Introduction Special Education in Pakistan is relatively a new field of Education, in 1980s; early Institutions were established on Government behalf. There has been extensive research worldwide but in Pakistan research in Special Education is still in its early days. There are five fields of Special Education in Punjab, Pakistan; Hearing Impaired, Visually Impaired, Physically Disable, Mentally Retarded and Slow Learners. In year 2007, separate institutions were established to provide education to Slow Learner children.
Special education (Slow learners) needs to be extensively researched in Pakistani culture. Special Education in World Perspective Generally over the ages, the disabled have been rejected and exploited by the society, the early history of the handicap is particularly pathetic and tragic. During ancient times Greek and Romans did not believe that weak or disabled were candidates for education e. g. the Greeks did not allow disabled children to live. The efforts of religious group and missionaries should also be given credit for early efforts to educate the disabled (Khatoon, 2003).
The emergence of the disciplines of psychology and sociology and beginning of widespread use of mental testing in early twentieth century had enormous implication for the growth of special education. Jean More Gaspard Hard (1775-1838) a French Physician who wrote about the education of deaf students, is the person to whom most historians trace the beginning of special education as discipline. Horn (1924) wrote a book, which is the first text book dealing with the “education of exception children”. By the 1700 school for deaf were established in England, France and Germany.
The first school in USA for students who were deaf was started in 1817 in Hartford Connecticut. The invention of Braille type writer and stereotyping machine by Frank Hall in 1890 and the introduction in to the USA in the 1920s, which allowed Braille to be printed on both sides of a page, opened the way for a richer supply of embossed books (Khatoon, 2003). History of the working with Mentally Retarded children starts from 1798 when Jean Marc Gaspard Itard, the French physician started training of a boy. Later residential institutions were established throughout Europe and Great Britain by the mid 19th century.
In USA Samuel Gridley Howe, the first director of Perkin School for the blind in Boston developed the first American Mental Retardation Institution in 1948. In 1905 Alfred Binet was appointed by the minister of public education in France to develop techniques for identifying students in need of special education (Khatoon, 2003). Compulsory education has been in effect in schools for the blind and the deaf since 1948, and in schools for the mentally retarded, physically impaired, and health impaired since 1979. Special education in Japan began with the foundation of the School for the Blind and Deaf in Kyoto in 1878.
The government of India has recently enacted disability Act 1995. The Act provides that the government shall ensure that every child with disability has access to free education an appropriate environment till the age of 18 years. It is estimated that India has approximately 35 million children with disabilities but less than 1 percent has access to education. Currently only blind, deaf, M. R, children are largely covered (Khatoon, 2003). The Scene in Pakistan The education of the disabled children in Pakistan started in the beginning of 20th century when Pakistan was part of the Indian sub-continent under the control of British governance.
The earliest school was established in the first and second decade of the 20th century in the provinces of Punjab and Sindh. The two earliest schools were established in 1906 and 1914 at Lahore and third in 1924 at Karachi by voluntary organizations (Khatoon, 2003). The effective role of federal government started in the 1980’s when 1981 was declared International Year of the disabled by the United Nations. The awareness about special education increased. Till 1981 the education, training and rehabilitation of special children were the responsibility of Ministry of Education and social Welfare.
In 1982, the subject of special education was transferred to Ministry of Health & Welfare at federal level. The Director General special education was created in 1985 as attached department of Ministry of Health and social welfare (Khatoon, 2003). The year 1985 may be considered as landmark in the history of special education in Pakistan. Then President of Pakistan, Late Gen Zia-ul-Haq took personal interest in education and rehabilitation of special children. The government of Pakistan prepared a draft for the National policy for special education in 1985 (Khatoon, 2003).
Population of the Disabled The distribution of different disabilities within the defined population of disabled persons, as by the Islamabad/ Rawalpindi survey of 1986, provides a useful guide for planning and is likely to reflect the situation general, Mental disability (21%), visual impairment (15%), hearing impairment (09%), physical disability (33%), multiple/complex disability (19%), and not classified (03%) (Khatoon, 2003). Learning disability is the newest of the recognized sub areas of the special education, although the historic roots go back nearly two hundred years.
Franz Joseph Gall, a Vienese physician is considered among the earliest pioneers in the investigation of disorders of spoken language, and area that became part of the foundation of what is now called Learning Disability in United States and in most of the countries world over (Khatoon, 2003). Special education policies As an initial step the Directorate General of Special Education formulated a National Policy for Special Education in 1986 and revised it in 1988 to make it more appropriate for the emerging needs of special population.
After that, a special education policy was launched in 1999. Government of Pakistan has launched a new National Policy for Persons with Disabilities 2002, which is dynamically being implemented (Khatoon, 2003). National Policy for Rehabilitation of the Disabled, 1986 The United Nations declared 1983-1992 as the Decade of the Disabled, which brought into focus the need to formulate a national strategy to deal with the problems of the disabled of all categories.
Thus, the Ministry of Health, Special Education and Social Welfare envisaged the National Policy for Rehabilitation of the Disabled in December 1986, and this was in fact the first policy on special education in Pakistan. The National Policy, 1986 was primarily concerned with issues such as organizing services for the disabled and the implementation of programs, and paid insufficient attention to the critical matter of the curriculum (Khatoon, 2003). A review of the 1986 Policy was undertaken in 1988 that refereed to a category-based system of special education in Pakistan.
The five categories of special needs education were identified in the policy. According to a survey conducted in Islamabad/Rawalpindi, the distribution / percentage of the five different disabilities were: i) Mental disability 21% , ii) Visual impairment 15% , iii) Hearing impairment 9% , iv) Physical disability 33% , v) Multiple disability 19% , and vi) Not classified 3% (Khatoon, 2003). The National Policy for Special Education, 1999 After the National Policy for Rehabilitation of the Disabled (1986), the Government of Pakistan formulated another policy on Special Education in 1999.
The National Policy for Special Education (1999) recognized that the process of rehabilitation for many people with disabilities was an on-going one. It focused the need for change in public attitudes to the disabled and the crucial role of media in highlighting the successes of persons with disabilities. The policy also proposed some monetary concessions to be made for the disabled as well as providing them with legislative support (Khatoon, 2003). National Policy for Persons with Disabilities, 2002.
National Policy for Persons with Disabilities (2002) was the first full-fledged National Special Education Policy to fulfill need for the education, rehabilitation and care of the disabled both by government and by the private sector. In the policy, the provision of special facilities for the education, training and rehabilitation of disabled persons was regarded as being of central importance concerning the rights of a significant percentage of our population (Khatoon, 2003).
The goal of the policy was the empowerment of persons with disabilities, irrespective of caste, creed, religion, gender or other consideration for the realization of their full potential in all spheres of life, specially social, economic, personal and political. The policy was formulated with a background of information about the number of disabled persons in Pakistan based upon the WHO estimates of 10% of the population and upon more detailed information provided by Pakistan-based studies including the National Census, 1998.
The National Census Report of 1998 however indicated a low estimate of 2. 49% of the total population, based on the reported cases of persons with disabilities. The distribution of different disabilities within the defined population of disabled persons, as indicated by the 1998 census, provided a valuable guide for planning program Physically Handicapped (19%), Mentally Handicapped & Insane (14%), Multiple Disability (8. 21%), Visually Impaired (8. 6%), Hearing Impaired (7. 40%), others, not classified but included as disability (43.33%) (Khatoon, 2003).
Slow Learners Slow learner are students whose achievement score are low to below average, but who are not classified as having learning disabilities because their IQ scores, also falling in the low to below average range, are not discrepant with their achievement, (Fletcher et al. , 1992; Humphries & Bone, 1993), borderline (MacMillan, Gresham, Bocian, & Lambros, 1998), general reading backward (Rutter & Yule, 1975), age discrepant reading disabled (Pennington et al., 1992), non-discrepant poor readers (Aaron, 1997), and garden variety poor readers (Gough & Tunmer, 1986;Stanovich, 1 988).
Although their IQ scores often fall in the below average range, slow learners are not usually classified as mentally retarded due to their self-sufficiency, the absence of central nervous system deficit, the presence of intelligence scores that are above the cutoff for classification as mentally retarded, and the primarily academic nature of their difficulties (MacMillan et al., 1998).
Neither are they classified as learning disabled due to their below average (“borderline”) intelligence test scores, which are often considered to fall between approximately 75 and 89 standard score points (Pennington et al. , 1992; Shaw, 1999; Toth & Siegel, 1994). Shaw (1999) proposes that slow learners make up 14. 1 percent of the population, a larger percentage than children with learning disabilities, mental retardation, and autism combined.
It is important to continue to study slow learners in order to provide justification for intervention, given one researcher’s hypothesis that slow learners “account for a disproportionate number of school drop outs, unwed teen mothers, illicit drug users, functionally illiterate persons, imprisoned persons, unemployed, underemployed, violent offenders, alcohol abusers, school failures, low scorers on group tests, and gang and hate group members” (Birch, 2003). Academic achievement.
Academic achievement has been variously defined: as level of proficiency attained in academic work or as formally acquired knowledge in school subjects which is often represented by percentage of marks obtained by students in examinations. Researchers have shown that besides being the criteria of promotion into the next class, academic achievement is an index of all future success in life (Kohli, 1975). The teacher’s personality and style of interaction with the students has been reported to be a very crucial variable in student’s achievement.
Pupils like non-authoritarian teacher better, feel free in expressing their difficulties with them, and achieve higher results in their classes. Hsu (1983) found similar results. Teachers who are successful in creating a climate of warmth and support can extract greater pupil achievement. Adjustment in school, at home and with peers generates greater classroom trust (Hsu, 1983). Teacher’s acceptance / rejection Teacher’s behavior in class differs according to his perception of students as low achievers or as high achievers.
The most recent summary by Good and Brophy (1991) identifies responses for low achievers, Less wait-time, Fewer cues or rephrased questions, Inappropriate reinforcement, Greater criticism, Less praise for correct responses, Less public feedback, Less interaction in instruction, Fewer opportunities to answer questions, Seating further away from the teacher, Less demanding experiences, Less Interaction in private, Less benefit of the doubt in grading, Less friendly interaction, Briefer feedback, Less eye contact and less generally responsive nonverbal behavior, Less use of effective but time-consuming in instructional methods ,less acceptance of ideas, more emphasis on repetition, facts and drill and practice. Psychological adjustment
Academic achievement and psychological adjustment have long been of concern to educators, parents and policymakers. A growing literature suggests that the quality of the relationship which children have with their parents and teachers has significant developmental consequences.
Research in this area has indicated that security in the teacher-child relationship influences children’s development in the same way that parent-child attachment does. Children may look to their teachers for the same kind of security and emotional response as they do to their parent (Ali, 2011). Psychological Adjustment is defined as a state of harmony between internal needs and external demands, and the processes used in achieving this condition (Senseagent, n. d). Self-concept
Although the terms self-concept and self-esteem are often used interchangeably, they represent different but related constructs. Self-concept refers to a student’s perceptions of competence or adequacy in academic and nonacademic (e. g. , social, behavioral, and athletic) domains and is best represented by a profile of self-perceptions across domains. Self-esteem is a student’s overall evaluation of him or herself, including feelings of general happiness and satisfaction (Harter, 1999).
Rationale of the study Teachers always had an important role in student’s life, including educational and moral development. Teacher’s attitude also effects student’s performance, especially under achievers.
There has been research literature on teacher’s attitude and student’s performance (Ali, 2011), but in Pakistan there is no research work on slow learners and teacher’s attitude. Separate institutions for slow learners have been recently developed in Pakistan.
Therefore it is important to study slow learners with reference to teacher’s attitude. Furthermore, Shaw (1999) also concludes that issues on slow learners must be investigated within framework of different variables. Present study is designed to investigate slow learners’ psychological adjustment, academic achievement and self concept with reference to teacher’s attitude. Furthermore teacher’s evaluation of student’s conduct and teacher’s acceptance/rejection towards students will also be investigated.
Results of the present study will yield important information that can be used to understand teacher-student relationship, and in future, will help to take better decisions about education and psychological issues of slow learners and normal students. Objectives * To determine the relationship of perceived teachers’ acceptance / rejection with psychological adjustment, self-concept and academic achievement in slow learners and normal students.
* To explore the relationship of teachers’ evaluation of student conduct and perceived teachers’ acceptance / rejection in slow learners and normal students. * To compare the perceived teachers’ acceptance / rejection with psychological adjustment, self-concept and academic achievement in slow learners vs. normal students.
* To have gender wise comparison of the role of children’s gender on perceived teachers’ acceptance / rejection, their psychological adjustment, self-concept and academic achievement for both groups of children. * To determine the impact of teachers’ gender on perceived teachers’ acceptance / rejection, their psychological adjustment, self-concept and academic achievement for both groups of children. Hypotheses *.
Perceived teachers’ acceptance would be positively correlated with psychological adjustment, self-concept and academic achievement of slow learners and normal students. * Slow learners would significantly differ on teachers’ evaluation of student conduct and perceived teachers’ acceptance / rejection then those of normal student.
* Slow learners would have low scores on perceived teachers’ acceptance, psychological adjustment, self-concept and academic achievement then those of normal students. * Scores of slow learners and normal students would significantly differ on perceived teachers’ acceptance / rejection, their psychological adjustment, self-concept and academic achievement in term of children’s gender.
* Teachers’ gender will significantly affect the scores of slow learners and normal students on perceived teachers’ acceptance / rejection, psychological adjustment, self-concept and academic achievement. Method Sample A sample (N=200) of children with age range 8-12 years will be drawn through purposive sampling technique from various Government (n=100) and Slow learners (n=100) institutes/schools of Punjab.
Sample will be further categorized in to girls (n=100) and boys (n=100). Participants will be personality contacted in schools and all the questioners / scales will be administrated individually. Measures 1. Teacher’s Acceptance/Rejection Questioner (TARQ): Child Version, Short Form 2. Personality Assessment Questioner (PAQ): Child Version 3. Self-image Profile (SIP) 4. Teacher’s Evaluation of Student Conduct (TESC) 1. Teacher’s Acceptance/Rejection Questioner (TARQ): Child Version, Short Form. The Teacher’s Acceptance-Rejection/ Control Questioner, Child version (short form) (Child TARQ/Control) is a self report measure composed of 29 items. It is an adaptation of the standard child PARQ / Control (short form).
Whereas the Child PARQ/Control was developed for children to be able to assess their parents (mothers and fathers) acceptance-rejection and behavioral control, the TARQ / Control was designed to be used by children to evaluate the acceptance-rejection and behavioral control of their classroom teachers. The TARQ/ Control was created in 2002, and revised in 2004 (Rohner & Khaleque 2005).
The TARQ / Control contain five scales, four to which assess student’s perceptions of their teacher’s warmth/affection, hostility/aggression, indifference/neglect, and undifferentiated rejection. The fifth scale assesses the extent to which students perceive their teacher to be behaviorally controlling.
The warmth/affection scale contains (8 items), the hostility/aggression scale and indifference/neglect scale contain (6 items each), the undifferentiated rejection scale contains (4 items), and, the Control scale contains (5 items). All items are scored on a four point likert-like scale ranging from (4) Almost always true to (1) Almost never true (Rohner & Khaleque 2005).
Information about reliability and validity is not available for this measure as it is newly developed instrument, but as this questioner is identical to PARQ/Control, expect for referent (i. e. , teachers’ versus parents’ behavior), its reliability and validity status is expected to be excellent (Rohner & Khaleque 2005). This Questioner has been translated in Urdu (Malik, 2011). 2. Personality Assessment Questioner (PAQ): Child Version.
The Personality Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ) is a self-report questionnaire designed to assess individual’s perceptions of themselves with respect to seven personality dispositions: (1) hostility and aggression, including physical aggression, verbal aggression, passive aggression, and problems with the management of hostility and aggression, (2) dependency, (3) self-esteem, (4) self-adequacy, (5) emotional responsiveness, (6) emotional stability, and (7) worldview.
Collectively, the seven PAQ scales represent a measure of respondents overall psychological adjustment. Both (adult & child) versions contain seven scales designed to measure each of the seven characteristics described above (Rohner & Khaleque 2005). PAQ is composed of seven scales including hostility/aggression, dependence, negative self-esteem, negative self-adequacy, emotional unresponsiveness, emotional instability, negative worldview. The child version contains six items per scale for a total of 42 items. Response format ranged from 4 almost always to 1 almost never.
The higher a total test score, the more impaired an individual’s psychological adjustment is regarded to be (Rohner & Khaleque 2005). Total (composite) test scores on the Child PAQ spread from a low of 42, revealing excellent psychological adjustment, to a high of 168, revealing serious psychological maladjustment. Scores at or above the test midpoint on the Child PAQ of 105 indicate more overall maladjustment than adjustment (Rohner & Khaleque 2005). This questioner has significant high reliability that is . 84(Rohne & Khaleque, 2005). This questionnaire has been translated in Urdu. 3. Self-image Profile (SIP). SIP is a brief self report measure that provides visual display of both self image and self esteem.
It has two forms: one for the children age 7-11 years (SIP-C) and other for adolescents aged 12-16 years (SIP-A). Both forms are composed of 25 items each. This questioner can be administered with groups as well as individually. Approximate administration time for SIP-C is 12-25 mints and for SIP-A is 9-17 mints. Response format for this questioner is 0-6, where 0 means (not at all) like the statement and 6 means (very much) like the statement (Butler, 1998).
Alpha coefficient as reported by the author for SIP-C is . 69 for both positive and negative self image, on the other hand, alpha coefficient for SIP-A is . 69 for positive self image and . 79 for negative self image. This questioner has satisfactory validity (Butler, 1998).
Originally this scale is in English, but it has been translated while using standardized procedure and its reliability and validity was determined, which was significantly high (? =. 96) (Malik & Gul, 2007). 4. Teacher’s Evaluation of Student Conduct (TESC). The Teacher’s Evaluation of Student’s conduct (TESC) is an 18 item measure, developed by Rohner, of school conduct problems of the types that Stewart (1985) called “aggressive conduct disorder” and “socialized conduct disorder”.
Items on the TESC are scored on a five point likert-like scale, from (5) very often to (3) sometimes but not often, to (1) almost never. The total score is created by summing responses to all items. Total scores spread from a low of 18 (no or minimal conduct problems) to a high of 90 (maximum/serious conduct problems).
Scores at or above the TESC midpoint of 54 indicate the presence of significant conduct problems (Rohner & Khaleque 2005). This measure is reliable and valid for use in both research and practice in the U. S as well as internationally. Evidence bearing on this conclusion comes from measures of coefficient alpha and significant correlations with theoretically expectable variables.
Coefficient alpha for this scale is ranged from . 95 to . 98 as reported by author. Melton (2000) found validity for this scale as high as (r = . 60, p < . 001) (Rohner & Khaleque 2005). 5. Demographic Form. Biographical form includes variables those will be relevant to the purpose of the study i. e. , Age, Class, School/Institute, Gender (See appendix).
Permission letter will be given to the Headmaster/ Headmistress of the school/institutes through which necessary information about the purpose of research, its procedure, and application will be clearly communicated in written form. Furthermore, inform consent will be provided to the participants which will communicate rights of participants. Procedure After ensuring the suitability of the instruments for current study, sampling plan will be drawn.
Sample will be divided into suitable categories as to achieve objectives of the study. Departmental permission will be sought from the heads of the schools/institutes of Punjab though permission letters sighed by Chairperson, Department of Psychology, G. C. U Lahore. Purpose, advantages and procedure of the current study will be communicated to the heads of schools/institutes of Punjab.
