CHAPTER FIVE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 5.1...

129

CHAPTER FIVE

ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Analysis of the data means studying the tabulated material in order to

determine inherent facts or meanings. It involves presenting the data in new

arrangements for the purpose of interpretation. The data was studied from

as many angles as possible to find out new and newer facts.

The collected data was statistically analyzed and interpreted using

descriptive and inferential analysis.

5.2 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

The scores got from the attitude scale, the role performance of

teachers, and the problems of teachers on various aspects of the study of

inclusive school teachers as, locality, type of teachers dealing CWSN, class,

gender, age group, community, educational qualification, marital status,

teaching experience in years, class taught to CWSN, special training taken,

vocational training taken, are worked out to find frequency, mean and

percentage. The area of the present study covered inclusive schools from 9

blocks of Salem District in Tamilnadu, India. Out of 460 teachers to whom

the research tools were given, only 211 teachers returned the filled up tools

(attitude scales, role performance scales and problem checklists). Even after

repeated visits and request by the researcher, some teachers refused to

cooperate and fill the forms. Some teachers demanded for additional forms

but did not bother to return.

130

The general information of teachers who provided the data, dealing

with different categories of CWSN in inclusive schools are given in following

table- 5.

TABLE - 5

GENERAL INFORMATION OF INCLUSIVE SCHOOL TEACHERS Number of teachers=211

S. NO VARIABLE TEACHER

CATEGORY FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

1 TEACHERS DEALING CWSN

1 Visually Impaired 26 12.32 2 Hearing Impaired 63 29.86 3 Mentally Retarded 71 33.65 4 Orthopedically

Impaired 51 24.17

2 LOCALITY 1 Rural 132 62.56 2 Urban 79 37.44

3 CLASS TAUGHT TO CWSN

1 I 19 9.00 2 II 32 15.00 3 III 56 26.54 4 IV 47 22.27 5 V 57 27.01

4 GENDER 1 Male 69 32.70 2 Female 142 67.30

5 AGE GROUP 1 <=35 years 83 39.34

2 36-45 years 85 40.25

3 >=46 years

43 20.38

6

COMMUNITY 1 FC 14 6.64 2 BC 98 46.45 3 MBC 57 27.01 4 SC/ST 42 19.91

7 EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION

1 DTE 142 67.30 2 Graduates with

DTE 37 17.54

3 Graduates with B.Ed

32

15.17

8 MARITAL STATUS 1 Married 189 89.57 2 Unmarried 22 10.43

9 OVERALL TEACHING EXPERIENCE

1 <= 5 years 83 39.34 2 6-10 years 53 25.12 3 11-20 years 41 19.43 4 > 20 years 34 16.11

10 EXPERIENCE IN TEACHING CWSN

1 <= 3 years 175 82.94 2 4-6 years 21 9.95 3 >6 years 15 7.11

11 SPECIAL TRAINING TAKEN 1 YES 94 44.55 2 NO 117 55.45

12 VOCATIONAL TRAINING 1 YES 12 5.69 2 NO 119 94.31

131

1. From the table-5, it is found that highest percentage of teachers is

dealing with mentally retarded children followed by teachers dealing

with hearing impaired and orthopedically impaired respectively. The

lowest percentage of teachers is dealing with the visually impaired.

2. Larger percentage of teachers is working in inclusive schools of rural

locality comparatively the percentage of teachers from urban locality is

low.

3. The largest percentage of teachers dealing CWSN is in class V in

inclusive schools followed by class III .The lowest percentage of

teacher is dealing CWSN in class-I.

4. The percentage of female teachers dealing with CWSN in inclusive

schools is higher than the percentage of male teachers.

5. The largest percentage of teachers dealing CWSN is in the age group

36-45 years followed by <=35 years. The lowest percentage of teacher

dealing CWSN is in the age group >=46 years.

6. Largest percentage of teachers dealing CWSN is of the BC community

followed by MBC and SC/ST. The lowest percentage of teachers

dealing CWSN is of the FC community.

7. Highest percentage of teachers dealing CWSN is with the Educational

Qualification DTE followed by Graduates with DTE. The lowest

percentage of teachers is Graduates with B.Ed.

8. A larger percentage of married teachers are working in inclusive

schools compared to low percentage of unmarried teachers.

9. The largest percentage of teachers dealing CWSN has teaching

experience <= 5 years in inclusive schools followed by 6-10 years and

132

11-20 years. The lowest percentage of teachers has the teaching

experience > 20 years.

10. It is found that largest percentage of teachers dealing CWSN has

teaching experience to CWSN<= 3 years followed by teachers of 4-6

years. The lowest percentage of teacher dealing CWSN is with the

experience > 6 years.

11. A higher percentage of teachers without special training is dealing

CWSN, compared to low percentage of teachers with special training.

12. A Higher percentage of teachers without vocational training is dealing

CWSN, compared to low percentage of teachers with vocational

training.

5.2.1 Mean scores and S.D.s of Attitude of Teachers, Role Performance

of Teachers and Problems Faced by Teachers dealing CWSN in

inclusive schools.

From table-6, it is found that Mean score of teachers’ attitude towards

teaching CWSN in inclusive schools is the highest indicating high positive

attitude of inclusive schools, followed by high attitude towards education of

CWSN in inclusive schools. Comparatively teachers’ attitude towards

inclusive schools is favorable but moderate. Mean scores of role performance

of teachers dealing with VI children, HI children and OH children are similar

and low; the mean score of teachers dealing with MR children is lower.

Problems faced by teachers dealing VI children are more followed by the

teachers dealing with HI children and teachers dealing with OH children.

The high values of S.D.s in problems faced by teachers indicate much

dispersion as to individual teachers’ variations within the category of

133

teachers. On the whole many problems are faced by teachers according to

the category of CWSN they deal with.

Figures show Mean scores and S.D.s of Attitude of Teachers, Role

Performance of Teachers and Problems Faced by Teachers dealing CWSN in

inclusive schools.

TABLE-6

Mean scores and S.D.s of Attitude of Teachers, Role Performance of

Teachers and Problems Faced by Teachers dealing

CWSN in inclusive schools

Number of teachers=211

S. No

Variables of the study Number

of teachers

MEAN SD

Attitude of Teachers

1 Attitude towards inclusive school 211 77.04 8.44

2 Attitude towards education of CWSN in inclusive school 211 83.96 9.57

3 Attitude towards teaching CWSN in inclusive school 211 86.52 7.76

Role Performance of Teachers

1 Role Performance of teachers dealing with VI children 26 61.65 7.87

2 Role Performance of teachers dealing with HI children 63 61.01 8.25

3 Role Performance of teachers dealing with MR children 71 58.57 6.79

4 Role Performance of teachers dealing with OH children 51 60.23 8.56

Problems Faced by teachers

1 Problems faced by teachers dealing with VI children 26 66.43 34.57

2 Problems faced by f teachers dealing with HI children 63 62.70 24.08

3 Problems faced by teachers dealing with MR children 71 54.40 28.67

4 Problems faced by teachers dealing with OH children 51 62.75 27.38

134

5.2.2 ATTITUDE OF TEACHERS

Attitude of teachers working in inclusive schools is measured under

three sub scales, namely, a) attitude towards inclusive schools b) attitude

towards education of CWSN in inclusive schools and c) attitude towards

teaching CWSN in inclusive schools.

a) Attitude of teachers towards inclusive schools

The tool measuring attitude of teachers towards inclusive schools

consists of 20 statements (8 negative&12 positive statements).The responses

were converted into scores as per description given in chapter-IV. The mean

score of teachers dealing CWSN to each statement in “Attitude of teachers

towards inclusive schools” were calculated. Three levels of attitude were

classified on the basis of Mean scores, LAL-Low Attitude level 1-1.99, MAL-

Moderate Attitude level-2.00-2.50, HAL-High Attitude level-2.51-3.00.

TABLE –7

Attitude of teachers towards inclusive schools:

Statement-wise Mean score and Level of Attitude

S. NO Statement Mean LOA 1 Students will learn in school better than in the house 2.95 HAL

2 My ambition is to treat CWSN equal with others 2.86 HAL

3 BY Mingling with normal students CWSN’S mentality will

be changed.

2.73 HAL

4 Our school is better suited to make CWSN members of

the society.

2.55 HAL

5 I will change the classroom atmosphere for CWSN 2.14 MAL

6 If we admit CWSN in school, the workload will be more. 2.07 MAL

7 It is better to teach CWSN in my school than in the

special schools.

1.99 LAL

135

S. NO Statement Mean LOA 8 We can teach CWSN in our school itself 2.37 MAL

9 Teachers only can enable CWSN to mingle with the

society

2.67 HAL

10 They are neglected in the class. 1.21 LAL

11 If we admit CWSN in school, the other students’

achievement will come down.

1.45 LAL

12 If we admit CWSN in school, the other students’

achievement will increase.

1.67 LAL

13 We cannot teach properly because of insufficient number

of teachers.

2.06 MAL

14 If they are in classroom, normal students learning ability

will decrease.

1.47 LAL

15 Separate honorarium should be given to teacher for

teaching CWSN.

1.91 LAL

16 I can’t deal CWSN equal with others 1.97 LAL

17 While teaching CWSN other students in the class are

disturbed by CWSN

1.44 LAL

18 Their presence in the classroom is a problem. 1.54 LAL

19 If we admit CWSN in school, there is no change in

workload of teachers.

2.00 MAL

20 There is no necessity of special schools for CWSN 1.55 LAL

Form the table-7, it is found that the mean score for the statement

no.1 “Students will learn in school better than in the house” is the highest

and sl.no. 2, 3, 4 and 9 also have high mean it indicates favorable High

attitude towards CWSN, mingling with normals in inclusive schools.

The statements 5, 6, 8, 13 and 19 indicate favorable Moderate attitude

towards, classroom, workload and inclusive schools. Teacher attitude in the

statement 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 indicate Low attitude

136

level about achievement, learning ability, and presence of CWSN in the

classroom, and separate honorarium for teachers in inclusive schools.

Teachers’ attitude to inclusive schools is found to be moderate to

low(50% high and moderate, while 50% low).

b) Attitude of teachers towards education of CWSN in inclusive schools

The tool measuring attitude of teachers towards education of CWSN in

inclusive schools consists of 16 statements (3 negative and 13 positive

statements).The responses were converted into scores as per description

given in chapter-IV. The mean scores of teachers dealing CWSN, to each

statement in “Attitude of teachers towards education of CWSN in inclusive

school” were calculated. Three levels of attitude were classified on the basis:

Mean scores, LAL-Low Attitude level 1-1.99, MAL- Moderate Attitude level-

2.00-2.50, HAL-High Attitude level-2.51-3.00.

TABLE - 8

Attitude of teachers towards education of CWSN in inclusive schools:

Statement- wise Mean score and Level of Attitude

S.No Statement Mean LOA

1 We can give quality education in inclusive schools. 2.36 MAL

2 CWSN will slowly improve in their education. 2.78 HAL

3 Minimum level of attainment is enough to CWSN. 2.54 HAL

4 It is difficult to teach, if we admit CWSN in the

inclusive school. 1.84 LAL

5 I will start my teaching with individual care of CWSN. 2.64 HAL

6 I will use same methodology for teaching all CWSN. 2.08 MAL

137

S.No Statement Mean LOA

7 If we use suitable learning methodology, the learning

ability of CWSN will increase. 2.24 MAL

8 There is no use in special coaching. 1.46 LAL

9 I will change my teaching methodology with the help

of special educator. 2.69 HAL

10 Individualized Education plan is necessary to all

CWSN. 2.55 HAL

11 We can give quality education for all together. 2.80 HAL

12 I will be happy, If CWSN get higher level of

achievement 2.94 HAL

13 If we use different learning methodology, their

learning achievement will increase 2.86 HAL

14 If we use suitable learning methodology, then

learning rate of all will change. 2.36 MAL

15 If we use suitable learning methodology, then the

class learning achievement also Increase. 2.38 MAL

16 If we use suitable learning methodology, then the

individuals learning achievement also increases. 2.41 MAL

Form the table-8, it is found that the statement “I will be happy, if

CWSN get higher level of achievement” has highest mean score, followed by

sl.no 13, 11, 2, 9, 5, 10, and 3. It indicates high favorable attitude towards,

achievement, quality education, slowly improve, help of special educator,

individual care, individualized education plan and minimum level

attainment for education of CWSN.

The statements 1, 6, 7, 14, 15 and 16 indicate Moderate favorable

attitude towards quality, teaching method, learning ability, learning rate and

achievement of CWSN in inclusive schools.

