based on learning from their own experience and that of other teachers. Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) chronosystem applies to the value that the teachers placed on their experiences, as the teachers would have gained increasing experience the longer that
96 they taught and dealt with learners who displayed oppositional and defiant behaviour. While the teachers felt that training may be beneficial, they were of the view that there was no substitute for experience and that because each learner was a unique individual with unique behaviours and reactions, it would be difficult to provide conclusive training on dealing with oppositional and defiant behaviour that would apply to all learners in all classrooms. There was a limited focus on the value of experience in special needs classrooms in the previous literature and studies.
The participants in this study were asked for suggestions as to how their own experiences in dealing with oppositional and defiant learners could be improved and what they would like to see happen to make their experiences more positive ones. The previously reviewed literature did not focus on getting the personal views of the teachers and so there was a limited focus on possible suggestions for going forward. The teachers in this study suggested more frequent training and workshops from experts in the field and from people who had actually worked in the special needs context. This was supported by Erradu and Weeks (2013) and Mclean and Dixon (2006), who indicated that more training, university courses and workshops would benefit teachers in their dealing with these learners. The participants also suggested creating a database or helpline in which special needs teachers could have access to previously
successful strategies and advice from other teachers who were dealing with similar behaviours and learners. While the teachers in this study were referring to an external database and helpline in which they could maintain their anonymity and that of their school and learners, they did mention the value that they placed in learning from the experiences of the teachers in their own schools and this top was a source of support for the teachers within their schools. This was supported by Richardson (2014) who made the recommendation of teachers sharing their experiences and knowledge with each other in a collaborative and mutually beneficial partnership.
This need for support was further explored by the teachers in this study in their suggestion that special needs schools be allowed to employ mental health professionals to work within the schools, rather than externally. They made the suggestion that psychologists and school counsellors be employed in schools in order to assist both the learners who display a variety of barriers to learning and to assit the teachers in finding ways of dealing with the
oppositional and defiant behaviour displayed by the learners in their classrooms. This recommendation was supported by Jacobsen (2013) who said that teachers felt that referring
97 their learners to mental health professionals outside of the school was ineffective and that these professionals should form part of the school itself. The participants in this current study also felt that the support services that were tasked with providing the special needs schools with support needed to be re-examined. They said that both the Department of Education and Special Needs Educational Services, did not provide their schools with the required support and the teachers often felt neglected by these support services. This made their task of teaching and working with learners who displayed oppositional and defiant behaviour even more difficult as they were unable to rely on the support system that was supposed to be in place. This was further supported by Mclean and Dixon (2006) who reported that the teachers in their study had suggested an increased level of support, due to the high emotional
requirements of dealing with these learners. This is related to Bronfenbrenner’s (1994) macrosystem, as it focused on the special needs education system as a whole and the external support structures that the teachers felt that they required in order to improve their
interactions with learners who displayed oppositional and defiant behaviour in their classrooms.
The participants in the current study also made the suggestion of improved training in how to identify specific disorders or behaviours, such as oppositional and defiant behaviour, before the learners enter the school. They said that this would better help them and the school prepare for these learners and work on strategies before the learners arrive in their
classrooms. They also said that it would increase their confidence in their ability to teach these learners and to better understand both the learners and where the parents of the learners were coming from. The final suggestion from the participants was a change in the current curriculum that they were expected to teach. They felt that the CAPS curriculum was irrelevant and unsuitable for the learners in their classrooms and that the special needs curriculum needed to be more skills based and practical rather than academic. These suggestions were not mentioned in the previously reviewed literaure as the studies did not focus on special needs school in particular and these issues and suggestions being raised by the participants of this study are unique to the special needs schooling system.
98