Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress
International
Special Education Conference
Inclusion: Celebrating Diversity?
1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland
about the conference
programme
registration
accommodation
contact
|
Inclusive and Supportive Education Congress 1st - 4th August 2005. Glasgow, Scotland |
home about the conference programme registration accommodation contact |
Kathleen Clark and Isobel Calder
University of Strathclyde
Abstract
This paper is based on the findings of a research project which was funded by a Scottish Executive Innovations Grant. The study explored class teacher and student teacher perceptions of dyslexia and their levels of confidence in identifying and responding to the needs of learners with these difficulties. Information was also elicited via the research about teachers’ length of career, and self-evaluation of their knowledge and understanding of dyslexia and its impact on pupils’ learning. Young people with dyslexia were also consulted about their experiences of school and the teaching and learning process.
Quantitative and qualitative data was collected via a survey issued to a national sample of primary class teachers and to final year B.Ed. students and also those graduate students who were following a one year programme of teacher education in two Scottish Universities. In addition, interviews were carried out with young adults with dyslexia. In this way the key stakeholders were enabled to have a voice. Triangulation of the results added value to the analysis of the data.
Some interesting results emerged which suggest that many teachers lack knowledge, understanding and confidence when faced with planning for children with dyslexia. Student teachers in the final phase of their preparation for teaching mirrored, to a large extent, the same gaps in these areas. The young people when reflecting on their experiences of school, illuminated the impact their teachers’ varied expertise had on their engagement in the learning process.
The results from the research once analysed became the foundation on which a substantial information and staff development pack was created. This pack which contains video and hard copy materials has been distributed to primary schools across Scotland with the express purpose of promoting effective inclusion for pupils with these specific difficulties. Material exemplars will be shared as part of the presentation.
Clear implications for dyslexia to be part of continuing professional development for school staff and for teacher education programmes to increase their coverage of this area were highlighted. All endorsed the view that the materials in the pack were needed by teachers and aspiring teachers and would help to promote more effective inclusion in primary schools for children with dyslexia. For the researchers, the study emphasised that there is no room for complacency when it comes to the provision for dyslexia in schools in Scotland. Despite massive strides in research into these difficulties the knowledge and understanding of dyslexia across the teaching population as displayed by this project, appears to be patchy. Perhaps in the same way that dyslexia can be described as being on a continuum it would be fair to suggest that teacher knowledge and understanding of dyslexia and confidence in identification and responding to the needs of learners affected by this condition is also on a continuum which ranges from very well informed to having little, no or flawed knowledge and understanding of the barriers to learning created by this set of difficulties. If these barriers fail to be overcome then effective inclusion of these learners is called into question.
Promoting Inclusive Practice in Dyslexia
In 2002 the Scottish Dyslexia Trust was successful in securing a Scottish Executive Education Department (SEED) Innovations Grant for a project on dyslexia. A project team which represented the Universities of Strathclyde and Edinburgh, the Dyslexia Institute Scotland, East Renfrewshire, Fife and Highland Councils and parents’ groups came together in a partnership which was supported by Argyll and Bute, City of Edinburgh and Orkney Councils. Kathleen Clark from the University of Strathclyde co-ordinated the project and represented the project team on the management committee which was chaired by the Scottish Dyslexia Trust. The project, which lasted for 2 years was called “Count Me In” and the subsequent staff and curriculum development pack for primary schools was called “Count Me In: Responding to Dyslexia”.
A key reason why the bid to SEED was successful was the project’s focus on the key national priority education area of inclusion (SEED, 2002). The project also involved partnership and collaboration which had been identified by the Scottish Executive (2003) as an essential ingredient in working towards inclusion in Scottish schools. The Scottish Dyslexia Trust which has now become part of “Dyslexia Scotland” was keen to provide primary teachers, student teachers and parents with support in their endeavours to respond appropriately to the needs of primary pupils with dyslexia. The Trust was also keen to ensure that such groups widened their understanding of dyslexia in order that responses to pupil needs should be appropriate.
The timing of the exercise was fairly critical as new legislation, now on the statutes, was being planned for pupils with additional support needs (Scottish Executive, 2003, Scottish Parliament, 2004). Pupils with dyslexia have a place within the additional support needs framework and the Disability legislation (Scottish Parliament, 2002) determines that dyslexia is considered to be a disability. Teachers and student teachers will find it essential to have good information on dyslexia in order to better understand how such pupils can be accommodated in inclusive schools. Schools must be able to provide appropriate curriculum access for these learners in accordance with both these sets of legislation in order that pupils with dyslexia can be successfully included.
