EXAMINING THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF
INCLUSIVE EDUCATION
CURRICULUM IN GENERAL
SCHOOLS IN ESWATINI
M.W. KUNENE
University of Eswatini
Presentation Outline

Background of the Study Theoretical framework

Statement of the Problem Related Literature

Aim of the Study Methodology

Research Objectives Findings and Discussions

Research Questions Conclusions

Significance of the Study Recommendations

Limitations References
Background of the Study
 Inclusive education curriculum is a topic for discussion in
both research and educational forums.
 The main innovation is not presenting one-size-fits all
concepts of what children should learn (Siron &Mulyono,
2017).
 The regular school curriculum is too rigid and overloaded to
be accessed by learners with special needs (Wehymeyer &
Agran, 2006).
 Need for the implementation of curriculum accommodations
and modifications in the general school curriculum (Lee,
Soukup & Palmer, 2010).
Inclusive education curriculum in
Eswatini

 In Eswatini, inclusive education was introduced in 2010,

alongside the free primary education (FPE).
 Eswatini has no policy on inclusive education and its
curriculum.
 Eswatini seeks to develop an inclusive education system
that enables all children to learn effectively wherever
possible in mainstream institutions (The Swaziland
Education and Training Sector Policy, 2009).
 Education policies have not been implemented as
promised.
Statement of the Problem
 The inclusive education curriculum (in public schools in
Eswatini has hardly been implemented.

 However, the regular school curriculum, is used as a one size-

fits- all.

 This standard curriculum is too rigid and overloaded to be

accessed by learners with special educational needs.

 Children with disabilities in regular schools are depressed as

they struggle unsuccessfully to access the rigid general school
curriculum (Fakudze, 2012).
Aim of the Study

 To examine the implementation of inclusive

education curriculum in general schools in
Eswatini
Objectives of the Study
1. To examine how the infrastructure promotes the
implementation of inclusive education curriculum in general
schools in Eswatini.

2. To examine the factors that hinder the implementation of

inclusive education curriculum in general schools in Eswatini

3. To explore the intervention measures general schools in

Eswatini put in place to improve the implementation of
inclusive education curriculum.
Research Questions
1. How does the infrastructure promote the implementation of
the inclusive education curriculum in general schools in
Eswatini?

2. What factors hinder the implementation of inclusive

education curriculum in general schools in Eswatini?

3. What intervention measures in general schools in Eswatini

put in place to improve the implementation of the inclusive
education curriculum?
Significance of the Study

 Study will benefit the following stake holders:

 The Ministry of Education and Training (MoET)

 Curriculum designers

 Teachers and learners

 Other scholars – basis for future research

Limitations of the Study

 Focuses only on one primary school in Nhlangano, in

the Shiselweni region

 Generalization of the findings of the study will have to be

made with great caution

 The the study did not involve parents

Theoretical Framework

 Liberal Theory propagated by Sherman and Wood

(1982).

 There should be equal opportunities in education for all

children

 Each child is born with a given amount of capacity

Relevance of the Theoretical
Framework to the Study

 Advocates that educational systems should be designed

with a view of removing all barriers

 Addresses school-based factors which prevent learners

with special needs to take advantage of their inborn
talents

 Explains why the general school curriculum be adapted

to the diverse needs of all learners
Related Literature

 Studies in favour of deductive instruction: Arifin

(2016), Sik (2014), Berendse (2012), Wang (2012), Shih
(2008)

 Studies in favour of inductive instruction: Anani

(2017), Mallia (2014), Alzu’bi (2015), Eriksson (2014),
Bibi (2009)

 Studies showing no significant difference: Tugce

(2016), Pourmoradi (2016), Emre (2015), Motha (2013),
Chalipa (2013), Ling (2015), Naashia (2004), Shaffer
(1989)
Gaps in Literature

 Most studies were conducted at tertiary level with adult

learners

 Most were conducted in Asian countries, African

perspective lacking

 Anani (2012) from Ghana: verb tenses, used junior

secondary school students, mixed method
Methodology
.

