1

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE

INTRODUCTION

Rationale

In our society, children known as unique individuals, have their own

differences that made them extra ordinary. In special education, a childhood is

not a race to see how quickly children can read, write or count but for children

with the small window of time can learn and develop a pace which is appropriate

to each level of learning. In this generation, Special Education class has given of

much importance in our society. However, it is very alarming that there are some

challenges faced by to our Teacher handling with special needs and teachers

handling with special needs in terms of teaching techniques suitable to every

need of a child, trainings, facilities, services and others.

According to Arkansas State University 2017, that the United States voted

to ensure that, all children, regard never of their differences, should have access

to free public school education (Henley & Stripling, 2017). This law was called

the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. This act helped bring federal

funds into schools to help them create special education for children who did not

learn the same way as general education students. Later, the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act of 2004 were k own. Lawmakers have amended this

act many times to incorporate what schools and families learn about how best to

serve children. The U.S. has moved from keeping all children with disabilities in
 2

isolated classrooms to inclusive classrooms where children of all abilities can

learn from and with each other.

The curriculum and teaching methods used by educators play a pivotal

role in as far as attaining effective teaching in inclusive classrooms is concerned.

However, a rigid and inflexible curriculum that does not allow for individual

differences can lead to learning breakdown. Negative effects on education

include aspects such as lack of relevance of subject content; lack of appropriate

learning materials, resources and assistive devices; inflexible styles of teaching

and classroom management; and inappropriate ways of assessing learning

(Motitswe, 2016).

In the current time, special education teacher start their career with the

intention of helping disabled students become productive members of society.

They face several challenges, which include the insufficient materials and utilities

to be use in the instruction process, the diverse learning disabilities of SPED

pupils contained in one classroom, inaccessibility of public services, poor

performance of Learning with special needs (LSENs) and lack of trainings and

workshops for teachers that make the task extremely difficult.

The researcher is a teacher 1 by plantilla and designated as a Teacher

handling with special needs, is also facing the different challenges in teaching

LSENs. This scenario triggered the researcher to undertake the study whose

primary goal is to determine the significant relationship between the challenges

 3

encountered by Teacher handling with special needs and the public services

accessibility.

Literature Background

Provides the introductory statement on the SPED teaching special

education teacher’s, work with students who have a range of disabilities,

including learning, mental, emotional and physical disabilities.

A study by Mahlo (2015), reiterates that most classroom teachers indicate

that they need intensive training in inclusive education so that they are able to

support learners with special educational needs (LSENs) in their classes. The

classroom teachers frustrated by situations that they were unable to handle, such

as abuse children had experienced.

Research further reveals that teachers who have not undertaken training

regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities and special learning needs

may exhibit negative attitudes toward such inclusion (Van Reusen & Barker,

2001).

Training in the field of special needs education appears to enhance

understanding and improve attitudes regarding inclusion (Kuester, 2015).

Introductory courses offered through teacher preparation programs may

sometimes be inadequate in preparing the general educator for successful

inclusion (Beattie, Anderson & Antonak, 2017).

 4

Department of Education Order no. 53,s. 2008

Motivation Theory
Suggest that before individuals meet
their full potentials, they need to satisfy a
series of needs. It’s important to note that
Maslow based his theory more on philosophy
than on scientific evidence.
(Maslow, 1943)
Conditions of Learning Theory
This theory stipulates that there are
several different types or level of learning.------
The significance of these classifications is
that each different type requires different
------
types of instruction.
(Gagne,1985)
Cognitive Load Theory
Is a theory which aims to understand
how the cognitive load produced by learning
tasks can impede students’ ability to process
new information and to create long term
memories.
(Sweller, 1988)
Maximization of Trained Teachers and
Administrators in Special Education
Provides access to basic education
among children with special needs, namely, the
gifted/talented, the mentally retarded, the visually
impaired, the hearing impairment, the
orthopedically handicapped, the learner disabled,
the speech defective, the children with behavior
problems, the autistic children and those with
health problems through the formal system and
other alternative delivery services in education.
Republic Act 7277 (Magna Carta for Disabled
Persons)
Full participation and total integration of
persons with disabilities into the mainstream of our
society. The ultimate goal of special education shall
be the integration or mainstreaming of learners with
special needs into the regular school system and
eventually in the community.
DepEd Order No. DO 53, s. 2008 (Maximization
of Trained Teachers and Administrators in
Special Education in cooperation of The Bureau
of Elementary Education (BEE) through the
Special Education (SPED) Division)
Department regularly conducts training of
teachers and administrators for children with
special educational needs in order to provide them
with access to formal education.

Teachers Handling with Special Needs in the Division of Bohol

Teachers’ Profile Status of Teachers Teaching Special

Handling Special Needs Education Pupils
● Age in terms of:
● Sex ● Level of Awareness ● Perceived Pupils
● Civil Status ● Challenges Academic
● Highest Educational ● Availability and Performance
Attainment Accessibility of tools
● Rank or Position and service offered
● Length of Service ● Strategies

School Improvement Program to enhance SPED pupils academic performance

Figure 1.Theorical & Conceptual Framework

 5

According to Fakudze (2015), lack of support for teachers characterized

by lack of state funding for inclusive education programs and provision of in

Service training for teachers that can empower them and so lead to a change in

their attitudes towards inclusive education.

Further argues that teachers upgrade themselves at their own expense on

a part-time basis. Moreover, government does not reward teachers’

achievements through properly remunerating them after obtaining appropriate

qualifications.

Moreover, special education is a form of education that focuses on the

needs of students with disabilities and learning differences. Groundbreaking laws

and policies that were implementing in the last fifty, (50) years have transformed

special education with inclusion at the forefront. In the present time to provide a

framework for continuous improvement in the area of special education, a review

of the literature regarding its history over the last fifty (50) years offered. Special

educator perspectives are relevant as these individuals have first-hand

knowledge of what practices work best for students with disabilities.

