SUPPORT OFFERED BY SCHOOL-BASED SUPPORT TEAMS: EXPERIENCES OF FOUNDATION PHASE TEACHERS

IN TSHWANE NORTH

by MALETOLO LILLIAN MPHAHLELE

MINI-DISSERTATION

submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

MAGISTER EDUCATIONIS

in

EDUCATIONAL AND LEARNING SUPPORT

in the

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

at the

UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG

Supervisor: Dr MP van der Merwe

December 2005

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to the people who supported me during the

completion of this study. In particular I would like to thank:

• Dr Martyn van der Merwe. Thanks for your guidance, support and motivation.

• My husband, Mampuru for his unconditional support, patience and love during the

course of this study.

• My daughter, Moshibudi for always willing to support me. You made it all easier.

• My mother, Ramaredi. Thank you for always having a word of encouragement

when I needed it.

• The school at which I conducted my research. I appreciate the opportunity to learn

from you as the foundation phase educators. You were most accommodating and

willing to share your experiences.

• Lastly, to the almighty God for being with me all the way.

iii

ABSTRACT

According to White paper 6 all children can learn, should be supported to learn and

assured of equal and equitable education. It further states that educational structures

should be adapted to accommodate all learners in mainstream schools. Thus if the system

fails to meet the different needs of a wide range of learners, the learner or the system may

be prevented from being able to engage in or sustain an ideal process of learning. Those

factors which lead to the inability of the system to accommodate diversity, which lead to

the breakdown or which prevent learners from accessing educational provision, have

been conceptualised as barriers to learning and development. A school-based support

team may serve as one way of maximizing the participation of learners experiencing

barriers to learning and development.

The purpose of this study was to investigate foundation phase teachers’ experiences of

the support provided by the school-based support team (SBST) and to formulate

guidelines for the training of the SBST’s. A case study design was chosen since this

would allow for in depth exploration of how foundation phase teachers experience the

support offered by the SBST’s. One primary school was chosen randomly and

foundation phase teachers purposively included as participants. Interviews were

conducted, document analysis undertaken and direct observations done in two foundation

phase classes.

The collected data were analysed and categorised with the use of the constant

comparative method. From the analysis of the data it became apparent that there is little

or no collaboration between foundation phase teachers and the school-based support

team. It was also evident that the school-based support team lacks knowledge regarding

the identification of barriers to learning and designing intervention strategies for teachers

to support learners in the classrooms. Lastly, it was clear that foundation phase teachers

are collaborating with each other by sharing ideas on how to give support to learners

experiencing learning barriers in their classrooms.

iv

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this mini-dissertation is my own original work, except

to the extent indicated in the text, the acknowledgements and bibliography.

It is being submitted for the degree of Masters in Educational and Learning

Support at the University of Johannesburg. It has not been submitted before

to any university partially or in its entirety for the purpose of obtaining a

degree.

Mphahlele Maletolo Lillian

December 2005

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii DECLARATION iv SECTION ONE: PURPOSE AND ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY 1.1 ORIENTATION AND CONTEXT OF THE STUDY 1 1.2 MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY 4 1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT 6 1.4 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY 7 1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 7 1.6 CONCEPT CLARIFICATION 8 1.7 EXPOSITION OF THE STUDY 10 SECTION 2: INCLUSIVE EDUCATION AND TEACHER SUPPORT 2.1 INTRODUCTION 11 2.2 INCLUSIVE EDUCATION AND TEACHER SUPPORT 11 2.3 UNDERSTANDING BARRIERS TO LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT 14 2.4 COLLABORATION AS AN APPROACH TO ADDRESS DIVERSITY IN CLASSROOMS 17 2.5 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SCHOOL-BASED SUPPORT TEAMS 19 2.6 TRAINING OF SCHOOL-BASED SUPPORT TEAMS 25 2.6.1 The value of training 25

vi

2.6.2 Training of SBST’s in Tshwane North 27 2.7 CONCLUSION 29 SECTION 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 INTRODUCTION 30 3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN 30 3.3 RESEARCH METHOD 31 3.3.1 Data-collection methods 32 3.3.2 Selection of participants 35 3.4 DATA ANALYSIS 36 3.4.1 Data reduction 37 3.5 STRATEGIES TO ENSURE TRUSTWORTHINESS 39 3.6 RESEARCH ETHICS 40 3.6.1 Informed consent 41 3.6.2 Anonymity and confidentiality 41 3.7 THE RESEARCHER’S ROLE 41 3.8 CONCLUSION 42 SECTION 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 4.1 INTRODUCTION 43 4.2 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY 43 4.3 RESEARCH FINDINGS 43 4.3.1 Collaboration 45 4.3.2 Support 46 4.3.3 Functionality of SBST 50 4.3.4 Challenges of foundation phase teachers 51 4.3.5 Constitution of SBST 52 4.3.6 Expectations and needs of foundation phase teachers 52

vii

4.4 CONCLUSION 53 SECTION 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 INTRODUCTION 54 5.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 54 5.2.1 Collaboration 54 5.2.2 Support 55 5.2.3 Functionality of SBST 56 5.2.4 Challenges faced by foundation phase teachers 56 5.2.5 Constitution of SBST 56 5.2.6 Expectations and needs of foundation phase teachers 57 5.3 CONCLUSIONS FROM FINDINGS 57 5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS 59 5.4.1 Recommendations for future research 61 5.5 LIMITATIONS 62 5.6 CONCLUSION 62 5.7 LIST OF SOURCES 64 5.8 APPENDICES 69

viii

LIST OF TABLES Page 3.1 Process of data analysis of interviews 38 4.1 Research question and purpose of the study 43 4.2 An overview of subcategories, categories and themes 44

ix

APPENDICES Appendix A: Ethical clearance certificate Appendix B: Gauteng Department of Education: Approval letter Appendix C: Consent letter from the principal/school Appendix D: Consent letter from the participants Appendix E: Interview schedule Appendix F: Excerpt from transcribed interviews Appendix G: GDE support form Appendix H: Minutes of SBST meetings Appendix I: Referral form Appendix J: Monitoring instrument for SBST visits Appendix K: Extracts from SBST training manual Appendix L: Field notes

1

SECTION ONE

PURPOSE AND ORIENTATION OF THE STUDY

1.1 ORIENTATION AND CONTEXT OF STUDY

Behind changes being implemented in the education system in South Africa are policies

designed to make it more inclusive and accessible, redressing past imbalances and

injustices. The Ministry of Education is now responsible for making places available for

learners with barriers to learning and development in ordinary schools, and also making

support available when needed by such learners (RSA, Schools Act, No 84 of 1996:

Chapter 3 Section 12:4). Developing and sustaining learning is premised on the

recognition that education is a fundamental right which extends equally to all learners.

Excercising this responsibility involves ensuring that the education system creates equal

opportunities for effective learning by all learners (Jenkinson, 1997:60).

The foundation phase is regarded as the critical stage for promoting an interest in

education, developing positive attitudes towards school and a positive self-concept. If a

child fails at this stage, he or she will be adversely affected and may even drop out of the

schooling system before ever having an opportunity to explore his or her learning

potential (Joshua, 1995:10). The foundation phase is also the stage where teachers should

be informed of a range of barriers to learning and development, for instance difficulties

and challenges that learners experience, so as to be in a position to address them and

ensure that effective learning takes place (Joshua, 1995:12). With the implementation of

inclusive education, foundation phase teachers are therefore confronted with a new way

of thinking about learning and teaching, and this also requires a change of attitude from a

formerly negative one perhaps based on fear and lack of awareness about the particular

needs of learners.

2

During the foundation phase, the learner develops in totality, that is, as a physical being

who develops control over gross and fine motor coordination, as a psycho-social being

who is able to control one’s emotions and as a cognitive being who is able to comprehend

the world around him or her (Davis, 1994:10). Furthermore, Davis (1994:12) notes that

there are many factors which may possibly positively or adversely influence development

and that one of these may be the teaching strategies of the foundation phase teacher. It is

for this reason that 1UNICEF (1991:61) regards universal access to primary education,

especially foundation phase, as important: it is the primary means whereby society meets

the needs of children in their formative years and provide a basis for life-long

performance and learning opportunities. These formative years are also the years of self-

discovery in which different activities both within and outside the classroom imbue the

child with a sense of who he or she is (Gordon & Browne, 1996:241). Therefore

foundation phase teachers should be empowered with effective teaching strategies in

order to lay a good foundation for these learners.

In the past, teachers were trained to manage a largely content-based education system, but

they now have to change their way of thinking as well as their instruction methods to suit

the new system of outcomes based education (OBE), which is learner-paced and

accommodative of different learning styles. A good teacher is now expected to adapt his

or her method of instruction, now more commonly referred to as facilitation of

knowledge acquisition, and to understand the diversities and needs of learners (Campher,

1997:23). Change from a content-based approach to an outcome-based approach requires

teachers to work collaboratively as a team, in order to meet the diverse needs of learners,

but such thinking is new to many teachers, and therefore they need support systems to

help them cope with the inclusive education approach (Calitz, 2000:2).

Support can be directed at all activities which increase the capacity of a school to respond

to diversity, and providing support to learners is a way of attempting to make education

accessible to all (Sethosa, 2001:8). The need for support teams is apparent in South

Africa as teachers need support in dealing with the inclusive education approach, which

1 UNICEF is the United Nations Children’s Fund.

3

implies addressing barriers to learning by accommodating the diverse range of learning

needs (Campher, 1997:4). Teacher support teams of different forms and types have

proven worldwide that they can provide excellent support to teachers with challenges

experienced within the inclusive approach. According to Henkin and Wanat (1994:135), a

support team in a school may be an effective vehicle for assisting teachers with change.

The following are examples of different kinds of support teams, assisting teachers in

coping with a variety of difficulties:

• Support teams in New Zealand schools were strategically implemented in 1987 for

the mainstreaming policy. This model combines the roles of the method and resource

teacher, consulting teacher and teacher assistance teams (Calitz, 2000:3).

• Instructional support teams in Pennsylvania aim to function as intervention groups

to link school resources to improve the ability of the schools to support learners with

special educational needs (Kovaleski, Tucker & Stevens, 1996:44).

• School-based Teams used by School District No.34, Abbortsford include: school

progress of students, identification of students’ needs, co-ordination of referrals for

additional testing of students, placement of students with special needs in support

programs, and co-ordination of integration of students with special needs into

mainstream classrooms (School-Based Teams, http;//www.universe.com, 21 May

2005).

White Paper 6 (DoE, 2001:19) states that the key function of support teams is to:

support all learners, educators and the system as a whole so that the full range of

learning needs can be met. The focus will be on teaching and learning factors and

emphasis placed on the development of good strategies that will be of benefit to

all learners, on overcoming barriers in the system that prevent it from meeting the

full range of learning needs, and on adaptation of support systems available in the

classroom.

Therefore, the core purpose of the support teams is in accordance with the policy of

inclusion, which is to foster the development of effective teaching and learning in

4

schools, primarily through identifying and addressing barriers to learning at all levels of

the system. This implies that foundation phase teachers should work collaboratively with

the support team in order to develop activities which are contextually based and

accommodate different learning styles and multiple intelligences to suit the needs of all

learners in the classroom. This also implies adaptation of the curricular and learning

methodologies. Therefore, support teams should be put in place in order to identify

support needed and design support programmes to address this challenges experienced by

teachers. A school-based support team (SBST) is one such supportive structure, as

proposed in White paper 6 (DoE, 2001: 10).

1.2 MOTIVATION FOR THE STUDY

The massive changes regarding curriculum changes that foundation phase teachers have

experienced along with the accommodation of diverse needs of learners, mean that

teachers are supposed to adapt in many different ways. If foundation phase teachers do no

feel that they are achieving their aims, and if they become demotivated and frustrated, the

children in their classes are unlikely to experience the same quality of teaching as when

their teachers feel that they are able to engage with the demands of teaching and

tolerate the pressures that the task exerts (Creese, Norwich & Daniels,1997:7). Thus if

foundation phase teachers can collaborate in these circumstances, they are likely to

realize that they are not alone and that others have similar difficulties. In this way support

teams will enable teachers to learn specific methods and have access to different

teaching approaches.

Primary school teachers, especially foundation phase teachers, have always been aware of

the fact that some learners experience noticeable problems with reading, writing, spelling

and remembering information that has just been taught (Joshua, 1995:16). With schools

having a responsibility to meet the needs of all learners, teachers should be able to

differentiate instructional strategies to suit the differing needs and abilities in the

classroom (Jenkinson, 1997: 62).

5

According to White Paper 6 (DoE, 2001:16), all children can learn, should be supported

in their learning and assured of equal and equitable education. It further states that

educational structures should be adapted to accommodate all learners in inclusive

schools. It is therefore clear that all children experiencing barriers to learning should be

provided with appropriate support to ensure that they develop their potential optimally.