Target
population

Pretest Intervention 1 Posttest

Selection

Pretest Intervention 2 Posttest

Figure 2. Experimental Research

Adapted from the American Institute for Research (AIR)

Methodology Cont.

 Research design: Quantitative paradigm,

Quasi-experiment (Mohammad, 2008)

 Instruments: pretest and posttest (English

Tense Comprehension Test - Wang, 2012);
Appendices A &B
Validity & Reliability

 Validity of Instruments: validated test,

previously used by other scholars (Wang, 2012)

 Reliability: multiple choice (MC) test items are

“less susceptible to guessing, thus making them
more reliable means of assessment’’ (Roza, 2014)
Methodology Cont.

 Method of data analysis: t-test (Yockey,

2008)

 Statistics computed using Statistics Package for

the Social Sciences programme (SPSS)

 Chosen because it compares two data sets

Population And Sampling
 Target population: All Form 4 pupils in the south
eastern part of Manzini region of Eswatini

 Sample: 60 participants in two Form 4 classes were

selected; 2 groups (n=30): deductive group and the
inductive group

 Sampling Criteria: Convenience sampling

Treatment randomly assigned to (already existing)
groups
 Participants: Deductive Group

Students’ demographic information: deductive group (n = 30)

Total Gender Number of Participants Repeaters Age Range

30 M 12 5 16-20

F 18 4 17-21

Out of the 30 participants, 12 were males and 18 were females. Their ages ranged from 16 – 21,
and there were 9 repeaters.
 Participants: Inductive Group

Students’ demographic information: inductive group (n = 30)

Total Gender Number of Participants Repeaters Age Range

30 M 11 6 17-22
F 19 4 15-19

Out of the 30 participants, 11 were males and 19 were females. Their ages ranged from 15 – 22,
and there were 10 repeaters.
Ethical Considerations

 Research ethics were followed

 Written permission was sought from the University of

Eswatini Ethics Committee (Appendix F) and another
from the Ministry of Education and Training (Appendix
G) to collect data from the research site

 Each participant in this study was requested to complete

a consent form (Appendix E)
Variables

Deductive
Pretest Posttest
approach

Independent
Learner
Variable achievement

Dependent
Inductive Posttest
Pretest Variable
approach

Figure 2. Variables

Adopted from the American Institute for Research (AIR)

Data Collection Procedure

DEDUCTIVE INDUCTIVE
 Pretest  Pretest

 Deductive teaching  Inductive teaching

activities (Appendix C) activities (Appendix D)

 Posttest  Posttest
Deductive Lesson Plan (sample)

PAST PRESENT FUTURE

An action that An action that An action that
already took is happening is going to
place right now happen

Subject + verb + ed + Subject + is/are + verb + Subject + will + verb +

ROS ing + ROS ROS

Examples Examples
Examples

The cat + is + The cat + will +

The cat + jump
jump + ing + onto jump + onto the
+ ed + onto the bed.
the bed.
bed.
The cat The cat
The cat ___________ _________onto
_____onto the onto the bed. the bed.
bed.
Inductive Lesson Plan (sample)

PAST PRESENT FUTURE

An action An action An action
that ………….. that……………… that……………..

Subject + verb + Subject + __________ + Subject + _________ +

_________ + ROS verb + _______ + ROS ________ + ROS

Examples Examples
Examples

The cat + is + The cat + ____

The cat + jump
jump + ___ + + jump + onto
+ ___+ onto
onto the bed. the bed.
the bed.

The cat is The cat will

The cat
jumping onto jump onto the
jumped onto
the bed. bed.
the bed.
Data Analysis

 Inferential statistics: dependent and

independent t- test

 A dependent (paired sample t -test) used to

compare the pretest and posttest scores of each
group (Dawson, 2009)
Data Analysis Cont.

 Independent t-test is used to compare the

means of two independent / unrelated groups
(Shulman, 2004)

 Assumptions of a t-test observed (Yockey,

2008)
Findings and Discussions

 Findings to research question 1:

 Is there a significant difference between the

pretest and posttest for learners taught tenses
using the deductive approach?
Findings to Research Question 1
25

20
Achievment scores

15

Pretest
10 Posttest

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Participants

Figure 6. Deductive group performance in the pretest and posttest

 Findings to Research Question 1 cont.