138

The statements 8 and 4 show low attitude level about special coaching

and difficult to teach CWSN in inclusive schools.

Teachers’ attitude to education of CWSN in inclusive schools is high to

moderate(87.5% High and moderate, while 12.5% Low).

c) Attitude of teachers towards teaching in inclusive schools

The tool measuring attitude of teachers towards education teaching in

inclusive schools consists of 14 statements (2 negative and 12 positive

statements).The responses were converted into scores as per description

given in chapter-IV. The mean scores of teachers dealing CWSN, to each

statement in “Attitude of teachers towards teaching in inclusive schools”

were calculated. Three levels of attitude were classified on the basis of Mean

scores, LAL-Low Attitude level 1-1.99, MAL- Moderate Attitude level-2.00-

2.50, HAL-High Attitude level-2.51-3.00.

TABLE – 9

Attitude of teachers towards teaching in inclusive schools

Statement-wise mean score and level of Attitude

S.No Statement MEAN LOP

1 I am able to teach CWSN 2.74 HAL

2 I will take much interest in the CWSN 2.75 HAL

3 I will change my teaching methods for CWSN. 2.56 HAL

4 Teaching methods used to normal children are

enough to CWSN. 1.63 LAL

5 Special attention is needed to CWSN. 2.89 HAL

6 I will try to use different kinds of methodology in

teaching 2.79 HAL

139

S.No Statement MEAN LOP

7 Special training should be given to teachers for

teaching CWSN. 2.79 HAL

8 I will use separate methodology for each of the CWSN. 2.52 HAL

9 I will try to understand the feeling of CWSN’S 2.92 HAL

10 I will take care of CWSN. 2.93 HAL

11 We should have a variety of abilities to teach CWSN. 2.61 HAL

12 I will try to improve learning level of CWSN. 2.97 HAL

13 Every teacher should use suitable teaching method

for CWSN 2.86 HAL

14 There is no use, if special attention is given to these

CWSN 1.40 LAL

From table-9, it is found that the statement “I will try to improve

learning level of CWSN” has the highest mean score, followed by sl.no 10, 9,

13, 5, 6, 7, 2, 1, 11, 3 and 8. It indicates high favorable attitude towards

care of CWSN, feelings, suitable teaching method, attention, different kind of

methodology, special training, interest, care, abilities to teach and variety of

abilities. Mean scores in the statements 4 and 14 indicate low attitude level

towards teaching methods same as for normal children and no use of special

attention to CWSN.

Teachers’ attitude to teaching CWSN in inclusive schools is highly

favorable (85.7% High, while14.28%low).

5.2.3 ROLE PERFORMANCE OF TEACHERS

In the present study, role performance of teachers dealing with the

CWSN of the four categories, namely, VI, HI, MR and OH of inclusive schools

140

are considered. Thus, teachers dealing VI children have specific teaching

and training role to perform to the VI as well as teaching the normal

children in the class in inclusive school. This is pertaining to those teachers

who deal with HI/MR/OH children in the class. The role performance of

teachers categories are measured using the Role Performance Rating Scales

developed by G. Lokanadha Reddy (2005). According to the category of

CWSN children the teachers deal, the respective scale of role performance

was relevant.

1. Rating scale to measure the role performance of teachers dealing with

visually impaired children in inclusive schools

2. Rating scale to measure the role performance of teachers dealing with HI

children in inclusive schools


MR children in inclusive schools


OH children in inclusive schools.

Role Performance of inclusive school teachers dealing with VI, HI, MR

and OH Children

Role Performance of teachers of inclusive schools in performing their roles of

teaching and training CWSN in inclusive schools were discussing below

a) Role Performance of inclusive school teachers dealing with

Visually Impaired Children

The tool measuring role performance of teachers dealing with

visually impaired children in inclusive schools consists of 28 statements.

The responses were converted into scores as per description given in

141

chapter-IV. The mean score of teachers dealing CWSN to each statement

were calculated. Three levels of performance were classified on the basis of

mean scores: LPL-low performance level below 3.25, MPL- moderate

performance level-3.26-4.25, HPL-high performance level-above 4.26.

The level of role performance of Teachers dealing Visually Impaired

Children based on their mean performance is presented in the table –10

Table-10

Mean Performance of Teachers dealing with Visually Impaired Children

based on their level of performance

Statement-wise Mean score and Level of performance

S. NO Role Performance Statement (VIC) Mean LOP

1 Encouraging blind children frequently to apply touch for the purpose of cognition. 2.92 LPL

2 Competency in making VI children to be self-sufficient in orientation and mobility skills. 3.15 MPL

3 Giving training to the VI children in attaining certain social skills such as exhibiting appropriate facial expressions through behavioral principles.

2.65 LPL

4 Making necessary change of curriculum to suit the needs of VI children 2.96 LPL

5 Competency in teaching reading through Braille. 2.85 LPL

6 Competency in making the visually impaired to use their remaining sight in reading.

3.08 MPL

7 Development of listening skills in VI children. 3.15 LPL

8 Providing the methods of aiding VI children to read large print books and magnifying devices.

3.38 MPL

9 Knowledge and use of the various aids that help the VI children's ability.

3.12 LPL

10 Knowledge about the different technological special aids (new electronic devices) and their use for the education of VI individuals

2.96 LPL

142

S. NO Role Performance Statement (VIC) Mean LOP

11 Integrating VI children with their normal peers to develop co-operative attitude and mutual help with each other

3.42 MPL

12 Competency in conducting I.Q. tests and identifying the creative talents in VI children

3.00 LPL

13 Encouraging blind children to explore the things to facilitate better concept development.

3.27 MPL

14 Providing cane mobility skills to VI children. 3.08 LPL

15 Providing vocational skills to the VI children. 3.04 LPL

16 Development of independent living skills in VI children. 3.15 LPL

17 Respecting and encouraging the blind person’s individuality, capability and independence.

3.23 LPL

18 Identifying the visual problems in children through vision screening tests.

3.31 MPL

19 Competency in development and use of adoption of instructional materials.

3.19 LPL

20 Using concrete material and hands on learning to improve instruction for VI students.

3.19 LPL

21 Providing sensory training to the VI children. 3.27 MPL

22 Providing pre vocational training skills (such as weaving, recanting of chairs, plastic bag making etc.).

3.04 LPL

23 Competency in the development and use of psycho-educational assessment tools for the VI children.

2.92 LPL

24 Providing stimulating experiences to develop imagery and orient the VI children.

2.85 LPL

25 Competency in using mathematical devices such as abacus and tailor frame in teaching Methods to the VI children instead of normal methods.

3.04 LPL

26 Knowledge and skill in the use of tools and procedures for teaching VI children.

3.00 LPL

27 Familiarity with resources, aids, materials, and skill in adopting, modifying and creating the needed teaching aids.

3.04 LPL

28 Competency in evaluation procedures in the education of the VI children.

3.04 LPL

143

From table-10, it is found that the mean scores of teachers’ teaching

and training role performance dealing with visually impaired children,of

SL.No of items 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25,

26, 27 and 28 indicate teachers performance at Low level (below 3.25). S.NO

of items 2, 6, 8, 11, 13, 18 and 21 indicate the teacher performance at

Moderate level.

Role performance of teachers dealing with Visually impaired children

in their inclusive classes is low (moderate:25% and low:75%)

b) Role Performance of inclusive school teachers dealing with

Hearing Impaired Children

The tool measuring role performance of teachers dealing with hearing

impaired children in inclusive schools consists of 24 statements. The

responses were converted into scores as per description given in chapter-IV.

The mean score of teachers dealing CWSN to each statement were

calculated. Three levels of performance were classified on the basis of mean

scores: LPL-low performance level below 3.25, MPL- moderate performance

level-3.26-4.25, HPL-high performance level-above 4.26.

The level of role performance of Teachers dealing Hearing Impaired

Children based on their mean performance is presented in the table

144

Table-11

Mean Performance of Teachers dealing with Hearing Impaired Children



S.No Role performance statement (HIC) Mean LOP

1 Making necessary change of curriculum to suit the needs

of HI children.

2.76 LPL

2 Acquiring competency in manual sign language for HI

children.

3.11 LPL

3 Having competency in using non-verbal communication

with HI children.

2.78 LPL

4 Acquiring competency in both oral and manual methods of

communication(total communication approach

3.05 LPL

5 Having competency in using auditory training to the deaf or

hard of-hearing children

3.22 LPL

6 Acquiring knowledge about the rapid technological

advances in the development of the hearing aids.

3.30 MPL

7 Having competency in teaching HI children to use visual

information to understand what is being said to them.

2.94 LPL

8

Having ability to teach HI child to discriminate among the

various speech sounds by relying on visual clues from lips,

tongue and jaw.

3.02 LPL

9

Identifying the hearing threshold levels of HI children and

their impact on communication and language in

educational settings

2.68 LPL

10 Competency in using computer assisted instruction (micro-

computers) in instructing HI students

2.95 LPL

11

Competency in modifying the physical environment like

changes in seating, changes in sounds, permitting free

movement around the class-room and flexible seating

arrangements

3.02 LPL

145


12

Using teaching formats such as exhibits, demonstrations,

experiments and simulations to provide hand on

experiences, which in turn promote understanding the

lectures and whole- class discussions easily.

3.46 MPL

13

Giving short writing directions, simple sentences and using

pictures to supplement oral explanation during

demonstrations.

3.27 MPL

14

Identifying and defining important vocabulary words and

providing lecture notes to enhance comprehension in HI

children

3.59 MPL

15 Providing non verbal cues and using facial expressions,

body movements and gestures

2.97 LPL

16 Use verbal information with graphic pictorial forms such as

diagrams, pictures, graphs and graphic outlines.

3.37 MPL

17

Using the peer tutoring and buddy arrangements to

encourage increased communication and social interaction

within the students

3.29 MPL

18

Encouraging the HI children to participate in social

activities outside the school (going out to dinner and

attending after school-sports events).

3.16 LPL

19

Providing information to the HI children about the

monitoring tests at least twice a year to know about their

amplification services and keep up their languages learning

3.06 LPL

20 Conducting proper auditory stimulation Programme to the

HI children

2.97 LPL

21 Developing the method of teaching on the basis of HI

child's capability

3.05 LPL

22

Acquiring competency in providing vocational skills, like

photography, leather works, plumbing, welding, computer

data entry, and printing etc

2.79 LPL

146


23 Teaching the HI child to learn the words, he/ she need to

use most often.

3.17 LPL

24 Competency in making the HI children to use hearing aids

and do minor repairs of the same.

3.00 LPL

From table-11, it is found that the mean scores of role performance of

teachers dealing with Hearing impaired children the Sl.no of items

1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9,10,11 15,18,19,20,21,22,23 and 24 were performed by the

teacher at Low Level (below 3.25). S.NO of items 6, 12, 13, 14, 16 and17

were performed by the teacher at Moderate level.

Role performance of teachers dealing with hearing impaired children

in their inclusive classes is low (moderate:25% and low:75%).

c) Role Performance of inclusive school Teachers dealing with Mentally

Retarded Children

The tool measuring role performance of teachers dealing with hearing

impaired children in inclusive schools consists of 32 statements. The

responses were converted into scores as per description given in chapter-IV.

The mean score of teachers dealing MR to each statement were calculated.

Three levels of performance were classified on the basis of mean scores: LPL-

low performance level below 3.25, MPL- moderate performance level-3.26-

4.25, HPL-high performance level-above 4.26.

The level of role performance of Teachers dealing Mentally Retarded

Children based on their mean performance is presented in the table-12

147

Table-12

Mean Performance of Teachers dealing with Mentally Retarded children



S.NO Role Performance Statement (MRC) Mean LOP

1 Giving self-help skills to the students keeping the

psychologists report in mind. 2.82 LPL

2

Teaching only the basic living skills to the severally

mentally retarded children instead of teaching reading,

writing and arithmetic.

2.82 LPL

3 Development of functional skills for mentally retarded

in the community setting than in segregated set up. 3.11 LPL

4 Training MR children to learn functional skills in day-

to-day life 3.06 LPL

5 Providing learning materials in a structural and

systematic way to the MR children. 3.10 LPL

6

Using task analysis, goal setting and rewards in a

systematic way to develop self-confidence in MR

children.

3.20 LPL

7 Showing attention to the individual needs of the child

rather than group needs. 3.00 LPL

8 Organizing training in vocational skills to open new

avenues for job placements to MR children. 2.94 LPL

9

Providing education to MR children based on the

function rather than modified versions of general

curriculum.

3.23 LPL

10

Conducting informal educational evaluation to

determine whether the child has attained certain skills

or not.