In White paper 6 the Ministry emphasizes that the “key to reducing barriers to learning

within education and training lies in a strengthened education support service” (DoE,

2000: 30). It is argued that such strengthening involves:

establishing a co-ordinated education support service along a continuum from

national through to provincial departments of education through to schools,

colleges, adult and early childhood development centres, and higher education

which is sensitive to and accommodates diversity, with appropriate capacities,

policies and support services (DoE, 2002:195).

The above mentioned statement emphasises the notion that “the provision of support

services is of paramount importance for the success of inclusive education policies” as

stated in the (Salamanca Statement, 1994: 31).

An overemphasis on the notion of ‘special needs’ discouraged ordinary schools from

organizing support in such a way that it was not responsive to the needs of all learners

from various cultural, socio-economic and language backgrounds. Ordinary class

teachers, in particular foundation phase teachers, did not deem it part of their day-to-day

classroom practise to develop an understanding of the diverse ways in which learners

learn and need to be supported. Furthermore, the practicalities of accommodating learners

experiencing barriers to learning and development in the ordinary classroom has been left

to fall on the shoulders of the teachers. This means that it has become the responsibility

of foundation phase teachers to adapt classrooms in order to accommodate diverse needs

of learners. It is for this reason that foundation phase teachers need practical suggestions

on handling the difficult situations they are faced with on daily basis. If intervention and

6

indeed support is not made available, the teacher is left with no choice but to resort to

trial and error methods and strategies, which in turn leads to frustration on the part of the

teacher (Sethosa, 2001: 18).

Many classroom teachers, in particular foundation phase teachers feel, they do not have

sufficient training and support to meet any challenges presented by learners experiencing

barriers to learning in their classrooms. They tend to lack confidence in their ability to

provide programmes of study which are appropriately differentiated. They find

themselves working in schools situations where they regularly teach large classes with

insufficient internal special needs, support and where external resources are rarely

available (Creese, et al.1997:5).

1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

According to Creese, et al. (1997:7), writing at the end of the last decade, the previous ten

years had seen major change in the organization of schooling:

Whatever the source of these changes, their implementation has fallen to a greater

extent on the teachers themselves. This has often meant that teachers are dealing

with higher levels of dilemma and tension both in and out of the classroom, as

they endeavour to deliver the curriculum in ways which are relevant and

meaningful to the diverse needs of their learners.

In view of the above, the researcher argues that the practicalities of adapting classrooms

to be accommodative for diverse needs of learners, has fallen mostly on the shoulders of

foundation phase teachers, who do not possess the specialized knowledge and skills. This

means that teachers need strong support structures, such as school-based support teams to

provide collegial assistance by sharing expertise and work on problem-solving issues

relating to teacher’s work in classroom.

7

In light of this background, the problem to be investigated in this study is:

• How do foundation phase teachers, involved in implementing inclusive education,

experience the support provided by the school-based support team at their school?

1.4 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study is to investigate and describe the foundation phase teacher’s

experiences of the support provided by the school-based support team in Tshwane North

district in implementing inclusive education and to propose guidelines for the training of

school-based support teams in this district.

1.5 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A qualitative study will be undertaken to research the issue. A phenomenological

approach will be applicable to the study as it aims at gaining a deeper understanding of

the experience of foundation phase teachers towards the support provided by the school-

based support team. Patton (2002:105) defines phenomenology as “the study of how

people describe things and experience them through their senses”. Thus,

phenomenologists focus on how researchers put together the phenomena experienced. A

single case study design will be used in this research (Henning, Van Rensburg & Smit,

2004:32) as the experiences of foundation phase teachers in one school will be

investigated.

Data will be collected by way of a focus group interview consisting of eight foundation

phase teachers at one school for approximately one hour. The focus group interview will

be audio-taped and transcribed. Documents such as minutes of meetings with the school-

based support team, referral forms for learners who need additional support, intervention

programmes for learners experiencing barriers and their support forms completed by

foundation phase teachers will be analysed. Teachers will be observed and field notes

taken during one visit to the site in the researcher’s capacity as a district official. One

8

school will be selected randomly from the primary schools in the district and participants

will be purposefully selected to include foundation phase teachers, implementing

inclusive education at that particular school.

Data analysis will consist of content analysis of the transcribed interviews, observations,

document analysis of meetings with the school-based support teams, referrals, support

forms, intervention (support) programmes and field notes. Data will be analysed by using

the constant comparative method (Merriam,1998:159). Trustworthiness will be assured

by member checks of transcribed interviews. Permission to do research will be requested

from Gauteng Department of Education, the particular district (D3), the school as well as

participating teachers. The purpose of the research will be explained in all instances.

Informed consent will apply to the teachers. Participants will be assured of privacy,

confidentiality and anonymity. Participation will be voluntary and participants can

withdraw at any time without fear of harm. A report of the outcome of the research will

be supplied to the district and the school for their approval and use.

1.6 CONCEPT CLARIFICATION

For the purpose of clarity, a number of concepts that inform the research will be

explained.

• Support

Support could be defined as all activities which increase the capacity of a school to

respond to diversity. Providing support to individuals is only one way of attempting to

make lessons accessible to all learners. Support also means a problem-solving and

planning process through collaboration and consultation. Thus, support means a group of

colleagues who are available to assist the classroom educator with problems which may

be difficult to solve alone (Calitz, 2000:16).

9

• School-Based Support Team (SBST)

A school-based support team is a structure within the school that co-ordinates learners’

and educators’ support systems. The main responsibility of a school-based support team

is to work hand-in-glove with other teachers to identify learners who experience barriers

to learning and development with the view of designing intervention programmes. It is an

‘internal’ support team which is responsible for ensuring that staff members within an

institution work together to collaborate and co-ordinate support to learners and classroom

teachers. Comprehensive support is provided to learners who experience barriers to

learning and development in the classroom (Sethosa, 2001:20).

• Collaboration

According to Engelbrecht and Green (2001:34), collaboration can be described as a

creative partnership between all the role players who work together to identify mutually

defined barriers and needs, and ways to meet those needs and barriers. Collaboration

enable teachers to share their expertise, diverse and specialized knowledge and skills for

the benefit of all learners. Collaboration of necessity implies teamwork. The collaborative

team has the power to bring change to the curriculum, learning and educational

environment. The power of this team lies in their capacity to merge unique skills and

talents in problem-solving (Sethosa, 2001: 60).

• Barriers to learning and development

The terms learners with barriers to learning and development (LBLD) and learners with

special educational needs (LSEN) are used interchangeably in literature to indicate all

the barriers which may affect learners’development and learning as well as any special

needs they may have. The terminology evolved through the years and through the

processes that unfolded regarding the whole question of special needs in South Africa.

The White paper 6 has adopted the terminology ‘barriers to learning and development’.

In this study, the researcher will use the term barriers to learning and development to

refer to both instances.

10

Barriers to learning and development are defined by the Department of Education

(1997:5) as “those factors which lead to the inability of the system to accommodate

diversity, which lead to the learning breakdown or which prevent learners from

accessing educational provision”. Furthermore, Department of Education (1999:3)

acknowledges that learners with barriers to learning and development are learners who

experience learning difficulties which make it impossible for them to learn effectively

and that such difficulties ‘arise from a range of factors including physical, mental,

sensory, neurological and developmental impairments, psychosocial disturbances,

cognitive differences, particular life experiences or socio-economic deprivation’.

• Inclusive education

The term ‘inclusive education’ refers to the education policy based on the principle of

inclusion, which acknowledges that all children can learn and need support. It is also

about changing attitudes, behaviour, teaching methods, curricular and environment to

meet the needs of all learners. It involves enabling education structures, systems and

learning methodologies to meet the needs of all learners (DoE, 2001: 16).

1.7 EXPOSITION OF THE STUDY

To orientate the reader, the study is demarcated as follows:

• Section one: Purpose and orientation of the study

• Section two: Literature review, examining what has been written on school-based

support team, with the purpose of developing a theoretical framework for the study.

• Section three: Research methodology.

• Section four: Data analysis and interpretation of the findings.

• Section five: Recommendations and conclusions of the study will be presented in the

final chapter.

11

SECTION 2

INCLUSIVE EDUCATION AND TEACHER SUPPORT

2.1 INTRODUCTION

In this section, relevant literature is reviewed with the view of providing the context for

the research and justification for this study. This chapter is structured as follows:

• A brief discussion of inclusive education and teacher support.

• A discussion of understanding barriers to learning and development.

• Collaboration as an approach in addressing diversity in classrooms.

• Roles and responsibilities of school-based support teams.

• Training of school-based support teams.

2.2 INCLUSIVE EDUCATION AND TEACHER SUPPORT

Inclusive education is about acknowledging that all children can learn and need support,

and about changing attitudes, curricula and environment to meet their needs. Inclusive

education relates to Outcome-Based-Education (OBE) which is premised on the notion

that all children can achieve certain outcomes, although not necessarily at the same pace

or in the same manner, and that it is the responsibility of schools to create the conditions

for successful and conducive learning (Engelbrecht & Green, 2001:12). Subsequently,

diversity is at the heart of the new curriculum and it has become the responsibility of the

teachers, and in particular foundation phase teachers to accommodate the diverse needs of

learners.

According to the Department of Education (1997:40) ‘inclusive education’ can only

succeed if adequate support is provided for the learner and system as a whole. The term

‘special needs’ refers to difficulties and challenges that learners experience, which must

12

be addressed for effective learning to take place (DoE, 1997:2). Irrespective of the issue

of ‘special needs’, a continuum of support services is needed

to ensure that quality education is provided. To realize an inclusive approach teachers and

learners will need special help as the school environment is to be changed to make it

responsive to the needs of its learners, for example:

• The recognition of individual differences,

• Implementing a flexible curriculum,

• Flexible teaching and assessment methods, to adapt to the needs of the learners,

• Organizing resources to support diversity (DoE, 2002: 20).

All of the mentioned aspects are covered in White Paper 6, as the main emphasis of

inclusive education is to make it possible for all learners to access the curriculum. One of

the very important understandings that emerge from the policy on inclusive education is

that the focus is not only on the learners’ weaknesses but also emphasizes building

strengths. The policy further suggests that environmental, social and economic factors

that prevent learners from learning should be considered when adapting or modifying the

curriculum to suit the diverse needs of the learners (DoE, 2002:21).

Engelbrecht & Green (2001: 6) emphasize that inclusive education is not about how to

assimilate individual learners with identified barriers to learning into existing forms of

schooling, but about restructuring schools and education systems so that they can

accommodate the learning needs of every individual. This means schools, in particular

teachers should develop strategies to create a positive learning environment that support

the diverse needs of learners within the regular classroom and provide them with

opportunities to succeed.

In an inclusive education system, the curriculum can respond only to the needs of all the

learners through flexible approaches and accessible content (DoE, 1997:10). The Revised

National Curriculum Statement (RNCS) have flexible features that can make major

differences to how schools deal with diverse needs. For instance, activities can be

flexible, contexts can be made relevant to the learners’ needs, and learning outcomes do

13

not prescribe content or method, therefore content and methodology could be customized

for learners’ needs (DoE, 2002:25). Thus all aspects of the curriculum need to be

developed to ensure that the diverse needs of learners are addressed, as the RNCS

advocates the inclusion of all learners in education based on their right to receive

education (Lomofsky, Roberts & Mvambi, 1999: 25).

Therefore, there is a need for teachers, to collaborate in order to share expertise,

knowledge and skills, because an inclusive setting is a multi-faceted task that cannot be

accomplished by an individual but a team. Collaboration of necessity implies teamwork

between the support team and teachers: “The collaborative team has the power to bring

change to the curriculum, learning and educational environment. The power of this team

lies in the capacity to merge unique skills and talents in problem- solving” (Sethosa,

2001: 23).

A school-based support team may serve as one way of maximizing the participation of all

learners and improving the educational opportunities of learners experiencing barriers to

learning. This team supports teachers through school-based problem solving groups,

which function to help learners indirectly through teacher collaboration. Support teams

provide a facility for teachers to exchange ideas, air feelings and work on problem-

solving issues relating to teachers’ work in the classroom (Creese, et al. 1997: 6).

The Education White Paper 6 highlights the role of school-based support teams in

identifying learners with barriers to learning. In schools, early identification of barriers to

learning should focus on learners in the foundation phase (DoE, 2002:80). Therefore,

school-based support teams need to support foundation phase teachers in this process of

understanding and identification of learning barriers by providing an opportunity for

regular collaborative problem-solving around areas of concern and facilitating the

provision of support.

14

2.3 UNDERSTANDING BARRIERS TO LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT

The responsibility of the education system to develop and sustain learning is premised on

the recognition that education is a fundamental right which extends equally to all

learners. Thus if the system fails to meet the different needs of a wide range of learners,

the learner or the system may be prevented from being able to engage in or sustain an

ideal process of learning. Those factors which lead to the inability of the system to

accommodate diversity, which lead to learning breakdown or which prevent learners

from accessing educational provision, have been conceptualized as barriers to learning

and development (DoE, 2002: 130).

