Academic and Behavioural Support Needs of Teachers Teaching in LINUS Classrooms - Dissertation Example

?IDENTIFYING THE ACADEMIC AND BEHAVIORAL SUPPORT NEEDS OF TEACHERS TEACHING IN LINUS ROOMS IN MALAYSIA of Submission Introductory Chapter Malaysia began its formal teacher education at the beginning of the 20th century. Before then, training of teachers focused on training teachers to teach in primary schools. The preparation for teachers to train at secondary schools was done by institutions established in Britain. The official teaching began way back in 1960 after the formation of the University of Malaya in 1949 and different universities prior to 1960. Presently, there are about eight local based universities and the Intercontinental Islamic University which are engaged in the original training of Malaysian teachers in secondary schools. Moreover, the universities and other 28 colleges for teachers carry out the majority of Malaysian teacher education (SEAMEO Innotech, 2008). National Philosophy of Education (NPE) The National Philosophy of Education was officially put on record in 1988. The philosophy makes the use of the word ‘God’ in a basic manner to incorporate all beliefs. It is expected that having faith in God will foster positive principles that will facilitate the mitigation of social vices. The Malaysian National Philosophy of Education lays emphasis on the integration and balancing of the growth of sacred, academic, expressive and substantial realms. The education system is structured to attain this philosophy through three curricular tactics: thinking across the curriculum, values across the curriculum and language across the curriculum (Mock & Kauffman, 2002; p.211). Literacy and numeracy has placed the basis for teaching in primary education and beyond. Arithmetic, reading and writing are inherent in the fundamental rights to education. Lack of these potentials makes it unbearable for students to achieve higher efficacy in education and professional engagements in the contemporary society. Studies reveal that a section of Malaysian student populations are not well endowed with fundamental numeracy and literacy potential. For instance, in the year 2008, about 54,000 pupils in year one were selected with a low level of literacy expertise and admitted in the Initial class of Intervention Reading and writing while 117,000 year four pupils were admitted with no fundamental expertise in numeracy into a 3R remedial programme (Priestley & Rabiee, 2002; p. 371). Academic Support Needs of Teachers Teaching in LINUS classrooms in Malaysia The Malaysian government has a transformational program under the education National Key Results Area (NKRA) which targets to do away with the high rates of drop-outs caused by the inability of the students to deal with the demanding curriculum. There were about 31,939 dropouts from school in 2008 alone from both secondary and primary levels (Zalizan, 2000; p. 187). The main purpose of the Literacy and numeracy screening policy is to ensure that most Malaysian children get the fundamental skills in numeracy and literacy in the three years of mainstream primary education. NKRA education in Malaysia has established a target of 100% numeracy and literacy for all pupils in the entire three years. Using the fundamental literacy skills, the pupils are required to posses the capability to write, read and comprehend the phrases, plain and complicated sentences and make use of the information acquired in routine communication and learning (Malaysia, 2006). To attain the fundamental numeracy, pupils have the obligation to write, read and make counts of whole numbers from 1 to 1000 by the time they reach year three. They are also required to show the potential to get solutions to fundamental arithmetic skills and facts in the routine function, which involves time, measurements and currencies. As opposed to the earlier attempts in addressing the problems regarding numeracy and literacy, LINUS concentrates on the initial interventions during the initial primary years prior to the pupils’ entry into year four. The earlier programs concentrated either on skills of literacy or carried out much later from year four to year six. LINUS is unique from special learning in the sense that it is a corrective programme that performs tests on year one pupils every year in March to pick those children who are not well conversant with the fundamental skills of literacy and numeracy (Hutzler, Zach & Gafni, 2005, p. 321). Literacy and numeracy screenings are performed by the teachers in the schools during the months of March, June and September annually. The Malaysian Examinations Syndicate prepares the mechanism with 12 constructs which are then handed over to different education offices to be supplied to schools. The screening process is done in two sections; written and oral. It can also be carried out in class by the teachers within a specified timeframe. Given the fact that this is a screening process as opposed to a test, teachers have the responsibility to give direction to the learners by rephrasing the questions and providing