2.83 LPL

11 Development of curriculum based on the principles of

flexibility and diversity. 2.83 LPL

148


12 Development of curriculum based on expressive and

receptive language. 2.86 LPL

13 Providing environment to stimulate the MR child to be

ready to learn. 2.97 LPL

14 Stimulate motivation and the desire to learn or

participate. 3.10 LPL

15 Reinforcing desorbed behavior in MR child frequently

by giving rewards. 3.27 MPL

16

To improve the rate of learning and overcome the

forgetfulness in MR child, many opportunities should

be provided for exercise and more practice.

2.97 LPL

17 Encouraging the MR children to be an active

participant in the learning process. 2.99 LPL

18

Ensuring that the skill or the concept being taught is

mastered before proceeding to new or more difficult

ones.

2.62 LPL

19 Ensuring accuracy instead of speed in MR student’s

work. 2.65 LPL

20 Using small steps in learning new skills. 3.18 LPL

21 Teaching MR child should proceed from simple to

complex, known to unknown. 3.00 LPL

22 Making use of materials and teaching devices that are

attractive and colorful. 3.34 MPL

23 Giving instruction to appeal all senses of the MR to

enhance the efficiently in his/her learning. 2.92 LPL

24 Providing concrete materials in teaching learning

situations than abstract ones. 2.90 LPL

25 Organizing/conducting filed experience to provide the real settings of learning. (For e.g., making a purchase, eating out etc.).

3.03 LPL

149


26 Providing routine schedule activities and procedures to

the education of MR children. 2.65 LPL

27

Evaluation of the Programme of instruction periodically

to determine the efficiency of the specific teaching

materials and to determine additional needs.

2.56 LPL

28 Knowledge about the objectives and need for education

of MR children. 2.76 LPL

29

Knowledge and use of mechanical devices (computers)

in training MR children particularly in speech related

aspects.

2.55 LPL

30 Developing and providing age appropriate curriculum

to the MR children. 2.77 LPL

31 Providing/using applied behavior analysis to teach the

MR children in their development. 2.82 LPL

32

Developing a process of non-verbal conversation to the

MR children who are having speech defects for their

better understanding.

2.87 LPL

From table-12,it is found that Mean scores of role performance of

teachers dealing with Mentally Retarded children of item No.s 1,to14, and16

to21, and 23 to 32 were performed by the teachers at low level (below 3.25).

The S.No of items 15 and 22 were performed by the teacher at moderate

level.

Role performance of teachers dealing with mentally retarded children

in their inclusive classes is low (moderate:6.25% and low:93.75%).

150

d) Role Performance of inclusive school teachers dealing with

Orthopedically handicapped children

The tool measuring role performance of teachers dealing with

orthopedically handicapped children in inclusive schools consists of 17

statements. The responses were converted into scores as per description

given in chapter-IV. The mean score of teachers dealing OH to each

statement were calculated. Three levels of performance were classified on

the basis of mean scores: LPL-low performance level below 3.25, MPL-

moderate performance level-3.26-4.25, HPL-high performance level-above

4.26.

The level of role performance of Teachers dealing Orthopedically

handicapped Children based on their mean performance is presented in the

table- 13

Table- 13 Mean Performance of Teachers dealing with Orthopedically

Handicapped Children based on their level of performance

Statement wise Mean score and Level of performance

S.NO Role Performance Statement (OHC) Mean LOP 1 Understanding the emotional and social behaviors of

the OH children. 2.90 LPL

2 Conducting Programmes to the students which

emphasis cognitive process through which the

content and academic skills are learnt. 2.90 LPL

3 Competency in using different neuropathic techniques

for muscle coordination in spastic and cerebral palsy

cases. 2.71 LPL

151

S.NO Role Performance Statement (OHC) Mean LOP 4 Acquiring competency on neurological treatment of

cerebral palsy. 2.55 LPL

5 Ability to provide and train to use adequate facilities

and equipment such as wheel chairs, crutches or

braces to the children affected by polio. 3.33 MPL

6 Acquiring knowledge and use of physiotherapy.

3.10 LPL

7 Acquiring knowledge about inflammation of the joints

and the ways and means of overcoming the same 2.96 LPL

8 Ability to develop the feeling of security and self-

concept in OH children. 3.29 MPL

9 Competency in using behavioral neuropathic

techniques to overcome emotional disorders in OH

children. 2.67 LPL

10

Competency in providing suitable occupation skills to

the OH children. 2.86 LPL

11

Capacity to develop the ability of tolerance and

acceptance of disability in the OH children to reduce

their frustration. 3.00 LPL

12 Paying individual attention towards the OH children. 3.27 MPL

13 Acquiring knowledge and to the use the same in

providing physical facilities in SCHOOLS to the OH

children. 3.04 LPL

14

Providing manipulative materials such as pegboards,

form boards, colored blocks, puzzles and etc. games

and devices, which develop their eye hand-

coordination.

3.14 LPL

15

Competency in physiotherapy, speech therapy and

occupational therapy and occupational therapy to

make these children to learn some craft or vocation. 3.14 LPL

152

S.NO Role Performance Statement (OHC) Mean LOP

16 Competency in giving mobility training by using

technological devices like wheel chairs, walkways and

ramps etc. 3.16 LPL

17

Competency in the use of assistive equipment and

special teaching aids to teach OH children. 3.18 LPL

From table-13,it is found that the mean scores of teachers role

performance of teachers dealing with orthopedically handicapped children,

of item No.s 1,2,3,4,6,7,9,10,11, 13,14,15,16,and 17 indicate that the role

were performed by the teacher at low level (below 3.25). Mean scores of S.NO

of items 5, 8, and12 indicate a moderate performance by the teachers.

Role performance of teachers dealing with orthopedically handicapped

children in their inclusive classes is low (moderate:17.59 % and

low:82.41%).

5.2.4 PROBLEMS FACED BY TEACHERS DEALING WITH CWSN IN

INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS

Problems faced by teachers of inclusive schools in performing their

roles of teaching and training CWSN in inclusive schools were measured

using Problem Checklists developed by D.Lokanadha Reddy(2005) as

described in Chapter-IV.

1. Problem checklist to identify the problems faced by the teachers dealing

with VI children in inclusive schools

2. Problem checklist to identify the problems of teachers dealing with HI


153

3. Problem checklist to identify the problems of teachers dealing with MR


4. Problem checklist to identify the problems of teachers dealing with OH

children in inclusive schools.

Problem Checklists covered 11 problems under teaching and training

for VI children, 18 for HI children, 16 for MR children and 9 for OH children.

Against each problem statement, ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is given and the teachers are

requested to point out a tick mark on ‘Yes’ when they are facing the problem

and put a tick mark on ‘No’ facing the problem. The scores are given as 1 or

0 for ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ responses respectively.

Number and percentage of teachers VI, HI, MR and OH Facing and Not

Facing the Problems in performance of their Roles

Problems faced by teachers of inclusive schools in performing their roles of

teaching and training CWSN in inclusive schools are discussed below

a) Problems faced by teachers dealing with VI children

The problem checklist pertaining to problems faced in dealing Visually

Impaired children has 11 statements which are related to the teachers’ role

performance. The response whether ‘facing problem’ or ‘not facing problem’

as ticked by teachers for each problem are counted and converted to

percentages. Number and percentage of teachers (VI) Facing and Not Facing

each Problem in performing their role are presented in Table -14

154

Table-14

Number and percentage of teachers (dealing with VI children) Facing

and Not facing the Problems in performing their role

S. No Statement of the Problem (VI)

Facing the Problem

Not Facing the

Problem

Count % Count %

1 Inadequate materials to diagnose visual efficiency in

children 15 57.69 11 42.31

2 Lack of psychologists and eye specialists for

establishing better rapport 18 69.23 8 30.77

3 Lack of knowledge in conducting action research to

solve the problems of individual cases. 16 61.54 10 38.46

4 Large number of children in each class is the

problem to the teacher to pay individual attention. 18 69.23 8 30.77

5

Lack of adequate brail material and lack of audio

records to develop listening skills among VI

children.

16 61.54 10 38.46

6 Inadequate large print books and magnifying

devices 16 61.54 10 38.46

7 Inadequate knowledge about the new technological

devices 18 69.23 8 30.77

8 Lack of facilities to provide vocational skills to the VI

In school 23 88.46 3 11.54

9 Difficulty in providing sensory training for concept

development 17 65.38 9 34.62

10 Lack of abacus and tailor frame in teaching Math’s

to VI children 17 65.38 9 34.62

11 Lack of time to solve the academic problems of VI

children. 16 61.54 10 38.46

From table-14, it is found that the highest percentage (88.46) of

teachers dealing with Visually Impaired children (VI) are facing the problem

“Lack of facilities to provide vocational skills to the VI in school” followed by

155

problems S.NO of items 2 to11 by more than 60 percentage of teachers. The

least problem S.NO.1, “Inadequate materials to diagnose visual efficiency in

children” is faced by57.69 percentages of teachers.

Conclusion

It is found that all the teachers are facing problems such as large

class strength, inadequate large print books and magnifying devices,

inadequate materials to diagnose visual efficiency in children. These

problems affect the teaching-training role performance of Teachers of

inclusive schools dealing with visually impaired children (VI)

b) Problems faced by teachers dealing with HI children

The problem checklist pertaining to problems faced in dealing Visually

Impaired children has 14 statements which are related to the teachers’ role

performance. The responses whether ‘facing problem’ or ‘not facing problem’


percentages. Number and percentage of teachers (HI) Facing and Not Facing

the Problem in performing their role are presented in Table-15

Table-15

Number and percentage of teachers (dealing with HI children) Facing


S. NO Statement of the Problem (HI)

Facing the Problem

Not Facing the

Problem

Cou

nt

%

Cou

nt

%

1 Lack of knowledge in conducting screening tests to identify the degree of hearing impairment.

39 61.90 24 38.10

2 Inadequate knowledge about the nature of speech impairment and remedial strategies. 40 63.49 23 36.51

156

S. NO Statement of the Problem (HI)

Facing the Problem

Not Facing the

Problem

Cou

nt

%

Cou

nt

%

3 Lack of trained speech therapist/ audiologist in the school. 47 74.60 16 25.40

4 Lack of competency in the utilization of studies, slides, video tapes and films to facilitate speech reading.

40 63.49 23 36.51

5 Lack of speech and auditory training materials. 53 84.13 10 15.87

6 Lack of competency in organizing vocational training Programmes to HI children. 47 74.60 16 25.40

7 Lack of skill in using auditory training. 39 61.90 24 38.10

8 Insufficient knowledge in the advancement of hearing aids. 41 65.08 22 34.92

9 Inability to use cues to discriminate among various speech sounds. 37 58.73 26 41.27

10 Lack of microcomputers and skill in using the same in the school. 54 85.71 9 14.29

11 Lack of skill in using group hearing system and loop induction system to teach HI children.

25 39.68 38 60.32

12 Problems arising due to different age grades of HI children in the same class. 25 39.68 38 60.32

13 Teaching children with different degrees of hearing loss in the same class.

25 39.68 38 60.32

14 Lack of skill in using non-verbal clues and body movements and gestures to convey the message to HI children.

41 65.08 22 34.92

From table-15, it is found that the highest percentage 85.71 of the

Teachers dealing with Hearing Impaired Children are facing the problem

“Lack of microcomputer’’ and “skill in using same in the school” followed by

problems “Lack of speech and auditory training materials”. Most of the

Teachers facing above 60% problem in’ Lack of knowledge in conducting

screening tests , in the remedial strategies , in the speech therapist ,

157

Utilizing of studies , vocabulary training , advancement of hearing aids and

Lack of skill in using non-verbal clues’.

The Teachers are facing nearly 40% problems in lack of skills in using

group hearing system , due to different age grades of HI children , different

degree of hearing loss.

Conclusion

It is found that all the teachers are facing problems such as Lack of

microcomputer and skill in using same in the school, lack of speech and

auditory training materials, the speech therapist not available, lack of

competency in organizing vocational training programmes to HI children,

inadequate vocabulary training, insufficient knowledge of advancement of

hearing aids and lack of skill in using non-verbal clues.

These problems affect the teaching-training role performance of

Teachers of inclusive schools dealing with hearing impaired children (HI)

c) Problems faced by teachers dealing with MR children

The problem checklist pertaining to problems faced in dealing mentally

retarded children has 16 statements which are related to the teachers’ role



percentages. Number and percentage of teachers (MR) Facing and Not

Facing the Problem in performing their role are presented in Table-16

158

Table-16

Number and percentage of teachers (Dealing with MR Children ) Facing

and Not Facing the each Problems in performing their role

S.No statement of the problem(MR)

Facing the

Problem

Not Facing the

Problem

N

% N

%

1 Lack of materials to disseminate information

to upgrade teacher’s knowledge. 48 67.61 23 32.39

2

Negative attitude of the SCHOOLS to

integrate borderline MR children with their

normal peers to develop their self-concept.

