4th International Teachers’ Conference

4th International Teachers’ Conference12 - 13 NOVEMBER 2017

MALE', MALDIVES

CURRICULUM, PEDAGOGY & ASSESSMENT: INNOVATIVE

VISIONS TO FOSTER EFFECTIVE LEARNING

BOOK OF PROCEEDINGS

National Institute of EducationMale’, Maldives

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the copyright owner. By submitting this article the authors agree that the copyright of their articles are transferred to their publisher. It is a condition of the publisher that an article already published by NIE cannot be sent for publication elsewhere.

Editorial Board:

Shuhudha RizwanEducation Development Officer CoordinatorNational Institute of Education

Fathimath AzeemaEducation Development Officer CoordinatorNational Institute of Education

Aishath NaseerEducation Development Officer CoordinatorNational Institute of Education

Wafa Waheed MohamedEducation Development Officer CoordinatorNational Institute of Education

Abdulla HameedEducation Development Officer CoordinatorNational Institute of Education

Lizna Abdulla SaeedEducation Development Officer CoordinatorNational Institute of Education

Fathimath IreneEducation Development OfficerNational Institute of Education

Cover Design:

Abdulla ZakiSenior Media OfficerNational Institute of Education

Layout Design:

Mariyam ThiseenaAssistant IllustratorNational Institute of Education

National Institute of EducationGhaazee BuildingAmeer Ahmed Magu Male’ 20125Maldiveshttp://www.nie.edu.mv

Copyright © 2019 by the National Institute of EducationAll rights reserved.Printed in the MaldivesISBN: 978-99915-0-842-9Foi faaskuri card no: 178-LBK/2019/096

PREFACE This proceedings book contains papers presented at the 4th International Teachers’

Conference (ITC 2017), which was held in Male’ during 12-13 November,

2017. ITC 2017 was a collaborative effort of the National Institute of Education

(NIE) and Cambridge University Press (CUP). Being partners of the National

Curriculum development in the Maldives, NIE and CUP themed the conference as

“Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment: Innovative Visions to Foster Effective

Learning”, to purposefully bring together local and international professionals,

to share their experiences and practices of curriculum implementation in an

academic environment.

From the year 2012, International Teachers’ Conference continues a tradition

of bringing together teachers, researchers and professionals from all over the

Maldives and abroad to share experiences and learn from one another in a context

of research and practice.

This issue includes 10 selected papers which were submitted to the conference

by the participants of ITC 2017. Each of these papers have gone through a

rigorous blind peer-review process by two or more experts, qualified in the field

of education. These reviewers have put tremendous effort, within their given time

to ensure quality of papers published. Hence on behalf of the editorial board, I

would like to express my sincere appreciation to all the reviewers and authors,

whose contributions made this book a reality.

These Proceedings will provide educators with an excellent reference book. I

sincerely hope that this issue will be an impetus to stimulate further research in

these areas.

Shuhudha Rizwan

Editorial Board Member

Table of Contents

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT AND TEACHERS’ SELF-EFFICACY IN THREE SELECTED SCHOOLS IN

NOONU ATOLLNiuma Mohamed

08

MAINSTREAMING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: A SURVEY OF

TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS INCLUSIONShuhudha Rizwan

29

IMPLEMENTING PROBLEM-BASED-LEARNING IN PRIMARY

SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE MALDIVESFathimath Shafeeqa and Aminath Shiyama

40

INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF KEY STAGE 1 CURRICULUM IN

MALDIVES: CHANGES AND CHALLENGESAishath Shibana, Adhila Rushdhee and Fathimath Naseer

61

EXPLORING THE ISSUES TO PRACTICE EFFECTIVE FORMATIVE

ASSESSMENTS IN A MALDIVIAN EDUCATION CONTEXTKhadheeja Mohamed Sameer

74

EXPLORING THE PERCEPTION OF PARENTS TOWARDS

MAINSTREAMING STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDSHawwa Zuhaira, Shiyama Hilmy, Asma Mohamed and Arifa Abdul Majeed

88

KEY STAGE 1 AND KEY STAGE 2 ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHERS' UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DIFFERENTIATED

INSTRUCTION APPROACH: A CASE STUDYAishath Shoozan

99

DO MALDIVIAN TEACHERS' INTEGRATE ICT IN TEACHING?Mohamed Shihab, Roza Ibrahim and Somnath Chaudhuri

115

ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ޙަރަކާތްތައް ރާވަން ވަގުތު ދިނުމުން، ދިވެހިބަސް ކިޔަވާ ސާނަވީ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް ހެޔޮ ބަދަލެއް

ޢާއިޝަތު ޒިދްނާ

131

ނޑު އުޞޫލުތައް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުން ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ މައިގައަޛްރާ ތައުފީޤް

141

9

4th International Teachers' Conference Special Issue

Copyright © 2019 by the National Institute of Education

Printed in the Maldives. All rights reserved

978-99915-0-842-9/01

INTRODUCTION The need for a link between assessment and meaningful instruction is emphasized with the implementation of new curriculum in the Maldives in 2015. Teachers need to find ways to assess student strengths and weaknesses in daily classroom learning and to capture each student’s development in relation to standards. An assessment

cycle should be embedded in instruction, and instruction should begin with a diagnostic assessment that can determine what students already know, followed by instruction, periodic formative assessments that monitor student progress, and continued instruction, and should conclude with summative assessments

The Relationship between Formative Assessment and Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in Three Selected Schools in Noonu Atoll

NIUMA MOHAMEDThe Maldives National University

[email protected]

This empirical study examined the relationship between teachers’ use of formative assessment and their self-efficacy beliefs. This study involved a quantitative analysis of the relationship between teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, and the use of formative assessment to change and modify their classroom instruction and their perceptions of self-efficacy. A survey, which included demographic, assessment, and self-efficacy questions, was administered to examine how key stage 1 & 2 teachers (n = 50) in three selected schools in Noonu Atoll rate their assessment knowledge and practices and how their knowledge and beliefs regarding formative assessment relate to their sense of self-efficacy. Convenience sampling was employed, and data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The findings indicate that teachers frequently use formative assessments to change and modify their classroom instruction and that they perceive these changes to be effective in raising mathematics achievement. Further, the findings show that the respondents are comfortable with their level of assessment knowledge and, overall, have a high sense of teacher efficacy. Finally, teachers’ use of formative assessment to change and modify their classroom instruction in key stage 1 & 2 is positively correlated with their self-efficacy in relationship to assessment type, assessment knowledge, and effectiveness of assessments. Overall, the results of this study contribute to the body of knowledge on the role of teachers’ beliefs in shaping a new culture for their use of formative assessment to inform day-to-day classroom instruction.

Keywords: Formative assessments, self-efficacy, assessment knowledge, mathematics achievement

10

to determine what the students have learned (Wylie, 2008). Along with the implementation of new curriculum, a new Assessment Policy was circulated by the Ministry of Education. The attention which was previously placed on testing has led to a new emphasis on academic performance in the new assessment policy. This change has caused the teachers to search for better methods to meet the demands in order to increase student achievement, adjust instruction and assess individual learners. The researcher’s interest in assessment has developed as part of her role as the subject coordinator, the author of the study guide used at the Centre for Open Learning and as a lecturer teaching the modules EST207 Assessment and Evaluation at The Maldives National University. Throughout the teaching process, the researcher has become curious about how much and how well teachers understand formative assessment results, whether they believe that they can be used to make a difference in achievement test scores, and how much they can use these results to guide classroom instruction. The change in curriculum and the assessment policy requires teachers to use assessment as a way of determining what to teach. In order to gauge the students’ learning, teachers are required to give periodic benchmark tests, work in professional learning communities to develop common assessments, and document instruction and learning through analyzing benchmark data. When testing is approached as assessment for learning, learning can be intensified through effective feedback and peer and self-assessments. For this reason, it is important to determine whether and

how teachers use assessment data to select instructional strategies that support and enhance student learning.

The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a relationship between key stage 2 (fourth, fifth and sixth grade) teachers’ assessment literacy, their instructional use of assessment data, and their sense of self-efficacy. The researcher used a survey pertaining to assessment to ascertain the types of formative assessments that teachers administer the frequency of their administration, how these assessments are used, and the perceived effectiveness of using formative assessment data to inform instruction. Additionally, the researcher determined teachers’ understanding of formative assessment and the extent to which they believed that their use of student assessment data had an impact on student learning and achievement in mathematics. The results of this study may help educators understand the impact of teachers’ use of formative assessment data on student mathematics achievement as well as their own self-efficacy. Examining assessment practices, understanding how results are used, and showing that there is a positive relationship between these activities and increased student achievement may provide insight into how to develop interventions to guide instructional practices for unsuccessful students. Specifically, the findings of this study will inform teachers of the perceptions, beliefs, and practices related to formative assessment as held by their colleagues. Describing other teachers’ beliefs and their use of formative assessments may

11

affect individual teachers’ beliefs about the role of assessment in the classroom and guide the district’s choice of professional development activities. The results may influence teachers’ beliefs about the value of dedicating time to formative assessments as well as their understanding of the use of assessment in general. Overall, the results of this study contribute to the body of knowledge on the role of teachers’ beliefs in shaping a new culture for their use of formative assessment to inform day-to-day classroom instruction.

Formative Assessments and Self-Efficacy

To use assessment effectively, researchers believe that educators must possess knowledge of how to assess what students know and can, interpret the results of these assessments, and apply these results to improve student learning and program effectiveness. Educators who have assessment literacy have the knowledge and skills related to the basic principles of assessment knowledge. Ayalla et al. (2008) found that assessment literacy and assessment reform require significant preparatory measures. Researchers note the need to gather information from practicing educators about their beliefs about and conceptions of assessment, their use of classroom assessment practices, and the relationship between these variables (Winterbottom et al., 2008). The current emphasis on assessment is challenging because many teachers lack the necessary skills or tools to utilize data effectively (Bernhardt, 2005). Training and professional development

have not provided teachers with the instructional strategies that promote a move in assessment practices from assessment of learning to assessment for learning. Frequently, teacher use of assessment methods does not promote learning and can have a negative effect on low-achieving students (Denton, 2014). According to the assessment policy, school goals usually focus on improving student learning while maintaining high standards (Voelkel & Mello, 2011). As Klappa (2015) states, Ontario is an example where mathematics curricula and teacher resources demonstrate reformed views of assessment which has shifted from a view of assessment as a series of events that objectively measure the acquisition of knowledge toward a view of assessment as a social practice that provides continual insights and information to support student learning and influence teaching practice.

According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy is a belief in one’s competence and ability to successfully complete a task. In social cognitive theory, human functioning is based on intrapersonal influences, the environment, and behaviours in which individuals take part (Bandura, 2012). Since self-efficacy is part of the intrapersonal influences that impact human functioning, individuals influence events and the path of their lives. Social cognitive theory is founded on this agentic perspective, which holds that individuals have influence over their own functioning and the events in their life through the actions they take (Bandura, 2012). Furthermore, it is necessary that learners are able to deal with failure

12

by using the experience as a learning opportunity rather than being demoralized (Bandura, 2012). Positive self-efficacy can be fostered through verbal persuasion that involves encouraging learners to determine success by self-improvement rather than by comparing themselves to others. The way individuals interpret their physical and emotional states influences how they perceive their self-efficacy. As a result, self-efficacy can be improved by reducing anxiety and depression, developing physical strength, and learning to correctly interpret physical and emotion states (Bandurah, 2012).

Research Questions

1. How often do teachers use formative assessments?

2. How often do teachers change their instructional strategies based on formative assessment data?

3. Does the assessment knowledge of teachers have an effect on the teachers’ self-efficacy?

4. Does the teachers’ belief on using effective formative assessments influence the students’ mathematics achievement?

5. Is there a relationship between the use of teachers’ formative assessment data to inform instruction and their self-efficacy?

METHOD

A survey approach was used to gather data from participating teachers with regard to the frequency of their use of

formative assessment, how they used formative assessments, their beliefs about how effective formative assessment data informs mathematics instruction, their knowledge of formative assessment practice, and their self-efficacy. This research was based on the idea that student motivation and self-efficacy are important aspects of an effective learning environment which is informed by two conceptual frameworks. Self-efficacy theory and the achievement goal theory were used as a framework for this study in order to investigate the impact of formative assessment strategies on student self-efficacy and motivation in mathematics. The first framework is based on Bandura’s (1997) social cognitive theory on self-efficacy, which holds that self-efficacy beliefs influence how one feels, thinks, behaves, and is motivated. The second framework is based on the achievement goal theory, also known as goal orientation theory, which conceptualizes motivation through the types of goals that one pursues when in a situation involving achievement (Mohamadi & Asadzaheh, 2006).

A quantitative methodology was selected as a means to collect data that could be analyzed. Statistical analysis allows researchers to examine how variables relate to other variables. Survey design is appropriate when a researcher seeks to explore a relationship and that was the case in this investigation. In quantitative research, surveys are administered to the participants to gather data about their perceptions, attitudes, opinions, behaviors, or characteristics of a sample as representative of population, and these

13

data are considered primary data. A survey design also was selected for this study because it is considered an efficient and economical method of data collection. In cross-sectional survey research, data are collected at one point in time. For this study, data were collected from the sample of elementary teachers once during the second term 2016. This study sought to explore the relationship among teachers’ assessment knowledge, frequency and type of assessments given, frequency of using assessment data to inform instruction, and teachers’ self-efficacy.

Population and Sample

The target population in this study included key stage 2 teachers working in 3 schools in Noonu Atoll. Participants included 45 females and 5 males which consist of 17

teachers from school A, 16 teachers from school B and 17 teachers from school C. Table 1. provides the demographic information for the sample.

Data Collection Procedures and Instruments

Survey form was created via google form and administered through online. The survey consisted of three parts: Part 1 contains demographic questions about the participants’ background (gender, years of teaching experience, the school he/she works, and educational level); Part 2 is The Survey on Classroom Assessment. It contains 12 Likert-type items scored on a scale from 0 to 8 (0 = never/not used to 8 = always/ daily/ highly effective), designed to address conceptions of assessment (types of assessments, assessment practices, and assessment knowledge). Part 3 consists of the Teacher Sense of Efficacy Scale. It contains 12 Likert-type items, on a scale from 0 to 8 (0 = nothing to 8 = a great deal), that ask teachers to judge their ability to influence outcomes.

Access to Study Participants

Principals were provided with an overview of the study. Then teachers were sent the survey via email. Surveys were completed anonymously. The survey is found in Appendix A, along with the initial email to principals and email to teachers.

Pilot Study

The researcher conducted a pilot survey with 15 teachers of key stage 2 at one primary school to ensure that the items

Gender n %Female 45 90

Male 5 10

Schools

School A 17 34

School B 16 32

School C 17 34

Educational Level

Diploma 38 76

Bachelor’s Degree 12 24

Master’s Degree 0 0

Years of Teaching Experience

0 - 3 2 4

4 - 10 16 32

11 - 20 27 54

More than 20 years 5 10

Table 1:. Demographics for the Sample

Demographic Variable

14

on the questionnaire were understandable and that the responses provided by the participants accurately reflected their perceptions. The teachers were asked to evaluate the overall length and clarity of the survey questions. Participants in the pilot study expressed concern about the wording of a few questions, and these questions were streamlined and reworded.

Data Analysis

Prior to actual data collection, the reliability coefficient alpha was used to measure the reliability of the constructs in the pilot study. The sample for the pilot study comprised of 7 respondents. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each variable respectively are all at acceptable levels.

The participants’ responses to the survey were entered into the statistical software program, SPSS Version 22. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize and organize participants’ demographic information and the responses from the questionnaires. Specifically, the data pertaining to research questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as frequencies, means, standard deviations, and percentages. Research question 5 concerned whether teachers’ use of formative assessment related to self-efficacy. Inferential statistics were run to examine the variables of types of assessment, assessment knowledge, effectiveness of assessment, and years of teaching experience for possible correlation. Spearman correlation test was used to more closely analyze

the correlation among variables. The researcher determined whether a positive, zero, or negative correlation existed between the formative assessment variables and self-efficacy by using the results of the statistical analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Research Question 1

Research question 1 indicated how often teachers used formative assessments. The researcher used descriptive statistics to determine the overall percentage of the frequency of use of formative assessment for three categories: daily, weekly, and monthly.

Table 2. Frequency of Teachers’ Use of Formative

Assessment Frequency

n %

Daily 21 42

Weekly 17 34

Monthly 12 24

To address research question 1 in more depth, the researcher analyzed the data to determine the frequency with which specific types of mathematics formative assessments were used. Table 3. presents the frequency of distribution for each type of assessment and a summary of a total use for each assessment type.

15

Table 3. Frequency Distribution and Percentage of Specific Types of Formative Assessments

Type of assessment Never Daily Weekly Monthly Total

Performance based assessment

%

n

14

7

36

18

30

15

20

10

86

43

Observation (checklist & anecdotal records)

%

n

0

0

48

24

36

18

16

8

100

50

Oral questioning %

n

0

0

60

30

32

16

8

4

100

50

Rubrics %

n

4

2

20

10

42

21

32

16

96

48

Student self-rating %

n

56

28

6

3

14

7

24

12

44

22

Figure 1. Most Frequently Administered Assessments by 3 Selected Schools.

16

All the respondents used observation and oral questioning as formative assessments either daily, weekly or monthly. Ninety six percent of the respondents used rubrics, while 86% of respondents use PBA. Whereas, 44% of respondents use Student self-rating as a formative assessment, which means more than half of the respondents never used Student self-rating as a formative assessment.

Research Question 2Research question 2 focused on how often teachers change their instructional strategies based on formative assessment data. The researcher used descriptive statistics to make this determination.

Table 4. Teachers’ Instructional Changes Based on their Use of Formative

Assessment by Number and Percentage

Frequency n %

Daily 18 36

Weekly 25 50

Monthly 7 14

To address this research question in greater depth, respondents were asked to report how frequently they made specific instructional changes based on formative assessment data.

Table 5. Frequency Distribution for Changes Made in Instructional Practice

Instructional Change Never Daily Weekly Monthly Total

Diagnosing individual student’s strengths and weaknesses

%n

21

46 23

4422

8 4

9849

Diagnosing the class as a whole %n

42

3819

4623

126

9648

Grouping Students %n

42

3216

3015

3217

9648

Communicating academic expectations %n

42

5025

3618

105

9648

Motivating or controlling students %n

126

4623

3015

126

8844

Re-teaching the information %n

00

5427

3618

105

10050

Changing instructional strategies %n

00

5427

3819

84

10050

Providing extra help %n

0 0

6030

3618

42

10050

Other %n

5226

2613

189

42

4824

17

The bar graph above shows that all respondents bring changes in re-teaching the information, changing instructional strategies, and provide extra help. Ninety eight percent of respondents bring changes in diagnosing individual students’ strengths and weaknesses, while 96% of respondents bring changes in grouping students, and communicating academic expectations, and 88% of respondents change the way of motivating or controlling students. Forty eight percent, which is more than half of the respondents, bring changes in the other areas which are not specified in the questionnaire.

Research Question 3

Research question 3 indicated that the assessment knowledge of teachers affects the teachers’ self-efficacy. Descriptive statistics were used to make this determination. Table 6. shows respondents’ ratings of their level of assessment knowledge that leads to self-efficacy when

Figure 2. Frequency Distribution for Changes Made in Instructional Practice

compared to their knowledge of other aspects of teaching and learning.

Table 6. Knowledge of Formative Assessment by

Frequency and Percentage Knowledge

n %

Less 5 10 Equal 37 74 More 8 16

Figure 3. shows assessment knowledge by 3 selected schools. As the figure shows, there were no significant differences between level of assessment knowledge among 3 selected schools.

18

Figure 4. presents the relationship between assessment knowledge and Education Level. There were no significant differences between respondents with diploma and bachelor’s degrees.

Figure 3. Assessment Knowledge by Selected Schools.

Figure 4. Teachers’ Assessment Knowledge by Education Level.

19

None Some Much Almost All

Pre-service education %n

147

60 30

16 8

10 5

Programs completed %n

3417

2613

2613

147

Colleagues %n

63

3015

4824

168

Other %n

3015

4221

2010

84

In addition, of interest to the researcher was respondents’ understanding of how they acquired their assessment knowledge.

The result in Table 7 shows that 94% of the respondents reported that their assessment knowledge was gained through their colleagues, while 86% of the respondents acquired this knowledge from pre-service education, and 66% of the respondents gained it from the programs they completed. It also shows that 70% of the respondents gained the assessment knowledge from other means which are not specified in the questionnaire.

The numeric variable (sum of assessment literacy) and the categorical variables frequency (daily, weekly, and monthly) were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

Table 8. Relationship Between Assessment Knowledge and Frequency of Use of Formative Assessments

Frequency n Mean SD p Daily 21 2.07 1.10

Weekly 17 2.13 0.65

Monthly 12 2.18 0.60 .94

Table 7. Teachers’ Knowledge Sources by Percentage and Frequency Knowledge Sources

Variables n Mean Standard Deviation p

Education Level

Diploma 38 31.8 7.6

Bachelor’s degree 12 27.4 6.9 *0.01

Schools

School A 17 30.2 6.6

School B 16 29.2 7.8

School C 17 30.2 8.4 0.67

Table 9. Variables Affecting Use of Formative Assessment

20

The p-value generated from Kruskal-Wallis test shown in the table above is not less than .05, hence the relationship between teachers’ level of assessment literacy and the use of formative assessment was not statistically significant

The researcher wants to see the significance difference between sum of all types of formative assessments used by the teachers and the sum of each variable given in the table (education level, Schools, professional development, programs completed, and colleagues). There was no statistical significance for the variables, schools, professional development, and programs completed. There was a statistically significant relationship for education level and colleagues.

Professional Development

None 6 21.8 10.5

Some 28 29.9 6.2

Much 12 31.0 8.4

All 4 33.3 6.0 0.17

Programs completed

None 21 29.8 6.8

Some 14 29.0 5.7

Much 13 29.4 9.3

All 2 31.6 9.2 0.07

Colleagues

None 4 19.5 3.7

Some 14 31.1 5.7

Much 28 29.2 8.3

All 4 31.9 6.3 *0.03

Research Question 4Research question 4 was to ascertain

that whether using effective formative assessments influence the students’ mathematics achievement.

Table 10. Teachers’ Beliefs about the Effectiveness of Formative Assessment by Frequency and Percentage

Frequency and Percentage Effectiveness n %

Not effective 7 14

Somewhat effective 30 60

Highly effective 13 26

A closer look at the data is presented in Table 11, which presents how teachers rated the degree of effectiveness for each type of formative assessment and the total effectiveness for each type.

21

Table 11. Effectiveness of Formative Assessment Types by Percentage and Number Type of Assessment

Notused

Noteffective

Somewhateffective

Highlyeffective

Total: Somewhat/Highly effective

Performance basedassessment

%

n

8

4

8

4

34

17

50

25

84

42

Observation (Checklists (& anecdotal records

%

n

14

7

2

1

38

19

46

23

84

42

Oral questioning %

n

0

0

4

2

34

17

62

31

96

48

Student self-reflection %

n

18

9

18

9

60

30

22

11

82

41

Rubrics %

n

0

0

4

2

38

19

58

29

96

48

Other %

n

40

20

16

8

26

13

18

9

44

22

The Table 11 shows that 96% of the respondents rated oral questioning and rubrics as the most effective formative assessment type, and 84% of the respondents rated PBA and observation as the most effective type. It also shows that 82% of the respondents rated student self-reflection as the most effective type of formative assessment while 44% of the respondents rated other types as most effective.

Research Question 5

Research question 5 focused on the relationship between the use of teachers’ formative assessment data to inform their classroom instruction and their self-efficacy. This was determined through the use of descriptive statistics by considering the respondents’ ratings of their use of formative assessments data to inform

the classroom instruction that leads to self-efficacy. The results indicated that respondents had high levels of perceived self-efficacy. Table 12. represents the mean scores, standard deviations, and percentage of participants reporting very little/some (scores of 2 or 4), quite a bit (score of 6), and a great deal (score of 8). In the areas of classroom management and behavior, the teachers’ mean scores were highest, at 7.20 and 7.30, respectively. Their mean score for assessment strategies and motivating students to do well was 6.90. The mean score in the area of motivating low interest students was 6.20. The lowest mean score, 5.30, was in the area of assisting families.

22

Table 12. Descriptive Teacher Efficacy Statistics Survey Questions

MeanStandard Deviation

Very little/some

Quite a bitA great

deal

1. Control disruptive behavior 7.20 1.30 6.40 27.80 65.80

2. Motivate low interest students 6.30 1.43 16.50 50.60 32.90

3. Motivate students to do well 6.90 1.22 6.30 41.80 51.90

4. Help Students value learning 6.60 1.36 12.70 44.30 43.00

5. Craft good questions 6.80 1.12 3.80 53.20 43.00

6. Follow classroom rules 7.20 1.13 3.80 34.20 62.00

7. Establish classroom management 7.30 1.05 2.50 29.10 68.40

8. Use a variety of assessment strategies 6.90 1.32 6.30 46.80 46.80

9. Provide alternative explanations 7.10 1.14 3.80 36.70 59.50

10. Assist families 5.30 1.91 46.80 30.40 22.80

The researcher also determined an overall mean sum self-efficacy score for the entire sample. This score was calculated by averaging each mean score recorded. The overall self-efficacy mean for this survey population was quite a bit at 7.35, but not a great deal (a score of eight or higher), this indicating that the participants had a moderate belief in their ability to affect student achievement.

The Spearman correlation coefficient and the Kruskal-Wallis test were performed to determine whether there was a relationship between formative assessment variables and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. Table 13. shows that the relationship between teacher efficacy and the formative assessment variables of types of assessments, assessment knowledge, perceived effectiveness of formative assessment was statistically significant: types of assessments (p = 0.02), assessment knowledge (p = 0.02), and perceived effectiveness of formative assessment (p = 0.02). The table 13 also shows that the relationship between years of teaching experience and self-efficacy was not statistically significant.

Table 13. Self-efficacy and Formative

Assessments Variable

rs p

Assessment Type 0.27 *0.02

Assessment Knowledge 0.27 *0.02

Effectiveness 0.25 *0.02

Years of Teaching Experience

0.21 0.06

Note. * p ≤ .05

23

SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Research Question 1

Research question 1 is concerned about how often teachers use formative assessments

More than two-thirds of the teachers reported that they used formative assessments on a daily & weekly basis. The types of mathematics assessments used varied, indicating that teachers’ formative assessment practices may be aligned with Black and Wiliam’s (1998b) categorization of formative assessment types as on-the-fly, planned for, and curriculum-embedded. Among the 5 types of mathematics formative assessments, oral questioning, an on-the-fly assessment, was used the most frequently. Over three quarters of the teachers reported its use on a daily basis. Almost the same percentage of the teachers reported that they never use student self-rating.

Research Question 2

Research question 2 focused on how often teachers changed their instructional strategies based on formative assessment data. Regardless of the technology available or the existence of a collaborative culture, if teachers do not examine data and make instructional decisions based on data, little benefit from any model of data-driven decision making will be fully realized (Boudette et al., 2005). The survey data indicated that over half of the teachers changed their instructional strategies on a weekly basis. As indicated by Heritage

(2007), there are four core elements of formative assessments: identifying the gap, providing feedback, involving students, and tracking learning progressions.

Research question 3

Research question 3 discussed whether the assessment knowledge of teachers have an effect on the teachers’ self-efficacy. Much of the literature about teacher assessment literacy indicates that teachers do not have sufficient knowledge to make an impact on student achievement outcomes (Mertler, 2003; Murnane et al., 2005; Plake, 1993; Warren & Nisbet, 2001). In this study, however, the majority of participants reported that their level of assessment knowledge was equal to that of other aspects of learning. Which means that the assessment knowledge of teachers affects the teachers’ self-efficacy

The teachers in this study reported that they are knowledgeable about assessment. Particularly, teachers must be assessment literate to support learning in their classroom (Bol, 2004; Bol et al., 2002; Lukin et al., 2004). Nearly 15% felt that their assessment knowledge was greater than that of other aspects of learning. There were no significant differences between the schools.

Teachers from all three school were at or slightly above the 70% level in reporting that their assessment knowledge was equal to that of other aspects of education.

A question focused on whether the variable educational qualification they possessed had an effect on teacher use of formative assessment to inform instruction. There

24

were no significant differences between respondents with diploma and bachelor’s degrees. Over 70% of respondents with either a diploma (n = 38) and bachelor’s degree (n = 12) indicated that their assessment knowledge is equal to their knowledge of other aspects of teaching and learning. None of the respondents held a Master’s degree.

The findings indicated a statistically significant relationship between knowledge gained from colleagues and the use of formative assessments to inform instruction. Tomlinson (2008) stated that the greatest power of assessment information is its capacity to help educators become better teachers. By working in professional learning communities (PLC), colleagues are able to discuss data, reflect on teaching practice, and refine strategies. Through these collaborative discussions, teachers collect the tools that they need to scaffold learning experiences for all children and, ultimately, to improve student progress. Arter (2001) also emphasized the importance of colleagues and assessment literacy by advocating for the use of assessment literacy learning teams that study and practice high-quality, student-involved classroom assessment.

Research question 4

The findings show that teachers perceived oral questioning and rubrics (96%, n = 48) to be the most effective types of formative assessments used in their classrooms. Observation (84%, n = 42), student self reflection (82%, n = 41), also were perceived to be quite effective in informing mathematics instruction.

Teachers perceived the “other” category (44%, n = 22), to be the least effective types of formative assessments used in the classroom. Research question 4 discussed the extent to which teachers believe that the formative assessments that they use are effective in raising mathematics achievement for their students. Most of the teachers surveyed felt that formative assessments are useful for raising mathematics achievement. These data are in keeping with those of researchers who found that the use of assessments to inform instruction had a positive impact on student achievement (Ayalla et al., 2008; Brunner et al., 2005; Fontana & Fernandes, 1994; Guskey, 2003; Vogel et al., 2006).

Research Question 5

Research question 5 focused on the relationship between teachers’ use of formative assessments to inform instruction and their self-efficacy. Firstly, researcher discussed the level of teacher efficacy in the study sample, which was determined through the use of descriptive statistics. The results indicated that respondents had high levels of perceived self-efficacy.

The researcher also determined an overall mean sum self-efficacy score for the entire sample. This score was calculated by averaging each mean score recorded. The overall self-efficacy mean for this survey population was quite a bit at 7.35, but not a great deal (a score of eight or higher). This indicates that the participants had a moderate belief in their ability to affect student achievement.

The Spearman correlation coefficient and the Kruskal-Wallis test were

25

performed to determine whether there was a relationship between formative assessment variables and teachers’ sense of self-efficacy. The result shows that the relationship between teacher efficacy and the formative assessment variables of types of assessments, assessment knowledge, perceived effectiveness of formative assessment was statistically significant for: types of assessments (p = 0.02), assessment knowledge (p = 0.02), and perceived effectiveness of formative assessment (p = 0.02). The table 13 also shows that the relationship between years of teaching experience and self-efficacy was not statistically significant.

Denton (2014), stated that the teacher use of assessment methods does not promote learning, and can have a negative effect on low-achieving students. As the main focus of the study was the relationship between the teacher use of formative assessment and teachers’ self-efficacy, the researcher did not specifically look at the impact of the students. Hence this can be an area to further study. None of the responses given by the teachers in this study depict that formative assessment hinders low-aching students’ performance. Contrasting Denton’s finding, Klappa (2015), view assessment as a series of events that provides continual insights and information to support learning and influence teaching practice. The study agreed to this as it reveals that all the respondents bring changes in re-teaching the information, changing instructional strategies and providing extra help. Bandura (2012), stated self-efficacy as a part of intrapersonal influence that input human functioning. Dissimilar to this,

the study found that, 94% of respondents acquired the assessment knowledge from their colleagues, which means the knowledge was gained by interacting with the colleagues, which is considered as interpersonal rather than intrapersonal. Bandura (2012), also stated that self-efficacy can be fostered through verbal persuasion that involves encouraging learners to determine success. Similar to this, the study revealed that 96% of the respondents communicate academic expectations with their students.

Implications of the Findings

To utilize assessment as a tool for learning, it is essential that teachers conceptualize the purpose of assessment in a more meaningful manner and use it to guide instruction. The results of this study indicate that the majority of the teachers reported using formative assessments on a frequent basis and felt that the use of formative assessment to inform instructional practice has a positive impact on student achievement in mathematics. The results of this study also indicated that the sources of teachers’ assessment knowledge were limited. The findings indicated that teachers frequently used formative assessments to make informed changes to classroom instruction and that they perceived these changes to be effective in raising mathematics achievement. Respondents were comfortable with their level of assessment knowledge and had high self-efficacy. Finally, their use of formative assessment to inform mathematics instruction in key stage 1 and 2 was statistically significant and positively related to teachers’ self-

26

efficacy in the area of assessment type, assessment knowledge, and effectiveness of assessments.

Recommendations for Further Research

Within the context of this study, the researcher considered assessment practices, assessment literacy, perceived assessment effectiveness, and the relationship between assessment practices and teacher self-efficacy in a sample of 50 teachers in 3 selected schools in Noonu Atoll. To move this research toward more practical applications, further research related to how assessment beliefs and the importance of assessment practices directly affect the selection and implementation of assessments within the classroom must be conducted with larger, randomized samples, across the schools in a variety of locations. Future research could examine the impact of professional development in assessment practices by comparing the teachers’ use of formative assessment practices prior to and after receiving the professional development. To address how teachers facilitate assessment for learning practices in their classroom, a study that compares achievement outcomes among students who monitor and self-assess their progress as a component of formative assessment with that of a group who does not self-assess their progress could be conducted. For this purpose a study that compares teachers’ beliefs about formative assessment, and observations during classroom instruction is necessary. A study design, utilizing not just survey measures, but focus groups and interviews as well, would provide the richer details that this

study could not. This study relied on the use of self-report data; hence it is subject to social desirability bias. The use of a convenience sample does not permit the results to be generalized

The results reflect teachers’ self-reports of assessment beliefs, practices, and self-efficacy. No data were gathered to validate whether self-reports were consistent with actual practice in the classrooms. In a self-administered survey, there is no opportunity to ask for clarification or conduct further exploration of a response, which leaves some responses either inaccurate due to a misunderstanding or the survey item’s failure to elicit an accurate response. Despite these limitations, in this study, a positive relationship was found between teachers’ self-efficacy and assessment type, assessment knowledge, and effectiveness of assessments.

CONCLUSION

Formative assessment practices can provide a mechanism to provide feedback about the effectiveness of instruction and student progress. The results of these assessments provide feedback to students and offer guidance to instructors in subsequent teaching and learning activities. The findings indicated that teachers had a high sense of self-efficacy, frequently used formative assessments to make informed instructional decisions, and were comfortable with their level of assessment knowledge but attributed this knowledge to one overwhelming source, their colleagues. The respondents’ use of formative assessment to inform mathematics instruction positively correlated with self-

27

efficacy in relationship to assessment type, assessment knowledge, and effectiveness assessments. The results of this study, however, show that there is still progress to be made. Promoting assessment literacy, while giving teachers the knowledge and tools that they need to effectively organize and analyze assessment data, will help all interested parties acquire the full benefit of assessments. Educational leaders must understand the relationship between the belief in the value of using formative assessments and teacher self-efficacy to enable the teachers to effectively select and implement assessments within the classroom. As teachers develop greater assessment literacy, and become even more confident in their ability to utilize assessments to inform instruction, their sense of self-efficacy will increase, so that they will believe, they can make a difference in their classroom, and once this is accomplished, the school and students, will gain enormous instructional and learning benefits.

REFERENCESArter, J. (2001). Learning teams for classroom

assessment literacy. NASSP Bulletin, 85(621), 53-66.

Ayalla, C., Shavelson, R., Ruiz-Primo, M., Brandon, P., Yin, Y., Furtak, E., & Young, D. (2008). From formal embedded assessments to reflective lessons: The development of formative assessment studies. Applied Measurement in Education, 21(4), 315-334.

Bandura A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited Journal of Management. 38: 9-44. DOI: 10.1177/0149206311410606

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139-148.

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.

Bol, L. (2004). Teachers’ assessment practices in a high-stakes testing environment. Teacher Education and Practice, 17(2), 162-181.

Bol, L., Ross, S., Nunnery, J., & Alberg, M. (2002). A comparison of teachers’ assessment practices in school restructuring models by year of implementation. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 7(4), 407-423

Borup, J., R. E. West, and R. Thomas. 2015. “The Impact of Text Versus Video Communication on Instructor Feedback in Blended Courses.” Educational Technology Research and Development 63 (2): 161–184.

Boudette, K., City, E., & Murnane, R. (2005). Data wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Boston, MA: Harvard Educational Publishing Group.

Brookhart, S., Moss, C., & Long, B. (2008, November). Formative assessment that empowers. Educational Leadership, 52-57.

Brunner, C., Fasca, C., Heinze, J., Honey, M., Light, D., Mandinach, E., & Wexler, D. (2005). Linking data and learning: The Grow Network Study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 214-267.

28

Carless, D. (2009). Trust, distrust and their impact on assessment reform. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(1), 79-89. doi:10.1080/02602930801895786

Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Crockett, M., Chen, C., Namikawa, T., & Zilimu, J. (2009). Exploring discourse-based assessment practice and its role in mathematics professional development. Professional Development in Education, 35(4), 677-680.

Denton, D. W. (2014). “Using Screen Capture Feedback to Improve Academic Performance.” TechTrends 58 (6): 51–56. doi:10.1007/s11528-014-0803-0.

Fontana, D., & Fernandes, M. (1994). Improvements in mathematics performance as a consequence of self-assessment in Portuguese primary school pupils. In P. Black & D. Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.

Guskey, T. (2003). How classroom assessments improve learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 6-12. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database.

Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-145.

Klappa, P. 2015. Innovative Pedagogies Series: Videos for Learning and Teaching. York: Higher Education Academy. Higher Education Academy website, https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/peter_klappa_final2.pdf.

Ladd, J., & Linderholm, T. (2008). A consequence of school grade labels: Preservice teachers’ interpretations and recall of children’s classroom behavior. Social Psychological Education, 11, 229-241.

Mertler, C. (2003). Patterns of response and non-response from teachers to traditional and web surveys. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 8(22). Retrieved from http://www.pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=22

Mohamadi, F. S., & Asadzadeh, H. (2012). Testing the Mediating Role of Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs in the Relationship between Sources of Efficacy Information and Students’ Achievement. Asia Pacific Educational Review, 13, 427-433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9203-8

Murnane, R., Sharkey, N., & Boudett, K. (2005). Using student-assessment results to improve instruction: Lessons from a workshop. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 269-280.

Olah, L., Lawrence, N., & Riggan, M. (2010). Learning to learn from benchmark assessment data: how teachers analyze results. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(2), 226-245.

Plake, B. (1993). Teacher assessment literacy: Teachers’ competencies in the educational assessment of students. Midwestern Educational Researcher, 6, 21-27.

Popham, W. (2009). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental? Theory into Practice, 48, 4-11.

Stiggins, R. (2008). Assessment manifesto: A call for the development of balanced assessment systems. Portland, OR: ETS Assessment Training Institute.

29

Tomlinson, C. A. (2008). Learning to love assessment. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 8-13.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume VII—Title 1 school choice and supplemental educational services: Final report. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/nclb-choice-ses-final/choice-ses-final.pdf

Voelkel, S., and L. V. Mello. 2014. “Audio Feedback – Better Feedback?” Bioscience Education 22 (1): 16–30. doi:10.11120/beej.2014.00022.

Vogel, L., Rau, W., Baker, P., & Ashby, D. (2006). Bringing assessment literacy to the local school: A decade of reform initiatives in Illinois. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 11(1), 39-55. doi:10.1207/s15327671espr1101_3

Vogler, K. (2008). Comparing the impact of accountability examinations on Mississippi and Tennessee social studies teachers’ instructional practices. Educational Assessment, 13(1), 1-32.

Warren, E., & Nisbet, S. (2001). How grades 1-7 teachers assess mathematics and how they use the assessment data. School Science and Mathematics, 101(7), 348-355.

Winterbottom, M., Brindley, S., Taber, K. S., Fisher, D., Finney, J., & Riga, F. (2008). Conceptions of assessment: Trainee teachers’ practice and values. Curriculum Journal, 19(3), 193-213.

Wyatt-Smith, C., Klenowski, V., & Gunn, S. (2010). The centrality of teachers’ judgment practice in assessment: A study of standards in moderation. Assessment in Education, 17(1), 59-75.

Wylie, C. (2008). Formative assessment examples of practice. Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2008/Formative_Assessment_Examples_2008.pdf

Yeh, S. (2006). High-stakes testing: Can rapid assessment reduce the pressure? Teachers College

30




INTRODUCTION

The opportunity for quality education

is a right ensured by the constitution of

the Maldives for every child to grow to

his/her full potential and be a successful

978-99915-0-842-9/02

MAINSTREAMING STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: A

SURVEY OF TEACHERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARDS INCLUSION

SHUHUDHA RIZWAN

National Institute of Education [email protected]

The adoption of inclusive education policies and procedures has been a trending paradigm shift all over the world including the Maldives during the recent years. However, teachers still have varying attitudes, anxieties, and misconceptions related to inclusivity and inclusion. The purpose of this study was to assess teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of students with disabilities in the mainstream classrooms in the Maldives. Inclusion is defined in this study as the process of educating students with disabilities in the same classroom with other students, making necessary adaptations to provide an appropriate education for all. The participants included a combination of special education teachers, primary teachers, secondary teachers and leading teachers from public schools across the country. The online “Inclusive Education Survey” form was sent to all the public schools in the country for teachers to fill it. 430 accurate responses were received and used for data analysis. The results indicate several discrepancies in teacher attitudes towards mainstreaming students with disabilities. More than 50% of the teachers are not ready to include children with mild to moderate disabilities in their classrooms. More than 2/3 of the teachers see mainstreaming as a disadvantage for both children with disabilities and other children. An ANOVA conducted to test the existence of any differences among groups of teachers and their attitudes based on their education levels, designations and years of experience indicated that there are no significant statistical differences. The acknowledgement of teacher attitudes towards mainstreaming children with disabilities indicate a rationale for policy formulation and teacher professional development in order to make teachers be more prepared in supporting and educating children with disabilities in their classrooms.

Keywords: Inclusive education, mainstreaming, children with disabilities, teachers’ attitudes

citizen. Since the formal introduction

of education for children with Special

Educational Needs (SEN) in the early

1980s, several efforts have been initiated

and there have been many developments

31

in the education system for including

children with disabilities. The “Inclusive

Education Policy” implemented in 2013,

the competency-based curriculum with

inclusivity as a main principle implemented

in 2015, the creation of a SEN Teachers’

job in every school across the nation and

training people for these jobs are some

of the significant developments that have

taken place during the past few years. All

this work is geared towards mainstreaming

children with disabilities which according

to Bhatnagar & Das (2014) is the trend

all over the world during the past three

decades. However, in order to establish

an inclusive education system a number

of factors need to be in place such

as careful thought and preparation,

proper attitudes, accommodations and

adaptations (Bhatnagar & Das, 2014).

According to MacFarlane & Woolfson

(2013) and deBoer, Pijl, & Minnaert

(2011), one of the most critical of these

factors for the successful implementation

of mainstreaming is the positive attitudes

or acceptance of inclusive education by

general education teachers. As the Ministry

of Education strives to mainstream

inclusive education across the country,

it is critical to know how positively is

inclusive education perceived by the

teachers in the system. Since there are no

formal evaluations or studies published

in the Maldives which might support

anecdotal findings with empirical data on

teachers’ attitudes towards mainstreaming,

this study is designed to explore teachers’

attitudes and to gain more knowledge

about the factors that may influence the

implementation of inclusive practices in a

school system. The results of the study can

be used as a guideline to enhance inclusive

education services in the Maldives.

Therefore the study focused on answering

the following research questions.

1. How ready are teachers in the education system to include children with disabilities in mainstream classrooms?

2. What are the teachers’ opinions about inclusion of students with disabilities in the mainstream classrooms?

3. Are there any differences in teachers attitudes based on their responsibilities in the schools, qualifications and years of experience?

METHOD

Participants

To collect data for the study, an online

survey instrument was sent to all the

public schools of the country together

with a cover email specifying directions,

asking for randomly selected 4 teachers to

fill the form. After eliminating responses

with errors and incomplete responses,

430 accurate responses were used for

data analysis. This included 60 Leading

Teachers, 22 SEN Teachers, 156 Secondary

Teachers, 173 Primary Teachers and

19 Preschool Teachers. Since the same

instructions was given to all the schools of

32

the country, responses came from all the 20 atolls indicating that the random sample was

representative to the teacher population across the country.

Instrument

A two-part survey instrument was employed to collect data for this study. Part one sought

general demographic information about the participants and part two involved the attitudes

towards inclusive education, which comprised of 18-statements with a five point Likert

scale of agreement (0 = strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). These statements were

adapted from the Scale of Teacher Attitudes Toward Inclusive Classrooms (STATIC),

which is a standardized and psychometrically sound instrument for measuring teachers’

attitudes towards inclusion (Martin, 2010). The statements addressed 4 different areas

that may affect teacher attitudes towards inclusion; (1) readiness, (2) inclusion as an

advantage, (3) inclusion as a disadvantage and (4) generic attitude towards the concept

of inclusion (see Table 1).

Table 1: Content of the Survey Instrument by Area of Attitude

Area 1: Readiness

Item No. Statement 1 Children with disabilities will benefit better if they are taught in special classes

with specially trained teachers

4 I can teach a child with a mild disability in my regular classroom

5 I can teach a child with a moderate disability in my regular classroom

6 I can teach a child with a profound disability in my regular classroom

15 I do not mind making special physical arrangements in my classroom, to meet the needs of a student with a disability

Area 2: Inclusion as an advantage

Item No. Statement 7 Students with special needs learn social skills that are modeled by regular

education students.

8 Students with disabilities can have higher academic achievements when included in the regular classrooms.

10 Self-esteem of children with disabilities is increased when included in the regular education classroom

12 Other students in the regular classroom can benefit a lot from a child with a disability in their class

Area 3: Inclusion as a disadvantage

Item No. Statement 9 It is difficult for children with disabilities to make progress academically in the

regular classrooms

33

11 Students with disabilities in the regular classrooms hinder the academic progress of other students

13 We are violating the rights of other children in the regular classroom by including children with disabilities in their classrooms

14 It is unfair on children with disabilities when they are included in the regular classrooms because it will always remind them how incapable they are.