Project Aims
The project aimed to create material which would be of value to primary teachers and student primary teachers. Advice from parent groups indicated that a version of these materials would also be welcomed by parents. These three sets of needs were taken into account. The aims at the outset of the project were:
Research Design
A survey approach was decided on as the most appropriate way in which to target primary teachers in a representative national sample. This would enable the information gathering net to be cast widely and provide breadth to the study. All thirty two education authorities in Scotland were asked to take part and to identify two or three primary schools of varying sizes which represented urban, rural and, if appropriate, island communities. Each authority was asked to distribute, via a named contact person, twenty questionnaires which had been piloted. Authorities could return more or fewer than the original twenty questionnaires depending on teacher numbers of those who opted to take part in the authority selected schools.
A questionnaire was also distributed to final year B.Ed (Hons) degree students and PGCE (Primary) students at the Universities of Strathclyde and Edinburgh in order that final year student views were taken into account. The timing of the student survey was not ideal as it was in the final term when students were completing examinations and making preparations to leave. It was not, however, appropriate to postpone this as the project had to be well underway by the start of the new academic session. The team decided that the sample of student teacher returns would have to suffice. The student teacher questionnaire had also been piloted by third year B.Ed. students prior to the distribution.
Volunteer students from other University courses, the Dyslexia Institute, Scotland and Dyslexia Scotwest were interviewed by project team members using a semi-structured interview technique via an informal interview schedule. The wide range of information from the three groups enabled all participants to have a voice and afforded the opportunity to triangulate the data which was both quantitative and qualitative.
Findings
The teacher and student teacher surveys provided data which included:
The survey of primary teachers yielded 339 returns from 27 of the 32 Scottish Authorities. Reminders were sent and personal contact was made to try to attain 100% return but this was not realized. The student survey provided 91 returns which was relatively low but, as explained previously, circumstances militated against a higher yield.
Despite this, a good mix of B.Ed. (Hons) degree and PGCE (primary) students’ views were collated from this representative sample. In addition 37 young people with dyslexia were interviewed, providing an effective look at their experiences of school.
Teachers
Teachers’ length of teaching experience varied across the sample. This was categorised into those who had been teaching for up to 10 years, those who had been teaching 11-20 years, from 21-30 years and 31-40 years. Respectively this equated to 31%, 28%, 32% and 9% of the sample.
Knowledge and understanding of dyslexia varied across the teaching experience bands and this seemed to have an effect on teachers’ perceived ability to identify pupils with dyslexia and in their stated confidence to teach and support such pupils. In the group of teachers who had taught for up to 10 years (106 in the sample), 43% felt unable to identify pupils with dyslexia and 72% of this banding lacked some degree of confidence to teach and support these pupils. In the group of teachers who represented the 31-40 years experience band, (29 in sample) 28% declared their inability to identify pupils and 41% stated that they lacked confidence in teaching and supporting pupils. Across the teaching experience band from 11-40 years (233 in the sample), 33% claimed to be unable to identify pupils with dyslexia and 55% stated a lack of confidence in teaching and supporting such pupils.
The experience of teachers in the survey ranged from those who were in the probation period, some of whom had been teaching only for a matter of a few weeks, to one teacher who had taught for 40 years. The majority of teachers claimed that they had had experience of working with pupils with dyslexia but there were others who had been teaching for varying lengths of time including those with 30+ years of a career in teaching who claimed not to have worked with a pupil with dyslexia. In addition some teachers stated that they did not know if they had taught pupils with dyslexia and one said that he/she had possibly taught a pupil with dyslexia.
In respect of the package itself all but one of the 339 teachers welcomed the opportunity for a pack of materials to be developed and many provided useful information about the contents of such a pack.
The results from the group of teachers in the teaching experience band of up to 10 years were compared with the results from the group of teachers in the 31-40 band in respect of the sources of their knowledge and understanding particularly with regard to training. In the “up to 10 years” group (106 in the sample) 11 teachers declared pre-service training was a factor, 1 listed postgraduate training and 9 suggested in-service of one kind or another. In contrast, in the 31-40 band (29 in the sample) 1 teacher declared pre-service training to be a source of knowledge and understanding (this teacher had taught for 38 years); 6 attributed knowledge and understanding to postgraduate study and 11 mentioned in-service of one kind or another.
Students
The majority of student teachers (91 in the sample) declared that they had had no experience of teaching pupils with dyslexia and 14 of the 91 did not know if they had worked with a pupil with dyslexia. Their perception of their knowledge and understanding of dyslexia varied with the majority claiming only some and 15 student teachers who claimed that they had no knowledge and understanding of the condition, As a percentage of the sample, this was a higher incidence than that indicated by the teachers, 19 of whom declared no knowledge and understanding of dyslexia.
Student teachers appeared less able to identify pupils with dyslexia than teachers across the sample and to be less confident that they could teach and support pupils with these difficulties. The students were unanimous in their support of the need for the pack of materials which the project team was to create.