illustrations. The students who do not pass the screening test are then admitted in remedial classes of which they take about 10 periods every week for remedial training in literacy and seven periods every week for remedial courses in numeracy. The students who fail the constructs 1 and 2 are grouped as LINUS Tegar and are needed to be present at remedial classes. The Malaysian students who have been enrolled in the LINUS programs have been performing very well of late, which is encouraging to the teachers. The initial group of 446,332 students who were admitted in the LINUS program in the year 2010 scored 99% in the writing and reading examination for their eight screenings carried out in June 2011 compared to the optimal grade of 50% scored in the initial screening exam. The students who are currently in year three scored an average score of 99.5% in their numeracy skills screening test. In spite of the initial intervention aspect, LINUS has the objective of minimizing student’s remedial teacher quota from a ratio of one teacher per every school to one teacher per every 15 students. There is no question about students with difficulties in learning like dyslexic pupils who require personal attention from the teachers. By minimizing the student teacher ratio, teachers can efficiently scrutinize the development of every student. With a glaring shortage of well trained teachers to provide remedial classes in Malaysia, there were about 17,000 qualified teachers in 2009 and 2010 to provide the fresh literacy and numeracy units in the LINUS system. Moreover, efforts have been put in place to improve on the remedial skills amongst the teachers which include the incorporation of the Singaporean College of Allied Educators in coaching about 300 remedial teachers in a long year schedule which beginning November 2012 (Heiman, 2004, p. 19). The teachers conducting remedial lessons are provided breathtaking tasks to ensure that students in the LINUS program have mastered the skills needed in the period of three years. It is vital that the remedial teachers update themselves with the latest methods of handling students with difficulties in learning. The main goal of the training program is to initiate the teachers to the distinct pedagogical expertise for students with disabilities in learning and methods of recognizing students with unique needs and difficulties in learning. For the initial phase of teacher’s training, the teachers were picked from the states with a large number of LINUS Tegar students, such as Kelantan, Perak, Kuala Lumpar, Labuan, Sabah, Terengganu, Negeri Sembilan and Sarawak. Behavioral Support Needs of Teachers Teaching in LINUS classrooms in Malaysia Studying the behavioral support needs of teachers teaching in LINUS classrooms in Malaysia requires a better understanding of the language used. Language is fundamental to the development of literacy and to the growth of pupils in the entire curriculum. For most students, oral language is essential to conversation, academic, emotional and social growth. This also puts more emphasis on literacy, language, writing, reading and spelling skills. Students who communicate poorly either spoken or in writing or reading before entering school have exhibited a great level of difficulty in literacy. There is also an association of poor language skills with emotional and behavioral challenges and eventual challenges in the social connections or relations. Among the adolescents, language has a key role to play in sustaining a healthy relationship amongst the peer groups. Numerous authors have attested to the fact that teachers need early recognition of students whose language skill level puts them at high risk of literacy and more universal challenges. A majority of the features of language that puts the students at high risk of having challenges in obtaining literacy are visible prior to the onset of official schooling or learning (Ho, 2000, p. 81). This necessitates the importance of early recognition of the feasible goal. Some authors perceive the necessity of early recognition with an aim of minimizing the risks associated with problems in reading. Furthermore they suggest the prevention of challenges in reading as the simplest method as opposed to remediation. It is also autonomous from the initial identification. There is a lucid necessity for the provision of considerable support for language and literacy growth of these students within the school environment. Initial recognition must lead to a broader based language intervention mechanism that aims at literacy on top of the oral language disability (Henson and Roberts, 2006; p. 407). Hence such systems might prevent or cut down on the probable atrocities related to language (Salisbury & McGregor, 2002; p. 264). There are suggestions that students who have language skills and speech eloquence do have quick resolutions in their earlier schooling performance which may dwindle in an average range so long as their skills in spoken language is in pace with that of their age mates. It is significant that students with a background of difficulties in speech –language