Special education teachers should be wise in identifying and

understanding the needs of multiple disabilities children because they have their

own skills, strength and education needs.

Mukhopadhyay, Mangope, Swart, et.al. (2015) observed that teachers

were using the teacher-centered method, which did not cater for individual
 6

differences. Their never on notes were scanty without clear evidence on how

they would meet the Learning with Special Needs (LSENs). None of these

teachers employed instructional accommodation during teaching and learning.

The study conducted by Hurwitz, Perry, Cohen, et.al. (2019) found out that

the test scores of students with disabilities improved after enrolled in special

education. Additionally, students exiting special education exhibited a sustained

trajectory of academic growth, suggesting that participation in special education

in this district was associated with enduring improvements over time.

The data suggested that the teachers were operating within the deficit

model, which views student with disabilities as ‘incapable of learning’. Inaccurate

tests led to inappropriately labeling many children with disabilities, resulting in

ineffective education as well. Providing appropriate education to students from

diverse cultural, racial, and ethnic backgrounds was especially challenging, and

many parents had no opportunity to be involved in making decisions about the

education of their child.

Children with disabilities had no resources to support the non-disabled

students within their neighborhood schools. A number of laws have contributed to

providing the range of educational services and opportunities available to

students with disabilities today. It is important for paraprofessionals to be aware

of these laws and their contributions as a part of the constantly changing

landscape of special education.

 7

According to Bagree and Lewis (2018), teachers not trained or to support

children with Learning Disability (LD), which makes these children among the

most marginalized in terms of educational opportunity and attainment. National

standards for teacher training can vary considerably between countries and are

often inadequate.

Teacher training for regular teachers also rarely prepares teachers for

working in diverse classrooms and in particular does not equip them with the

confidence, knowledge and skills effectively support learners with disabilities.

This is a key reason why so many children with disabilities remain out of school,

or excluded from the learning process within school.

Bagree and Lewis (2018), further argue to reignite progress towards

quality basic education (early childhood, primary and lower secondary schooling)

where in regular teachers need to be prepared to meet the learning and

participation needs of children with disabilities.

Teaching can be challenging at times, but special education teachers may

face additional challenges. Understanding the role of special education teachers

and the challenges they face can help those in the profession, as well as the

students they teach. Non-instructional responsibilities wherein many teachers are

trained and willing to teach but find themselves burdened with responsibilities

that remove them from the classroom.

 8

Keeping track of accommodations, whether the student benefits are use is

important for them. This information normally gathered from the general

education teacher, if the student is in general education classes, but it is the

special education teacher’s responsibility to compile the information for the

Individualize Educational Plan (IEP) meeting. Along with the annual IEP meeting,

there could be additional meetings held for students if the IEP needs an

amendment or the student needs more testing. This information can

communicated to members of the Individualize Educational Plan (IEP) meeting.

Special education teachers often find themselves being required to go to

meetings, conducting assessments and dealing with loads of paperwork. The

burnout rate is the result of a number of issues that often culminate in these

teachers leaving their jobs. The result of this turnover rate is a shortage of

special education teachers and a lack of quality programs for the students they

serve.

Generally, speaking people with learning disabilities are of or above

intelligence. There often appears to be a gap between the individual’s potential

and actual achievement. Learning disabilities referred to as “hidden disabilities”:

the person looks perfectly “normal” and seems to be a very bright and intelligent

person, yet may be unable to demonstrate the skill level expected from someone

of a similar age. “Learning Disabilities” is an “umbrella” term describing a number

of other, more specific learning disabilities, such as dyslexia and dysgraphia.

 9

Learning disabilities are also connecting to processing deficits. When

students have a processing deficit, they have trouble making sense of sensory

data. This makes it hard for students to perform in a traditional classroom without

instructional supports. These deficits are most often auditory or visual, and they

can make it hard for students to distinguish and remember important information

that needed to succeed.

Nombuso Gama, et.al. (2016), conducted a study - Swazi Teachers’

Challenges Including Learners with Dyslexia was to explore the challenges faced

by teachers when teaching learners with dyslexia. Teachers seemed to struggle

to understand learners who failed to reach language proficiency. In which

teachers experience many challenges emanating from the lack of inclusive

education training and knowledge.

Dyslexia is perhaps the best-known learning disability. Learning disorder

that impedes the student’s ability to read and comprehend a text. There are

varieties of ways in which this disability manifested. Some people struggle with

phonemic awareness, which means they fail to recognize the way words break

down according to sound. Similar problems can occur with phonological

processing, wherein students cannot distinguish between similar word sounds.

Other issues relate generally to fluency, spelling, comprehension and more.

Students may experience one reading issue or multiple issues when struggling

with dyslexia.
 10

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) has affected more than

6.4 million children at some point. While there is some debate as to whether or

not ADHD is a learning disability in the most technical sense, there is no doubt

that it is a common learning impediment. Students who have ADHD have

difficulty paying attention and staying on task. These students can be easily

distracted and often have difficulty in traditional school settings. Experts link

ADHD with the structure of the brain, and there is evidence that ADHD may have

a genetic component as well. Unlike typical learning disabilities, which need

instructional interventions, ADHD can be successfully treated with medications

and behavioral therapies.

Math is another major area of concern when it comes to learning

disabilities. While difficulty with reading can affect a student’s ability in math,

some students also suffer from dyscalculia, which is a disorder that specifically

affects one’s math capabilities. Dyscalculia can range from an inability to order

numbers correctly and extend to limited strategies for problem solving. Students

with math disorders may have trouble performing basic math calculations, or they

may have difficulty with concepts like time, measurement or estimation.

The provision of a well-planned, modified, and articulated curriculum that

would provide students with disabilities appropriate access to the general

curriculum and effective instructional support. Special education presents

one of the major challenges to administrators of schools curriculum.