The DoE (1999:3) acknowledges that learners with barriers to learning and development

are learners who experience learning difficulties which makes it impossible for them to

learn effectively, and that such difficulties arise from a range of factors including

physical, psychosocial disturbances, cognitive differences and particular life experiences

or socio-economic deprivation. While there are number of factors that could cause

barriers to learning in learners, poverty is possibly the most important causative factor in

the South African context (Sethosa, 2001: 47). Therefore, foundation phase teachers need

to be sympathetic towards these learners by creating a welcoming and supporting

environment (Refer Chapter 1.1). It is for this reason that Patton (2000: 60) also states

that in situations where children do not have adequate nutrition, access to health care and

exposure to stimulating educational opportunities, it may be very difficult for them to

learn well at school. Thus foundation phase teachers should be informed of intervention

strategies that involves stimulation, enrichment and play to compensate for the previous

deprivation regarding reading, spatial development and sensory experiences.

These barriers manifest themselves in different ways and only become obvious when

learning breakdown occurs and when learners ‘drop out’ of the system. However,

barriers may also arise during the learning process and are seen as transitory in nature.

These may require different interventions or strategies from teachers to prevent barriers

from causing learning breakdown. The key to preventing barriers from occurring is the

15

effective monitoring and meeting of the different needs among the learner population and

within the system as a whole (DoE, 2002:131). The following are some of the barriers

that could cause learning breakdown:

• Poverty and underdevelopment

For learners, the most obvious result of poverty, is often caused by unemployment and

other economic inequalities, and equally is the inability of families to meet the basic

needs such as nutrition and shelter. Poverty-stricken communities are also poorly

resourced communities which are frequently characterized by limited educational

facilities, large classes with high pupil/teacher ratio, inadequately trained staff and

inadequate teaching and learning materials. Such factors raise the likelihood of learning

breakdown and the inability of the system to sustain effective teaching and learning

(DoE, 2002: 133).

• Attitudes

Discriminatory attitudes resulting from prejudice against people on the basis of race,

ethnicity, gender, disability and religion manifest themselves as barriers to learning when

these attitudes are directed to learners in the classroom. For the most part, negative

attitudes towards different learners manifest themselves in the labeling of learners.

Sometimes these labels are just negative associations between the learner and the system

such as ‘drop out’, ‘repeaters’ or ‘slow learners’. It is important to recognize the impact

which this kind of labeling has on the learner’s self esteem. Sometimes negative attitudes

and labeling result from fear and lack of awareness about the particular needs of learners

or the potential barriers which they may face (DoE, 2002: 136). Teachers need to be

aware of their attitudes and the resulting effect on teacher behaviour in classrooms.

• Inflexible curriculum

One of the most serious barriers to learning and development can be found within the

curriculum itself and relates primarily to the inflexible nature of the curriculum which

prevents it from meeting diverse needs among learners. When learners are unable to

access the curriculum, learning breakdown occurs. Inclusion is centrally a curriculum

16

issue since curricula create the most significant barrier to learning such as the style and

tempo of teaching and learning, what is taught, the way the classroom is managed and

organized, as well as materials and equipment which are used in the learning and teaching

process. Sometimes teachers, often through inadequate training, use teaching styles which

may not accommodate the diverse needs of learners (DoE, 2002: 137).

The ability of the curriculum to lead to learning breakdown also occurs through the

mechanisms which are used to assess the learning outcomes. Assessment processes are

often inflexible and designed only to assess particular kinds of knowledge and aspects of

learning, such as the amount of information that can be memorized rather than the

learner’s understanding of the concepts (DoE, 2002: 138).

• Language and communication

A further area of barriers arising from the curriculum, is the issue of language of learning

and teaching (LOLT). Teaching and learning for many learners takes place through a

language which is not their home language or mother tongue. This not only places

learners at a disadvantage, but it also leads to linguistic difficulties which contribute to

learning breakdown. Furthermore, educators often experience difficulties in developing

appropriate support programmes for second language learners. Communication is

essential for all learners in both formal and informal contexts. This also applies to

learners who need an alternative form of communication due to the severity of physical

and intellectual impairments they experience. In such cases enormous barriers to learning

and development need to be overcome, which in turn place expectations on teachers

ability to cope with these challenges (DoE, 2002:139).

• Lack of parental recognition and involvement

The active involvement of parents in the teaching and learning is central for effective

learning and development. Especially with the learners who are experiencing learning

barriers, parents should be part of the intervention process (DoE, 2002: 140).

17

It is clear from the mentioned barriers to learning and development that if the education

system is to promote effective learning and prevent learning breakdown, support should

be organized in such a way that a range of barriers are uncovered and addressed in an

inclusive approach. The following are suggestions that may support learners concerning

some of these barriers (Lomofsky & Lazarus, 2001: 307):

• Flexible and one curriculum for all, with learning outcomes and activities which can

be adapted to meet the diverse needs of learners.

• Teachers need to be sympathetic towards learners by creating a welcoming and

supporting environment.

• Labeling of learners should be discouraged since it makes it difficult for learners to

grow beyond the limitations of the label and it is important for teachers to adopt

positive attitude towards learners who experience barriers to learning.

• Recognition of home language as language of learning and teaching.

• Collaboration of departmental governments, such as transport, health and welfare, in

order to provide the basic needs of learners experiencing learning difficulties.

• Parents should be fully involved and informed regarding the process of identification

and intervention for learners who need support.

All of the above aspects are relevant to inclusive education as it aims at identifying and

minimizing barriers to learning and maximizing participation for all learners. That means

teachers collaboratively should attend to increasing participation for all learners

experiencing learning difficulties.

2.4 COLLABORATION AS AN APPROACH TO ADDRESS

DIVERSITY IN CLASSROOMS

Collaboration refers to the challenge of working together as a team. This is important for

the school-based support teams which aim to provide holistic and comprehensive support

to teachers. A holistic approach, which acknowledges that all problems and development

challenges are complex, requires bringing in different perspectives of the problem and

18

solution. A variety of perspectives and skills are necessary to address the massive

challenge of addressing the diverse needs of learners in the classroom. This is what drives

collaboration (DoE, 2002: 121).

Collaboration includes all aspects of the school-based support team process where

teachers share and in the end agree on certain ideas. These include problem-solving,

decision-making, planning and intervention strategies (Calitz, 2000: 85). The value of

this collaboration lies in the enabling of a deeper understanding of teaching practices and

the provision of development of a collegial relationship that includes trust and mutual

respect (Hosen & Postelthwaite, 1994:17). It can thus be seen that collaboration, in the

context of school-based support teams, is an umbrella concept covering all other concepts

and incorporating discussions and agreements on certain issues.

Working more collaboratively is a new experience for many teachers, as they are used to

work in an isolated manner (Engelbrecht & Green, 2001:35). Thus teachers should be

encouraged to function collaboratively in order to meet the challenges presented by

learners in their classrooms. Teachers working in collaborative teams can accomplish

much more than individuals on their own. The team can, through collaborative

consultation that is problem-solving orientated, bring about changes to the curriculum,

create a positive and caring educational environment (Campher, 1997: 48).

The development of collaboration between teachers and school-based support teams can

be a useful approach in addressing diversity in classrooms, because collaboration enables

educators to share their expertise, diverse specialized knowledge and skills for the benefit

of all learners. The following aspects are necessary for collaboration to thrive (Sethosa,

2001: 92):

• A belief system that all members of the team have unique and needed expertise.

• Participation must be voluntary.

• Commitment to a shared vision.

• Recognition that all members’ opinions are valuable, and making use of unique

talents and abilities of all teachers.

19

• Encourage individual freedom of expression and accept differences, needs, concerns

and expectations.

• Teachers must be made to understand that many of the processes, practices and

strategies that are already in existence, have the potential to address diversity within

the classrooms.

• Teachers in mainstream schools must become familiar with the concepts of

collaboration, consultation and co-operation to allow them to participate and work

together as team members.

• Teachers have to understand their new role of identifying learners experiencing

learning barriers and developing intervention strategies, therefore they should start to

share information amongst each other in a concerted way for the benefit of these

learners and in the interest of quality education.

• Time should be set aside in order to allow for the implementation of collaboration.

The context of change and inclusive education implies a redefinition of the roles of

teachers, this means teachers are not only imparting knowledge to learners but may also

serve as learning support teachers in order to accommodate the diverse needs of learners

in their classroom. Changing roles require reflection, rethinking of one’s value towards

diversity, movement from isolation to collaboration and instructional strategies

accommodating diversity. School-based support teams should therefore enforce this

concept of efficient delivery by collaboratively working in hand with teachers to develop

intervention strategies for learners who need additional support in the classrooms

(Campher, 1997:8).

2.5 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SCHOOL-BASED SUPPORT TEAMS

White paper 6 (DoE, 2001:15) emphasises that the key to reducing learning difficulties

lies in a ‘strengthened support service’ and this is the reason why establishment of strong

district-based support teams 2(DBST) and strong school-based support teams 3(SBST)

2 In the present study the abbreviation DBST will further on be used instead of district-based support team. 3 In the present study the abbreviation SBST will further on be used instead of school-based support team.

20

should be in place. The district-based support teams refers to an integrated professional

support service provided at district level by support providers employed by the

Department of Education who draw on the expertise from education institutions and

various community resources in their area. The core support providers at district level

include psychologists, learning support teachers, curriculum specialists who provide

general curriculum support to schools, institutional development specialists who provide

management support to schools and specialist support personnel and teachers from

existing special schools. The specific roles of the members of the district-based support

teams will be determined by the needs and tasks at hand, as well as the particular

competencies available (DoE, 2002: 40).

The ultimate goal for teachers and for those who support them is the development of

learners experiencing barriers to learning. The development of learners is dependent on

effective teaching, which in turn is dependent on the development of effective curricula

and supportive teaching and learning environments. Teachers need to be constantly

learning and growing, and need on-going support to achieve this. Thus a district-based

support team is the primary channel through which this support should be provided (DoE,

2002: 89).

White Paper 6 states that the key purpose and functions of the district based support

teams are:

• “To support all learners, educators and the system as a whole so that the full range

of learning needs can be met. The focus will be on teaching and learning factors

and emphasis will be placed on the development of good teaching strategies that

will be of benefit to all learners: on overcoming barriers in the system that prevent

it from meeting the full range of learning needs and on adaptation of support

systems available in the classroom” (DoE, 2001: 19).

• “To provide on-going support to the school-based support teams by identifying

support needed to address the barriers to learning in their local contexts by

evaluating programmes and suggesting adaptation of the teaching contents to

accommodate the diverse needs of learners in the classrooms” (DoE, 2001: 29).

21

The school-based support team should be the structure around which support for schools

is developed at school level. The primary function of school-based support teams would

be to support the learning process by identifying and addressing barriers to learning and

promote effective teaching and learning (DoE,2002: 46). The school-based support teams

provide a forum for teachers to share teaching knowledge and skills and to express and

receive collegial and emotional support (Creese, et al.1997: 6).

The school-based support team is made up of teachers whose focus and functions are to

develop and empower colleagues in identification of learning difficulties, intervention

strategies and preventative strategies if at all possible (Sethosa, 2001:10). The

composition of the team is dependent on the size and needs of the school and number of

teachers available. The following are the roles and responsibilities of the core members of

school-based support teams stipulated in the guidelines for the establishment of school-

based support teams (DoE, 2002: 10-12):

• Co-ordinator of the school-based support team

As the facilitator of the team, one should be able to create meeting situations that allow

full participation by all members and make sure that goals set by the team are achieved

and time frames are adhered to. Ensure that all team members understand their roles. The

coordinator should collaborate with other sectors, such as non-governmental

organizations and welfare departments and initiate teacher development, where teachers

hold information sessions regarding intervention strategies (DoE, 2002:10).

• Referring teacher

The main function of the referring educator is to refer learners to the school-based

support team for additional intervention strategies. Regular feedback should be given by

the referring teacher to the school-based support team on the progress made by learners.

If the learner does not show any progress the matter is referred to the district-based

support team for intervention or placement to special schools (DoE, 2002: 11).

22

• Scribe

Members can either rotate to become scribes or one member can be elected to become the

scribe. The scribe will take minutes of all the meetings held in order to track the progress

and the minutes should be kept safely for future reference (DoE, 2002:11).

• Other representatives

The foundation phase (grade 1-3) and inter-mediate phase (grade 4-6) should have their

own representatives, as members of the school-based team. The main function of these

representatives is dealing with issues regarding each particular phase, such as monitoring

the completion of support forms for learners who need additional support (DoE,

2002:12).

Once the learner has been identified as a learner who experiences barriers to learning

and development, the following procedures for learner support and steps should be

followed by all teachers in attempting to intervene:

• Time should be set aside for individual remedial teaching by class teachers.

• Teachers should try out different teaching methods and strategies, by adapting the

curriculum to suit the diverse needs of learners.

• The class teacher should complete the GDE 450 support form, where the learning

barrier, intervention strategies and outcomes is recorded. The first step in

intervention is for the class teacher to try to assist the learner with simple things, such

as reduction of the content a particular learner is to deal with. All initiatives taken by

the class teacher should be recorded in the support forms.