Contents of the Pack
The teachers and students in their responses identified what they felt should be included in the pack. Once categorized all the suggestions were grouped under the following sections:
The responses also highlighted the teachers’ and students’ views that case study materials, exemplars and advice on how best to respond to the needs of pupils with dyslexia should be a central feature of the pack.
Young People
The interviews with young people who are dyslexic elicited a very useful list of things which teachers should or should not do. The following set provides a flavour of some of these.
“Don’t expect correct spelling and neat writing if that is the area affected by the dyslexia.”
“Don’t just accept the problem and say, ‘She’ll grow out of it’.”
“Instead of copying from the board, give handouts and charts expressing the subject plan.”
“Do mental maths and mental organization.”
What Have We Learned?
The results of the surveys clearly highlight the patchy knowledge and understanding of dyslexia held by both student teachers and teachers. Given the upsurge in research in this area and the raised awareness of the needs of pupils with these difficulties as a result of recent legislation relating to additional support needs (Scottish Parliament, 2004) and disability (Scottish Parliament, 2002) it seems reasonable to expect that student teachers on completion of their courses should have at least a grounding in dyslexia in order to be able to identify pupils who appear to have these difficulties and adapt the curriculum accordingly. 50% of student teachers in the survey said that they would not be able to identify a pupil with dyslexia and 74% declared their lack of confidence to teach and support such pupils. These results are disappointing and run counter to the expectations of Crombie (1997, 2002) and Ott (1997) who firmly believe that all teachers should be able to recognize the characteristics of dyslexia and at a minimum level be able to refer the pupil for assessment. Similarly the teacher responses also reflected inability to identify pupils and a lack of confidence in teaching and supporting them. In the group of teachers who had up to 10 years experience, 43% were unable to identify dyslexia and 72% lacked confidence. This suggests that in the first 10 years of teaching, little improvement vis a vis professional development has taken place. From 11-40 years experience the figures improve with 33% being unable to identify pupils with dyslexia and 55% of teachers appearing to lack confidence in their ability to teach and support these pupils. Perhaps this latter figure suggests that experience is a factor at play here but what impact has this had on the pupils who may have encountered teachers who lack experience in the interim?
All authorities in Scotland now have a policy on additional support for learning or an equivalent title and most of these policies will address dyslexia within them. Having a policy does not mean, however, that all teachers in all schools put that policy into practice nor that the policy in itself lists the characteristics of conditions like dyslexia. According to Mackay (2004) “a policy is what a school actually does rather than what is written down in documentation” (227). Mackay (2004) is firmly of the opinion that policy and practice must be led by a person in the school who has been properly trained. In terms of training in the study in question, the students appeared to have inadequate knowledge and understanding and many teachers, even those who had taught for a considerable period, had had limited access to training or had not taken the opportunities for training provided by their authorities.
It is inconceivable, given the incidence of dyslexia as highlighted by the BDA (1996) Crombie (1997, 2002), Orton (1989) and Neanon (2002) that teachers in the course of their career will not have come across a pupil with dyslexia. The evidence from this study suggests that the teachers who believe that they have had no such experience believe this, because they do not have the knowledge and understanding to be in a position to recognize the difficulties. Is this part of the reason why so many people who are dyslexic find out that dyslexia is the reason for their learning failure post school and often well into adulthood, a point highlighted in some of the interviews with young people. “It was never recognised at school.” “My dyslexia was first recognized at the end of third year at University.”
First line responsibility for the identification of pupils’ difficulties with learning rests with the classroom teacher. This is a principle that has been endorsed by SOED (1994) and SOEID (1998) who further suggest that teachers should have a basic understanding of dyslexia and a range of other difficulties as part of their pre-service training and that this should be enhanced by postgraduate continuing professional development. In Scotland the push towards better inclusion in schools recognises that continuing professional development (CPD) for teachers is essential to the process.
Of the teachers in the survey who had up to 10 years experience, only 10 out of 106 declared that some form of in-service had led to their enhanced fairly good, good or very good knowledge and understanding of dyslexia. The extent of their knowledge and understanding ranged from none to limited as highlighted by “untidiness” and “word blindness” to extensive, covering most of the recognized characteristics of dyslexia. This evidence suggests that a percentage of primary teachers are not in a position to identify pupils who are dyslexic and yet Bradley (1989), Gardner (1994) Neanon (2002) and Reid (2003) emphasize the importance of early identification of these difficulties in order that pupils’ self-esteem is not badly affected. In this study only 31 out of 339 teachers mentioned self-esteem as one of the effects of dyslexia listed under characteristics. Recent research by Humphrey and Mullins (2002) and Burden & Burdett (2005) explores this principle in even greater depth and suggests wider psychological effects caused by poor self-esteem.