26 36.62 45 63.38

3

Lack of knowledge about case study

approach in understanding the

developmental aspects of MR children.

40 56.34 31 43.66

4 Lack of knowledge about task analysis to

teach daily living skills to MR children. 29 40.85 42 59.15

5 Lack of psychologists services in the schools. 46 64.79 25 35.21

6

Lack of skill in the preparation and use of

audio-visual aids suitable to the teaching of

MR children.

36 50.70 35 49.30

7

Non-availability of structured and

systematic learning materials for MR

children.

54 76.06 17 23.94

8 Lack of vocational skills on the part of the

teacher. 17 23.94 54 76.06

159

S.No statement of the problem(MR)

Facing the

Problem

Not Facing the

Problem

N

% N

%

9 Lack of knowledge about the informal

educational evaluation procedures. 30 42.25 41 57.75

10

Lack of adequate facilities to provide

simulative environment to the MR child for

learning.

50 70.42 21 29.58

11 Lack of knowledge about the motivational

techniques on the part of the teacher. 16 22.54 55 77.46

12 The large number of students in the

classroom. 47 66.20 24 33.80

13

Lack of knowledge about the appropriate

pedagogical techniques of teaching to MR

child.

34 47.89 37 52.11

14 Problems in providing instructions to appeal

all the senses of the MR child. 57 80.28 14 19.72

15 Problems in use of non-verbal

communication. 48 67.61 23 32.39

16 Lack of time to concentrate on the special

needs of MR children. 40 56.34 31 43.66

From table-16, it is found that the highest percentage (80.28) of Teachers

dealing with Mentally Retarded children are facing the problem “problems in

providing instructions to appeal all the senses of the MR child” followed by

160

70 to-60 % of teachers facing problems Sl.No. 7, 10, 15, 1, 12 and 5. Non-

verbal communication, large number of students in the class, psychologists

services, materials to upgrade teacher’s knowledge.

Most of the Teachers facing problem below56 to 36% in the lack of

case study approach, Non-availability of structured and systematic learning

materials, simulative environment, use of non-verbal communication, large

number of students in the class; lack of psychologists services, lack of skill

in the preparation and use of audio-visual aids and lack of time.Teachers

are facing the least problem (22%), as lack of knowledge of motivational

techniques.

Conclusion

All the teachers are facing problems such as problems in providing

instructions to appeal all the senses of the MR Child, lack of skill in non-

verbal communication, large number of students in the class, lack of

psychologists’ services, lack of materials to upgrade teacher’s knowledge,

lack of skill in the preparation and use of audio-visual aids and lack of time.

These problems affect the teaching-training role performance of

Teachers of inclusive schools dealing with mentally retarded children (MR)

d) Problems faced by teachers dealing with OH children

The problem checklist pertaining to problems faced in dealing mentally

retarded children has 9 statements which are related to the teachers’ role



161

percentages. Number and percentage of teachers (OH) Facing and Not

Facing the Problem in performing their role are presented in Table-17

Table-17

Number and percentage of teachers (dealing with OH children) Facing


S. NO

Statement of the Problem(OH) Facing the Problem

Not Facing the Problem

N % N %

1 Difficulty in acquiring knowledge about the different aspects of human brain.

33 64.71 18 35.29

2 Lack of knowledge about the causes of neuron-motor defectives and health impairments in children.

35 68.63 16 31.37

3 Lack of skill in assessing the emotional changes occurring in OH children.

29 56.86 22 43.14

4 Lack of suitable materials needed for the academic progress of OH children.

34 66.67 17 33.33

5 Lack of knowledge and skill in providing vocational training required for OH children.

66 50.98 25 49.02

6 Lack of knowledge and skill in using various behavioral therapeutic techniques.

29 56.86 22 43.14

7 Inadequate time to pay individual attention towards OH children. 33 64.71 18 35.29

8 Lack of adequate manipulative materials in the school. 41 80.39 10 19.61

9

Lack of training skills in using general education as well as special education techniques, in teaching orthopedically handicapped.

28 54.90 23 45.10

From table-17, it is found that the highest percentage 80.39 of

teachers dealing with OH children are facing the problem “Lack of adequate

manipulative materials in the school” followed by statement No. 2,4,7 and 1

162

facing the problem above 60% of the teachers. It indicates teacher facing

the problem: neuron-motor defectives, lack of suitable materials, lack of

time to pay individual attention and lack of knowledge about different

aspects of human brain. The statement No.s 3,6 and 9 above 50% of the

teachers are facing the problems which indicate lack of skill in assessing the

emotional changes, various behavioral therapeutic techniques and training

skills in special schools.

The least problem faced by50.98%of the teachers is lack of knowledge and

skill in providing vocational training required for OH children.

Conclusion

All the teachers are facing problems such as Lack of adequate

manipulative materials in the school, lack of suitable materials needed for

the academic progress of OH children, difficulty in acquiring knowledge

about the different aspects of human brain and lack of time to pay

individual attention to OH children. These problems affect the teaching-

training role performance of Teachers of inclusive schools dealing with

orthopedically handicapped children (OH).

5.3 INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS

The hypotheses formulated at the beginning of the study were verified

using suitable statistical tests. For Differential analysis, two-tailed test of

significance of difference between mean scores of two groups were used.

163

TESTING THE HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY Hypothesis-1-Male and Female Teachers differ significantly in the

attitude with reference to 1.Inclusive School, 2.Education of CWSN in

inclusive schools, 3.Teaching in inclusive schools

Table-18

‘t’-values: significance of difference between mean

scores of attitude of teachers according to gender

Dimension of Attitude

Male Teachers Female Teachers t-values P-values

N Mean SD N Mean SD 1 Inclusive

School 69 77.63 8.61 142 76.75 8.37 0.71 0.477

2 Education of CWSN in inclusive schools

69 85.57 8.73 142 83.17 9.89 1.71 0.088

3 Teaching in inclusive schools

69 87.99 6.97 142 85.80 8.05 2.04 0.043**

NOTE: * Denotes significant at 0.05 Level **Denotes significant at 0.01 Level

From table-18, it is found that the t-value is significant at 0.01 level

with respect to attitude of Inclusive School teachers towards Teaching in

inclusive schools, indicating Male and Female Teachers differ significantly.

Hypothesis no.1 is accepted with respect to attitude of teachers to

teaching in inclusive schools.

CONCLUSION Gender has significantly influenced the attitude of teachers to

teaching in inclusive schools. Male teachers have more favorable attitude

than the Female teachers to teaching CWSN in inclusive schools.

Male and female teachers do not differ significantly in their attitude to

inclusive schools, and education of CWSN in inclusive schools.

164

Hypothesis-2

Male and Female teachers differ significantly in their role performance with

reference to the type of children with special needs.

TABLE-19

‘t’-values: significance of difference between mean scores of role

performance of teachers according to gender

Teachers dealing with CWSN

Male Teachers Female Teachers t-

values

P-

values N Mean SD N Mean SD

1 VI 11 66.82 7.47 15 57.86 5.86 3.43 0.002** 2 HI 26 60.74 8.87 37 61.19 7.91 0.21 0.831 3 MR 17 60.59 7.09 54 57.93 6.63 1.42 0.160 4 OH 15 61.41 9.65 36 59.74 8.16 0.63 0.530 5 Total sample of

teachers 69 61.81 8.54 142 59.23 7.37 2.27 0.024*

NOTE: * Denotes significant at 0.05 Level **Denotes significant at 0.01 Level From table-19, it is found that the t-value is significant at 0.01 level with

respect to role performance of teachers, indicating Male and Female

Teachers dealing VI children differ significantly in their role performance

The t-value of Male and Female Teachers in the total sample indicates

significant difference at 0.05 level, in their role performance

With reference to male and female Teachers dealing with HI, MR and OH

children, there is no difference the role performance.

Hypothesis no.2 is accepted with respect to teachers dealing VI children and

total sample of teachers irrespective of the type of CWSN in inclusive

schools.

165

CONCLUSION

Male teachers’ role performance is higher than role performance of

female teachers in dealing with visually impaired children in inclusive

schools.

There is no significant difference in the role performance of male and

female teachers dealing with hearing impaired, mentally retarded, and

orthopedically handicapped children in inclusive schools.

For the total sample, the role performance of male teachers is higher

than that of the female teachers, irrespective of the category of CWSN they

deal with in inclusive schools.

166

Hypothesis-3

Male and Female Teachers dealing with different categories of children

with special needs differ significantly in the problems faced by them.

TABLE –20

‘t’-values: significance of difference between mean scores of problems

faced by teachers according to gender


Male Teachers Female Teachers t-values

P-values N Mean SD N Mean SD

1 VI 11 66.97 33.84 15 66.06 36.28 0.06 0.950

2 HI 26 65.93 25.66 37 60.42 23.00 0.89 0.376 3 MR 17 58.82 29.98 54 53.01 28.39 0.73 0.470 4 OH 15 68.89 22.69 36 60.19 29.02 1.04 0.306 5 Problems of

total sample

of teachers

69 64.98 27.23 142 58.13 28.22 1.67 0.096

From table-20,it is found that the‘t’ values are not found to be

significant with respect to problems faced by male and female teachers

dealing with CWSN in inclusive schools.

Hypothesis-3 is not accepted with respect to problems faced by male and

female teachers dealing with different categories of children with special

needs in inclusive schools.

CONCLUSION

Male and female teachers of inclusive schools do not differ

significantly in the problems faced by them in dealing with any category of

CWSN in inclusive schools.

167

Hypothesis-4

Teachers with less than or equal to 5 years experience and teachers

with greater than 5 years experience differ significantly in the attitude with

reference to 1.Inclusive School, 2.Education of CWSN in inclusive schools,

3. Teaching in inclusive schools

Table-21

‘t’-values: significance of difference between mean scores of attitude of

teachers according to teaching experience


Teaching Experience <=5 yrs

Teaching Experience >5 Yrs t-

values P-

values N Mean SD N Mean SD 1 Inclusive

School 83 77.35 8.59 128 76.84 8.37 0.43 0.667

2 Education

of CWSN in

inclusive

schools

83 84.41 9.50 128 83.66 9.64 0.56 0.578

3 Teaching

in inclusive

schools 83 86.57 6.71 128 86.48 8.40 0.09 0.929

From table-21,it is found that the‘t’ values are not found to be

significant with respect to teachers with less than or equal to 5 years

experience and teachers with greater than 5 years experience in their

attitude.

Hypothesis-4 is not accepted with respect to teachers with less than

or equal to 5 years experience and teachers with greater than 5 years

experience in their attitude to inclusive schools, education of CWSN in

inclusive schools and teaching in inclusive schools .

168

CONCLUSION


with greater than 5 years experience do not differ significantly in their

attitude with reference to 1.Inclusive Schools, 2. Education of CWSN in

inclusive schools, 3. Teaching in inclusive schools

Hypothesis-5


with greater than 5 years experience differ significantly in their role

performance with reference to the type of children with special needs.

TABLE –22

‘t’-values: significance of difference between mean scores of role

performance of teachers according to teaching experience

Teachers dealing with

CWSN

Teaching Experience <=5yrs

Teaching Experience > 5yrs t-

values P-

values N Mean SD N Mean SD 1 VI 11 63.96 10.03 15 59.95 5.61 1.30 0.206

2 HI 24 59.72 5.77 39 61.79 9.45 0.97 0.337

3 MR 22 58.95 6.02 49 58.39 7.15 0.32 0.752

4 OH 26 60.00 8.90 25 60.47 8.37 0.19 0.847

5 Total sample

of teachers 83 60.16 7.57 128 60.01 8.05 0.13 0.894

From table-22,it is found that the ‘t’ values are not found to be

significant with respect to teachers with less than or equal to 5 years

experience and teachers with greater than 5 years experience in role

performance .

169

Hypothesis-5 is not accepted with respect to teachers with less than or equal to 5

years experience and teachers with greater than 5 years experience in their role

performance dealing with CWSN in inclusive schools.

CONCLUSION


with greater than 5 years experience do not differ significantly in their role

performance with reference to the type of children with special needs in

inclusive schools.

Hypothesis-6


with greater than 5years experience differ significantly in the problems faced

by them, with reference to the type of children with special needs.

TABLE-23


faced by teachers according to teaching experience

Problems of total sample of teachers

Teaching experience <= 5 years

Teaching experience > 5 years t-

values P-

values N Mean SD N Mean SD

1 VI 11 66.12 28.77 15 66.67 39.28 0.04 0.969

2 HI 24 71.43 23.07 39 57.33 23.38 2.34 0.023*

3 MR 22 51.42 27.14 49 55.74 29.50 0.58 0.561

4 OH 26 58.12 26.16 25 67.56 28.31 1.24 0.222

5 Problems of total sample of teachers

83 61.25 26.64 128 59.81 28.97 0.36 0.716

NOTE: * Denotes significant at 0.05 Level

170

From table-22, it is found that the ‘t’ value is found to be significant

with respect to teachers with less than or equal to 5 years experience and

teachers with greater than 5 years experience in problems faced dealing

with hearing impaired children. ‘t’ values of other groups are nor found to be

significant.

Hypothesis-6 is not accepted with respect to teachers with less than or

equal to 5 years experience and teachers with greater than 5 years

experience in facing problems in dealing hearing impaired children in

inclusive schools.

CONCLUSION

Teachers with less than or equal to 5 years experience face more

problems than teachers with greater than 5 years experience, in dealing

with the hearing impaired children in inclusive schools.


with greater than 5 years experience do not differ significantly in the

problems faced in dealing with visually impaired children, mentally retarded

children and orthopedically handicapped children in inclusive schools.

171

Hypothesis-7

Teachers received special training and teachers not received special

training differ significantly in their attitude with reference to 1.Inclusive

School, 2. Education of CWSN in inclusive schools, 3.Teaching in inclusive

schools.

Table-24

‘t’-values: significance of difference between mean scores of

attitude of teachers according to special training


t-

values

P-

values Special Training

Taken Special Training

not Taken N Mean SD N Mean SD

1 Inclusive

School 94 79.06 6.95 117 75.41 9.18 3.19 0.002*

2 Education

of CWSN

inclusive

schools

94 83.95 9.30 117 83.96 9.83 0.00 0.998

3 Teaching

in

inclusive

schools

94 87.61 7.52 117 85.63 7.88 1.85 0.065


From table-24,it is found that the ‘t’ value is significant at 0.05 level

with respect to difference in attitude of ‘Special Training Taken’ teachers and

‘Special Training not Taken’ teachers to inclusive schools. ‘t’ values are not

significant for other dimensions of attitude.

Hypothesis no.7 is accepted with respect to attitude of teachers towards

inclusive schools.

172

CONCLUSION

Special Training Taken and Special Training not Taken has significantly

influenced the attitude of teachers’ towards inclusive schools. The attitude

of ‘Special Training Taken’ teachers to inclusive schools is more favorable

than the teachers ‘Not Taken Special Training’

Teachers’ attitude to education of CWSN in inclusive schools and attitude

to teaching in inclusive schools is not affected by special training taken by

the teachers dealing with CWSN in inclusive schools.

Hypothesis-8


training differ significantly in their role performance with reference to the

type of children with special needs.

TABLE –25

‘t’-values: significance of difference between mean scores of

Role performance of teachers according to special training

Role Performance of

Teachers

t-values

P-

values

Special Training Taken

Special Training not Taken

N Mean SD N Mean SD

1 VI 11 65.13 8.70 15 59.10 6.32 2.05 0.051

2 HI 33 60.20 8.00 30 61.89 8.57 0.81 0.422

3 MR 30 59.23 5.66 41 58.08 7.54 0.70 0.485

4 OH 20 61.35 7.72 31 59.51 9.11 0.75 0.458

5

Total sample

of teachers 94 60.71 7.45 117 59.56 8.15 1.06 0.292

173

From table-25,it is found that the ‘t’ values are not found to be

significant with respect to teachers received special training and teachers

not received special training in dealing with different categories of children

with special needs in inclusive schools.

Hypothesis-8 is not accepted with respect to teachers received special

training and teachers not received special training in dealing with different

categories of children with special needs

CONCLUSION


training do not differ significantly in their role performance with reference to

the type of children with special needs in inclusive schools.

174

Hypothesis-9


training dealing with different categories of children with special needs differ

significantly in the problems faced by them.

TABLE –26


faced by teachers according to special training


CWSN

t-values

P-values


Special Training not Taken

N Mean SD N Mean SD 1 VI 11 81.82 21.13 15 55.15 38.64 2.07 0.050*

2 HI 33 58.87 23.35 30 66.90 24.56 0.13 0.189

3 MR 30 52.92 29.39 41 55.49 28.44 0.37 0.712

4 OH 20 61.67 22.07 31 63.44 30.66 0.22 0.824

5

Total

sample of

teachers

94 60.25 26.04 117 60.47 29.64 0.06 0.953


From table-26, it is found that the ‘t’ value is significant at 0.05 level with

respect to teachers Special Training Taken teachers and Special Training not

Taken teachers dealing VI children. ‘t’ values of other groups are not

significant.

Hypothesis no.9 is accepted with respect to problems faced by teachers who

have taken special training and teachers not taken special training in

dealing VI children.

175

CONCLUSION

The teachers who have taken special training and dealing Visually impaired

children face more problems than teachers who have not taken special

training and dealing Visually impaired children in inclusive schools.

Special training taken by teachers does not affect the problems faced by

teachers dealing hearing impaired, mentally retarded and orthopedically

handicapped children in inclusive schools.

Hypothesis-10

Teachers differ significantly in the attitude towards inclusive schools

according to the type of children with special needs.

Table-27

Analysis of Variance: Calculated F value of Teachers dealing with CWSN

and Attitude of teachers towards inclusive schools


CWSN

Attitude of teachers towards inclusive schools F-value P-value

N Mean SD 1 VI 26 77.69 7.93

2.87 0.037 2 HI 63 75.13 9.09

3 MR 71 76.62 8.36

4 OH 51 79.64 7.45

From table-27, it is found that the Based on DUNCAN MULTIPLE

RANGE TEST, the calculated F value is found to be significant at 0.05 level.

Since it is Homogeneous subset 1,(highest and lowest means are not

significantly different),it may be concluded that Teachers dealing with HI

176

children, Teachers dealing with MR children, and Teachers dealing with VI

children do not differ in their attitude towards inclusive schools.

Similarly, in Homogeneous subset 2,(Teachers dealing with MR

children, Teachers dealing with VI children, and Teachers dealing with OH

children do not differ in their attitude towards inclusive schools.

To find out if there exists difference between sub set 1 and sub set 2,

further calculation revealed that –

‘t’ value 2.51 is significant at 0.05 level for d.f.=112 with reference to

teachers dealing with HI children and teachers dealing with OH children in

their attitude towards inclusive school.

‘t’ value 2.09 is significant at 0.05 level for d.f.=120 with reference to

teachers dealing with MR children and teachers dealing with OH children in

their attitude towards inclusive school.

Hypothesis-10 is accepted with reference to teachers dealing with HI

children and teachers dealing with OH children; teachers dealing with MR

children and teachers dealing with OH children in their attitude towards

inclusive school.

Conclusion

Teachers dealing with HI children and teachers dealing with OH children

differ significantly in the attitude towards inclusive schools.

Teachers dealing with MR children and teachers dealing with OH children

differ significantly in the attitude towards inclusive schools.

Teachers dealing with OH children have more favorable attitude towards

inclusive schools than teachers dealing with HI and MR children.

177

Hypothesis-11

Teachers differ significantly in the attitude towards Education of

CWSN in inclusive schools according to the type of children with special

needs.

TABLE-28


and Attitude of teachers towards education of CWSN in inclusive

schools


Attitude of teachers towards education of CWSN

F-value P-value N Mean SD

1 VI 26 86.54 8.90

2.3778 0.0709 2 HI 63 81.71 10.15 3 MR 71 83.77 9.70 4 OH 51 85.66 8.55

From table-28, it is found that Based on DUNCAN MULTIPLE

RANGE TEST, the calculated F value is found to be not significant at 0.05

level.

Hypothesis-11 is not accepted.

Conclusion

Teachers do not differ significantly in the attitude towards Education

of CWSN in inclusive schools according to the type of children with special

needs they deal with.

178

Hypothesis-12

Teachers differ significantly in the attitude towards teaching in

inclusive schools according to the type of children with special needs.

Table-29


and Attitude of teachers towards teaching in inclusive schools


Attitude of teachers towards teaching in inclusive

schools F-value p-value

N Mean SD

1 VI 26 86.72 7.50

0.296 0.828 2 HI 63 86.09 7.12

3 MR 71 86.22 9.01

4 OH 51 87.35 6.89



level.


Conclusion

Teachers do not differ significantly in the attitude towards teaching in

inclusive schools according to the type of children with special needs they

deal with.

179

Hypothesis-13

Teachers differ significantly in the role performance in inclusive

schools according to the type of children with special needs.

Table-30


and role performance of teachers


role performance of teachers F-value P-values

N MEAN SD 1 VI 26 61.65 8.87

1.535 0.206

2 HI 63 61.01 8.25

3 MR 71 58.57 6.79

4 OH 51 87.35 8.56



level.


Conclusion

Teachers do not differ significantly in the role performance in inclusive

schools according to the type of children with special needs they deal with.

180

Hypothesis-14

Teachers differ significantly in the problems faced in inclusive schools

according to the type of children with special needs.

Table-31


and problems faced by teachers


CWSN

problems faced by teachers F-value P-value

N Mean SD

1 VI 26 66.43 36.57

1.765 0.155 2 HI 63 62.70 24.08 3 MR 71 54.40 28.67 4 OH 51 62.75 27.38

From table-31, it is found that Based on DUNCAN MULTIPLE RANGE

TEST, the calculated F value is found to be not significant at 0.05 level.


Conclusion

Teachers do not differ significantly in the problems faced in inclusive

schools according to the type of children with special needs they deal with.

181

Hypothesis - 15

There is association between teachers according to category of CWSN

and their attitude, role performance and problems faced by them in

inclusive schools.

TABLE-32

Chi-Square values of association between type of teachers dealing

CWSN and attitude, role performance and problems faced by teachers in

inclusive schools

Variables level

teachers dealing Type of CWSN

Total Chi-

Square Value

p-

value VIC

HIC

MR

C

OH

C

Attitude of teachers towards inclusive schools

Low 7 (11.7) [26.9]

26 ( 43.3) [41.3]

21 (35.0) [29.6]

6 (10.0) [11.8]

60 13.38

0.037 Average 12

(12.5) [46.2]

24 (25.0) [38.1]

34 (35.4) [47.9]

26 (27.1) [51.0]

96

High 7 (12.7) [26.9]

13 (23.6) [20.6]

16 (29.1) [22.5]

19 (34.5) [37.3]

55

Attitude of teachers towards

education of CWSN in inclusive schools

Low 5 (9.8) [19.2]

18 ( 35.3) [28.6]

17 (33.3) [23.9]

11 (21.6) [21.6]

51

5.64

0.463 Average

11

(10.9) [42.3]

34 (33.7) [54.0]

32 (31.7) [45.1]

24 (23.8) [47.1]

101

High 10 (16.9) [38.5]

11 (18.6) [17.5]

22 (37.3) [31.0]

16 (27.1) [31.4]

59

Attitude of teachers towards

teaching in inclusive schools

Low 7 (15.2) [26.9]

15 ( 32.6) [23.8]

14 (35.4) [19.7]

10 (21.7) [19.6]

46

1.733

0.941 Average 13

(10.3) [50.0]

38 (30.2) [60.3]

44 (34.9) [62.0]

31 (24.6) [60.8]

126

High

6 (15.4) [23.1]

10 (25.6) [15.9]

13 (33.3) [18.3]

10 (25.6) [19.6]

39


Low 8 (17.4) [30.8]

10 ( 21.7) [15.9]

17 (37.0) [23.9]

11 (21.9) [11.8]

46

10.77

0.095 Average 9

(7.9) [34.6]

37 (32.5) [58.7]

44 (38.6) [62.0]

24 (21.1) [47.1]

114

High 9 (17.6) [34.6]

16 (31.5) [25.4]

10 (19.6) [14.1]

16 (31.4) [31.4]

51

182

Variables level

teachers dealing Type of CWSN

Total Chi-

Square Value

p-

value VIC

HIC

MR

C

OH

C

Problems faced by teachers

Low 6 (11.8) [23.1]

8 ( 15.7) [12.7]

25 (49.0) [35.2]

12 (23.5) [23.5]

51

19.77

0.003 Average 7 (6.8) [26.9]

41 (39.8) [65.1]

30 (29.1) [42.3]

25 (24.3) [49.0]

103

High 13 (22.8) [50.0]

14 (24.6) [22.2]

16 (28.1) [22.5]

14 (24.6) [27.5]

57

26 63 71 51 211

From the table-32, it is found that the chi-square value 19.77 is found

to be significant for 6 d.f. at 0.05 level with reference to teachers according

to category of CWSN and problems faced by teachers. Chi-square values of

teachers according to category of CWSN and their attitude, role performance

and problems faced by them in inclusive schools are not significant.

Hypothesis no-15 is accepted with reference to teachers according to

category of CWSN and problems faced by teachers.

Conclusion

There is association between teachers according to category of CWSN

and problems faced by teachers in dealing CWSN in inclusive schools.

No significant association is found between teachers according to

category of CWSN and attitude of teachers towards inclusive schools,

attitude of teachers towards education of CWSN in inclusive school, attitude

of teachers towards teaching in inclusive schools, and role performance of

teachers.

183

Hypothesis-16

There is association between teachers according to locality and their

attitude, role performance and problems faced by them in inclusive schools.

TABLE –33

Chi-Square values of association between locality and attitude, role

performance and problems faced by teachers in inclusive schools

Variables Level Locality

TOTAL Chi-

Square value

p-value Urban Rural

Attitude of teachers towards inclusive

schools

Low 33

(55.0) [41.8]

27 (45.0) [20.5]

60

11.106 *

0.003

Average 30

(31.3) [38.0]

66 (68.8) [50.o]

96

High 16

( 29.1) [20.3]

39 (70.9) [29.5]

55

Attitude of teachers towards education

of CWSN in inclusive school

Low 23

(45.1) [29.1]

28 (54.9) [21.2]

51

2.488 0.288 Average

38 (37.6) [48.1]

63 (62.4) [47.7]

101

High 18

( 30.5) [22.8]

41 (69.5) [31.1]

59

Attitude of teachers towards teaching

in inclusive schools

Low 23

(45.1) [29.1]

28 (54.9) [21.2]

51

2.488

0.288 Average

38 (37.6) [48.1]

63 (62.4) [47.7]

101

High 18

( 30.5) [22.8]

41 (69.5) [31.1]

59

Low 23

(45.1) 28

(54.9)

51

0.288

184

Variables Level Locality

TOTAL Chi-

Square value

p-value Urban Rural

Role Performance of

Teachers

[29.1] [21.2]

2.488

Average 38

(37.6) [48.1]

63 (62.4) [47.7]

101

High 18

( 30.5) [22.8]

41 (69.5) [31.1]

59

Problems of

teachers

Low 23

(45.1) [29.1]

28 (54.9) [21.2]

51

2.488

0.288 Average

38 (37.6) [48.1]

63 (62.4) [47.7]

101

High 18

( 30.5) [22.8]

41 (69.5) [31.1]

59

79 132 211

From the table-33, it is found that the Chi-Square value 11.106 is

found to be significant for 2 d.f. at 0.01 level. The association with reference

to locality and attitude of teachers towards inclusive school is significant.

Chi square values indicate that the association between locality and attitude

towards education of CWSN in inclusive schools, attitude towards teaching

CWSN in inclusive schools, role performance of teachers and problem faced

by teachers of inclusive schools, is not significant.

Hypothesis no-16 is accepted with reference to locality of teachers and

attitude of teachers towards inclusive school.

Conclusion

There is significant association between locality of teachers and their

attitude towards inclusive schools.

185

There is no significant association between teachers’ locality and

teachers' attitude towards education of CWSN in inclusive schools, attitude

towards teaching CWSN in inclusive schools, teachers’ role performance and

problems faced by teachers in dealing CWSN in inclusive schools.

Hypothesis-17

There is association between class taught to CWSN by teachers and

their attitude, role performance and problems faced by them in inclusive

schools.

TABLE – 34 Chi-Square values of association between classes taught to CWSN and

attitude, role performance and problems faced by teachers in inclusive

schools.

Variable Level CLASS TAUGHT

TOTAL Chi-

Square Value

p- value I II III IV V

Attitude of

teachers

towards

inclusive

schools

Low 8

(13.3)

[42.1]

9

(15.0)

[28.1]

15

(25.0)

[26.8]

11

(18.3)

[23.4]

17

(28.3)

[29.8]

60

10.332

0.242

Average 6

(6.3)

[31.6]

11

(11.5)

[34.4]

30

(31.3)

[53.6]

27

(28.I)

[57.4]

22

(22.9)

[38.6]

96

High 5

(9.1)

[26.1]

12

(21.8)

[37.5]

11

(20.0)

[19.6]

9

(16.4)

[19.1]

18

(32.7)

[31.6]

55

Attitude of

teachers

towards

education of

CWSN in

inclusive

school

Low 7

(13.7)

[36.8]

8

(15.7)

[25.0]

14

(27.5)

[25.0]

8

(15.7)

[17.0]

14

(27.5)

[24.6]

51

8.577 0.379 Average

9

(8.9)

[47.4]

16

(15.8)

[50.0]

22

(21.8)

[39.3]

29

(28.7)

[61.7]

25

(24.8)

[43.9]

101

High 3

(5.1)

[15.8]

8

(13.6)

[25.0]

20

(33.9)

[35.7]

10

(16.9)

[21.3]

18

(30.5)

[31.6]

59

186

Variable Level CLASS TAUGHT

TOTAL Chi-

Square Value

p- value I II III IV V

Attitude of

teachers

towards

teaching in

inclusive

schools

Low 5

(10.9)

[26.3]

10

(21.7)

[31.3]

14

(30.4)

[25.0]

6

(13.0)

[12.8]

12

(23.9)

[19.3]

46

14.267

0.075

Average 11

(8.7)

[57.9]

15

(11.9)

[46.9]

31

(24.6)

[55.4]

27

(21.4)

[57.4]

42

(33,3)

[73.7]

126

High 3

(7.7)

[15.8]

7

(17.9)

[21.9]

21

(28.2)

[19.6]

14

(35.9)

[29.8]

4

(10.3)

[7.0]

39

Role

Performance

of Teachers

Low 3

(6.5)

[15.8]

6

(13.0)

[18.8]

18

(39.1)

[32.1]

8

(17.4)

[17.0]

11

(23.9)

[19.3]

46

6.73 0.565 Average 13

(11.4)

[68.4]

17

(14.9)

[53.1]

25

(21.9)

[44.6]

26

(22.8)

[55.3]

33

(28.9)

[57.9]

114

High

3

(5.9)

[15.8]

9

(17.6)

[28.1]

13

(25.5)

[23.2]

13

(25.5)

[27.7]

13

(25.5)

[22.8]

51

Problems of

teachers

Low 8

(15.7)

[42.7]

6

(11.8)

[18.8]

14

(27.5)

[25.0]

10

(19.6)

[21.3]

13

(25.5)

[22.8]

51

10.17

0.253

Average 6

(5.8)

[31.6]

19

(18.4)

[59.4]

22

(21.8)

[39.3]

28

(27.2)

[59.6]

28

(27.2)

[49.1]

103

High 5

(8.8)

[26.3]

7

(12.3)

[21.9]

20

(35.1)

[35.7]

9

(15.8)

[19.1]

16

(28.1)

[28.1]

57

19 32 56 47 57 211

From the table-34, it is found that the Chi-Square values are found to

be not significant for 8 d.f. at 0.05 level. There is no association between

class taught to CWSN by teachers and attitude of teachers towards inclusive

school, attitude towards education of CWSN in inclusive schools, attitude

towards teaching CWSN in inclusive schools, role performance of teachers

and problem faced by teachers of inclusive schools.

187

Hypothesis no-17 is not accepted.

Conclusion:

There is no significant association between class taught to CWSN by

teachers and teachers’ attitude towards inclusive school, attitude towards

education of CWSN in inclusive schools, attitude towards teaching CWSN in

inclusive schools, role performance of teachers and problems faced by

teachers of inclusive schools.

Hypothesis-18

There is association between gender of teachers and their attitude,

role performance and problems faced by them in inclusive schools.

TABLE – 35

Chi-Square values of association between teachers according to gender

and attitude, role performance and problems faced by teachers in

inclusive schools

Variables Levels

Gender

Total Chi-

Square Value

p- value

Male Female

Attitude of teachers towards inclusive schools

Low 16

(26.7) [23.2]

44 (73.3) [ 31.0]

60

1.45

0.484 Average

33 (34.4) [47.8]

63 (65.6) [44.4]

96

High 20

(36.4) [29.0]

35 (63.6) [24.6]

55

188

Variables Levels

Gender

Total Chi-

Square Value

p- value

Male Female

Attitude of teachers towards education of CWSN in inclusive school

Low 12

(23.5) [17.4]

39 (76.5) [ 27.5]

51

2.57

0.276

Average

36 (35.6) [52.2]

65 (64.4) [45.8]

101

High 21

(35.6) [30.4]

38 (64.4) [26.8]

59

Attitude of teachers towards teaching in inclusive schools

Low 9

(19.6) [13.0]

37 (80.4) [ 26.1]

46

5.82

0.054

Average 43

(34.1) [62.3]

83 (65.9) [58.5]

126

High 17

(43.6) [24.6]

22 (56.4) [15.5]

39


Low 8

(17.4) [11.6]

34 (82.6) [ 26.8]

46

11.13

0.003

Average 36

(31.6) [52.2]

78 (68.4) [54.9]

114

High

25 (49.0) [36.2]

26 (51.0) [18.3]

51

Problems of teachers

Low

11 (21.6) [15.9]

40 (78.4) [ 28.2]

51

4.009 0.134 Average 36

(35.0) [52.2]

67 (65.0) [47.2]

103

High 22

(38.6) [31.9]

35 (61.4) [24.6]

57

69 142 211

From the table-35, it is found that the Chi-Square value 11.13 is

found to be significant for 2 d.f. at 0.01 level with reference to gender and

189

role performance of teachers. Chi-square values of other groups are not

significant. There is no association between gender and attitude of teachers

towards inclusive school, attitude towards education of CWSN in inclusive

schools, attitude towards teaching CWSN in inclusive schools, and problems

faced by teachers of inclusive schools.

Hypothesis No.18 is accepted with reference to association between

gender and role performance of teachers of inclusive schools.

Conclusion

There is significant association between gender and role performance

of teachers in inclusive schools.

There is no significant association between gender of teachers and

their attitude and problems faced by them in inclusive schools.

Hypothesis-19

There is association between age level of teachers and their attitude,

role performance and problems faced by them in inclusive schools.

TABLE – 36

Chi-Square values of association between teachers according to age

level of teachers and attitude, role performance and problems of total

sample of teachers in inclusive schools.

Variables Levels

Age levels of teachers

TOTAL CHI

Square values

P-values ≤35 yr 36—

45yr ≥46 yr

Attitude of teachers

towards inclusive

schools

Low 17

(28.3) [20.5]

28 (46.7) [32.9]

15 (25.0) [34.9]

60

4.49

0.34

Average 43

(44.8) [51.8]

35 (36.5) [41.9]

18 (18.8) [41.9]

96

High 23

(41.8) [27.7]

22 (40.0) [25.9]

10 (18.2) [23.3]

55

190

Variables Levels

Age levels of teachers

TOTAL CHI

Square values

P-values ≤35 yr 36—

45yr ≥46 yr


towards education of

CWSN in inclusive

school

Low 14

(27.5) [16.9]

27 (52.9) [31.8]

10 (19.6) [23.3]

51

5.919

0.205

Average

42 (41.6) [50.6]

36 (35.6) [42.4]

23 (22.8) [53.5]

101

High 27

(45.8) [32.5]

22 (37.3) [25.9]

10 (16.9) [23.3]

59


towards teaching in

inclusive schools

Low 16

(34.8) [19.3]

20 (43.5) [23.5]

10 (21.7) [23.3]

46

1.485

0.829

Average 53

(42.1) [63.9]

47 (37.3) [55.3]

26 (20.6) [60.5]

126

High 14

(35.9) [16.9]

18 (46.2) [21.2]

7 (17.9) [16.3]

39

Role Performance

of Teachers

Low 17

(37.0)

[20.5]

18

(39.1)

[21.2]

11

(23.9)

[26.6]

46

2.598

0.627

Average 42

(36.8)

[50.6]

47

(41.2)

[55.3]

25

(21.9)

[581]

114

High 24

(47.1)

[28.9]

20

(39.2)

[23.5]

7

(13.7)

[16.3]

51

Problems of

teachers

Low 24

(47.1)

[28.9]

19

(37.3)

[22.4]

8

(15.7)

[18.6]

51

5.011

0.286

Average 37

(35.9) [44.6]

47 (45.6) [55.3]

19 (18.4) [44.2]

103

High 22

(38.6)

[26.5]

19

(33.3)

[22.4]

16

(28.1)

[37.2]

57

83 85 43 211

From the table-36, it is found that the Chi-Square values are not

significant for 4 d.f. at 0.05 level. There is no association between age levels

of teachers and attitude of teachers towards inclusive school, attitude

towards education of CWSN of inclusive schools, attitude towards teaching

191

CWSN of inclusive schools, role performance of teachers and problems faced

by teachers of inclusive schools.

Hypothesis -19 is not accepted.

Conclusion

There is no significant association between age level of teachers and

attitude of teachers towards inclusive school, attitude towards education of

CWSN of inclusive schools, attitude towards teaching CWSN of inclusive

schools, role performance of teachers and problem faced by teachers of

inclusive schools.

Hypothesis-20

There is association between community of teachers and their


TABLE – 37

Chi-Square values of association between teachers according to

community and attitude, role performance and problems faced by

teachers in inclusive schools.

variables Levels community of teachers

total Chi-

Square value

P- values

FC BC MBC SC/ST Attitude of

teachers

towards

inclusive

schools

Low 6

(10.0)

[42.9]

32

(53.3)

[32.7]

11

(18.3)

[19.3]

11

(18.3)

[26.2]

60

8.85

0.181

Average 6

6.3)

[42.9]

44

(45.8)

[44.9]

31

(32.3)

[54.4]

15

(15.6)

[35.7]

96

High 2

(3.6)

[14.3]

22

(40.0)

[22.4]

15

(27.3

[26.3])

16

(29.1)

[38.1]

55

Attitude of Low

3

(5.9)

[21.4]

21

(41.2)

[21.4]

17

(33.3)

[29.8]

10

(19.6)

[23.8]

51

192

variables Levels community of teachers

total Chi-

Square value

P- values

FC BC MBC SC/ST teachers

towards

education of

CWSN in

inclusive

school

Average

7

(6.9)

[50.0]

49

(48.5)

[50.0]

21

(20.8)

[36.8]

24

(23.8)

[57.1]

101

5.20

0.517

High

4

(6.8)

[28.6]

20

(47.5)

[28.6]

19

(32.2)

[33.3])

8

(13.6)

[19.0]

59

Attitude of

teachers

towards

teaching in

inclusive

schools

Low 6

(10.9)

[35.7]

21

(45.7)

[21.4]

10

(21.7)

[17.5]

10

(21.7)

[23.8]

46

11.747

0.067

Average 7

(5.6)

[50.0]

61

(48.4)

[62.2]

40

(31.7)

[70.2]

14

(14.3)

[42.9]

126

High 2

(5.1)

[14.3]

16

(41.0)

[16.3]

7

(17.9)

[12.3]

14

(35.9)

[33.3]

39

Role

Performance

of Teachers

Low 3

(6.5)

[21.4]

22

(47.8)

[22.4]

8

(17.4)

[14.0]

13

(28.3)

[31.0]

46

5.48

0.48 Average 6

(5.3)

[42.9]

52

(45.6)

[53.1]

35

(30.7)

[61.4]

21

(18.4)

[50.0]

114

High

5

(9.8)

[35.7]

24

(47.1)

[24.5]

14

(27.5)

[24.6]

8

(15.7)

[19.0]

51

Problems of

teachers

Low

3

(5.9)

[21.4]

20

(39.2)

[20.4]

15

(29.4)

[26.3]

13

(25.5)

[31.0]

51

5.83

0.44

Average 5

(4.9)

[35.7]

52

(50.5)

[53.1]

30

(29.1)

[52.6]

16

(15.5)

[38.1]

103

High 6

(10.5)

[42.9]

26

(45.6)

[26.5]

12

(21.1)

[21.1]

13

(22.8)

[31.0]

57

14 98 57 42 211

193

From the table-37,it is found that, the Chi-Square value are not

significant for 6 d.f. at 0.05 level. There is no association between

community of teachers and attitude of teachers towards inclusive school,

attitude towards education of CWSN of inclusive schools, attitude towards

teaching CWSN in inclusive schools, role performance of teachers and

problems faced by teachers of inclusive schools.

Hypothesis No.20 is not accepted.

Conclusion

There is no significant association between community of

teachers and attitude of teachers towards inclusive school, attitude towards

education of CWSN of inclusive schools, attitude towards teaching CWSN of

inclusive schools, role performance of teachers and problem faced by


194

Hypothesis-21 There is association between educational qualification of teachers and


schools.

TABLE –38


educational qualification and attitude, role performance and problems

faced by teachers in inclusive schools.

variables Levels Educational Qualification of teachers CHI-

square value

P- values DTE Graduate Graduate with B.Ed total

Attitude of

teachers

towards

inclusive

schools

Low 39

(65.0)

[27.5]

9

(15.0)

[24.3]

12

(20.0)

[37.5]

60

2.59

0.627

Average 68

(70.8)

[47.9]

17

(17.7)

[45.9]

11

(11.5)

[34.4]

96

High 35

(63.6)

[24.6]

11

(20.0)

[29.7]

9

(16.4)

[28.1]

55

Attitude of

teachers

towards

education of

CWSN in

inclusive school

Low 26

(51.0)

[18.3]

12

(23.5)

[32.4]

13

(25.5)

[40.6]

60

9.377

0.052

Average 75

(74.3)

[52.8]

14

(13.9)

[37.8]

12

(11.9)

[37.5]

96

High 41

(69.5)

[28.9]

11

(18.6)

[29.7]

7

(11.9)

[21.9]

55

Attitude of

teachers

towards

teaching in

inclusive

schools

Low 26 (56.5) [18.3]

9 (19.6) [24.3]

11 (23.9) [34.4]

46

5.51

0.238

Average 90

(71.4)

[63.4]

19

(15.1)

[51.4]

17

(13.5)

[53.1]

126

High 26

(66.7)

[18.3]

9

(23.1)

[24.3]

4

(10.3)

[12.5]

39

195

variables Levels Educational Qualification of teachers CHI-

square value

P- values DTE Graduate Graduate with B.Ed total

Role

Performance

of Teachers

Low 31

(67.4)

[21.8]

10

(21.7)

[27.0]

5

(10.9)

[15.6]

46

2.24

0.690

Average 74

(64.9)

[52.1]

20

(17.5)

[54.1]

20

(17.5)

[62.5]

114

High 37

(72.5)

[26.1]

7

(13.7)

[18.9]

7

(13.7)

[21.9]

51

Problems of

teachers

Low 37

(72.5)

[26.1]

3

(5.9)

[8.1]

11

(21.6)

[34.4]

51

9.11

0.058 Average 71

(68.9)

[50.0]

19

(18.4)

[51.4]

13

(12.6)

[40.6]

103

High 34

(59.6)

[23.9]

15

(26.3)

[40.5]

8

(14.0)

[20.0]

57

142 37 32 211

From the table-38, it is found that, the Chi-Square values are not

significant for 4 d.f. at 0.05 level. There is no association between

educational qualification of teachers and attitude of teachers towards

inclusive school, attitude towards education of CWSN in inclusive schools,

attitude towards teaching CWSN in inclusive schools, role performance of

teachers and problem faced by teachers of inclusive schools.

Hypothesis 21 is not accepted.

Conclusion:

There is no association between educational qualification of teachers

and attitude of teachers towards inclusive school, attitude towards

196




Hypothesis-22

There is association between marital status of teachers and their


TABLE – 39

Chi-Square values of association between teachers according to marital

status and attitude, role performance and problems faced by teachers

in inclusive schools.

variables Levels Marital status

TOTAL Chi-

Square Value

p- value Married Unmarried

Attitude of

teachers towards

inclusive schools

Low

54

(90.0)

[28.6]

6

(10.0)

[27.3]

60

0.025

0.987

Average

86

(89.6)

[45.5]

10

(10.4)

[45.5]

96

High

49

(89.1)

[25.9]

6

(10.9)

[27.3]

55

Attitude of

teachers towards

education of

CWSN in

inclusive school

Low

45

(88.2)

[23.8]

6

(11.8)

[27.3]

51

0.476

0.787

Average

92

(91.1)

[48.7]

9

(8.9)

[40.9]

101

High

52

(88.1)

[27.5]

7

(11.9)

[31.8]

59

197

variables Levels Marital status

TOTAL Chi-

Square Value

p- value Married Unmarried

Attitude of

teachers towards

teaching in

inclusive schools

Low

43

(93.5)

[22.8]

3

(6.5)

[13.6]

46

1.779

0.410

Average

113

(89.7)

[59.8]

13

(10.3)

[59.1]

126

High

33

(84.6)

[17.5]

6

(15.4)

[27.3]

39

Role

Performance of

Teachers

Low

45

(97.8)

[23.8]

1

(2.2)

[4.5]

46

13.51

0.001

Average

105

(92.1)

[55.6]

9

(7.9)

[40.9]

114

High

39

(76.5)

[20.6]

12

(23.5)

[54.5]

51

Problems of

teachers

Low

46

(90.2)

[24.3]

5

(9.8)

[22.7]

51

0.287

0.865

Average

93

(90.3)

[49.2]

10

(9.7)

[45.5]

103

High

50

(87.7)

[26.5]

7

(12.3)

[31.8]

57

189 22 211

198

From the table-39, it is found that, the Chi-Square value 13.51 is

significant for 2 d.f. at 0.01 level, with reference to marital status and role

performance of teachers. Chi square values of other groups are not

significant. There is no association between marital status and attitude of

teachers towards inclusive school, attitude towards education of CWSN of

inclusive schools, attitude towards teaching CWSN of inclusive schools, and


Hypothesis No. 22 is accepted with reference to association between

marital status of teachers and their role performance.

Conclusion

There is significant association between marital status and role

performance of teachers of inclusive schools.

There is no significant association between marital status and

attitude of teachers towards inclusive school, attitude towards education of

CWSN in inclusive schools, attitude towards teaching CWSN of inclusive

schools, and problems faced by teachers of inclusive schools.

199

Hypothesis-23

There is association between total teaching experience of teachers and


schools.

TABLE – 40


teaching experience and attitude, role performance and problems faced

by teachers in inclusive schools.

variables levels

teaching experience

total Chi-

square value

p- value

<= 5 yr > 5 yr


towards inclusive schools

Low

21

(35.0)

[25.3]

39

(65.0)

[30.5]

60

0.96

0.61

Average

41

(42.7)

[49.4]

55

(57.3)

[43.0]

96

High

21

(38.2)

[25.3]

34

(61.8)

[26.6]

55



CWSN in inclusive school

Low

21

(41.2)

[25.3]

30

(58.8)

[23.4]

51

2.02

0.36

Average

35

(34.7)

[42.2]

66

(65.3)

[51.6]

101

High

27

(45.8)

[35.5]

32

(54.2)

[25.0]

59

200

variables levels

teaching experience

total Chi-

square value

p- value

<= 5 yr > 5 yr


towards teaching in

inclusive schools

Low

43

(93.5)

[22.8]

3

(6.5)

[13.6]

46

1.04

0.41

Average

113

(59.8)

[59.8]

13

(10.3)

[59.1]

126

High

33

(84.6)

[17.5]

6

(14.4)

[27.3]

39

Role Performance of

Teachers

Low

20

(43.5)

[24.1]

26

(56.5)

[20.3]

46

0.700

0.704

Average

42

(36.8)

[50.6]

72

(63.2)

[56.3]

114

High

21

(41.2)

[25.3]

30

(58.8)

[23.4]

51


Low

19

(37.3)

[22.9]

32

(62.7)

[25.0]

51

0.126

0.938

Average

41

(39.8)

[49.4]

62

(60.2)

[48.4]

103

High

23

(40.4)

[27.7]

34

(59.6)

[26.6]

57

83 128 211

201

From the table-40, it is found that the Chi-Square values are not

significant for 2 d.f. at 0.05 level. There is no association between teaching

experience of teachers and attitude of teachers towards inclusive school,

attitude towards education of CWSN of inclusive schools, attitude towards

teaching CWSN of inclusive schools, role performance of teachers and

problem faced by teachers of inclusive schools.

Hypothesis No.23 is not accepted.

Conclusion There is no significant association between teaching experience of

teachers and attitude of teachers towards inclusive school, attitude towards




Hypothesis-24 There is association between teachers’ experience of teaching special

needs children and teachers’ attitude, role performance and problems faced

by them in inclusive schools.

TABLE – 41


experience of teaching special need children and attitude, role

performance and problems faced by teachers in inclusive schools.