• The second step involves the grade or phase level, where the grade or phase teachers

convene a meeting or recommend additional and alternative intervention strategies

together with the class teacher. The teacher will then implement the suggested

strategies and in case where the intervention has worked, it might not be necessary to

refer the learner further.

23

• The third step involves the school-based support team (SBST). This structure,

including all relevant stakeholders such as social workers, nurses, psychologists,

therapists and parents discuss the intervention and make further recommendations to

be implemented by the teacher concerned.

• The fourth step involves the district-based support team (DBST). This step is

considered if all other steps of intervention have proved to be unsuccessful. The

learner should be referred to the DBST by means of a referral form. The DBST and

SBST will work out an action plan to take the process forward. Where necessary, the

DBST will take the process forward independently (Sethosa, 2001: 24-26).

The key function of the school-based support teams is to identify and address barriers to

learning for the purposes of supporting the development of effective teaching and

learning. This process of ‘identifying and addressing’ barriers to learning includes a

process of understanding the needs and problems so that appropriate strategies to address

these can be developed (DoE, 2002: 105). Therefore the school-based support teams

should be knowledgeable of the essential content relating to identification and addressing

of learning barriers.

The following are teaching intervention strategies which school-based support teams can

share with teachers, in particular foundation phase teachers regarding support for learners

experiencing barriers in the classrooms (Sethosa, 2001: 41-47).

• Individuality

The principle of individuality means that every learner is seen and appreciated as an

individual. It also means that each learner’s leaning style and learning tempo should be

considered when teachers prepare learning activities.

• Reduction of learning content

The rate of learning for learners who experience learning difficulties is usually slower

compared to others. Therefore, teachers should try by all means to reduce the volume of

24

learning content to enable them to grasp what they have to learn. The reduction of content

ensures that learners are confronted with what they are able to manage.

• Task analysis

Task analysis is a process where the task is divided into smaller component steps. This

enables the learner to learn a certain aspect of the learning matter systematically, and the

next aspect (which is related to the previous one) until the content has been mastered. The

effectiveness of this strategy resides in the fact that the separate steps in the learning

process are logically linked together until all the learning matter is understood.

• Emphasis

One of the distinguishing characteristics of learners experiencing barriers to learning is

the fact that they are unable to differentiate between the relevant and irrelevant matter.

Because of this, it is difficult for them to pay attention when they have to. For this reason,

teachers should emphasise those aspects that need to be learned and their attention will

then be drawn to the relevant aspects of learning matter.

• Verbalization

These learners experience problems with using language, therefore teachers should

verbalise their actions and that of the learners, by using words that the learners

understand. This helps to fix the attention of learners on relevant information.

• Concreteness

The need to concretize matter is necessitated by the fact that learners experiencing

learning barriers, in most cases, struggle to reach any concrete operational level of

cognitive development, or any abstract or formal operational level for that matter

(Lomofsky & Lazarus, 2001:300). When real life examples are brought into the class or

they are taken to real life outside the classroom, the learning content is touched, seen and

heard. These helps because these learners’ thought processes depend on contact with

concrete objects.

25

A clear understanding of roles and responsibilities promotes the effective sharing of

expertise within the team. “The team becomes more than the sum of its parts to the extent

that it can share the skills and develop and incorporate the expertise represented by

colleagues both within and outside school (Bradley & Roaf, 1995: 96). It is thus apparent

that each member of the school-based support team should be clear about their roles and

responsibilities for the successful functioning of the team. Each team member of the

school-based support team needs skills in order to be efficient and effective in providing

support to other teachers.

2.6 TRAINING OF SCHOOL-BASED SUPPORT TEAMS

2.6.1 The value of training

There are certain team attributes which influence team performance, and one of them is

team members who are well trained in team operation procedures and informed of

content related to their function. Training should not only include operational issues, but

also skills training. Calitz (2000: 25) found that team members perceived their school-

based support team as effective, when amongst other factors, team members possess

professional and interpersonal skills.

The school-based support teams consist of teachers who show willingness to pursue their

skills development, therefore need training in a range of issues. These include

collaborative process, problem-solving skills and some essential knowledge regarding

identification and intervention of learning barriers. Their training would not aim at

making them ‘specialists’ but rather a ‘resource’ for other teachers (DoE, 2002: 66).

According to Guzzo and Salas (1995: 30) ongoing training of teams provides them with

fresh perspectives and contributes to the longevity of the teams. In addition, Smith (1999:

7) also emphasise that teams need to be trained, because without proper training they tend

to be inefficient and ineffective. Members of SBST’s need specific training in certain

skills. Each team member needs the core skills of communication and the ability to create

the relationships required for the tasks of teaching, counseling, advocacy and

26

assertiveness. They must be adaptable and confident in working with a variety of

methods. Each team member has specialist skills in relation to the particular area of

expertise. Expertise needs to be shared in the group to ensure proper functioning of the

team (Campher, 1997: 30).

The following are the most common skills needed by members of a school-based support

team to ensure its optimal functioning:

• Intrapersonal skills

These skills involve being supportive towards colleagues, being an affective listener,

patience, understanding and commitment (Stringer, Hibbert, Powell & Louw, 1992:93).

In general the school-based support team members should be motivated, positive and

possess these skills for them to function effectively.

• Interpersonal skills

Examples of these skills are communication skills, rapport building, listening skills and

effective questioning techniques (Stringer, et al. 1992: 95). In this case, interpersonal

skills concern issues and qualities related to the relationship between members of the

school-based support team themselves and the rest of teachers and learners in a school.

• Problem-solving skills

Problem-solving as defined by Elliot and Sheridan (1992: 327) is intended to maximize

the probability that people will generate the best available solution when faced with a

problem. Each member of the school-based support team should understand and engage

with the full range of expertise available to understand and solve problems at hand. This

is applicable to school-based support teams as they need to support teachers by providing

an opportunity for regular collaborative problem-solving areas of concern and facilitate

the provision of support where needed (DoE, 2004: 44).

27

• Planning skills

De Bono (1996: 120) defines a plan as ‘mainstream in which certain things are going to

be done at certain times’. The following five elements are crucial for the school-based

support team to accomplish their task: desired results, guidelines, resources,

accountability and consequences (Covey & Merril, 1994: 222). A plan should present

broad, flexible guidelines to follow action towards a specific goal.

• Group/team skills

According to Elliot & Sheridan (1992: 325) teamwork is when different professionals

who possess unique skills and orientations, have a common purpose, work together to co-

operatively solve a common problem. The key elements of group skills are a common

purpose, co-operative problem-solving and co-ordination of activities. School-based

support teams need to develop team skills in order to work collaboratively.

For the SBST to act as a resource for support to other teachers, the members should be

trained and informed about their functions. This is the main reason why the district-based

support team of Tshwane North conducted training (information sharing session) for all

primary schools.

2.6.2 Training of SBST’s in Tshwane North

The district-based support team of the Tshwane North district comprising of education

support services (ESS) and curriculum delivery support (CDS) units trained all the

school-based support teams in Soshanguve primary schools. Most township schools in

the Soshanguve area lack resources especially regarding provision of additional support

to learners experiencing barriers to learning and development. As stated earlier, the

establishment of school-based support teams is one way of informing schools about

inclusive education and its practices and an attempt at developing capacity within each

school to provide support for learners experiencing barriers to learning and development.

28

The district-based support team was tasked to train all the SBST’s in the individual

primary schools. According to White paper 6 the primary focus for the district-based

support teams is the development and ongoing support of school-based support teams

(DoE, 2001: 29). Hence, the ‘training’ which took on the form of information-sharing

sessions, was conducted during normal school hours, which meant that the members of

the SBST were taken out of their classes. Permission was granted by the Senior manager

of Tshwane North district to take teachers out of class during contact time. The training

lasted approximately three hours. This initial information sharing session was not

followed-up with scaffolding workshops or training, but school visits using the

monitoring tool (Refer to Appendix J).

The information sessions consisted of presentations by members of DBST with question

and answers sessions after every presentation. The DBST also compiled a manual for the

use of SBST’s at the school and a copy of this manual was presented to the school at the

end of the session (Refer to Appendix K).

The training (information sharing session) entailed the following aspects:

• Background to the policy of inclusion. The development of Inclusion including the

with Salamanca conference in Spain (1994), the commission appointed in 1996,

recommendations done in 1999, the Green paper in 1999 and the Draft of the

White paper on Inclusion in 2000.

• Assisting teachers to support learners with barriers to learning and development in

the primary school. This assistance included the characteristics of learning

difficulties in literacy and numeracy in conjunction with the intervention strategies.

This was the crux of the training, as the SBST should be knowledgeable about the

intervention strategies as their main function is to provide teachers with the

strategies to support and overcome these learning difficulties.

• Discussion of the adaptive method of assessment for learners experiencing learning

difficulties, that is special concessions. Learners experiencing barriers to learning

and development should be accommodated, for example giving them adapted

29

questions, removing time limits and given oral questions instead of written ones,

when assessing them.

• Collaboration among teachers, where the term collaboration was explained

including the conditions necessary for collaboration to succeed. Steps involving

problem-solving and the intervention process from the class teacher until the

district-based support team were also discussed.

• Discussions of documents such as GDE support forms, referral forms and the

Individual Education Plan (IEP).

The manual entailed all of the above-mentioned aspects (Excerpt of the manual:

Appendix K). The DBST suggested that extra copies of the manual should be made for

the foundation and inter-mediate phase at the school. The school-based support team was

expected to give feedback to the rest of the staff members of the information they

recieved.

2.7 CONCLUSION

In this section, I have explored the available literature that could assist in discussing the

five main section of this research. Firstly, I mentioned a brief discussion of inclusive

education and teacher support. Secondly, a detailed discussion of understanding barriers

to learning and development. Thirdly, the concept of collaboration as an approach to

address diversity in the classrooms was explored. Fourthly, the roles and responsibilities

of the school-based support teams were clearly stipulated. Lastly, guidelines for training

of school-based support teams were outlined.

In the next section, research methodology will be explored.

30

SECTION 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Silverman (2003: 233) states that “in writing up research, we tell stories about data. It is

only natural then, that our readers should expect to be told how we gathered our data,

what data we ended up with and how we analysed it”. In this section the researcher will

thus present the research design as well as provide a description of how data will be

collected and analysed. The selection of the case study and the participants will be

explained.

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

According to De Vos, Strydom & Schurink (1998: 80) the research design is a general

plan or blueprint of the investigation which the researcher uses to obtain evidence to

answer the research question. Mouton (1996: 107) defines the research design as a set of

guidelines and instructions to be followed in order to reach a certain goal. These

guidelines include the aim of the research, the selection and design of a particular

method.

Henning, Van Rensburg & Smit (2004: 31) state that “a qualitative study is a study

presented in language and is about the meaning constructed from the language that

present data, and Merriam (1998: 7) also emphasises that qualitative research is

conducted “in an effort to understand situations in their uniqueness as part of a particular

context and the interactions thereof”. Thus a qualitative research design will be

undertaken to research this issue, because the researcher intends to describe the

experiences of foundation phase teachers in regard to the support provided by their

school-based support teams.

31

De Vos, et al. (1998: 80) suggest that researchers can use various strategies in designing

qualitative research. The strategies include ethnography, phenomenology, action

research, clinical models, symbolic interactionism and grounded theory. For the purpose

of this study, a phenomenological strategy will be used, as it is defined by (Patton, 2002:

105) as “the study of how people describe things and experience them through their

senses”. The phenomenologist form of qualitative design gives the researcher permission

to enter the participants’ life-worlds (De Vos, et al. 1998: 80) and to understand, describe

and interpret the meaning they give to their experience. Thus, it presents a naturalistic

inquiry aimed at understanding the phenomena holistically, as they occur naturally. Thus

the phenomenologist focus on how we put together the phenomena we experience, in this

case how foundation phase teachers experience the support provided by the school-based

support team.

The design type chosen for this study is a single case study design, because “in a case

study the main assumption is that a phenomenon is investigated as a ‘bounded system’.

This ‘system’ may be a group of people, it may also be a set of documents or a television

series. Any social entity that can be bounded by parameters and that shows a specific

dynamic and relevance, revealing information that can be captured within these

boundaries, may be a case study” (Henning, et al. 2004: 32).The researcher will therefore

be using a qualitative research design which is a case study to richly describe the

experience of foundation phase teachers in regard to the support provided by the school-

based support team. The researcher will be the primary research instrument and become

intensely involved in all aspects of the research, getting all the data ‘straight from the

horse’s mouth’ (Miles & Huberman, 1997: 7)

3.3 RESEARCH METHOD

The research method can be defined as the specific and concrete means that the

researcher uses to carry specific tasks (Mouton, 1996: 36). Data collection methods

emanates from guidelines set out in the research design and this methods are influenced

32

by the research question and design (De Vos, et al. 1998: 82). The following aspects of

the research method are discussed: data-collection methods and selection of participants.

3.3.1 Data collection methods

The following methods will be used to collect the data: focus-group interviews,

individual interviews, observations (field notes) and documents. Many authors (Bassey,

1999; Glesne, 1999; Silverman, 2003) advocate the use of multiple methods of data

collection, as this enhances the trustworthiness of the data. In this way, Silverman (2000:

98) argues, our sources corroborate each other, which replicates a form of triangulation.

The above-mentioned data collection methods are relevant for this study because

according to Marshall and Rossman (1999:105) these methods form the core of

qualitative inquiry, as they incorporate perceptions, understandings, knowledge and

experiences of people. These methods are discussed below.

• Focus-group interview as a data collection instrument

The focus-group interview is a discussion of a specific topic with participants. Marshall

and Rossman (1999: 108) describe the focus-group interview as a conversation with a

purpose of a specific topic taking place between a number of individuals with a similar

background. Birley and Moreland (1998: 50) also describe the focus-group interview as

the interaction of participants who are both interested and knowledgeable about the topic

being researched. The typical size of the focus-group is six to ten people. In this case the

focus group will consists of eight foundation phase teachers who are knowledgeable

about the topic as it relates to their experiences of a school-based support team.

According to Vaughn, Schumm and Sinagub (1996: 17) the overriding assumptions of

focus group interviews are that people are valuable sources of information about

themselves and that much can be learned from direct, extended conversations with

individuals whose thoughts and opinions are critical for understanding a topic. As a

researcher I will gain insights through listening to participants using their words and

33

expressions to communicate their experiences towards the support offered by their

school-based support team.

The advantage of using a focus-group interview is being able to establish the rapport with

the participants, and this relaxed group setting leads participants to sense that their

opinions and experiences are valued and they are more likely to express their opinions

openly (Rosnow & Rosenthal, 1996: 80). The concept ‘rapport’ is described as the

‘relation characterized by harmony, conformity and accord’ (Glesne, 1999: 95). Through

the process of rapport building, participants’ initial anxiety was reduced and this made

them comfortable and willing to share their experiences. This assisted the researcher in

terms of gaining the information needed in order to answer the research question.

According to De Vos, et al. (1998: 323) the design of the interview schedule is critical

because it establishes the agenda for the group and provides the structure within which

the group members will interact. An interview schedule consisting of a detailed set of

questions and probes was developed (see Appendix E ). The questions were open-ended,

in order to invite the foundation phase teachers to participate in the conversation.

According to Maykut and Morehouse (1994: 94) although there is no single best way to

sequence questions in an interview schedule, the researcher should begin the interview

with non-controversial questions framed in the present focusing on the interviewee’s

experiences and save potentially threatening knowledge questions until some rapport has

been established with the participants. The researcher will continuously make mental

checks against the research question and purpose of the study during the interview to

ensure that relevant information is collected and not overlooked. The sequence and the

wording of the questions can also result in participants interpreting them differently, thus

resulting in different responses that may influence the degree of comparability (Best &

Kahn, 2003: 2001). The researcher will keep the question short and try to rephrase them

when noticing that the participants do not understand clearly what is being asked.

A variety of data collection methods rather than one single method were employed in

order to enhance trustworthiness in the collected data. In accordance, the primary data

34

collection method of one focus group interview was followed with in-depth individual

interviews with all participants of the initial focus group to clarify issues which emerged

from the focus-group interview.

Both the focus-group interview and individual interviews were audio recorded (with the

permission of the participants) and both the interviews were transcribed verbatim since

this would provide the researcher with a record of the ‘naturally occurring interaction’

(Silverman, 1993: 11). Silverman views transcriptions as highly reliable and the intention

being to work through them for the purpose of data analysis (see Appendix F).

• Observation

Observation entails the systematic noting and recording of events, behaviours and objects

in the social setting chosen for study (Marshall & Rossman, 1999: 107). The

observational record is frequently referred to as field notes which are detailed, non-

judgemental and concrete descriptions of what has been observed. According to Mertens

(1998: 317) observation occurs in a naturalistic setting without using predetermined

categories of responses. In general, observation implies seeing as well as observation

with other senses and participating in the actions of the participants in the research setting

and getting to know their ways of doing very well (Henning, et al. 2004: 82).

Observation was included as a research tool, because the researcher wanted to gather data

from the natural setting – the classroom. The researcher did the class visit once, where

teachers were observed in two different grades practising inclusive approaches. Merriam

(1998: 94) stipulates observations are ‘deliberately planned, systemically recorded and

subject to checks and controls validity and reliability’. Observation places the researcher

as an observer within the context of what is being researched, this enables the researcher

to develop a deeper understanding of what is happening in the classroom regarding

support offered for learners with learning barriers (Patton, 2002: 30). Observation will be

effective since the researcher as the observer may notice relevant things in the classroom

that teachers will take for granted. There might even be things that the teacher feels are

35

irrelevant and may not discuss in an interview, but this could be seen during observation

(Patton, 2002: 31).

Field notes, which are regarded as an important recording tool for the qualitative

researcher, was also included as a source of data in the inquiry. After both the interviews

field notes were made, not merely as summaries of events, but as detailed reproductions

of what had occurred (De Vos, et al. 1998: 285). Field notes are a detailed description of

what was observed (Glartthorn, 1998: 173). Glesne (1999:97) further state that field notes

enables the researcher on the internal dialogue to question what one has come to know

and how that knowledge has come about; the degree of certainty of such knowledge; and

the further lines of inquiry implied by this knowledge.

• Document analysis

Documents are valuable sources for supporting findings made through other research

methods such as interviews and observation (Best & Kahn, 2003: 201). Documents such

as GDE support forms, referral forms, intervention programmes and minutes of

meetings held with the SBST will be used by the researcher. The GDE support form is a

form which is supposed to be completed by the class teacher for learners who need

additional support in class. These forms serve as evidence that foundation phase teachers

are indeed giving support to learners experiencing barriers to learning and development

in their classrooms. Referral forms are also completed by the class teacher when referring

the learner with learning barriers to learning and development to the SBST for additional

intervention. Record of minutes kept will confirm that regular meetings are being held as

information sharing sessions and development sessions for both the SBST and the rest of

the staff. All of the above-mentioned documents will be attached as Appendices G to I.

3.3.2 Selection of participants

One of the most important tasks for a qualitative researcher is deciding on the participants

to be selected for the investigation. De Vos, et al. (1998: 253) emphasise that the

36

participants should be information rich, as they form the integral part in the selection of

the sample for this study

Silverman (2000: 104) writes that “purposive sampling allows us to choose a case

because it illustrates some features or process in which we are interested”. Mertens

(1998: 288) states that purposive sampling is in accordance with the researcher’s

judgement. Purposive sampling does not include accessible or convenient sampling, but

incorporates those from which the most can be learned and that would most accurately

help the researcher to answer the research question (Silverman, 2000: 105). In this case,

the researcher is a district official in the Tshwane North district tasked with the function

of training SBST’s. The Tshwane North district embarked on training of the SBST’s in

all primary schools of Soshanguve area. This area was selected on the grounds that all the

primary schools were trained. The researcher was a member of the DBST who trained all

the SBST’s of the primary schools in Soshanguve. One primary school from the list of

the Soshanguve schools was selected randomly by the researcher by drawing a lot. The

researcher endeavoured to select participants who would be able to supply needed

information, be prepared to participate and who are eager to share their knowledge

(Morse & Richards, 2002: 20). In the context of this study, eight foundation phase

teachers were selected purposively at the particular primary school to inform the

investigation regarding their experiences towards the support offered by the school-based

support team at this school. The reasons stipulated in chapter one regarding the

importance of foundation phase (Refer Chapter 1.1) in supporting learners with barriers

to learning and development were also regarded as a selection criterion.

3.4 DATA ANALYSIS

Bassey (1999: 84) regards the process of data analysis as an ‘intellectual struggle’ with

the raw data collected. The goal of data analysis is to yield significant and valid answers

to the research question. When doing an analysis, it is useful to bear in mind that analysis

essentially means breaking something up into smaller parts. Basic raw data will be

processed by transcribing the interviews (Miles & Huberman, 1994: 12). Once the data

37

have been processed, the next step involves preparing the data and working

systematically through it.

Qualitative analysis takes place throughout the data collection process where the analysis

will commence with reading of all the data and then dividing the data into smaller and

more meaningful units (Henning, et al. 2004: 127). Rubin and Rubin (1995: 226) go on to

explain the process of analysis in greater detail. They state that data analysis begins while

the process of interviewing is still under way. After completing the interview, the data

that has been gathered is examined and opposite concepts and themes are extracted. Then

one compares the material within the subcategories to discover connections between the

categories and themes.

Maykut and Morehouse (1994: 46) emphasize that what is important is not predetermined

by the researcher. This implies that while the research is being conducted to answer

specific questions, the researcher has no preconceived ideas as to what those answers will

be. The researcher will reduce the data to meaningful chunks of information which will

lead to themes and category formation, continuously analysing data and refining

categories throughout the study and verifying the findings at the end.

3.4.1 Data reduction

In this study, the constant comparative method will be used. According to Merriam

(1998: 159), in the comparative method, data is constantly compared within and between

levels of conceptualization until theory is formulated. This is done by doing content

analysis, which entails identifying, coding and categorizing the primary patterns in the

data (Miles & Huberman, 1994: 13). Units of data from an interview will be highlighted

and sorted into related categories and themes.

The continuous process of data analysis entailed two succeeding stages: data reduction

and conclusion drawing or verification (Glesne, 1999: 100). These stages are constantly

interacted and were interwoven in all the stages of data collection process.

38

The process of data reduction and verification involve the following steps as illustrated in

the following table.

Table 3.1: Process of data analysis of interviews

Stage 1

Consolidation and data reduction

Involves the organisation and reduction of data from both interviews, by means of the

constant comparative method in order to construct themes and categories in the data.

Step 1: Verbatim transcription of both tape-recorded interviews.

Step 2: Repeated note making on relevant data and patterns.

Step 3: Combinations of notes made during the initial readings.

Step 4: Merger of different data groupings into themes on one master list.

Step 5: Development of categories into which themes are consolidated.

Stage 2

Verification

Data was integrated in the theoretical framework of the research question, in order to gain

a greater understanding from the data and to verify emerging themes according to validity

criteria.

Step 1: Interpretation of data in relation to the research question and the literature study.

Step 2: Assessment of the validity and reliability of the inquiry.

A similar process will be followed for all the data collection methods mentioned in this

study. The goal of the researcher’s analysis is to constantly compare the data with one

another, in order to identify themes that answer the research question. In this case,

observation including field notes, transcripts of interviews and document information will

help the researcher to identify the final themes. Consequently, in-depth accounts or what

McMillan (2000: 253) refers to as ‘rich narrative descriptions’ will be used to enhance

the reader’s understanding of the research question.

39

3.5 STRATEGIES TO ENSURE TRUSTWORTHINESS

The research will be conducted and analysed qualitatively, hence there is no emphasis on

testing of hypotheses. In consequence, trustworthiness rather than validity or reliability

forms the basis of assessing the findings of the investigation. The researcher will apply

the strategies of enhancing the validity of qualitative research as described by Rosnow

and Rosenthal (1996: 200).

• Credibility

Credibility is an alternative to internal validity, in which the goal is to determine that the

inquiry was conducted in such a manner as to ensure that participants are accurately

identified and described. Credibility will thus determine the accuracy of the findings of

those being studied. The researcher continually looks for discrepant evidence to the

hypothesis one is developing as a means of producing a rich and credible account. One

way of doing this is to use triangulation to prove whether this provides discrepant

findings. In this study, the interview schedule will be well formulated in order to address

all aspects of the research question. Trustworthiness in this research study was ensured

through two methods of data capturing, namely audio tape and transcriptions of both the

focus group and follow-up individual interview. The tape-recorded interviews and

verbatim transcriptions of the information will ensure accuracy of the findings, by taking

the transcriptions back to the participants, to check if that was the true reflection of what

they mentioned during the interviews. Different sources of data will also be analysed (see

3.3.1) in an attempt to ensure triangulation.

• Dependability

According to Rosnow and Rosenthal (1996: 201) dependability is the alternative to

reliability. It is defined as the degree of consistency. Merriam (1998: 206) adds to this

definition by stating that rather than focusing on the extent to which research findings can

40

be replicated (as is the case with quantitative research) the qualitative researcher focuses

on obtaining findings that make sense or on ‘whether the results are consistent with the

data collection’. Dependability will be established in this study by describing both the

data collection and data analysis in detail and therefore implies a complete description of

the entity being investigated. In this study the participants should respond more or less

similarly when subjected to the same focus-group and individual interviews.

• Transferability

Transferability can be referred to as external validity or generalisability of qualitative

research (Rosnow and Rosenthal, 1996: 201). In order to achieve transferability the

researcher can make use of triangulation: designing a study in which more than one-data

collection methods are used. In this case multiple methods used are interviews,

observations and document analysis. Triangulation can strengthen the study’s

applicability to other contexts (De Vos, et al., 1998: 352). This method of triangulation

increases the reliability of the data and the process in which it was gathered.

3.6 RESEARCH ETHICS

Ethics is a set of moral principles that offers behavioural expectations about the most

correct conduct towards participants (De Vos, et al. 1998: 24). The researcher is aware

that ethical consideration must not be taken as afterthought, but should be taken seriously.

Mertens (1998: 23) strongly emphasizes that ethics in research plays an integrated part of

the research planning and the implementation process. Therefore, the researcher will

continuously be guided by ethical principles throughout the study. The researcher

undertakes to consider several ethical measures throughout the study.

41

3.6.1 Informed consent

De Vos, et al. (1998: 25-26) states that informed consent relates to the communication of

all possible or adequate information on the goal of the investigation, the procedure,

possible advantages and dangers to which the respondents may be exposed. Firstly,

informed consent, was obtained from the Gauteng Department of Education and one

primary school (see Appendices B-C). Secondly informed consent had to be obtained

from the participants before starting with the research (see Appendix D). All the

participants were given letters stating that their involvement is this study was voluntary

and they can withdraw from participation at any time they feel like without penalty or

prejudice. Participants were fully informed about the purpose of the interview.

3.6.2 Anonymity and confidentiality

Strict anonymity and the confidentiality of the participants will be maintained in the

study. Confidentiality implies that the participants have the right to anonymity (Gormon

& Clayton, 1997: 47). To achieve these conditions the participants will be given

pseudonyms (M1-M8) and their traceable details will not be made known. Participation

will be voluntary and participants can withdraw at any time without fear of harm. The

location where the study will be conducted will not be identified by name. The school

will be supplied with a copy of the research report. All information will be strictly

confidential and the researcher will commit herself to this code of ethics during the

interview process. All efforts will be made to ensure anonymity and confidentiality .

3.7 THE RESEARCHER’S ROLE

According to Mertens (1998:20) the interpretation of data is the researcher’s concern. The

researcher’s biases, values and judgement may influence data either positively or

negatively. In this research, the researcher’s role during the focus-group interview will be

conscious not to pre-determine meaning (Mertens, 1998: 20), but to report respondents’

(foundation phase teachers) experiences including their biases and judgements. Thus, the

42

researcher will bracket what she knows and allow free and open responses to yield

findings of the aims of the research. In order to achieve this, the researcher’s purpose will

be only to ask questions, observe responses and then record the information.

3.8 CONCLUSION

The research design and methodology have been discussed in this chapter. This

discussion contained a detailed description of the design and the setting of the research.

Furthermore, data collection methods and data analysis was discussed. Lastly, strategies

to ensure trustworthiness, ethical measures relevant to the study and the researcher’s role

were also explained. The findings of this research study will be discussed in the next

section.

43

SECTION 4

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION

In section 3 the research design, data analysis and strategies to ensure trustworthiness of

the research were discussed. In this chapter, the researcher will discuss the findings of the

study.

4.2 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

Revisiting the research question as well as the aims of this study are my point of

departure for this chapter. This will assist in exploring the respective categories to be

discussed in relation to the focus of the study. The reader is referred to chapter 1 for a

detailed discussion of the research question and the purpose of the study. However, it is

considered sufficient at this point to include briefly the details set out in table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Research question and purpose of the study Research question

How do foundation phase teachers in Tshwane North experience the support offered by school-based support teams?

Purpose of study

To investigate and describe the foundation phase teachers’ experiences of the support provided by the school-based support

teams in Tshwane North.

4.3 RESEARCH FINDINGS

Data were collected by way of focus group interviews with foundation phase teachers and

follow-up interviews with individual teachers who participated in the focus group.

Documents such as GDE support forms, intervention programmes, referral forms and

record of minutes of SBST meetings were used, and observations of foundation phase

44

teachers in the classroom including field notes were analysed using the constant

comparative method. Table 4.2 gives an overview of the process of analysis in terms of

the initial patterns or subcategories, the categories and eventual themes that were

conceptualized from the data.

Table 4.2: An overview of subcategories, categories and themes Subcategories Categories Themes

No meetings with SBST

SBST not giving feedback

to teachers

No collaboration with SBST

SBST not working as a team

Collaboration with SBST

Collaboration

Communication between grade teachers

Sharing intervention strategies

Collaboration between

foundation phase teachers

Collaboration

SBST members not knowledgeable and no

remedial background

SBST members not supportive

Lack of support

Support

Support for learners experiencing learning

difficulties

Support learners during contact time or

after school

Foundation phase teacher

support

Support

SBST functioning minimally

Referrals to SBST

Submission of GDE support forms

Roles and responsibilities

of

SBST Functionality of SBST

Foundation phase teacher’s criteria for

selecting SBST

Criteria for selecting

SBST

Constitution of SBST

Learners not school ready

Overcrowded classrooms

Identification of learners experiencing

learning difficulties

GDE support forms, lot of paperwork

Retention policy

Uncooperative parents

Illiterate parents

Problems experienced by

foundation phase teachers

in inclusive classrooms

Challenges of foundation

phase teachers

SBST knowledgeable regarding:

Intervention strategies

Expectations and needs of

foundation phase teachers

Expectations and needs

45

Identification of learning difficulties

SBST to be given incentives

DBST to take over

Foundation phase teachers need to be

trained too

4.3.1 Theme 1: Collaboration

Collaboration, as experienced by foundation phase teachers in this study can be described

according to the following two categories: collaboration with the SBST and collaboration

among foundation phase teachers themselves. Foundation phase teachers clearly

indicated that there was little or no collaboration between themselves and the school-

based support team: ‘I never worked with the SBST’ 4(F1 M5 L32); ‘I never refer any

learner to the SBST, when we experience problems with our learners with learning

difficulties’ ( F1 M8 L9-10); They never came to my class, only at the end of the year

when they ask us to refer learners’ (F1 M5 L36-37). Another participant stated clearly

that: ‘No collaboration with the SBST’ (F1 M4 L 17). This seems to show that the school-

based support team in this school does not collaborate with the foundation phase teachers.

Furthermore Calitz (2000:85) states that collaboration includes all aspects of the school-

based support team process where teachers share and in the end agree on certain ideas. It

seems there is also no collaboration among the SBST members themselves as reiterated

by the participant: ‘I agree with the previous speaker that they (SBST) do not work as a

team’ (F1 M5 L 20). According to Campher (1997:48), the team can accomplish much

more than individuals on their own, through collaborative consultation that is problem-

solving orientated, creating a positive and caring educational environment. The school-

based support team seems also not to be communicating with the teachers: ‘No, this year

they never called us in a meeting’ (F1 M8 L27) and ‘They do not give us feedback’ (F1

M2 L5). This is also evident from the minutes of SBST (Refer to Appendix H) meetings,

in which the staff meeting was proposed to be held on 3 February 2005, but there are no

record of minutes showing that teachers were called to attend the the meeting.

4 When the actual words of a participant is used, it will be coded according to the following: F1=focus-group interview one, M5=participant number five and L32=line number.

46

Foundation phase teachers in this school collaborate amongst themselves. According to

Elliot and Sheridan (1992:235), teamwork involves professionals who possess unique

skills and orientations, having a common purpose, working together co-operatively to

solve a common problem. In this case, foundation phase teachers have a common goal,

which is to give support to learners experiencing learning barriers in their classroom and

practicing inclusive education by making it possible for all learners to access the

curriculum (DoE, 2002:21). Collaboration among foundation phase teachers is

emphasised by the following statements from participants: ‘We usually meet as

colleagues in foundation phase and share strategies on how to support this learners’ (F1

M6 L20-21) and ‘As grade two teachers we come together and share ideas on how to

support them in class’ (F1 M8 L10-11). These statements clearly show that grade

teachers in the foundation phase really communicate co-operatively with one another to

solve a common problem, indicating teamwork.

Elliot and Sheridan (1992:235) further note that the key elements of team skills are a

common purpose, co-operative problem-solving and co-ordination of activities. This

seems to be prevailing in the foundation phase, as teachers’ common purpose is to

accommodate the diverse needs of learners by sharing intervention strategies and

coordinating activities by rotating the learners experiencing learning barriers among

themselves, either during contact time or after school. This is evident from the following

statements: ‘I usually ask one of the same grade teacher’ (F1 M6 L44-45); ‘I also ask

other teachers to help with intervention strategies’ (F1 M7 L5) and ‘I think we have

already mentioned that in foundation phase we usually share ideas regarding

intervention strategies and even rotate the learners experiencing learning difficulties

among ourselves’ (F1 M3 L10-12).

4.3.2 Theme 2: Support

Support, as experienced by foundation phase teachers in this study, can be described

under two main categories: lack of support from the SBST and support offered by

foundation phase teachers to learners experiencing learning barriers in their classrooms.

47

According to Sethosa (2001:10), the school-based support team is made up of teachers

whose focus and functions are to develop and empower colleagues in identification of

learning difficulties and intervention strategies. In this case, foundation phase

teachers’experiences with their SBST is that ‘Some members do not even have remedial

background, and cannot help us with the support programmes.

Sometimes they even ask us how to help learners. We don’t have confidence in them and

sometimes are even better than them’ (F1 M2 L27-29).

Without adequate support, barriers to learning cannot be addressed (DoE, 1997:8).

Engelbrecht and Green (2001:12) elucidate the importance of building support for

teachers and learners. The SBST is there to support the teachers, but, according to the

participants, this is not happening: ‘We cannot say they support us’ (F1 M2 L35), ‘She is

the only one who usually show concern not the other members, they are not supportive’

(F1 M3 L30-31) and echoing the same sentiment ‘They do not have time to give us

support as they are also expected to prepare and teach their learners’ (F1 M4 L20).

These statements confirm the lack of support for foundation teachers who are in need of

effective and continuous support from the SBST at this school. The statements also

reflect the foundation phase teachers’experiences towards the support offered by their

SBST. As White paper 6 (DoE, 2001:19) emphasizes, the key function of support teams

is to support all learners and educators by identifying support needed and design support

programmes to address the challenges experienced by teachers. In the case of this school,

this seems not to be happening.

A further category relates to the support offered by foundation phase teachers in the

classroom for learners experiencing learning difficulties. The demands of inclusive

education are that all children can learn and need support, therefore attitudes, curricula

and environment should be adapted to meet those needs (DoE, 2002:50). This means that

it has become the responsibility of teachers to accommodate the diverse needs of learners.

The completion of support forms, as part of the document analysis (Refer Appendix G ),

also serve as evidence that indeed foundation phase teachers are really giving support: ‘I

48

complete my support forms at the end of the term’ (F1 M2 L1-2); ‘I also complete my

support forms once a term’ (F1 M3 L6-7) and ‘Not necessarily once in a term, but

immediately after identifying a learner then I start completing the support forms’ (F1 M4

L9-10).

The support offered by foundation phase teachers is further apparent, based on the

following statement by a participant: ‘We foundation phase teachers decided that each

teacher will give support to her own learners in the classroom either during contact time

or after school’ 5(I1 M1 L38-40). This statement is further supported by the following

explanations: ‘I usually give slower learners the work of the lower grade, that is how I

intervene’ ( F1 M2 L42) and ‘I prepare different activities for my learners in the

classroom and also group them according to their performance’ (F1 M3 L4-5). This was

also evident during my observations in the classrooms:

Classroom 1: grade 2

Literacy lesson

The class was overcrowded with plus/minus 60 learners. It was a story telling lesson

about three pigs staying in the veld threatened by a big veld dog. The teacher used

pictures to narrate the story. After telling the story she asked questions to see if the

learners had understood the story, and even did plurals with them, for example dog-dogs

and pig-pigs. Before giving them activities, she grouped the learners according to their

performance.

Activity one: for coping learners: learners had to look at the pictures and write five

sentences about the story.

Activity two: for averaged learners: learners had to complete a worksheet, filling in the

vowels, e.g p-g, d-g.

5 When the actual words of a participant is used, it will be coded according to the following: I1- individual interview, M1=participant number and L38=line number.

49

Activity three: for slower learners: learners had to write only five words relating to the

story and using pictures.

Activity four: for learners who need additional support: the teacher called them around

her table as they were only eight and they build words related to the story using flash

cards first with the teacher before doing the task on their own.

Classroom 2: grade 2

Numeracy lesson

Also overcrowded with plus/minus 50 learners. The teacher was teaching the division

sign. She started by explaining the concept division saying it means sharing and doing

practical examples using counters. She did the same by grouping learners according to

their performance and had different activities for each group.

Activity one: given the following sums to calculate without using counters:

10 ÷2=

18÷6=

24÷-4=

Activity two: given the following sums to calculate using counters:

8÷2=

9÷3=

6÷2=

Activity three: With the learners experiencing learning barriers she called them around

her table and role played before they could start writing the activity on their own. She

50

gave them a worksheet, where they have to circle the correct answer. They also used

counters to calculate. For example: 8÷2 = 3 or 4

4.3.3 Theme 3: Functionality of SBST

According to the DoE (2002:46), the primary function of school-based support teams is

to support the learning process by identifying and addressing barriers to learning and

promoting effective teaching and learning. However, it is apparent from the focus group

interview that the SBST is not addressing barriers to learning because of the reasons

mentioned in the following statements: ‘SBST functioning minimally, because members

are also classroom teachers’ (F1 M3 L23-24); ‘they do not have extra time to do SBST

functions, have their own work and always tired’ (F1 M2 L40-41); ‘I think they are

overloaded and do not have extra time to come to our classes’ (I1 M4 L1-2) and ‘I think

they have lot of work’ (I1 M5 L4).