After obtaining the permission from heads of the schools/institutes, inform consent will be presented to the Children/Parents. After obtaining written informs consent, Questioners will be administered. All questions and confusions will be addressed properly. Data will be collected in suitable environment. Obtained data will be subjected to statistical analysis. Results Results will be formulated by applying statistical techniques on the obtained data. 1. ANOVA 2. MNOVA 3. t-test 4. Correlation Discussion Results will be discussed with the help of relevant research literature. References Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula.
Review of Educational Research, 67, 461-502. Ali, S. (2011). Perceived teacher and parental acceptance-rejection, and the academic achievement, adjustment, and behavior of children: literature review. International Journal of Peace and Development Studies, 2 (5), 138-147. Birch, K. G. (2003). Phonological processing, automaticity, auditory processing, and memory in slow learners and children with reading disabilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas, Austin. Brophy, J. (1991). Teacher influence on student achievement. American Psychologist, 32 Fletcher, J. M. , Francis, D. J. , Rourke, B. P. , Shaywitz, S. E. , & Shaywits, B. A.
(1992). The validity of discrepancy based definitions of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 555-561. Gough, P. B. , & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7 (1), 6-10. Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford Press. Hsu, P. P. (1983). The relationship among teacher characteristics; teacher-student interaction and students academic achievement. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 16, 99-114. Humphries, G. , & Bones, J. (1993). Use of IQ criteria for evaluating the uniqueness of the learning disability profile.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 348-351. Khatoon, A. (2003). A historical and evaluative study of special education in Pakistan. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Karachi: Karachi Kohli, T. K. (1975). Characteristic behavioral and environmental correlates of academic achievement of over and under achievers at different levels of intelligence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of the Punjab, Pakistan. MacMillan, D. L. , Gresham, F. M. , Bocian, K. M. , & Lambros, K. M. (1998). Current plight of borderline students: Where so they belong? Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33 (2), 83-94. Melton, S. (2000).
Relationship between sixth graders’ perceptions of parental acceptance-rejection and their performance in school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Tennesee, Knoxville. Pennington, B. F. , Gilger, J. , Olson, R. K. , & DeFries, J. C. (1992). The external validity of age versus IQ discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Lessons from a twin study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 562-573. Rohner, R. P. (2005). Teacher’s Acceptance-Rejection/Control Questionnaire: Child Version (Short form) (Child TARQ/Control). In R. P. Rohner & A. Khaleque (eds. ) Handbook for the Study of Parental Acceptance and Rejection 4th edition (319-325). Storrs. CT: Rohner Research Publications. Rohner, R. P. (2005).
Teacher’s Evaluation of Student’s Conduct (TESC): Test Manual. In R. P. Rohner & A. Khaleque (eds. ) Handbook for the Study of Parental Acceptance and Rejection 4th edition (319-325). Storrs. CT: Rohner Research Publications. Rohner, R. P. , & Khaleque, A. (2005). Personality Assessment Questionnaire (PAQ): Test manual. In R. P. Rohner & A. Khaleque (Eds. ), Handbook for the study of parental acceptance and rejection (pp. 187-226). Storrs, CT: Rohner Research. Rutter, M. , & Yule, W. (1975). The concept of specific reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 16, 181-197. Shaw, S. R. (1999). The devolution of interest in slow learners: can we continue to ignore?
Communique, 28 (3) 31-33. Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden variety poor reader: The phonological core variable difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590-604. Stewart, E. A. (1985). Disturbance in school. In D. Shaffer, A. Ehrhardt, & L. L. Greenhill (Eds. ), The clinical guide to child psychiatry (pp. 293-314). New York: Free Press. Toth, G. & Siegel, L. S. (1994). A critical evaluation of the IQ achievement discrepancy based definition of dyslexia. In K. P. Van Den Bos, L. S. Siegel, D. J. Bakker, & D. L. Share (Eds. ), Current directions in dyslexia research (pp. 45-70). Lisse: Swets.
Courtney from Study Moose