A Comparison of the pretest and posttest within the Deductive group (n = 30)

Group Test Mean S.D df t-value p-value (2-tailed)

Deductive Pretest 12.03 2.918 29 -5.518 .001

Posttest 15.80 2.976

Significance level: p<0.05

Findings and Discussions cont.

 Findings to research question 2:

 Is there a significant difference between the

pretest and posttest for students taught tenses
using the inductive approach?
Findings to Research Question 2
25

20
Achiement scores

15

Pretest
10 Posttest

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
Participants

Figure 7. Inductive group performance in the pretest and posttest

 Findings to Research Question 2 cont.

A Comparison of the pretest and posttest within the Inductive group (n = 30)

Group Test Mean S.D df t-value p-value (2-tailed)

Inductive Pretest 12.37 2.834 29 -3.834 .001

Posttest 16.17 3.435

Significance level: p<0.05

Findings and Discussions cont.

 Findings to research question 3:

 Is there a significant difference between the

posttests for learners taught tenses using the
deductive approach and learners taught using
the inductive approach?
 Findings to Research Question 3

A Comparison of the posttests between the Deductive and Inductive group (n = 60)

Group Test Mean S.D df t-values p-value (2-tailed)

Deductive Posttest 15.80 2.976 58 -.442 .660

Inductive Posttest 16.17 3.435

Significance level: p<0.05

Summary of the Findings

 Both teaching approaches were effective in

isolation

 Slight difference in the means observed

 No significant difference
Overall Findings

 Results were consistent with the findings of Anani

(2012), Chalipa (2013) Hejvani and Farahani (2018) and
Pourmoradi (2016)

 Contrary to the findings of Arifin (2016), Esfandiari and

Rath (2014), Wang (2012) and Lin (2007) in favour of
the deductive approach
Overall Findings Cont.

 Differ from those of Alzu’bi (2015) and Putthasupa

(2010), Herron and Tomasello (1992), and Takimoto
(2005) in favour of the inductive approach

 The study adds to a sizeable body of literature where no

significant difference was observed
Conclusions

 While both the deductive and inductive instructional

approaches were effective, they did not suit all the
learners

 Some learners scored lower in the posttests

 An integration of the two instructional approaches is

recommended
Recommendations for Action

 Textbooks that integrate the deductive and inductive

approaches for teaching English tenses

 Incorporation deductive and inductive teaching

approaches in their programmes for teacher training

 In-service workshops for teachers of English

Recommendations for Action
cont.

 Use of both the deductive and inductive approaches

when teaching tenses

 Teachers of English Eswatini engage in continuous

research
Recommendations for Further Study

 Further research be conducted on the same topic but

using a larger sample

 Study with an integrated approach

 Use of a mixed method to find out why some learners

did not benefit from the treatment

 Carry out a similar study at junior secondary school

References
 Allison, L. W. (1959). Inductive vs. deductive method: Comparative
effectiveness in teaching English grammar to general groups of high
school seniors.(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses, (02/03/2018)

 Alzu’bi, M. A. (2015). Effectiveness of Inductive and Deductive

Methods in Teaching Grammar. Advances in Language and Literary
Studies , 6 (2), 1.

 Anani, G. E (2017) Teaching and Learning of Grammar at the Basic

Level of Education: Revisiting Inductive Teaching Approach.
Education Journal. Vol. 6, No. 1, 2017, pp. 51-62.
References cont.

 Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching

(5th Ed)). NJ: Pearson Education.

 Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Language teaching approaches: An

overview. Teaching English as a second or foreign language, 2, 3-10.

 Chalipa, S. (2013). The effect of inductive vs. deductive instructional

approach in grammar learning of ESL learners. International
Researchers, 2(2), 178-187. Retrieved from
http://iresearcher.org/P%2017,%20176-187.pdf (06/07/2018)

 Crystal, D. (1997). The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English

language. Ernst KlettSprachen.
Thank You