One of the documents analysed are the referral forms (Refer Appendix I), which are

mainly completed by the teachers for learners who do not show any progress after their

intervention in the classroom. These learners are supposed to be referred to the SBST for

additional intervention and placement, as expressed by one participant: ‘As teachers we

should identify learners who experience learning barriers and we should inform the

SBST, and they will refer the learners to special schools’ F1 M1 L18-20). From the

participants responses it is clear that teachers do not refer learner to the SBST: ‘I don’t

usually refer my learners to the SBST’ (F1 M4 L28). Another participant added ‘I never

refer any learner to the SBST’ ( F1 M8 L9). The SBST seems to play their role when

foundation phase teachers submit the GDE support forms (Refer Appendix G) at the end

of the year, as mentioned: ‘We only submit the support forms to the SBST at the end of

the year’ (F1 M2 L1).

51

4.3.4 Theme 4: Challenges faced by foundation phase teachers

This theme relates to the problems experienced by the foundation teachers regarding

learners experiencing learning barriers in their classrooms and support offered by the

SBST. One participant stressed that: ‘I think the main cause of learners with barriers in

grade one is admitting learners who are not yet school-ready, they get tired very easily in

class’ (F1 M5 L12-13). The other challenge is completion of the support forms which

lead teachers not to retain learners at the end of the year, as explained: ‘This thing of

filling support forms lead teachers not to retain learners at the end of the year, because

sometimes your class is overcrowded and you have many learners who need additional

support’ (F1 M6 L15-17). It is also mentioned that filling out these forms is ‘a lot of

paper work’ (F1 M6 L17). Another participant supported this notion with: ‘The thing is

that filling of support forms is lot of administration and that time one should be

supporting the learners’ (I1 M3 L42-43).

Parental involvement seems to be one of the challenges experienced by foundation

teachers, as mentioned by the participants: ‘Another problem is the un-cooperative

parents, especially those of the learners experiencing learning difficulties’ (F1 M7 L12-

13) and ‘To add to that, most of our parents are illiterate they cannot help the children at

home’ (F1 M8 L15-16).

Foundation phase teachers seem to be experiencing a problem with the retention policy,

which states that learners are supposed to be retained once in a phase. This means even if

the learner is still experiencing learning difficulties, if he/she was retained he/she is

supposed to progress to another grade with additional support. This was explained clearly

in this comment: ‘I think the cause is that they (learners) are not allowed to repeat more

than once in a phase. If this policy can be reviewed, most of the learning barriers will be

minimal. According to me a learner who cannot read, is supposed to be retained, because

they do not cope in the next grade’ (F1 M2 L43-45).

52

4.3.5 Theme 5: Constitution of SBST

This theme deals with the criteria for selecting SBST. Based on the evidence gathered

during the focus group interview and the individual follow-up interviews, the participants

clearly stated that the SBST is not functional because members are overloaded, not

active, do not have interest, do not have remedial background and they work individually

rather than as a team. This is supported by the following statements: ‘The problem is that

the members chosen as SBST do not have interest, not knowledgeable and do not share

information with us’ (I1 M6 L26-27); and ‘The thing is that they are not active and do not

have interest’(F1 M3 L24).

Therefore, participants suggested that criteria should be set for selecting SBST members,

as is evident from the following statements: ‘Maybe the DBST can intervene by setting a

criteria on how to choose the SBST members’ (I1 M3 L9); ‘The school-management

team should let the staff choose capable people’ (I1 M2 L10); ‘The school-management

team should choose people with remedial background and be willing to serve in the team’

(I1 M4 L 17-18) and ‘I think the SBST members should volunteer rather than being

elected’ (I1 M5 L20).

4.3.6 Theme 6: Expectations and needs of foundation phase teachers

This theme deals mainly with the expectations of foundation teachers regarding the

functioning of the SBST. They feel that if ‘maybe the SBST members can be given

incentives for what they are supposed to do, they will function better’ (F1 M4 L19-20).

Foundation phase teachers expect their SBST to be knowledgeable and well trained on

aspects relating to identification of learning difficulties and development of intervention

strategies, as is clear from: ‘They should be trained on identification of learning

difficulties, causes and intervention strategies’ (I1 M2 L7-8) and ‘They should be trained

on how to give support to slow learners and reading strategies’ (I1 M3 L10-11).

53

Lastly, the foundation phase teachers suggested that because they are also giving support

to learners in their classroom and the SBST seems not to be supporting them, in future

the district-based support team should also train them and not the SBST members only.

This was expressed by the following participants: ‘In fact, we are the one (foundation

phase teachers) who should be trained, because we are the one working with the learners

with learning difficulties. It will be better’ (F1 M3 L37-38) and ‘I think we should all be

trained so that we can deal with the learners experiencing learning difficulties in our

classes’ (F1 M6 L7-8).

4.4 CONCLUSION

In this chapter, the findings obtained from the data analysis were discussed. The

participants in this study consisted of eight foundation phase teachers in a particular

primary school. The constant comparative method was used to classify the data into

subcategories and categories and themes. These subcategories were clustered to form a

number of categories and themes relating to the experiences of foundation phase toward

the support offered by the school-based support team in their school. The themes that

emerged from the analysis are: collaboration, support, functionality of SBST, challenges

of foundation phase teachers, constitution of SBST and expectations and needs of

foundation phase teachers. The next chapter will provide the conclusions, limitations and

recommendations of the study.

54

SECTION 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Thus far, in the previous four sections, the researcher started by contextualizing the area

of research she had decided to pursue. Thereafter, the researcher explored and discussed

the literature pertinent to the research topic in order to provide a reference point from

which she could work when she began with data collection. At this point, the researcher

used interviews, observations and documents to collect the data and then analysed it in an

attempt to answer the research question and achieve the purpose of the study.

Section Five will focus on the description of the experiences of foundation phase teachers

towards the support offered by the school-based support team (SBST) in a particular

school. Limitations encountered will be discussed and recommendations made.

5.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The researcher reflected on the research question and purpose (refer to section 4, table

4.1) in order to summarize the findings of the research.

5.2.1 Collaboration

From the findings of this study, it was apparent that there is little or no collaboration

between foundation phase teachers and the SBST, which was corroborated by the fact

that the SBST have not yet called a meeting with the foundation phase teachers (Refer

Appendix H) during the year to discuss issues relating to their function. This was also

evident from the record of their minutes of meetings (Refer appendix H). This implies

lack of communication between the SBST and foundation phase teachers. It also seems as

though the team was not working as a team or collaboratively, but rather as individuals.

55

Based on the findings of this study, it is evident that foundation phase teachers are

collaborating among themselves, as they share ideas on how to support learners

experiencing learning difficulties in their classroom.

5.2.2 Support

According to White paper 6 (DoE, 2001:19), the key function of SBSTs is to support all

learners and teachers by identifying support needed and designing programmes to address

the challenges experienced by teachers. The data of this study highlighted clearly that the

SBST lacked knowledge regarding identification of learning difficulties and designing

intervention strategies for teachers to support learners in the classrooms. In addition, the

study has shown that teachers do not even have confidence in the SBST, who for their

part did not have time to give support to foundation phase teachers as they were

overloaded with class teaching.

The foundation phase teachers seem not to be getting any support from the SBST, but

because they collaborate by sharing ideas they are able to give support to the learners

experiencing learning difficulties. The foundation phase teachers stated categorically

during the focus group interview that they give support to learners experiencing learning

barriers either during the contact time or after school. The completion of GDE support

forms (Refer Appendix G) also serve as evidence of support for learners experiencing

learning barriers in foundation phase. They also mentioned that they only submit the

GDE support forms to the SBST at the end of the year.

In their preparation, foundation phase teachers seem to be differentiating, that is having

different activities to accommodate the needs of all learners in the classroom. This was

evident during my classroom observations in two classes, where both teachers had

different activities for their learners.

56

5.2.3 Functionality of school-based support team

According to the findings, it is clear that the foundation phase teachers are not informed

about the roles and responsibilities of the SBST, who themselves seem not to be doing

what is expected of them, that is supporting foundation phase teachers. In addition, it is

evident that the reason the SBST functions minimally is that they are overloaded, do not

have interest and are not knowledgeable. The other reason for the SBST to function

minimally might be the issue of selecting the SBST members who do not have interest

and are not knowledgeable. The foundation phase teachers do not refer learners

experiencing learning difficulties to them, rather they only submit the GDE support forms

to them at the end of the year, for the possible retainees. This seems to be the only

responsibility of the SBST, according to my findings.

5.2.4 Challenges faced by foundation phase teachers

It is evident that foundation phase teachers are faced with the following challenges,

learners who are not school ready, overcrowded classrooms, too much paperwork (GDE

support forms), uncooperative parents of learners experiencing learning difficulties and

the retention policy which stipulates that learners are supposed to be retained once in a

phase. This means even if the learner is still experiencing learning difficulties, if he/she

was retained, then he/she should progress with additional support to the next grade.

5.2 .5 Constitution of the school-based support team.

The foundation phase teachers mentioned that the SBST members were not active, did

not have interest and did not share information with them. The above mentioned aspects

possibly had to do with the knowledge and skills needed to perform this role. Therefore,

it is evident that the selected members were not knowledgeable or skilled to perform their

expected task, thus the criteria should be revisited for selecting the SBST members in

future.

57

5.2.6 Expectations and needs of foundation phase teachers

The findings of the study also showed that the foundation phase teachers expect the

SBST to be trained and to be knowledgeable about identification of learning barriers and

especially the intervention strategies for learners experiencing barriers to learning and

development. They also felt that, since they are the ones giving support to learners

experiencing learning difficulties in their classrooms, they should also be trained in skills

and intervention strategies to support learners with learning difficulties in their

classroom. They also need support from a SBST which is knowledgeable and actively

involved.

5.3 CONCLUSIONS FROM FINDINGS

In regard to collaboration, it is apparent that there is little or no collaboration between the

SBST and foundation phase teachers. The team does not call meetings nor even give

feedback after attending meetings and workshops organized by the district-based support

team. This also indicates that the SBST does not work as a team, showing lack of group

skills. It seems to be different with the collaboration between foundation phase teachers,

as they communicate with one another regarding sharing of intervention strategies. The

foundation phase teachers are really working together, as compared to the SBST. This is

probably due to the need expressed by foundation phase teachers to be more

knowledgeable and skilled at supporting learners with barriers to learning and

development.

The SBST does not offer any support to the foundation phase teachers, because according

to the foundation phase teachers they are not knowledgeable, are overloaded, and the

teachers do not have confidence in them. Therefore, the key function of the school-based

support team which is to support all learners and teachers by identifying support needed

and design support programmes seems not to be happening in this case.

58

On the other hand, the foundation phase teachers are indeed giving support to their

learners experiencing learning difficulties during contact time or after school. This was

evident during the classroom observations with different activities for their learners and

the completion of support forms. Although foundation phase teachers give support to

learners with barriers to learning and development in their classroom, they are doing this

from their own experiences and limited knowledge and skills. They need more

information and support from the SBST to do it better.

The SBST seem not to be informed about their roles and responsibilities, where each

member of the SBST is supposed to have an allocated task or role (Refer Chapter 2.5). It

may be that the SBST is aware of their responsibilities but they are not performing them

because of the reasons stated, such as being overloaded, not being interested and not

being knowledgeable. The only responsibility they seem to be fulfilling is to receive the

GDE support forms from foundation phase teachers at the end of the year for the possible

retainees. This may mean that during the year, the school-based support team did not

monitor the process of completing the support forms, or did not give additional

intervention, as one of their main responsibility or core function. In addition, the

foundation phase teachers mentioned that they did not refer any learners to the SBST,

raising the question as to whether the teachers know the referral procedures or whether

there is a member of the SBST who is responsible to deal with referrals?

The foundation phase teachers are faced with the challenge that the SBST does not

support them to cope with the learners experiencing learning barriers. In addition, they

also experience problems with learners who are not school ready, much paperwork and

the retention policy. In spite of all these challenges, they continue to give support to their

learners experiencing learning difficulties in their classrooms whilst the SBST does not

support them.

It is evident that criteria should be set for selecting the SBST members, who are

passionate about working with learners experiencing learning barriers. SBST members

should first of all be interested in doing these tasks. They should preferably be

59

knowledgeable about supporting learners and teachers; and should possibly have some

remedial background. In addition, their timetables must be such that they can support

learners and teachers; and fulfill their SBST responsibilities adequately. Lastly, the entire

staff should be involved in their selection, not only the school-management team.

The foundation phase teachers need a SBST, which is knowledgeable and supportive.

They also need to be trained as they are the one giving support to the learners

experiencing learning difficulties in their classrooms.

