Presented at ISEC 2000

The At-Risk Disk: Developing within-school resources to identify and address learners' special educational needs

Cecilia Bouwer and Lorraine du Toit

Abstract

The proposed South African policy on special education, Building an inclusive education and training system: First Steps plans to rely on site-based support teams in regular schools to identify and address the beaming difficulties of their learners. Teachers generally doubt the feasibility of the model. In addition to their feelings of incompetence for the task, they tend to perceive it as a burden on top of existing trials such as outcomes-based education, over-crowded classrooms and severe financial constraints.

The challenge is to enable teachers who are relatively untrained in special needs education, with minimal assistance or guidance from outside their school, to

• identify and understand the special educational needs and difficulties experienced by learners in their class who are apparently performing poorly;
• then, based on this understanding, devise practicable methods of learning support for specific learners;
• and consistently engage in the procedure as a team action, in this way systematically enhancing their confidence and expertise.

This paper reports on the formative development of the At-Risk Disk, an instrument for a team-based procedure of differential identification of various learning difficulties, specifically for use in South Africa. The identification process provides ongoing in-service development and generates guidelines for learning support which will suit the system of the particular school.

1. Introduction

In South Africa, a five-year plan to establish inclusive education in the country is finally being put into place. The plan entails the development of the appropriate and necessary capacities and competencies at all levels of the system, also including the development of a district- and learning institution-based support system. (DNE, 2000:3.2.2). In explicitly conceptualising the identification of learning difficulties and appropriate learning support as a central responsibility of all educators - supported by their school-based support teams (DNE, 2000:2.4.5) - the proposed policy steers away from the referral-driven process customarily viewed as the responsibility of a specialist education support service. To render timely and appropriate learning support in the regular school, it is obviously vital for educators to understand the nature, degree and context of the strengths and weaknesses of each learner with special educational needs.

Historically under-resourced schools in the country by default accommodate large numbers of learners who are contending with barriers to learning in various forms, yet many of their teachers appear notably hesitant to actually address those needs. Despite a belief that the existing teacher corps by and large have the insight, skills and expertise to identify learners with special educational needs (Donald, Lazarus & Lolwana, 1997:243), many teachers appear to lack the confidence to pinpoint the nature of their learners' strengths and difficulties, let alone adapt instruction, tasks or materials in support of their learning (Hall, Campher & Smit, 1999:157). Especially teachers of the Intermediary Phase in historically under-resourced schools frequently profess a sense of helplessness in the face of their learners' performance difficulties, having been less sensitised to developmental and other learning difficulties during training than their colleagues for the Foundation Phase. On account of the limited guidance available to schools from the sorely stretched education support personnel and the questionable validity of many assessment instruments for all South African learners, a need clearly exists for supportive instruments and/or step-wise procedures which could be used independently by teams within the centres of learning.

2. Aim of the research

The aim of the research was to develop an instrument for a reliable and valid institution-based group procedure, which could enable intermediary teachers especially in under-resourced schools to differentially identify the nature and extent of learners' special educational needs.

Two barriers to learning, intellectual disability and specific learning disability, were selected to develop and trial the research design and the instrument. The following questions were addressed:

• What form should a procedure take for it to direct teachers of the Intermediary Phase, especially in under-resourced schools, in a team-based, step-wise, qualitative and non-labelling process of differential identification of learners with intellectual disability and specific learning disability?
• How should the behaviour manifestations of intellectual disability and specific learning disability be operationalised and formulated, for these to be optimally and unambiguously understood by intermediary teachers, especially in under-resourced schools?
• How should the identification procedure be enriched, to elicit a focus on learner strengths among the participants and achieve an in-service development of best educational practice?

3. Development issues

In developing the instrument to identify intellectual disability and specific learning disability, the following issues were addressed:

• The precise nature of the teachers' difficulties in identifying their learners' special needs and their knowledge of the two kinds of disability, which called for a needs and situation analysis.
• The need for the process underpinning the identification procedure to be pedagogically accountable, which would require careful attention to format and procedure.
• Compliance with both practical and scientific demands, which necessitated a generic process of development and a summative evaluation of the instrument, in addition to operationalising and formulating the concepts of intellectual disability and specific learning disability in accordance with the experience and linguistic proficiency of the teachers who would be using it.
• Consideration of cultural and contextual factors, to achieve comprehensible operational formulations and standards of the behaviour manifestations associated with intellectual disability and specific learning disability.

4. Method

4.1 Literature study

The purpose of the literature study was to guide the design and content of the identification procedure, and it covered the following:

• The behaviour manifestations of intellectual and specific learning disability in the Intermediary Phase
• Possible exceptions regarding the standards and forms of behaviour required of learners belonging to the various cultures in South Africa, which the formulations on the proposed instrument would have to accommodate.
• The role of the teacher in outcomes-based education, specifically regarding the continuous, diagnostic assessment of learners who experience learning difficulties

4.2 Focus group discussions

Focus group discussions were conducted in the research school, engaging all the teachers of the Intermediary Phase in two case studies. The frame of reference for the qualitative analysis of the discussion data was ethnographic in devoting special consideration to the current (also indigenous) knowledge, skills, values and practice observed in a historically under-resourced school. The objectives were ·

• To gain an understanding of the strengths, needs and problems in the school regarding the identification of and dealings with poor performers in general; and
• To determine the teachers' knowledge of the two disabilities in some detail.

4.3 Collaborative development of the procedure and instrument

On the basis of the information obtained from the literature study and focus group discussions, the researcher and the intermediary teachers of the research school negotiated an instrument-based process to identify the special needs of their learners. The concept and design of the instrument, the At-Risk Disk, was tentatively agreed upon. The researcher presented a first draft of behaviour manifestations constituting identification criteria for intellectual and specific learning disability in operational terms.

instrument was sufficiently refined: (a) The teacher-team used the At-Risk Disk by way of a case study under participatory observation by the researcher, adapting the proposed design where necessary. The descriptions of the behaviour manifestations of intellectual disability and specific learning disability were constantly revised. To further support understanding and reliability, a manual of examples of relevant behaviours was gradually developed. (b) The process and the findings regarding the particular learner were formatively evaluated by means of a diagnostic assessment in the form of a clinical examination of the learner. Differences between the findings of the individual diagnostic assessment and the results of the teacher-team process were analysed within the contextual frame, i.e. with close attention to the understanding and formulation of the behavioural descriptions. (c) The At-Risk Disk (procedure, format and formulations) and the examples of behaviours in the manual were adapted as suggested by the results obtained from Step (b).

The following two outcomes would be taken to indicate that the At-Risk Disk had been sufficiently refined: · Step

• (a): The teacher-team would demonstrate skill in carrying out the procedure smoothly, consistently and fairly independently, effectively utilising the instrument which contained clear and unambiguous items and was simple to handle.
• Step (b): The teachers' findings would be verified by those of the individual diagnostic assessment.

4.4 Summative evaluation

A twofold summative evaluation was performed: · The teacher-team in the research school used the At-Risk Disk independently, under the researcher's non-participatory, qualitative observation. Their findings were verified by an individual diagnostic assessment. · To control for learning effect, i.e. to ensure that the instrument in its final form could be used successfully by a novice team of teachers on the basis of only the printed manual, the At-Risk Disk was implemented in the same manner in a second historically under-resourced school.

5. Results and findings - the process of development

5.1 The research school

The field study, spanning a period of nine months, was conducted in an under-resourced school situated in an urban African township. At the time of the research, there were eight intermediary teachers (two for each of Grades 4 - 7), consisting of two men and six women. Formerly, the school had had a special class for learners with mild to severe intellectual disability. Approximately five years prior to the research, the class had been abolished since the school had suffered the mockery of other communities, but the school still seemed to attract an inordinately large number of learners who failed to perform satisfactorily.

5.2 Focus group discussions

The problems in identifying the nature of learning difficulties which came to light are listed below. Comments on the possible value of directing the identification process by means of an instrument have been added in italics.

• Large classes and multiple administrative duties prevented teachers from identifying learners effectively on the basis of performance data. A user-friendly and effective instrument to direct a group discussion could be a meaningful substitute for performance analysis by the individual teacher and would lessen the danger of focusing on poor performance alone.
• Many teachers felt that they had had inadequate training and lacked the expertise to identify the nature of learners' assets and difficulties and give appropriate learning support. To date, neither pre-service nor in-service training in South Africa has seemed to give teachers confidence to address learning difficulties. Using an instrument collaboratively could hopefully neutralise their learned helplessness and enhance expertise by giving direction in a step-wise process and by creating the opportunity to share knowledge and initiatives within an assets-based, contextual and practical frame.
• Lack of parental involvement was regarded an obstacle, since information about the learner which the teachers regarded as essential, appeared inaccessible to them. An identification instrument based on behaviour manifestations instead of on a causal model would enable teachers to identify the nature of a learner's strengths and difficulties differentially, making information from the parents less crucial. Perhaps the instrument could even be utilised to facilitate parental involvement.
• Education support services were judged gravely inadequate, intensifying teachers' feelings of helplessness. An identification instrument could enable schools to address mild - moderate learning difficulties themselves.
• Environmental factors strongly affected learners' performance. Identifying and addressing intellectual disability and specific learning disability would be properly contextualised if the instrument could call attention to the social and emotional behaviour of learners and require teachers to demonstrate an understanding of the individual learner's circumstances in providing appropriate, holistic support.
• The teachers had difficulty distinguishing between a learning problem and the language problems of their African learners who were using English as their language of learning.