Area 4: Generic attitude towards the concept of inclusion

Item No. Statement 2 Although children differ intellectually, physically, and psychologically, I believe

that all children can learn in most environments

3 I believe that children with disabilities also can learn and progress academically

16 The main challenge for including children with disabilities in the regular classroom is the lack of special resources needed to meet their needs

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

It is of no question of doubt based on

literature, that teachers’ attitudes toward

inclusion is critical in implementing the

challenging but essential goal of inclusive

education. Hence, results from the current

study will contribute to the knowledge base

that can unpack some trends and factors that

should be considered to promote positive

attitudes towards inclusive education.

Generic attitude towards the concept of

inclusion

Based on descriptive statistics, the

histogram analysis (see Figure 1) shows

that it is 64% of the teachers who confirm a

generic positive attitude towards inclusion.

Although it is only 6% (n=25) who have

bluntly said that they have a negative

attitude, the rest of the 30% of teachers

could not state that they agree with the

general concept of inclusion.

Figure 1: Descriptive statistics of generic attitude towards inclusion

This result was generated from a

combination of responses to the 3

statements under “Generic attitude towards

the concept of inclusion” in Table 1, where

teachers had to rate their level of agreement

for whether children with disabilities can

learn in most environments, whether they

can learn and progress academically and

whether it is special resources that is the

most necessary

34

Table 2: Descriptive statistics of generic attitude towards inclusion

A

ltho

ugh

chil

dren

dif

fer

inte

llec

tual

ly,

phy

sica

lly,

and

psy

chol

ogic

ally

, I

bel

ieve

that

all

chi

ldre

n ca

n le

arn

inm

ost e

nvir

onm

ents

I b

elie

ve th

at c

hild

ren

wit

h di

sabi

liti

es a

lso

can

lear

n an

d pr

ogre

ssac

adem

ical

ly

The

mai

n ch

alle

nge

for

incl

udin

g ch

ildr

en w

ith

disa

bili

ties

in th

e re

gula

r cl

assr

oom

is th

e la

ck o

f sp

ecia

l r

esou

rces

nee

ded

tom

eet t

heir

nee

ds

Level of agreement Frequency ValidPercent

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Valid 1 19 4 7 1.6 19 4.4

2 51 12 10 2.3 26 6.0

3 121 29 59 13.7 44 10.2

4 126 29 138 32.1 101 23.5

5 113 26 216 50.2 240 55.8

Total 430 100 430 100.0 430 100.0

Further analysis of how teachers have rated

the 3 critical statements revealed that 45%

or close to half of the teacher population do

not believe that children with differences

can have the ability to learn in different

environments. Also more seriously, 18%

of the teachers in this study do not believe

that a child with a disability can progress

academically, which means one in every

5 or 6 teachers in the Maldivian schools

have the same outlook. This indicates

the necessity for urgent but strategic

intervention activities to change these

attitudes as according to Cassady (2011)

when teachers have negative attitudes

towards inclusion and are unwilling to

have students with disabilities in their

classroom, there is the risk that they may

not provide the necessary learning support

for children.

Teacher readiness to include children with

disabilities in mainstream classrooms

The implementation of inclusive education

policies in schools can be of a major

challenge if the teaching staff are not

ready with the right mindset and attitude

towards those policies (Pasha, 2012).

Teachers’ readiness in attitude towards

including children with disabilities in

mainstream classrooms were tested in this

study through items 1, 4, 5, 6 and 15 in the

survey instrument as described in Table 1.

However, since this survey is applied on

the general education system, data was

analysed after eliminating item number 6

as this item is about including children with

profound disabilities and specialist training

and experience is most of the time required

to teach these children. Teacher readiness

was referred to and tested for the purpose

35

of this study through their level agreement

for the statements that asked whether

children with disabilities will better benefit

in segregated settings, whether they mind

in making special arrangements to meet

these children’s needs and whether they

can teach one child with mild to moderate

disability.

Figure 2: Descriptive statistics of teacher readiness to include children with disabilities in mainstream classrooms

Descriptive statistics based on histogram

analysis (see Figure 2) demonstrate that

it is just 63% of teachers who confirm

that they are ready to include these

children in their mainstream classes and

bring necessary accommodations. The

rest of the 37%, which is close to 1/3 of

whole population are not ready embrace

inclusivity. A further exploration into the

data on teacher readiness demonstrate

more deplorable results regarding where

these children must be placed. According

to the data, 67% (n=288) of the teachers

strongly believe and 15% (n=64) believe

that children with disabilities are better

off in a segregated setting with specialized

teachers (see Table 3). It is only 6% (n=25)

teachers who are against this view. This

is really an issue of great concern when

inclusivity is considered one of the main

principles of the National Curriculum.

Table 3: Descriptive statistics of teachers’ view regarding whether children will benefit better in special classes with specially trained teachers

Children with disabilities will benefit better if they are taught in special classes with speciallytrained teachers

Level of agreement Frequency Percentage

1 11 2.6

2 14 3.3

3 53 12.3

4 64 14.9

5 288 67.0

Total 430 100.0

Furthermore, the reality of any classroom

in the general education system is that there

is always the likelihood of having a child or

children with mild or moderate disabilities

(who may or may not be diagnosed) at

enrollment. However, when one out of

every 3 teachers is not ready to accept this

reality, the effectiveness of the teaching

strategies used in the classrooms need to

be questioned. According to Romi and

Leyser (2006) teachers who have positive

attitudes towards the inclusion of students

with disabilities in regular classrooms use

more effective instructional strategies than

those with negative attitudes. Ross-Hill

(2009) also argued that there is a positive

correlation between positive attitudes of

36

teachers and increased performance of

students with disabilities in the mainstream

classrooms due to the effectiveness of

teaching strategies employed.

Inclusion as an advantage or disadvantage

Inclusion is seen by some people as

an advantage while others see it as a

disadvantage. According to Dukmak

(2013) there have been several studies that

reports that regular classroom teachers

have negative attitudes towards inclusion

while other studies show more favorable

and positive attitudes. According to Florian

(2012), many general education teachers

in Scotland have the attitude that inclusion

interferes with effective education of other

students and hence they show resistance

towards inclusion of children with

disabilities in their classrooms.

In the current study the two dimensions,

whether inclusion is seen as an advantage

or as a disadvantage were looked at

separately. The statements 7, 8, 10 and

12 in the survey instrument were focused

on assessing whether teachers view

inclusion as an advantage by asking if

they believe if children with disabilities

learn social skills, enhance self-esteem

and academic skills through other children

and whether students in the classroom

without disabilities benefit from peers with

disabilities (see Table 1).

Figure 3: Descriptive statistics of teachers’ view towards inclusion as an advantage

Histogram analysis (see Figure 3)

demonstrates that it is only 46% of teachers

who see inclusion as an advantage. More

than ½ of the population cannot agree that

inclusion will facilitate the enhancement

of social skills, self-esteem and academic

skills for both children with disabilities

and without disabilities.

Teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive

education as a disadvantage were assessed

through statement number 9, 11, 13 and

14. These statements focused on finding

out if teachers see that inclusion hinders or

makes it difficult for children to perform

well and it violates other children’s rights.

The histogram analysis from Figure 4

demonstrate that only less than 30% of

the teachers would disagree with negative

statements stating the disadvantages

of inclusion. This explains that 2 out

of every 3 teachers view inclusion as a

disadvantage. However, this point of view

is not uncommon among teachers in other

37

countries too. A study by Zoniou-Sidri & Vlachou (2006) on Greek teachers’ attitudes

towards inclusion revealed that regular education teachers have a number of restrictive

and conflicting beliefs towards disability and inclusion. According to this study, although

the teachers believed that inclusion is necessary as a means of improving the quality

of education and reducing the marginalization of students with disabilities, segregated

education would provide the children with a more secure and protective environment for

them to learn and develop.

Figure 4: Descriptive statistics of teachers’ view towards inclusion as a disadvantage

Are there any differences in teachers’ attitudes based on their responsibilities in the schools,

qualifications and years of experience?

Since the survey was done on teachers with varying demographic characteristics, ANOVA

was conducted to test the existence of any differences among groups of teachers and their

attitudes based on education levels, designations and years of experience (see Table 4)

Table 4: Results of ANOVA for the independent variables

Generic PositiveAttitude

Sum

of

Squa

res

df

Mea

n Sq

uare

F Sig.

Highest QualificationBetween Groups 17.489 10 1.749 .752 .675Within Groups 974.671 419 2.326 Total 992.160 429

DesignationBetween Groups 24.100 10 2.410 1.740 .070Within Groups 580.328 419 1.385 Total 604.428 429

38

Experience

Between Groups 23.475 10 2.347 1.155 .320Within Groups 851.504 419 2.032

Total 874.979 429

Readiness

Highest QualificationBetween Groups 54.548 16 3.409 1.502 .095Within Groups 937.612 413 2.270 Total 992.160 429

DesignationBetween Groups 24.217 16 1.514 1.077 .375Within Groups 580.211 413 1.405 Total 604.428 429

Experience

Between Groups 37.273 16 2.330 1.148 .308

Within Groups 837.707 413 2.028

Total 874.979 429 Inclusion as an advantage

Highest Qualification

Between Groups 22.702 16 1.419 0.604 0.881

Within Groups 969.459 413 2.347 Total 992.16 429

Designation

Between Groups 35.975 16 2.248 1.634 0.057


Experience

Between Groups 29.085 16 1.818 0.888 0.584


Inclusion as a disadvantage

Highest Qualification

Between Groups 38.174 16 2.386 1.033 0.42


Designation

Between Groups 36.022 16 2.251 1.636 0.057


Experience

Between Groups 36.297 16 2.269 1.117 0.336


39

As demonstrated in the Table 4, there

are no significant statistical differences

in teachers’ attitudes based on their

education levels, designations and years of

experience. This demonstrates that school

teachers, though they are at different

levels of educational qualifications, with

differing number of years of experience

and have different responsibilities at

school, their attitudes towards inclusion

have no significant statistical differences.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was to assess

teachers’ attitudes towards inclusion of

children with disabilities in the mainstream

classrooms. Although most teachers in the

school system demonstrated generally

a positive attitude towards inclusion,

there is a significant number of teachers

who displayed serious levels of negative

attitudes towards the model. The most

serious issue found in the study was that

94% of teachers agreed or were neutral

with the idea that children with disabilities

will benefit most when taught in

segregated settings. This demonstrates that

almost the whole teacher population prefer

segregation over inclusion. Among other

concerning findings of the study include

one in every 5 or 6 teachers not believing

that children with disabilities have the

capability of academic progress and then a

large fraction of teachers see disadvantages

of inclusion very prominently while

not recognizing the numerous benefits

of inclusion for both children with and

without disabilities. These findings provide

valuable insights into the significance of

facilitating effective inclusive education

support programmes and policies that

promote changes in attitudes, beliefs,

values and habits (Wilkins & Nietfield,

2004). Although there are existing policies

in the system to promote inclusivity,

this study indicates the critical need for

incorporating continuing professional

development support direction for

mainstreaming children. Also it necessary

to re-evaluate both pre-service and in-

service teacher training programmes

in order to develop specific capacity in

teachers for them to effectively respond to

the needs of all students.

REFERENCESBhatnagar, N., & Das, A. (2014). Attitues

of Secondary School Teachers Towards Inclusive Education in New Delhi, India. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs, 255-263.

Cassady, J. M. (2011). Teachers’ Attitudes Toward the Inclusion of Students with Autism and Emotional Behavioral Disorder. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 01-23.

De Boer, A., Pijl, S.-J., & Minnaert. (2011). Regular primary school teachers’ attitudes towards inclusive education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 331-353.

40

Dukmak, S. J. (2013). Regular Classroom Teachers’ Attitudes towards Including Students with Disabilities in the Regular Classroom in the United Arab Emirates. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 9(1).

Florian, L. (2012). Preparing teachers to work in inclusive classrooms: key lessons for the professional development of teacher educators from Scotland’s Inclusive Practice Project. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(4), 275-285. Journal of Teacher Education,, 63(4), 275-285.

MacFarlane, K., & Woolfson. (2013). eacher attitudes and behavior toward the inclusion of children with social, emotional and behavioral difficulties in mainstream schools: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46-52.

Martin, G. (2010, February). Inclusive Classrooms: An Examination of the Attitudes and Perspectives of K-5 General Education Teachers. PhD Dissertation. Prescott Valley, Arizona: UMI Dissertation Publishing.

Pasha, S. (2012). Readiness of urban primary schools for inclusive education in Pakistan. Journal of Research and Reflections in Education, 113-128.

Romi, S., & Leyser, Y. (2006). Exploring inclusion preservice training needs: A study of variables associated with attitudes and self-efficacy beliefs. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 85-105.

Ross-Hill, R. (2009). Teacher attitude towards inclusion practices and special needs students. Journal of research in Special Needs education , 188-198.

Zoniou-Sidri, A., & Vlachou, A. (2006). Greek teachers’ belief systems about disability and inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 379-394.

41




978-99915-0-842-9/03

IMPLEMENTING PROBLEM-BASED-LEARNING IN PRIMARY

SCIENCE EDUCATION IN THE MALDIVES

FATHIMATH SHAFEEQA Institute of Research and Development

[email protected]

AMINATH SHIYAMA

Institute of Research and [email protected]

The science curriculum in Maldives envisions developing science process skills in the students through inquiry-based pedagogies to teaching that emphasizes on Problem-Based-Learning (PBL) approaches. This research aims to explore primary school teacher’s perceptions of the PBL approach and students’ reactions to such an approach to teaching science. The premise of the research is based on the authors’ development of Problem-Based-Learning Teachers’ Guides for Key-Stage 2 of the science curriculum. Following a case-study methodology, in this descriptive explorative research, we report on data collected from a classroom where a PBL lesson was implemented upon co-planning the lesson with the researchers. Classroom observations and interviews with the teacher and students were the main data collection methods. Findings indicate that teachers believe that PBL approach is ideal for teaching the science curriculum but seeks more training and support to develop their competence in implementing it. Further, students enjoy such an open-ended and collaborative learning atmosphere that is facilitated through the PBL approach to learning science. Additionally, school management and leadership’s support and valorization of this approach to teaching science is critical in ensuring its successful implementation in the schools. For these reasons we recommend various forms of collaboration between teachers, researchers, curriculum developers and school management that maintains on-going dialogue for research and practice. Rather than making this a policy imperative, contextual and grassroots measures are critical to bringing PBL approaches to mainstream science teaching.

Keywords: Problem-Based-Learning, science education, inquiry learning

INTRODUCTIONProblem-Based Learning (PBL) is

an instructional approach originally

developed in medical school programs

in 1960s. The success of this approach

to teaching and learning has led to

its adoption in school curriculum

42

and instructional approaches across

disciplines such as the natural

sciences and social sciences and

economics (Mong, 2013; Strobel &

van Barneveld, 2009). PBL approach

is a ‘learner-centered approach that

empowers learners to conduct research,

integrate theory and practice, and apply

knowledge and skills to develop a

viable solution to a defined problem’

(Savery, 2006 p.10).

Akçay (2009) propose that PBL is one

of the best exemplars of a constructivist-

based learning approach. In particular,

from a socio-constructivist paradigm it

has a dual emphasis on helping learners

develop strategies and construct

knowledge (Hmelo-Silver, 2004).

According to socio-constructivist

learning theories, learning is a

social and collaborative activity

(Vasconcelos, 2012) that is heavily

student-centered, focusing on skills

in communication and collaboration

(Etherington, 2011). In PBL, students

learn these skills by solving problems

and reflecting on their experiences. As

such, in these types of learning and the

associated strategies, students’ learning

is meaningful because the learning is

transferable (Akçay, 2009) and is based

on solving a real-life problem. At the

center of this approach to learning is the

recognition that the learning situation

(or the problem posed) activates prior

knowledge, which in turn facilitate new

learning through social interactions

such as collaboration. The process

of collaborative problem-solving

increases the probability that the

learner can recall and be able to apply

the new learning in different contexts

(Etherington, 2011).

In science education, PBL methods

are situated in the broad approaches

of constructivist oriented inquiry-

based learning (Barell, 2007; Barron &

Darling-Hammond, 2010; Vasconcelos,

2012) and has similarities to that of

project-based learning, discovery-

learning and case-based teaching

(Prince & Felder, 2006). However,

the key defining and unique feature of

PBL and how this approach to learning

distinguishes it from the other methods,

are the nature of the problem that is

used in the learning experience (Barron

& Darling-Hammond, 2010; Savery &

Duffy, 2001) Further, the PBL approach

is an interesting and fun way to learn

science because it involves the students

in solving an authentic, contextualized

real-life problem, that they can relate

to. The nature of the problem promotes

students’ engagement with the content

of science and promotes development

43

of the science process skills together

with general skills such as critical

thinking and abstract reasoning. PBL

is often used as a way for students to

develop experience in the process of

solving a problem, rather than simply

seeking a ‘correct’ solution. In teaching

science, such an approach reflects the

true nature of science as scientific facts

and knowledge has been built through

such a problem-based approach by the

scientific community. Thus, a PBL

environment emulates the workplace

and develops self-directed learners.

These kinds of learning environments is

preferable over learning environments

in which students watch, memorize

and regurgitates scientific content

knowledge without understanding

them.

The characteristics of the PBL approach

are in harmony with the learning

process advocated in the new National

Curriculum introduced in 2014 and is

a common pedagogical approach for

all the subject areas under it. As such,

the Maldivian science curriculum

articulates its aims as ‘developing

attitudes, skills, and knowledge

students need to develop inquiry,

problem-solving, and decision-making

abilities, to become lifelong learners;

and to maintain a sense of wonder about

the world around them’ (NIE, 2011

p.6). Akınoğlu and Tandoğan (2007)

argue that when such aims of science

education are examined, PBL approach

is seen quite fitting for realization

of these aims. In fact, many science

educators advocate for using PBL

approach in science education (Akçay,

2009; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, & Chinn,

2007; Keil, Haney, & Zoffel, 2009;

Peterson & Treagust, 1998; Savery &

Duffy, 2001). Thus, science teachers

need to be able to use this approach

competently in their classroom so that

they can provide a richer and fuller

science learning experience to their

students.

However, science teaching in most of

the primary grades in Maldives follows

traditional approaches that are passive

and heavily rely on rote-learning of

the content of science (Shareef, 2010).

Llewellyn (2005) observes that most

of the science teaching undertaken

in primary schools are not inquiry-

based, instead students are passive

receivers of the content-knowledge.

Such an approach defeats the whole

purpose of learning science, as it

ignores the nature of science and its

epistemological foundations. Further,

such traditional approaches of teaching

science do not cater for higher order

44

cognitive skills (Hackling, 2005;

Ronis, 2008). These ill-fit approaches

have resulted in broadening the gap

between the expectation of teachers

and the comprehension level of the

students (Kain, 2003; Sahin & Yorek,

2009). As a consequence, students

misinterpret scientific concepts and

poorly apply them in various contexts.

In fact, it has been reported that

Maldivian primary students though

are good at comprehending scientific

facts, they cannot apply their science

learning in varying contexts (UNICEF

& NIE, 2014).

Thus, it is time to revisit the teaching

and learning of science so as to

improve students’ comprehension and

application of the science-content.

To this end, it is also time to revisit

teacher professional development so

as to provide constructive support for

the teachers to be able to teach science

using more active-learning approaches

such as that of PBL. Often, teachers

are afraid of bringing in these changes

and bringing in critical thinking and

discussion into the classroom, so they

seek effective guidance and support in

implementing more accommodating

pedagogies such as PBL (Goodnough,

2003). Further we need to explore to

see the realities of classroom teaching

of science and provide the teachers

support and guidance in shifting

their pedagogical practices from

passive approaches to active-learning

approaches as that advocated in PBL.

This research sought to explore the

place of PBL approach to science

teaching from the perspectives of a

practicing science teacher in a primary

science classroom in the Maldives.

Such exploration provides researcher

in-depth and rich data on the contexts

in which such pedagogical innovations

and transformations takes place and

thereby provides us an understanding

of the implications of such changes

in pedagogical praxis (Loughran,

2003). Further, this research was also

conducted to inform the authors on the

development of curricular materials of

PBL teacher guides for Key Stage 2. To

achieve this broad objective, and from

a pragmatic approach, a qualitative

case-study approach was adopted in

this research.

Thus, the specific research questions

were: y How do science teachers modify

and enact the PBL instruction materials from the science curriculum, to suit their teaching and learning style?

y How do students respond to PBL based science lessons?

45

y What form of school-based support facilitate the implementation of PBL approach

to science teaching?

LITERATURE REVIEW

Principles of PBL and how it enhances students’ learning

The principles of PBL conceptualizes

the learning environment differently

than that in the traditional classroom.

These differences are briefly discussed

below:

The role of the problem

The problem is vital in this approach

to learning. Students first encounter the

problem and the learning takes place

in response to the development of the

solution(s) to the problem (Peterson &

Treagust, 1998). The problems are based

on real-life scenarios (Etherington,

2011; Hmelo-Silver, 2004), are ill-

structured (Akçay, 2009; Barrows,

1986; Peterson & Treagust, 1998),

complex and authentic (Barell, 2007;

Savery & Duffy, 2001) and provides

multiple perspectives (Dahlgren &

Öberg, 2001). As students engage in

collaborative problem-solving, the

problem gets further developed and

clarified, thereby making students

responsible for their own learning

as well as giving them ownership of

the problem itself (Savery & Duffy,

2001) and the solutions (Newman,

2005). Such active learning methods

are essential for generating questions

that lead to explorations (Dahlgren &

Öberg, 2001) of how science content

and science process skills interact,

thereby learning them in context.

The role of the teacher

The teacher’s role is in facilitating

and modeling the process of reasoning

(Hmelo-Silver, 2004), such as that

of reflective thinking skills that

would enhance the students’ learning

experience (Newman, 2005). According

to Akçay (2009) the teacher act as a

coach, a mentor, a guide and a facilitator.

Teachers are also required to plan and

design these real-world problems based

on the curricular outcomes, paying

attention to the learners’ needs and

interests. The problem created and the

resulting learning environment that the

teacher creates “provide students with

opportunities to engage in the scientific

practices of questioning, investigation,

and argumentation as well as learning

content in a relevant and motivating

context” (Hmelo-Silver, Duncan, &

Chinn, 2007, p.105).

Additionally, in PBL teacher has an

important role in scaffolding that is

provided to the students during the

46

learning process. Scaffolding guide

instruction thereby decreasing the

cognitive load on the students (Hmelo-

Silver et al., 2007). They argue that,

for this to happen, the teacher needs to

structure the tasks in ways that allow

the learner to focus on aspects of the

task that are relevant to the learning

goals.

The role of the students

Students develop self-directed learning

skills (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Newman,

2005) as they become active learners,

investigators and problem-solvers

(Akçay, 2009). Students are active

creators of knowledge and in this

process they construct a broad and

flexible knowledge base, develop

effective problem solving skills,

develop self-directed, lifelong learning

skills, become effective collaborators

and become motivated to learn (Hmelo-

Silver, 2004; Peterson & Treagust,

1998)

The role of thinking skills and social

interaction

In PBL, students participate in

complex, life-like learning situations

where they take initiatives in collecting

data, drawing conclusions, decision-

making and simulating the processes

of the world beyond their classrooms.

Through such activities, critical

thinking are encouraged (Akçay,

2009). Broader science-specific

skills such as of problem solving,

hypothesizing and investigating are

developed in conjunction with personal

skills and interpersonal skills, such as

self-directed learning and collaborative

teamwork, respectively. PBL in fact,

enhances the acquisition of the skills-

set referred to as 21st century skills

(Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2010;

Mong, 2013).

PBL is conducted within small groups

(5-10 students) so that within the

group a learning environment that

supports and promotes both cognitive

and metacognitive skills are developed

(Newman, 2005). Akçay (2009)

concludes that nature of the problem-

solving process requires the groups to

collaborate both within and between

groups engaging students in reflective

thinking on their peers’ and their own

problem solving.

The role of assessment

Newman (2005) contends that ideally assessment should drive learning and that there should be alignment between the goals of a PBL program and what is assessed, but in practice this may be difficult to achieve. However, using authentic assessment methods such

47

as using student-developed discussion criteria, journal writing, lab notebooks, self-rating scales, peer interviews, and conferences with teachers as formative assessment methods can achieve the goal of assessment (Akçay, 2009). The PBL method

The sequence of teaching and learning activities in the PBL method are; Define the problem, Explore the problem, Narrow down to possible solutions, and Test these solutions on its viability as potential solutions to the problem (Figure 1). Though there are wide array of this sequence of activities in PBL, we followed this version because when exploring a change in practices, it is always best to take

small incremental steps rather than a leap (Schweisfurth, 2015).

DEFINEWhat is the problem here?What are we trying to study?Try rephrasing the question so that it will be understood properly.

EXPLOREBrainstorm ideas that may contribute to a solution.Ask individuals to justify the ideas to the group. Clarify for them the science process skills in solving the problem.Have them rephrase the ideas. Listen carefully and guide the group by providing cues and ideas to the group.

NARROWLists down the possible solution/hypothessis.Sort them and rank them according to the priority the group members give to each solution.Give priority to the simplese and the easiest solutions in terms of find ing the necessary resources to arrice at the solution or solutions.

TESTTest the first 3-5 hypotheses or possible solutions that you have listed and ranked.If all your first 5 possible solutions are eliminates, begin the cycle again. When you come across information that confirm one of your hypothesis you may be asked to write a scientific explanation of your solution and justify it using the available evidence or information collected.

Figure 1: The PBL process

48

METHODTo most effectively explore the place of PBL approaches to teaching and learning of science, and to gain a deeper insight into classroom practice from the voice of teachers and students, a qualitative case study approach was adopted for this study. The definition by Creswell (2007) best captures the full-depth and breadth of the case-study concepts and descriptions we adopt in this research.

Case-study research is a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and reports) and reports a case description and case-based themes

(p.33).

Furthermore, this approach was appropriate for this study because, one of the aims of this study is also , to ‘understand the complex world of lived experience from the point of view of those who live it’ (Mertens, 2005, p.12). Yin (2003) advocates for such, case-study methods because it allows one to investigate ‘contemporary phenomena in real-life context especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident’ (p.13) without sacrificing ‘holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life

events’ (p. 2).

Under the case-study methodology, a holistic single case-study approach was used in this study in order to deeply understand the phenomena or the area of research interest (Yin, 2003). In particular, this research opted to use an instrumental case study approach (Frankel & Wallen, 2009; Silverman, 2013). In this approach to case study, the researcher’s goal is more global and less focused on the particular individual school being studied because they are more interested in drawing conclusions that apply beyond a particular case than they are in case-specific conclusions (Frankel & Wallen, 2009). This method seems fit our research aim because our goal was to explore the applicability of PBL approaches to the broad area of science education pedagogies practiced in Maldives by studying the practices from the angle of its implementation in a classroom. Furthermore, as this research reported here is a part of several research conducted by the author on this broad goal, this single research here is conducted to gain an in-depth context rich description of how PBL is practiced in a Maldivian

primary classroom.

Validity and reliabilityStrauss and Corbin (1990) explain that the usual canons of ‘good research’ require redefinition in order to fit the realities of qualitative research. As

49

such, Stenbacka (2001) puts forth the argument that since reliability issue concerns quantitative measurements, it has no relevance in qualitative research. She further states that reliability is an irrelevant matter in the judgment of quality of qualitative research. Hence in qualitative research reliability and validity is established as trustworthiness of the research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Tracy, 2010). Along these lines, Lincoln and Guba (1985) further explain that the pillars of trustworthiness in qualitative research are: credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability.

In this research we ensured credibility of our data by using direct quotes from the participants and thus bringing their voice to the reader. We encourage transferability of this research through explaining the context of the research in detail where applicable and through abstracting our findings into theory so that readers can either resonate with the contexts or relate to the theoretical implications of this research. We explain the research process in detail while being reflexive in how we made our decisions so that we are transparent and thus ensures dependability of our findings to the readers. Furthermore, we have shared these findings with the school and the participating teacher for member-check purposes and to confirm our findings based on the data.

Ethical considerationsWe accessed the school via NIE, Ministry of Education. We approached the school, shared our purposes of the research in seeking their voluntary participation in the research. As such informed consent from the school and the participating teacher and her students were sought prior to the undertaking of the research. At all points we ensured that all participants, the teacher and her students were in this research voluntarily. We shared the aims, methods and dissemination of the research both orally and via information-sheets. All the materials the teacher used was targeted towards the respective age group and all the materials utilized in this study were shared with all the stakeholders prior to the study. Sufficient time was provided for the management to select a volunteer teacher and class the school wanted to involve in this study. No sensitive information was collected, and for student interviews, only those who volunteered were interviewed. Though photographs and videos were taken as data, they are not used in any

dissemination of the research.

Data CollectionData for the study were gathered over the course of 8 weeks during May-June of 2015 in one of the schools in the greater Male’ region. For ethical purposes, we will refer to this school as

50

Vidha Schoo l. The researchers with support from National Institute of Education (NIE) organized the planning and implementation of the lesson in collaboration with the school management. The school management provided administrative support and based on our request sought a voluntary teacher to participate in this research. Thus Saleema2, a generalist primary teacher specializing in teaching science was appointed as our teacher participant. Saleema has been teaching at primary grades for over 18 years and was keen on contributing to the research and also trialing out the PBL approach to enhance her pedagogical praxis. She in turn sought informed consent and voluntary participation from one of her grade 4 class students of grade 4 (age 9-10 year-old) consisted of 30 students with a mix of boys and girls.

Due to the nature of the work associated in this research, that is, trialing out the curriculum materials in its design phase, data was collected in four different

stages and they are described below and summarized in Figure 2.

Figure 2: The research process

1, 2 Pseudonym

51

Stage 1

The aim of stage one was to comprehend the system of the teaching and learning context better with the assistance of the secondary and primary data to lay the foundation for the other stages. This involved searching for the objectives, assumptions, and expectations that have underpinned policy, curriculum development, teacher education, school management and teachers’ support for PBL in the Maldives. Documents referred were curriculum documents such as the science syllabuses related to the new curriculum. For example, the curricular documents of Pedagogy and Assessment Guide was studied in detail to match the PBL approaches to those that are advocated in the national curriculum. This was done to find the ideal and appropriate space for PBL in the new curriculum. This was documented and further verified by discussing this with the curriculum developers in the initial design of the PBL lesson and its associated resources. This was in turn modified for the implementation upon discussing it with Vidha School management. For the lesson materials see Shafeeqa and Shiyama, (2015) Problem Based Learning for Grade 4 - Teacher’s Guide.

Stage 2

The aim of this stage was to familiarize the school and the teachers involved

in the PBL approach so that the school would be informed about this approach to teaching science. Apart from explaining the school management about the PBL approach, this stage also involved orientating Saleema to the PBL approach. In the orientation we shared the PBL lesson materials which were developed as part of their PBL teachers’ guide. We stressed here that these materials were a guide, so she could modify them to fit to her pedagogical repertoire and students’ backgrounds and interest. Option was provided to speak in Divehi although the lesson was designed in English language. Modification of the curricular material and usage of language familiar to the teacher and students were factors that we were keen to explore because such contextualization was necessary in teacher’s uptake of any pedagogic innovation and change (Schweisfurth, 2013).

It was also given up to her to decide on a day and time in which she was comfortable to implement the lesson and she decided a Saturday afternoon, where she can request the students to come as an extra-science lesson that would be ideal for herself as well as the school management. This was seen agreeable as the lesson involved doing a beach-walk and doing so would be ideal on a Saturday afternoon.

52

Stage 3

The aim of this stage was to observe how the teacher and students were involved in the classroom implementation of this pedagogy. This paper predominantly focusses on the data from this stage.

We focused on classroom observations, pre-post interviews with Saleema and three of her students. Classroom observations was undertaken to explore how Saleema was adopting the curricular materials and the lesson resources to the needs of her classroom. Further the observations also focused on how students were engaging the resources, the lesson instructions and the associated activities. This involved observing every step of the lesson. Researchers used a wide variety of classroom-observation methods. In this case observation notes were recorded using common templates that described what observers were looking for. In particular, the researcher paid attention to how the PBL steps were implemented and how the teacher modified the pre-provided lesson materials to suit the class. Some observations were also video recorded and photographed.

Audio-recorded interviews with Saleema was done at the beginning of the class to identify how she had planned for the lesson. Another interview was done at the end of the lesson for Saleema to reflect on her

teaching and explore her future plans to use PBL approach in her teaching. Three students were selected on basis of voluntary participation. These were conducted at the end of the lesson to explore their reactions to a PBL lesson and how they experienced it. All these interviews were open-ended and kept informal with a key guiding question, which was the aim of the interview paraphrased.

Data Analysis

As this paper explores the data collected in the stage 3 discussed above, we will explain the data analysis procedures we used on the data obtained during this stage. This was classroom observation data in the form of videos, photographs and observation notes by the two researchers. The interview data was in the form of audio recordings.

The observation videos and photographs were cross-checked with both researcher’s observation notes and interesting features of the lesson were identified. These features were discussed with the members from NIE and the school management to identify their reactions and as a form of member-checking and researcher triangulation. The audio recording were transcribed and thematically analysed (Braun & Clarke, 2013). A key lens we used on the data was the research questions we had identified previously and in

53

the next section we report our findings based on these research questions.

FINDINGS & DISCUSSION

PBL is being promoted as a tool for teachers to explore the values systems underlying the key competences in the new national curriculum. Often the fear in introducing any pedagogic innovation is that teachers adopt the teaching strategy in form but not in substance (Di Biase, 2019). Such a superficial uptake of pedagogical innovation is often due to the lack of comprehension associated with the values and rationale behind the specific teaching approaches ,as well as poor support and guidance with the pedagogies being introduced (Di Biase, 2019; Schweisfurth, 2013). As such in this research we have explored the guided uptake of a PBL approach to teaching a primary science lesson and the associated students’ engagement and the school management factors that facilitate the PBL approach to teaching science.

How do science teachers modify and enact PBL instruction materials from the science curriculum, to suit their teaching and learning style?

A critical feature of the inquiry-based approach in active-learning pedagogies is the change in role of teacher from ‘custodian of knowledge’ to the facilitator of knowledge construction

by the students (Di Biase, 2019). For PBL this feature lays in the authenticity of the problem that is explored and on which the learning is centered on (Etherington, 2011). In this research the problem was pre-developed by the researchers, but teacher-input on its reliability to her students showed that students would be quite keen to learn about ghost crabs as they are familiar with these animals. The classroom resources too were pre-developed, but Saleema was given the choice to use any of them she preferred. She decided to use all the three activity sheets but condensed two of them into one activity. In her interview she expressed that she did that simply due to time constraints and she believed that students would be able to quickly complete these tasks. Such autonomy in teacher-decisions on using curricular materials are crucial in any pedagogic innovations because these are ways in which teacher adapt and adopt these innovations into their pedagogical repertoire (Schwartz & Sadler, 2007).

One of the interesting features we observed from Saleema’s teaching was her focus on managing the lesson time. Time management is a critical feature that teachers adhere to in their classroom teaching, however such administrative matters often subdues any opportunities for creative learning opportunities in the classroom. For

54

example, in the problem exploration stage students had several questions and suggestions to input, but all of them could not be entertained, because Saleema had fixed the discussion time to 10 minutes and had to move onto the next stage of moving the students out of the classroom and preparing them to walk to the beach. In the post-interview Saleema pointed out that she was focused on following the lesson plan and adhering to the time allocations because she feared that she may not be able to complete the lesson. This stress is likely to be on Saleema because we were present in the lesson, but this ‘completing the lesson’ is a common feature of teaching in the Maldivian classroom the content-focused nature of teaching.

In the post-interview Saleema pointed out her surprise in how the group work was managed well and that there were no discipline issues as she had expected. This contradicts Vasconcelos (2012) finding where most of the teachers in her study who implemented the PBL approach in the classroom experienced difficulty in managing the students’ discipline and group interactions. One possible reason for our finding could be because that these students in our research were there voluntarily and thus were keen to explore an innovative pedagogy.

Saleema expressed her professional learning in planning and implementing the PBL approach and reflected that this learning has been highly facilitated by the professional development support from the researchers. She pointed out that the close association with us in discussing the lesson, being able to modify the lesson and communicate her plans in its development stage was supportive in developing her confidence in the PBL approach. Although she has never used PBL in her science teaching, based on this experience she had developed a positive attitude towards using PBL in her science teaching. These positive attitudes are a result of supportive professional learning in implementing this pedagogical innovations and similar findings have been reported by Etherington, (2011; Strobel and van Barneveld, (2009); Vasconcelos, (2012).

How do students respond to PBL based science lessons?

Motivation to learning science

The students who were interviewed after the session stated that the PBL approach was very motivating because they were taken out of the classroom and they had firsthand experience of the subject they were studying. In particular, the problem used in the lesson, was perceived as motivating and exciting. In general, students

55

were positive about the problem used in PBL relating to ghost crabs. Similar findings have been reported by Etherington (2011) ; Hmelo-Silver, (2004) ; Vasconcelos, (2012), where they all reported on postive learning outcomes associated with high levels of motivation towards learning when PBL was used in the classroom.

In this study, the students indicated that, they enjoyed being able to apply their acquired knowledge from the field-observations into the initial problem. They expressed:

I think it is motivating in PBL because our group all participated, and we finished first [the problem/case] created an interest in the lesson at the beginning (Student A)

That is motivating to me, because we all were working together and also got new information regarding the ghost crabs (Student B)

The novelty of practicing science in its natural setting can also make science more fun and thereby a motivating factor for many students. Student C pointed:

It is motivating and it was fun… we got to go to the beach (Student C)

This reinforces the role of the problem in facilitating students’ learning in the PBL approach and the need to make it ‘real’ so that the learning is situated

in an authentic and real-life situation (Savery & Duffy, 2001).

Enhancing autonomy, team-working and problem-solving skills

PBL encourages student autonomy (Akçay, 2009; Etherington, 2011; Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007; Vasconcelos, 2012). Student-centered learning is enhanced where the students take charge of their learning trajectories. In this research the teacher stepped down from the traditional custodian of knowledge to provide the students with the space to learn by structuring and developing a learning environment built on inquiry. This developed students’ autonomy in learning and promoted learning at a pace that was comfortable to them (Vasconcelos, 2012). This was evident when different groups were at different points and directions in learning whenever the teacher asked them questions regarding their learning.

One of the skills that are developed in PBL is team work skills (Etherington, 2011; Savery & Duffy, 2001). From the classroom observations we noticed students’ positive attitudes and an overall excitement in working together groups. We also observed that there was a team-spirit and comradeship set-up in the groups. When one student re-explained the problem both in English and in Divehi it was clear that

56

the students had a collective learning attitude set-up. Student A expressed in the interview:

We spent a lot of time with each other, trying to do the resource sheets the teacher provided before the field trip. Though sometimes there were some differences in views and opinions, we never had big fight. We always tried to analyze the solutions and reach a consensus to choose the best one. At first, we were just like any other group. But as time goes by, we improved and performed better, and were more like a cooperative team. We shared with each other and worked with each other. From there, we learnt from each other. Though we are all of different backgrounds, we still worked together very well. My friends helped me when I did not know something. We were able to finish the work because all our team members helped each other. Luckily enough, I have other helpful teammates to help me to lead the team. From here, I learnt that I need to be more independent and be bold to make decisions, especially when I am leading a team. I am glad to be given the chance to be the leader. This definitely helps to boost my confidence to be a leader (Student A).

Comments such as these and our notes of classroom observation highlighted the powerful nature of these collaborative skills students were employing as

they attempted to solve the problem. Such positive students’ outcomes were reported by Duit and Treagust, (2003); Etherington, 2011;Keil et al., (2009); Mong, (2013); Vasconcelos, (2012).

What form of school-based support facilitate the implementation of PBL approach to science teaching?

Just as motivation of teachers and students are critical in the implementation of PBL approaches in the classroom, so is that of the school management such as grade leading teacher and the supervisors. When we first approached Vidha School with our research proposal and met with school principal and deputy principal in explaining our request for the research work, they immediately welcomed our research and connected us with the grade 4 leading teacher and gave her all autonomy in working with us and managing the school-based administrative matters regarding our research. Such an attitude of distributive leadership and providing autonomy facilitates agency among teachers, especially when it comes to teacher professional learning (Hallinger, Liu, & Piyaman, 2019). Further, participating in research related work also creates an atmosphere of flexibility that fosters learning-centered leadership and build trust on teacher professional learning that is non-restrictive but is about exploring

57

teachers’ strengths and professionalism (ibid). Another important feature of the school leadership was their attitude towards active learning both for their teachers and students. The leading teacher expressed her desire to be part of this work because for her it was going to be an interesting professional learning experience seeing a PBL lesson being implemented. Further as this PBL lesson was collectively planned this is an example of a case where shoots of collaborative practices could grow with exchange of ideas and sharing feedback on practice and improvements on the PBL lessons we were designing (King, 2012). Ultimately school leadership plays a key role in supporting and encouraging teachers to trial out and experiment with innovative pedagogies as part of their professional development and learning.

CONCLUSION

This study has showed us that school management and science teachers have a positive attitude towards learning new pedagogical approaches of teaching science such as that of PBL. PBL approach to teaching science is flexible, adaptable to the Maldivian classroom setting as well as into the teachers existing pedagogical repertoire. The students respond positively in PBL methods of instruction and engage more in learning. PBL approaches

provide a fun and enjoyable science learning experience to the students. Furthermore, as this PBL lesson was based on a fieldtrip to the beach and its success in engaging students in the learning process demonstrates the viability of using PBL approach to teaching environmental education integrated with science education (Vasconcelos, 2012).

However, in a recourse-limited context such as the Maldives, there are practical and systemic limitations to using this approach. Despite the resource limitations (Shiyama, 2013), large classroom populations, limited access to online databases inside the classroom, that are beyond the control of the teacher and the school management, teachers and schools are willing to try innovative methods of teaching and improvise within the available resources. Making use of time during the weekend, promoting out-side school learning opportunities and the open-mindedness to allow teachers to experiment on new methods that will benefit and enhance students learning, are some ways to mitigate these challenges. This goes to show that schools which capitalises on both time and resources on teacher professional development that focus on content specific pedagogy development of teachers are conducive platforms for teachers to learn and implement PBL.

58

Hence the authors strongly feel that an interactive online resource platform using viable social media would assist teachers in getting their queries answered while implementing this approach.

We conclude that though these results are only from a case study, a deeper large-scale study will illuminate more about teacher perceptions and thus ways in which teachers can be supported for the proper implementation of PBL. The implication from this study is that we can empirically say that there is promise in the findings of this research that PBL indeed does not only have a place in the formal curriculum, but in the enacted curriculum as well.

REFERENCES Akçay, B. (2009). Problem-based learning

in science education. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 6(1), 26–36.

Akınoğlu, O., & Tandoğan, R. Ö. (2007). The Effects of Problem-Based Active Learning in Science Education on Students’ Academic Achievement, Attitude and Concept Learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 71–81.

Barell, J. F. (2007). Problem-Based Learning: An Inquiry Approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Prospects and challenges for inquiry-based approaches to learning. In H. Dumont, D. Istance, & F. Benavides (Eds.), The Nature

of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice (Educationa). OECD Publishing.

Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20(6), 481–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.1986.tb01386.x

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners. London: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research design: Choosing among five appraoches. London, UK: Sage.

Dahlgren, M. A., & Öberg, G. (2001). Questioning to learn and learning to question: Structure and function of problem-based learning scenarios in environmental science education. Higher Education, 41(3), 263–282. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004138810465

Di Biase, R. (2019). Moving beyond the teacher-centred/learner-centred dichotomy: implementing a structured model of active learning in the Maldives. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 49(4), 565–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2018.1435261

Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690305016

Etherington, M. (2011). Investigative primary science: A problem-based learning approach. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(9), 36–57. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n9.2

Frankel, J. ., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

59

Goodnough, K. (2003). Issues in modified problem-based learning: A study in pre-service teacher education: In Proceedings of the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL: AERA.

Hackling, M. W. (2005). Working scientifically: Implementing and accessing open investigation work in science. A resources book for teachers of primary and secondary science. Western Australia.: Department of Education and Training.

Hallinger, P., Liu, S., & Piyaman, P. (2019). Does principal leadership make a difference in teacher professional learning ? A comparative study China and Thailand. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 7925, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1407237

Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EDPR.0000034022.16470.f3

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and Achievement in Problem-Based and Inquiry Learning: A Response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

Kain, D. . (2003). Problem-based leaning for teachers, grades 6-12. New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Keil, C., Haney, J., & Zoffel, J. (2009). Improvements in student achievement and science process skills using environmental health science problem-based learning curricula. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13(1), 1–18.

King, F. (2012). Developing and Sustaining Teachers’ Professional Learning: A Case Study of Collaborative Professional Development. PhD thesis, University of Lincoln, Nebraska, USA. Retrieved from http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/6805/

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. California: USA: Sage Publication Inc.

Llewellyn, D. (2005). Teaching high school science through inquiry: A case study approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press & NTA Press.

Loughran, J. (2003). Leading with a focus on science teaching and learning. In J. Wallace & J. Loughran (Eds.), Leadership and Professional Development in Science Education: New Possibilities for Enhancing Teacher Learning (pp. 237–243). London: RoutledgeFalmer. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203447864

Mertens, D. M. (2010). Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology: Integrating Diversity With Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methods. Sage.

Mong, C. (2013). Examining the Impact Of A Professional Development Course on Stem Teachers’ Acceptance of and Intent to Implement Problem- Based Learning. Purdue University. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Newman, M. J. (2005). Problem Based Learning: an introduction and overview of the key features of the approach. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 32(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.3138/jvme.32.1.12

NIE. (2011). Science in the National Curriculum. National Institute of Education, Ministry of Education, Maldives.

60

Peterson, R. F., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning to teach primary science through problem-based learning. Science Education, 82(2), 215–237.

Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: definitions, comparisions, and reserach bases. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00884.x

Ronis, D. L. (2008). Problem-based learning for math and science: Integrating inquiry and the Internet (2nd ed.). California: USA: Corwin Press.

Sahin, M., & Yorek, N. (2009). A comparison of problem-based learning and traditional lecture students’ expectations and course grades in an introductory physics classroom.

Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (2001). Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. CRLT Technical Report No. 16-01. Bloomington. https://doi.org/47405-1006

Schwartz, M. S., & Sadler, P. M. (2007). Empowerment in Science Curriculum Development: A microdevelopmental approach. International Journal of Science Education, 29(January 2015), 987–1017. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600931053

Schweisfurth, M. (2013). Learner-centred education in international perspective: Whose pedagogy for whose development? London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203817438

Schweisfurth, M. (2015). Learner-centred pedagogy: Towards a post-2015 agenda for teaching and learning. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.10.011

Shafeeqa, F., & Shiyama, A. (2015). Problem Based Learning for Grade 4 - Teacher’s Guide. Male’, Maldives: IUCN.

Shareef, M. (2010). Environmental education in the Maldives: The implementation of inquiry-based learning at the primary level. M.Ed. dissertation: Unitec Institute of Technology; New Zealand.

Shiyama, A. (2013). Teachers’ perceptions of the new primary science curriculum implementation in the Maldives: A case study. In Procedings of: Multidisciplinary Research 2016 Colombo, Sri Lanka 02-03 February 2016 (pp. 109–115).

Silverman, D. (2013). Doing Qualitative Research (4th ed.). London: Sage.

Stenbacka, C. (2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39(7), 551–556. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005801

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Strobel, J., & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL More Effective? A Meta-synthesis of Meta-analyses Comparing PBL to Conventional Classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1046

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality : Eight “ Big-Tent ” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121

UNICEF, & NIE. (2014). Longitudinal study on the impact of curriculum reform (2012-2013). Male’, Maldives.

61

Vasconcelos, C. (2012). Teaching Environmental Education through PBL: Evaluation of a Teaching Intervention Program. Research in Science Education, 42(2), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-010-9192-3

Yin, K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

62




978-99915-0-842-9/04

INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF KEY STAGE 1 CURRICULUM IN

MALDIVES: CHANGES AND CHALLENGES

AISHATH SHIBANA

[email protected]

ADHILA RUSHDHEE [email protected]

FATHIMATH NASEER [email protected]

National Institute of Education

The introduction of a new curriculum brings a significant educational change which requires more than an alteration of the curricula. It requires institutionalization of a new pattern of behaviour. Therefore, this paper investigates whether the new curriculum of Key Stage 1 has been institutionalized and integrated into the ordinary structure and procedure of the school setting in the Maldives.

It is a qualitative study consisting of 18 schools from two different atolls. The data collection includes classroom observation of the Key Stage 1, focus group interviews of teachers, SMT, parents and observations of extra-curricular activities, interval and assembly procedures.

The data was compared with 4 patterns of Micro-level implementation: (1) technological learning, (2) non- implementation, (3) cooptation and (4) mutual adaptation. This explores the interplay between the curriculum adaptation and the institutional setting in which the curriculum may adapt to the setting or the setting to the curriculum.

The findings showed that the schools are at the cooptation phase of the micro implementation level, where the curriculum is adapted to the setting but teachers do not alter their usual behaviour or practice.

The study also have identified ways to address these challenges and recommended professional development areas for the schools and NIE. It includes, conducting programs to reduce the differences between teachers’ beliefs and the vision of the proposed curriculum, defining learner and parental expectations, documenting best practices of assessment and classroom teaching and disseminating it among the teachers. Also attempts have to be made to upgrade teachers’ content knowledge which is found to be crucial.

Keywords: Curriculum changes, Challenges, Institutionalization, Curriculum implementation, Key Stage

63

INTRODUCTION

Curriculum implementation is a

process in which an officially endorsed

educational policy of activities that are

expected to happen in a school is put

into practice. Maldives began its staged

implementation of the new curriculum

in 2015 making schools and teachers

leave behind the traditional curriculum,

introducing a totally new educational

structure. The Maldives National

Curriculum reflects the contemporary

thinking skills needed for the students

to succeed in the 21st century, and

how schools can effectively help the

students achieve these desired goals.

It envisions a learner who is prepared for

life, hence emphasizes on inculcating

more on quality and skills rather than

content. Therefore, it is described in

terms of outcomes, characterized by

new concepts which were too much

for schools and teachers to digest.

Terms such as learning outcomes,

assessment, success criteria, key

competencies, principles and values

are all new concepts that teachers had

to experiment and experience with

the students. This led to a completely

new educational reform bringing with

it a lot of frustrations and criticism.

Therefore, it is of uttermost importance

to carry out a formative review of the

implementation across the key stages.

Background of the study

According to McLaughlin & Berman,

(1975) and Berman, (1978) the

implementation of curriculum starts

at macro level. In Maldives this is

in the mandate of National Institute

of Education (NIE). There are four

passages of Macro implementation

process namely administration,

adoption, micro-implementation and

technical validity.

Administration

Administration in this context is

referred as the translation of the

educational policy into the curriculum.

This is under the mandate of NIE.

With the help of UNICEF the NIE

then EDC developed a new curriculum

framework. Since then the process of

data collection and revision has started

off and was in full swing. In 2015 the

new curriculum was officially rolled

out to Key stage 1. NIE had the role

of developing and training the school

community for the changes that the

new curriculum calls for.

AdaptationBefore it was officially endorsed, it

went through a two year pilot phase. Six

64

schools from different regions of the

Maldives were selected for this phase.

The necessary training was provided

with follow up visits. The program

was revised many times to cater for

the normal school setting. During

these days, awareness programs were

conducted throughout the country on

the BIG PICTURE of the curriculum.

Schools started practicing the elements

of the big picture. According to TRC

reports, teachers were not ready to

accept the new curriculum (NIE, TRC

Anual report, 2013); moreover, they

took it as a burden.

Implementation

In the year 2014 training for

implementation of new curriculum

started through the cascade model.

Training of Trainers (TOTs), who

were supposed to work with TRC

coordinators were selected at regional

level. This training was followed by 6

days of intensive training program for

all the teachers in Key Stage 1 (NIE,

Curriculum Training for the TOT,

2014) . These teacher training programs

were conducted at regional level by the

TOTs, organized by TRC coordinators.

A need analysis was done at the end

of the training to identify the teacher’s

perception on the training and also

to find out the future training needs.

According to S.TRC, (2014) more than

70% of the teachers believed that the

workshop was conducted well, 80 % of

the teachers rated the syllabus as user

friendly while English, Dhivehi, Math

and PE showed a lower percentage of

70%. All the teachers agreed that they

are familiar with the new curriculum

while, 70% of the teachers agreed that

they are confident to teach the new

curriculum in the year 2015.

From January to April 2015, specific

training was conducted by TRC

coordinators and by schools as School

Based Professional Development

programs. Experiential period of 8

months were given to the schools and

a country wide analysis was conducted

out through class observation of Key

Stage 1 teachers. These observations

were carried out by special teams

organized by the TRC coordinators at

regional level.

Micro Implementation

The micro-implementation is referred to

the process whereby, a locally adopted

curriculum leads to an implemented

practice. Taylor (1988) believes that

micro-implementation implies the need

for local institutional changes and such

changes take effort and time. They

65

described the implementation process

as the interplay between the curriculum

adaptation and the institutional setting

in which the curriculum may adapt to the

setting or the setting to the curriculum.

They proposed four patterns of micro-

level implementation: (1) technological

learning, (2) non- implementation, (3)

cooptation and (4) mutual adaptation.

1) Technological Learning: in which participants adapt to the new technology but the technology is not adapted to the setting.

2) Non- implantation: in which new project practices are not implanted at all, or only implemented symbolically

3) Cooptation: in which the project is adapted to the setting but participants do not alter their usual behaviour or practice

4) Mutual adaptation: in which the innovative project and institutional setting adapt to each other.

Purpose of the Study

A key challenge for the schools

and education system as a whole in

a transition process of curriculum

implementation can be fully understood

based on how it is translated in a

school setting. The efforts schools go,

throughout the process of routinizing

a program into their existing structure

and procedures measures the

effectiveness of the program (Taylor,

1988)). The attitude of the school

community and how seriously they

take the ownership of the program will

bring positive results for the successful

implementation. When the program

becomes a high priority for the school

community, it would be more likely to

implement without significant change.

The receptiveness of the institutional

setting to the change is considered as a

positive factor for institutionalization,

while a hostile environment would

hinder this.

Therefore, this paper investigates

whether the new curriculum of Key

Stage 1 has institutionalized and

integrated into the ordinary structure

and procedure of school setting in

the Maldives. The study focus on the

following questions:

Q 1: Do the teachers have enough

Figure 1: Patterns of Micro-Level Implementation

66

technological knowledge to institutionalize the new curriculum?

Q 2: What are the key shifts that have taken place to engage and empower students in their learning?

Q3: What impact is being seen on student achievement as a result of shifts in schools and classroom practice?

Q 4: Have the school community accepted the new curriculum?

Q5: Which form of curriculum adaptation

is seen at the macro implementation level?

Significance of the study

The intent of this study is to add

to the growing knowledge base of

the institutionalization of change in

educational reform. The result will

assist schools to identify the changes

and challenges they face in the process

of curriculum implementation. The

fact that the parents and teachers

believe that the curriculum for the

key stage 1 is useful and appealing

for the students is a motivational

factor for the policy developers. The

recommendation can help the schools

to further plan their School Based

Professional Development Programs,

and bring necessary changes to their

daily school structure. Also it will pave

way for further studies to identify the

challenges teachers face in bringing the

necessary change.

This study included 9% of the schools

of Maldives; hence the findings cannot

be generalized. However, the study can

be expanded into an exploratory study

in future.

METHOD

This study employed case study as

the main methodology. It included 18

schools from two different atolls. It

used a qualitative design involving

classroom observations of all the

key stage 1 teachers and focus group

meeting with the parents of those

grades. A total number of 172 teachers

(classroom observations) and 209

parents were involved in this study.

Data was collected by a selected group

of people in each atoll, including

TRC coordinators and Curriculum

Ambassadors who have been trained as

TOTs and participated in the Key stage

1 training programs conducted for the

teachers in the year 2014. The field

visit team consists of TOTs who are

from different subject backgrounds and

were assigned a particular subject. In

every school one or two teachers were

observed from 6 different subject areas.

All the teachers from the who were

present on the day of field visits were

included in the classroom observations.

67

Focused group interview were carried

out for the parents. A total number

of 15 parents from each school were

randomly selected from Key stage 1 and

invited for the focus group meetings.

Interviews were semi structured and

lasted from 30–90 minutes. This semi

structured format offered researchers

the opportunity to follow up unique

aspects of practices at each school.

In-depth and reflective conversation

was carried out with SMT members.

Information from the SMT was used

only to validate the collected data. The

team spent two days in every school.

At the end of the field visit each observer

submitted a report for the assigned

subject based on their observations.

A template was used for guidance in

the analysis and writing of a narrative

account of each school’s visit report.

A template was used to record insights

from each school in relation to each of

the 4 research questions. The template

was designed to highlight both the

similarities and differences between

schools, and to show how the various

actions in each school contributed to

the whole.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Technological Knowledge of the Teachers

Chen, et al., (2006) defines technological

learning as the knowledge, technology

and information sources that enable

an institute to initiate technological

learning. It includes scientific

knowledge, technologic knowledge,

experiential knowledge, and know-

how. Scientific knowledge refers to

systematical-theoretical knowledge,

which is the infrastructure. Technologic

knowledge refers to knowledge that

is related to technology, that focuses

on the application of knowledge.

Experiential knowledge and know-

how are tacit knowledge derived from

practice.

Scientific knowledge: Teachers in the

Key stage 1 were trained for the new

curriculum. The Leading Teachers

received training on how to carry out

observations for the new curriculum.

According to the workshop analysis all

the teachers agreed that they were well

familiar with the curriculum while 70%

of the teachers agreed that they are

confident to teach the new curriculum

in the year 2015.

Technological knowledge: The lessons

68

plans developed by the teachers showed

that they have the necessary knowledge

to deliver the new curriculum. They

are aware of key elements and have in

the lesson plans as well. Teachers put

maximum effort to include activities

in the lessons, making it more student

centered.

Experiential knowledge and Know-how:

y A focus on effective Pedagogy: The classroom environment was found to be conducive for learning and appropriate for the age group in almost all the classes. Teachers were very caring and supportive and had a good rapport with the students. Key elements of the curriculum such as, learning intention, success criteria, and shared values were mentioned in the lesson plan and majority of the teachers displayed learning intention and success criteria in the classroom. However, learning intentions and activities were not focused to instill values and achieve key competencies addressed in the curriculum. Key competencies were not at all shared with the students nor included in the success criteria. Activity based lessons were observed in 70% of the classrooms and most of the lessons focused on collaborative and individual tasks for the

students. However, all the activities were focused on delivering and assessing the content, rather than skills and attitude. Activities did not encourage students to explore further learning and develop critical thinking. Process skills were not found at all. Linking of prior learning to new learning was poorly demonstrated in the lessons.

y Differentiation: Teachers attended to the needs of all the students in the classroom. Students were helped in developing the concepts taught based on individual needs. Students were also encouraged to ask questions by restating and

rephrasing whenever necessary.

Differentiated activities which catered to different learning abilities need to be included. Majority of the questions asked by teachers were structured to assess the comprehension of what has been transmitted and they were mostly closed. Questions of different cognitive levels and probing questions need to be

included.

y Reflective practices: it was observed that students worked in groups, collaborating with their peers and teachers. Students were found to have a sense of responsibility for the tasks assigned to them. Examples related to the content delivered

69

were given and hence some degree of meaningful learning was demonstrated in some classes. Time should be allocated to reflect more on what they have learnt.

y Assessment: Assessment for learning techniques was evident in some classes. Teachers have used variety of assessment tools to encourage group dynamics and also for self- assessment. Assessment tools were used to assess student’s understanding of the content taught. However, more focus need to be given to implement the use of success criteria for assessing students.

Teachers need intensive help in how to incorporate AFL tools to assess student learning, addressing all elements of the curriculum rather than content alone. A meaningful feedback for the students is necessary to improve learning. It is necessary to apply reward system as a part of behavior management and learner

accountability.

According to McLaughlin & Berman, (1975) technological learning is not simply becoming mastery of new knowledge, but requirs new role relationships and new ways of seeing oneself in relationship to others and to the job. He further explains that for a significant edcuational change, its important for the teachers

to be motivated to change their traditional behaviour. He identified three reasons how teachers might be willing to change. (1) complying with an order: they generally do so in a symbolic way that results in non-implementaion. (2) when behaviour is in their own self-interest; they will be willing to follow a plan if they receive incentives. (3) the value of the new practice leads people to devote themeselves; when teachers develop a sense of “owner-ship” about the proposed change.

The findings showed that the teachers have the generic knowledge of “know how” however, their practice is at surface elevel. This is in agreement with Hollins, (2011) who says that longterm and short term learning outcomes is achieved by a combination of learning experiences embeded within a particular perspective and personal stance. This belief is a deliberate process constructed when the belief is operationalised. The classroom observation showed transmition of knowledge which emphasis on drills and practices for comprehending a concept rather than engaging learner in active participation to construct knowledge, wherelse, the new curriculum emphasises on classroom practices that engages the learner in inquiry-based

70

learning through interpreting, analysing, reasoning and communicating. Therfore, it is clearly evident that though teachers have the necessry knowledge, they have challenges which prevents them from practicing them at their

optimum.

Key shifts and Changes

Classroom observation reports were

analyzed to see the impact of classroom

practice and this was compared to

the 5 pedagogical dimension of the

curriculum. Focus group interviews

were analyzed to see the student’s

engagement and involvement in their

learning.Creating a positive learning atmosphere:

y The classroom environment was found to be conducive for learning and appropriate for the age group in almost all the classes.

y Teachers were very caring and supportive and has a good rapport with the students.

y Activity based lessons were seen.

y Collaborative and individual tasks

were evident in almost all the lessons.

Making learning meaningful

y It was found that teachers develop

lessons with activities that promote active learning.

y Students were found to sit in groups and collaborative work are carried to a certain extent. However, group protocols were missing and assessment and feedback for the tasks were not evident.

y Students were assigned classroom jobs and were found to have a sense of responsibility for the tasks assigned to them.

y Examples related to the content delivered were given and hence some degree of meaningful learning was

demonstrated in some classes.

Catering for individual differences

y Teachers were found to attend all the students in the classroom. The students were helped in developing the concepts taught by focusing on the individual level.

y Students are also exposed to ask questions by restating and rephrasing whenever necessary.

y Individual learning goals and different level of learning material,

activities were missing.

Reflective practices

y Key elements of the curriculum like, learning intention, success criteria, and shared values are mentioned in the lesson plan.

y Some self-assessment tools and peer assessment strategies were seen in

71

the classroom.

y Random questions at the end of the lesson were seen as the main form of reflective practice seen.

y Connecting prior learning to new learning

y Majority of the teachers displayed or shared Learning Intention & Success criteria before the lesson starts.

y Assessment for learning techniques were used to a certain amount to check prior learning.

School Management, teachers and

parents agreed that they see many

positive changes in children

The main themes identified from the

focused group interviews were:

More engagement in learning activities and fieldtrips: Students have an active role in learning. Fieldtrips have increased as well as hands-on activities. A wide range of achievements and important days are celebrated. The students have roles in most of these celebrations. Parents have observed that students are more eager to find why things happen, rather than writing or reading books.

Cultural awareness: Students are more aware of their tradition and culture. They talk about past events, traditional food and clothing.

Attendance: Students attendance became much better compared to early days. Students are more excited

to come to schools and it was noted that they look forward to the day’s activities.

Responsible: students are found to be more responsible in the class as well at home. According to the parents, students take responsibility of their own learning and complete their homework without a reminder. In the classroom, they have scheduled class jobs, such as line leader, class mechanic, interval leader, teacher assistant etc. these jobs makes them more responsible and important.

Healthy intervals: Most of the students bring healthy food and it was encouraged in all the schools except very few. Students enjoy the interval time and discipline was maintained in all the schools.

Extra activities: Equal importance is given to extra-curricular activities as to academics. There are class level events as well as age level events. Therefore all the students are given opportunity to participate and excel.

Creativity: Most of the parents have observed a positive change in student’s creativity and Creative Art became one of the student’s favorite subjects of the students.

Tuition: Almost all agreed that children know the content and tasks well and do not require tuition. However, they send their children to tuition, to make them occupied or make them do better.

72

These evidence showed that there is

definitely a better positive learning

environment which is more appealing

for the learners. Infrastructural

changes which resulted in better

classrooms, better facilities, and

leaning environments are evident.

However, there is limitation in

adapting the other four pedagogical

dimensions; Connecting prior learning

to new learning catering individual

differences, making learning

meaningful and reflective practices.

McLaug (Palthe, 2014)hlin & Berman,

(1975) believes that the resources

spent on planning has little effect on

project outcomes, however, the nature

of planning process have major effects.

The stage during which the reform is

implemented involves considerable

conflicts as different groups try to

ensure their interests are addressed.

He mentions that the implementation

is a trial process where everyone tries

to adjust to the reform and finally

when the reform becomes part of

every day procedure, it will be called

as internalization or intitutionalisation.

Therefore, it can be ruled out that it

is too quick to look for a contextual

change.

The focused group interviews

showed that there was a positive

outcome since the introduction of the

new curriculum. It mainly showed

structural changes than contextual

changes. This included modification

of ongoing activities, adoption of new

procedures, introducing new concepts

and modification of teaching strategies.

The structual changes showed that

the schools are trying to adopt to the

new curriculum and the reform has

begun. From the rational perspective,

a program is institutionalised when the

members in the institution starts valuing

the project and they develop a culture

based on a common understanding

and an individual comes to accept the

shared definition of reality (Palthe,

2014). He states that this process is

highly influenced by expectations and

norms. He suggests that the impact of

this dissatisfaction with the existing

methods and systems on change

is controlled by the organization’s

capacity for change, and the level of

resistance to the change.

The literatures show the importance of

listening to teachers’ voice, challenges,

and capacity which controls the

changes.

Acceptance of the new curriculum

Teachers: Teachers believe that the new curriculum is a good policy

73

which caters to the need of the society. It provides a lot of opportunities for the students to explore and experience things rather than learning from books. It focuses on values and key competencies which are important for a good community. It highlights a wide range of positive behaviour and achievements and caters for different learning abilities.

Parents: Parents believe that a lot of good things are happening along with the new curriculum. Though they observe less work in exercise books, most of the parents find that their kids are more active in the class and are able to talk about their learning at home. The parents mentioned that the new text books look interesting and colorful; however, they believe that the knowledge given in the text books are not enough.

Most of the parents are not well aware of what key competencies are, but they think that it is an important component to be included in the curriculum. They are not happy with the way assessment is proceeding nor are they happy with the reporting procedure. They believe that a better communication system between teachers and parents is important. Most of the parents complained for the fact that their role has been smaller in their students learning as students have no homework and no unit tests.

The stakeholders’ views on the

implementation of the curriculum are an important factor for the institutionalization of the curriculum. As McLaughlin & Berman, (1975) mention that the project participants’ morale and support are necessary in order to make the project successful. This is agreed by Colbeck, (2002) saying that when the stakeholders encourage the establishment of a norm for a change, the teachers are more likely to take risks without feeling deviant. Therefore the view of the stakeholders on the new curriculum is positive. The schools need to be more cooperative with the teachers and parents and involve them in school activities. Adaptive planning, staff training, development of teaching and learning material and the establishment of community involvement are key elements of an implementation strategy that promotes mutual adaptation.

CONCLUSION

The findings showed that the teachers

are familiar with the new curriculum

and have the technological knowledge

of the curriculum. Some of the concepts

are incorporated into the lesson

planning and structure of the school.

A structural change is evident while

a contextual change is inadequate.

The community is happy with the

74

curriculum, however agreed that there

are a number of challenges which

need to be addressed. Based on the 4

patterns of macro implementation, the

results fall into the cooptation phase;

which means the curriculum is adapted

to the normal setting of the school, but

teachers do not alter their classroom

behaviour. Although teaching is more

activity based, the focus is on the

delivery of content than the skills and

attitude.

The study also have identified ways

to address these challenges and

recommends professional development

areas for the schools and NIE. It

includes, conducting programs to

reduce the differences between parents

/ teachers’ beliefs and the vision of the

proposed curriculum, defining learner

and parental expectations, documenting

best practices of assessment and

classroom teaching and disseminating

it among the teachers. Also attempts

have to be made to upgrade teachers’

content knowledge which is found to

be crucial.

REFERENCES

Berman, P. (1978). The study of macro and micro-implementation: Public policy. Springs, 26(2), 157-184.

Center, S. R. (2014). TRC anual Report. Addu City: unpublished.

Chen, J., Pu, X., & Shen, H. (2006). A comprehensive Model of Technological Learning: Empirical Research on Chinese Manufacturing Sector. Zhejiang University.

Colbeck, C. L. (2002). ASSESSING INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF CURRICULAR AND PEDAGOGICAL REFORMS. Research in Higher Education, 43(4).

Hollins, E. R. (2011). Teacher Preparation For Quality Teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), 395- 407.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Berman, P. (1975). Macro and Micro Implentation. California: The Rand Corporation.

NIE. (2013). TRC Anual report. Male.

NIE. (2014). Curriculum Training for the TOT. Male.

Palthe, J. (2014). Regulative, Normative, and Cognitive Elements of Organizations: Implications for Managing Change . Management and Organizational Studies , 1(2).

Taylor, C. (1988). The Evaluation of Curriculum Implementation in schools with special reference to gifted education. Human services research council.

75




INTRODUCTION

Assessment and evaluation are essential

components in the practice of teaching

and learning. Among the many forms of

Assessment, Assessment for learning,

also known as Formative Assessment

has been gaining much attention due

978-99915-0-842-9/05

Exploring the Issues to Practice Effective Formative Assessments in

a Maldivian Education Contexts

KHADHEEJA MOHAMED SAMEERThe Maldives National University

[email protected]

Despite the number of top achievers in Maldivian secondary school terminal examinations, the number of students failing in all the subjects after years of formal education is rather disheartening. In 2011, 16% of students did not pass a single subject, indicating the persistence of issues (Shiuna & Sodiq, 2013). It can be presumed that disregard for formative assessment, is to some extent, the underlying reason. Focus on summative assessments has led many educational institutes to disregard the benefits of formative assessment. Sadler (1998) argues that this could be detrimental, especially to the low ability learners, as marks and grades simply cannot provide the formative effectiveness of customised feedback. This paper explores the issues to practice formative assessment in a Maldivian education context. The study uses a case-study design to collect information from students, teachers and the school management, about the issues faced regarding the subject. The study explains that students faced issues due to their disregard for formative assessment, language barriers, lack of co-operation amongst students, and students’ integrity. Moreover, teacher-level factors such as pressure to complete the syllabus, teacher burnout, and even their nationality, were found to be barriers. The management faced issues due to the inflexibility of the syllabus, and pressure from parents. Also, the exam-oriented culture in our society was raised as an outstanding issue. Therefore, stakeholders must find ways to overcome these issues that restrict the effective practice of formative assessment. Only then, can the learning experience be fruitful, holistic, and more meaningful for all the students.

Keywords: Formative assessment, summative assessment, feedback, evaluation.

to its benefits for students. If used

effectively, this method of assessment

is believed to enhance student learning

holistically.

For almost longer than a decade,

Maldivian secondary schools have

76

been preparing students for the

Cambridge IGCSE and GCE ordinary

examinations. However, despite years

of preparing for the same syllabus,

the achievement of the students is

rather concerning. Shiuna and Sodiq

(2013) found that only 27% students

achieve a pass in five or more subjects

in 2008, even though there had been

improvements in the pass rates since

2008 till 2011. It was also found that

16% of students did not pass in a

single subject in 2011, despite an 8%

improvement since 2008 (Shiuna &

Sodiq, 2013).

As a significant number of students

nationwide are underperforming, it is

surmised that the types of assessments

and how they are conducted are, to

some extent, responsible for this.

Because schools are more focused

on the marks and grades of terminal

examinations, the benefits of ongoing

assessment and feedback are often

disregarded. Sadler (1998) claims that

marks and grades would not provide

the formative effectiveness as tailored

comments. It could even prove to be

counterproductive for learners of low

ability (Sadler, 1998).

Therefore, this study was to explore the

issues to the best practice of Formative

Assessment in a Maldivian education

institution. The findings of the study

shall assist the related authorities to

find solutions to the issues.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Assessment, in the educational

context, is for supporting the learning

of students (Black & Wiliam, 2012).

Therefore, any assessment conducted

during or after a lesson must be aimed

to improve the students’ knowledge

and skills. One very efficacious method

of assessment is Formative Assessment

– a type of assessment that values the

role of feedback in learning (Andrade

& Valtcheva, 2009).

Feedback on learning holds much

significance in Formative Assessment.

There is much research to support

the fact that feedback promotes the

learning and achievement of students,

thereby, making Formative Assessment

a crucial component of classroom

teaching. The feedback given as

Formative Assessment can help the

learners to identify the gaps in their

learning and their desired goals, as

well as help them to formulate plans to

take the necessary actions to reach their

goals (Sadler as cited in Boston, 2002).

Furthermore, conducting Formative

77

Assessments can help teachers to adapt

the classroom teaching and learning

to meet student needs more efficiently

(Boston, 2002).

Among the different types of Formative

Assessment includes Assessment

As Learning, or in other words, self-

assessment – a widely used form of

assessment in which “students reflect

on the quality of their work, judge the

degree to which it reflects explicitly

stated goals or criteria, and revise

accordingly” (Andrade & Valtcheva,

2009, p.13). According to Schunk (as

cited in Andrade & Valtcheva, 2009),

the purpose of Self-assessment is to

promote self-regulation and improve

students’ ability to monitor and manage

their learning. It emphasises on students

to set goals and develop plans to meet

the goals and track their progress.

The benefits of self-assessment are

highly regarded by many educational

researchers. Schunk (2003) believes

that self-assessment is a core element in

self-regulation as it makes the student

aware of the task objectives and checks

their progress towards it. He further

states that it can lead to better self-

regulation and achievement (Schunk,

2003). Overall, the idea of Formative

Assessment is based on the primary

belief that all students can learn to high

levels and “lessens the cycle in which

students attribute poor performance to

lack of ability” (Boston, 2002, p.2).

Hence, self-assessments, when practice

efficiently, can result in higher levels of

motivation in students.

Although there are a number of

researches advocating formative

approaches in teaching and learning,

there are limitations when putting

theory into practice. The most

evident reason for educators to

neglect formative assessments is the

pressure on educational institutes

due to league table competitions.

Schools often depend on summative

tests due to their high visibility as a

means to hold teachers accountable

for their students’ achievements

(Organization for Economic Co-

operation and Development [OECD],

2005). According the Center for

Educational Research and Innovation

(CERI), schools are pressured to meet

student achievement standards that

are often decided based on national or

international summative assessments

(2008). Therefore, the extreme priority

given to summative assessments has

led to the shift in classroom teaching

objectives, resulting in more focus

78

on preparing students for such tests,

and therefore less regard to formative

assessments (CERI, 2008).

The lack of school-level policies to

support formative assessments in

classroom teaching is also a factor that

limits its practice. CERI (2008) found

that the lack of importance given by

the school management to formative

assessment during formulation and

enactment of school policies could have

resulted in the significantly less regard

to conducting formative assessments in

classroom teaching.

Moreover, there are reservations to

conduct formative assessments based

on the belief that it unpractical due

to constraint in time and resources.

Formative assessments are considered

unfeasible by teachers, given the

extensive curriculum that needs to be

delivered (CERI, 2008). Furthermore,

due to large class sizes and limited

class hours, teachers are compelled to

only preparing students for summative

assessments (CERI, 2008).

One of the fundamental factors that

inhibit students from self-assessment

is their lack of awareness of lesson

objectives. Black and William (2012)

claim that students can only assess

Figure 1. The conceptual framework of barriers to forma-tive assessment.

their performance on the condition that

they have a clear image of what they

are expected to achieve because of

learning. Unfortunately, many students

are left to believe classroom teaching

is a random allocation of tasks with

no predefined rationale, and assuming

assessment to be a trivial part of their

education (Black & William, 2012).

Illustrated in Figure 1 is the conceptual

framework that would base the

study. The main concepts that govern

formative assessment, according to

the literature reviewed, is feedback

and self-assessment. It is believed that

the issues to the effective practice of

79

these aspects of formative assessment

can be categorised into three concepts;

namely, school level, teacher level and

student level.

Research Question

What are the issues to practice effective

formative assessments in a Maldivian

education context?

METHOD

A qualitative research method was

used in the study to help focus on

the naturally emerging context of the

study (Berg, 2001; Cohen, Manion

& Morrison, 2011). A case study is

“holistic”, “empirical”, “interpretive”

and “emphatic” (as cited in Yazan,

2015, p.139). Thus, a case study

design was used for this study as the

research question requires an in-depth

understanding of the issues that are

faced by individual participants of

the study (Fraenkel, Wallen & Hyun,

2012).

The sample for the study was taken from

a Maldivian Secondary School located

in the capital city. This is to ensure that

the school selected would have a fewer

disadvantage regarding resources such

as allocation of teachers.

To ensure a similar pattern from the data

collected for the study and for validity

and reliability, data triangulation

was used to collect information from

different perspectives (Flick, 2009).

Therefore, students, subject teachers,

as well as the grade leading teacher

was interviewed for the study.

The students were selected based

on convenience. The focus group

consisted of two students of average

performance and two below-average

performers in academics from 9th

standard. This was a particularly

typical case and hence, would allow

transferability of the data (Flick,

2009). The sample size for student-

focus-group was kept small, as Bryman

(2012) believes that large group size

does not necessarily guarantee deeper

stimulation of discussion. Moreover,

Morgan (as cited in Bryman, 2012)

recommends a smaller group size for

more participants to contribute to the

discussion.

The sample of teachers is different

from that of the students because their

methods, believes, knowledge and

experience would vary due to their

different subject backgrounds. In

such a case, Borg and Gall (as cited in

Cohen et al., 2011) stress expanding the

sample size as the number of variables

80

is more. Therefore, four teachers who

taught International General Certificate

of Secondary Education (IGCSE)

subjects, as well as two teachers of

Secondary School Certificate (SSC)

subjects were selected.

The leading teacher for the grade was

also be interviewed in the study. The

leading teacher’s interview was one-to-

one because there was only one leading

teacher allocated by the school for the

grade.

Focus group interviews would help

generate discussions amongst the

participants, which would thereby

result in the rise of “conscious,

semiconscious and unconscious

psychological and socio-cultural

characteristics and processes” among

various groups (Basch as cited in

Berg, 2001, p.111). Furthermore,

this method of data collection would

allow access to the essential content of

verbally expressed views, their beliefs

and experiences of the participants,

as well as their attitudes in a one-shot

collection (Berg, 2001).

A semi-structured interview was

used as an instrument to generate

information from all the participants.

Semi-structured interviews do not have

set questions or answers anticipated

(Takona, 2002). Instead, it has a fixed

topic towards which the questions

are directed, and it can allow the

participants to discuss the questions

and elaborate (Takona, 2002).

The data collection was conducted

between October 15, 2015, and

November 1, 2015. The interviews

took approximately 40 minutes. The

audio recordings of the interviews were

saved as a confidential file until the end

of the study and were destroyed after

the report was finalised.

Transcription process was from

October 16, 2015, after the first focus

group discussion, until November 5,

2015. The transcripts, once prepared,

were reviewed twice after listening to

the audio recordings, to improve the

accuracy and dependability of the data.

Qualitative analysis is one that demands

the researcher to submerge into the

thick data collected. Moreover, it is a

continuous back-and-forth process of

data collecting and analyzing. The data

analysis process was conducted as six

steps prescribed by Creswell (2012)

that including steps to prepare the data

for analysis and steps to follow in the

analysis process as well.

81

RESULTS

Four major themes emerged from the

study. The results of the study implied

that the issues in conducting formative

assessment efficiently in the Maldivian

institute could be categorized as Student

Level Factors, Teacher Level Factors,

School Level factors, and Community

Level Factors. Although the themes

are discussed as discrete, there is

much overlapping and interconnection

between the themes in reality.

Student Level Factors

Disregard for Formative Assessment

In general, student participants agreed

that the current system of assessment

is not fruitful. The reason, according

to the students, was the lack of regard

to the implications of formative

assessments. They believed, since

formative assessments were not used

to evaluate student performance, they

were not able to give much importance

to formative assessment.

Student A said that “Projects are

useless because they don’t give marks

for those [sic]”. There was a series

of nodding to this by the rest of the

students, and Student B explained that

“They take unit tests, but don’t look at

it much… the final test is only counted

[sic]”. This means when school

does not value formative assessment

methods in the first place, students, as

a result, do not have a positive attitude

towards formative assessment.

Language as a Barrier

Students reported that language became

a barrier in the teaching and learning

process, especially when the teacher did

not speak the students’ mother tongue.

This meant that students were not able

to clarify doubts, and the teacher was

not able to elaborate on their lessons

for students who needed extra help

either. Student A explained this,

Then comes an expatriate teacher,

so she won’t understand what the

students say if we talk in Dhivehi.

So, we have to ask in English if

we don’t know. If we ask they will

answer. But if we ask more, then

sometimes she gets irritated and

would not respond anymore [sic].

In such cases, the assessment would

not be easy, and even if conducted,

would not provide an accurate measure

of students’ level of understanding of

the lesson.

82

Questionable Level of Student

Integrity

One perturbing issue that inhibits

formative assessment is that some

students tend to plagiarise when

assigned projects. According to the

leading teacher,

Now what happens is that students

won’t do the work themselves.

Instead, they get these tasks done

by other people. They bring work

done by other people. So we

have to assess on the project they

present to us [sic].

According to her, the management

proscribed assessing students on project

words because students’ integrity is

dubious nowadays.

Restricted Cooperation Amongst

Students

Students claimed the lack of unity

amongst students was a barrier

as well. For example, student C

explained group work dynamics,

“Some students will talk. Some will

keep quiet”. Student A explained that

this was because when the teacher

assigns students into groups, the

groups often consist of incompatible

students. She said, “…they always

divide the groups according to

what the teacher wants. So, it’s

not always students who connect

[sic]”.

The teachers expressed concerns about

unhealthy competition amid students

to be the reason for this. According

to teacher A, “They don’t really focus

on their own progress. They are more

worried about the other student’s

performance [sic]. Teacher B added,

“Competitions are there so much.

Especially in my class [sic]”. Teacher

C further explained that students were

more worried about other student

earning marks than their own learning.

In my class too. Especially to

improve their marks than the other

for the next term. They would

compare each other’s marks and

papers. To see where she got

marks that I did. Something like

that [sic].

Multiple Subjects Overburden

Students

One very interesting issue that was

raised by Student A was the number of

subjects taught per day.

Actually each teacher gets a very

short time. They have 30 minutes.

83

And every day we have 7 subjects.

So every day they have to finish

7 subjects, each subject in 30

minutes. I think it would be much

better if we have 3 subjects per

day, so the teacher can be creative

and make it interesting for the

class. I think we should focus on

that more [sic].

This student, who had struggled in

studies and failed a few subjects in the

past, believed that too many subjects

content is shoved into a single school

day. Due to this, students were not able

to reflect on their learning.

Teacher Level Factors

Lack of Time

The biggest constraint to practice

formative assessment efficiently was

due to limited time, according to all the

teachers. They believed thirty minutes

per period was not enough. Teacher

C stated that “We have to cover the

syllabus. We are always under that

pressure [sic]”. Teacher B agreed to

this, “We have given time for each

topic. If we don’t give that time for that

portion, then we won’t have time for

another topic [sic].”

Another fact that contributed to this

issue was the unscheduled holidays.

The leading teacher stressed on this

point as she explained,

Those breaks we can’t control. It

comes suddenly. A lot of time is

wasted on it. We have to cover the

lessons lost. This is to be done in

a limited time. So in this little time

we have to do everything. So how

can we assess the way we want to?

I’m not saying this happens like

every year. But recent two years

this has been happening [sic].

The leading teacher gave recent

examples. Schools were closed for

Ramadan holidays and during Dengue

outbreak, resulting in more stress on the

already pressured teachers to complete

the syllabus.

Teachers Overloaded

An issue that was raised by the leading

teacher was that teachers were burning

out due to an overload of work.

When you look at the situation

now, Dhivehi teachers they are

taking secondary and primary

classes. After teaching a grade 10

class, the next period they have to

enter a grade 2 class. The whole

person will change a lot, isn’t it?

84

The whole person has to change

because the content and the way

you talk to little kids, everything.

They don’t get three minutes in

between the two classes [sic].

Teachers, too, had similar complains.

There was a common consensus among

teachers as they took turns to explain

how their busy schedules affect their

productivity. For example, teacher E

stated that,

Teachers are overloaded. We have

so much to do that we can’t give

special attention to the students.

So if they can find a way to solve

this issue, then teachers can sit

down with individual students to

help improve them.

Teachers’ Nationality as a Barrier

Occasionally, expatriate teachers

showed less enthusiasm in helping

students. Thus the lack of interest in

formative assessment was evident in

their pedagogy. The leading teacher

explained this to be a covert happening,

yet she believed this had occurred. She

explained the reason for this,

…the love and the affection and

the extra concern will be there by

Maldivian teachers. It’s a natural

thing. We will love our own kids

more than others. We will love

other people’s kids too, but that

love will be different. Their views

also will be different. I’m not

saying expatriates are bad people.

But the genuine concern will be

different. It’s human nature [sic].

Judgmental Teachers

Another factor that contributed to the

issues to effective practice of formative

assessment is because teachers judged

students based on past summative

assessments. Sometimes, teachers

have underrated students, resulting in

discouragement and demotivation of

students. According to student D, “…

teachers looks down on the student.

Will say harsh things also. If the student

can’t perform. They will say to drop

the subject. That we don’t have the

potential [sic]”. Student A explained

the reason for this is “…because in

some tests the marks are a bit low …

due to circumstances that the student

had to go through … But the teacher

can’t say that after looking at just one

test [sic]”. And hence, these teachers

had not attempted to learn the students’

potential through formative assessment

techniques.

85

School Level Factors

Unreasonable Parental Pressure

The demands of parents play a

crucial role in the way assessment is

practised by the institute. According

to student A, the parental pressure was

the core of the issue. She stated that

“…because of parent’s pressure, the

school management will pressure the

teacher. So, the teacher will always

try to complete the syllabus [sic]”.

Teacher B explained that parents are

more concerned about the students’

performance in summative pen-paper

exams. She said, “We always prepare

students for the exam …Parents also

want marks. So, we also focus on

teaching for the exam [sic]”. Hence

conducting formative assessment is an

approach overlooked most of the time.

Following an Outdated Syllabus

Despite the many positive changes

in different aspects of the country’s

education system, secondary school

students follow the same syllabus as

they did a decade ago. This causes

many constrains to educators,

especially in adopting contemporary

methods. According to the leading

teacher, “…for the secondary grades,

the syllabus is the same. So, in the end,

ultimately their future depends on the

secondary syllabus. If we can’t change

the syllabus, then we will have to keep

teaching the same structure. The way

of teaching cannot be changed [sic]”.

Community Level Factors

Unhealthy Competition Among Society

According to the student D, the

community plays a vital role in

promoting a summative exam-oriented

culture. She explains that “Everyone

wants their kid to be the best. Like if

the neighbours kid is good, then will

make us work to get a better grade

than her. It’s all about competition.

It’s in our culture [sic]”. There was a

consensus among all the participants

that this has contributed to a teaching-

for-exam culture, and thereby not

allowing formative assessments to

evaluate student performance.

Apathy Towards Formative Evaluation

Students expressed their concerns

about the indifference of employers

towards evaluations based on formative

assessments. They explained that

the country’s job market considers a

report on summative assessments, not

the candidate’s actual potential that

86

would only be portrayed by means

of formative assessment. Student C

elaborated,

…if we apply for a job also, they

will first check our O’ Levels. That

would be the first thing to check.

They won’t look at the student’s

qualities. First will check our

grades. Then comes everything

else [sic].

According to Student B, employers

only considered interviewing potential

candidates based on the results of their

terminal exams. Hence, she explained

that the community believes that “…

certificate is the only thing that can

be used in our future [sic].” Hence,

formative assessments are discouraged

in most educational institutions, such

as the one studied.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The study confirmed that the participants

were aware of the implications of

formative assessments. However, due

to the student level barriers, students

were neither encouraged to reflect of

their learning nor revise according

to their own set goals, which is a

fundamental component of formative

assessment (Sadler as cited in Boston,

2002). This outlook by students

towards formative evaluations may be

the reason they were not interested in

setting learning goals, except to score

in summative tests. Black and William

(2012) explain that the lack of goal

setting means students are not aware of

learning objectives either.

To make formative assessments work,

the teachers’ role is not to bestow subject

content, but to guide the students’

learning experience, by constructing

a model of their knowledge to direct

their learning (Hall & Burke, 2004;

Bitchener & Storch, 2016). This was

not seen to be practised in the context

of the study, generally due to lack

of time. Large class size, short time

allocation per period, and an extensive

curriculum that needs to be covered

during the academic year were issues

that teachers were typically faced within

the context of the study. In addition to

this, unscheduled holidays contributed

to the lack-of-time factor in the context

studied. In such a situation, formative

assessment would be impracticable

(CERI, 2008).

School Level and Community

Level barriers such as the attitude

towards formative assessments and

evaluations were also issues raised

87

by the participants of the study. Hall

and Burke (2004) state that often,

policies and cultures underestimate the

implications of formative assessment.

This was evident in the case study as

well. The lack of regard to formative

assessments by the community,

especially parents, has led to the undue

focus on summative assessments.

Hence, the school had been trying to

cater to the needs of the community by

following exam-oriented pedagogies to

teach an outdated syllabus.

In order to improve the current practice,

it is imperative to attend to these issues

at the different levels of education.

To begin with, the attitude of the

most important stake holders, i.e. the

students, must be addressed. Galbraith

(2015) suggests that students can be

encouraged to practice self-assessment

more in their learning, as it will increase

learner autonomy and hence, promote

a positive attitude towards formative

assessments. Moreover, educational

policies must be revised to enable the

teachers’ role as a facilitator instead

of a transmitter (CERI, 2008). Once

such changes begins to take form, there

would be gradual improvements the

attitudes of other stakeholders in the

education system, including the parents

and community (Ellis, 2008).

CONCLUSION

While assessment is appraised as one of

the most important activities in teaching

and learning, we must understand that

the actual purpose of assessment is not

to judge students’ learning, but rather

to enhance their learning. According to

Black and William (1998a, p. 5), “there

is a wealth of research evidence that

the everyday practice of assessment

in classrooms is beset with problems

and short-comings”. These were

evident in this case study conducted

by means of focus group discussions

and an interview to stakeholders in

a Maldivian education context. The

study found issues that persist at

the student, teacher, school level, as

predicted by the reviewed literature.

In addition, issues were apparent at a

community level in the context of the

study. Unless these issues are addressed

by relevant authorities, teaching and

learning cannot be made a rewarding

experience.

REFERENCESAndrade, H. & Valtcheva, A. (2009).

Promoting learning and achievement through self-assessment. Theory into Practice, 48, 12–19.

Baxter, P. & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

88

Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th ed.). USA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bitchener, J. & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. UK: Short Run Press Ltd.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.

Black, P. & William, D. (1998a). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Retrieved from: https://weaeducation.typepad.co.uk/files/blackbox-1.pdf

Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (2012). Assessment and Learning. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.

Boston, C. (2002). The concept of formative assessment: ERIC Digest. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED470206.pdf

Bryman, A. (2012). Social Research Methods (4th ed.). NY: OUP.

Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. (2008). Assessment for learning: Formative assessment. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40600533.pdf

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education (7th ed.). Roultledge: USA.

Creswell, J.W. (2012). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). USA: Sage Publications.

Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97 – 107.

Flick, O. (2009). An introduction to

qualitative research (4th ed.). London: SAGE Publication Ltd.

Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E. & Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Galbraith, M. W. (2015). Adult learning methods: A guide for effective instruction (3rd ed.). Florida: Krieger Publishing Company.

Hall, K. & Burke, W. M. (2004). Making formative assessment work: Effective practice in the primary classroom. England: OUP.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2005). Formative assessment: Improving learning in secondary classrooms. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/35661078.pdf

Sadler, D. R. (1998). Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 77-84.

Schunk, D. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal-setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 159-172.

Shiuna, M., Sodiq, A. (2013). Improving education in the Maldives: Stake holder perspectives in the Maldivian education sector. Maldives: MaldivesResearch.

Takona, J.P. (2002). Educational research: Principles and practice. USA: Writers Club Press.

Yarzan, B. (2015). Teaching and learning article 1. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134-152.

89




978-99915-0-842-9/06

EXPLORING THE PERCEPTION OF PARENTS TOWARDS

MAINSTREAMING STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS

HAWWA [email protected]

SHIYAMA [email protected]

ASMA [email protected]

ARIFA ABDUL MAJEED

[email protected]

Mohamed Jamaaludheen School (MJS)Gn. Fuvahmulah City

Despite the number of top achievers in Maldivian secondary school terminal examinations, the number of students failing in all the subjects after years of formal education is rather disheartening. In 2011, 16% of students did not pass a single subject, indicating the persistence of issues (Shiuna & Sodiq, 2013). It can be presumed that disregard for formative assessment, is to some extent, the underlying reason. Focus on summative assessments has led many educational institutes to disregard the benefits of formative assessment. Sadler (1998) argues that this could be detrimental, especially to the low ability learners, as marks and grades simply cannot provide the formative effectiveness of customised feedback. This paper explores the issues to practice formative assessment in a Maldivian education context. The study uses a case-study design to collect information from students, teachers and the school management, about the issues faced regarding the subject. The study explains that students faced issues due to their disregard for formative assessment, language barriers, lack of co-operation amongst students, and students’ integrity. Moreover, teacher-level factors such as pressure to complete the syllabus, teacher burnout, and even their nationality, were found to be barriers. The management faced issues due to the inflexibility of the syllabus, and pressure from parents. Also, the exam-oriented culture in our society was raised as an outstanding issue. Therefore, stakeholders must find ways to overcome these issues that restrict the effective practice of formative assessment. Only then, can the learning experience be fruitful, holistic, and more meaningful for all the students.

Keywords: Perception, parents, mainstreaming, special needs

90

INTRODUCTION

The first ever disability screening in the

Maldives was in 1981 which showed

that 0.9 percent of the population was

comprised of people with disabilities

(Saleem, 2010). By referring to the

population and housing census, the

report indicates that the disability rate is

increasing year by year. According to the

constitution of the Maldives, everyone

has the right to education without

discrimination of any kind (Hussain,

2008). Moreover, the primary principle of

the National Inclusive Education policy is

to “provide equal learning opportunities

for all children within the formal education

system as every child has the right to

learn” (Hussain, 2008). In addition to this,

people with disabilities have the same set

of rights, obligations and opportunities

that other Maldivians also have. A

stable and efficient society emerges with

excellent education which is considered as

the lifeline of working communities with

developed individual personalities. This

helps to produce knowledgeable, capable,

competent and skilful people for the society.

Nevertheless, there are many factors which

affects individual’s education starting from

the role of the school to parent perception

and their involvement.

Every child has the ability to learn,

but the way children learn and how

much knowledge they absorb is varied,

especially a child with special need

acquire these differently. Yet, as a society,

we owe all children a chance to reach their

potential. So, it is important to create the

best possible learning environment for

that to happen. In order to create a better

learning enviorment mainstreaming the

children with special needs (CSN) into

regular classrooms is important rather

than assigning them exclusively in special

education classes. Mainstreaming is

providing the opportunities to children

with special needs in general education

classrooms (Mallick & Sheesh, 2013).

Furthermore Researches have shown

that parent’s involvement and perception

differs from society to society and the more

concerned they are the more significant is

the quality of education (Saleem, 2010 &

Hussain, 2008; Kondakci, Orucu, Oguz,

& Beycioglu, 2016). This means getting

parents’ opinion about mainstreaming

is unavoidable as their perceptions are

beneficial to the whole education system in

order to secure the rights of varied ability

students which is stated in curriculum

standards.

By reviewing the importance of

mainstreaming and the rights of children

with special needs, it seems that there is a

huge necessity for exploring the perception

of parents of children with and without

special needs (CWSN). Hence, the research

focuses on exploring the perception of

parents towards mainstreaming children

with special needs which is one of

91

the fundamental areas that need to be

investigated in the educational system

of Maldives. Hence the main question of

this study is “what are the perceptions of

parents towards mainstreaming children

with special needs”. The following

sub questions are formed based on this

question.

1. What are the perceptions of parents of children with special needs about mainstreaming?

2. What are the perceptions of parents of children without special needs about mainstreaming?

METHOD

The study adopted a qualitative approach

as it would help to clarify and undersatand

the perception of parents in mainstreaming

students with special needs which requires

literal data. A phenomenological study was

chosen and eight parents were purposefully

selected as participants from one of the

primary schools in the city. From the

selected parents, first four were, parents of

students with special needs and the other

four were, parents of students without

special needs.

Consent of participants were secured before

the research proceeded and participants

were assured that the researcher will not

deceive in any condition in order to collect

the appropriate data. Participants were

also informed that they have the right to

withdraw from the study in any stage of

the research process before the final write-

up was compiled. A good relationship was

built with the participants to gain their trust

and openness.

Semi-structured one to one interviews were

conducted with the parents to understand

their perception. Field notes were collected

including the non-verbal cues to better

understand their responses and to verify

those responses with the voice recording

of the interview. Subsequently, the audio

recordings were saved in personal lap

top with pseudonyms for each interview

for the purpose of transcribing in order

to analyse. These semi-structured, open-

ended, one to one interviews allowed the

researcher to focus on the topic during the

interview by omitting or adding questions

to get relevant and rich data based on past

facts. As a result, unbiased data which

align with the objective was collected to

get the overall picture of the study.

To analyze the data, collected data was

scanned and untied into separate ideas to

get the real message of the interviewee.

For effective coding, the researcher read

and got the meaning of the thick and

opulent data to select important data and

to leave out the insignificant ideas of the

transcriptions. Codes were selected from

every transcription and along with that,

sub-themes were catergorized. After that

the broad themes based on the sub-themes

were fainalized. All ideas that comes under

the finalized themes were listed down and

92

analyzed data displayed the results.

RESULTS

With regards to the research topic,

the developed themes and sub themes

are illustrated in figure 1 and 2. As

displayed in both, the two main themes

are perception of parents of children

with special needs and perception of

parents of children without special

needs. The following provides the

findings for each theme in detail in

relation to the research topic.

Theme 1: Perception of Parents of Children with Special Needs

This is the theme where more sub themes

emerged from the data analysis. From this

theme, six sub themes were recognized.

The following diagram shows the sub

themes based on the perception of parents

of children with special needs.

Academic Development

Parents of children with special needs

shared that children with special needs

increase their academic performance

gradually from subjects like Islam, Math

and Science due to mainstreaming. They

also expressed that, before mainstreaming

their children faced difficulty in writing

and they were not able to copy a single

sentence from the board. But now they are

doing it much better. A comment regarding

this includes;

My child is improving little by little. It

is very difficult for him to copy the work

from the board before mainstreaming.

Now he does a lot [Parent 1]

Parents of children with special needs

believed that their children are improving

academically due to mainstreaming.

Child’s Daily Work

Another perception revealed from parents

of children with special needs is about

the level of daily work done by their

children during class hours. Some parents

of children with special needs were happy

about the extent where their children

completed the daily classwork during class

hours while the other parents were not

agreeing the idea. The following comments

Figure 1:-Perception of Parents of Children with Special

Needs about Mainstreaming

93

evident individual parents’ view about the

level of daily work done by their children.

I believe my child is doing all the work

during class hours as no complaints

from the teacher came to me regarding

incompletion of work [Parent 4]

I am not happy about the daily work

completed by my child according to his

level during class hours [Parent 1]

Hence, from the views of some parents of

children with special needs evident that

they were happy about the level of their

children’s daily class work completion

while the others were not.

Change in Behaviour

In addition to this, change in behaviour

is also a perception discovered from the

data analysis. Majority of the parents

of children with special needs believed

that positive changes are seen from their

children’s behaviour after mainstreaming.

After mainstreaming children with special

needs participate in class activities, speaks

in the class, spend time and share ideas

with peers and do class work and home

work well. The following quote gives a

clear meaning of parents’ perception.

Before mainstreaming my child did

not speak often but now he speaks

frequently [Parent 2]

Parents believed that mainstreaming

changes the behaviour of children with

special needs.

Cater Child’s Needs

Some parents of children with special

needs believed that their children did not

get enough individual guidance. Their

children are not been addressed with

suitable learning materials while the

other parents believed that their children

get enough support and guidance from

the teachers. The following statements of

parents evident the ideas presented above;

My child did not get help from the

teacher to do the work given during

class hours [Parent 2]

My child gets different levelled

worksheets and assessments and also

gets enough support from teacher

[Parent 3]

Parents of children with special needs were

happy about the level of their children’s

daily class work completion while the

others were not.

Appropriate therapies

Another important result revealed from

the data analysis is the therapies received

by students with special needs. Parents of

children with special needs agreed that no

therapy for the disability is provided to

their children though they have provided

all the medical reports to the school.

94

My child has writing, reading and

intellectual disability. Sadly I have to

tell that no specific therapy or special

attention is given to him from the

mainstreaming process [Parent 1]

Parents agreed that appropriate therapies

were not provided to children with special

needs.

Accepted by peers

Being accepted by the peers is one of the

major aspects necessary for a child with

special needs. Most of the parents have

shared that their children with special needs

receive enough support and help from the

classmates like sharing things, involve

in activities and so on. On the contrary,

a parent viewed that there are instances

where his/ her child is being mistreated

by the peer saying autism, stupid and

mad child. The following statements give

meaning to those views.

His peers are very good. They accept

him. If he does not have a pen or a

ruler, his friends share it [Parent 4]

They do not share things during the

class and in the sports hours they

sometimes fight with him [Parent 2]

Finding revealed that children with special

needs are accepted by their peers though

there are few difficult cases.

Theme 2: Perception of Parents of Children without Special Needs

This is the second and the last theme

identified from the data analysis. From this

theme, three sub themes are recognised

which is similar as the first theme. Though

the subthemes are similar, their perceptions

are varied. The following diagram shows

the sub themes based on the perception of

parents of children without special needs.

Figure 2: Perception of Parents of Children without Special

Needs about Mainstreaming

Academic development

Parents expect for a positive learning

environment to be created in the school

where their children are benefit from one

another. Therefore, it is crucial to find

the opinion of parents of children without

special needs about mainstreaming. The

findings of the study demonstrated the

views of parents of children without special

needs on academic development of their

children in mainstreamed classes. Most of

the interviewed parents believed that due to

mainstreaming, there is no negative impact

on their children’s academic performance

though they feel uncomfortable due to

some reasons. In contrast, a parent viewed

95

that mainstreaming impact her child

negatively. Some comments regarding

these are;

I am happy about my child’s academic

performances though my child gets

disturbed due to the shouting and

spitting [Parent 1]

When children with special needs get

benefits, children without special needs

get disturbed and miss the lessons

[Parent 4]

In the view of most of the parents of children

without special needs, mainstreaming does

not affect their children’s study though

they get disturbed.

Change in Behaviour

Change in behaviour is also a perception

revealed from the interview of parents of

children without special needs. All the

parents of children without special needs

agreed that mainstreaming does not change

their children’s behaviour.

My child’s behaviour has not changed.

Instead, my child gives help and advice

to mainstreamed students [Parent 3]

Accepted by Peers

Most of the parents of children without

special needs agreed that their children

have concerns regarding mainstreamed

students as they usually share about their

disability at home. The following statement

gives meaning to those views.

My child accepts mainstreamed students

in the class as he tries to control the

child during aggressive situations and

advise them [Parent 4]

It was evident from parents view that

children without special needs accept

mainstreamed children and help them to

survive in the inclusive classroom.

DISCUSSION

Finding of the study revealed two main

categories; perception of parents of

children with special needs and perception

of parents of children without special

needs about mainstreaming. Therefore,

the opinions revealed under both themes

are discussed in the lights of literatures,

empirical studies and theories.

From the perspectives of parents of CSN

and CWSN, mainstreaming increases

academic performances, behaviour and

catering individual differences though

disagreements are marked on some aspects

of few parents. The finding is almost in

line with Church & Synod (2012) who

expressed that children with special

needs improve educational performance,

increase confidence and communicate

with others through mainstreaming. By

reflecting the perceptions of parents and

literature cohesions like improvement

96

in academic performance and social

relationship of CSN by mainstreaming

is identified without much complication.

(Kondakci, Orucu, Oguz, & Beycioglu,

2016). Thus, this finding is a possible

reflection of parents’ recognition of lots

of benefits to their children both CSN and

CWSN. Children with disabilities benefit

more from participating in mainstream

educational settings. Generally, parents

who favour mainstreaming believe that it

would increase child’s learning ability due

to higher standards in a regular class, and

would provide a stimulating environment

for learning. Indeed, mainstreaming in

the national curriculum is for the purpose

of “education for all”. Some of the

favourable education systems like Finland

and Australia practice inclusion for the

purpose of improving academic levels and

other learning outcomes of CSN in full

classrooms in relation to education for all

(Forlin, Chambers, Loreman, Deppeler, &

Sharma, 2013).

Another aspect that emerged from the

study is acception CSN by their peers.

Likewise, CWSN accept mainstreamed

children by helping them to survive in the

inclusive classroom though differences are

recognised from few parents as concerns.

This finding is consistent with the study by

Mwanza (2010). It says that inclusion does

not only allow disability. Rather, it gives

the opportunity to understand and accept

each other and learn from their differences.

Pawlowicz (2001) also agreed that general

education students benefit by getting

the chance to stay together with socially

mixed groups, create a safe and structured

learning environment and expand their

comfort zone. Congruently, a result of a

study by Narumanci & Bhargauva (2011)

stated that majority the parents show

favourable attitude towards inclusion in

terms of promoting positive role models,

friendships, facilitating acquisition of

pre-academic, social, language, and

motor skills. By evaluating these finding

from other studies, it is known that

mainstreaming benefits CSN and CWSN

like increase knowledge of diverse cultures,

customs, life styles and help teachers to

create positive learning. Equally, general

education students understand to change

situations where they feel safe and at ease

in critical conditions. For these reasons,

perceptions of parents need to be identified

to address the concerns they have with

regards to the mainstreaming children in

the special education classroom for the

benefit of education for all.

Furthermore, from the perspectives of

parents of CSN, appropriate therapies

according to the need area is not provided

to CSN. A supportive literature regarding

the issue is “In an inclusion classroom,

the general education teacher and special

education teacher work together to meet

your child’s needs” (Understood, 2017).

In addition to this, occupational therapy is

97

effective to address difficulties encountered

by a child with special need (NurseRegistry,

2017). This shows the importance of

providing suitable therapies needed for

children with special needs during class

hours according to their disabilities. It is

also evident that teachers need to have a

good relationship with special education

teacher and other professionals in order

to cater their needs which they currently

could not attend properly.

The findings would be helpful for the

school management to improve the

condition of mainstreaming. Further

training on special education should be

considered for teachers so they can carter

to children with special needs accordingly

and which will be a great encouragement

to mainstream. Strategies proposed by the

report of Forlin et al. (2013) are guidance

to teachers for good practice of inclusion

in-class level. The good practices include

“differentiating or introducing alternative

curricula, the application of universal

design, use of technologies, individual

planning through the IEP, and a focus on

quality teaching for all students” (p.30).

School should also monitor and evaluate

the work of the teachers and students

for better understanding of the situation.

Additionally projects like, action researche

will directly emphasizes learning

organizations to understand the areas to

be improved regarding inclusive education

and emphasizes to minimize the issues

within the organizations. Such studies

have to be conducted in other schools in

Maldives also to understand the situation.

It is also important to explore the schools

which are not willing to mainstream the

children with special needs in order to

understand the reasons behind them.

Sample of the study was limited to one

school only. In order to widely generalize,

the perception of parents in mainstreaming

has to be studied in a similar manner

by expanding the samples to draw a

conclusion to wider popularion. However,

the fact that phenomenological studies,

allows the researcher to define the context

being studied comprehensively and offers

opportunities to apply the findings to

similar situation. Henceforth; in spite of

the limitation, the researcher ensures that

this methodology could be applicable

to study the perception of the parents in

mainstreaming children with special needs

in other schools too.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the study aimed to explore the

perception of the parents in mainstreaming

children with special needs. Findings from

the study revealed parents of children

with special needs observed a gradual

improvement in children’s academic

performance and positive changes in

children’s behaviour. Likewise, the study

identified that children with special needs

98

are accepted by their peers to some extent

and some of the mainstreamed students do

complete the work allocated while others

do not. Similarly, it is evident that the needs

of some of the mainstreamed students

are catered though there are cases which

suggests some are not catered accordingly.

Furthermore study showed that, the

parents of children without special needs

accepted that there is no negative impact

on children’s academic performance

and behaviour due to mainstreaming. In

addition, the students without special needs

do provide support to the mainstreamed

students by explaining and encouraging

them to complete the work.

REFERENCESChurch, L., & Synod, M. (2012, October

25). Mainstreaming Special Education in the Classroom. Retrieved from https://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/special-ed/mainstreaming-special-education-in-the-classroom/

Forlin, C., Chambers, D., Loreman, T., Deppeler, J., & Sharma, U. (2013). Inclusive Education for Students with Disability A review of the best evidence in relation to theory and practice. Retrieved from The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) website: https://www.aracy.org.au/publications-resources/command/download_file/id/246/filename/Inclusive_education_for_students_with_disability_-_A_review_of_the_best_evidence_in_relation_to_theory_and_practice.pdf

Hussain, D. (2008). Functional Translation of the Constitution of the Republic of

Maldives. Retrieved from Ministry of Legal Reform, Information and Arts website: http://www.majlis.gov.mv/en/wp-content/uploads/Constitution-english.pdf://

Kondakci, Y., Orucu, D., Oguz, E., & Beycioglu, K. (2016). Current issues on parental involvement in schools: a multicultural perspective. International Journals of Pedagogies and Learning, 11(3), 89-90.

Mallick, U., & Sheesh, K. M. (2013). Perspectives of students and parents about mainstreaming education for children with special needs in Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Inclusive Education, 1(1), 17-30.

Mwanza, H. (2010). Views of Parents on Inclusive Education for Children with Disabilities: A Gender Dimension Case Study of ST. Lawrence Basic School Iin Lusaka Urban Districk Doctoral dissertation, The University of Zambia, Lusaka, Zimba). Retrieved from http://dspace.unza.zm:8080/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/1078/mwanza%20Helen.pdf?sequence=1://

Narumanchi, A., & Bhargava, S. (2011). Perceptions of Parents of Typical Children towards Inclusive Education. Disability, CBR and Inclusive Development,, 22(1), 120-129.

NurseRegistry. (2017). 9 Occupational Therapy Tips for Children with Special Needs [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.nurseregistry.com/blog/occupational-therapy-for-special-needs-children/

Pawlowicz, B. (2001). The Effects of Inclusion on General Education Students (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://www2.uwstout.edu/content/lib/thesis/2001/2001pawlowiczb.pdf

Saleem, A. (2010). Activities addressing rights of persons with disabilities. A baselie assessment(13). Retrieved from

99

Human Rights Commission of the Maldives website: http://www.searo.who.int/maldives/documents/Maldives_DisabilityReport13April2010.pdf?ua=1://

Understood. (2017). 5 Benefits of Inclusion Classrooms. Retrieved from https://www.understood.org/en/learning-attention-issues/treatments-approaches/educational-strategies/5-benefits-of-inclusion-classrooms

Unluer, S. (2012). Being an insider research while conducting case study research. The Qualitative Report, 17(58), 1-14.

100




978-99915-0-842-9/07

KEY STAGE 1 AND KEY STAGE 2 ENGLISH LANGUAGE

TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDING AND IMPLEMENTATION

OF DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION APPROACH: A CASE

STUDY

AISHATH SHOOZANThe Maldives National University

[email protected]

The current case study explores understanding of Differentiated Instruction (DI) of three English language teachers’ from Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2. It looks at their practices in implementing differentiated instruction, and the enablers and roadblocks of implementing differentiated instruction. Differentiated instruction is a teaching philosophy that emphasizes the importance of addressing learner differences. This study is conducted by collecting and analyzing data qualitatively. It investigated three important aspects of differentiated instruction, namely, content, process, and assessment. Findings from the analysis of data gathered by interviewing three teachers and analyzing their lesson plans showed that these teachers comprehend differentiated instruction as an approach that makes teachers vary the lesson as per the ability level of learners. The teachers understand the presence of learners of different ability levels and learning styles in their classrooms and recognize the importance of changing the content, process, and assessments to cater the learners. However, the lesson plans of these teachers do not show that teachers plan differently for different learners, indicating that the implementation is an area that needs attention. It is also revealed that enablers of differentiated instruction approach include the facilities available for teachers to use in the classrooms and the support teachers get from the school. It is identified that how parents view such differences, lack of parents’ support and lack of training on differentiated instruction for teachers are the main challenges in implementing the approach. The findings have implications for the provision of information for teachers to understand differentiated instruction in-depth, giving adequate support and training to plan and practice the approach, and to make

parents aware of the method.

Keywords: Differentiated instruction, implementation, instructional strategies, learner differences

101

INTRODUCTION

Every learner is a unique being with

diverse individualities who recognizes

and experiences the world differently

and prefers varied styles of learning at

different levels. Thus, student diversity

is an important aspect that must be

considered by teachers. This would help

them cater to individual differences

and learning styles to achieve greater

success in teaching and learning. Since

learners come from different biological,

intellectual and social backgrounds it

is essential for teachers to understand

these differences in order to provide

a supportive learning environment

for every child. The identification

of students’ learning needs allows

the teachers to differentiate their

instructional strategies and vary

learning materials.

With regulations governing the No

Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy

all around the world in the past few

decades, Differentiated Instruction (DI)

has become an important philosophy in

the contexts of teaching and learning.

This has made teachers more aware

of the concept of learner diversity

and different learning methods, thus,

implementing differentiated instruction

in classrooms. As stated by Tomlinson

et al (2003), differentiated instruction

is a philosophy of teaching purporting

that pupils learn best when their teachers

effectively address the variance in

learners’ readiness level, interests, and

learning profile. It is important for

educators to have knowledge about

this approach, various learning styles

and learning needs in the classroom,

and how to cater to those needs. It is

also essential to know the factors that

help in implementing the approach

as well as the challenges faced in the

implementation process.

This study aims to investigate English

language teachers’ understanding

of differentiated instruction, their

practices, and obstacles and enablers of

differentiated instruction in practising

the approach. More specifically, it

explores the experiences of primary

teachers who are currently teaching the

English language in the Maldives. Since

the introduction of NCLB policy in the

Maldives, the Ministry of Education

pays particular attention to cater every

learner so that no child is left behind.

Today, teachers are encouraged to

bring variations in their instructional

practices so that every learner is

acknowledged in their teaching process

through differentiated instruction.

102

However, schools face challenges in

differentiating instruction due to lack

of expertise, facilities, and teachers’

perception. Moreover, general teacher

training programmes do not focus

on training student-teachers to use

differentiated instruction in classrooms,

while training programmes for special

educational needs (SEN) focus on

individual differences and differentiated

instruction. Hence, many teachers

perceive differentiated instruction as

an instructional methodology specific

to and used in SEN classes only.

However, the presence of student

diversity in mainstream classrooms is

an accepted reality by many teachers.

With NCLB policy and the importance

given on inclusive education, DI has

been a commonly pronounced approach

in the schools of the Maldives in the past

decade. However, the teacher’s practice

and implementation of differentiated

instruction in the Maldives is not

recorded in the literature due to lack of

research on this matter, in the Maldives.

This study aims to fill this research

gap by uncovering the experiences of

teachers in implementing differentiated

instruction and acknowledging their

understanding. It also highlights the

promoters and enablers of the approach.

Since teachers must be well aware

of students’ learning abilities, their

learning interests and styles to

adequately help learners in their journey

of education, it is very important for

teachers to know these aspects and cater

learning needs. Since differentiated

instruction in the main method used

to acknowledge individual differences

and to cater to different learning needs

of pupils, differentiated instruction

approach is an extremely necessary

approach in educating children. Thus,

this research is highly important as

it includes teachers’ understanding

and practices, and the facilitators

and challenges in implementing the

approach. The investigation can

help the educational policymakers

in developing necessary policies,

schools in organizing and facilitating

required facilities and environment for

differentiated instruction, and teachers

to professionally grow in understanding

differentiated instruction. Moreover, it

enriches the literature with an additional

study in a new context, the Maldives.

Differentiated instruction is an

approach where students are given the

focus of attention, and their learning

preferences are cared for, through

different instructional strategies

103

instigated by the teachers. In practising

differentiated instruction, teachers

allow flexibility in classrooms to help

learners adapt to the context as learners

come from different backgrounds,

various learning needs and preferences.

Differentiated instruction is an

approach teachers employ to attend

the needs of learners in a classroom

for more effective planning to

transfer knowledge effectively (Grafi-

Sharabi, 2009). According to Grafi-

Sharabi (2009), content and process

are key elements of effectiveness of

differentiated instruction, it is essential

that teachers plan their lessons to

effectively deliver the content through

diverse instructional strategies. He also

stated that though most of the contents

are available to teachers, establishing

an appropriate method for students

to engage in the content is important.

This shows the importance of varying

the instructional strategy to deliver

the content as the content becomes

meaningful when delivered through a

strategy that suits the learners’ interest,

learning style and learning need.

In classrooms, it is usual that all pupils

do not understand the content and

concepts at the same level, and some

individuals do not perform at their

level best in certain topics. Anderson

(2007) stated that students commonly

work in the classroom without reaching

full potential and suggested that

employing differentiated instruction

encourages every student to be

effective and engaged participants in

the learning process. This suggests that

the use of differentiated instruction

help individual learners to perform

better. When practising differentiated

instruction approach, the teacher pays

attention to understand the learners

and their background. This is mainly

achieved by maintaining learner

profiles and regular parent-teacher

meetings. In recent years, teachers’

create an educational plan to suit

earners and assess them continuously

to bring variations in assessments,

teaching materials and the teaching

methods. This practice is supported

by Rodriguez (2012) who advocated

that differentiated instruction requires

teachers to consider differentiating

contexts, assessment tools,

performance tasks, and instructional

strategies. Hence, it is crucial that

those who implement differentiated

instruction must have the proper

knowledge as it requires them to make

conscious decisions on choosing the

combination of tools and planning their

104

lessons in the most beneficial way for

the learners.

The principles of differentiated

instruction revolve around the proposed

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

Theory (Vygostky, 1987), Multiple

Intelligence Theory (Gardner, 1983),

and the Curriculum flexibility propose

by Dewey (1897). The idea of

flexibility, providing choice, allowing

creativity, catering different learning

styles, modifying the content are

important aspects of DI that coincide

with these theories.

In order to respond to individual

differences in classrooms and to cater

diverse learning needs, it is important

to adapt the content, process and

product as per the students’ interest

and readiness level (Tomlinson, 2001).

Content is the elements and materials

used in reaching the set learning goals

and the skills that students will learn.

The process indicates how the content

will be delivered to students and the

product as allowing choices in the

products or final assessment which

should allow a variety of ways for

experiencing a degree of difficulty and

types of evaluation.

In 1987, Vygotsky proposed ZPD and

suggested that what the child is able to

do in collaboration today, will be done

on his own tomorrow. He speculated

the importance of assessment and

scaffolding and highlights that

teachers can provide developmentally

appropriate teaching strategies by

assessing students’ readiness level and

scaffolding the curriculum (Miller,

2002). Scaffolding acts as a support

for the child to progress by providing

challenging learning environments

and tasks, and by adjusting the level

of teacher intervention in response to

students’ needs (Miller, 2002).

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence Theory

is one of the earliest recognition of

diverse intellectual abilities and diverse

learning styles. It suggests that there

are eight different intelligences present

in each person which people are able

to stimulate in diverse situations

(Gardener, 1983). Therefore, DI can

create diverse contexts to activate

intelligence and also to cater to the

most preferred style of learning. Dewey

(1897) believed in making curriculum

relate to real life and using children’s

interest as a basis for learning (Wilson,

2010).

Even though differentiated instruction

is largely articulated in educational

105

settings, the uncommon use of this

approach suggests there is resistance

among teachers in adopting this

approach. Thus, considerations of the

reasons are inevitable. Kapunsnick and

Hauslein (2001) found that teachers

abandoned differentiated instruction

as they are not comfortable with the

framework of differentiated instruction,

and are not confident to manage it.

King-Shaver (2008) concluded that

teachers see differentiated instruction

negatively. This means that teachers

perceive the approach in a negative

manner. This affects their readiness to

use the approach. Levy (2008) claimed

that teachers are so concerned about

test scores and efforts to teach beyond

testing objectives have ceased. Mulder

(2014) showed that differentiated

instruction correlates high achievement

in mathematics, and emphasized the

usefulness of the approach. These

studies show that there are concerns

among teachers in the implementation

of differentiated instruction in the

classroom contexts as it may involve in

many aspects that are associated with

leaners.

METHOD

This research is a case study that

collects and analyzes data qualitatively.

A case study method involves an

intensive analysis of an individual unit

(a case) and is appropriate to study a

small group (Baskarada, 2013). This

research is based on a small group of

teachers. The participation of three

teachers avails the opportunity to

explore the similarities and differences

in their understanding and practices and

allows a deeper understanding. Such

in-depth understanding is highlighted

as an important aspect by Baxter and

Jack (2008) and is said to increase its

trustworthiness.

Participants and sampling

Since the research focuses on a

particular group of teachers to rationally

obtain responses to the expressed issue

under investigation, it uses purposive

sampling method, which helps to

achieve a greater understanding

by purposefully selecting samples

relevant to the study (Etikan, Musa

and Alkassim, 2016). This study also

ensures variations by selecting teachers

from different grades of key stages 1

and 2. The investigation is carried

out in a public school in the Maldives

and the criteria for selection is that

the participant teaches the English

language at Key stage 1 or key stage 2.

106

Data collection and analysis

The primary methods of data collection

are interviews and document analysis. A

face-to-face semi-structured interview

was conducted with each participant.

The interview guide includes questions

about their knowledge of differentiated

instruction, their practices and what

helps them to implement it and the

challenges they face. The questions

cover the main focus of the study, the

content, the process, and the product

(assessment). These interviews were

recorded digitally as well as on paper.

The second method of data collection

is document analysis, which is also

commonly used in qualitative research.

An electronic copy of the lesson

plans of 1 week (the week before the

interview) was collected from each

participant. Collecting data by these

two methods allow triangulation of

data and creates a more complete and

multilayered description (Friedman,

2012). The recorded interviews were

transcribed and coded manually. The

data sets were organized to look for

patterns and themes. Similarly, the

patterns in lesson plans were analyzed

and recorded for the themes covering

content, process and product.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The findings are presented in three

categories, that is; how teachers

understand differentiated instruction,

how they implement it and the enablers

and obstacles in practicing it.

Teachers’ understanding of differentiated instruction approach

Based on the participants’ answers

to the questions, it is clear that the

three teachers who were interviewed

have the knowledge of the existence

of an approach where differences are

brought into a teaching lesson. The

teachers believe in the presence of

different learners in a group of students

and the necessity of considering learner

differences in teaching.

Three teachers defined differentiated

instruction differently. While teacher

A defined differentiated instruction as

“each and every student is different

and they have their own ways to

learn”, teachers B and C defined it as

“differentiated learning means teaching

and giving work according to their

level”, and “using different methods

in teaching in one lesson, teaching

approaches in one lesson, for different

students”, respectively. Though their

definitions reflect the features of

107

differentiated instruction like ‘different

learning styles of students’, ‘teaching

and assigning work according to the

level of learners’, and ‘using different

methods in teaching’, they do not talk

about the features of the approach

in-depth. They do not talk about the

variation of content or the curriculum

or the assessment of students. In other

words, the teachers focused more on

the process rather than the content and

the product.

All the teachers acknowledge the

presence of different learners in their

corresponding classes. Participant A

claims that “each and every student

is different, and they have their

own learning styles”. She further

acknowledges that some of her

students are visual learners and some

of them like audio while there are

kinesthetic. She adds that in addition

to the differences in learning style,

they are different in ‘abilities as well’.

Participant B also have similar beliefs

in her understanding of differentiated

instruction. She seems to have divided

her class into categories and states

that “there are students who are very

brilliant, intelligent, and average and

below average, and there are some

students having hesitation and some

problems like that”. She further clarifies

the broader divisions of her class as

“In my class, there are students very

good in English, and there are students

who are very weak”. The third teacher

claims that “there are students who love

to do experiments, means they want

to do certain things practically, and

there are students who can understand

through presentations, or by doing

group work or group discussions”. She

further stands with the understanding

that “there are some students who are

intelligent and they need more about

it”. With this information from the

participants, it is clear that teachers

understand the presence of learners

with different learning styles but mostly

relate it to the ability level of students.

Implementing differentiated instruction approach

All three teachers seem to believe that

instruction should suit their learners.

With the understanding previously

mentioned, they claim to make changes

to the teaching and learning process

based on the level of learners.

In this regard, teacher A thinks that

students are different and to make them

successful, ‘we need to cater them

differently’ and claims that she plans

108

her lessons in a way that different needs

of the learners are met. She mentions

that she prepares different worksheets

based on the level of students. She also

accepts that ‘teaching methods should

be different’ for all those students.

Teacher B seems to take responsibility

for an individual’s learning on her

own. She states, “if there is a student

different from other students, it is

my responsibility to take care of that

student during my teaching”. She

reflects that when she teaches she

spends more time on weaker students

as they need more help. She also

describes her changes in lessons as

varying the type of activity she assigns

to different levels of learners. Teacher

C also agrees that different students

need different ways of teaching. Her

explanations in the class are enhanced

by pictures and other materials. She

uses practical tasks and gives groups

work (predefined groups) based on

student abilities.

From the interviews, it is understood

that all the teachers bring a certain

level of changes to their lessons in

terms of the teaching strategies, and the

activities they conduct. Here also, it is

noticed that teachers focus on the level

of students rather than their diverse

learning styles, preferences, or their

readiness level.

The analysis of teachers’ lesson

plans shows that teachers plan of

work for the week was simple and do

not show any particular features of

differentiated instruction. Teacher A

taught one reading lesson and three

grammar lessons during the week.

It was identified that the teacher

completely relies on the textbook for

each lesson and the students were

asked to do the exercises on the

textbook only. The teaching materials

used for all the lessons are identical

throughout the week (textbook, picture

cards, whiteboard and the marker,

and vocabulary card). Moreover, it

is evident that the teacher’s plan of

teaching always followed a similar

pattern of teacher explanation, a

student working on the exercise in the

textbook, and at the end practice an

individual writing task. The writing

tasks given includes writing a summary

of the reading comprehension, a short

narrative, a short paragraph in the next

two lessons. The teacher allowed group

work in one lesson, however, how the

groups were formed was not given.

Also, the teacher has not indicated

any differences brought to the lesson

109

in terms of the content planned to

deliver, and does not include any

specific differences in strategies to

cater individual differences, and

does not mention any differences in

assessments, in any of these lessons.

Teacher B conducted one topic in the

given week, that is grammar (article:

‘a’ and ‘an’). There was no evidence

of change in the content for different

learners and teacher follows the

textbook. The teacher read a story for

the learners and later explained the

topic and asked to do the exercise on

page 8 of their textbook. This exercise

was also used as the assessment for

this lesson, meaning that there were

no differences brought to the content,

process, and the assessment. However,

in the continuing lesson teacher brought

variation by involving students to name

some objects the teacher shows which

makes students more engaged in the

lesson. In this lesson, some differences

were brought to the lesson in terms

of student work as weaker students

were asked to draw the object instead

of writing them down. However, all

the students were assessed based on

a specific worksheet given. Hence,

it is seen that the teacher delivers the

content without modifying for students’

interests and needs, conducts the lesson

in the same process, and assess the

students similarly.

Teacher C, follow a similar pattern as

the teacher A and conducted a reading

lesson and two grammar lessons. She

also used the textbook as the main

material in all her lessons and her lesson

plans do not show any differences

brought to the content delivered to

students, and the procedures followed

in the classroom were the same

throughout the week where the teacher

explains the lessons and students do the

specified excises from the textbook. In

her lesson plans, there is no indication

of student assessment.

From all, the lesson plans analyzed it

is evident that teachers do not plan the

lessons for specific groups of learners,

different learning styles or different

levels of learners. They heavily depend

on the textbook and do not indicate

any changes they bring to the content,

process and assessments.

Enablers and obstacles of the approach

The teachers seem to talk positively

about the facilities available for them

to use in the classrooms and about

the support they get from school.

110

Among the enablers, they mention

the availability of ICT facilities for

them in the class and the access to the

internet and smart board in the school.

They regard the school to be supportive

in their effort and mention that the

assigned leader teacher in charge of

them, is very helpful. Participant A

mentions the availability of projectors

in the classroom as an important facility

and states “they prepare timetable

so that we can use smartboard” as

support from the senior staff. Teacher

B comments the support from some

parents too as facilities for them to go

on with their teaching.

The implementation of differentiated

instruction is a challenge for many

teachers due to various reasons. All

the participants seem to have a lack

of parental support as a challenge in

implementing the approach. Teacher

A claims that it is difficult when it

comes to parents and says “they don’t

help at all”. She also claims the need

for training on inclusive education.

Teacher B also agrees with teacher A

in the ideas of parental support and

add “sometimes I feel this content is

a little bit higher” and teacher C say

that “parents do not understand the

curriculum”.

In general, teachers are happy with the

support they get from school. It is also

noticed that the school has provided

good facilities like IT facilities for them

to use in the classrooms. These are the

factors that help them to differentiate

in their lessons. Nevertheless, they

all mentioned the lack of parental

support in implementing the approach

in classrooms. Parents are not aware

of such approaches and do not see the

differentiation in teachers’ teaching

strategies positively. Moreover,

parents’ limited knowledge about

such teaching strategies and the

curriculum also hinders the teachers’

practice as they are pressured to treat

students ‘identically’ to reduce the

complaints from parents. Lastly, the

lack of expertise in teachers to practice

the approach most appropriately and

effectively is also a challenge identified.

OVERALL DISCUSSION

In the literature, differentiated instruction

is given as an approach where learners

are given the most importance, and

their style and preferences are given

significant attention in the teaching

and learning process which are catered

for by the teachers through their

instructional design. This definition

has commonality with what teachers

111

said in their interviews. For example,

A defines differentiated instruction as

‘each and every student is different

and they have their own ways to learn’,

and B and C define it as ‘differentiated

learning means teaching and giving

work according to their level’, and

‘using different methods in teaching

in one lesson, teaching approaches

in one lesson, for different students’,

respectively. From these definitions

given by the teachers, it is clear that

teachers believe differentiated instruction

as an approach where different methods

of teaching are important to cater to

differences in learners in a classroom.

Hence, it is evident that these teachers

understand there are differences among

learners and teachers need to cater to

them. Their understanding also aligns

with what is given in the literature

which means students are the focus of

attention, and their learning preferences

are cared for, through different

instructional strategies instigated by

the teachers. This also supports the

definition of differentiated instruction

given by (Grafi-Sharabi, 2009) which

states differentiated instruction is an

approach teachers employ different

methods to attend needs of learners

in a classroom for more effective

planning to transfer knowledge

effectively. This is also in agreement

with Smit and Humpert (2012) who

state differentiated instruction is rooted

in the belief that there is variability

among any group of learners.

All of the three teachers have a common

understanding of the differences as

weaker and brighter students and do

not bring in the fact that learners come

from different backgrounds, various

learning needs and preferences. They

were more on the understanding that

the ability of learners and the level of

intelligence define the differences rather

than the background or the learning

preferences. Since they mainly talked

about students’ abilities and divide

them into three categories of bright,

average and weak, it is evident that they

do not fully understand the concept of

‘learner differences’, and hence do

not fully understand ‘differentiated

instruction’ as teachers must be fully

aware of learner differences in order

to carry out differentiated instruction.

For example, there might be bright

students who come from various

backgrounds with different prior

knowledge and learning styles which

would change their demands in the

classroom and hence, the teacher

needs to meet different demands in

112

the teaching process. Anderson (2007)

suggested that employing differentiated

instruction encourages every student to

be effective, engaged participants in the

learning process. This idea is supported

by one teacher who claims that weak

students get motivated through

differentiation and she practices it with

weaker ones.

Differentiated instruction consists

of several tools including climate,

knowing the learner, assessing the

learner, and adjusting assignments,

teaching strategies and curriculum,

for designing a classroom for

learners (Gregory and Chapman,

2002). However, these teachers did

not explicitly talk about classroom

climate. They claim that they know

their learners, and one teacher was

very definite about the presence of only

three types of learners, auditory, visual,

and kinesthetic. This idea is brought

in the literature of differentiated

instruction as Gardeners Multiple

Intelligence Theory is considered to be

one of the widely spoken theories in

the differentiated instruction approach.

Moreover, all the teachers categorize

learners into bright and weak, which

denotes the linguistic differences in the

class. Thus, it is evident that teachers

are aware of multiple intelligences to

some extent. Upon asking specifically

about their approach in assessing

learners, they state that learners are

assessed based on their differences,

and again justified it using examples

of weak and bright students, meaning

that differences are brought based on

the abilities. However, teachers’ lesson

plans do not depict the same picture

as their lesson plans mention only

one way of assessing students, which

means they assess students based on

the product students produce in doing

the given exercise or the worksheet.

Though the idea that differentiated

instruction requires teachers to

consider differentiating contexts,

assessment tools, performance tasks,

and instructional strategies (Rodriguez,

2012) these teachers do not recognize

these aspects of the approach.

Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD)

Theory (Vygostky, 1987), emphasizes

the importance of collaboration

and the importance of assessment

and scaffolding and highlights that

teachers can provide developmentally

appropriate teaching strategies by

assessing students’ readiness level and

scaffolding the curriculum (Miller,

2002). However, the participants did

113

not mention this scaffolding of the

curriculum to meet learners’ needs. This

is also not evident in their lesson plans.

Moreover, only one teacher mentions

the planned collaboration based on

the ability level of students. This

collaboration is also not evident in their

lesson plans. Tomlinson et al (2003) in

making curriculum relate to real life

and using children’s interest as a basis

for learning. However, teachers did not

talk about the changes they bring to the

curriculum or the plan for individuals.

Upon asking, one teacher revealed

that the content will be the same for

all the students, it is only the task

that generally differs. For example, a

teacher mentions the practice of videos,

presentations and some practical work

as well. This means they practice some

differences in their teaching methods

and the process, however, the analyzed

lessons do not have this specified.

Teachers who participate in the study

see differentiated instruction positively

and as something very important

to make students perform better in

their studies. This is contrary to some

findings in the history of differentiated

instruction like Wormeli (2005) and

King-Shaker (2008) who state that

teachers see differentiated instruction

negatively and this affects their

readiness to use the approach.

When teachers were asked about

the facilities and support they get to

implement the differentiated instruction

approach, they all mentioned the

availability of ICT facilities and

specified internet and projector as

important support. This suggests that

they consider ICT as an important

element in their instructional approach.

However, this does not mean that they

could bring differences desired by all

the learners. Since teachers regard

ICT as an enabler, it was seen that this

enabler helps teachers in bringing a

lot of changes in their teaching, which

they believe caters learner needs. On

the other hand, as an obstacle, all the

teachers mention lack of parental

support. This limits them from

implementing as parents are not aware

of the differences in students’ styles as

well as the differences teachers’ bring.

Since they believe all learners should

be treated similar and equal, it is a

challenge for teachers.

CONCLUSION

From the investigation, it is revealed

that teachers understand differentiated

instruction as an approach where

114

different methods of teaching are

used in catering learners of different

needs and different learning styles.

They believe in the importance of

varying teaching strategies to focus on

individual differences. However, their

understanding of individual differences

and learning preferences or styles is

limited to the learner’s intelligence

level. Teachers tend to divide learners

into ‘bright’ and ‘weak’ as the main

groups. Though this reflects the idea

of Multiple Intelligence theory, it is

a very small share of the concept of

differentiated instruction. Moreover,

it is identified that teachers do not

bring changes to the curriculum

or the content to deliver the most

appropriate content and lessons for

each individual depending on their

level of understanding, background and

learning needs. Similarly, the lesson

plans do not show changes brought

to teaching strategies in order to meet

individual needs or to cater to different

learning needs. Additionally, teachers

do not understand and practice different

assessment procedures to assess

students differently. This indicates that

though teachers have some knowledge

of differentiated instruction, they lack

the in-depth theoretical knowledge

about differentiated instruction and the

implementation of the approach is a

problematic area.

It is also revealed that enablers of the

approach include the facilities available

for them to use in the classrooms and

the support they get from the school.

Parents’ perception of such differences,

lack of their support, their limited

knowledge of the curriculum and

the content, and lack of training for

teachers on implementing differentiated

instruction are the main challenges in

implementing the approach.

The findings have implications for the

provision of information for teachers

to understand differentiated instruction

in-depth, giving adequate support and

training to plan and implement it, and

to make parents aware of the approach.

Teachers’ understanding and practices

of differentiated instruction can be

further explored with a component to

observe the teachers’ lessons to further

understand their practices beyond

the lesson plan. Moreover, it can be

conducted with more teachers from

other Key Stages, other schools or other

subject teachers to get a more general

view of teachers’ understanding,

practices and to know the enablers and

obstacles in depth.

115

REFERENCES

Anderson, K. M. (2007). Differentiating instruction to include all students. Preventing

School Failure, 51(3), 49-54

Baškarada, S. (2014). Qualitative Case Study Guidelines. The Qualitative Report, 19(40), 1-25.

Baxter, P. & Jack, S. (2008) Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report. 13(4). pp 544-559.

Dewey, J. (1897) The Psychological Aspect of the School Curriculum; EW5.164-176.

Etikan, I., Musa, S.A. & Alkassim, S. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics. 5(1).

Friedman, D.A. (2012) How to collect and analyze qualitative data. In Mackey, A. & Gass, S.M. (2012) Research methods in second language acquisition: a practical guide. UK. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: BasicBooks.

Grafi-Sharabi, G. (2009). A phenomenological study of teacher perceptions of implementing the differentiated instruction approach. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3393495).

Karadag, R. & Yasar, S. (2010). Effects of differentiated instruction on students’ attitudes towards Turkish courses: an action research. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences. 9. 1394-1399.

King-Shaver, B. (2008). Differentiated instruction: the new and not so new. California English, 13(4), 6-8

Levy, H. (2008). Meeting the needs of all students through differentiated instruction:

Helping very child reach and exceed standards. The Clearing House, 81(4) 161

Miller, P.A. (2002). Theories of development psychology. (4th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.

Mulder, Q. (2014). The Effect of differentiated Instruction on student achievement in primary school classrooms. Retrieved on 22nd March 2017 from http://essay.utwente.nl/66645/1/ Mulder%20Q.%20-%20S1199315%20-%20masterscriptie.pdf

Rodriguez, A. (2012). An Analysis of Elementary School Teachers’ Knowledge and Use of Differentiated Instruction. Olivet Nazarene University.

Smit, R. & Humpert, W. (2012). Differentiated instruction in small schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 1152 - 1162

Tomlinson, C. A. (2001). How to differentiate instruction in mixed-ability classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Tomlinson, C.A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, A. L. & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating Instruction in Response to Student Readiness, Interest, and Learning Profile in Academically Diverse Classrooms: A Review of Literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 27(2-3). 119–145.

Wilson, T. (2010). John Dewey, interests, and distinctive schools of choice. Philosophy of Education. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

116




978-99915-0-842-9/08

DO MALDIVIAN TEACHERS’ INTEGRATE ICT IN

TEACHING?

MOHAMED SHIHABFaculty of Education

[email protected]

ROZA IBRAHIM Center for Open Learning

[email protected]

SOMNATH CHAUDHURIFaculty of Science

[email protected]

The Maldives National University

Integrating ICT (Information Communication Technology) in teaching is a core requirement of the National Curriculum of Maldives. It is prescribed as one of the Key Competencies to be acquired within each learning area. Dedicating ICT as a Key Competency, it aspires to prepare learners as ICT sensitive consumers and creative producers of information for the 21st century workforce (NCF, 2015). Hence, integration of ICT is vital in today’s classrooms in order to enhance learners to acquire the required skills, knowledge, values and attitudes. However, integrating ICT and converting the classrooms into effective teaching and learning environments is a challenging task. Teachers are the agents that takes on this task and the way they integrate ICT in teaching and learning is crucial to develop ICT competent learners’. Hence this paper explores the practices of Maldivian in-service teachers in integrating ICT for teaching and learning. This quantitative study encompasses surveying of 52, teachers using purposive sampling. The findings reveal that most of the teachers (70%) use ICT to preset learning contents. However, the NCF aspires a deeper student engagement of ICT rather than the current surface level usage. Regardless of the limited ICT usage, the findings also disclose the lack of ‘know-how’ in appropriate integration of ICT skills within the subject they teach. Additionally, this paper provides some recommendations for changing the current status of integrating ICT in teaching in Maldivian schools.

Keywords: ICT integration Educational Technology, Key Competency, Teaching.

117

INTRODUCTION

Information communication technology

(ICT) has the power to transform the

process of teaching and learning in the

21st century. Along with the possibility

of supporting students learning using

varieties of ICT tools and technologies.

Also, as Bransford, Brown, & Cocking

(2000) has stressed, the possibility of

ICT has enhanced students learning

process through communication with

experts. In addition, ICT plays a

significant role in preparing students

for their life through education (Wilson,

Scalise, & Gochyyev, 2015) and acts

as a sustainable development tool to

develop learner skills in the classroom,

(Gorghiu, Gorghiu, Brezeanu, Suduc,

& Bîzoi, 2012). According to OECD

(2016), innovative use of ICT is required

in education to support active learning

in classrooms. Hence, integration of

ICT is vital in today’s classrooms in

order to enhance learners to acquire the

required skills, knowledge, values and

attitudes. However, integrating ICT and

converting the classrooms into effective

teaching and learning environments is a

challenging task.

Integrating ICT in teaching and learning is

an essential requirement of the Maldives

National Curriculum Framework (NCF)

as well, which was implemented in

2015. It is one of the Key Competencies

and has to be incorporated within each

learning area. NCF encourages the use

of varieties of technological tools for

learning and communication aiming

to prepare learners as ICT ‘sensitive

consumers and creative producers of

information’ (NCF, 2015, p 20) for the

21st century workforce. Effective and

appropriate integration of ICT will also

be a crucial support to develop learners

with required skills, knowledge, values

and attitudes as intended in the National

Curriculum Framework. Hence it is

necessary to examine whether ICT

integration is being implemented as

intended in the NCF.

This research paper investigated the

practices of ICT integration by Maldivian

in-service teachers that would help to

implement Key Competency, Using

Technology and the Media, in every day

teaching.

What is ICT Integration?

The word integrate and incorporate

are interchangeably used in various

literature. However, in the context of

curriculum, the word integrate refers to

give equal membership in the context (as

in Meriam Webster Dictionary, 2017). It

refers not segregating ICT in teaching.

According to Suchetanapawar (2012),

118

ICT integration is the ability to work with

ICT. Also, it is the use of ICT gadgets in the

teaching and learning (Khosroco-Pour,

2005). Integration of ICT in teaching is,

an autonomous, active, and collaborative

learning through student engagement in

ICT-based learning environments and

shared learning resources (Garegae &

Moalosi, 2011).

In this context, can ICT integration

mean teachers using PowerPoint

presentations, videos and pictures while

explaining their lessons? Or can it be

referred as students using Internet for

searching information? Here, there are

many factors that need to be considered.

Teachers’ knowledge, motivation and

accessibility of resources influence their

use of digital technologies productively

and interactively. Sometimes, the use

of ICT in classroom rests upon the type

of teachers or teaching. According to

Cuban, Kirkpatrick, & Peck (2001) some

teachers use computers in the classroom

which is considered as low level and

others use it for multimedia presentations.

The use of ICT for analyzing data and

creating information is considered as

high level.

ICT in Maldivian Schools

The school statistics of 2016 shows

that there are 220 schools in Maldives

in which 77 have a population of 300

and above (MOE, 2017). Schools have

been spending on the upgrading of the

facilities including computer facilities.

Generally, in all schools’ computers and

some other ICT tools are available for

teachers, administrators and students with

Internet services. Teachers commonly

use computers in their administrative

work such as, timetabling, preparing

work schedules, scheme of work, lesson

plans, worksheets, formulating exam

papers and keeping student records. As

the increasing nature of technological

awareness, schools have facilities such

as TVs, projectors and smartboards.

Teachers use PowerPoint presentations

for classroom teaching. According to

the then Education Minister Dr. Ahmed

Asim (2013), the acceptance of the

new technologies is so high among the

Maldivians, internet based learning is

promoted by the parents in most schools.

Since 2015, students’ report cards or

final mark sheets are being uploaded to

an online system, RepCar, and the other

administrative information of schools to

another online system called EMIS, so

that Ministry of Education and schools

can access those data online.

With the effort to restructure education,

Ministry of Education has formulated

and implemented a new curriculum

in the Maldivian schools from 2015.

119

One of the eight Key Competencies

in the new curriculum include ‘Using

Technology and the Media’. The

curriculum documents state that “this

key competency should enhance

students with the ability to use varieties

of technology as a tool for learning

communication and enjoyment” (NIE,

2015, p.20). Students are required to

achieve the skills, knowledge, values

and attitudes to practice ICT in everyday

life to use technology and the media

productively, safely and confidently.

In order to guide through this teachers

must integrate ICT in teaching and

learning Initially, ICT targets were

aimed to achieve via a standalone subject

and through other subjects. The ICT

subject was under the key learning area

‘entrepreneurship’. However, later this

was revoked back by eliminating the

ICT subject from school timetables and

taking back the issued ICT text book to

students. The new approach to instill ICT

skill was via integrating ICT through all

subjects.

ICT Integration in Schools

Although the integration of ICT has been

approved in the national curriculum

as one of the key competencies, it is a

difficult and complex task to accomplish

with limited teacher competencies.

According to Lim (2002), ICT integration

is a complex multidimensional task

which includes many dynamics such

as ICT tools, teachers, students, school

administration, educational programs

and school culture. In the same accord

Douglas (2009) noted that classroom

instruction is a complex enterprise

that occurs at the juncture of teachers,

students, and texts within the surrounding

classroom, school, and community

environments.

There are many factors which will enable

teachers to fully integrate ICT in the

classrooms. It includes the availability

and accessibility of technological tools

in the schools, provision of knowledge

and information for both students and

teachers regarding the tools, technical

support and sufficient in-service training

for the teachers. It is also important for

teachers to be competent with various

technological tools and are ready for

appropriate planning of lessons in order

to integrate ICT skills within the subjects

they teach. According to Price (2015),

it is a critical concern if teachers does

not understand how technology could

be used in their classrooms to support

the instructions. The integration process

emerges in Maldives with similar

concerns in the public.

Sometimes teachers feel that mere use of

ICT will suffice the expected integration

120

in the curriculum. However, the real ICT

integration does not seem to be truly

happening in the learning process. This

is evident from some other studies. As

Cuban, Kirkpatrick & Peck (2001) states

that although teachers have claimed that

they have changed their practice, they are

simply using the technology to do what

they have always done. Also, Martins,

Steil & Todesco, (2004) believe that

although teachers’ have been using ICT,

it is not enough for instructional purpose.

Researchers such as Galanouli, Murphy

& Gardner (2004), Jedeskog & Nissen

(2004) points out that teachers should be

equipped with the required knowledge

and skills so that they can determine

the best tools and strategies to motivate

and achieve the objectives of the lesson.

Demiraslan & Usluel (2008) have

emphasized importance of designing

learning activities and in determining the

most appropriate equipment that suits to

the activities and students. In addition,

innovators require to recognize and

discuss with teachers about their work

culture, appropriate technologies and

new approaches and pedagogies for those

technologies’ (Olson 2000), which will

help teachers to go for real integration of

technology.

Significance of the Research

The Maldives NCF states integrating ICT

as a requirement and it transcribe ICT as a

Key competency stated using technology

and media. As evident from the above

literature, integration of ICT is a complex

and tough task. It is demanding due to

factors like technological resources,

support and training etc. The integration

process may not go as expected during

the first few years of its implementation.

Therefore, it is important to investigate

and find out the areas in need for further

development, where changes are urgent,

and where changes can be slowed down.

Similarly, for anticipated end-results, it

is important to monitor academic process

closely and keep on moving closer to the

targets of the NCF by guiding teachers.

This research is aimed to investigate

the current practice of ICT integration

by Maldivian teachers in the context of

very day teaching. To understand the

general practice participants responses

were taken under the following research

questions.

1. What do Maldivian teachers’ do

to integrate ICT in teaching?

2. To what extent do teachers

integrate ICT in Teaching?

3. Do Maldivian teachers integrate

ICT as it aspires in the NCF?

121

METHOD

A quantitative research approach was

adopted to gain large enough data for

representing the ICT integration in

teaching and learning at Maldivian

schools. Quantitative studies offer the

researchers a wider approach to gain

accurate and complete view of the

population. It also allows the participants

to provide more focused responses of the

true situation.

Data collection was using a survey

questionnaire developed and based

on the literature. The questionnaire

was validated by co-researchers and

pilot tested with 18 teachers of similar

background. The reliability score of the

pilot test was maintained to acceptable

level, 0.78 (above 0.70 Cronbach’s

alpha) by eliminating the intruding items

from the questionnaire.

The self-administered survey

questionnaire consists of 10 items in two

sections. Section 1 as the demographic

details of the participants and section 2

with research questions based on a Likert

scale of 4 or 5 degrees.

Sampling

Purposive sampling was used in this

study as it allows the researcher to get

enough participants in the limited time

for a quantitative study. 52 participants

were chosen from local teachers

teaching in the primary grades (Year

1 to 7) and have completed a teacher

training program of diploma level or

higher. Most of the participants were

females due to their high representation

in the teaching profession at Maldivian

schools. However, this study was aimed

to investigate the practice of Maldivian

in-service teachers in integrating ICT and

not to find the gender gaps, the chosen

volunteers will provide significant data

to the studies.

When selecting samples, both large

schools (student population greater

than 300 by 2016) and small schools

(less than 300) were selected to gain an

overall picture of all schools. Similarly,

schools from the capital Male’ City,

northern atolls, central and southern

atolls are included in this research aiming

to represent various socioeconomic

backgrounds of Maldives. The teachers’

composition includes teachers teaching

almost all the subject areas, namely

Math, English, Dhivehi Islam Science,

Social Studies, Quran and Health &

PE. Geographical representation of the

schools surveyed are shown in figure 1

(below).

122

Figure 1: Geographical areas of schools surveyed.

The survey data was analyzed using a

statistical software SPSS, version 20.0

and MS excel.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The study looks at some of the trends in

ICT usage at Maldivian schools. As seen

in Figure 2, Microsoft PowerPoint is the

most frequently used software application

among the three most commonly used

applications. MS PowerPoint is so

common as teachers break down the

learning concepts into smaller bullet

points and present them on slides.

Sometimes videos are presented within

the slideshows. Some other software are

also used, but not significantly common

among teachers.

Figure 2: Most Commonly used ICT Application

(Software) in Maldivian schools, 2017

Similarly, Figure 3 shows the four

most frequently used ICT hardware

tools. Among them laptop is mostly

used in classroom teachings. This high

frequency of laptop usage is possibly

due to the government’s loan scheme

“A laptop for every Teacher” in 2010

and the Bank of Maldives loan scheme

in 2015 (Minivan Archive, 2015;

PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2010). Also,

this may be due to the limited availability

of PCs at schools during the time of the

survey. It was noticed that smart phones

are the 4th most commonly used ICT tool

among teachers. Due to the novelty of

smartphones, and the widening coverage

of Internet services to mobiles phones,

its usage is expected to grow rapidly.

Figure 3: Most Commonly used ICT (Hardware tools) in

Maldivian schools, 2017

The survey tool was designed to gain

various perspectives of ICT usage in

teaching and learning context.

Research Question 1: What do

Maldivian teachers do to integrate ICT

in teaching?

123

Integrating ICT in teaching refers to the

use of ICT in all teaching and learning

related activities, at school, home as well

as in classrooms. This research question

(research question One) presents those

various uses of ICT.

The results revealed that Maldivian

teachers use ICT for teaching related

admin work (17.3%), such as timetabling

and students’ record keeping. Teachers

use their laptop, school PC and other

ICT tools for information searching and

creating learning activities while they

plan lessons (53.9%). The use of ICT in

classroom teaching is 29.9% as shown in

figure 4.

Figure 4: Teachers’ ICT Integration

When looked at the purpose of teachers’

ICT usage, the survey results in Figure

5 show that teachers’ mostly use ICT

to present information via PowerPoint

slides and videos. PowerPoint slides are

preferred over video clips for explaining

learning contents, hence they allow

greater flexibility in customization. The

video links they use are either through

slides, direct link from World Wide Web

resource or pre-downloaded videos in

standalone devices, such as laptops,

PCs, flash-drives. The high frequency of

video usage is possibly due to the ease

of availability of ready-made content

regardless of its appropriateness.

Figure 5: Common purposes of ICT use by the teachers

The use of ICT in classroom varies a

lot, mostly it depends on the teachers’

ICT competency, perception about

ICT and the availability of time and

resources. According to Hatlevik and

Arnseth (2012), teachers’ perception

will influence the integration of ICT

in their teaching and this is seen from

their research results and Ghavifekr et

al. (2015) work. Also, Ghavifekr and

Rosdy (2015) stresses positive attitude is

necessary in ICT integration to improve

students learning. This study looked in

to teahcers perception of ICT and most

commonly used ICT softwares. As shown

in Figure 6, the most frequently used

software tool is PowerPoint presentation

124

irrespective of teachers’ perception (low,

strong or, very strong) on ICT usage in

teaching.

Figure 6: Teachers’ Perception of ICT and most

commonly used ICT software

In contrast to the general trend, teachers

having a low positive perception about

ICT usage in teaching are more than

half of the of sampled population

(count 30/52) as depicted from figure 6.

This result is may be due to the heavy

emphasis of ICT usage in teaching by the

authorities. This effect could be further

investigated in another study as it is out

of the scope of in this research.

However, among all the perception

categories except the average, (low, strong

and very strong) the most commonly

used software was PowerPoint. This

result may be due to the convenience of

PowerPoint usage and to the continuity

of other teachers slides (slide sharing) in

teaching.

48.07%

Research Question 2: To what extent

do teachers integrate ICT in Teaching?

Research question two focuses on the

level of ICT integration in the teaching

and learning process. In other words,

this question will attempt to find out

the level of ICT integration that takes

place in classrooms. The ICT usage

level was categorized into 5 levels, in

the questionnaire, as ‘not using at all’,

‘low level usage’, ‘average usage’, ‘high

level usage’ and ‘extensive use’. The

results (Figure 7) show that about half

(48.07%) of the teachers are high level

users of ICT and 32. 69% are average

users while there are few teachers who

do not take the ICT integration seriously.

They are 13.46% which are considered

as low level and 3.85% who do not use

ICT at all.

Figure 7: Level of ICT usage by the teachers

The results (figure 7) demonstrate that

most teachers use ICT as a part of their

teaching-learning methods. However,

125

Figure 6: Teachers’ Perception of ICT and most

commonly used ICT software

In contrast to the general trend, teachers

having a low positive perception about

ICT usage in teaching are more than

half of the of sampled population

(count 30/52) as depicted from figure 6.

This result is may be due to the heavy

emphasis of ICT usage in teaching by the

authorities. This effect could be further

investigated in another study as it is out

of the scope of in this research.

However, among all the perception

categories except the average, (low, strong

and very strong) the most commonly

used software was PowerPoint. This

result may be due to the convenience of

PowerPoint usage and to the continuity

of other teachers slides (slide sharing) in

teaching.

48.07%

this high usage does not mean that

teachers are integrating ICT appropriately

to instill the ICT skills required as stated

by Cuban (2001) and Martins, Steil &

Todesco (2004). It shows the frequency

of ICT usage in classrooms. As stated

earlier, ICT integration is not just mere

use of ICT.

If teachers have the intention of instilling

ICT skills while they teach the subject

content, they should have the ICT skill

objective in the lesson plan. In addition,

they could have carefully developed

the learning activities based on a

specific ICT skill to inculcate it during

the learning process (Sutherland et al.,

2004). However, this was not evident

from teachers’ responses to the survey.

The question targeted to that was, “do

you include a specific learning outcome

(target) in the lesson plan for specific

ICT skill(s) targeted in the national

curriculum?” The results are in Table 1.

It shows that, about half of the teachers

(46.2%) did not include ICT learning

objective in the lesson plan for instilling

ICT skill. This indicates that they do not

have a target of ICT integration even

though they use ICT in teaching.

Table 1: Teachers inclusion of a specific learning

outcome in the lesson plan.

Do you include specific objective/target in the lesson plan to address ICT skill area(s)?

Fre

quen

cy

Per

cent

Val

id

Per

cent

Cum

ulat

ive

Per

cent

Val

id

No. 24 46.2 46.2 46.2

Yes 28 53.8 53.8 100.0

Total 52 100.0 100.0

Another question targeting to understand

the extent of ICT integration was the

purpose of teachers’ ICT usage, this

was responded (under research question

1) that mainly for presenting learning

content to students (via PowerPoint

Slides and videos). This shows that there

is lack of chance for students to interact

with ICT in classrooms and at school.

This leads them to be passive listeners

of subject content rather than active

producers of content using ICT.

Based on the findings it can be

concluded that Maldivian teachers use

ICT in classrooms, but the actual ICT

integration is not taking place. The ICT

usage is merely at surface level, students

are not given time to engage with ICT

tools in classroom.

126

Research Question 3: Do Maldivian

teachers integrate ICT as it aspires in

the NCF?

The Maldives NCF aims to prepare

learners as ICT sensitive consumers

and creative producers of information

for the 21st century workforce aiming

to encourage the use of varieties of

technological tools for learning and

communication (NCF, 2015). As stated

in the literature, the integration of ICT

is a complex and demanding task (Lim,

2002; Douglas, 2009) due to factors like

technological resources, support and

training. The survey results stated earlier

(under research question 1 discussion),

depicts that only a limited number of

technological tools are used in teaching

and learning. If teachers are not using

variety of ICT tools in teaching, students

would not be expected to learn variety

of technological tools. This may be due

to the limited ICT resources at schools.

However, this is not the expectation of

the NCF.

In order to explore whether learners are

prepared as ICT sensitive consumers and

creative producers, the first two questions

of this research produced important

data. The results of the data for those

questions revealed that 53.9% (Figure 4)

teachers use ICT in their lesson planning

stage and 53.8% also include specific

learning objectives in their plan (table 1).

However, only 29.9% (Figure 4) use ICT

in their classroom teaching. When the

purpose of the ICT usage is investigated

it was found that ICT is mostly used for

presenting information (Figure 5) but not

to inculcate the ICT skills of creating and

producing information through activities

and practical work.

One of the important factors that could

affect ICT integration, according

to literature is training given to the

teachers. It is crucial for teachers to be

prepared with ICT skills (Buza & Mula,

2017) with adequate training so that

they can use variety of tools effectively

and efficiently (Ziden, Ismail, Spian, &

Kumutha, 2011). Such a training will

build their trust and confidence making

them competent ICT users (Ghavifekr

& Rosdy, 2015), without which ICT

integration will not facilitate effective

instructional delivery (Ghavifekr &

Rosdy, 2015) as expected in the NCF. It

was found that well-equipped preparation

and training with ICT tools plays a key

role in enhancing students learning

(Becker, 2001; Ghavifekr & Rosdy,

2015;”container-title”:”International

Journal of Research in Education and

lume”:”1”,”issue”:”2”,”source”:”DOI.

org (Crossref Simin & Sani, 2015)

Communication, and Technology. Hence,

the training opportunities conducted to

127

the teachers were investigated. More than

half (57.7%) of the teachers responded

that they have not followed any kind of

ICT integration training, while 42.3% of

the teachers have completed some form

of ICT integration training as shown in

the Table 2. These trainings duration

ranges from 3 months to 2 hours of

professional development sessions.

Table 2: Trained on ICT integration and Taught ICT Skills.

YES/

NO

Freq

uenc

y

Perc

ent

Trained for ICT

integration?

No 30 57.7

Yes 22 42.3

Total 52 100

Taught ICT Skills to

Students?

No 20 38.5

Yes 30 61.5

Total 52 100

Where do students’ use ICT?

Don’t use 7 13.5

at Home 15 28.8

At School 30 57.7

Total 52 100

In order to identify whether there is any

difference between the trained and non-

trained teachers in their ICT integration.

The question whether they have taught

ICT skill(s) to their students was

included. The results showed (Table 2) a

high percentage of the teachers (61.5%)

responded that they teach ICT skills

to their students through their subject

contents.

Hence the training is an important aspect

of achieving the aims of NCF, the study

tried to find out whether trained teachers

are taking more initiative to develop ICT

skills in their students. A Chi-square

and Phi-Cramer’s symmetric tests were

conducted to learn the significance of

the results. Pearson Chi-square value

and both Phi and Cramer’s significance

value (p-value =0.790) are insignificant

(p-value greater than 0.05). Both these

results indicated that, the teachers’

training on ICT integration is not playing

a significant role, in developing their

students’ ICT skills. In other words, the

ICT integration trainings given were

insufficient for a meaningful result in

teachers teaching. This reflects that

further training on ICT integration is

required for an effective implementation.

Figure 8: Purpose of Student’s ICT usage

128

From the survey it was evident that

34.6% of students utilize ICT tools to do

their school project works, and 17.3%

use ICT for general information over

Internet. Table 2 shows students’ ICT

usage at school and homes. This data

indicates that students engage in some

level of information creation at school

and home. However, this reported usage

is very much limited. Still there is no

appropriate ICT engagement as it is

expected in the NCF.

Based on the data it can be said that

the real ICT integration expected in the

NCF is not being practiced appropriately

in the Maldivian classrooms. Based

on the type of ICT integration reported

in classrooms, there is no evidence of

impact on developing for 21st century

ICT skills as aspired in the National

Curriculum.

However, the encouraging phenomenon

observed are that the ICT usage is

increasing in various stages of teaching

and learning process. Currently the usage

is higher at planning stage of teaching

than in the teaching and learning process.

It is evident that there is a knowledge gap

in teachers’ understanding of appropriate

ICT integration in subjects. So, further

training is highly required for teachers

via professional development or by other

means.

These findings are limited to survey

results of teachers. Further research using

students and qualitative dimensions can

reveal additional in depths of classroom

ICT usage and the challenges in ICT

integration process.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From this quantitative study it was

evident that the ICT integration in

Maldivian schools are just in a surface

level. Teachers use ICT in teaching

related-activities and present information

using ICT in classrooms, but this usage

does not reach appropriate limits in

the learning contexts. When ICT is

integrated appropriately, students will be

using ICT in the learning process to gain

new information, to create ICT related

products and show the confidence

and competency in ICT tools usage in

classrooms as well as at homes. This was

not seen from teachers’ responses.

Teachers’ use of ICT is limited to just

hand-full of ICT tools and applications.

The required ICT skills development for

21st century is not evident in classrooms.

Teachers lack in appropriate know-how

to integrate ICT in teaching and learning.

As stated in the literature ICT integration

is not an easy task. Teachers need to be

competent to work for dual objectives of

129

the teaching subject contents and the ICT

skills objectives. A well-rounded teacher

of both the teaching subject area and ICT

can reach to the expected level of the

NCF. Therefore, for and effective ICT

integration, further training is required

for teachers to fulfill the expected end

results from their work. Schools required

to be ICT resourced and establish support

services for teachers in integrating ICT

in the teaching and learning process.

This research recommends that, for an

effective integration of ICT as prescribed

in the NCF, teacher need to have

continuous periodic training, capacity

building workshops and seminars. In

addition to the training, model ICT

integration lessons on all the subject areas

could be developed and video recorded

and distributed for references. Such an

activity would be a great help for the

teachers to learn from the best practices.

Similarly, a mechanism of continuous

expert support for teachers in developing

and implementing ICT integrated lesson

would be of utmost importance for the

time being. This research also suggests

that schools need to be ICT resourced

and continuous budget for upgrading and

maintenance of ICT products are vital

for effective ICT integration.

REFERENCESAsim, A. (2013). In Maldives, Parents

Promote ICT in Education. Digital Learning. Innovating for a better future. Retrieved on 30th October 2017 from:

http://digitallearning.eletsonline.com/2013/04/in-maldives-parents-promote-ict-in-education/

Buza, A. D. K., & Mula, M. F. (2017). The role of the Teachers in the integration of ICT in Teaching in Secondary Low Education. European Journal of Social Science Education and Research, 4(4), 240-247.

by Merriam-Webster, D. (2018). America's most-trusted online dictionary.(2017). Merriam-webster. com.

Cuban, L., Kirkpatrick, H., & Peck, C. (2001). High access and Low use of technology in high school classrooms: Explaining an apparent paradox. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 813-834.

Douglas, K. (2009). Sharpening our focus in measuring classroom instruction. Educ. Res. 38(7), 518–521

Demiraslan and Usluel (2008). ICT integration processes in Turkish schools: Using activity theory to study issues and contradictions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(4), 458-474

Garegae, K. G., & Moalosi, S. S. (2011). Botswana ICT Policy and Curriculum Concerns: Does School Connectivity Guarantee Technology Integration into Mathematics Classrooms?. In Handbook of Research on Information Communication Technology Policy: Trends, Issues and Advancements (pp. 15-32). IGI Global

Galanouli, D., Murphy, C. & Gardner, J. (2004). Teachers’ perceptions of the effectiveness of ICT competence training. Computers & Education, 43, 63-79.

130

Ghavifekr, S., & Rosdy, W. A. W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(2), 175-191.

Gorghiu, G., Gorghiu, L. M., Brezeanu, I., Suduc, A. M., & Bîzoi, M. (2012). Promoting the effective use of ict in Romanian primary and secondary education-steps made in the frame of edutic project. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 4136-4140.

Hatlevik, O. E., & Arnseth, H. C. (2012). ICT, teaching and leadership: How do teachers experience the importance of ICT-Supportive school leaders?. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 7(01), 55-69.

Jedeskog, G. & Nissen, J. (2004). ICT in the classroom: Is doing more ımportant than knowing? Education and Information Technologies, 9(1), 37-45.

Khosrow-Pour, M. (Ed.). (2005). Encyclopedia of information science and technology. IGI Global.

Lim, C. P. (2002). A theoretical framework for the study of ICT in schools: A proposal. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(4), 411-421.

Martins, C. B. M. J., Steil, A. V. & Todesco, J. L. (2004). Factors influencing the adoption of the Internet as a teaching tool at foreign language schools. Computers & Education, 42, 353-374.

Ministry of Education (2017). School Statistics 2016. Ministry of Education, Republic of Maldives. Retrieved on 3rd November 2017 from: https://www.moe.gov.mv/assets/upload/Stat_Book_2016.pdf

Minivan News Archive (2015). Bank of Maldives introduces new loan scheme for teachers. Male’, Maldives. Retrieved from https://minivannewsarchive.com/tag/teachers.

National Institute of Education, (2015). National Curriculum Framework, Ministry of Education, Male. Retrieved on 30th October 2017 from https://moe.gov.mv/assets/upload/National_Curriculum_Framework_English.pdf

National Institute of Education, (2015). Turning the Key Competencies into Reality: a practical guide for teachers, Ministry of Education, Male. Retrieved on 30th October 2017 https://www.moe.gov.mv/assets/upload/KEY_COMPETENCIES_GUIDE.pdf

PricewaterhouseCoopers (2010). Survey of ICTs for Education in India and South Asia, Country Studies. Retrieved from http://www.infodev.org/infodev-files/resource/InfodevDocuments_880.pdf

OECD. (2016). Education at a Glance 3(510)- Indicators. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/skills-beyond-school/education-at-a-glance-2016-indicators.htm

Olson, J. (2000) Trojan horse or teacher's pet? Computers and the culture of the school. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32 (1), 1-8.

Price, J. K. (2015). Transforming learning for the smart learning environment: lessons learned from the Intel education initiatives. Smart Learning Environments, 2(1), 16.

Simin, G., & Sani, I. M. (2015). Effectiveness of ICT Integration in Malaysian Schools: A Quantitative Analysis. International Research Journal for Quality in Education, 2, 12.

Sutherland, R., V. Armstrong, S. Barnes, R. Brawn, N. Breeze, M. Gall, S. Matthewman, F. Olivero, A. Taylor, P. Triggs, J. Wishart, and P. John. 2004. Transforming teaching and learning: Embedding ICT into everyday classroom practices. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20: 413–425.

131

Wilson, M., Scalise, K., & Gochyyev, P. (2015). Rethinking ICT literacy: From computer skills to social network settings. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 18, 65-80.

Ziden, A. A., Ismail, I., Spian, R., & Kumutha, K. (2011). The Effects of ICT Use in Teaching and Learning on Students’ Achievement in Science Subject in a Primary School in Malaysia. Malaysia Journal of Distance Education, 13(2), 19–32.

132




ތަޢާރަފު

ޤާނޫނީގޮތުން އުނގަންނައިދިނުމަށް، ދިވެހިބަހަކީ މާއްދާއެކެވެ. މަޖުބޫރު ލާޒިމުކުރެވިފައިވާ އެހެންކަމުން މުޅި ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ހުރިހާ ސްކޫލެއްގައި

978-99915-0-842-9/09

ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ޙަރަކާތްތައް ރާވަން ވަގުތު ދިނުމުން، ދިވެހިބަސް ކިޔަވާ ސާނަވީ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް ހެޔޮ ބަދަލެއް

ޢާއިޝަތު ޒިދްނާ[email protected]

ސާނަވީ ދަރިވަރުންނަކީ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ގޮތުން މަޒުމޫނާއި ވާހަކަ ފަދަ އެކި ވައްތަރުގެ ލިޔުންތައް ލިޔަން ދަސްކުރާ ބައެކެވެ. ލިޔުމުގެ ހުނަރު ކުރިއެރުވުމަކީ އުނދަގޫކަމެއްކަމަށް ގިނަބަޔަކު ދެކެމުންދާއިރު، މި ހުނަރު ފޯރުކޮށް ދެވޭނީ ވަނީ ޚާއްޞަކޮށްފައި ކަރުދާސް ދިރާސީ މި އެގޮތުން ކަމެކެވެ. މުހިންމު ބެލުމަކީ ގޮތުގައިތޯ އެކަށޭނަ އެންމެ ކިލާސްރޫމްތަކުގައި ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ގޮތުން ދަރިވަރުން ލިޔާ މަޒުމޫނު ފަދަ ލިޔުންތައް ލިޔުމުގެ ކުރިން އެލިޔުމެއް ލިޔާނެ ގޮތާ މެދު ރޭވުމަށްޓަކައި ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ވަގުތު ދިނުމުން، ދަރިވަރުންގެ މާދަރީބަހުގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ހުނަރަށް ކިޔަވާ ދިވެހިބަސް ސާނަވީގައި އަމާޒުކޮށްފައިވަނީ ދިރާސާ މި މިގޮތުން ދެނެގަތުމަށެވެ. ކޮބައިތޯ ބަދަލަކީ އަންނަ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ކަމަށްވާތީ، ދިރާސާގައި ބައިވެރިކޮށްފައި ވަނީ އޭގެތެރެއިން 20 ދަރިވަރުންވެ. ކުއެންޓިޓޭޓިވްކޮށް ކުރި މި ދިރާސާއިން، ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ލިބިގެންނާއި ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުލިބި، މި ދަރިވަރުން ހެދި ދެ ޓެސްޓުގައި ލިޔުނު މަޒުމޫނުތަކުން ދައްކައިދިނީ ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ލިބުމުން، ލިޔުންތެރިކަން މާ ބޮޑު ތަން ރަނގަޅުވާކަމެވެ. މިކަން މި ރޑް ސާމްޕަލް ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވް ޓެސްޓުތަކުންނާއި ޓީޓެސްޓުތަކުގެ ނަތީޖާއިން ކަށަވަރުކޮށްދެއެވެ. އެގޮތުން ދިރާސާގެ ޕެއަޓެސްޓުކުރި ބެލުމުން، ބެލި ބައަކަށް ހުރިހާ ހިމެނޭ ނޑުތަކުގައި މިންގަ ވަޒަންކުރާ އިމްތިހާނުގައި އެސް.އެސް.ސީ ވޭރިއޭބަލްތަކުގެ މެދުގައި ވަރަށް ވަރުގަދަ ގުޅުން )ސްޓްރޯންގ ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ގުޅުން( ވާކަން ފާހަގަކުރަމެވެ. މި ހޯދުންތަކަށް ބުރަވާ އިރު، ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުދީ ދަރިވަރުން ލައްވާ މަސައްކަތް ކުރުވާނަމަ، ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ހުނަރު ކުރިއެރުމުގައި ހުރަސްތަކަކާ ދިމާވާނެކަމީ ކަށަވަރު ކަމެކެވެ. އެހެންކަމުން މިއީ، ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ކިލާސްތައް ކުރިއަށް

ގެންދާ ފާރާތްތަކުގެ ސަމާލުކަމަށް ގެނެސް ރަނގަޅުކުރުމަށް މަސައްކަތްކުރަންޖެހޭ ދާއިރާއެކެވެ.

މުހިންމު ލަފްޒުތައް: ބަހުގެ އިލްމު، ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ހުނަރު، ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ މަރުހަލާތައް، ވަގުރު ރޭވުން

މިއަދު މިދަނީ މާދަރީ ބަހެއްގެ ގޮތުގައި ދިވެހިބަސް ނޑު މައިގަ ބަހުގެ އުނގަންނައިދެމުންނެވެ. ހުނަރުތަކުގެ ތެރެއިން ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަކީ ދަސްކޮށްދޭން ކަން ދެކެއެވެ. ގިނަބަޔަކު ހުނަރެއްކަމަށް އުނދަގޫ

133

ކުރާ ކުރިއެރުވުމަށް ހުނަރު މި ހުރިއިރު މިހެން މަސައްކަތުން ނެރެވެނީ އެންމެ އެކަށީގެންވާ ނަތީޖާތޯ، މިއީ ކުރަން ޖެހިފައިވާ ސުވާލެކެވެ. ދަރިވަރުން ލައްވާ މަޒުމޫނެއް ލިޔުއްވަން ފެށުމުގެ ކުރިން އެ މަޒުމޫނެއް ރޭވުމަށް ދެވޭ ވަގުތަކީ މުހިންމު ވަގުތެއްކަން ރޮޑް އެލިސް )2003(، ޖޭން ވިލިސް އަދި ޑޭވް ވިލިސް )2007( ގެ އިތުރުން، މެހްރާންގ އަދި ރަހިމްޕޫރު )2010( ގެ ދިރާސާތަކުން ފެންނަން އެބަހުއްޓެވެ. ނަމަވެސް ދެވަނަ ބަހުގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ އެކިއުރިސީ އަސްޣަރް ބެލުމަށް ކޮމްޕްލެކްސިޓީ ޓާސްކް އާއި ހޮސެއިނީ ޕަރްވިން އަލާވިނި، ޕްރްވިޒް ސާލިމީ، ސާމްޕަލް ސިމްޕަލް ދިރާސާގެ ކުރެއްވި )2012(ވުރެ ގުރޫޕަށް ލިބުނު ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ޓެސްޓުން، ލިޔުންތެރިކަން ގުރޫޕުގެ ނުލިބޭ ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ވެއެވެ. ހޯދިފައި ކަމަށް ވެފައިވާ 'އެކިއުރޭޓް' މާ ޚާއްޞަކޮށްފައި ދިރާސާ މި ހުރީތީ މިހެން ކަން ގޮތުން ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ކިލާސްރޫމްތަކުގައި ވަނީ ދަރިވަރުން ލިޔާ މަޒުމޫނު ފަދަ ލިޔުންތައް ލިޔުމުގެ ކުރިން، އެ ލިޔުމެއް ލިޔާނެ ގޮތާ މެދު ރޭވުމަށްޓަކައި ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދިނުމުން، ވަގުތު ދަރިވަރުންނަށް އަންނަ ހުނަރަށް ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ މާދަރީބަހުގެ

ދެނެގަތުމަށެވެ. ބަދަލުތައް

ބަހުގައި ދިވެހި ބޭނުމަކީ ނޑު މައިގަ ދިރާސާގެ މި ނުވުމާއި ހެދިފައި ދިރާސާއެއް މިފަދަ މިހާތަނަށް ދިވެހިބަހުގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުން ރަނގަޅު ނަތީޖާ ނެރެވޭ ތަން ފެންނަމުން ނުދާތީ، ދިވެހިބަސް ކިޔަވާ ކުދިންގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަން ދަށްވާ ސަބަބުތައް ދެނެގަތުމެވެ. އަދި ހަމަ މިއާއެކު ޤައުމީ މަންހަޖުގައި ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް މެދުވެރިކޮށް ދިރާސާ މި ނޑައެޅުމަށް، ކަ ވަގުތު

އެހީވެދިނުމެވެ.

މި ދިރާސާގެ ސުވާލަކީ "ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ޙަރަކާތްތައް

ރާވަން ވަގުތު ދިނުމުން، ދިވެހިބަސް ކިޔަވާ ސާނަވީ

އަންނަ ހުނަރަށް ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ދަރިވަރުންގެ

ބަދަލަކީ ކޮބައިހެއްޔެވެ؟" މިއެވެ. މި ސުވާލަށް ޖަވާބު

ނޑައަޅައިފައި ހޯދުމަށްޓަކައި 2 ހައިޕޮތެސިސްއެއް ކަ

ވާނެއެވެ. އެއީ:

މަޒުމޫނު ލިޔުމުގެ ކުރިން ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު . 1

ލިބުމަކުން ދަރިވަރުންގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ

ފެންވަރު ރަނގަޅެއް ނުވެއެވެ. )ނަލް

ހައިޕޮތެސިސް(

މަޒުމޫނު ލިޔުމުގެ ކުރިން ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު . 2

ލިބިގެން މަޒުމޫނު ލިޔުމުން ދަރިވަރުންގެ

ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ފެންވަރު ރަނގަޅުވެއެވެ.

)އޯލްޓަނޭޓިވް ހައިޕޮތެސިސް(

ލިޓްރޭޗަރ ރިވިއު

ބަހެއް އުނގެނުމުގެ ތެރެއިން ލިބިދޭ އެންމެ މުހިންމު

ލިޔުންތެރިކަމެވެ. އެބަހެއްގެ ޤާބިލުކަމަކީ އެއް

މަޒުމޫނު ތެރެއިން ފިލާވަޅުތަކުގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ

ލިޔުމުގެ ކުރިން ދަރިވަރުން އެ ލިޔުމެއް ބައްޓަންކުރާނެ

ދިނުމަކީ ފުރުޞަތުތަކެއް ވިސްނާލަން ގޮތަކާމެދު

މުހިންމު ކުރުން ކުރިއެރުވުމުގައި ލިޔުންތެރިކަން

)2002( ޓޮމްކިންސް އީ. ގެއިލް، ކަމަށް ކަމެއް

ވިދާޅުވެއެވެ. މި ވަގުތުކޮޅުގެ ސަބަބުން މުޅި މަޒުމޫނު

ޕޮއިންޓްތަކާއި ނޑު މައިގަ ބޭނުންވާ ހުށެހެޅުމަށް

)ޖެރެމީ ދެނެގަނެވެއެވެ އުސްލޫބު ހުށަހަޅާނެ

.)2004 ހާރމަރ،

އާރް. އޭ. ކެލޮގް )1996( ކުރި ދިރާސާއިން ދެއްކި

134

ރޭވުމުގެ ރޭވި ގޮތުގައި ގެ ޕްރީޓާސްކް ގޮތުގައި،

ރަނގަޅުވެ، ފެންވަރު ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ސަބަބުން

ފުރިހަމަވެގެންދެއެވެ. އިތުރަށް ލިޔުމުންތެރިކަން

ނަމަވެސް މެހްރާންގ އަދި ރަހިމްޕޫރު )2010( ކުރި

ދިރާސާއިން ދައްކަނީ ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދިނުމަކުން ބަހުގެ

ހަމަތަކަށް ފައްތައިގެން އަދި ޖުމުލަތަކުގެ ފަށުވިކަމާއި

ލިޔުމަށް ބާރުދޭ ޖުމުލަތައް ލިޔުމަށް)އެކިއުރެސީއަށް(

ބަޔާންކުރެވުނު މި ނުކުރާކަމަށެވެ. އަސަރެއް ވަކި

ތަފާތުތަކެއް ނަތީޖާއިން ދިރާސާގެ ބޭފުޅުންގެ ދެ

)ޓާސްކްތަކަށް( ޙަރަކާތްތަކަށް ހިނދު، ފެންނަ

ޢާންމުކޮށް މިވަނީ، ކިޔަވައިދިނުން ބަސް ބިނާކޮށް

ގެންގުޅެމުން މީހުން މެދު ގޮތާ ކިޔަވައިދޭ ބަސް

އެލިސް ރޮޑް ގޮންޖަހާފައިކަމަށް ޚިޔާލުތަކަށް އައި

ޓާސްކުތަކަށް އަދި ލިޔުއްވައެވެ. )2003(

ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ ސަބަބުން ދަރިވަރުންގެ ބައިވެރިވުން

މުއްސަނދިވެއެވެ. އިތުރަށް ބަސްކޮށާރު އިތުރުވެ،

ލިޔުއްވާ ނުދެވި ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް މިހެންވުމުން

ނޑައެޅި ކަ އިންތަކެއް ކުރެވެނީ އެކަން ނަމަ

ދަރިވަރުންގެ ސަބަބުން މީގެ ހިފެހެއްޓިގެންނެވެ.

ހިފެހެއްޓިގެންނެވެ. ވެސް ހުޅުވައިލެވޭނީ ވިސްނުން

.)2007 ވިލިސް، ޑޭވް އާއި ވިލިސް )ޖޭން

އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި ބަސް މިއީ އެހެންކަމުން

މުހިންމުކަމެކެވެ. ބަލައިލުން އިތުރަށް

ދިރާސާ ކުރިއަށް ގެންދެވުނު ގޮތް

ޙަރަކާތްތައް ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ދިރާސާއަކީ މި

ރާވަން ވަގުތު ދިނުމުން، ދިވެހިބަސް ކިޔަވާ ސާނަވީ

އަންނަ ހުނަރަށް ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ދަރިވަރުންގެ

ބަދަލަކީ ކޮބައިތޯ ބެލުމަށްޓަކައި ކުރި ދިރާސާއެކެވެ.

ވަނީ ގެންގޮސްފައި ކުރިއަށް ދިރާސާ މި

ޕޮޒިޓިވިސްޓް ފެރެޑައިމްގެ ކުއެންޓިޓޭޓިވް ޑިޒައިންގެ

ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންނެވެ. ޑިޒައިން އެކްސްޕެރިމެންޓަލް

ޑިޒައިންތައް ތަފާތު ޑިޒައިންގެ އެކްސްޕެރިމެންޓަލް

ހަދާފައިވަނީ ދިރާސާ މި އޭގެތެރެއިން ހުރުމާއެކު

ޕޯސްޓް ޓެސްޓް އޮންލީ ކޮންޓްރޯލް ގްރޫޕް ޑިޒައިން

ދިރާސާގައި މި އެގޮތުން ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންނެވެ.

ކުދިން 20 ނެގި ރެންޑަމްކޮށް ބޭނުންކޮށްފައިވަނީ

ގެ ގުރޫޕެކެވެ. މި ޑިޒައިން ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ކުރީ ދެ

ޕޯސްޓް ޓެސްޓެވެ. އެއީ ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދީގެންނާއި

ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުދީ ކުރި ޓެސްޓެވެ. މި ގޮތުން ނެގި

ބޭނުންކުރާ އިމްތިހާނުގައި އެސް.އެސް.ސީ ޑާޓާތައް

މާކުކުރެވި، އެހީގައި )ރުބްރިކް(ގެ ނޑު މިންގަ

ޕޮރޮގްރާމްގެ އެސް.ޕީ.އެސް.އެސް ޑާޓާތައް އެ

އިފެކްޓް އެންޑް ކޯސް އެނަލައިޒްކޮށްގެން އެހީގައި

އިންޑެޕެންޑެންޓް ބެލީ މިގޮތުން ވާނެއެވެ. ބަލާފައި

ވޭރިއޭބަލްއަށް ޑިޕެންޑެންޓް ވޭރިއޭބަލްތަކުން

މިންވަރެވެ. އަސަރުކޮށްފައިވާ

ބޭނުންކުރި ޓެސްޓުކުރުމުގައި ދިރާސާގައި މި

ލިޔުމުގެ އަކީމަޒުމޫނު ވޭރިއޭބަލް އިންޑިޕެނެޑެންޓް

ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ދިނުމާއި ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ކުރިން

ނުދިނުމެވެ. ޑިޕެންޑެންޓް ވޭރިއޭބަލްއަކީ ދަރިވަރުންގެ

ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ބަދަލެވެ. އަންނަ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް

ފޯން "މޮބައިލް ބޭނުންކުރީ ޓެސްޓަށް ކުރި ނުދީ

ބޭނުންކުރެވެނީ އެއްމެ އެދެވޭ ގޮތުގައި ހެއްޔެވެ؟"މި

ކުރި ދީގެން ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް އަދި ސުރުޚީއެވެ.

ސަބަބުން "ޓެކްނޮލޮޖީގެ ބޭނުންކުރީ ޓެސްޓަށް

މި ސުރުޚީއެވެ. ފައިދާއެވެ" ވަނީ ކިޔަވާކުދިންނަށް

ބަޔާންކުރެވުނު ކަންކަމުގެ ތެރެއިން މި ދިރާސާއިން

135

ހޯދުނު ހުރިހާ ހޯދުމެއް ބިނާވެގެންވަނީ ދިރާސާގައި

މައްޗަށެވެ. އެކްސްޕެރިމެންޓްގެ ހެދި

ދިރާސާގެ ހޯދުންތައް އަދި ދިރާސާގެ ބަހުސް

މި ހޯދާފައިވަނީ، ހޯދުންތައް ހޯދި ދިރާސާއަށް މި

ޕޯސްޓް ދެ ލިޔުމުގެ މަޒުމޫނު ކުރި ދިރާސާގައި

ނަތީޖާ ހޯދި މިގޮތުން އެހީގައެވެ. ޓެސްޓުގެ

އެކްސެލް ޝީޓަށް ނެގުމަށް ފަހު، އެނެލައިޒްކޮށްފައި

ދިރާސާތައް ޑިޒައިނުގެ ކުއެންޓީޓޭޓިވް ވަނީ

އެނެލައިޒްކުރުމަށް ބޭނުންކުރާ ޚާއްޞަ ޕްރޮގްރާމެއް

ކަމަށްވާ އެސް.ޕީ.އެސް.އެސް ޕްރޮގްރާމްގެ އެހީގައެވެ.

މި ދެ ޓެސްޓުގެ ނަތީޖާ ތަހުލީލުކޮށްފައި ވަނީ އެސް.

އެނަލިޒިސްއެއްގެ ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވް ޕީ.އެސް.އެސްގެ

ރޑް ސާމްޕަލް އެހީގައެވެ. މި ގޮތުން ހަދާފައިވާ ޕެއަ

ރޑް ޕެއަ އަދި ސްޓެޓިސްޓިކްސް ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވް

ނަތީޖާތައް ފެނުނު ޓެސްޓުން ޓީ ސާމްޕަލް

އެވަނީއެވެ. ތާވަލުތަކުގައި

ދީގެންނާއި ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް :1 ތާވަލު ޚިޔާލުތައް ޓެސްޓުގެ ހެދި ނުދީ ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ޕެރެގުރާފުތައް ވުމާއި، ބަހައިފައި ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް ގުޅުވައިގެން ހުށަހަޅާފައިވާ ގޮތް އަދި ޕެރެގުރާފުތައް ސާމްޕަލްތަކުގެ ރޑް ޕެއަ ގޮތުގެ ތަރުތީބުކޮށްފައިވާ

. ސް ވް ޓި ޕް ރި ކް ޑިސް

ރޑް ސާމްޕަލް ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވްސް ޕެއަOrganization Mean N Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Pair

1 ޚިޔާލުތައް ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް ބަހައިލުން )އަންޕްލޭން( 3.1500 20 2.23077 49881.

ޚިޔާލުތައް ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް ބަހައިލުން )ޕްލޭންޑް( 5.5500 20 1.60509 35891.

Pair

2 ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ގުޅުން )އަންޕްލޭން( 3.3000 20 2.51522 56242.

ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ގުޅުން )ޕްލޭންޑް( 5.5000 20 1.39548 31204.

Pair 3 ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ތަރުތީބު )އަންޕްލޭން( 3.6500 20 2.30046 51440.

ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ތަރުތީބު )ޕްލޭންޑް( 5.5000 20 1.39548 31204.

ރޭވުމަށް ގޮތުގައި، ދައްކާ މީންއިން ގެ 1 ތާވަލު ވަގުތު ނުދީ މަޒުމޫނު ލިޔުއްވުމަށް ވުރެ ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދީގެން މަޒުމޫނު ލިޔުއްވުމުން ދަރިވަރުން މާ ރަނގަޅަށް ޚިޔާލުތައް ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް ބަހައެވެ. ވަގުތު ނުދީ ހެދި މީންގެ ޓެސްޓުގެ ހެދި ދީގެން ވަގުތު ޓެސްޓަށްވުރެ ޢަދަދު ވަނީ މަތިވެފައެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ ޕެރެގުރާފުތައް

ތަރުތީބު މާބޮޑަށް ވެސް ހުށަހެޅުމުގައި ގުޅިގެން ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. ކުރެވިފައިވާކަން )އޮގަނައިޒް( އެގޮތުން ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ލިބިގެން މަޒުމޫނު ލިޔުމުން، ޚިޔާލުތައް ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް ބަހައިލުމާއި ޕެރެގުރާފުތައް ތަރުތީބުކޮށްފައިވާ ޕެރެގުރާފުތައް ގޮތާއި ގުޅިފައިވާ

ގޮތުގެ މީން އަކީ 5.5 އެވެ.

136

ތާވަލު 2: ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދީގެންނާއި ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުދީ ހެދި ޓެސްޓްގައި ޚިޔާލުތައް ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް

ރޑް ސާމްޕަލްތަކުގެ ބަހައިފައި ވުމާއި، ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ގުޅުން އަދި ޕެރެގުރާފުތައް ތަރުތީބުކޮށްފައިވާ ގޮތުގެ ޕެއަ

ޓީ ޓެސްޓް.

ރޑް ސާމްޕަލް ޓީ ޓެސްޓް ޕެއަ

Org

aniz

atio

n

Paired Differences

t df

Sig.

(2-ta

iled)

Mea

n

Std.

Dev

iatio

n

Std.

Erro

r Mea

n

95%

C

onfid

ence

In

terv

al o

f the

D

iffer

ence

Low

er

Upp

er

Pair

1 ޚިޔާލުތައް ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް ބަހައިލުން )އަންޕްލޭން( އަދި ޚިޔާލުތައް

ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކަށް ބަހައިލުން )ޕްލޭންޑް( -2.4

0000

1.87

504

.419

27

-3.2

7755

-1.5

2245

-5.7

24

19

Pair

2 ޕެރެގްރާފުތަކުގެ ގުޅުން )އަން ޕްލޭންޑް( އަދި ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ގުޅުން )ޕްލޭންޑް( -2

.200

00

2.01

573

.450

73

-3.1

4339

-1.2

5661

-4.8

81

19

Pair

3 ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ތަރުތީބު )އަންޕްލޭން( އަދިޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގެ ތަރުތީބު )ޕްލޭންޑް( -1

.850

00

1.66

307

.371

87

-2.6

2834

-1.0

7166

-4.9

75

19

ރޑް ސާމްޕަލްތަކުގެ ޓީ ޓެސްޓްގެ ތާވަލު 2 ގައި ވާ ޕެއަ

ރޑް ޑީވިއޭޝަނަށް ބަލާއިރު، އެއްޕެރެގުރާފު ސްޓޭންޑަ

އަނެއް ޕެރެގުރާފެއްގެ ގުޅުން ބެހެއްޓުމުގެ އެވްރެޖް

މީންއާ ކޮންމެ ދަރިވަރަކާ ދެމެދުގައި ތަފާތު ހުރިކަން

ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. ޓީ ޓެސްޓްގައި ވާ ތިން ބައިގެ

P = ީވެސް، ރެލެވަންޓް ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ލެވެލްއަކ

0.05>( 000.( އެވެ. އެހެންކަމުން ޓެސްޓުކުރެވުނު

މި ދެ ވޭރިއޭބަލްގެ ދެމެދުގައި ވަނީ ސްޓްރޯންގ

ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ގުޅުމަކަށް ވާތީ، ނަލް ހައިޕޮތެސިސް

މިވަނީ ރިޖެކެޓްވެފައެވެ.

ތާވަލު 3: ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދީގެންނާއި ވަގުތު ނުދީ

ހެދި ޓެސްޓުގައި މައުޟޫ އޯޑިއަންސަށް އަމާޒުކުރުމާއި

ރޑް ޕެއަ ގޮތުގެ ގެނެސްފައިވާ ނިންމުން ފެށުމާއި

ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވްސް. ސާމްޕަލްތަކުގެ

137

ރޑް ސާމްޕަލް ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވްސް ޕެއަ

Organization Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pair

1 އޯޑިއެންސް )އަންޕްލޭން( 4.4500 20 2.06410 .46155

އޯޑިއެންސް )ޕްލޭންޑް( 5.7500 20 1.65036 .36903

Pair

2 ފެށުމާއި ނިންމުން )އަންޕްލޭން( 3.2500 20 1.99671 .44648

ފެށުމާއި ނިންމުން )ޕްލޭންޑް( 4.8000 20 1.64157 .36707

ރޑް ޑީވިއޭޝަންތަކުގެ ތެރެއިން ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުދީ ހެދި ޓެސްޓުގެ ތާވަލު 3 އަށް ބަލާ އިރު، ސްޓޭންޑަމިއިން ފެތުރިފައެވެ. މާބޮޑަށް ވަނީ ޑީވިއޭޝަން ރޑް ސްޓޭންޑަ ގޮތުގެ އަމާޒުކޮށްފައިވާ އޯޑިއެންސަށް

ދައްކުވައިދެނީ ކޮންމެ ދަރިވަރަކާ އެވްރެޖް މީންއާ ހުރި ތަފާތު ބޮޑުވެފައިވާ ކަމެވެ.

ތާވަލު 4: ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދީގެންނާއި ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުދީ ހެދި ޓެސްޓުގައި މަޒުމޫނުގެ މައުޟޫ އޯޑިއަންސަށް ރޑް ސާމްޕަލްތަކުގެ ޓީ ޓެސްޓް އަމާޒުކުރުމާއި ފެށުމާއި ނިންމުން ގެނެސްފައިވާ ގޮތުގެ ޕެއަ

ރޑް ސާމްޕަލް ޓީ ޓެސްޓް ޕެއަ

Org

aniz

atio

n

Paired Differencest df

(Sig

. (2-

taile

d

Mea

n

Std.

Dev

iatio

n

Std.

Erro

r Mea

n

95%

Con

fiden

ce

Inte

rval

of th

e

Diff

eren

ce

Low

er

Upp

er

Pair

1 އޯޑިއެންސަށް އަމާޒުކުރުން )އަންޕްލޭން( އަދި އޯޑިއެންސަށް އަމާޒުކުރުން

)ޕްލޭންޑް( -1.3

0000

1.52

523

.341

05

-2.0

1383

-.586

17

-3.8

12

19 .001

Pair

2 ފެށުމާއި ނިންމުން )އަންޕްލޭން( އަދި ފެށުމާއި ނިންމުން )ޕްލޭންޑް( -1

.550

00

1.31

689

.294

47

-2.1

6633

-.933

67

-5.2

64

19 .000

138

ތާވަލު 4 އަށް ބަލާއިރު ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދިނުމުން މާބޮޑަށް މަޒުމޫނު ކިޔާ މީހުންނަށް )އޯޑިއެންސަށް( އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން ލިޔެފައިވާކަން މި ދިރާސާއިން ހޯދިފައި ވެއެވެ. ޓީ ޓެސްޓުން ދައްކާ ގޮތުގައި އޯޑިއެންސަށް ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ރެލެވަންޓް ގޮތުގެ އަމާޒުކޮށްފައިވާ ލެވެލްއަކީ P = .001 )<0.05( އެވެ. ފެށުމާއި ކުރި ބެލުމަށްޓަކައި ގޮތް ގެނެސްފައިވާ ނިންމުން ރޑް ސާމަޕަލް ޓީ ދެ ޓެސްޓަށް ބިނާކޮށް ހެދި ޕެއަ p ީޓެސްޓުގެ ރެލެވަންޓް ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ލެވެލްއަކ

0.05 >( 000. =( އެވެ.

މި ދިރާސާގައި ކުރި ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވް ޓެސްޓުތަކުންނާއި ލިޔަން ލިޔުމެއް ގޮތުގައި ހޯދުނު ޓީޓެސްޓުތަކުން ފެށުމުގެ ކުރިން ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ލިބުމުން، ސާނަވީ ބަދަލުތަކެއް ބޮޑު ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް ދަރިވަރުންގެ ހޯދުންތަކުން މިދިރާސާގެ ވެއެވެ. އައިސްފައި ފެނުނުގޮތުގައި ރޭވުމަށް ދެވޭ ވަގުތުގައި، މައުޟޫއާ މެދު ޕޮއިންޓުތަކާ ނޑު މައިގަ ހުރި ގުޅުން ގުޅޭ މައުޟޫއާ ދިނުމުން ވަގުތު މަޝްވަރާކުރުމަށް ނޑު ޕޮއިންޓުތައް އެކުލަވާކަމަށް ރޮޑް އެލިސް މައިގަވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ފަދައިން ލިޔުއްވާފައިވާ )2005(މިކަން ލިޔުންތަކުން ދަރިވަރުންގެ ލިޔުނު ލިބިގެން ލިޔުނު ނުލިބި ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ފާހަގަވެފައިވެއެވެ. ވަކި ނޑު މައިގަ ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކުގައި މަޒުމޫނުތަކުގެ ގުޅިގެން ކަމަކާ އެތައް ނުކުރެވި، ފާހަގަ ޚިޔާލެއް އެއް ޕެރެގުރާފުގައި ޚިޔާލުތައް ފާޅުކޮށްފައި ހުރުމުގެ ވެސް ކޮބައިކަން ޚިޔާލަކީ ނޑު މައިގަ ސަބަބުން ވަކިކުރަން އުނދަގޫވެފައި ވެއެވެ. އަދި ހަމައެއާއެކު ނޑު މައިގަ އެ ހިމެނުމަށްފަހު ޚިޔާލެއް ނޑު މައިގަޚިޔާލަށް ބާރުދޭ ޕޮއިންޓުތައް އެކަށީގެންވާ މިންވަރަށް ހިމަނާ ނުލެވިފައި ހުއްޓެވެ. މި ބަޔާންކުރި ކަންކަމަށް ބަލާއިރު، ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދިނުމުން ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް

ހެޔޮ ބަދަލު އައިސްފައި ވާތީ، މި ދެ ވޭރިއޭބަލްގެ )ސްޓްރޯންގ ވަރުގަދަ ހަރުދަނާ ވަނީ ދެމެދުގައި ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް( ގުޅުމެއް ކަމުގައި ޤަބޫލުކުރެވެއެވެ.

ލިޔުމުން، މަޒުމޫނު ލިބިގެން ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް )އޯޑިއެންސަކީ( ބަޔަކީ އަމާޒުކުރާނެ މައުޟޫއު ލިޔުމުގެ ޚިޔާލުތަކަކީ ބަދަލުކުރެވޭ މެދު ކޮބައިކަމާ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ވާސިލުވުމަށްޓަކައި ތެރެއަށް ލިބިގެންދާ އަގުހުރި ވަގުތުކޮޅެއް ކަމަށް ރޮޑް އެލިސް )2003(، ޖޭން ވިލިސް އަދި ޑޭވް ވިލިސް )2007( ދިރާސާގެ މި މިކަން ވާފަދައިން ވިދާޅުވެފައި ހޯދުންތަކުން ފެނިފައިވެއެވެ. ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުލިބި ލިޔުނު ބައެއް ލިޔުންތަކުން ފާހަގަކުރެވުނު ގޮތުގައި ބުނަން ބޭނުންވާ ވާހަކަ އަމިއްލަ ނަފުސަށް އަމާޒުކޮށް ވެއެވެ. ހުށަހަޅާފައި ގޮތުގައި ވާހަކައިގެ ދެކެވޭ

ލިޔުމެއް އެ މީހާ ކިޔާ ފެށުމަކީ ލިޔުމެއްގެ މަރުޙަލާއެވެ. ފުރަތަމަ ޝައުޤުވެރިކުރުވާ ކިޔުމަށް ގިނަ ލިޔުނު ނުލިބި ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ނަމަވެސް )2007( އެސް.ކޭން ތޯމަސް، މަޒުމޫނުތަކުގައި ވިދާޅުވާ ފަދައިން، ކިޔާ މީހާ އެ ލިޔުމެއް ކިޔުމަށް ގެނެސްފައި ފެށުމެއް ފަދަ ޝައުޤުވެރިކުރުވާ މީހާ ކިޔާ ފެށުމުން ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. ނުވާކަން މަސައްކަތް ކޮށްފައިވާ ވެއްދުމަށް މަޒުމޫނަކަށް އެ ފެނިފައިވަނީ މަދު މިންވަރަކަށެވެ. ނަމަވެސް ރޭވުމަށް މަޒުމޫނުތަކުގައި، ލިޔެފައިވާ ލިބިގެން ވަގުތު ނޑު ސުރުޚީގައި ހަރުބަހެއް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންނާއި މައިގަބުނާ އެއްޗެއް ތަފުސީލުކޮށްގެން ކިޔާ މީހާ މަޒުމޫނުގެ މަސައްކަތް ކޮށްފައިވާ ވެއްދުމަށް ތެރެއަށް

. ވެ އެ ވެ ލެ ށް ކޮ ގަ ހަ ފާ

ލިޔުންތަކުން ލިޔުނު ނުލިބި ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ލިޔުމަށް މަޒުމޫނު އެއްކަމަކީ ފާހަގަކުރެވުނު

139

ބައެއް އިރު، ހަމަވި ވަގުތު ނޑައެޅިފައިވާ ކަހަމައަށް ނިންމުމާ މަޒުމޫނުގެ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ނުދެވޭކަމެވެ. ނަމަވެސް މިއާ ޚިލާފަށް ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ލިބިގެން ލިޔެފައިވާ މަޒުމޫނުތަކުގެ ގިނަ ނިންމުންތައް ހަރުދަނާ ވެފައި، މާ ފުރިހަމަކަން ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. ރޭވުމަށް ކުރިން ލިޔުމުގެ ސަބަބުތަކަށްޓަކައި މި ވަގުތު ލިބުމުން މާދަރީބަހުގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް ހެޔޮ ބަދަލު އަންނަކަމުގައި ޤަބޫލުކުރެވެއެވެ. އަދި ރޭވުމަށް މެދު އަސަރާ ކުރާ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް ވަގުތާއި ދެވޭ

ގުޅުމެކެވެ. ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ސްޓްރޯންގ ވަނީ

މި ދިރާސާގައި ވަގުތު ލިބިގެން ލިޔުނު ލިޔުންތަކަށް ގޮތުގައި ފާހަގަކުރެވުނު ބެލުމުން ބެލި ވަކިވަކިން ފެށުމާއި ނިންމުމާ އެކު ޖުމުލަ 5 ޕެރެގުރާފު ހަމަނުވާ ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވޭ ނެތްކަން ވެސް މަޒުމޫނެއް އެންމެ އިރު، ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުލިބި ލިޔުނު ލިޔުންތަކުގައި ލިޔުނު ހަމަނުކޮށް ވެސް ޕެރެގުރާ ދެ ނޑު މައިގަދަރިވަރުން، ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ލިބިގެން ލިޔަން ޖެހުމުން މާ ރަނގަޅަށް ލިޔެފައި ވާކަން ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. މި ނަތީޖާއަށް ބަލާއިރު، ދެވަނަ ބަހުގެ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމުގެ ބެލުމަށް ކޮމްޕްލެކްސިޓީ ޓާސްކް އާއި އެކިއުރިސީ ޕަރްވިން އަލާވިނި، ޕްރްވިޒް ސާލިމީ، އަސްޣަރް ސިމްޕަލް ދިރާސާގެ ކުރެއްވި )2012( ހޮސެއިނީ ލިބުނު ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ޓެސްޓުން ސާމްޕަލް ގުރޫޕުގެ ނުލިބޭ ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ވުރެ ގުރޫޕަށް ލިޔުންތެރިކަން މާ 'އެކިއުރޭޓް' ވެފައިވާ ކަމަށް ހޯދުނު ހޯދުމާ ތަފާތުކޮށް، މި ދިރާސާގައި ބޮޑަށް 'އެކިއުރޭޓް' ލިޔުނު ލިބިގެން ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް މިވަނީ ވެފައި ފެންވަރެވެ. ލިޔުމުގެ މަޒުމޫނުތަކުގެ ދަރިވަރުންގެ މި ގުޅުން ގޮތުން ސްޓްރޯންގ ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް މި ވެސް ވާކަން ދައްކުވައިދީފައި ވޭރިއޭބަލްތަކުން ދެ

ފާހަގަކޮށްލަމެވެ.

ދިރާސާއިން ފާހަގަކުރެވުނު ގޮތުގައި ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ދިނުމަށްފަހު މަޒުމޫނު ލިޔުއްވުމުން ދަރިވަރުން، މާ ބޮޑަށް ބަހުގެ ޤަވާޢިދާއި ހަމަތަކުގައި ހިފަހައްޓައެވެ. މިގޮތުން ރޭވުމަށް ވަގުތު ނުލިބި ލިޔުނު މަޒުމޫނުތަކުން ބޮޑަށް ފާހަގަކުރެވިފައިވާ ޤަވާޢިދުކުށްތަކަށް ބަލާއިރު، ނުކުރަންޖެހޭ ތަންތަނާއި ބޭނުންކުރަންވީ ހުސްނޫނު ބައެއް ތަންތަން އޮޅުވާފައި ވެއެވެ. މިސާލަކަށް، 'ބޮޑު' ނޑި' ނޑު' އަދި 'ގޮ ބޭނުންކުރަންޖެހޭ ތަންތަނަށް 'ބޮބޭނުންކޮށްފައި 'ގޮޑި' ތަނަކަށް ބޭނުންކުރަންޖެހޭ ވާކަން ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ ދަރަޖަކުރުމުގެ ބޭނުންކުރުމުގައި ހުރުން އިނުން، އޮޅުންތަކާއި، އެހެންކަމުން ފާހަގަވިއެވެ. ހުރިކަން މައްސަލަތަކެއް މި ދިރާސާގައި ކުރި ޓެސްޓުތަކުން ފެނުނު ނަތީޖާއަށް ގޮތުގެ ހިފަހައްޓާފައިވާ ހަމަ ޤަވާޢިދާއި ބަލާއިރު، )P = .001 )<0.05 ީސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ލެވެލްއަކޓެސްޓުކުރި ޕޯސްޓްޓެސްޓުތަކުގައި ވާތީ، ކަމަށް ސްޓްރޯންގ ވަނީ ދެމެދުގައި ވޭރިއޭބަލްގެ ދެ ބަޔާންކުރެވުނު މި ގުޅުމެކެވެ. ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ކަންކަމަށް ބަލާއިރު މި ދިރާސާގެ ސުވާލާ ގުޅިގެން ޓެސްޓުކުރި ހައިޕޮތެސިސްތަކުން ނަލް ހައިޕޮތެސިސް

ރިޖެކްޓްވެފައެވެ. ވަނީ

ދިރާސާގެ ނިންމުން

ކުރިން ލިޔުމުގެ ހޯދުނުގޮތުގައި ދިރާސާއިން މި

ދަރިވަރުންގެ ސާނަވީ ދިނުމުން ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް

ބަދަލުތަކެއް ހެޔޮ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް މާދަރީބަހުގެ

ނޑު އައިސްފައި ވެއެވެ. އަދި ހަމަ އެއާއެކު މައިގަ

ހުށަހެޅުމާއެކު ޚިޔާލު ހަރުދަނާ ބާރުދޭ ޚިޔާލަށް

މަޢުލޫމާތު މުއްސަނދިކަން ވެސް ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ.

އަދި މަޒުމޫނުގެ ފެށުމާއި ނިންމުން ހަރުދަނާކަމާއެކު

140

މަޒުމޫނު އިންތިޒާމްކުރުމާއި، އިތުރަށް ހުށަހެޅުމުގެ

ބޮޑަށް މާ )އޯޑިއެންސަށް( ފަރާތްތަކަށް ކިޔާ

ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. ވާކަން އަމާޒުކޮށްފައި

ރޑް ސާމްޕަލް ޑިސްކްރިޕްޓިވްސްގެ ޓެސްޓުތަކުގެ ޕެއަ

ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް ގޮތުގައި ފާހަގަކުރެވުނު މީންއިން

ވަގުތު ނުލިބި ރޭވުމަށް މީން'، 'އެވަރެޖް ދިނުމުން

އަދި މައްޗެވެ. މާ ވުރެ ލިޔުންތަކަށް ލިޔުނު

ރޑް ސްޓޭންޑަ ބައިތަކުގެ ގިނަ ބަލާއިރު، މީންއަށް

ޑީވިއޭޝަންއާ ކޮންމެ ދަރިވަރަކާ ދެމެދުގައިވާ ތަފާތު

ހަނިކަން )ކްލޯސް( ފާހަގަކޮށްލެވެއެވެ. ޓީޓެސްޓުތަކުގެ

ދިރާސާގައި ބަލާއިރު، ގުޅުންތަކަށް ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް

ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ވެސް ބައިތަކެއްގައި ހުރިހާ ބެލި

އަށްވުރެ P = 0.05 ވެލިޔު P ނުވަތަ ލެވެލް

އެހެންކަމުން ފާހަގަކޮށްލަމެވެ. ހުރިކަން ދަށްކޮށް

ކުރާ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް ދިނުމުން ވަގުތު ރޭވުމަށް

ގުޅުމެއް ސިގްނިފިކަންޓް ސްޓްރޯންގ އަސަރާމެދު

ވާކަން ކަށަވަރުކޮށްދެއެވެ. މިހެންވުމުން މި ދިރާސާގެ

ހައިޕޮތެސިސްގެ ދެ ޓެސްޓުކުރި ގުޅިގެން ސުވާލާ

ތެރެއިން ނަލް ހައިޕޮތެސިސް މިވަނީ ރިޖެކްޓްވެފައެވެ.

ދިވެހިބަހުގެ މަންޙަޖުގައި ޤައުމީ އެހެންކަމުން

ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަށް އެކުލަވާލުމުގައި، މުޤައްރަރު

ވިސްނާލަންޖެހިފައެވެ. މިވަނީ ވަގުތާމެދު ދީފައިވާ

ރިފަރެންސްރޮޑް އެލިސް. )2005(. ޕްލޭނިންގ އެންޑް ޓާސްކް

ޕާރފޯމަންސް އިން އަ ސެކަންޑް ލޭންގްއޭޖް. ފިލަޑެލްފިއާ: ޖޯން ބެންޖަމިންސް ޕަބްލިޝިންގ

ކޮމްޕެނީ.

ރޮޑް އެލިސް. )2003(. ޓާސްކް - ބޭސްޑް ލޭންގްއޭޖް ލާރނިންގ އެންޑް ޓީޗިންގ. އޮކްސްފޯޑް:

އޮކްސްފޯޑް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް.

ކެލޮގް، އާ.އޭ. )1996(. އަ މޮޑެލް އޮފް ވޯކިންގ މެމޮރީ: ދަ ސައިންސް އޮފް ރައިޓިންގ.

ނައިޖީރިޔާ: މަހުވާ.

ކެމްބްރިޖް އެންޑް ލެޓިން ސްކޫލް. )2012(. ކާލްސް ރިސަރޗް ގައިޑް. ޔޫ.އެސް.އޭ: ކެމްބްރިޖް އެންޑް

ލެޓިން ސްކޫލް.

އަސްޣަރް ސާލިމީ، ޕްރްވިޒް އަލާވިނި، ޕަރްވިން ހޮސެއިނީ. )2012(. ތިޔަރީ އެންޑް ޕްރެކްޓިސް

އިން ލޭންގްއޭޖް ސްޓަޑީސް. ފިންގލޭންޑް: އެކަޑަމީ ޕަބްލިޝަރ.

އެޑްވަޑް ފިނެގަން. )2012(. ލޭންގުއޭޖް އިޓްސް ސްޓްރަކްޗަރ އެންޑް ޔޫޒް. )6 ވަނަ

ރޑްސްވަރތް އިސްދާރު(. ޔޫ. އެސް. އޭ: މަސެންގޭޖް ލަރނިންގ.

އާރ. ޝެމިޑް. )2001(. އެޓޭންޝަން އިން ރޮބިންސަން، ކޮގްނިޝަން އެންޑް ސެކަންޑް ލޭންގްއޭޖް އިންސްޓްރަކްޝަން. ކެމްބްރީޖް:

ކެމްބްރީޖް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް.

މެހްރާންގ، އެފް. އަދި ރަހިމްޕޫރު، އެމް. )2010(. ދަ އިމްޕެކްޓް އޮފް ޓާސްކް ސްޓަރަކްޗަރ އެންޑް ޕްލޭނިނގ ކޮންޑިޝަންސް އޮން އޯރަލް ޕާރފޯމަންސް އޮފް އީ.އެފް.އެލް.

ލާރނަރސް. ޕްރޮސީޑިއާ ބިހޭވިއަރަލް އެންޑް ސޯޝަލް ސައެންސަސް: ވޯލްޑް ކޮންފަރެންސް

އޮން އެޑިޔުކޭޝަނަލް ސައެންސް 2010. އިސްތަމްބޫލް، ޓާރކީ.

މެކީ، އޭ. އަދި ގޭސް. އެސް. )2005(. ސެކަންޑް ލޭންގުއޭޖް ރިސަރޗް: މެތޮޑޮލޮޖީ އެންޑް

ޑިޒައިން. ލަންޑަން: ރޫޓްލޮޖް.

141

ދިވެހިރާއްޖޭގެ ޤައުމީ ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ. )2011(. ދިވެހި ބަސް ފޮތް. މާލެ: މުސައްނިފު.

ރޑް ތޯމަސް، އެސް. ކޭން. )2007(. ދަ އޮކްސްފޯއެސެންޝިއަލް ގައިޑް ޓޫ ރައިޓިންގ. ޔޫކޭ:

ރޑް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް. އޮކްސްފޯ

ލުއިސް ކޯހެން، ލޯރެންސް މެނިއަން އަދި ކެއިތް މޮރިސަން. )2007(. ރިސަރޗް މެތަޑްސް އިން އެޑިޔުކޭޝަން. )ހަވަނަ އިސްދާރު(. ނިއުޔޯކް: ޓޭލަރ އެންޑް ފްރެންސިސް އީ ލައިބްރަރީ.

ގެއިލް އީ ޓޮމްކިންސް. )2005(. ލޭންގުއޭޖް އާރޓްސް: ޕެޓާރންސް އޮފް ޕްރެކްޓިސް.

ރޒީ: ޕިއަރސަން )ހަވަނަ އިސްދާރު(. ނިއުޖާއެޑިޔުކޭޝަން.

ގޭ، އެލް. އާރ.، އަދި ޕީޓަރ އަޔަރޭސިއަން. )2003(. އެޑިޔުކޭޝަނަލް ރިސަރޗް ކޮމްޕިޓެންސީސް

ފޮރ އެނަރލިސިސް އެންޑް އެޕްލިކޭޝަންސް. އެމެރިކާ: އަޕަރ ސޭޑްލް ރިވަރ، ނިއު

ރޒަރީ. ޖަ

ގެއިލް، އީ. ޓޮމްކިންސް، ރޮބިން، އެމް. ބްރައިޓް، މައިކަލް، ޖޭ. ޕޮލާޑް، ޕަމިލާ، ޖޭ. ޓީ.

ވިންސަރ. )2002(. ލޭންގުއޭޖް އަރޓްސް: ކޮންޓެންޓް އެންޑް ޓީޗިންގ ސްޓަރެޓެރެޖީސް. )ދެވަނަ އިސްދާރު(. ކެލިފޯނިޔާ: ކެލިފޯނިއާ

ސްޓޭޓް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ.

ގެއިލް، އީ. ޓޮމްކިންސް. )2002(. ލޭންގުއޭޖް އަރޓްސް: ކޮންޓެންޓް އެންޑް ޓީޗިންގ

ސްޓަރެޓެރެޖީސް. )ހަތަރުވަނަ އެޑިޝަން(. ކެލިފޯނިޔާ: ކެލިފޯނިއާ ސްޓޭޓް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ.

ސްކޮޓް ތޯންބަރީ. )2007(. ހައު ޓޫ ޓީޗް ވޮކެބިއުލަރީ. ޔޫކޭ: ބްލުއެސްޓަން ޕްރެސް، ކާލްބަރީ،

އެކްފޯޑްޝިއަރ.

ޑޭވިޑް ކްރިސްޓަލް. )2003(. ދަ ކެމްބްރިޖް އެންސައިކްލޮޕީޑިއާ އޮފް ދަ އިންގްލިޝް

ލޭންގުއޭޖް. )2 ވަނަ އިސްދާރު(. ނިއުޔޯކް: ކެމްބްރިޖް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް.

ޒެންހުއީ ރާއޯ. )2007(. ޓްރެއިނިންގ އިން ބްރެއިން ސްޓޯމިންގ އެންޑް ޑިވެލޮޕިނގ ރައިޓިންގ ސްކިލްސް. ޔޫކޭ: އެކްސްފޯޑް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ

http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/ . ޕްރެސް. content/61/2/100.short ން

ޕީޓަރ ރޮބިންސަން. )2011(. ޓާސްކް - ބޭސްޑް ލޭންގުއޭޖް ލަރނިންގ. ޔޫ. އެސް. އޭ:

ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ އޮފް މިކިގަން.

ޕީޓަރ ރޮބިންސަން. )2001(. ޓާސްކް ކޮމްޕްލެކްސިޓީ، ޓާސްކް ޑިފިކަލްޓީ، އެންޑް ޓާސްކް

ޕްރޮޑަކްޝަން: އެކްސްޕްލޯރިންގއިންޓަރެކްޝަން އިން އަ ކޮމްޕޯނެންޝިއަލް ފްރޭމްވޯކް. އެޕްލައިޑް

ލިންގްއިސްޓިކްސް، 22 )1(، 75-72.

ޖިއަރމީ ހާރމަރ. )2004(. ދަ ޕްރެކްޓިސް އޮފް އިންގްލިޝް ލޭންގުއޭޖް ޓީޗިންގ. )3

ރޑް ވަނަ އިސްދާރު(. މެލޭޝިޔާ: އެކްސްފޯޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް.

ޖޭން ވިލިސް އަދި ޑޭވް ވިލިސް. )2007(. ޑުއިންގ ޓާސްކް ބޭސްޑް ޓީޗިންގ. ޔޫ. އެސް. އޭ:

ރޑް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް. އެކްފޯ

ޖޯން ޑަބްލިޔު. ބެސްޓް އަދި ޖޭމްސް ވީ. ކަން. )2003(. ރިސަރޗް އިން އެޑިޔުކޭޝަން.

)9 ވަނަ އިސްދާރު(. އެމެރިކާ: އަ ޕަރސަން އެޑިޔުކޭޝަން ކޮމްޕެނީ.

ޖޯން ޑަބްލިޔު ކްރެސްވެލް. )2005(. އެޑިޔުކޭޝަންލް ރިސަރޗް ޕްލޭނިންގ، ކޮންޑަކްޓިން، އެންޑް

އިވެލުއޭޓިން، ކުއަންޓިޓޭޓިވް ރިސަރޗް. )2 ވަނަ އިސްދާރު(. ޔޫކޭ: ޕަރސަނަލް

އެޑިޔުކޭޝަން.

142




978-99915-0-842-9/10

ނޑު އުޞޫލުތައް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ދިވެހި ބަސް ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ މައިގައުނގަންނައިދިނުން

އަޛްރާ ތައުފީޤް[email protected]

ގެންދެވޭ ގުޅިލާމަހައިގެން ހުނަރުތައް އެ ޓަކައި، ތަރައްޤީކުރުމަށް ހުނަރުތައް ބަހުގެ ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަކީ، ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގެ ޚާއްޞަ ޙަރަކާތެކެވެ. އެހެންކަމުން، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދެނީ އެކަމަށް ބޭނުންކުރާ ޚާއްޞަ އުޞޫލުތަކެއް، އުޞޫލެއް 4 ނޑު، މައިގަ ފާހަގަކުރެވޭ މީގެތެރޭގައި، ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންނެވެ. އުޞޫލު ލެންގުއޭޖުޓީޗިންގެ ނުވަތަ ހިމެނެއެވެ. އެއީކޮންޓެންޓު އަދި ލެންގުއޭޖު އިންޓަރގުރޭޓެޑް ލަރނިންގެ އުޞޫލާއި، ޓާސްކް ބޭސްޑް ލެންގުއޭޖުޓީޗިންގެ އުޞޫލާއި، ހޯލް ލެންގުއޭޖު އުޞޫލާއި، ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ ބޭސްޑް ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ އުޞޫލެވެ. މިފަދަ އުޞޫލު ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ބަސް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަކީ، ބަހުގެ ހުނަރު ތަރައްޤީވެ، ދަރިވަރުން ބަހަށް މޮޅުވާކަމެކެވެ. އެހެންނަމަވެސް، ސާނަވީއިމްތިޙާނުން ދަރިވަރުން ހޯދާ ނަތީޖާއަށް ބަލާއިރު، އެހެން މާއްދާތަކަށްވުރެ ދިވެހިމާއްދާގެ ނަތީޖާ ދަށް ކަމަށް ފާހަގަކުރެވެއެވެ. ދިވެހިނަތީޖާ ދަށްވުމަކީ، ދިވެހި ކިޔަވައިދެއްވާ މުދައްރިސުންނާއި، ބެލެނިވެރީންނާއި، ދަރިވަރުން ވެސް ނުހަނު ކަންބޮޑުވާ މައްސަލައެކެވެ. އެހެންކަމުން، މި މައްސަލައަށް ޙައްލު ހޯދައި ދިވެހިނަތީޖާ ރަނގަޅުކުރުމަށް ޓަކައި، އެ ނަތީޖާ ދަށްވުމަށް މެދުވެރިވާ، ސަބަބުތައް ހޯދައި ދެނެގަތުން މުހިންމެވެ. ވީހިނދު، ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ނޑު އުޞޫލުތައް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންތޯ ނުވަތަ ނޫންތޯ ބެލުމަކީ، އެފަދަ ސަބަތުތައް ދެނެގަތުމަށް ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ މައިގަމަރުޙަލާގެ ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލުތަކުގައި މާލޭގެ މިއީ ކަމެކެވެ. ބޭނުންތެރި ނުހަނު ކުރަންޖެހޭ، ކޮންމެހެން ޓަކައި، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް، ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ އުޞޫލުތައް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންތޯ ދެނެގަތުމަށް ޓަކައި މިކްސްޑް މެތަޑެއް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ހަދައިފައިވާ ދިރާސާއެކެވެ. މި ދިރާސާ ހަދައިފައިވަނީ މާލޭގެ ސްކޫލެއްގެ ސާނަވީ މަރުޙަލާގެ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ތެރެއިން ރެންޑަމް ސާމްޕަލެއްގެ ގޮތުގައި 45 ދަރިވަރުން އިޚްތިޔާރުކޮށް، އަދި އެ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދޭ 2 މުދައްރިސުން ބައިވެރިކޮށްގެންނެވެ. ދިރާސާއަށް މަޢްލޫމާތު ހޯދާފައިވަނީ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ދެވުނު ސުވާލުކަރުދާހަކާއި، ދިވެހި މުދައްރިސުންނާ ކުރެވުނު ބަސްދީގަތުމަކުންނެވެ. ދިރާސާއިން އެނގިގެންދިޔަގޮތުގައި، ނޑު އުޞޫލުތައް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންނޫނެވެ. ދިވެހި ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް، ބޭނުންކުރާ މައިގަބަހުގެ ގޮތަށް ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދޭން ޖެހުމަކީ، އަމާޒުކޮށްގެންނެވެ. މި އިމްތިހާނަށް ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ ހުނަރުތައް ތަރައްޤީވާގޮތަށް، ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމަށް، ދިވެހި މުދައްރިސުންނަށް ދިމާވެފައިވާ ގޮންޖެހުމެކެވެ. ނޑު އުޞޫލުތައް އެނގި އެފަދަ ހަމައެހެންމެ، ދިރާސާއިން ހާމަވިގޮތުގައި ބަސްކިޔަވައި ދިނުމަށް ބޭނުންކުރާ މައިގަ

އުޞޫލުތަކަށް ދިވެހި މުދައްރިސުން އަހުލުވެރިވުމަކީ، މުހިންމު ކަމެކެވެ.

މުހިންމު ލަފްޒުތައް: ދިވެހި ބަސް، ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަނނައިދޭ މުދައްރިއްސުން، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ އުސޫލު

143

ތައާރަފް

މި ދިރާސާއަކީ،މާލޭގެ ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލުތަކުގެ ސާނަވީ

ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ދިވެހިބަސް މަރުޙަލާގައި

އުޞޫލު/އެޕްރޯޗުތައް ނޑު ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެމައިގަ

ޓަކައި ބެލުމަށް ނޫންތޯ ނުވަތަ ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންތޯ

ކޮށްފައިވާ މަސައްކަތެކެވެ. ސާނަވީ މަރުޙަލާ ނިންމާ

ދަރިވަރުންގެ މޮޅު ޚާއްޞަކޮށް، ދަރިވަރުންގެ

ގަދަ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް އެ ދަށްވެ، ދިވެހިނަތީޖާ

ނުކުރެވުމަކީ، ކާމިޔާބު ވަނައެއް ދިހައެއްގެ

ބެލެނިވެރިންނާއި ދަރިވަރުންނާއި މައްސަލައެކެވެ.

ކަންބޮޑުވާކަމެކެވެ. ނުހަނު މުދައްރިސުންވެސް

އެހެންކަމުން، ސާނަވީ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދިވެހި ނަތީޖާ،

ދެނެގަތުން ސަބަބުތައް މެދުވެރިވާ ދަށްވުމަށް

މުހިންމެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ، ކަމެއް ރަނގަޅުކުރެވޭނީ،

ސަބަބުތައް ހޯދައި ސަބަބުތައް ނައްތައިލެވިގެންނެވެ.

ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް، އިރު، އޮތް ކަންމިހެން

ނޑު އުސޫލުތަކުން، ހާމަވާގޮތުގައި ބޭނުންކުރާ މައިގަ

ކިޔަވައިދޭ ބަސް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން، އުސޫލުތައް އެ

ދަރިވަރުން ތަރައްޤީވެ، ހުނަރުތައް ބަހުގެ ނަމަ،

މަރުޙަލާގައި ސާނަވީ ވުމާއެކު، މޮޅުވެއެވެ. ބަހަށް

ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ

ބެލުމަކީ، ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންތޯ އުސޫލުތައް ނޑު މައިގަ

އެ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދިވެހިނަތީޖާ ދަށްވުމަށް މެދުވެރިވާ

މަސައްކަތުން، ކުރަންޖެހޭ ދެނެގަތުމަށް ސަބަބުތައް

ބޮޅެވެ. އެއް އުނިކުރެވިގެންދާނެ

ބަސް ބަލައިލައިފައިވަނީ، ރިވިއުގައި ލިޓްރެޗަރ

ނޑު ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް، ގިނަ ބަޔަކު ހިތްވަރުދޭ މައިގަ

4 އުސޫލަށެވެ. އެއީ، ކޮންޓެންޓު އެންޑް ލެންގުއޭޖު

އިންޓަރގުރޭޓެޑް ލަރނިންގ އެޕްރޯޗް )ސީ،އެލް،އައި،

ޓީޗިންގ ލެންގުއޭޖު ބޭސްޑް ޓާސްކް އެލް(އާއި،

ލެންގުއޭޖު ހޯލް )ޓީ،ބީ،އެލް،ޓީ(އާއި، އެޕްރޯޗް

އެޕްރޯޗުގެ އިތުރުން ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ ބޭސްޑް ލެންގުއޭޖު

ޓީޗިން އެޕްރޯޗް )ސީ، ބީ، އެލް، ޓީ( އެވެ.

ސޫޒަން ބުރިޖު)2011( ހާމަކުރައްވާ ގޮތުގައި ސީ،

ކޮންޓެންޓަށް މަންހަޖުގެ އަކީ، އެލް އައި، އެލް،

ބިނާކޮށްގެން ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގެ އުޞޫލެވެ.

މިއީ، ޔޫރަޕުގެ ޤައުމުތަކުގައި އަލަށް ބޭނުންކުރެވެމުން

އަންނަ އަދި ހަލުވިކަމާއެކު، މަޤުބޫލުވަމުން އަންނަ

ޓީ،ބީ،އެލް،ޓީގެ ގޮތެކެވެ. އާ ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ

ޤަވާއިދު ބަހުގެ ބަހާއި ވަނީ، ބިނާވެފައި އުޞޫލު

ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ގުޅުވައިގެން، މާއްދާތަކާ އެހެން

ޢާންމު އުޞޫލު، މި ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށެވެ. ބަސް

ތަފާތު ފެށުމުން، ބޭނުންކުރަން ތަޢްލީމުގައި

ފެންވަރުގައި ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން،ޔުނިވަސިޓީ މޮޑެލްތައް

ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ ފުރުޞަތު ފަހިވެގެންދިޔައެވެ. މިއީ،

ޓީމު ޓީޗިންއަށް މަގުފަހިކޮށްދިންކަމެއް ވެސް މެއެވެ

އެލްގެ ސީ،އެލް،އައި، .)2011 ބުރިޖު )ސޫޒަން

އެއްބަސްވާ މީހުން ދިރާސާކުރާ މުދައްރިސުންނާއި،

ބިނާކޮށްގެން، ލެންގުއޭޖަށް ކޮންޓެންޓާއި ގޮތުގައި

ބަސް ކިޔަވައިދޭ މި އުސޫލުގެ ސަބަބުން، ކޮންޓެންޓާއި

ލެންގުއޭޖު ގުޅުވައިދެއެވެ. ސޫޒަން ބުރިޖު )2011(

އައި، އެލް، ސީ، ޔޫރަޕުގައި ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި

އެލް ބޭނުންކުރެވެން ފެށުނީ، އެ މީހުންގެ ތަޢްލީމު

ސަޤާފީކަންކަމަށް/އިންޓަރ އާއި ]ޕްލޫރިލިންގުއަލް[

ކަލްޗަރަލްއަށް ބިނާވެފައިވާ މިންވަރު ބޮޑު ކަމުންނެވެ.

ސީ، ގޮތުގައި ބަޔާންކުރައްވާ )2007( ޖަޕިނެން

144

ހަދައިފައިވާ ބިނާކޮށް، އަށް އެލް އައި، އެލް،

މިއުޞޫލު ދައްކާގޮތުގައި، ދިރާސާތަކުން ގިނަ

އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުން، ބަސް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން

ދަރިވަރުންގެ ފަރާތުން ފެންނަ ޖުމުލަ ތަރައްޤީއަށް/

ރަނގަޅު އެކަށީގެންވާ ޕަރފޮރމަންސަށް ސްކޫލް

އަސަރެއް ކުރެއެވެ. އަދި ރަސްމީ ތަޢްލީމުގެ ތެރެއިން

އެތަކެއް ލިބިފައިނުވާ، ކާމިޔާބެއް އެކަށީގެންވާ

ދަސްކުރުމުގެ ހުނަރުތައް ބަހުގެ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް

ހޯދައެވެ. ކާމިޔާބު ދަރިވަރުން އެ ލިބި، ފުރުސަތު

ދަރިވަރަކަށް ތަފާތު ވެސް ދަރިވަރަކީ ކޮންމެ

ވުމާއެކު، ޚާއްޞަ އެހީއަށް ބޭނުންވާ، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް

ދިރާސާތައް ސީ،އެލް،އައި،އެލްގެ އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން

)2010( ކައިސާ-ޕިއްކޯ މަރޖަރ ހަދައިފައިވެއެވެ.

ދަރިވަރުން ހާމަވެގެންދިޔަގޮތުގައި ދިރާސާއިން ގެ

ބޭނުންވަނީ، ވަކިވަކި ދަރިވަރުންނަށް އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން

ސެއިކްލަ-ލެއިނޯ ޖާނާ ދިނުމެވެ. އުނގަންނައި

)2005( ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި އިތުރު އެހީ ބޭނުންވާ،

ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ސީ،އެލް،އައި، އެލް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން

ސަޤާފީގޮތްތައް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުން، ބަސް

ދަރިވަރުން ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުން ބަސް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން،

ނަތީޖާ ދަރިވަރުންގެ އެ ނަތީޖާއަށްވުރެ، ހޯދާ

ހާމަވިއެވެ. ދިރާސާއިން ރަނގަޅުކަން

އުޞޫލަކީ، ޓީޗިންގެ ލެންގުއޭޖު ބޭސްޑް ޓާސްކް

ފްރޭމްވާކުގެ ޓީޗިން ލެންގުއޭޖު ކޮމިޔުނިކޭޓިވް

ދަށުން އުފެދުނު، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ އުޞޫލެކެވެ.

ރޑް އީ ނިސްބެޓް)2003( ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި ރިޗަ

ރޑް - ޓީޗަރ-ފެސިލިޓޭޓަޑް މިއީ، ސްޓުޑެންޓް ސެންޓަ

ދައުރު ދަރިވަރުންގެ ނުވަތަ މޮޑެލެކެވެ. ޓީޗިންގެ

ހަނިކޮށްގެން ދައުރު މުދައްރިސްގެ ފުޅާކޮށް،

މިއީ، އުސޫލެވެ. ބަސްއުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގެ

ސަބަބުން، ގޮތްތަކުގެ އައި ކިޔަވައިދެމުން ބަސް

އޮތް ދެމެދު ދަރިވަރުންނާ މުދައްރިސުންނާއި

]ހައިރާކިއަލް[ ގުޅުމަށް ގޮންޖަހައިލި އުޞޫލެކެވެ. މި

އުސޫލުގެ ސަބަބުން ދަރިވަރުންގެ ޢަމަލީ ބައިވެރިވުން

ގުރޫޕު އަދި މެދުގައި ފަރުދުންގެ ދޭދޭ އިތުރުވެ،

މަސައްކަތް ކުރުމަށް ބާރުއަޅައި އެ ކަމަށް، ވަރަށް

އުޞޫލެކެވެ. ދިޔަ ލިބިގެން ތަރުޙީބެއް ބޮޑު

ބޭސްޑް ޓާސްކް ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި ރަންހޫ)2013(

މާނަހުރި އެޕްރޯޗަކީ، ޓީޗިންގ ލެންގުއޭޖު

ޓާސްކުތައް ޙަރަކާތްތައް/ އުނގެނުމުގެ ގޮތެއްގައި

ގެންދިއުމަށް ފުރިހަމަގޮތުގައި އިޚްތިޔާރުކޮށް،

ތަޖުރިބާ ދެއްކުމާއި، ކުރާނެގޮތް ކަންކަން ޓަކައި،

އެއްބާރުލުން ބައިވެރިވުމާއި، ހިއްސާކުރުމާއި،

)މޮޑެލިން، މުޢާމަލާތްކުރުމަށް ދިނުމާއި،

ކޯޕަރޭޓިން ޕާރޓިސިޕޭޓިން، އެކްސްޕީރިއެންސިން،

ފުރުޞަތު ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ކޮމިޔުނިކޭޓިންގ( އަދި

ފޮސްޓަރ ޕައުލިން ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމެވެ. ދީގެން،

އުނގެނުމުގެ ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި، )2014(

މުހިންމުކަން، ދަސްކުރުމުގެ ބަސް ޙަރަކާތްތަކުން

ފަހުގެ ޓީ،ބީ،އެލް،ޓީގެ ދިޔައީ ހާމަވެގެން

ދިރާސާތަކުންނެވެ. މެގަން ކަލްވަރޓް އާއި ޔަންގްހީ

ޝީން )2014( ހާމަކުރައްވާ ގޮތުގައ މި އުސޫލު

ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމާ ބެހޭގޮތުން ހެދި،

ބަޔަކު ގިނަ އަލީގައި ލިޓްރެޗަރގެ އެންޕިރިކަލް

ރާވާ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް އެއްބަސްވާގޮތުގައި،

ޙަރަކާތަކުގެ ސަބަބުން ބަސް އުނގެނުމަށް ރަނގަޅު

ކުރެއެވެ. އަސަރުތަކެއް

ކަލްވަރޓްއާއި،ޔަންގްހީ މެގަން ނަމަވެސް، އެހެން

145

އެފަދަ ފާހަގަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި، )2014( ޝީން

ކިހިނެއްކަން ބޭނުންކުރަނީ، ކުލާހުގައި ހަރަކާތްތައް

ނުވަތަ އެކަމުގެ ޙަޤީގަތް ހާމަކޮށްދޭ ދިރާސާތައް ވަރަށް

މުހިންމުކަމާއި ޙަރަކާތްތަކުގެ އުނގެނުމުގެ މަދެވެ.

ބޭނުންތެރިކަން، އޭގެ ދަސްކުރުމުގައި، ބަސް

ދިރާސާތަކުގެ އެހީގައި އެނގުނު ނަމަވެސް، ޓެކްސްޓް

ފޮތުގައި ދީފައި ހުންނަ، އެކްޓިވިޓީތަކާއި ކްރައިޓީރިޔާ

ހަމައެހެންމެ، ޙާލަތެއްގައެވެ. މަދު ދިމާވަނީ

އުނގެނުމުގެ ޙަރަކާތްތަކަކީ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ބޭނުންތަކާއި

ނޑިތަކާ އެއްގޮތަށް، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް އެންމެ ނޑުދަ ލަ

ފަހަރު ބައެއް ވެސް ޙަރަކާތްތަކަކަށް އެކަށީގެންވާ

ނޑިވަޅުތަކުގައި މުދައްރިސުން، ނުވެދެއެވެ. މިފަދަ ދަ

ނަމަވެސް ތައްޔާރުކުރެއެވެ. ޙަރަކާތްތަކެއް އަމިއްލަ

ދަރިވަރުން ބައިވެރިކޮށްގެން ފެންވަރާ ގުޅޭ ގޮތަށް،

ރިޢާޔަތްކޮށްގެން، ނޑިތަކަށް ނޑުދަ ލަ ދަރިވަރުންގެ

ހަރަކާތްތައް ބައްޓަން ކުރުމުގެ ޤާބިލުކަމެއް ހުރިހައި

މުދައްރިސުންގެ ކިބަޔަކު ނުހުރެއެވެ. ވުމާއެކު، މިފަދަ

ޙަރަކާތްތައް އެކަށީގެންވާ އެންމެ، ޙާލަތްތަކުގައި

ދަތި މުދައްރިސުންނަށް، ގިނަ ގެންދިއުމަކީ،

އުނދަގޫ ކަމެކެވެ. އެހެންކަމުން، މެގަން ކަލްވަރޓް

އަދި ޔަންގްހީ ޝީން )2014( ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި

މިއީ،ޓާސްކް ބޭސްޑް ލެންގުއޭޖު ޓީޗިންގއަށްދިމާވާ،

ގޮންޖެހުމެކެވެ. ބޮޑު ވަރަށް

މާދަރީ ކިޔަވައިދިނުމާއި، އާރޓްސް ލެންގުއޭޖު

ސަމާލުކަމެއް ޚާއްޞަ ލިޔުމަށް ކިޔުމާއި ބަހުން

މަޝްވަރާކުރެއްވި، ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް ބަސް ދީގެން

އުފެއްދި 1980ގައި އެޑިޔުކޭޓަރުން އެމެރިކާގެ

ލަފުޒު ]ހޯލް ލެންގުއޭޖު އެޕްރޯޗް[ އަކީ، ބަހުގެ

ބަސްކިޔަވައިދޭ ލާމަހައިގެން ގުޅުވައި ހުނަރު 4

ދަރިވަރުން މަޝްވަރާތަކުގައި މިއީ، އުސޫލެކެވެ.

ލިޔުންތައް ވައްތަރުގެ ތަފާތު ބައިވެރިކުރުވައި

ރިފްލެކްޓު އެއަށް ލިޔުއްވުމަށްފަހު، ކިޔުއްވައި

ކަމުގައި، އުނގަންނައިދޭގޮތް ބަސް ކުރުވައިގެން

)1987،1975( ހަލިޑޭ އެލެކްސެންޑާ މައިކަލް

ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުން، ބަސް މިގޮތަށް ހާމަކުރައްވައެވެ.

ބަހުގެ ހުރިހައި ހުނަރެއް އެއްވަރަކަށް ތަރައްޤީކުރެވި

ހެދެއެވެ. ޤާބިލުބަޔަކަށް ބަހަށް ދަރިވަރުންނަކީ،

ތިއޯޑޯރ އާއި ރޑްސް ރިޗަ އެހެންކަމުން،ޖެކްސީ

އުސޫލުން މި ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި )2011( އެސް

ބަސް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަކީ، ޙަޤީޤީ ބަސްމޮށުންތެރިކަމަށް

އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން، އަމިއްލައަށް ލިޔެ، ކިޔަން ދަސްވުމަށް

އަމިއްލަ ލިޔުންތެރިކަމަކީ، އަދި ތަރުހީބުދެވޭ،

ބާރުއަޅައި، ހެދުމަށް ކުރާކަމަކަށް ހިތްހަމަޖެހުމަށް

ގޮތެކެވެ. ހިތްވަރުދެވޭ އެކަމަށް

މައިކަލް ލިންގުއިސްޓެއްކަމަށްވާ، ސޯޝިއޯ

)1987،1975( ހަލިޑޭ އެލެކްސެންޑާ

ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި ކިޔުމާއި ލިޔުމާއި ވާހަކަދެއްކުމާއި

އަޑުއެހުމުގެ ތެރެއިން، ދުނިޔޭގެ ކަންހިނގާ ގޮތާ މެދު

ކޮބައިކަން ބަހަކީ އުފައްދައެވެ. ދަރިވަރުން ސުވާލު

ދަސްކޮށް، ބަސް ދަސްކޮށްދޭން މަސައްކަތްކުރާ ގޮތް

ވެސް މި އުސޫލުގެ ތެރެއިން ދަރިވަރުން ދަސްކުރެއެވެ.

ލިޔާ ބޭނުންކުރުމުން، އުސޫލު މި އެހެންކަމުން،

އަޑާ އަކުރާއި ހޯދުމާއި ތަޖުރިބާ ލިޔުންތަކުން

ތެރެއިންދަރިވަރުން ފާހަގަކުރުމުގެ ގުޅުން ހުރި

ޖޭ.ޓީ ރޑް ރިޗަ ދަސްކުރާނެއެވެ. އަމިއްލަޔަށް،ބަސް

)1992( ޕިއަރސަން ޕީ ޑޭވިޑް އާއި ވިންސަން

ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި ހޯލް ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ އުސޫލު ބޭނުންކުރާ،

އަމިއްލަޔަށް ދަރިވަރުން އެ ދަރިވަރުން، ކުލާހުގެ

146

އުފައްދާ ސްޕެލިންގެ އެހީގައި ސްޕެލިން- ސައުންޑުގެ

ދަސްކުރަން ފެށިގެން ކުރިއްސުރެ ވަރަށް ހުނަރު

ހުންނަ ބަހުގައި މިއީ، އެހެންކަމުން، ފަށައެވެ.

ބައިބައި ބައިތައްކަމަށްވާ ފޯނިކްސްކަހަލަ ވަކި ވަކި

ތަރުޙީބުދީ، ދަސްކޮށްދިނުމަށް ވަކިކޮށްލައިގެން

)މައިކަލް ނޫނެވެ އުޞޫލެއް ބާރުއަޅާ ކަމަށް އެ

ލެންގުއޭޖަށް ހޯލް .)1978 އެލެކްސެންޑާހަލިޑޭ،

ދަރިވަރުންނަށް މުދައްރިސުން، ތަރުހީބުދޭ

ޓަކައި ހިތްހަމަޖެހުމަށް ބާރުއަޅަނީ، އެހީތެރިވެދީ

ލިޔުންތެރިކަން ކަމެއްގެގޮތުގައި، އާދާކޮށްކުރާ

. ތަރައްޤީކުރުވުމަށެވެ

ހޯލް ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ ގިނަ ދިރާސާވެރީން، ދެކޭގޮތުގައި

ހަމައެކަނި އޮތް ތަރައްޤީކުރަން، ލިޔުންތެރިކަން

ލިޔުއްވުމެވެ. ދުވަހަކު ކޮންމެ ގަވާއިދުން ގޮތަކީ،

އިޚްތިޔާރީ ދަރިވަރުން، ލިޔުއްވާއިރު ގޮތަށް، މި

އެހެން ލިޔުންތައް ލިޔުއްވުމާއި، ސުރުޚީތަކަކަށް

އިތުރަށް ފާޑުކިޔުއްވައި ޙިއްސާކޮށް، ފަރާތްތަކަށް،

ރަނގަޅުކުރަން ޖެހޭ ކަންކަން ރަނގަޅުކޮށް، ލިޔުން

މައިކަލް ކަމުގައިވެސް މުހިންމު އިޞްލާޙުކުރުން

ހާމަކުރައްވައެވެ. )1978( އެލެކްސެންޑާހަލިޑޭ

އާއި )1978( އެލެކްސެންޑާހަލިޑޭ މައިކަލް

ރޑްސް އަދި ތިއޯޑޯރ އެސް )2011( ޖެކްސީ ރިޗަ

ހުނަރުތައް ލެންގުއޭޖު/ބަހުގެ ހޯލް ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި

އެއްކޮށްލައިގެން ބަސް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަކީ، ދަރިވަރުން

ޓަކައި، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް ބައިވެރިކޮށްގެން،

ދަރިވަރުން ޝައުޤުވެރިކޮށް، ބިނާކުރަނިވި ހަރަކާތްތައް

ތަރައްޤީކުރުމުގެ ހުނަރުތައް ދަސްކޮށްދިނުމުގެ ގޮތުން

1990ގެ އަހަރުތަކުގައި، މަޝްހޫރުވި އުޞޫލެކެވެ.

އެލެން އީ ޝެންކު )1986( ހާމަކުރައްވާ ގޮތުގައި

ކިޔަވައިދެވެނީ، ބަސް ގޮތަށް، އެކަށީގެންވާ އެންމެ

ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ ބޭސްޑް ލޭންގުއޭޖު ޓީޗިންގެ އުސޫލު

ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދައުރު ފުޅާކޮށްގެންނެވެ.

ހަމައެހެންމެ މަންހަޖާއި ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް ބޭނުންކުރާ

ފެންވަރު ހަރަކާތްތަކުގެ އުނގެނުމުގެ އާލާތްތަކާއި،

އުޞޫލަކީ، މި މެއެވެ. ވެސް ކޮށްގެން ރަނގަޅު

ދަރިވަރުންގެ ނިމޭއިރު މަރުޙަލާތައް، އުނގެނުމުގެ

ދަރިވަރުންގެ މަޢްލޫމާތު އަށަގަނެފައިވާ ކިބައިގައި

ކިބައިގައި ހުރި، ބަހުގެ ޤާބިލުކަން ބޭނުން ކޮށްގެން،

ޓަކައި، ބަޔާންކޮށްދިނުމަށް ސީދާ ސާފުކޮށް

ކުރިޔަށް ގެންދިޔަ ސީ، ބީ، އެލް، ޓީގެ އުޞޫލަށް،

ބިނާކޮށްގެން 1970ގެ އަހަރުތަކުގައި އެމެރިކާގައި

ދިޔަ އުފެދިގެން ޙަރަކާތަކުން، ގެންދިޔަ ކުރިޔަށް

ޝެންކު،1986(. އީ )އެލެން އުޞޫލެކެވެ

ރޑްސް އަދި ތިއޯޑޯރ އެސް )2011( ޖެކްސީ ރިޗަ

ކޮންމެ އުސޫލަކީ، މި ގޮތުގައި ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ

ނަމަވެސް، އުނގެނުނު ބަސް ދަރިވަރުން ގޮތަކަށް

އަމާޒު ގޮތްތަކަށް، ބޭނުންކުރާ ބަސް ދަރިވަރުން

އުޞޫލުގެ މި ނުވަތަ އުޞޫލެކެވެ. ކުރެވިގެންދާ

އަމާޒަކީ، ބަހުގެ ހުނަރުތައް ތަރައްޤީކުރުމަށް ގެންދެވޭ

ދަރިވަރުންނަށްޙާޞިލުކުރެވުނު ކަންކަމުގެތެރެއިން،

އެއްޗެއްގެ އެހީގައި، ދަރިވަރުން ލައްވާ އުފެއްދުންތައް

އުފެއްދުމެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ، ބަސް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގައި

ނޑު އަމާޒަކީ، ބޭނުންކުރާ ގިނަ އުޞޫލުތަކުގެ މައިގަ

ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ޓަކައި، ދަސްކޮށްދިނުމަށް ބަސް

ބީ، ސީ، ވިޔަސް، ކަމުގައި އެހީތެރިކަންދިނުން

އެލް، ޓީގެ އަސާސަކީ، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ފޯރުކޮށްދެވޭ

ބަދަލުގައި ބެލުމުގެ އެކަނި އެހީތެރިކަމަށް ތަފާތު

ބެލުމެވެ ވެސް އުފެއްދުންތަކަށް ދަރިވަރުންގެ

147

ރޑްސް އާއި ތިއޯޑޯރ އެސް،2011(. )ޖެކްސީ ރިޗަ

ޑޮންކިންއަރ )1994( ބަޔާންކުރައްވާ ގޮތުގައި ސީ،

ބީ، އެލް، ޓީގެ އުސޫލަށް ތަރުހީބުދޭ މުދައްރިސުން،

ދެކޭގޮތުގައި މިއީ، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް ހެޔޮ ބަދަލެއް،

ގެނައުމަށް ޓަކައި ބޭނުންކުރަން އެންމެ އެކަށީގެންވާ،

މިގޮތް އެޖެންޓެވެ.[ ]ޕޮޒިޓިވް ބާރުގަދަ އެންމެ

ތަޢްލީމާއި ދަރިވަރުންގެ ސަބަބުން، ބޭނުންކުރުމުގެ

ތަމްރީން ޕްރޮގުރާމުތަކަށް، މުދައްރިސުންގެ ފަރާތުން

އެސެސްމެންޓުތަކުގެ ލިބިގެންދެއެވެ. އާރޯކަން

ފެންވަރު ރަނގަޅުކޮށްދިނުމުގެ އިތުރުން، އުއްމީދުކުރާ

ކްލިއަރ ބަޔާންކުރުން/ ސާފުކޮށް ވަރަށް ނަތީޖާ

ސްޕެސިފިކޭޝަން އޮފް އެކްސްޕެކްޓެޑް އައުޓްކަމްސް

ފީޑްބެކުގެ މާނަހުރި ދެވޭ ގޮތެއްގައި ދާއިމީ އާއި،

ފެންވަރު އުނގެނުމުގެ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ސަބަބުން،

ވަރަށް ބޮޑަށް ރަނގަޅުވެއެވެ )ޑޮކިންއަރ، 1994(.

ރޑް ޖޭ.ޓީ ވިންސަން އާއި ޑޭވިޑް ޕީ ޕިއަރސަން ރިޗަ

ފާޑުކިޔުއްވާ ގޮތުގައި، ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ )1992(

ޙަރަކާތްތަކަށް، ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި ފަރާތްތަކުން

ވަކިވަކި ކޮންޕިޓެންސީތަކަށް ބަހައިގެން ގެންދިއުމަކީ

އުޞޫލެކެވެ. ރިޑަކްޝަނިސްޓް

އުޞޫލުތަކުގެ ބޭނުންކުރާ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް

އުޞޫލުތަކުން ބަޔާންކޮށްފައިވާ މަތީގައި، ތެރެއިން

ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން، އުޞޫލުތައް މި ހާމަވިގޮތުގައި،

ބަސް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ ސަބަބުން ބަސް އުނގެނުމަށް

ތަރައްޤީވެ، ހުނަރުތައް ބަހުގެ ލިބި، ފަހިކަން

ޤާބިލުކަން ބަހުގެ މޮޅުވެއެވެ. ދަރިވަރުން ބަހަށް

މި އެހެންކަމުން، ލިއްބައިދެއެވެ. ދަރިވަރުންނަށް

އުޞޫލުތައް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ދަރިވަރުންނަށް، ދިވެހި

ބަހަށް ދަރިވަރުން ނަމަ އުނގަންނައިދެވޭ ބަސް

ބިނާކޮށްފައި ދިރާސާ މި ވުމާއެކު، މޮޅުވާނެއެވެ.

ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލުތަކުގެ ސާނަވީ މާލޭގެ ވަނީ

މުދައްރިސުން، ކިޔަވައިދެއްވާ ދިވެހި މަރުޙަލާއަށް،

އެ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ،

އުޞޫލުތައް ނޑު މައިގަ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ

ޖަވާބު ސުވާލުގެ މި ހެއްޔެވެ؟ ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން

. ވެ ށެ މަ ދު ހޯ

ދިރާސާ ކުރިއަށްގެންދެވުނު ގޮތް

ޞައްޙަކަމާއި މަޢްލޫމާތުގެ ދިރާސާއަކީ، މި

ހަރުދަނާކަން އިތުރުކުރުމަށް ޓަކައި، އެއް މެތަޑަކުން

އެހީގައި، މެތަޑެއްގެ މިކްސްޑް މަޢްލޫމާތު ނުހޯދޭ

ލިބިގެންދާނެ ކަމަށް ކުރެސްވެލް )2003(ވިދާވެފައިވާ

ވިދާޅުވުމާ އެއްގޮތަށް މިކްސް މެތަޑް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން

ހަދާފައިވާ ދިރާސާއެކެވެ. މާލޭގެ ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލަކަށް

ދިރާސާގައި މި ހަދާފައިވާ އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން

ބައިވެރިކޮށްފައިވަނީ، އެ ސްކޫލުގެ ގުރޭޑު)8،9(އަށް

ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެއްވާ 2 މުދައްރިސުންނާއި

ދަރިވަރުންގެ ކުލާހެއްގެ 2 ގުރޭޑަކުން ކޮންމެ

ގޮތުގައި ސާންޕަލެއްގެ ރެންޑަމް ތެރެއިން،

އިޚްތިޔާރުކުރެވުނު 54 ދަރިވަރުންނެވެ. ދިރާސާއަށް

މަޢްލޫމާތު އެއްކޮށްފައިވަނީ، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ދެވުނު

ސުވާލު އެންޑެޑް[ ]އޯޕަން ކަރުދާހަކާއި، ސުވާލު

މުދައްރިސުންނާ ބިނާކޮށްގެން، މައްޗަށް ތަކެއްގެ

ކުރެވުނު ބަސްދީ ގަތުމެއްގެ އިތުރުން ސިނާރިއޯއެއް

ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންނެވެ.

ހިމަނައިފައިވަނީ، ސުވާލުކަރުދާހުގައި ދަރިވަރުންގެ

އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ދިވެހިބަސް ދަރިވަރުންނަށް އެ

އުޞޫލުތަކުގައި ނޑު މައިގަ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ

148

ހިމަނައިގެން ކަންކަން މުހިންމު ހިމެނޭ،

ނުވަތަ ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންކަން އުޞޫލުތައް އެފަދަ

ތައްޔާރުކޮށްފައިވާ ގޮތަށް، ދެނެގަނެވޭނެ ނޫންކަން

ބަސްދީގަތުން ހަމައެހެންމެ، ސުވާލެވެ. 22

ސާނަވީ މުދައްރިސުން އެ ބިނާކޮށްފައިވަނީ،

އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ދިވެހިބަސް ދަރިވަރުންނަށް

އުސޫލުތަކުގައި ނޑު މައިގަ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ

ހިމެނޭ ޚާއްޞަކަންކަން/ ޙަރަކާތްތައް ހިމަނައިގެންތޯ

ނުވަތަ ނޫންތޯ ދެނެގަތުމާއި، މިހާރު ބަސްކިޔަވައިދޭ

ނަތީޖާއަކީ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ ގޮތަށް އެ ގޮތާއި

ތައްޔާރުކޮށްފައިވާ ގޮތަށް، ދެނެގަނެވޭ ކޮބައިކަން

ނޑު 4 ސުވާލެއްގެ މައްޗަށެވެ. ސިނާރިއޯތައް މައިގަ

ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގައި ބަސް ތައްޔާރުކޮށްފައިވަނީ،

ނޑު 4އުޞޫލަކީ ކޮބައިކަމާއި އޭގެ ބޭނުންކުރާ މައިގަ

ސިފަތަކަށް މުދައްރިސުން އަހުލުވެރިތޯ ވަޒަންކުރެވޭނެ

ގޮތަށެވެ.

ނުވުން ޙާޞިލުވުމާއި މަޤްޞަދު ދިރާސާއެއްގެ

ބޭނުންކުރާ ދިރާސާއެއްގައި އޮންނަނީ، ބިނާވެފައި

އާލާތެއްގެ މަޢްލޫމާތު ބިނާކުރާ ގޮތެއްގެ މައްޗަށެވެ.

ދެނެގަނެވޭނެގޮތަށް އެއްޗެއް ބޭނުންވާ ހޯދަން

ވުމާއެކު، ކުރެވިގެންނެވެ. ބައްޓަން މަޢްލޫމާތުތައް

ޓަކައި ހިފެހެއްޓުމަށް ވެލިޑިޓީ ދިރާސާގެ

މާރޓިން،ބްލޫމް ޖޮއެލް ފިޝަރްޖޫޑީ އޯރމީ )1995(

ބަސްދީގަތުމުގެ ގޮތަށް ދެއްވައިފައިވާ އިރުޝާދު

ޙާޞިލު މަޤްޞަދު ދިރާސާގެ ސުވާލުތަކަކީ،

ވާނޭގޮތަށް، ތައްޔާރު ކުރެވިފައިވާ ސުވާލުތަކެއްކަން

ކަށަވަރު ކުރުމުގެ ގޮތުން ބަސްދީގަތުމުގެ ސުވާލުތަކާއި

ސިނާރިއޯގެ ޢަޖުމަބެލުމަށް ޓަކައި، ސާނަވީއަށް ދިވެހި

ކިޔަވައިދެއްވާ 4 ޓީޗަރަކަށް ދައްކައި ފައިނަލްކުރީމެވެ.

ސުވާލުތައް ބަސްދީގަތުމުގެ އިތުރުން މީގެ

އެލްމަރިސްޓްރުއެނިންގ ހުންނާނީ، ތައްޔާރުކޮށްފައި

ގުޓެންޓެގ)1975(ވިދާޅުވެފައި މާރސިއާ އަދި

ގޮތަށް، ރެސްޕޯންސް ވެލިޑިޓީ ޤާއިމުކުރެވޭނެގޮތަށް،

ޖަވާބުދޭން ފަސޭހަ އަދި ]ރެސްޕޯންސްރޭޓު[ އެންމެ

ގޮތަށެވެ. ލިބޭނެ މަޢްލޫމާތު ޞައްޙަ ރަނގަޅުވެ،

އަޑު ބަސްދީގަތުމުގެ ދިރާސާގެ ހަމައެހެންމެ،

މަޢްލޫމާތު އެހެންކަމުން، ކުރެވުނެވެ. ރެކޯޑު

ރަނގަޅަށް ފުރުޞަތުކުޑަވެ، ދިޔުމުގެ އުނިވެގެން

ފުރުޞަތު ]ޓްރާންސްކުރައިބު[ކުރުމުގެ

ލިބިގެންދިޔައެވެ. ވުމާއެކު، މިއީ، ސްޓެއިނަރ ކްވާލެ

ޓްރާންސްކުރިޕްޓް ވިދާޅުވެފައިވާގޮތަށް، )1996(

މަޢުލޫމާތު ދިރާސާގެ ތަރުޖަމާކޮށް، ރަނގަޅަށް

ހެކި، ޞައްޙަވުމަށް ނަތީޖާ ދިރާސާގެ ސައްޙަވެ،

ނަތީޖާ ދިރާސާއެއްގެ ކަމެކެވެ. ލިބިގެންދާނެ

)1979( ޖިކް ޑީ. ޓޮޑް ކުރުމަށްޓަކައި، ޞައްޙަ

ކުއަންޓިޓޭޓިވްކޮށްނާއި ގޮތަށް ބަޔާންކުރައްވައިފައިވާ

އުޞޫލު/ބިޓްވީން ބަލާ ކޮލެޓޭޓިވްކޮށް

ޓްރައިންގިޔުލޭޝަނެއް ބޭނުން ކޮށްފައިވުމަކީ ވެސް،

ކަމެކެވެ. ޞައްޙަވާނެ ނަތީޖާ ދިރާސާގެ

ދެމެހެއްޓުމަށް ރިލަޔަރބިލިޓީ ވެލިޑިޓީ ދިރާސާގެ

އޯރމީ ޖޮއެލްފިޝަރްޖޫޑީ ބްލޫމް މާރޓިން ޓަކައި،

ސުވާލުކަރުދާހުގެ ވިދާޅުވެފައިވާގޮތަށް، )1995(

ޓަކައި، ޤާއިމުކުރުމަށް ވެލިޑިޓީ،ރިލަޔަރބިލިޓީ

ސާނަވީގެ ގޮތުން، ސައްޙަކުރުމުގެ ޢަޖުމަބަލައި

ދަރިވަރަކަށް 3 މުދައްރިސުންނަށާއި 3

ކުރެވުނެވެ. އިޞްލާޙު ސުވާލުކަރުދާސް ދައްކައި

ހިފެހެއްޓުމަށްޓަކައި، އަޚްލާޤިއްޔާތު ދިރާސާގެ

މަޢްލޫމާތު ސްކޫލަށް ކަޑައަޅައިފައިވާ ސާންޕަލްގައި

149

އެއްކުރުމަށްޓަކައި، ދިޔުމުގެ ކުރީން، ފެކަލްޓީ އޮފް

އަރޓްސް ގެފަރާތުން، ސިޓީއެއް ހޯދައި، ސްކޫލުން

ހުއްދަ ހޯދީމެވެ. އެއަށްފަހު، ދިރާސާގައި ބައިވެރިކުރާ

އިސްފަރާތްތަކާ ސްކޫލުގެ މުދައްރިސުންނާއި

ޙިއްސާކުރީމެވެ. މަޢްލޫމާތު ދިރާސާގެ ބައްދަލުކޮށް،

ނެތްކަމުގެ އިޢްތިރާޒެއް ބައިވެރީންގެ ދިރާސާގެ

ދިރާސާކުރާ ތަޢާރަފާއި ދިރާސާގެ ހޯދީމެވެ. ސޮއި

ބަސްދީގަތުން މަޢްލޫމާތުގެއިތުރުން ފަރާތުގެ

ތަޙްލީލުކޮށް މަޢްލޫމާތު ރެކޯޑުކުރެވޭނެކަމާއި

އެ ވާހަކަ ނައްތާލެވޭނެ ރެކޯޑިން، ނިމުމުން

ހަމައެހެންމެ، ވާނެއެވެ. ބަޔާންކޮށްފައި ފޯމުގައި،

ދިރާސާގެބައިވެރީންގެ މަޢްލޫމާތު ހާމަނުކުރެވޭނެކަމާއި

ދިރާސާއިން ހިނދެއްގައި، ކޮންމެ ބޭނުންވެއްޖެ

ލިބިފައިވާކަމާއި އިޚްތިޔާރު ވަކިވުމުގެ

އިޚްތިޔާރީކަމެއްކަން ބައިވެރިވުމަކީ، ދިރާސާގައި

ކަރާމަތަށް ބައިވެރީންގެ ފާހަގަކޮށްފައިވާނެއެވެ.

ޔަޤީންކަން ފުރިހަމަ ކަމުގެ ރައްކާތެރިވާނެ

. ވެ އެ ނެ ވާ އި ފަ ދީ

ދިރާސާއަށް އެއްކުރީ، މަޢްލޫމާތު ދިރާސާއަށް

އިޚްތިޔާރުކުރި ސުކޫލުގެ ހުއްދައާއެކު، މުދައްރިސުންނާ

ފަސޭހަ މުދައްރިސުންނަށް އެ އުފައްދައި ގުޅުން

ލައްވައި ދަރިވަރުން ގޮސް، ގަޑިއެއްގައި ސްކޫލަށް

ކުރުވައިގެންނެވެ. ފުރިހަމަ ކަރުދާސް ސުވާލު

ބަސްދީގަތުން ކުރިޔަށް ގެންދެވުނީ، އެންމެ ފަސޭހަ

ކަމަށް އެ ކަޑައަޅައި، ވަގުތެއް ޖެހޭ ހިތްހަމަ

މާޙައުލެއްގައި، ރަނގަޅު އެކަށީގެންވާ ޚާއްޞަ

ދިރާސާވެރިޔާއާއި ދިރާސާގެ ބައިވެރިޔާއާ ދެ މީހުން

އެކަނި ތިބެގެންނެވެ. 2 މުދައްރިސުންގެ ބަސްދީގަތުން

ކުރިޔަށް ގެންދިޔައީ ވަކިވަކިންނެވެ. ބަސްދީ ގަތުމުގެ

މުހިންމު މަޢްލޫމާތު ވަގުތުން ނޯޓުކުރުމުގެ އިތުރުން

ކުރެވުނެވެ. ރެކޯޑު

މެތަޑުގެ މިކްސްޑް ސާފުކުރީ، ނަތީޖާ ދިރާސާގެ

ދިރާސާގައި ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންނެވެ. އުސޫލުތައް

ސާފުކުރީ، މަޢްލޫމާތު 54ކަރުދާހުގެ ބޭނުންކުރި

ދީފައިވާ ސުވާލަކަށް ކޮންމެ ކަރުދާހުގެ ސުވާލު

ފެންނަގޮތަށް، ތާވަލަކުން އެއް ޖަވާބުތައް،

ތާވަލުހަދައި ސުވާލު ކަރުދާހުގައި ހުރި، ސުވާލުތައް

ޖަވާބު ދީފައިވާ ސުވާލަކަށް ކޮންމެ ލިޔުމަށްފަހު،

ދެ ގޮތަށް ފާހަގަވާ ވަކިވަކިން، ތާވަލުތަކުގައި

ގުރޭޑަކުން ކޮންމެ އެއަށްފަހު ވަކިންނެވެ. ގުރޭޑު

ޢަދަދު ޖުމުލަ ދީފައިވާ ޖަވާބެއް އެއް ވެސް

ފާހަގަކޮށް، އެ ޢަދަދު ފެންނާނެ ގޮތަށް އެކްސެލްގައި

ފަސޭހައިން ނަކަލުކޮށް، ނަތީޖާތައް ތާވަލުހަދައި

ފެންނަ ގޮތަށް، ޕައިޗާޓުން ނަތީޖާ ދައްކައިގެންނެވެ.

ޕައިޗާޓުހެދީ ސުވާލު ކަރުދާސް ފުރިހަމަކުރި މީހުންގެ

ތެރެއިން ކޮންމެ ސުވާލެއްގެ، ވަކިވަކި ބައިތަކަށް

ގޮތަށެވެ. އެނގޭނެ އިންސައްތަ ޖަވާބުދީފައިވާ

މަޢްލޫމާތު ދައްކުވައިދޭ ޗާޓަކުން ކޮންމެ އެއަށްފަހު

އެއްކުރުމަށް މަޢްލޫމާތު ކޮލިޓޭޓިވް ލިޔެގެންނެވެ.

އަޑުއަހައިގެން ރެކޯޑިން ބަސްދީގަތުމުގެ ނެގި،

ކަޑައަޅައި، ކޯޑުތަކެއް ލިޔުމަށްފަހު މަޢްލޫމާތު

ނަގައި، ތާވާލަކަށް ކޯޑުތައް ނުވާގޮތަށް ތަކުރާރު

ތާވަލުތަކުގައި އެއަށްފަހު، ކަޑައެޅުނެވެ. ތީމުތަކެއް

ޕެރެގުރާފުތަކެއް ބިނާކޮށް މަޢްލޫމާތަކަށް ހުރި

އެކުލަވައިލެވުނެވެ.

150

ހޯދުންތައް

ގުރާފު 1ން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ފިލާވަޅުތައް

ގެންދެވެނީ، އެހެން މާއްދާތަކުގެ މަޢްލޫމާތަށް

ބިނާކޮށްގެން ބަހުގެ ހުނަރުތައް ތަރައްޤީ

ވާގޮތަކަށް ނޫނެވެ.

ގުރާފު:1 އެހެން މާއްދާތަކުގެ މަޢްލޫމާތަށް ބިނާކޮށް، ބަހުގެ ހުނަރުތައް ތަރައްޤީކުރުން

ގުރާފު 2ން ދައްކާ ގޮތުގައި ވަކިވަކި

ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ

ވަކިވަކި ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ސަމާލުކަންދީގެން

ނޫނެވެ.

ގުރާފު:2 ވަކިވަކި ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ސަމާލުކަންދީގެން، ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުން

ގުރާފު 3ން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި، ދިވެހި ގަޑީގައި

ދެވެނީ ވިސްނައިގެން ހަދަން ޖެހޭ އުނދަގޫ

މަސައްކަތްތަކެއް ނޫނެވެ.

ގުރާފު:3 ވިސްނައިގެން ހަދަންޖެހޭ އުނދަގޫ، މަސައްކަތްތަކެއްގެ ތެރެއިން، ބަހުގެ ހުނަރުތައް

ތަރައްޤީކުރުން

151

ގުރާފު 4ން ހާމަވާ ގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ގަޑީގައި

ދެވޭ މަސައްކަތްތަކަކީ، ފައިދާހުރި، ބޭނުންތެރި

މާނަހުރި މަސައްކަތްތަކެއް ނޫނެވެ.

ގުރާފު:4 ދިވެހިގަޑީގެ މަސައްކަތް، ފައިދާ ހުރި މާނަހުރި މަސައްކަތްތަކަކަށް ހެދުން

ގުރާފު 5ން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި

ބަސްއުނގަންނައިދެނީ،ކަންކަން ދައްކައިދީގެން/

މޮޑެލްކޮށްދީގެނެއް ނޫނެވެ.

ގުރާފު:5 ކަންކަންދީ ދައްކައިދީ/ މޮޑެލްކޮށްދީގެން ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުން

ގުރާފު 6އިން ހާމަވާގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި

ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި، ދަރިވަރުން

މަސައްކަތްކުރުމުގައި މުދައްރިސްގެ އެހީތެރިކަން

ލިބެއެވެ.

ގުރާފު:6 ދަރިވަރުންގެ މަސައްކަތްތަކަށް، މުދައްރިސުން އެހީތެރިވެދިނުން

ގުރާފު 7އިން ދައްކާ ގޮތުގައި، ދިވެހިބަސް

އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި، ދަރިވަރުން

އިޚްތިޔާރުކުރާ ސުރުޚީތަކަށް ލިޔުމުގެ

ފުރުޞަތެއް ނުލިބެއެވެ.

ގުރާފު:7 ދަރިވަރުން އިޚްތިޔާރުކުރާ ސުރުޚީތަކަށް ލިޔުމުގެ ފުރުޞަތުދިނުން

152

ގުރާފު 8އިން ފެންނަ ގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ގަޑީގައި

ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދައުރު ހަނިވެފައި، ބޮޑަށް

އޮންނަނީ މުދައްރިސްގެ ދައުރެވެ.

ގުރާފު:8 ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދައުރު ފުޅާކުރުން

ގުރާފު 9އިން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި، ހިތްހަމަ

ޖެހުމަށްކުރާ ކަމެއްގެ ގޮތުގައި ލިޔުމަށް ދިވެހި

މުދައްރިސްބާރެއް ނާޅުއްވައެވެ.

ގުރާފު:9 އަމިއްލަ ހިތްހަމަޖެހުމަށް ކުރާ ކަމެއްގެ ގޮތުގައި، ލިޔުންތެރިކަން ތަރައްޤީކުރުން

ގުރާފު 10އިން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ބަސް

އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި، ދަރިވަރުން ލިޔަން

ނޑައަޅާ ސުރުޚީތަކަށެވެ. ޖެހެނީ، މުދައްރިސް ކަ

ނޑައަޅާ ސުރުޚީތަކަށް، ދަރިވަރުން ލިޔަން ޖެހުން ގުރާފު:10 މުދައްރިސް ކަ

ދިވެހިބަސް ގޮތުގައި ދައްކާ 11އިން ގުރާފު

އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި، ދަރިވަރުންގެ ލިޔުންތައް

ފާޑުކިއުމުގެ ޙިއްސާކޮށް ދަރިވަރުންނާ އެހެން

ނުލިބެއެވެ. ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ފުރުޞަތު

ގުރާފު:11 ދަރިވަރުންގެ ލިޔުންތައް، އެހެން ދަރިވަރުންނާ ޙިއްސާކުރުމުގެ ފުރުޞަތު ނެތުން

153

ގުރާފު 12އިން ދައްކާގޮތުގައ ދިވެހިގަޑީގައި

ގެންދާ އެކްޓިވިޓީތަކަކީ، ފިލާވަޅާ ގުޅޭ،

ދަސްކުރުމަށް ފަސޭހަ، ފެންވަރު ރަނގަޅު

އެކްޓިވިޓީ ތަކެއް ނޫނެވެ.

ގުރާފު:12 ދިވެހިގަޑީގައި ދެވޭ މަސައްކަތަކީ،ފިލާވަޅާ ގުޅޭ، ފެންވަރު ރަނގަޅު ޙަރަކާތްތަކަށް ހެދުން

ގުރާފު 13 އިން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ބަސް

އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި ބޭނުންކުރާ އާލާތް/

މެޓީރިއަލްތަކަކީ އުނގެނުމަށް ފަހިވާ ފަދަ

ތަކެއްޗެއް ނޫނެވެ.

ގުރާފު:13 ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި، އުނގެނުމަށް ފަހި އާލާތް/ މެޓީރިއަލް ބޭނުން ކުރުން

ގުރާފު 14 އިން ފެންނަގޮތުގައި ދިވެހިބަސް

އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ބޭނުންވާ

އެހީތެރިކަން/އިންޕުޓު ދިނުމަށްފަހު

ދަރިވަރުންލައްވާ އުފެއްދުންތައް/އައުޓްޕުޓު

ނެރޭގޮތަކަށް ނޫނެވެ.

ގުރާފު:14 އެހީތެރިކަންދީގެން، އުފެއްދުންތައް އުފައްދާގޮތަށް ފިލާވަޅުތައް ބައްޓަންކުރުން

154

ފާހަގަކުރުވުނު ބަސްދީގަތުމުން މުދައްރިސުންގެ

ކަންކަން ފާހަގަކުރެނު ތީމުތަކުން ތީމުތަކާއި،

ދިވެހި ނަތީޖާއާ މެދު ދެކޭގޮތް:

މެދު، ހޯދާނަތީޖާއާ ދަރިވަރުން ދިވެހިމާއްދާއިން

އެހެންނަމަވެސް ހިތްހަމަނުޖެހެއެވެ. މުދައްރިސުން

ދަރިވަރުންކުރާ މަސައްކަތާ އަޅާ ބަލާއިރު، ދަރިވަރުން

ހޯދާ ނަތީޖާތައް ރަނގަޅެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ، ސްކޫލުގެ

ޙާޞިލުކުރެވޭތީ ޓާގެޓު މިނިސްޓްރީގެ ޓާގެޓާއި

ހިތްހަމަޖެހުނު ނަމަވެސް، ހުރިހައި މާއްދާއަކުން އޭ

ގުރާފުން 15 އިން ހާމަކޮށްދޭގޮތުގައި ދިވެހިގަޑީގެ

ދަރިވަރުންކުރާ ރާވައިފައިވަނީ، ޙަރަކާތްތައް

މަސައްކަތްތަކުން ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ޙާޞިލުކޮށްދޭން

ނޫނެވެ. ޙާޞިލުވާނެގޮތަކަށް މިންވަރު ޖެހޭ

ނޑައަޅައި، އެއްޗެއް ޙާޞިލުކޮށްދިނުމަށް، ދިވެހި ފިލާވަޅުތައް ގުރާފު: 15 ވަކި އެއްޗެއް ކަ

ބައްޓަންކުރުން

ގުރާފު 16ން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ފިލާވަޅުތައް

ރާވައިފައި ހުންނަނީ ދަރިވަރުންގެ މަސައްކަތްތައް

ގިނަވާނެ ގޮތަށް ނުވަތަ ދަރިވަރުގެ ރޯލު

ބޮޑުވާގޮތަކަށް ނޫނެވެ.

ގުރާފު:16 ދަރިވަރުންގެ މަސައްކަތްތައް ގިނަވާނެ ގޮތަށް، ދިވެހި ފިލާވަޅުތައް ބައްޓަންކުރުން

އޭ ކުދީންނަށް ބައެއް މާއްދާއިން ދިވެހި ލިބޭއިރު

ނުލިބުމަކީ، އެކަމާ ކަންބޮޑުވާ މައްސަލައެކެވެ. ދިވެހި

ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް މަންހަޖުގައި ކަޑައަޅައިފައި އޮންނަ

ވަގުތު މަދުވުމާއި އެއް ވަގެތެއްގެ ތެރޭގައި ދިވެހީގެ

އިމްތިޙާންކުރުމުގެ އެއްފަހަރާ ބައިތަކެއް އެތައް

ސަބަބުން ދިވެހި ނަތީޖާއަށް ނޭދެވޭ އަސަރުކުރެއެވެ.