Administrators need to provide students with special needs and appropriate

 11

access to curriculum and effective instructional support. The role of the

administrators is closely monitoring the student performance and progress

through participation in their assessment.

Various researches on special education have indicated that the roles of

school administrators are very vital and pivotal to the success of special

education process. This has many implications on key leadership issues related

to effective special education and performance of principals to determine the

knowledge and skills they need. Studies have shown that special education has

evolved from primarily segregated learning environment often characterized by

low academic expectations, social isolation for students and their teachers, and a

curriculum poorly aligned with general education (Turnbull & Cilley, 1999).

According to Ramos (2020), some teachers have not been exposing to

special-needs classrooms, and this can be a disadvantage. New special

education teachers may find the first year to be especially difficult. Educators

need to coordinate efforts and understand the needs of the classroom in terms of

developing skills and never on plans. Students with severe and profound

disabilities require more adaptation and medical attention of the student.

Teachers must be skilled in handling severe disabilities by creating plans based

on individual abilities and adhering to each child’s dietary needs. If the teacher

does not have sufficient experience, the child may not progress in their skills-or,

in the worst-case scenario, they could experience adverse medical incidents.

 12

A study conducted by Ahammed (2018), have also revealed the results

in his study that most students have problems in literacy (spelling, reading

complex words, and write long words) and numeracy (counting, subtraction,

multiplication and divide). As the common teaching practice found to have

minimal effect on children’s literacy and numeracy, the current study suggests

rethinking of a new pedagogical approach for improving literacy and numeracy

for slow learners.

Isave (2017) identifies challenges faced by teachers while implementing

inclusive education in schools and their role in the teaching and learning process.

The additional efforts by the regular teacher are to include students with special

needs in their classes, and the key challenge to implement inclusive education in

schools.

Lindacher (2020), the results indicate a need to secure and integrate co-

teaching relationships structurally into a school’s development process. The

article concludes with some options for development in practice.

Another common challenge with teaching special education is dealing with

the behaviors of students. Many students with disabilities get frustrated with

school. It is not understanding material or dealing with emotions they have

trouble in controlling these students and can be a challenged for their teachers.

Every student is different, and what works with one student may not work

with another. Taking the time to learn about the student’s disability and figuring
 13

out ways for that student to cope can help the student get control over their

behavior. The reward system for good behavior can be a better deterrent than

punishing the student for bad behavior. Bad behavior needs to be address, but

steering the student towards good behavior with incentives can help motivate the

student to act more appropriately at school.

Teaching special education can feel like tiresome job sometimes.

However, overcoming the challenges of the job and helping students with

disabilities to reach their full potential and accomplish their goals to make the

effort worthwhile.

Special Education teachers play important role in educating, passing on

knowledge and skills towards special needs students. Special education teachers

should have the ability to manage the students with multiple range and disability

range starting from mild to profound (Emery & Vandenberg, 2017).

Instructional leaders may employ both inclusive and resource

environments when determining how best to deliver learning outcomes to these

students. There leaders to ensure that school culture and classroom objectives

align with student needs and provide the environment required for them to learn

and grow. It includes helping students develop strong listening and social skills,

designing a behavioral management system and motivating them to learn

through assigned tasks.

 14

Students with low-incidence disabilities are not as common in the

education system, but their needs are just as important. Low-incidence

disabilities include opens in new window more severe intellectual disabilities,

hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, autism spectrum disorders,

blindness, deafness and more.

In these cases, instructional designers develop and strategize coursework

that caters to students on a more individual basis, with the aim of improving self-

esteem and teaching functional skills as well as traditional classroom learning.

Such strategies might include modifying the classroom environment for easier

access, allowing scheduled breaks and creating a predictable routine.

John Sweller and other researchers have identified ways in which

cognitive load can be reduced in a learning environment using more effective

teaching methods, thus encouraging the formation of new memories.

Cognitive load is typically increases when unnecessary demands imposed

on a learner, making the task of processing information overly complex. Such

demands include the unnecessary distractions of a classroom and inadequate

methods used by teachers to educate students about a subject.

Teaching special education does not stop at just teaching a resource class

or helping out as an inclusion teacher. As part of the job, special education

teachers are responsible for a caseload of students.

 15

The Individualized Education Plan (IEP) is the paperwork that lists the

student’s disabilities, goals, accommodations and testing specifications. For

every IEP meeting, information gathered from the student’s class work to update

each section of the IEP. Every grading period, you must gather information about

the student’s goals and update them to see if the student is on their way to

mastery or needs new goals.

In a study by Najingo (2018), key respondents and teachers agreed that

the lack of instructional materials affects the access to all-inclusive education,

where learners supported by parents 100%.

This phenomenon directly related to poor macro policy on these materials

and the high costs on the open market. The critical lack of instructional materials

means that though inclusive education is in place, when children with LSENs lack

learning aids and support appliances, their mobility is reduce and they feel

inferior to their ‘normal’ peers.

According to Brian Neese (2020) that the number of U.S student enrolled

in special education program has risen thirty (30) percent over the past ten (10)

years. Additionally the National Educational Association (NEA) reports that nearly

general education classroom in the country includes students with disability

spend part of all their school day in general education classroom.

One tool to help student with disability even in the face of a special

education teacher shortage is assistive technology. Assistive technology tools

 16

can help student with certain disability learn more effectively. Ranging in

sophistication from low technology such as graphic organizer worksheet to high

technology including cutting –edge software and smart phone apps, assistive

technology is a growing and dynamic field. Several of assistive technology was

sample product, which found in classroom, making a different in how student of

all abilities learn.

Based on the study of Noraini et.al. (2017), education system for special

needs students that had implemented various effective methods or techniques

and comprehensive evaluation or assessment will benefit the students. Students

with severe learning impairment without speech can get benefit from the

education system that they involved if the teacher and students use

augmentative and alternative communication in teaching and learning process.

According to Emery & Vandenberg, (2017) education for multiple

disabilities students is very important and in this case, special education teachers

play important role in educating, passing on knowledge and skills towards special

needs students. Special education teachers should have the ability to manage

the students with multiple range and disability range starting from mild to

profound. However, this disabilities combination had caused a lot of problems

to the special education teachers towards effective teaching and learning

because they need specific education needs and can’t be adapt to special

education program for one type of disability.

 17

This different learning disabilities handled by a single teacher in the

classroom, is by far one of the challenges faced by Teacher handling with special

needs. Learning disabilities are due to genetic and/or neurobiological factors that

alter brain functioning in a manner which affect one or more cognitive processes

related to learning. These processing problems can interfere with learning basic

skills such as reading, writing and/or math.

They can also interfere with higher-level skills such as organization, time

planning, abstract reasoning, long or short-term memory and attention. It is

important to realize that learning disabilities can affect an individual’s life beyond

academics and can affect relationships with family, friends and in the workplace.

School requires hard work in order to be successful. However, for some

students, even hard work may not be enough. Some students faced with

additional challenges in the classroom due to learning disabilities. A learning

disability is a disorder that inhibits the ability to process and retain information.

Because they are, learning disabilities can vary dramatically.

In a study made by Zimba (2017), at a pilot inclusive primary school, it

discovered that the curriculum used at the school was not modifying to

accommodate learners with a wide array of educational needs. Teaching pupils

with Learning Disabilities (LD) using mainstream techniques makes learning and

teaching a challenge for the teacher and the learner in an inclusive class.
 18

Special education teachers should be prepared to meet the needs of each

individual student based on the student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). In

some cases, this may be a dedicated classroom of special education students, or

an inclusive classroom, where students with special needs are part of the general

education population. In other cases, special education teachers may work with

general education teachers to adapt on plans or take students out of the

classroom for specialized learning.

Explored pedagogical strategies carried out by teachers to support special

need children in improving their level of literacy and numeracy. Results revealed

that most students have problems in literacy (spelling, reading complex words,

and write long words) and numeracy (counting, subtraction, multiplication and

divide). The common teaching practice found out that minimal effect on children’s

literacy and numeracy. The current study suggests rethinking of a new

pedagogical approach for improving literacy and numeracy for slow learners

(Mumpuniarti, 2017).

Owing to physical or mental disabilities, disabled students often come

across more difficulties in learning. In an effort to improve their learning,

researchers have adopted technology-supported tools to enhance disabled

students’ adaptability to the learning environment and their learning achievement.

The application of technology-supported special education has gradually

increased in recent years. However, there is still a lack of investigation and

 19

analysis of the application and development trends of integrating technologies

into special education.

According to Shu-Chen Cheng & Chiu-Lin Lai (2020), the number of

studies has increased year by year, and the choice of learning devices and

applications has become increasingly diverse; yet, the learning strategies still

tend to be conservative since the majority of studies adopted the guided learning

strategy. In addition, the application of technology has expanded to every

learning domain, but it is mainly focus on elementary school students and

resource classrooms. Most importantly, the implementation of technology-

supported special education tends not to result in teaching difficulties due to

disabled students having different types and levels of disabilities.

While reading disabilities receive the most attention, writing disabilities can

be equally difficult to overcome. These disabilities known as dysgraphia, relate to

the physical act of writing. These students often cannot hold a pencil correctly,

and their posture may be tense while trying to write. This leads them to tire

easily, causing discouragement that further inhibits progress.

Dysgraphia can also refer to difficulty with written expression. With this

type of disability, students have trouble organizing their thoughts coherently.

Their writing may be redundant or have obvious omissions that affect the quality

and readability of the text. It may also cause students to struggle with basic

sentence structure and grammatical awareness.

 20

Thus, special educators have created classrooms conducive to inclusive

learning by consulting Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), relaying

content in diverse ways, using various approaches for processing information,

incorporating life skills training, collaborating with other teachers, and following a

flexible behavior plan (Special Education Guide, 2019).

Special Education in the Philippines is anchored on the following legal

documents, Articles 356 and 259 of Commonwealth Act No. 3203, "the right of

every child to live in an atmosphere conducive to his physical, moral and

intellectual development" and the concomitant duty of the government "to

promote the full growth of the faculties of every child." Republic Act No. 3562:

"An Act to Promote the Education of the Blind in the Philippines provided for the

formal training of special education teachers of blind children at the Philippine

Normal College, the rehabilitation of the Philippine National School for the Blind

(PNSB) and the establishment of the Philippine Printing House of the Blind.

Support can define as all activities that increase the capacity of a school to

respond to diversity (Mahlo, 2011). A supportive environment where there is

collaboration among teachers, district officials, principals, parents and learner

support for teachers is crucial for successful implementation of inclusive

education. Support may involve a group of colleagues who are available to assist

learners experiencing barriers to learning; therefore, educational support services

need to be organized and the roles of all players in the implementation of

inclusive education clearly defined (Calitz, 2000).

 21

The result supported by the study according to Pijl and Meier, (2017)

inclusive education can only is successful if teachers elicit. Attitude that

acceptable to all learners and when they have sufficient support and resources to

teach all learners. This is a positive step towards capacity building, a large

number of teachers who are already in the field still feel they lack the skill and the

tools to teach learners with diverse needs because most of them received

training in inclusive education, while capacity-building workshops have not been

able to reach a majority of teachers in the field.

In special education, also known as exceptional student education,

teachers and administrators work together to create successful interventions for

students who have a wide range of mental and physical disabilities. Education

professionals such as principals, assistant principals and curriculum directors are

leaders when it comes to developing the specialized curriculum these students

need to succeed.