When the identification instrument had eliminated other behaviour manifestations of intellectual disability and specific learning disability as primary causes for a learner's poor academic performance, the possibility of a language problem could then be investigated further.

The findings with regard to the teachers' knowledge base were as follows:

• The teachers had considerable though somewhat diffuse knowledge about learning difficulties and specifically lacked differential knowledge of the behaviour manifestations of the two disabilities in question. An identification instrument would have to unambiguously support the teachers in making a step-wise, differential identification.
• The teachers showed greater understanding once the behaviour manifestations had been grouped and the differences between them were illustrated by means of the case studies. Behaviour manifestations of the two disabilities would have to be formulated concisely in operational terms.
• The teachers found specific learning disability a less familiar phenomenon than intellectual disability and one which contained complex concepts. Special care would be required in operationalising and formulating the behaviour manifestations of specific learning disability, and clear examples would have to be furnished.

5.3 The instrument design

Using the information obtained from the literature study and focus group discussions, the checklist model was selected as the most suitable procedure to steer an institution-based group process in identifying learner needs. The flexibility of a checklist was especially attractive. By providing all relevant information for consideration, it could tap into the users' collective pool of knowledge in a non-threatening manner. In steering away from the more conventional formal, norm-based assessment model in favour of a criterion-referenced, contextual procedure, categories of behaviour and performance specifically related to each disability were identified and unpacked to comprise a range of behaviour manifestations sufficient to cover individual differences. However, recognising the dangers of stereotyping and also realising that culture-specific differences might impact on teachers' interpretations, the proviso was that descriptions of behaviour should be operationalised within the cultural frame.

The At-Risk Disk was developed, initially from cardboard, and refined in the course of the subsequent group sessions. Figure 1, in the concluding section, illustrates the final design and procedure.

Operational formulation of the behaviour manifestations of intellectual disability and specific learning disability

• In the discussions on each disability, the teachers spontaneously referred to the case studies used during the focus group discussions, thereby demonstrating learning effect.
• Initially, discussion centred on the learner selected for consideration in the particular session. As each session progressed, related behaviours of a number of learners were spontaneously brought up as a base for comparison. This might testify to a growing sensitisation and confidence in the teachers about noteworthy behaviours, as they gained clarity about the concepts and their significance.
• The discussion of specific learning disability took far longer than intellectual disability, confirming the impression that the teachers found the concept of specific learning disability more complex.
• A fairly large number of the original descriptions, which were apparently too academic, needed to be changed, e.g. Displays an inability to generalise or transfer an acquired strategy or skill à Has difficulty applying skills to other tasks.
• Behaviours which appeared diffuse were unpacked. Others again, could be grouped together, e.g. Is aggressive, throws tantrums.
• To achieve optimum understanding, the researcher was frequently obliged to explain the behaviour manifestations of the disabilities by citing examples. The teachers argued for many of these to be incorporated onto the instrument. The need to avoid clutter led to the decision rather to compile a manual to explain each behavioural criterion by means of concise examples.

5.4 Group administration of the At-Risk Disk

The formative process of conducting case studies on the instrument and checking the results in individual assessments revealed the following:

• By and large, the teachers were correct in their identifications.
• In selecting learners to discuss during the sessions, the teachers spontaneously used the extent of their performance backlog as the sole criterion. It emerged that both learners were intellectually disabled. Minding the school's history which seems to have caused an inordinately large representation of intellectual disability, this result draws attention to the danger that learners with specific learning disability might remain unidentified if the performance criterion is applied exclusively in selection.
• More examples were required for the manual, especially regarding specific learning disability.
• Background information about the learners was frequently introduced into the discussions. The procedure was therefore adapted, to let all members of staff provide relevant information on the learner ahead of the meeting of the learning support team. A space for such information was created on the instrument.
• To ensure a reliable finding of probable disability, it proved necessary to stipulate the minimum number of behavioural criteria to be met per segment as well as per disability set. A criterion of ± 70% was set on the grounds of practical, observational experience.

5.5 Summative evaluation

The independent implementation of the instrument by the teacher-team in the research school proceeded smoothly and the findings were borne out by the diagnostic assessment results, which seems to confirm the reliability of the instrument. However, it had been necessary to manipulate this session to ensure that specific learning disability would also be looked at. The teachers were therefore sensitised for the profile of learners with specific learning disability and, based on this profile, selected two learners. The criteria for specific learning disability were applied without a hitch, in a process of positive verification instead of identification. Two relevant matters were addressed:

• The need became evident for the manual to contain a clear definition and distinction of the two disabilities.
• Issues of scholastic performance (e.g. handwriting and mathematics) were discussed at some length and learners' workbooks were even fetched to verify judgements. Flexibility about time would therefore seem advisable - initially, the process of identification could well take more than one session.

The implementation of the At Risk Disk went smoothly at the control school as well, and the findings were similar to the individual assessment. With the barest minimum of orientation, the teachers fully understood the procedure and formulations and they were able to use the examples in the manual to good effect.

6. Discussion of outcomes

Figure 1 illustrates the final product, to be implemented as described below.

6.1 The At-Risk Disk procedure

Ideally, the At-Risk Disk should be permanently on view, accessible to all members of staff (e.g. in the staffroom)

• Enter the name of the learner noted as being in need of learning support on the board (at a) a number of days prior to the meeting of the Learning Support Team.
• All members of staff enter any information and observations which might contribute to an accurate identification of the nature of the learner's need in the top corner (at b).
• The meeting takes place under the guidance of the Learning Support Team of the school and is attended by all teachers dealing with the particular learner and, if possible, the learner's parents.
• The set of segments (c) representing the teachers' hypothesis of the nature of the learner's needs is placed on the board (each disability is a different colour to avoid confusion and support the forming of associations).
• Dealing with one segment at a time, the behaviours which apply to the learner are marked. If the total is lower than the criterion stated (at d), the learner's behaviours in the particular category are taken to be within the normal range and the segment is removed.
• During the team discussion, the group leader notes the learner's strengths as well as learning support strategies for specific problematic behaviours which are suggested by the participants in the space around the segments (e). Teachers are encouraged to focus on the strengths and to try out the recommended strategies as best practice options, and could be called upon to report back on their efforts.
• If the number of segments remaining on the board is below the criterion set for the particular disability, the procedure is repeated with the alternative set.

6.2 The effectiveness of the instrument

The results suggest that the At-Risk Disk could by dint of its design and the comprehensiveness and specificity of its manual effectively support non-specialist intermediary teachers, especially in under-resourced schools, without formal training to execute a grounded, team-based procedure to differentially identify intellectual disability and specific learning disability. The operational descriptions of the behaviour manifestations of intellectual disability and specific learning disability appear to provide unambiguous guidance in the identification process.

Using the At Risk Disk in institution-based identification of learning difficulties would seem a feasible way of engaging all teachers who deal with the particular learner to render appropriate learning support. In encouraging the in-service sharing, development and realisation of professional skills, the instrument holds some promise of indirectly enhancing a culture of learning and teaching within schools. The intention is therefore to continue and extend the research, to include the behaviour manifestations of other causes of learning difficulty (such as attention deficit disorder, mild and moderate sensory disabilities and childhood depression) and to develop reliable criteria for the categories of behaviour manifestations both separately and within sets. The instrument also needs to be evaluated in all categories of schools.

The dangers of categorising (labelling) learners by introducing a formalised identification system into schools are acknowledged. But we would argue that those would be outweighed in an increasingly inclusive educational dispensation by the advantages of the At-Risk Disk in purposely enhancing understanding and acceptance of the specific needs of the individual learner. Rather than causing teachers to neglect or discriminate against such learners, the At-Risk Disk would serve to sensitise and empower teachers to actively and appropriately address barriers to learning by means of best practise and an asset-based focus - ultimately celebrating a culture of acceptance of diversity.

7. References

Department of National Education 1997. Quality education for all: overcoming barriers to learning and development. Report of the National Commission on Education and Training and the National Committee for Education Support Services. Pretoria: Government Printer.

Department of National Education 2000. Building an inclusive education and training system. Draft Education White Paper 5 on Special Needs Education) 24 March 2000

Donald RD, Lazarus S & Lolwana P 1997. Educational psychology in social context. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Du Toit LD 1999. 'n Instrument vir die differensiële identifisering van verstandelike gestremdheid en leer- gestremdheid deur die onderwyser in die intermediêre fase in 'n tradisioneel swart skool. MEd-dissertation. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.

Frank E 1993. The educational psychologist as a consultant. MEd dissertation. Cape Town: University of Cape Town.

Gerber HM 1989. Identification of learning disability. South African Journal of Education. 9(3):470-476.

Hall R, Campher, E & Smit, AG 1999. Formal support in inclusion. P Engelbrecht, L Green, S Naicker & L Engelbrecht (Eds): Inclusive education in action in South Africa. Pretoria: JL van Schaik. 157-167.

HSRC 1987. Education for the black disabled. HSRC Education Research Programme No. 10. Pretoria: HSRC.

Jones N & Frederickson N 1990. Refocusing educational psychology. New York: The Falmer Press.

Lerner J 1993. Learning disabilities: theories, diagnosis & teaching strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

The financial assistance of the National Research Foundation: Social Sciences and Humanities (South Africa) towards this research is hereby acknowledged. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at are those of the authors and are not necessarily to be attributed to the National Research Foundation.

Index