Variables Levels Experience of teaching CWSN

Total Chi-

square Value

p-Value <=3 yrs 4-6 yrs >6 yrs

Attitude of teachers towards inclusive

schools

Low 49

(80.2) [28.0]

7 (11.7) [ 33.3]

4 (6.7) [26.7]

60

2.58

0.629

Average 77

(80.2) [44.0]

10 (10.4) [ 47.6]

9 (9.4)

[ 60.0] 96

High 49

(89.1) [28.0]

4 (7.3) [19.0]

2 (3.6) [13.3]

55

202

Variables Levels Experience of teaching CWSN

Total Chi-

square Value

p-Value <=3 yrs 4-6 yrs >6 yrs

Attitude of teachers towards education

of CWSN in inclusive school

Low 35

(68.6) [20.9]

9 (17.6) [ 42.9]

7 (13.7) [46.7]

51

12.15

0.016

Average 85

(84.2) [48.6]

9 (8.9)

[ 42.9]

7 (6.9)

[ 46.7] 101

High 55

(93.2) [31.4]

3 (5.1) [14.3]

1 (1.7) [6.7]

59

Attitude of teachers towards teaching

in inclusive schools

Low 37

(80.4) [21.1]

4 (8.7)

[ 19.0]

5 (10.9) [33.3]

46

2.80

0.94

Average 107

(84.9) [61.1]

11 (8.7)

[ 52.4]

8 (6.3)

[ 53.3] 126

High 31

(79.5) [17.7]

6 (15.4) [28.6]

2 (5.1) [13.3]

39

Role Performance of

Teachers

Low 37

(80.4) [21.1]

4 (8.7) [19.0]

5 (10.9) [33.3]

46

1.67

0.795

Average 96

(84.2) [54.9]

12 (10.5) [ 57.1]

6 (5.3)

[ 40.0] 114

High 42

(82.4) [24.0]

5 (9.8) [23.8]

4 (7.8) [26.7]

51


Low 46

(90.2) [26.3]

4 (7.8)

[ 19.0]

1 (2.0) [6.7]

51

3.933

0.498

Average 83

(80.6) [47.4]

12 (11.7) [ 57.1]

8 (7.8)

[ 53.3] 103

High 46

(80.7) [26.3]

5 (8.8) [23.8]

6 (10.5) [40.5]

57

175 21 15 211

From table-41, it is found that, the Chi-Square values is significant for

2 d.f. at 0.05 level with reference to teachers’ experience of teaching special

need children and attitude towards education of CWSN of inclusive schools.

Chi square values of other groups are not significant. There is no

significant association between experience of teaching special need children

and attitude of teachers towards inclusive school, attitude towards teaching

203

CWSN of inclusive schools, role performance of teachers and problem faced

by teachers of inclusive schools.

Hypothesis No.24 is accepted with reference to association between

teachers’ experience of teaching special need children and their attitude

towards education of CWSN of inclusive schools.

Conclusion

There is significant association between teachers’ experience of

teaching special need children and their attitude towards education of

CWSN of inclusive schools.

There is no significant association between teachers’ experience of

teaching special need children and attitude of teachers towards inclusive

school, attitude towards teaching CWSN of inclusive schools, role

performance of teachers and problem faced by teachers of inclusive schools.

204

Hypothesis-25

There is association between special training taken by teachers and


schools.

TABLE – 42

Chi-Square values of association between special training taken

by teachers and their attitude, role performance and problems faced by

them in inclusive schools.

variables Levels

No. of teachers

Total

chi- square value

p-value


Special Training

not Taken


towards inclusive

schools

Low

17

(28.3)

[18.1]

43

(71.7)

[36.]

60

9.05

0.010

Average

50

(52.1)

[53.2]

46

(47.9)

[39.3]

96

High

27

(49.1)

[28.7]

28

(50.9)

[23.9]

55



CWSN in inclusive

school

Low

23

(45.1)

[24.5]

28

(54.9)

[23.9]

51

2.21

0.33

Average

45

(44.6)

[47.9]

56

(55.4)

[47.9]

101

High

26

(44.1)

[27.7]

33

(55.9)

[28.2]

59


towards teaching in

inclusive schools

Low

17

(37.0)

[18.1]

29

(63.0)

[24.8]

46

205

variables Levels

No. of teachers

Total

chi- square value

p-value


Special Training

not Taken

Average

55

(43.1)

[58.5]

71

(56.3)

[60.7]

126

3.33

0.188

High

22

(56.4)

[23.4]

17

(43.6)

[14.5]

39

Role Performance of

Teachers

Low

18

(39.1)

[19.1]

28

(60.9)

[23.9]

46

0.96

0.61

Average

51

(44.7)

[54.3]

63

(55.3)

[53.8]

114

High

25

(49.0)

[26.6]

26

(51.0)

[22.2]

51


Low

20

(39.2)

[21.3]

31

(60.8)

[26.5]

51

1.39

0.498

Average

50

(48.5)

[53.2]

53

(51.5)

[45.3]

103

High

24

(42.1)

[25.5]

33

(57.9)

[28.2]

57

94 117 211

From the table-42, it is found that, the Chi-Square value 9.05 is found

to be significant for 2 d.f. at 0.05 level, with reference to special training

206

taken and attitude of teachers towards inclusive school. Chi square values

of other groups are not significant. The is no association between special

training taken and attitude towards education of CWSN in inclusive schools,

attitude towards teaching CWSN in inclusive schools, role performance of

teachers and problems faced by teachers of inclusive schools.

Hypothesis No.25 is accepted with reference to special training taken

and attitude of teachers towards inclusive schools.

Conclusion

There is significant association between special training taken by

teachers and their attitude towards inclusive schools.

The is no significant association between special training taken and

attitude towards education of CWSN in inclusive schools, attitude towards

teaching CWSN in inclusive schools, role performance of teachers and


HYPOTHESIS-26 There is significant correlation between teachers’ attitude

and teachers’ role performance, teachers’ attitude and problems faced by

teachers, and teachers’ role performance and problems faced by teachers.

From table - 43, it is found that ‘r’ values are significant at0.01 level

(2-tailed) Denoting significant and high coefficient of correlation between

1. Attitude to inclusive schools and attitude to education of CWSN in

inclusive schools, teaching CWSN in inclusive schools, role performance of

teachers in inclusive schools

2. Attitude to education of CWSN in inclusive schools and attitude to

inclusive schools, role performance of teachers in inclusive schools

207

3. Teaching CWSN in inclusive schools and role performance of teachers in

inclusive schools

4. Role performance of teachers in inclusive schools Problems faced by

teachers dealing different categories of CSWN

Table-43

Matrix of Coefficients of Correlation (‘r’) of Inclusive Teachers’

Attitude, Role Performance and Problems Faced

Inclusive Teachers N=211

Variables Attitude to Inclusive School

Attitude to Educ.of CWSN in inc.sch.

Attitude to Techg.in inc.sch.

Role perf.of tchrs to ctgs.

Of CSWN

Problems oftchrs of

ctgs.of CSWN

Attitude to

inclusive school

.4825** .4202** .2731** -.1595*

Attitude to

Educ.of CWSN

in inc.sch

.4480** .3117** -.1161

Attitude to techg.

in inc. sch.

.3054** -.1033

Role

perf.oftchrs to

ctgs. Of CSWN

-

.2109**

Problems

oftchrs of

ctgs.of CSWN


**Denotes significant at 0.01 Level

208

From table-43, it is found that ‘r’ values are significant at0.05 level (2-

tailed) denoting significant and high coefficient of correlation between

attitude to inclusive schools and problems faced.

HYPOTHESIS-26 is accepted with reference to teachers’ attitude,

teachers’ role performance, and problems faced by teachers.

Conclusion There is significant correlation between teachers’ attitude and

teachers’ role performance, teachers’ attitude and problems faced by

teachers, and teachers’ role performance and problems faced by teachers.

5.4 FINDINGS OF IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS WITH TEACHERS

As mentioned in Research methodology in Ch.-IV, four teachers

were identified and in-depth un-structured interviews were conducted. The

findings are summarized below:

CASE -1.

Female teacher ‘P’ is aged 45; married and has two kids-the first

one, a normal girl aged 6 and the second, a squint-eyed girl aged 4. P’s

Attitude scores respectively are- a) 81; b) 86 & c) 88. P’s Role Performance

score is 55 and Problems faced score is 68. P is D.T.E., and has 15 years

teaching experience; works in a Government Primary school set in rural

locality. P deals with two VI children: one boy in Class III is low vision

category and one girl in Class IV uses magnifying lens. The classes have

large strength (45 students each). P had received two-days in-service

training about Inclusive Education in year 2005. The school has very few

suitable materials to teach VI children. The special educator makes a visit

once a month. In the class a VI child is seated in the first row, but has

difficulty in reading and taking down from the black board. Both the VI

209

children are very slow in reading and writing skills. Both are of average

intelligence. P says that she has to complete the portions of lessons,

regularly conduct tests and has to concentrate on the normal children. P

expresses guilt for not concentrating on the VI children and offers the

needed assistance, which only the special educator can do. More training

and frequent assistance from the special educator are to be provided.

CASE -2.

Male teacher ’N’ is aged 32; unmarried. N’s Attitude scores

respectively are- a) 55; b) 60& c) 60. N’s Role Performance score is 47 and

Problems faced score is 65. N is B.A., B.Ed., and has 7 years of teaching

experience. N works in an urban Panchayat Union Aided Elementary school,

which has class strength 50. N deals with one MR Child -a moderately

affected girl in Class II, irregular in attendance. She is below average in

social skills. But interested in play activities. She is seated in the last row

because the teachers consider her a hindrance to normal children and

teachers. Her personal needs training is not enough and servant has to

assist her in cleaning. The parents being very poor construction workers,

plead the school to allow her attend even if she cannot make academic

performance. N feels that communicating with the MR Child is a problem.

Attempting to educate such disabled children is a waste. Being a girl, being

poor, and being disabled, her future is very bleak. N is not confident of even

trying to make effort.

CASE-3

Female teacher ’S ’is aged 29; unmarried. S’s Attitude scores

respectively are- a)75;b)68&c)76. N’s Role Performance score is 64 and

210

Problems faced score is 65. S is B.Sc., B.Ed.; she is working in an urban

government Middle school. She attended one in-service special education

training programme. S deals with one HI boy in class V. S is appreciative of

the child’s enthusiasm to be active and receive cooperation from his peers.

He has good performance in studies, has very good handwriting and is

talented in drawing.. For the past 8 months she is taking more interest in

the HI child’s class activities and tries to give individual instruction taking

extra time. She often meets the child’s parents. When the special educator

visits the school, S gets more guidance to deal with the HI child. The teacher

‘S’ feels that more equipment and more implements for hearing be availed by

the school.

CASE-4

Female teacher ‘R’ is aged 50; is married. R’s Attitude scores

respectively are- a) 60 b) 55 & c) 53. R’s Role Performance score is 56 and

Problems faced score is 60. R is D.T.E. holder got appointment much later

and has teaching experience of 10 years. R deals with OH female child in

class I. The child has calipers to right leg and fingers of hands are deformed.

She cannot hold writing materials. The child is made to sit at the back of the

class. Her peer students are sympathetic and try to keep company. The

child comes from middle class home background. Because of mother’s

request, the child is admitted in the school. R feels that as the OH child

grows up attending school and studying would be very difficult.” Such

children should not be sent to school, rather sent to residential special

school, or be kept at home only arranging a tutor for individual

instruction”(in the words of R ).

211

Conclusion of analysis

From the interviews it can be understood that teachers working in

inclusive schools express rather mixed picture of favorable attitudes. Their

main concern is education of able children rather than CWSN. The training

given in inclusive education is very short duration and one-time training

covering all the categories of disabilities. The BRTs who conducted the

training are not specialists, but are those who received only two days

training from the faculty of DIETs, who in their turn received training from

specialists. This multi-level training finally when reached the primary school

teachers was much diluted. Primary teachers receiving the training could

not get the needed confidence nor competence to deal with the CWSN in the

classes. The concept of collaboration among regular teachers and

collaboration with special teachers has not permeated in them. Also, lack of

equipment and material as well as lack of skills to use the material for

teaching and training is the main reason for negative attitude and only low

role performance. The problems faced by teachers dealing with each

category of CWSN are many and disability specific. Personal or background

variables of teachers also affect the teachers’ performance.

5.5 SUMMARY

In this chapter, the statistical calculations under quantitative

analysis were given Hypotheses were tested and interpretation was done. It

was followed by in-depth qualitative analysis.

In the next chapter, Summary, discussion of the findings and

implications will be presented. Finally, recommendations and suggestions

will be drawn.

CHAPTER FIVE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 5.1...

Documents

Transcript of CHAPTER FIVE ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 5.1...