are properly encouraged in their literacy growth, in the entire of their schooling period (Justice, Invernizzi & Meier, 2002; p. 101). Difficulties in speech-language requires the help of speech and language therapists who have the expertise and facts required to recognize students or pupils whose language puts them at risk in the schooling environment and to work efficiently with the teachers in giving the children the necessary help they require to promote learning. Some students or pupils have been evaluated by a speech-language therapist and have obtained some help before entering school. Some for various reasons may be admitted to school with initially unrecognized difficulties in language. Recognition of this category of children is vital in giving them the necessary support for learning process. One method of identifying such class of children is the execution of screening methods within schooling environment. Several literatures exist in regard to number of propositions put forward for screening procedures which will be covered in the literature review of this paper (Heath & Hogben, 2004; p. 753) The execution of the prevalent procedures of screening might be contradicted by putting in mind the effectiveness of cost and accessibility of duly competent personnel. As noted earlier, the screening of the whole population might be far from reach of the accessible services. The accessibility of the speech language therapist’s services to school aged children is not guaranteed and those which are accessible are limited by financial constraints. Speech and language therapy for young pupils who attend the normal schools in the United Kingdom was different and significantly influenced by the consideration in the national Health Services of children in the pre-schooling age (Hauerwas & Stone, 2000, p.75). Same prioritization with the mainstream of financing which is injected towards the age of pre-schooling group is perceived within Western Australia where speech-language therapy services in the school are not common (Ho & Haul, 2004; p. 319). An option to general screening might be to make greater use of the teacher’s knowledge to children in the learning environment. The knowledge could be utilized to recognize the students whose skills in language calls for more examination. Moreover, the kindergarten teachers can be put to attention to the signs and characteristics related to unstopping language and readings challenges and make free referrals to speech-language therapist for screening the difficulties in reading (Goodyer, 2000; p. 233). Given the fact that there may not be enough therapists accessible to deal with free referrals, the confidence in the public fraternity in the capability of the teachers to recognize the children who urgently need extra support in the field of language and literacy growth may give room for more effectual utilization of speech-language therapy (Fawcett, Nicholson & Lee, 2004, p. 161). For instance, as opposed to screening a big number of children, a speech-language therapist might opt for concentrated screening, execute within-class encouragement for language growth or give intensive evaluation and intervention on the foundation of teacher recognition of pupils with poor skills in language development. Even though a number researches which take in mind the ability of the parents in evaluating the skills in their offspring have been put forth in recent times, the studies comprise of limited investigations of the judgment of teachers on language skills (Finkelstein, 2001; p. 3). One of the studies conducted in the field of teacher therapist perception is contained in the Manisah, Ramlee & Zalizan, (2006; p. 41). The study’s main purpose was to find out the degree of consent against teacher and therapist verdict of the skills by children in various language fields and the performance of the children on some selected normalized examinations. The research placed no difference on the teachers and analysts opinion. The authors were also more concerned in establishing whether the phases of agreement were similar for more or less complicated language challenges. Problems in semantic-pragmatic were viewed to be more complicated whilst the articulation and challenges of syntax were perceived to be less complicated. The participants in the Manisah, Ramlee & Zalizan, (2006; p. 41) encourage support for teachers in classes with children who had been earlier on identified as facing challenges in speech-language who were present to the mainstream English schools, their expertise teachers and speech and language therapists (Pauc, 2005; p. 119). In the process of finding out some of the challenges, the teachers and therapists were required to provide their judgment in relation to the difficulties of the children in the four fields which including phonology, syntax, articulation and semantics or pragmatics. The students were evaluated by use of a variety of normalized tests and the results of the two examinations were put to comparison. The outcome revealed that there was a solid agreement between the teachers and therapist verdict and