Institutionalization of the SPED program in regular schools mandated

through DECS Order No. 26, s. 1997. This deemed important to be able to

address the increasing demand of clients with special needs in the light of the

dearth of trained Teacher handling with special needs. Through the directive, all

school divisions throughout the country are required to organize at least one

SPED Center in each school division.

 22

The establishment of this center aims to provide access to basic education

among children with special needs. namely: the gifted/talented, the mentally

retarded, the visually impaired, the hearing impaired, the orthopedically

handicapped, the learning disabled, the speech defectives, the children with

behavior problems, the autistic children and those with health problems through

the formal system and other alternative delivery services in education.

Special Education shall aim to develop the maximum potential of the child

with special needs to enable him to become self-reliant and shall be gear

towards providing him with the opportunities for a full and happy life.

The specific objectives of special education shall be the development and

maximization of learning competencies, as well as the inculcation of values to

make the learners with special needs a useful and effective member of society.

The law ensures that to the maximum extent appropriate, children with

disabilities should be educated with children who are typically developing.

Special classes, separate schooling or removal of children with disabilities from

typically developing peers occurs only when education cannot be attaining

satisfactorily with the use of supplementary aids and services classroom

leadership.

Students with disabilities are spending time isolated from their peers and

more time interacting and socializing in general education classrooms known as

 23

inclusion classrooms. There was a 90 percent increase in the time special

education students spent in inclusion classrooms (Anderson, 2018).

These inclusive classrooms afford both special education students and

traditional students more instructional time, fewer absences, better post-

secondary outcomes, and increased social benefits for both populations as

students learn to better relate to diverse populations (Anderson, 2018).

Scholarship and training programs in special education include the areas

of mental retardation, learning disability, hearing impairment, visual impairment,

autism, multiple disabilities, giftedness and organization, administration and

supervision. These training programs specifically aim to enhance knowledge and

skills of teachers, administrators and supervisors in handling and managing

programs for children with special needs; update them on current trends and

issues on special education; share best practices in the provision of access and

quality special education programs; and organize education programs for

children with special needs.

These positive changes have taken place in both inclusion classrooms

and special education leadership positions. A special education leader has clear

responsibilities for understanding the ever-changing laws and regulations and

working closely with state departments of education on compliance and

monitoring. They are responsible for ensuring that students with disabilities

provided a high-quality education. Additionally, they evaluate the special

 24

education staff to ensure that special education students are making progress

(Bateman & Cline, 2019).

As a result, their pace in learning becomes slow because they are not able

to hear, see or express themselves properly or because they write more slowly

than other children, and learning at unfriendly facilities results in many of them

failing to pass exams. It is evident in literature that use of inappropriate teaching

and learning methods and support material negatively affected the process of

implementing inclusive education.

The study anchored with related theories, concepts and ideas in

connection to teachers’ challenges in teaching special education pupils and

public services accessibility access.

Bar Nava (2015), focused the entry stage of the beginning teacher is a

distinct stage in the circle of the professional development of teachers and is

accompanied by many challenges and difficulties.

The classic model of Fuller (1969), and its extension into the model of

Fuller and Brown, (1975) that addresses the beginning teacher’s concerns,

presents three stages in the beginning teacher’s professional development: the

stage of survival concerns about the self, the stage of mastery concerns about

tasks/situations, and the stage of impact concerns about the impact on students.
 25

The difficulties of beginning teachers in special education, and the

possibility to use this knowledge to improve the mechanisms of absorption of the

special education novice teachers in the educational field.

On the other hand, Maslow’s Motivational Theory believed that human

always motivated to achieve and fulfill their self-needs. Maslow’s Hierarchy of

Needs shows the levels of human needs starting from physiology, safety, love

and trust, self-appreciation and self-fulfillment needs. When the basic level of

human need was fulfill, the next level of need become the next priority (Maslow,

1954).

If human needs were not fulfill according to the hierarchy, problems or

conflicts will occur and that particular person will not be able to shift to another

level of needs. Thus, it is important that this survey based on Maslow’s

Motivational Theory to identify and determine the priority level of the problems

faced by special education teachers in teaching multiple disabilities students in

order to overcome the problems according to the hierarchy of needs.

Therefore, research about problems faced by special education teachers

in teaching multiple disabilities students deserves fairness and equality towards

opportunity to receive high quality education.

Improving education for special needs children is an important element in

national policy to ensure equality of opportunity, full participation, ability to be

 26

independent and adequate economic for individual with disability educational act

2004, (IDEA).

The primary goal of the Gestalt Theory is to encourage the brain to view

not just the whole, but also the parts that make up that whole. For example, when

someone is looking at a tree, is he just staring at this tree, or does he also see

the leaves, the branches, and the trunk? The whole and the sum of its parts are

two entirely different things, and learning can achieved, if learners are able

cognitively process how parts can make up this whole.

According to the Gestalt Theory commonly known as the “Law of

Simplicity”. Every stimulus is perceive by humans in its “most simple form”. The

focus of the theory is “grouping” and the entire theory emphasizes on the fact

that the whole of anything is greater than the sum of its parts. Besides, “gestalt”

in German means the “shape of an entity’s complete form”. Thus, the operational

principle of the brain is holistic and has a self-organizing inclination.

The Conditions of Learning Theory (Gagne, R. 1985) stipulates that there

are several different types or levels of learning. The significance of these

classifications is that each different type requires different types of instruction.

Gagne identifies five major categories of learning: verbal information, intellectual

skills, cognitive strategies, motor skills and attitudes.

Different internal and external conditions are necessary for each type of

learning. For example, for cognitive strategies to learned, there must be a chance
 27

to practice developing new solutions to problems; to learn attitudes, the learner

must be expose to a credible role model or persuasive arguments.

Gagne suggests that learning tasks for intellectual skills be organized in a

hierarchy according to complexity: stimulus recognition, response generation,

procedure following, use of terminology, discriminations, concept formation, rule

application, and problem solving. The primary significance of the hierarchy is to

identify prerequisites that should complete to facilitate learning at each level.