This points to the great need for more and better awareness of these difficulties by teachers in order that pupils can be supported appropriately to access the curriculum at the earliest possible opportunity. Training both at undergraduate and postgraduate level must be a key factor in ensuring that teachers have the knowledge, confidence and competence to identify and support pupils with dyslexia. Without such training, how can pupils affected by these difficulties be included in our schools and classrooms in ways that enable them to reach their full potential? The importance of CPD is emphasized in the work of Hamill & Clark (2005) in considering pupils’ additional support needs.
The Materials
The project team created the pack of materials “Count Me In: Responding to Dyslexia” as a staff development pack for teachers. A CD Rom version was created for students and an advice and information website was created for parents. The case study theme and exemplars of good practice were developed on video and supported by hard copy materials. The key features of the pack address:-
The pack is designed for flexible use. At a minimum level it provides information and advice for teachers but it can be used to best advantage for whole school staff development. At the outset only primary teachers were the intended audience.
As the project evolved it became clear that nursery teachers and staff also had to be part of the audience as early identification and intervention begins at this stage. All versions of the materials have now been distributed and the feedback from teachers and students has been very positive.
In Conclusion
This study provided a very enlightening insight into the range of experience and ability of teachers and final year student teachers to identify, teach and support pupils with dyslexia. It highlighted significant gaps in the system which if not addressed through undergraduate or postgraduate study and /or a range of CPD opportunities which include this pack, will determine that more generations of children with dyslexia may experience the failures described by the young people interviewed. The recollections of these 37 young people reflected a system where many teachers, because of their lack of knowledge and understanding of dyslexia, were not in a position to help pupils with dyslexia to overcome the barriers to their learning. The picture of course was not entirely bleak. There appeared to be a continuum of knowledge and understanding of dyslexia. Teachers are at different points on this continuum which ranges from very well informed to having little, no or flawed knowledge and understanding. There is no room for complacency when it comes to provision for dyslexia in schools in Scotland. If barriers to pupils’ learning fail to be overcome then effective inclusion for these learners is called into question.
Pupils with dyslexia are included in the group of vulnerable pupils who exist in every school. Their particular needs must be recognized if they are to succeed and move forward with confidence in their own abilities towards a bright future. Teachers must be equipped to nurture such pupils and to tend their developing needs. They will require support in this process from teachers with more specialist knowledge but all teachers should have a good foundation of knowledge and understanding of dyslexia to give them the confidence to plan for, teach and support these pupils appropriately. The need for improving the situation was highlighted by two teachers in the study who said: “I’m sure quite a good number of classroom teachers find themselves, like me, to be fairly ignorant of this important area.” (20 years experience). “Despite having taught for a considerable length of time and dealt with many children who have learning difficulties, I have never received any formal guidance with regard to dyslexia.” (26 years experience).
References
Bradley, L. (1989) Specific learning disabilities predictive-intervention-progress. Paper presented to the Rodin Remediation Academy International Conference on Dyslexia. University College of North Wales. Bangor. September.
British Dyslexia Association (BDA) (1996) in J. Crisfield, (ed.) (1996) The Dyslexia Handbook. Reading: BDA
Burden, R. & Burdett, J. (2005) Factors associated with successful learning in pupils with dyslexia: a motivational analysis. British Journal of Special Education: 32 (2) 100-104.
Crombie, M (1997) Specific Learning Difficulties (dyslexia) - a teacher’s guide. Glasgow: Ann Arbor
Crombie, M. (2002) Dyslexia: A new dawn (unpublished PhD thesis) Glasgow: University of Strathclyde
Gardner, P. (1994) Diagnosing dyslexia in the classroom: a three stage model in G. Hales (ed) Dyslexia Matters. London: Whurr
Hamill, P & Clark, K. (2005) Additional Support Needs. Paisley: Hodder Gibson
Humphrey, N. & Mullins, P. (2002) Personal constructs and attribution for academic success and failure in dyslexia. British Journal of Special Education, 29 (4) 196-203.
Mackay, N. (2004) The case for dyslexia-friendly schools. in A. Fawcett & G. Reid (eds). Dyslexia in context. London: Whurr
Neanon, C. (2002) How to identify and support children with dyslexia. Wisbech: L.D.A.
Orton, S.T. (1989) reading, writing and speech problems in children and selected papers. Austin, T.X.: Pro-Ed.
Ott, P. (1997) How to detect and manage dyslexia. Oxford: Heinemann
Reid, G. (2003) Dyslexia, a practitioner’s handbook (Third edition) Chichester: Wiley.
Scottish Executive (2003) Moving forward! Additional support for learning. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office.
Scottish Office Education Department (1994) Effective provision for special educational needs. Edinburgh: HMSO.
Scottish Office Education and Industry Department (1998) A manual of good practice in special educational needs. Edinburgh: HMSO.
Scottish Parliament (2002) Education (Disability strategies and pupils’ educational records.) (Scotland) Act. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office.
Scottish Parliament (2004) Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office.
home . about the conference . programme . registration . accommodation . contact
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |