Teacher Knowledge on Disability in India

Article Critique

Saravanabhavan, S., & Saravanabhavan R. (2010). Knowledge of learning disability among pre- and in-service teachers in India. International Journal of Special Education. 25(3), 132-138.

Topic: The topic of this study is how much pre- and in-service teachers know about learning disability.  It was a study done among general education teachers, special education teachers, and pre-service teachers in teacher education programs.

Summary of lit review:

There are a lot of people with disabilities in India—10% of them have intellectual disabilities.  10-14% of students in India have learning disabilities. 

Research on learning disabilities is relevantly new and there is limited awareness among parents, teachers, and educational administrators.  Teachers are not trained highly in this area either.

Policies and laws have come to pass since 1986, but still there is little accountability and actions haven’t been taken very seriously in improving education

Purpose/Questions: The purpose of this study is to “determine if teachers are adequately prepared to make learning and performance effective and efficient” for individuals with learning disabilities.

Methods:

Participants:

• 144 teachers from general high schools
• 38 teachers from special schools
• 165 pre-service teachers in their final semester of training in a teacher college
• All participants are female.
• Education ranges from undergraduate degree to a master’s degree in philosophy.

Setting:

• High schools, special schools, and a teacher education college located in a metropolitan city in one of the southern states in India.  The state was Tamilnadu.

Independent Variable: A survey…?

Dependent Variable: Perceptions among pre-service teachers, general education teachers, and special education teachers regarding learning disabilities.

Type of Experimental Design: A 25-item survey using a Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree was used in this study.  The items had to do with basic understanding of characteristics of people with learning disabilities, different kinds of learning disabilities, and assessment.  There were also two open-ended questions used to determine perception of learning disabilities among the teachers.  In addition to the survey, a questionnaire was given asking demographic information.

Treatment Fidelity: A pilot survey was administered to a sample of 25 general education teachers, 10 special education teachers, and 28 pre-service teachers who were not part of the sample.  Researchers then made changes based on the feedback from the pilot instrument.

Interobserver Agreement: There was a coordinator at each site collecting and distributing surveys, but there was not real interobserver agreement…

Social Validity: I didn’t see any social validity pieces…

Result/Findings:

Teachers in both regular schools and special schools scored above average, with teachers in regular schools scoring the highest. Only 26% of teachers in special schools had an under-graduate or graduate degree in education (p. 136).  Pre-service teachers scored below average. Knowledge of teachers in regular schools was statistically different.  The pre-service teachers scored the lowest, which is below the mean score for the whole group.  75% of participants supported the use of the term learning disability.

Discussion:

Implications for Practice:  Teachers need to be better educated and actually have degrees in education.  Also, it is good to attend professional development.

Implication for Research: Teachers from special schools scored lower than teachers in regular schools, and this research still needs to be further examined.  Teachers in special schools should have more knowledge about disabilities. 

Strengths:  There was a pilot survey to check the effectiveness of the survey.  There was a large sample size of over 300 teachers, and the teachers came from three different groups.

Weaknesses: The sample was not randomized; it was voluntary.  The sample was derived from only one state in India.

Why is the study socially significant?   (This can be assumed to be the case to some degree if it was published.)

This study is socially significant because it raises further concerns about the education of teachers in special schools, general education schools, and even future teachers in the final semester of their teacher-training program.  It showed how individuals from all groups are in need of additional training and education on different disabilities, how to work with the disabilities, and assessment.  Further studies can be done, and teachers can take more efforts to stay updated on information regarding different disabilities.