ވަކިން ބައިތައް ފަދަ އަދަބިއްޔާތު ވުމާއެކު،

ހަމައެހެންމެ، ރަނގަޅެވެ. އިމްތިޙާންކުރުން

ދަރިވަރުން އިމްތޙާނުގައި ސީ އެސް އެސް

ލިބޭ މާކުހެއް އެއްވަރުގެ މަސައްކަތާ ކުރަންޖެހޭ

155

މާކުސްތައް ނޑައެޅިފައިވާ ކަ އިމްތިޙާނަށް ގޮތަށް،

ފެނެއެވެ. ބަދަލުކުރުމަށް

ދިވެހި ނަތީޖާއަށް އަސަރުކުރާ ކަންތައްތައް:

ދޭ ދިވެހިބަހަށް ދަރިވަރުން، ބެލެނިވެރީންނާއި

ދިވެހި ކުޑައިރުއްސުރެ ކުޑަވުމާއި، ސަމާލުކަން

ނުކޮށް މަސައްކަތް ކުރުމަށްޓަކައި މޮޅު މާއްދާއިން

ތިބެފައި، ސާނަވީއަށް ދިއުމުން ޓޮޕް ޓެންއަށް އެރުމަށް

ސަމާލުކަންދިނުމަކުން، ދިވެހިމާއްދާއަށް ޓަކައި

ދިވެހި ނުކުރެވޭނެއެވެ. ރަނގަޅެއް ނަތީޖާ ދިވެހި

މާއްދާއަށް މޮޅުކުރަން ކުރެވޭމަސައްކަތަކީ، ހަމައެކަނި

ގޭގައި މަސައްކަތަކަށްވުމާއި ކުރެވޭ ކުލާހުގެ

ދިވެހިފިލާވަޅުތައް މުޠާލިޢާ ނުކުރުމަކީ ވެސް، ދިވެހި

ހަމައެހެންމެ، ކަމެކެވެ. އަސަރުކުރާ ނަތީޖާއަށް

ދިވެހިކިޔަވައި ދިނުމަށް މަންޙަޖުގައި ކަޑައަޅައިފައިވާ

ވަގުތު މަދުވުމުގެ އިތުރުން، ދަރިވަރުންގެ މަޢްލޫމާތު

ނަތީޖާއަށް ދިވެހި ވެސް ސަބަބުން ފަޤީރުވުމުގެ

ކުރެއެވެ. އަސަރު ނޭދެވޭ

ޖެހޭ ގެންނަން އުނގަންނައިދިނުމަށް ދިވެހިބަސް

: ލު ދަ ބަ

ބަސް ދިވެހި މިހާރު ދަރިވަރުންނަށް، ސާނަވީ

އުނގަންނައިދެމުން އަންނަގޮތް ބަދަލުކުރަން ޖެހެއެވެ.

އިމްތިޙާނަށް ބަރޯސާވެގެން، ފާއިތުވެފައިވާ އަހަރުތަކުގެ

އިމްތިޙާން ކަރުދާހުގައި، ހުންނަ ބައިތައް ތަކުރާރުކޮށް

އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގެ ދިވެހިބަސް ހައްދުވައިގެން،

ބަދަލުގައި ދިވެހި މާއްދާއަށް މޮޅުކުރުމަށް ޓަކައި،

އެ މުހިންމެވެ. އުނގަންނައިދިނުން ބަސް ދިވެހި

ގޮތުން ބަހުގެ 4 ހުނަރަށް އެއްވަރަކަށް ސަމާލުކަން

ދީގެން ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމަކީ، ދަރިވަރުން

ބަހަށް މޮޅުވާނެ ކަމެކެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ، ދަރިވަރުންގެ

ފޮތަށް ބިނާކޮށްގެން ބަސް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ ބަދަލުގައި

ދިވެހިބަސް ފަރުމާކޮށްގެން ޓާސްކުތަކެއް އިތުރު

ދިވެހިބަސް މުހިންމެވެ. ވަރަށް އުނގަންނައިދިނުން

ދައުރަށްވުރެ މުދައްރިސުގެ އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި

ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދައުރު ބޮޑުކޮށް، ދަރިވަރުންގެ ޢަމަލީ

ޖެހެއެވެ. އިތުރުކުރަން މަސައްކަތްތައް

މިހާރު ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދޭ ގޮތް:

ސާނަވީ މަރުޙަލާގައި ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ،

އަޑުއެހުމުގެ އަމާޒުކޮށްގެންނެވެ. ނަތީޖާއަށް

ގުރޭޑުތަކުގެ ސާނަވީ ނުކުރާތީ އިމްތިޙާން ހުނަރު

ވެސް އެއް ކުރުމަށް، ހުނަރުތަރައްޤީ އަޑުއެހުމުގެ

މަސައްކަތެއް ނުކުރެއެވެ. ދަރިވަރުން އިޚްތިޔާރުކުރާ

ނުދެވެއެވެ. ފުރުޞަތެއް ލިޔުމުގެ ސުރުޚީތަކަށް

ގޮތެއްގައި މާނަހުރި ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ވަކިވަކި

ދެވެނީ މަސައްކަތް ގުރޫޕު ނުދެވެއެވެ. ފީޑްބެކެއް

މުޅީންހެން ދިވެހިގަޑީގައި މަދުންނެވ. ވަރަށް

ދެވެނީ، އަޑުއަހައިފައި ލިޔުމުގެ މަސައްކަތެވެ. އެހެން

ނަމަވެސް ވާހަކަދެއްކުމުގެ ފުރުޞަތާއި ފާޑު ކިޔުމުގެ

ޢާންމު ދެވެއެވެ. ވަރަކަށް ކޮންމެވެސް ފުރުޞަތު

އެހީތެރިކަމެއް/ ބޭނުންވާ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ގޮތެއްގައި

ފަހަރު ބައެއް ވިޔަސް ނުދެވޭކަމުގައި އިންޕުޓު

މަސައްކަތް ޙަވާލު ކުރެވެނީ، ކޮންމެ ވެސް ވަރެއްގެ

ފޯރުކޮށްދީފައެވެ. އެހީތެރިކަމެއް

ބަހުސް

ސާނަވީ ހާމަވިގޮތުގައި، ހޯދުންތަކުން ދިރާސާގެ

އުނގަންނައިދެނީ ދިވެހިބަސް ގުރޭޑުތަކަށް،

156

ގުޅުވައިގެން ކޮންޓެންޓާ މާއްދާތަކުގެ އެހެން

ބައިވެރިވި ދިރާސާގެ އެހެންކަމުން، ނޫނެވެ.

ދިވެހި ގޮތުގައި، އެއްބަސްވާ %65 ދަރިވަރުންގެ

މާއްދާތަކުގެ އެހެން އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ބަސް

ހަމައެހެންމެ ނޫނެވެ. ގުޅުވައިގެން ކޮންޓެންޓާ

އެއްބަސް ވެސް މުދައްރިސުން ދިވެހި މިކަމަށް،

ވެލައްވައެވެ. ކަންމިހެން އޮތް އިރު، ސޫޒަން ބްރިޖު

)2011( ބަޔާންކުރައްވާ ގޮތުގައި، އެހެން މާއްދާގެ

ކޮންޓެންޓާ ގުޅުވައިގެން ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމަކީ،

ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ކުރިއެރުން ލިބި، ބަހުގެ ހުނަރުތައް

ބައިވެރިވި ދިރާސާގައި ކަމެކެވެ. ތަރައްޤީވާނެ

ދަރިވަރުންގެ %69 ދަރިވަރުން ޤަބޫލުކުރާ ގޮތުގައި،

ދިވެހިގަޑީގައި ދަރިވަރުންނަށްދެވޭ މަސައްކަތްތަކަކީ،

ޗެލެންޖިން އުނދަގޫ/ ހަދަންޖެހޭ ވިސްނައިގެން

މަސައްކަތްތަކެއް ނޫނެވެ. މުދައްރިސުން ވެސް މިކަމާ

އެއްބަހެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ، މުދައްރިސުން ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ

ދިވެހިބަސް ބަރޯސާވެގެން އިމްތިހާނަށް ގޮތުގައި،

މުދައްރިސުންނަށް ޖެހުމަކީ، އުނގަންނައިދޭން

ގޮންޖެހުމެކެވެ. ބޮޑު ވަރަށް ދިމާވެފައިވާ

ދިވެހި ހާމަވިގޮތުގައި، ދިރާސާއިން އެހެންކަމުން،

މަސައްކަތްތަކަކީ ދަރިވަރުންނަށްދެވޭ، ގަޑީގައި

ފަސޭހަ މަސައްކަތްތަކެކެވެ. ކަންމިހެން އޮތްކަމުގައި

ބަޔާންކުރައްވާ )2007( ޖަޕިނެން ވިޔަސް

ގޮތުގައި ސީ،އެލް،އައި، އެލްގެ ގިނަ ދިރާސާތަކުން

މޮޅުކޮށް، ބަހަށް ދަރިވަރުން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި،

ދަރިވަރުންގެ ޖުމުލަ ތަރައްޤީއަށް އެކަށީގެންވާ ހެޔޮ

ދެވޭ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ޓަކައި، ގެނައުމަށް ބަދަލެއް

ކަހަލަ ހަދަންޖެހޭ ވިސްނައިގެން މަސައްކަތްތަކަކީ،

ޗެލެންޖިން މަސައްކަތްތަކަކަށް ވާންޖެހެއެވެ. ނުވަތަ

ދަރިވަރުން ބަހަށް މޮޅުކުރުމަށް ޓަކައި، ސީ،އެލް،އައި،

އެލް ގެ އުސޫލު ބޭނުން ކުރުން މުހިންމެވެ. ވުމާއެކު،

ދިރާސާއިން ހެކި ލިބިގެން ދިޔަ ގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ބަސް

އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ސީ،އެލް،އައި، އެލް ގެ އުސޫލު

ކަމަކީ، މި އެހެންކަމުން، ނޫނެވެ. ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން

ދަރިވަރުން ބަހަށް މޮޅުވުމަށް އެޅޭ ހުރަހަކަށްވެ، މީގެ

ނޭދެވޭ ނަތީޖާއަށް ދިވެހި ދަރިވަރުންގެ ސަބަބުން،

ވެއެވެ. އެކަށީގެން އަސަރުކުރުން،

ގުޅިގެން މަސައްކަތްކުރުވުމާއި، ދަރިވަރުންގެ ޢަމަލީ

ބައިވެރިވުން އިތުރުކޮށް، ޓީޗަރ ފެސިލިޓޭޓް ޓީޗިން

މޮޑެލަކަށް ފުރުޞަތުދީ ޢަމަލީ މަސައްކަތްތަކެއްގެ

ތެރެއިން ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމަކީ،

ދާނެކަމެކެވެ ވެގެން ތަރައްޤީ ހުނަރުތައް ބަހުގެ

އެހެން .)2003 ނިސްބެޓް އީ ރޑް )ރިޗަ

ދިޔަ ހާމަވެގެން ހޯދުންތަކުން ދިރާސާގެ ނަމަވެސް

ފުރުޞަތު ކުރުމުގެ މަސައްކަތް ގުޅިގެން ގޮތުގައި

ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ދެވެނީ ވަރަށް މަދުންނެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ

ދިވެހި ގަޑިތަކުގައި ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދައުރު ހަނިވެފައި

ބޮޑަށް އޮންނަނީ މުދައްރިސުންގެ ދައުރުކަން %68

ދަރިވަރުން ފާހަގަކުރާއިރު، މުދައްރިސުންވެސް މިކަމާ

އެއްބަހެވެ. މިގޮތަށް ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުން

ބައްޓަންވެފައި އޮންނަނީ، އިމްތިޙާނަށް ބަރޯސާވެގެން

އުނގަންނައިދޭން ޖެހޭތީކަން ދިރާސާގެ ހޯދުންތަކުން

ފާހަގަކުރެވުނެވެ.

ފޮތްތަކުގައި ދަރިވަރުންގެ ސާނަވީ ހަމައެހެންމެ،

ހުންނަ މަސައްކަތްތަކުގެ އިތުރަށް، ރަންހޫ )2013(

ޙަރަކާތްތަކެއް ހުރި މާނަ ފަދަ ހާމަކުރައްވާ

އިޚްތިޔާރުކޮށް، މުދައްރިސުން އެ ފަދަ ޙަރަކާތްތަކެއް

ފަރުމާކޮށްގެން، ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި

ނޑައަޅާ ކަ މުދައްރިސް ނުކުރެއެވެ. ބޭނުން

157

ބަދަލުގައި ސުރުޚީ ދިނުމުގެ ލިޔަން ސުރުޚީއަކަށް،

ނޑައެޅުމުގެ ފުރުޞަތު ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ދިނުމަކީ، ކަ

ސިފައެކެވެ. މުހިންމު އުޞޫލުގެ ބޭސްޑް ޓާސްކް

އިޚްތިޔާރުކުރާ ދަރިވަރުން ނަމަވެސް އެހެން

ނުލިބޭކަމަށް ފުރުޞަތު ލިޔުމުގެ ސުރުޚީތަކަށް

ބޭނުންވާ ދަރިވަރުން ބުނާއިރު، ދަރިވަރުން %91

ގޮތަކަށް އެއް ފުރުޞަތު ލިޔުމުގެ ސުރުޚީތަކަށް

ދިވެހި ކަމަށް ނުދެވޭ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ވެސް،

މުދައްރިސުން، އެއްބަސް ވެލައްވައެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ

މިހެން ދިމާވަނީ، ނަތީޖާއަށް އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން، ސާނަވީ

އުނގަންނައިދޭން ބަސް ދިވެހި ދަރިވަރުންނަށް،

ވުމާއެކު، ހާމަވެއެވެ. ދިރާސާއިން ޖެހޭތީކަން

ދިރާސާއިން ހެކި ލިބިގެން ދިޔަ ގޮތުގައި، ސާނަވީ

އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި ދިވެހިބަސް މަރުޙަލާއަށް

އުޞޫލު ޓީޗިންގ ލެންގުއޭޖު ބޭސްޑް ޓާސްކް

ބަހުގެ މިއީ، އެހެންކަމުން، ނުކުރެއެވެ. ބޭނުމެއް

ދިމާވާ، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ތަރައްޤީވުމަށް ހުނަރުތައް

ވެދާނެއެވެ. ގޮންޖެހުމަކަށް

)1978( އެލެކްސެންޑާހަލިޑޭ މައިކަލް

އެޕްރޯޗް ލެންގުއޭޖު ހޯލް ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި،

ނުވަތަ ބަހުގެ 4 ހުނަރު ގުޅިގެންދާ ގޮތަށް، ހުރިހައި

ބަސް ސަމާލުކަންދީގެން، އެއްވަރަކަށް ހުނަރަކަށް

ތަރައްޤީވާނެ ހުނަރުތައް ބަހުގެ ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަކީ،

ދަރިވަރުން މަޝްވަރާތަކުގައި މިގޮތުން، ކަމެކެވެ.

ލިޔުންތައް ވައްތަރުގެ ތަފާތު ބައިވެރިކުރުވައި،

ރިފްލެކްޓު އެއަށް ލިޔުއްވުމަށްފަހު، ކިޔުއްވައި

ކަމަށް ގެންދެވޭނެ ހުނަރު 4 ބަހުގެ ކުރުވައިގެން

ވެސް، އޭނާ ހާމަކުރައްވައެވެ. ނަމަވެސް ދިރާސާގެ

ހޯދުންތަކުން ދައްކާގޮތުގައި، ސާނަވީ ގުރޭޑުތަކުގައި

ހުނަރަށް 4 ބަހުގެ އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ދިވެހިބަސް

ގުރޭޑު ސާނަވީ [ ނޫނެވެ. އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން

އަޑުއަހައިފައި ކުރާކަމަކީ ދަރިވަރުން ތަކުގައި،

ބުނި ނާދިޔާ ގާތު )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ ލިޔުން[

ހަމައެހެންމެ، . )2015 ވާހަކައެއް،11އޮކްޓޫބަރު

ވަޒަން މަރުޙަލާގައި ސާނަވީ އަޑުއެހުމަކީ

މަރުޙަލާގައި ސާނަވީ ވާތީ، ހުނަރަކަށް ނުކުރެވޭ

އެހުމުގެހުނަރު އަޑު ފަދަ ދޭހަ އަޑުއެހުމުގެ

ތަރައްޤީވާ ފަދަ ޚާއްޞަ ޙަރަކާތްތަކެއް، އެއްގޮތަކަށް

ފަރީޝާ ގާތު )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ ނުގެންދޭ[ ވެސް

ބުނިވާހަކައެއް،12އޮކްޓޫބަރު 2015(. ހަމައެހެންމެ،

ގިނަ މަސައްކަތް ލިޔުމުގެ ގުރޭޑުތަކުގައި، ސާނަވީ

ކަމުގައި ވިޔަސް ދަރިވަރުން ބޭނުންވާ، ސުރުޚީތަކަށް

ލިޔުމުގެ ސުރުޚީތަކަށް ކަޑައަޅާ ދަރިވަރުން ނުވަތަ

%91 ނުލިބޭކަން ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ފުރުޞަތު

ސާނަވީ ހަމައެހެންމެ، ބުނެއެވެ. ދަރިވަރުން

މަރުޙަލާއަށް ދިވެހި ބަސް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ބަހުގެ

ހުރިހައި ހުނަރެއް، ގުޅިލާމެހިގެންދާ ގޮތަކަށް ނޫނެވެ.

ޑޭވިޑް ޕީ ޕިއަރސަން )1992( ބަޔާންކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި،

ބަހުގައި ހިމެނޭ އަޑާއި ލަފުޒު ފަދަ ވަކިވަކި ބައިތައް

ދަސްކޮށް ނުދިން ކަމުގައި ވިޔަސް، ލިޔުމުގެ ފުރުޞަތު

ގިނައިން ދެވޭ ނަމަ، އެފަދަ ލިޔުންތަކުން ތަޖުރިބާ

ކުރެވޭނެއެވެ. ތަރައްޤީ ލިޔުންތެރިކަން ލިބިގެން

ބަސްމޮށުންތެރިކަމަށް ޙަޤީޤީ ހަމައެހެންމެ،

ޖެހުމަށް، ހިތްހަމަ އަމިއްލަ އިސްކަންދީގެން،

ގިނައިން ލައްވާ ދަރިވަރުން ކަމެއްގެގޮތުގައި ކުރާ

ކުރިއެރުވުމަށްޓަކައި ލިޔުންތެރިކަން ލިޔުއްވުމަކީ،

ވުމާއެކު، ސިފައެކެވެ. މުހިންމު ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ ހޯލް

އެލެކްސެންޑާހަލިޑޭ )1978( ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި، ހޯލް

158

ލެންގުއޭޖު އެޕްރޯޗުގެ މުދައްރިސުން ދަރިވަރުންނަށް

ޖެހުމަށްޓަކައި ހިތްހަމަ ބާރުއަޅަނީ އެހީތެރިވެދީ،

ލިޔުއްވުމަށެވެ. ގޮތުގައި ކުރާކަމެއްގެ އާދަކޮށް،

ކުރާކަމެއްގެ ހިތްހަމަޖެހުމަށް އަމިއްލަ ނަމަވެސް،

ބަހަށް ދަރިވަރުން ލިޔުއްވައިގެން، ގޮތުގައި

ހިތްވަރުދީ، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ސާނަވީ މޮޅުކުރުމަށް

ލިޔުމަށް ލިޔުންތައް އެފަދަ ކަމަށާއި ނައަޅާ ބާރު

ފާހަގަކުރާއިރު، %76 ކަމަށް ނުލިބޭ ފުރުޞަތު

ބާރު ކަމަށް އެ ފަރާތުން މުދައްރިސުންގެ

މުދައްރިސުން ހަމައެހެންމެ، ލިބިގެންދެއެވެ.

ނޑު މައިގަ ދިމާވާ ]މިހެން ގޮތުގައި ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ

ސަބަބަކީ ކޯޑިނޭޓުކޮށްގެން، އެ ގުރޭޑެއްގެ ހުރިހައި

އުޞޫލެއް ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ އެއްގޮތަށް ކުލާހަކަށް

ފުރުޞަތު ދަރިވަރުންގެ ސަބަބުން، ގެންގުޅުމުގެ

އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން އިމްތިޙާނަށް ހިފެހެއްޓިފައިވުމާއި،

އެއް ކޮށްގެން އަމާޒު އަކުރަކަށް ވަކި ނުވަތަ

ދިވެހި ކުރުވައިގެން ތަކުރާރުކޮށް މަސައްކަތްތަކެއް

)ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ ދޭންޖެހޭތީ[އެވެ. އުނގަންނައި ބަސް

ގާތު ނާދިޔާ ބުނި ވާހަކައެއް،11އޮކްޓޫބަރު 2015(.

)1978( އެލެކްސެންޑާހަލިޑޭ މައިކަލް

ގިނަ ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ ހޯލް ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި،

ދަރިވަރުން ގޮތުގައި، ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ ދިރާސާވެރިން

ޙިއްސާކޮށް ދަރިވަރުންނާ އެހެން ލިޔުންތައް، ލިޔާ

ފާޑު ކިޔުއްވައި، އިޞްލާހު ކުރުމަކީ ވެސް، ބަސް

އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި ގެންގުޅެން ޖެހޭ އުޞޫލެކެވެ.

ވަރަށް ތަކުގައި ކުލާސް ސާނަވީ މިއީ، ނަމަވެސް

މުދައްރިސުން ކަމެއްކަން ނުކުރެވޭ ނޫނީ މަދުން

ނުލިބޭކަމަށް ފުރުޞަތު މިފަދަ ފާހަގަކުރައްވާއިރު،

78% ދަރިވަރުން ބުނެއެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ، ދަރިވަރުން

ލިޔާ ލިޔުންތަކަށް ފީޑްބެކް ދިނުމަކީ، ލިޔުންތެރިކަން

ހިތްވަރެއް ބޮޑު ވަރަށް ތަރައްޤީވުމަށް، ކުރިއަރައި

ގުރޭޑު ސާނަވީ ނަމަވެސް ކަމަކަށްވީ ލިބިގެންދާ

ދެވެނީ، ]ޢާންމުކޮށް ނުކުރެއެވެ. މިކަން ތަކުގައި

ފީޑްބެކެއް[ ދެވޭ ޖުމުލަކޮށް ކުދީންނަށް ހުރިހައި

ބުނިވާހަކައެއް، ފަރީޝާ ގާތު )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ

12އޮކްޓޫބަރު 2015( ވުމާއެކު، ދިރާސާއިން ލިބުނު

ހެކިތަކަށް ބަލާއިރު،ސާނަވީ މަރުޙަލާގައި ދިވެހިބަސް

އުޞޫލު ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ ހޯލް އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގައި

ނުކުރެއެވެ. ބޭނުމެއް

ރޑްސް ރިޗަ ޖެކްސީ )1994( ޑޮންކިންއަރ

)2011( ރޮޖަސް އެސް ތިއޯޑޯރ އާއި

އެޕްރޯޗު ބޭސް ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ ހާމަކުރައްވާގޮތުގައި،

މަންހަޖާއި ނަމަ، ކިޔަވައިދޭ ބަސް ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން

އުނގެނުމުގެ އާލާތާއި ބޭނުންކުރާ ކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް

ކުރުމާއެކު، ރަނގަޅު ފެންވަރު ޙަރަކާތްތަކުގެ

ދަރިވަރުންގެ ވުރެ ދައުރަށް މުދައްރިސުންގެ

ދައުރު ފުޅާކުރުން މުހިންމެވެ. އަދި ދަރިވަރުންނަށް

ޙާޞިލުވާންވީ މިންވަރު ވަޒަންކުރުމުގައި ދަރިވަރުންގެ

ޖެހެއެވެ. ބަލަން އައުޓްޕުޓަށް އުފެއްދުންތަކަށް/

އެހެންނަމަވެސް ދިރާސާއިން ހާމަވިގޮތުގައި، ސާނަވީ

އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ދިވެހިބަސް ތަކުގައި ގުރޭޑު

އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން އުފެއްދުންތަކަކަށް ދަރިވަރުންގެ

ވަކި ތެރޭގައި، ވަގުތުގެ ނޑައެޅިފައވާ ކަ ނުވަތަ

ލައްވާ ދަރިވަރުން ޙާޞިލުވާނެގޮތަށް އެއްޗެއް

ނޫންކަމަށް ރާވައިގެން މަސައްކަތްތަކެއް ކުރުވާނެ

ތެދެއްކަމަށް އެއީ ބުނާއިރު، ދަރިވަރުން %52

ވެލައްވައެވެ. އެއްބަސް ވެސް މުދައްރިސުން

ހަމަމިއާއެކު، މުދައްރިސުން ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ ގޮތުގައި

159

ކަޑައަޅައިފައި އެއްޗެއް ޙާޞިލުވާނެ ]މަޤްޞަދާއި

މިވެނި ކުރާނީ ތިކުދީން މިއަދު މުހިންމު، އޮތުން

ޖެހޭ އެބަ ކަމެކޭ މިވެނި ޖެހެނީ ކަމެކޭ، އެނގެން

ބޭނުން އޭގެ އެއްޗަކާއި ދަސްކޮށްދޭ އެނގެން،

ބުނެދޭން ޖެހޭ، އެކަން ނުކުރެވޭ[އެވެ. )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ


ބުނާގޮތުގައި ދަރިވަރުން 61% މީގެއިތުރުން،

އެހީތެރިކަން/ ބޭނުންވާ މަސައްކަތަށް ދަރިވަރުންގެ

އިންޕުޓެއް މުދައްރިސުންގެ ފަރާތުން ދަރިވަރުންނަކަށް

ވެ އެ ބެ ލި .ނު

އަދި ރޑްސް ރިޗަ ޖެކްސީ ހަމައެހެންމެ،

ގޮތުގައި ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ )2011( އެސް ތިއޯޑޯރ

ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ ބޭނުންކުރާ، ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް

ބޭސްޑް ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ އުޞޫލުން ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް

ޓަކައި، ދަރިވަރުންނަށް އެހީތެރިކަން ފޯރުކޮށްދިނުމުގެ

އިތުރުން އެ އެހީތެރިކަން، ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން ދަރިވަރުން

އުފައްދާ އުފެއްދުންތަކަށް ބަލަން ޖެހެއެވެ. ނަމަވެސް

ގުރޭޑު ސާނަވީ ގޮތުގައި، އެނގުނު ދިރާސާއިން

ޢާންމު ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގައި، ދިވެހިބަސް ތަކުގައި

ގޮތެއްގައި ކަންކުރަނީ މި ގޮތަކަށް ނޫނެވެ. ދިވެހި

ދަސްކޮށްދޭ ގޮތުގައި، ފާހަގަކުރައްވާ މުދައްރިސުން

ނޯވެއެވެ. ބެލުމެއް ޙާޞިލުކުރެވުނުތޯ އެއްޗެއް

އެ ކިޔައިދީފައި، އެއްޗެއް އުޅެނީ މި ]އަހަރުމެން

ޗެކެއް ނުލެވިގެން، ބަލައި އެނގުނުތޯ އެއްޗެއް

ބުނި ނާދިޔާ ގާތު )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ ނުކުރެވޭ[

ޕުޓާ ]އައުޓް .)2015 ވާހަކައެއް،11އޮކްޓޫބަރު

އިންޕުޓު ކުރަންޖެހޭ، ގިނަ އިންޕުޓު އެއްވަރަށް،

ނުދީ، އައުޓް ޕުޓު ނެރެންވެގެން، މަސައްކަތްކުރުވައި

މިހެން ގޯސްވެފައި، އެއް ތިބެނީ ކުދީން ކުރުވައި

ސާނަވީ ބަރޯސާވެގެން، ނަތީޖާއަށް ދިމާވަނީ

މަރުޙަލާގައި ދިވެހި ކިޔަވައިދޭން ޖެހޭތީ[ )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ

ގާތު ނާދިޔާ ބުނި ވާހަކައެއް،11 އޮކްޓޫބަރު 2015(.

]އިންޕުޓު ދީފައި އައުޓްޕުޓު ނެރެން މަސައްކަތް ކުރާ

ނަމަ އިތުރު އެހީ ބޭނުންވާ ކުއްޖާއަށް ވެސް އޭނަގެ

ފެންވަރުން އެއްޗެއް އުފެއްދޭނެ[އެވެ. )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ

ގާތު ފަރީޝާ ބުނިވާހަކައެއް، 12އޮކްޓޫބަރު 2015(

ޕުޓުނެރެން، އައުޓު ވަނީ ބޭނުން ވެސް ]އަބަދު

އަހަރުމެންނަށް އިންޕުޓެއް ނުދެވޭ[އެވެ. )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ

ވާހަކައެއް،11އޮކްޓޫބަރު ބުނި ނާދިޔާ ގާތު

ޕުޓް އައުޓް ދިނުމަށްފަހު ]އިންޕުޓް .)2015

ދިނުމަކީ ރަނގަޅު ގޮތެއް[އެވެ. )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ ގާތު

)2015 12އޮކްޓޫބަރު ބުނިވާހަކައެއް، ފަރީޝާ

ސާނަވީ ސާބިތުވާގޮތުގައި ހޯދުންތަކުން ދިރާސާގެ

އުނގަންނައިދިނުމަށް ދިވެހިބަސް ގުރޭޑުތަކުގައި،

އެހީތެރިކަމެއް ބޭނުންވާ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް ޓަކައި،

ނުދެއެވެ. ދަރިވަރުންނަށް

ދިޔަގޮތުގައި އެނގިގެން ދިރާސާއިން، ހަމައެހެންމެ

އުނގަންނައި ދިވެހިބަސް މަރުޙަލާގައި ސާނަވީ

ހުރިހައި ބޭނުންކުރަނީ، ޢާންމުކޮށް ދިނުމުގައި

%80 މުދައްރިސެވެ. ދިވެހި ކަމެއްކުރާނީ

ދަރިވަރުން ފާހަގަކުރާ ގޮތުގައި ދިވެހިގަޑީގައި ބޮޑަށް

އޮންނަނީ މުދައްރިސްގެ ދައުރެވެ. ހަމައެހެންމެ ދިވެހި

މުދައްރިސް ވިދާޅުވާގޮތުގައި ]ދިވެހި ފިލާވަޅުތަކުގައި،

ދައުރު މުދައްރިސްގެ ވުރެ ދައުރަށް ކުދީންގެ

ކުރުން، ކަން ގޮތަކަށް ބުނާ ޓީޗަރުން ބޮޑުކޮށް،

ފަރަށްދާ ކީތީ އަމާ އޮންނަނީ، ގަޑިތަކުގައި ދިވެހި

އުޞޫލު، އެހެންނަމަވެސް މުދައްރިސުންގެ ރޯލަށްވުރެ

ދަރިވަރުންގެ ރޯލު ބޮޑުވާންޖެހޭ[ އެވެ. )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ

160


ދިރާސާގެ ހޯދުންތަކުން ހާމަވާގޮތުގައި މިގޮތަށް ދިމާވާ

އަމާޒުކޮށްގެން ސަބަބަކީ،ނަތީޖާއަށް ނޑު މައިގަ

އެހެންކަމުން، ބައްޓަންކުރުމެވެ. ފިލާވަޅުތައް

ދިރާސާއިން ހެކި ލިބިގެންދާ ގޮތުގައި ދިވެހި ބަސް

އުޞޫލު ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ ހޯލް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ،

ނޫނެވެ. ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން

ގޮތުގައި، ހާމަކުރައްވާ )1994( ޑޮންކިންއަރ

ދަރިވަރުންގެ އެޕްރޯޗުގައި ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ

ދެވޭ ގޮތެއްގައި ދާއިމީ މަސައްކަތްތަކަށް،

ފީޑްބެކުގެ ސަބަބުން އުނގަންނައިދިނުމުގެ ފެންވަރު

މަތިވެއެވެ. ފެންވަރު އުނގެނުމުގެ ރަނގަޅުވެއެވެ.

]ކޮންޓިނުއަސް ފީޑް ބެކް ދިނުމަކީ ވަރަށް ރަނގަޅު

ނުކޮށް ތަކުރާރު މިސްޓޭކްސްތައް ، ކަމެއް

ޢާންމުކޮށް އެހެންނަމަވެސް ދަސްކުރެވިގެންދާނެ،

މިކަން ނުކުރެވޭ[ )ލިޔުންތެރިޔާ ގާތު ނާދިޔާ ބުނި

ވާހަކައެއް،11 އޮކްޓޫބަރު 2015(. އެހެންކަމުން،

މަސައްކަތްތަކަށް ދަރިވަރުންގެ މަރުޙަލާގެ ސާނަވީ

ދިރާސާއިން ނުދެވޭކަން ފީޑްބެކް ދާއިމީގޮތެއްގައި،

ހޯދުންތަކުން ދިރާސާގެ ވުމާއެކު، ހާމަވެއެވެ.

ބަސް ދިވެހި ދިޔަގޮތުގައި އެނގިގެން

އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ ބޭސް ލެންގުއޭޖުގެ

އެހެންކަމުން، ނޫނެވެ. ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން އުޞޫލު

މިފަދަ ރަނގަޅުނުވަނީ، ދިވެހިނަތީޖާ ދަރިވަރުންގެ

އެކަށީގެންވެއެވެ. ކަމަށްވުން ސަބަބުން ކަންކަމުގެ

ނިންމުން

މި ދިރާސާއަކީ، މާލޭގެ ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލުތަކުގެ ސާނަވީ

ދިވެހިކިޔަވައިދެއްވާ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް މަރުޙަލާގެ

ދިވެހިބަސް ދަރިވަރުންނަށް މުދައްރިސުން

ނޑު އުނގަންނައިދެނީ، ބަސްކިޔަވައި ދިނުމުގެ މައިގަ

ނޫންތޯ ނުވަތަ ބޭނުންކޮށްގެންތޯ އުޞޫލުތައް

ދެނެގަތުމަށްޓަކައި ކުރެވުނު ދިރާސާއެކެވެ. މިކްސްޑް

މަސައްކަތުން ކުރެވުނު ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން މެތަޑެއް

ހާމަވެގެން ދިޔަގޮތުގައި، ދިރާސާ އަމާޒު ކުރެވުނު،

ދިވެހިބަސް ކުލާސްތަކަށް ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލުގައި

އުނގަންނައިދެއްވާ، މުދައްރިސުން އެ ދަރިވަރުންނަށް،

ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމަށް އުނގަންނައިދެނީ ދިވެހިބަސް

ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން އުޞޫލުތައް ނޑު މައިގަ ބޭނުންކުރާ

އެ ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ ހަމައެންމެ، ނޫނެވެ.

އަހުލުވެރިއެއް މުދައްރިސުން އެ އުޞޫލުތަކަށް،

ނޫނެވެ. ވުމާއެކު، މިއީ ދަރިވަރުންގެ ދިވެހި ނަތީޖާ

ވެދާނެއެވެ. ސަބަބަކަށް މެދުވެރިވާ ދަށްވުމަށް

ދިވެހިބަސް ގުރޭޑުތަކަށް ސާނަވީ އެހެންކަމުން،

ކިޔަވައިދެއްވާ މުދައްރިސުންގެ އިތުރުން، ދިވެހިބަސް

ވެސް މުދައްރިސުން ހުރިހައި އުނގަންނައިދެއްވާ

އުޞޫލުތަކަށް ނޑު މައިގަ ކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ ބަސް

ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން އުޞޫލުތައް ފަދަ އެ އަހުލުވެރިވެ،

މުހިންމެވެ. އުނގަންނަދިނުން ބަސް ދިވެހި

ބޭނުންކޮށްގެން، އުޞޫލުތައް ބަސްކިޔަވައިދިނުމުގެ

ދިވެހިބަސް އުނގަންނައިދޭ ނަމަ ބަސް ދަސްކުރުމުގެ

ޝައުޤުވެރިކަން އިތުރުވެ،ދަރިވަރުން ބަހަށް މޮޅުވެ،

ދިވެހިމާއްދާއިން ދަރިވަރުން ހޯދާ ނަތީޖާ މިހާރަށްވުރެ

ދާނެއެވެ. ފުރިހަމަވެގެން

ވަގުތުގެ ދަތިކަމާ އެކު މި ދިރާސާ ހަދައިފައިވަނީ،

މާލޭގެ އެންމެ، ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލަކަށް އަމާޒުކޮށްގެންނެވެ.

ދިވެހިބަސް ސާނަވީއަށް، ސުކޫލުގައި އެ ވުމާއެކު،

ކިޔަވައިދެއްވާ 2 މުދައްރިސުންނާއި އެ މުދައްރިސުން

161

އެއްބަޔަށް ދެބައިކުޅަ ކުލާސްތަކުގެ ދެއްވާ ކިޔަވައި

މި ހެދުނު ކޮށްގެން ބައިވެރި ގިނަކުދީން ވުރެ

ޖެނެރަލައިޒު ސްކޫލަށް އެ ނަތީޖާއަކީ، ދިރާސާގެ

ނަތީޖާ މި ނަމަވެސް ނަތީޖާއެކެވެ. ކުރެވިދާނެ

މާލޭގެ ހުރިހައި ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލުތަކަށް ޖެނެރަލައިޒެއް

ހުރިހައި މާލޭގެ މިއީ، ނުވަތަ ނުކުރެވޭނެއެވެ.

ކަމަކަށް ނަތީޖާއެއް ފެންނާނެ ސްކޫލަކުން ސާނަވީ

ނުބެލެވޭނެއެވެ. ވުމާއެކު ގިނަ ސާނަވީ ސްކޫލުތަކެއް

ހެދުން ދިރާސާއެއް އިތުރު މިފަދަ ޝާމިލުވާގޮތަށް

މުހިންމެވެ.

ރެފަރެންސް ލިސްޓު

ރަން ހޫ )2013(.ޓާސްކް-ބޭސްޑް ލެންގުއޭޖު ޓީޗިން: ރެސްޕޯންސެސް ފްރޮމް ޗައިނީޒް ޓީޗަރސް

އޮފް އިންގްލިޝް. އީސްޓް ކެރެލޯނިޔާ ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ. ޔޫ.އެސް.އޭ 61،ނަންބަރ4.

ރޑް ޖޭ.ޓީ. ވިންސަރ އަދި ޑޭވިޑް ޕީ. ރިޗަޕިއަރސަން)1992(.ޗިލްރަން އެޓް ރިސްކް : ދެޔަރަ ފޮނެމިކް އެވެއަރނެސް ޑިވެލޮޕްމަންޓް

އިން ހޯލިސްޓިކް އިންސްޓްރަކްޝަން. އަރބަން. ސެންޓަރ ފޮރް ދަސްޓަޑީ އޮފް ރީޑިންގ: ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ އޮފް އިލީނިއަސް.

ރޑް އީ ނިސްބެޓް)2003(. ދަ ޖިއޮގްރަފީ ރިޗައޮފް ތޯޓް- ހައު އޭޝިއަންސް އެންޑް

ވެސްޓަނަރސް ތިންކް ޑިފަރެންޓްލީ އެންޑް ވައި؟ ނިއުޔޯކް: ދަ ފްރީ ޕްރެސް.

އެލެންއީ. ޝެންކް)1986(. އަ ގައިޑްޓް އައިޑެންޓިފައިންގ ހައިސްކޫލު ގުރެޖުއޭޝަން ކޮމްޕީޓެންސީސް. ޕޯރޓްލަންޑް. އޮރެގް:ނޯރުތް

ވެސްރީޖަނަލްއެޑިޔުކޭޝަނަލްލެބޯޓްރީ.

އައިނި-ކްރިސްޓީނާ ޖަޕިނެން )2005 (. ތިންކިން އެންޑް ކޮންޓެންޓް ލަރނިންގ އޮފް

މެތަމެޓިކްސް އެންޑް ސައިންސް އޭސް ކޮގްނީޝަނަލް ޑިވެލޮޕްމެންޓް.

އެލްމަރ ސްޓްރެއެނިންގ އަދި މާރސިއާ ގުޓެންޓުގް)1975(. ހޭންޑް ބްކް އޮފް

އިވެލުއޭޝަން ރިސާޗު،ވޮލިއުމ1ް. ބެވަރލީ ހިލްސް.ސީ.އޭ:ސޭޖް

މާރޓިންބްލޫމްޖޮއެލްފިޝަރއަދިޖޫޑީއޯރމް )1995(. އިވެލުއޭޝަންޕްރެކްޓިސް-ގައިޑްލައިންސް

ފޮރ އެކައުންޓަބަލް ޕްރެފެޝަނަލްސް. )2(.ބޮސްޓަންއެމް.އޭ :އެލީން އެންޑް ބޭކަން.

މައިކަލް އެލެކްސެންޑަރ ކާރކްވުޑް ހަލިޑޭ)1975(.ލަރނިންގް ހައުޓް މީން.ލަންޑަން.އަރނޯލްޑް.

މައިކަލް އެލެކްސެންޑަރ ކާރކްވުޑް ހަލިޑޭ)1987(.ލެންގުއޭޖު އޭސް އަ ސޯޝަލް

އިންޓަރޕްރިޓޭޝަން އޮފް ލެންގުއޭޖު އެންޑް މީނިންގ.ބަލްޓިމޯ: ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕަރކް

ޕްރެސް

މެގަން ކަލްވަރޓް އަދި ޔަންގްހީ ޝީން)2014(. ޓާސްކް-ބޭސްޑް ލެންގުއޭޖު ލަރނިންގ އެންޑް ޓީޗިންގ:އެން އެކްޝަން ރިސަރޗް ސްޓަޑީ.

ލެންގުއޭޖު ޓީޗިން ރިސަރޗް. ވޮލިއުމް 91)2( 622-442.ސޭޖް

މަރޖާ-ކައިސާ ޕިއްކޯ)2010(.ލަރނިންގ ތްރޫ އަ ފޮރިން ލެންގުއޭޖު:ލަރނަސް ޕާރސަނަލް ލާރނިންގ އެކްސްޕީރިއަންސަސް އޮފް

އައިޑިއާސް ފޮރ ޑިވެލޮޕިން ޕެޑަގޮޖިކަލް ޕްރެކްޓިސަސް އިން ކޮންޓެންޓް އެންޑް

ލެންގުއޭޖު އިންޓެގްރޭޓަޑް ލާރނިންގ ކުލާސް.ޑިޕާޓްމެންޓްއޮފް ޓީޗަރ އެޑިޔުކޭޝަން:

ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ އޮފް ޖީވާސްކީލާ

162

ސޫޒަން ބްރިޖް )2011(. ކޮންޓެންޓް އެންޑް ލެންގުއޭޖު އިންޓަރގްރޭޓަޑް ލަރނިންގ.

ކެމްބްރިޖު: ކެމްބްރިޖު ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް.

ސްޓެއިނަރ ކްވާލޭ )1996(. އިންޓަރވިއުސް، އެން އިންޓްރަޑަކްޝަން ޓު ރިސަރޗް

އިންޓަރވިއުއިން. ތައުޒަން އޯކްސް. ސީ.އޭ: ސޭޖް

ޑޭވިޑް ނުނާން )2005(. ކޮމިޔުނިކޭޓިވް ލެންގުއޭޖު ޓީޗިން : މޭކިންގ އިޓް ވޯރކް. އީ.އެލް.ޓީ

ޖަރނަލް 14 )2(،541-631

ޑޮކިން އާރު )1994(.ކޮންޕިޓެންސީ-ބޭސްޑް ކަރިކުލަރ- ދަ ބިގް ޕިކްޗަރ ޕްރޮސްޕެކްޓް

.71-8:)2(9

ޓޮޑް ޑީ. ޖިކް )1979(. މިކްސިންގ ކުއެންޓިޓޭޓިވް އެންޑް ކޮލިޓޓިވް މެތަޑްސް

ޓްރައިންގިޔުލޭޝަން އިން އެކްޝަން އެޑްމިނިސްޓްރޭޓިވް އެންޑް ސައިންސް ކުއަރލިޓީ: ކޯނެލް ޔުނިވަރުސިޓީ.

ޕައުލިންފޮސްޓަރ )2014(. ޓާސްކް- ބޭސްޑްލެންގުއޭޖުލަރނިންގްރިސަރޗް: އެކްސްޕެކްޓިންގޓޫމަޗްއޯރޓޫ؟ލިޓްލް، އިންޓަރނޭޝަނަލްޖަރނަލް އޮފް އެޕްލައިޑް ލިންގުއިސްޓިކްސް 362-742،91

ޖޯން ޑަބްލިޔު ކުރެސްވެލް)2003( . ރިސާޗު ޑިޒައިނިން ކޮލިޓޭޓިވް ކުއަންޓިޓޭޓިވް މިކްސްޑް މެތަޑްސް އެޕްރޯޗްސް)2(. ޔޫ.އެސް.އޭ:ސޭޖް

ޕަބްލިކޭޝަން އިންކޯޕަރޭޓެޑް

ރޑްސް އަދި ތިއޯޑޯރ އެސް. ޖެކްސީ ރިޗަރޮޖަރސް)2011( .އެޕްރޯޗްސް އެންޑް

މެތަޑްސް އިން ލެންގުއޭޖު ޓީޗިން. ކެމްބްރިޖު .ލެންގުއޭޖު ޓީޗިން ލައިބްރެރީ: ކެމްބްރިޖު

ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ ޕްރެސް.

ޖާނާ ސެއިކިއުލާ- ލެއިނޯ )2005(. ސީ. އެލް.އައި.އެލް ލަރނިންގ: އެޗީވްމެންޓްސް ލެވެލް އެންޑް އެފެކްޓިވް ފެކްޓަރސް. ލެންގުއޭޖު

އެންޑް، އެޑިޔުކޭޝަން 12.

ޗިއު-ޔިންވޮންގް )2012(. އަ ކޭސްސްޓަޑީ އޮފް ކޮލެޖްލެވެލް ސެކަންޑްލެންގުއޭޖް

ޓީޗާރސްޕަރސެޕްޝަން އެންޑް އިމްޕްލިމެންޓޭޝަންސް އޮފް

ކޮމިޔުނިކޭޓިވް ލެންގުއޭޖުޓީޗިން:މާންމައުތް ޔުނިވަރސިޓީ،ވޮލިއުމް 63. ނަނބްަރ،2.

4th International Teachers’ Conference

Documents

Transcript of 4th International Teachers’ Conference