Prerequisites identified by doing a task analysis of a learning/training task.

Learning hierarchies provide a basis for the sequencing of instruction.

Cognitive load theory, the first outlined in 1988 by John Sweller, an

educational psychologist at the University of New South Wales, Australia. Sweller

built on the working memory model of memory, which proposed that long-term

memories develop when auditory and visual information is processed (or

rehearsed) to a greater degree than other everyday observations (Baddeley and

Hitch, 1974).

Sweller (1988), believed that factors which make learning unnecessarily

complex, or distract us from information we are trying to pay attention to,

increase a person’s cognitive load as they are processing it. The result of higher

cognitive load, a stimulus is more difficult to pay attention to, rehearse and

remember, making learning never effective.

 28

The Department of Education (DepEd) has recently issued the policy on

the implementation of multi-factored assessment tool identify Learners with

Special Educational Needs (LSENs) who may need education services and other

services.

Education Secretary Leonor Briones, in DepEd Order No. 29 series of

2018 – issued to all undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, bureau and service

directors, regional directors, schools division superintendents, public senior high

school heads and all others concerned – issued the Policy on the Utilization of

Multi-Factored Assessment Tool (MFAT).

DepEd, through the Bureau of Learning Delivery-Student Inclusion

Division (BLD-SID), issued the MFAT to “assess Grade 1 learners enrolled in

regular schools, who may exhibit developmental advancement or delays or have

manifestations of learning disability.” Primarily, the policy aims to “identify

Learners with Special Educational Needs (LSENs), who may need education

services and/or medical/allied services” as well as to “assist teachers in planning

and designing instructions appropriate for LSENs.”

This MFAT is a “classroom activity-based assessment” covering the five

domains of learning: Cognitive, Communication, Socio-Emotional, Psychomotor,

and Daily Living Skills. Briones noted that the said “policy shall take effect

immediately upon approval, and should remain in force and in effect for the

duration of the program, never otherwise repealed, amended or rescinded.” She

also directed the immediate dissemination of and strict compliance with the said
 29

DepEd Order. Despite the increasing awareness on the “red flags” of children

with special needs, DepEd Bureau of Learning Delivery-Student Inclusion

Division (BLD-SID) Supervising Education Program Specialist Nancy Pascual

told the Manila Bulletin in an earlier interview that identification of these learners

remains a “challenge” for DepEd.

The perspectives of special educators and their leaders are vital to

positive change in advancing the practice of inclusion. These assessments and

experiences provide a crucial lens through which educators and researchers may

view inclusion theory and literature.

Educators must be multifaceted to properly run an effective inclusive

classroom and meet the needs of a diverse student population. Teachers have

created inclusive classrooms conducive to learning by consulting Individualized

Education Programs (IEPs), relaying content in diverse ways, using various

approaches for processing information, incorporating life skills training to

collaborating with other teachers, and following a flexible behavior plan (Special

Education Guide, 2019).

THE PROBLEM

Statement of the Problem

The main thrust of this study was to determine the status of teaching

special education in the Division of Bohol during the school year 2020-2021.
 30

Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:

1.1 age,

1.2 sex,

1.3 civil status,

1.4 highest educational attainment,

1.5 rank or position and

1.6 number of years of teaching experience?

2. What is the academic performance of the SPED pupils in terms of :

2.1 listening;

2.2.speaking;

2.3 reading and

2.4 writing?

3. What is the teacher's level of awareness in teaching special education pupils?

4. What are the challenges encountered by the respondent in teaching special

education pupils as to:

4.1 curriculum;

4.2 resources and

4.3 professional development

5. What is the respondents’ assessment on the availability and accessibility as to:

5.1 services offered and

5.2 tools offered?

6. What are the strategies used by the Teacher’s handling with special needs?
 31

7. What are the different disabilities handled by the teacher?

8. Is there a significant relationship between the assessment of teachers on the

pupils’ academic performance and the challenges encountered by teachers

handling with special needs in terms of: curriculum, resources and professional

development?

9. Is there a significant relationship between the assessment of teachers on

pupil’s academic performance and their availability and accessibility in terms of:

9.1 services offered and

9.2 tools offered?

10. Is there a significant difference in the status of teaching SPED pupils in the

districts of the Division of Bohol in terms of: academic performance, level of

awareness, challenges encountered, accessibility and availability of the tools and

services offered, strategies used and the pupils disabilities encountered?

11. Is there differences of the status of teaching among three (3) districts in the

division of Bohol when compared between districts.

12. What program to propose to base on the result teaching SPED pupils?

Null Hypotheses

1. There is no significant relationship between the assessment of teachers on the

pupils’ academic performance and the challenges encountered by teachers

handling with special needs in terms of: curriculum, resources and

professional development.
 32

2. There is no significant relationship between the assessment of teachers on

pupil’s academic performance and their availability and accessibility in terms

of: services offered and tools offered.

3. There is no significant difference in the status of teaching SPED pupils in the

districts of the Division of Bohol in terms of: academic performance, level of

awareness, challenges encountered, accessibility and availability of the tools

and services offered, strategies used and the pupils disabilities encountered.

4. There is no significant difference among district of the status of teaching SPED

in the three (3) different districts in the division of Bohol.

Significance of the Study

Since the study is, expected to provide valuable information and insights

about the status of teaching special education in the Division of Bohol, the results

would be of great value to and would benefit the following:

Teacher handling with special needs. The study would be useful for

them as a guide that the challenges encountered in teaching SPED pupils would

not be the hindrance for them to give the quality education that LSENs deserve

to acquire.

Department of Education Personnel. This study would provide useful

information in terms of materials and relevant trainings for teachers to be

equipped for their daily teaching-learning process.