5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS

From these findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are suggested for

the functioning and support of SBST’s in primary schools:

• The district-based support team should conduct workshops for the SBSTs, mainly

dealing with collaboration. It should also be the responsibility of the school

management team to make it a point that after each workshop or meeting conducted

by the district-based support team, feedback should be given immediately to the

rest of the staff by the SBST.

• The SBST should be involved in compiling the management plan for the year, in

order to set aside dates for meetings and sessions with the rest of the staff. At least

one meeting or information-sharing session with the staff in a term will suffice to

inform one another of the progress and challenges which the teachers are

experiencing in the classroom regarding support for learners with learning barriers.

• All the school-based support teams should be referred to the document compiled by

GDE, which mainly stipulates the guidelines for establishment of SBSTs. The roles

and responsibilities are stated clearly in this document. The district-based support

60

team can include the discussion of this document as part of the training for the

SBST’s.

• The SBST should not only receive the GDE support forms at the end of the year for

possible retainees, but should monitor the process from the beginning of the year by

collaborating with either the grade leaders, phase representative or the HODs. At

school-level, the process of monitoring the completion of GDE support forms on a

quarterly basis should be initiated by the principal.

• In order to minimize the number of learners with barriers to learning and

development in the classrooms, the retention policy should be reviewed to

accommodate learners who need to be retained more than once in a phase.

• The district-based support team should in future set the guidelines for selecting

SBST’s in collaboration with the school-management teams and this should be

communicated to all the primary schools through the district memorandum.

• It is apparent that the training (information-sharing session) which was conducted

by the district support team in this study did not have great impact on the

functioning of the SBST. In future, the content of the training should not focus only

on the knowledge regarding identification of learning difficulties and intervention

strategies, but also on basic skills such as problem-solving and team skills for the

optimal functioning of the SBST’s. Secondly, the district-based support team

should monitor the cascading of information to the rest of staff members, by doing

follow-up workshops to individual schools.

• In future, the district-based support team should consider including grade leaders

when training the SBST’s.

• The district-based support teams that monitor and support SBST’s continuously to

ensure successful functioning, will require reallocation of human resources to be

61

able to deliver this essential service. SBST’s cannot function well without

continuous collaboration, development sessions and support.

5.4.1 Recommendations for future research

The following recommendations are made, based on the reflections made during the

process of this study, as well as the findings.

• Research should be undertaken concerning the experiences, challenges and needs

of the SBST members currently functioning in schools.

• Research on current and possible training models used to train SBST’s to ensure

optimal delivery is required.

• Collaboration between the different parties involved needs to be investigated. How

DBST, SBST, school management team, teachers and parents collaborate?

• Lastly, research concerning necessary skills and knowledge needed by both SBST

members and teachers in general to be identified. Compilation of intervention

strategies to support learners with barriers to learning and development.

5.5 LIMITATIONS

• The study only involved one school in the district, and this renders it problematic to

generalize the findings. Generalization was however, not the purpose of the study.

• The findings of the study represent only the foundation phase and not the

intermediate phase, and the findings might not be a true reflection of the school.

• The classroom observations were only done in two grades, due to time constraints.

Therefore one cannot absolutely conclude that all the foundation phase teachers in

62

this particular school are really giving support to learners experiencing learning

barriers in their classrooms.

• The school-based support team members should have been amongst the participants

in order to get their side of their story, regarding the experiences of the foundation

phase teachers.

• The researcher is a district official and member of the district-based support team

who trained the SBST’s in all Soshanguve primary schools. The experiences and

perceptions of the researcher may have had an influence during the process of data

collection and analysis.

5.6 CONCLUSION

The aim of this inquiry was to investigate the experiences of foundation phase teachers

towards the support offered by their school-based support team. From the literature

review, it is clear that the main function of the school-based support team is to support

the learning process by identifying and addressing barriers to learning and promote

effective teaching. Collaboration between teachers and the school-based support teams

also seem to be a useful approach in addressing diversity in classrooms, because it

enables teachers to identify what they need to do together and share their expertise.

The data analysis clearly indicated that there is little or no collaboration between the

foundation phase teachers and the school-based support team in this study. The

foundation phase teachers mentioned the aspects that hinders the functioning of the

SBST, such as the selection of SBST members and the issue of SBST members being

overloaded as they are also class teachers.

If inclusive education is to succeed, education support service should be strengthened

from the DBST to the SBST’s level. The focus should be on supporting teachers, by

63

ensuring that the SBST’s are carefully selected and specifically trained on the

development of intervention strategies and basic skills. SBST’s should furthermore

ensure that the teachers also become more knowledgeable and skilled in addressing

barriers to learning and development by continuously supporting and collaborating with

teachers.

64

LIST OF SOURCES Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational setting. Philadelphia: OUP. Benjamin, F. & Miller, W.F. (1999). Doing qualitative research. 2nd edition. Sage. London. Best, J.W. & Kahn, J.V. (1993). Research in education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Birley, G. & Moreland, N. (1998). A practical guide to academic research. British Library. Bothma, M.P. (1997). Attitudes of primary school teachers towards inclusive education. Unpublished masters thesis. Rand Afrikaanse University: Johannesburg. South Africa. Bradley, C. & Roaf, C. (1995). Meeting special educational needs in the secondary schools: A team approach. Support for learning. Cambridge Journal of Education. Calitz, M.G. (2000). Guidelines for the training content of teacher support teams. Unpublished masters dissertation. University of Stellenbosch: Cape Town. South Africa. Campher, E. (1997). Establishing teacher support teams to facilitate inclusive education for learners with special educational needs. Unpublished masters dissertation. University of Stellenbosch: Cape Town. South Africa. Chalmers, L. & Olson, C. (1995). Collaboration handbook for educators: Working towards inclusion of special needs students. Moorhead. Merill. Covey, R.S. & Merril, A.R. (1994). First things first. London: Simon & Schuster Ltd. Creese, A., Daniels, H. & Norwich, B. (1997). Resource materials for teachers: Teacher support teams in primary and secondary schools. Great Britain: David Fulton. Creese, A., Norwich, B. & Daniels, H. (2000). Evaluating Teacher Support Teams in Secondary schools: Supporting teachers for SEN and other needs. Research Papers in Education 15 (3) 2000, pp.307-324 Department of Education. (1999). Consultative paper no.1 on special education. Building an inclusive education and training system. Pretoria: Government Printers. Department of Education. (2000). White paper no.5. Special needs education. Building an inclusive education and training. Pretoria. Government Printers. Department of Education. (1997). Quality education for all: Overcoming barriers to learning and development. Report on the National Commission on Special Education

65

Needs and Training and the National Committee for Education Support Service. Pretoria: Government Printers. Department of Education. (2002). Draft conceptual and operational guidelines for the implementation of inclusive education. (2nd draft). Pretoria. Government Printers. Department of Education. (2001). White paper 6. Special needs education. Building an inclusive education and training system. Pretoria. Government Printers. Department of Education.( 2002). Guidelines for the establishment of school-based support teams. Johannesburg. Government Printers. De Poy, E. & Gitlin, L.N. (1994). Introduction to research. Mosby. Prentice Hall. Darlington, V. & Scott, D. (2002). Qualitative research in practice.Buckingham: Open University Press. Davis, A.K. (1994). The self-concept of the junior primary school child with learning difficulties. Unpublished masters thesis. Pretoria: University of South Africa. Denzin, NK & Lincon, YS. (2000). Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks: Sage. London. Dettmer, P., Thurstone, L.P. & Dyck, N. (2002). Consultation, collaboration and teamwork for students with special needs. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. De Villiers, S.L. (2001). Aspects of professional career success and the implication for life-skills education. Published doctoral thesis. University of South Africa: Pretoria. South Africa. De Vos, A.S., Strydom, H., Fouche, C.B., Poggenpoel, M., Schurink, E. & Schurink, W. (1998). Research at grass roots. Pretoria: Van Schaik. Donald, D., Lazarus, S. & Lolwana, P. (1997). Educational psychology in social context. Oxford University Press: Southern Africa. Engelbrecht, P. & Green, L. (2001). Promoting learner development: Preventing and working with barriers to learning. Pretoria: Van Schailk. Elliot, S.N. & Sheridan, S.M. (1992). Consultation and teaming: Problem-solving among educators, parents and support personnel. The elementary school journal. Evans, J., Lunt, I., Wedell, K. & Dyson, A.(1999). Collaborating for effectiveness: Empowering schools to be inclusive. USA. David Fulton Publishers.

66

Flick, U., Van Kardoff, E. & Steinke, I. (2004). A companion to qualitative research. Sage. London. Garnett, J. (1995). Support teaching: Taking a closer look. British journal of special education, 15(1). Glesnec, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers. An introduction . 2nd edition. Uited State: Longman. Glatthorn, A.A. (1998). Writing the winning dissertation: A step by step guide. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Gordon, A. & Browne, K.W. (1996). Guiding young children in a diverse society. Baltimore: Allyn & Bacon. Gumede, H.P. (1993). A structured reading readiness programme for culturally disadvantaged children. Unpublished doctrate thesis. Rand Afrikaanse University: Johannesburg. South Africa. Guzzo, R.A. & Salas, E. (1995). Team effectiveness and decision making in organization. San Fransisco: Jassey-Bass Publishers. Henning, E., Gravett, S.J. & Van Rensburg, W. (2002). Finding your way in academic writing. Pretoria: Van Schailk. Henkin, A.B. & Wanat, C.L. (1994). Problem-solving Teams and the improvement of organizational performance in schools. School Organization. Hosen, T. & Postlethwaite, T.N. (Eds). (1994). Teaming arrangements in special education. The international encyclopedia of education. Great Britain: Pergamon. Ivancevich, J.M. & Matteson, M.T. (1996). Organizational behaviour and management. Chicago: Irwin. Jekinson, J.C. (1997). Mainstream or special? Educating students with disabilities. London: Routledge. Johnson, B. & Christensen, L. (2000). Educational research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Boston. Allyn & Bacon. Joshua, J.J.(1997). Guidelines for language teachers in assisting disadvantaged learners in the junior primary phase. Unpublished masters thesis. University of South Africa: Pretoria. South Africa. Kolaveski, J.F., Tucker, J.A. & Stevens, L.J. (1996). Bridging special and regular education. The Pennsylvanian Initiative. Educational Leadership, 53(5), 44-97.

67

Lefu, T.S. (2003). Mentoring special needs educator’s as a possible solution for the problems experienced by mainstream educators in inclusive education. Vista University: Pretoria. South Africa. Leonard, L.J. & Leonard, P.E. (1999). Reculturing for collaboration and leadership. Journal of Educational research, 92(4), Ebscohost Research Databases Academic Search Premier. Lynne, K. & Sharon, B.D.( 2003). Vol. 47. Teacher perceptions of the Prereferral Intervention Process: A call for Assistance with School-Based Interventions. Proquest.com. Levy, S. (1995). Inclusion demands top-down support for bottom-up implementation. School Administrator, 52: 26-27. Lomofsky, L. & Lazarus, S. (2001). South Africa: first steps in the development of an inclusive education system. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(3), 303-307. Marshall, C. & Rossman, G.B. (1999). Designing qualitative research. 3rd edition. Sage. London. Maykut, P. & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: a philosophic and practical guide. London: Falmer. McMillan, J.H. (2000). Educational Research: Fundamentals for the consumer. London. Longman. Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Mertens, D.M. (1998). Research methods in education and psychology integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. Sage: London. Myers, V.M. & Kline, C.E.(2002). Vol. 85. Secondary school intervention assistance teams: Can they be effective? Proquest.com. Miles, M.B & Huberman, A.M. (1994). An expanded source book: Qualitative data analysis. New York: Sage. Morse, J.M. & Richards, L. (2002). Read me first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. California: Sage. Mouton, J. (1996). Understanding social research. Pretoria: Van Schailk. Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. USA: Sage.

68

Rosnow, R. & Rosethal, R. (1996). Beginning behavioral research. A conceptual primer. 2nd edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Rubin, H.J. & Rubin, I.S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Salamanca Statement. (1994). Salamanca statement and framework of action on special needs education. Salamanca: UNESCO. “School-Based Teams”. 8.30- School-Based Teams. http;//www.universe.com/sd34/policy/boardpol/chap8/8-30.htm ( Accessed 21 May 2005). Schurink, W.J. 1996. Paper on qualitative data analysis. Pretoria: HSRC. Sethosa, M.F. (2001). Assisting teachers to support mildly intellectually disabled learners in the foundation phase in accordance with the policy of inclusion. Unpublished doctorate thesis. UNISA: Pretoria. South Africa. Silverman, D.( 2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. Sage. London. South Africa. (1996). South African Schools Act 84 of 1996. Pretoria: Government Printers. Stanovich, P.L. (1996). Collaboration: The key to successful instruction in today’s inclusive schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 32(1), 39-42, Ebscohost Research Databases Academic Search Premier. Stringer, P., Stow, L., Powell, J. & Louw, E. (1992). Establishing staff consultation groups in schools. Educational psychology practice. Thomas, W. (2000). Collaboration for inclusive education: developing successful programmes. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.