the normalized tests in the fields of phonology, syntax and articulation but the same was not observed in the difficulties in the pragmatic. It was noted that there were less official examinations which inputs these higher level language challenges (Danne and Beirne-Smith, 2000; p. 121). Furthermore the present studies are based more on action studies which are financed by the department of education and training in Western Australia (Ruth & Michael, 2004; p. 189). Contrary to some of the studies, some studies show that the majority of teachers as opposed to the specialists were in a position to recognize students not earlier on identified with impairment of language and whose skills in language may probably affect the growth of literacy. In case teachers are in a position to do this, then resources and programs by specialists may be aimed at those students. Teacher opinion will unavoidably be set on the facts about the language challenges and the characteristics which show such challenges (Heiman, 2002; p. 175). Some doubts are based on the methods in which teachers judge children with skills in language compared with the children’s performance on some selected tests on languages. The way the confidence is instilled in the majority of the classroom teachers regarding the information on language challenges and the kind of information the teachers make use of in creating opinions about the language skills in children (Cheung, 2006; p. 441). In behavioral support, there must be inclusion which is based on ideologies that all pupils are unique in a variety of ways (Not Constrained to Disability) and with the aim of meeting the learning requirements, schools are required to embrace and change their behavior (Pliszka, S, et al. 2007; p. 897). In this inclusive ideology, schools are expected to fulfill the necessities of all pupils. For this reason, pupils who undergo challenges depict a deficiency in the practices of schooling process as opposed to their inherent inabilities. Executing comprehensive education is a complex task that requires a considerable change to promote the development in the manner in which teachers have been working in the learning environment. There a general fallacy that inclusion is just about placement of pupils with divergent learning necessities in the normal classrooms. The eminence of the experience in schools is in the manner in which the teachers help them to learn and achieve their potential in life (Chen & Eden, 2001, p. 74). Education programs for teachers in the LINUS program have a mainstream task to make sure that new graduates are effectively prepared to put all the students into the main classrooms without considering the personal differences. One method to establish this in case teachers are willing and ready for this uphill task in assessing the viewed efficiency is to execute inclusive behavior. The teachers affirm efficiency impact on both the nature of environment that teachers establish for their pupils and their opinion in regard to various tasks in teaching they will create to promote learning amongst the students (Chan, 2008, p. 192). Making use of this theory to an inclusive education setting, a teacher who has high efficiency in executing the inclusive behavior would have faith in a student with unique learning needs can be efficiently be taught in the normal classroom (Shaywitz, Morris & Shaywitz, 2008; p. 463). Teachers with poor value or efficiency for executing inclusive behavior would put in mind that there is less they can act to put students with unique learning needs in a normal classroom. This category of teachers may be reluctant to do this or even attempt this. This theory has the implication that teachers’ drive of efficiency has an impact on the actions and conduct as well as on the outcome of their actions. This creates considerable distinctions in the teaching conduct of high level of efficiency and low successful teachers (Almog & Shechtman, 2007, p. 121). In light of the above discussions the following paper will have in-depth discussion on some selected literatures which will help in understanding the academic needs and behavioral needs of teachers teaching in LINUS classrooms in Malaysia. The Malaysian education program is aimed at ensuring that all children and pupils are provided with a strong foundation to enable them be independent in life. The research will be drawn on various methodologies that will help build the research to help in finding the best practices to instill among the teachers and the trainees in Malaysia (Groom & Rose, 2005; p. 23). Bibliography Almog, O and Shechtman, Z 2007, “Teachers’ democratic and efficacy beliefs and styles of coping with behavioral problems of pupils with special needs.” European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 22, pp. 115–29. Chan, D 2008, “Dimensions of teacher self-efficacy among Chinese secondary school teachers in Hong Kong.” Educational Psychology, Vol. 28, pp. 181–94. Chen, G., Gully, S. M and Eden, D 2001, “Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale.” Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4, pp. 62–83. Cheung, H 2006, “The measurement of teacher efficacy: Hong Kong primary in-service teachers.” Journal of Education for Teaching, Vol. 32, pp. 435–51. Danne, C and Beirne-Smith M 2000, “Administrators and teachers’ perceptions of the Collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades.” Education, Vol. 121, p.2. Fawcett AJ, Nicholson RI, Lee R. (2004) Dyslexia Screening Test – Junior (DST-J). Harcourt Assessment, United Kingdom Finkelstein, V. (2001) ‘The social model of disability repossessed.’ Leeds University Disability Studies Archive. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disabilitystudies/archiveuk/finkelstein/soc%20mod%20repossessed.pdf (Accessed 10 October 2012). Groom, B and Rose, R 2005, “Supporting the inclusion of pupils with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in the primary school: the role of teaching assistants.” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, Vol.5, no. 1, pp. 20–30. Goodyer, I. M. 2000: Language difficulties and psychopathology. In Bishop, D. V. M. and Leonard, L. B., editors, Speech and language impairments in children. Psychology Press, pp. 227–44. Hauerwas, L and Stone, C 2000, Are parents of school-age children with specific language impairments accurate estimators of their child’s language skills? Child Language Teaching and Therapy, Vol. 16, pp. 73–86. Heath, S. and Hogben, J 2004, Cost-effective prediction of reading difficulties. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, Vol. 47, pp. 751–65. Henson, R. K. & Roberts, K 2006, “Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, pp.393–416. Heiman, T 2002, Inclusive schooling: Middle school teachers’ perceptions. School Psychology International, Vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 174-186. Heiman, T 2004, “Teachers coping with changes: Including students with disabilities in mainstream classes: An international view.” International Journal of Special Education, Vol. 19, no. 2. Ho, I. T 2000, Teachers Thinking about Student Problem Behaviors and Management Strategies: a Comparative Study of Australian and Hong Kong Teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Sydney, Australia. Ho, I. T. & Haul, K. T 2004, “Australian and Chinese teacher efficacy: similarities and differences in personal instruction, discipline, guidance efficacy and beliefs in external determinants.’ Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 20, pp. 313–23. Hutzler, Y, Zach, S and Gafni, O 2005, “Physical education students’ attitudes and self-efficacy towards the participation of children with special needs in regular classes.’ European Journal of Special Needs Education, Vol. 20, pp. 309–27. Justice, L. M., Invernizzi, M. A. and Meier, J. D. 2002: Designing and implementing an early literacy screening protocol: Suggestions for the speech language pathologist. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, Vol. 33, pp. 84–101. Malaysia (2006). Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010. Kuala Lumpur: Percetakan National Malaysia Berhad Manisah Mohd Ali, Ramlee Mustapha, & Zalizan Mohd Jelas. (2006). An empirical study on teachers’ perceptions towards inclusive education in Malaysia. International Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 36-44. Mock, R and Kauffman, M 2002, “Preparing teachers for full inclusion: Is it possible?” The Teacher Educator, Vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 202-217. Pauc R 2005, Comorbidity of dyslexia, dyspraxia, attention deficit disorder (ADD), Attention Deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and Toilette’s syndrome in children: A prospective epidemiological study. Clinical Chiropractic, Vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 189-198 Priestley, M and Rabiee, P 2002 Hopes and fears: stakeholder views on the transfer of special school resources towards inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 371-390. Pliszka, S, et al. 2007, For the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry Work Group on Quality Issues. Practice Parameter for the Assessment and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Attention Deficit–hyperactivity Disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 894–921. Ruth Griffiths, Michael Huntley, 2004, Association for Research in Infant and Child Development. Griffiths Mental Development Scales – Extended Revised. Hogrefe – The Test Agency, United Kingdom Salisbury, C and McGregor, G 2002, The administrative climate and context of inclusive Elementary schools. Exceptional Children, Vol. 68, no. 2, pp. 265-274. SEAMEO Innotech. 2008. “Adult and Non Formal Education (Malaysia)”. http://www.seameoinnotech.org/resources/seameo_country/educ_data/malaysia/malaysia14.ht m. Accessed 11th October, 2012 Shaywitz, S, Morris, R and Shaywitz, BA. (2008). the Education of Dyslexic Children from childhood to young adulthood. Annul Rev Psycho; 59, pp. 451-75. Zalizan Mohd Jelas (2000). Perception of inclusive practices: The Malaysian perspectives. Educational Review, Vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 187-196 Read More