 33

Curriculum Planners. This study will provide them enough information,

perception, and opinions about school head’s competencies that may guide them

in decision-making, curriculum planning and policy implemented for the benefits

of the students and others stakeholders.

School Heads who would take the lead in initiating the programs and

interventions to address the needs of every teacher and pupils in carrying out the

goal of making every Filipino child learn and acquire quality education.

Future Researchers that the study would provides them with inputs and

data as guides and secondary sources for further conduct of related studies.

Moreover, future researchers may conduct parallel study considering also the

pupils’ diverse performance and strengths.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Design

This study employed descriptive survey method using Google Forms

through messenger using the DepEd email. The quantitative data from the

survey-forms were utilize in order to address the primary aim of this study. This

design found to be appropriate for the purpose of the study, which was to

evaluate the status of teaching special education in the Division of Bohol.

 34

Environment and Participants

Bohol derived from the word Bo-ho or Bo-ol. It comprises numerous small

surrounding Islands. It is the first class division divide into 3 congressional

districts, comprising the capital city of Tagbilaran with a land area of 4,821 km 2

(1,861 sq. mi) and a coastline about 261km (162mi) long, comprising the forty

seven (47) municipalities. It has 1,109 barangays. Being the tenth largest island

of the Philippines.

The respondents of the study are the sixty- three (63) teachers handling

with special needs in the division of Bohol. There were thirty- seven (37) public

elementary SPED centers in the Division of Bohol. Thirty seven public

elementary SPED centers located in division of Bohol the CD-1 composed of

Albuquerque, Antequera, Baclayon, Balilihan, Calape, Categbian, Corella, Dauis,

Loon, Maribojoc, Panglao, Sikatuna and Tubigon. The CD-2 composed of the

district of Bein Unido, Buenavista, Clarin, Dagohoy, Danao, Getafe, Inabanga,

Pres. Carlos P. Garcia, Sagbayan, San Isidro, San Miguel, Talibon, Trinidad and

Ubay. Last CD-3 composed of Alicia, Anda, Batuan, Bilar, Candijay, Carmen,

Dimiao, Duero, Garcia Hernandez, Guindulman, Jagna, Lila, Loay, Loboc,

Mabini, Pilar, Sevilla, Siera Bullones and Valencia. Table below is show for the

distribution of the respondent. In addition, figure 2 is show for the local of the

study.
 35

Table A

Distribution of Respondents Teachers Handling with Special Needs

In the Division of Bohol

CD-1 Teacher Learners Total

Baclayon 2 14 16
Balilihan 1 9 10
Categbian 1 5 6
Dauis 2 14 16
Loon North 1 5 6
Loon South 4 30 34
Maribojoc 1 12 13
Panglao, 2 16 18
Tubigon. 1 14 15
Sub Total 15 119 134
CD-2
Dagohoy 3 35 38
Danao 1 11 12
Getafe 1 16 17
Inabanga South 1 20 21
Sagbayan 2 24 26
Talibon 1 2 11 13
Talibon 2 1 9 10
Trinidad 1 8 9
Ubay 1 2 24 26
Ubay 2 1 31 32
Sub Total 15 189 204
CD-3
Alicia 2 8 10
Anda 1 18 19
Batuan 1 9 10
Bilar 2 19 21
Candijay, 3 16 19
Carmen West 3 21 24
Carmen East 1 10 11
Dimiao 1 7 8
Garcia Hernandez 1 12 13
Jagna 8 73 81
Lila 1 6 7
Loay, 1 12 13
Loboc, 2 24 26
Mabini, 3 23 26
Pilar, 1 8 9
Sevilla 1 8 9
Siera Bullones 1 19 20
Sub Total 33 293 326
Grand Total 63 601 634
 36

Legend:

CD – 1

CD – 2

CD - 3

Figure 2. Map of Bohol

 37

Instrument

The researcher used a modify survey adopted questionnaire from the

study of Willis (2019), Fakudze (2015), Motitswe (2016) and Najingo (2018), as

the main tool in gathering data.

However, these were minor revision made to suit the needs of the

learners. The questionnaire was in the Google Forms wherein the respondents

made to reflect their assessment of the different items included in each aspect

using the corresponding weight equivalent of 4, 3, 2, and 1 to the different

description used as follows:

The questionnaire has seven (7) instruments namely: 1.questionnaire for

profile for categories of learners’ 2. academic performance, 3. teachers’ level of

awareness, 4. challenges, 5. availability and accessibility tools and services

offered, 6. strategies and 7. handling different disability that help for special

education teachers’.

1. On questionnaire for the teachers’ profile. It consisted of the

teachers’ demographic profile to determine the respondents’ age, civil status,

sex, highest educational attainment, rank or position, seminar attended and

teaching experience.

2. On questionnaire for categories of academic performance, It

consisted of twenty (20) questions consisted of which items measures the

 38

academic attainment of the pupils with disability. The instrument based on the

study of Willis (2019).

The questionnaire were categorized by the following rating scales namely;

approaching proficiency (4) the child manifest the skills most of the times,

developing (3) the child sometimes manifest the skills, beginning (2) the child

seldom manifest the skills, not Observed (1) no manifestation at all / not

Applicable.

3. On instrument for teachers’ awareness in teaching Special

Education. It consisted of ten (10) questions the item measure on the level of

awareness of the teacher handling SPED pupils. The instruments based on the

study of Willis (2019).

The questionnaire were categorized by the following rating scales namely;

Fully Aware (4) every month, Aware (3), once a year, Slightly Aware (2) once a

month, Never Aware(1) no manifestation at all / not Applicable.

4. On instrument for teachers’ challenges and professional

development encounter in teaching Special Education. It consisted of fifteen

(15) questions the item to measure on the professional development of the

teacher and the challenges encountered. The instrument based on the study of

Fakudze (2015), and Motitswe (2016).

The questionnaire were categorized by the following rating scales namely;

always encountered (4) every month, sometimes encountered (3), once a year,
 39

rarely encountered (2) once a month, never encountered (1) no manifestation at

all / not Applicable.

5. On instrument for teachers’ availability and accessibility of tools

and services offered for SPED pupils. It consisted of two sets, the set A

consisted of six (6) questions, the item measure on what accessibility services

being offered that is needed in teaching SPED pupils. Set B consisted of seven

(7) questions, the item measures on the tools or devices needed in teaching

SPED pupils. The instrument was base on the study of Najingo (2018).

The questionnaire were categorized by the following rating scales on set

A. namely; always available accessible (4) every month, oftentimes available and

accessible (3) once a year, seldom available and accessible (2) once a month,

not available and accessible (1), While set B. The rating scales namely; always

available accessible (4) every month, oftentimes available and accessible (3)

once a year, seldom available and accessible (2) once a month, not available

and accessible (1).

6. On instrument for teachers’ strategies used in teaching Special

Education. It consisted of five (5) questions the item measure on what strategies

used by the teacher in SPED. The instrument was base on the study of Willis

(2019).
 40

The questionnaire categorized by the following rating scales namely;

always used (4) 5 x a day, sometimes used (3) 3 x a day, fairly used (2) once a

day, not used (1) no manifestation at all / not Applicable.

7. On instrument for teacher‘s handled different disabilities by

teachers handling with special needs. It consisted of fifty three (53) questions

the item measure on what category of the pupil’s disability being handling. The

instrument based on the study of Willis (2019).

The questionnaire were categorized by the following rating scales namely;

Fully encounter (4) 10 above of pupils with this ability, Fairly encounter (3) 5-10

Pupils with this ability , Slightly Encounter (2) 1 - 5, pupils with this disability, Not

Encounter (1) no manifestation at all / not Applicable.

Procedure

The researcher seeks an approval to conduct the study, the following:

Dean of the College of Advanced Studies, the Campus Director, BISU Candijay

Campus, the Schools Division Superintendent of Bohol, and channeled through

Dr. Carmela M. Restificar, division SPED coordinator, Then, the researcher

distributed the questionnaires together with the approved letter from the

superintendent to send questioner and gather the needed data via emails to the

identified respondents of the study.

The researcher assured the respondents regarding the confidentiality of

their responses and solicited their sincere cooperation to answer honestly and
 41

objectively the questionnaires. After the data collection, these were tabulated,

analyzed, interpreted, and reported.

Statistical Treatment

Simple percentage was use to determine the profile of the respondent.

Formula:

F
P= x 100
N

Where:

P = percentage

F = Frequency

N = Number of Cases

To determine the respondents’ level of awareness, challenges

encountered, tools and services offered, strategies and handling different

disability the formula of weight mean were used:

Formula:

∑ Fx
WM=
N

Where:

WM = weighted mean
 42

∑ Fx = summation of frequency of scale value x

N = number of cases

To evaluate the relationship between the assessment of the teachers on

the academic performance of the SPED pupils and challenges encountered and

availability and accessibility of tools and services offered, the Spearman Rank

Correlation Coefficient was used.

Formula:

2
6∑D
r s=1− 2
n( n −1)

Where:

rs = Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient

∑D2= sum of the squares of the difference between rank x and rank y

n = sample size

6 = constant

To determine the significant difference in the status of teaching of SPED

pupil’s one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used them subjected to

Scheffes test to determine the difference of the three (3) congressional districts

(CD).
 43

DEFINITION OF TERMS

To guide the readers in understanding the content of the study, the

following terms were define operationally:

Division of Bohol. It refers to the scope and coverage of this study in the

status of teaching Special Education pupils where in the teacher respondent

were employed.

Special Education. It refers to educational services provided by the

public school system to the pupils with special educational needs.

Teacher Handling with Special Needs. It refers to the teachers with the

big heart in handling pupils with disability.

Accessibility. It refers to the quality of being able to reached or be

obtained by the teachers and learners in special education.

Challenges. It refers to the situations being faced by SPED a teacher

that needs great mental, emotional or physical effort in order to be done

successfully.

Status of Teaching. It refers to the real scenario in teaching SPED pupils

as perceived by the teacher in the division of Bohol.

 44

Chapter 2

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the data, which comprised the profile of the

respondents as to age, sex, civil status, highest educational attainment, rank or

position and number of years of teaching experience.

The data collated and presented through tables and figures. Likewise, the

results are analyzed and interpreted using percentage for respondents’ profile.

Weighted mean, for the academic performance of the SPED pupils, the

teacher’s level of awareness in teaching special education pupils, the teacher’s

challenges encountered in teaching special education pupils, respondents

assessment on the availability and accessibility of tools and services offered,

strategies used by the teacher handling with special needs, different disabilities

handled by the teachers handling with special needs. Spearman Coefficient of

Correlation for the significant relationship between the challenges encountered

by Teacher handling with special needs and availability and accessibility of the

services offered, significant relationship between teachers’ challenges

encountered and their pupils’ academic performance. One-way analyses the

variance (ANNOVA) was apply in determining the significant differences of the

status of teaching special education. The findings of which are made as bases on

the drawing of conclusions and recommendations.

 45

Table 1
Profile of the Respondents
N=63

1.1 Age Frequency Percentage Rank

20 - 29 26 41.3 1
30 – 39 25 39.7 2
40 – 49 4 6.3 4
50 - 59 7 11.1 3
60 years old and above 1 1.6 5
Total 63 100%
1.2 Sex
Male 2 3.2 2
Female 61 96.8 1
Total 63 100%
1.3 Civil Status
Single 21 33.3 2
Married 42 66.7 1
Annulled / Divorced 0 0.0 3.5
Widowed 0 0.0 3.5
Total 63 100%
1.4 Highest Educational Attainment
Baccalaureate Degree 24 38.1 1
Bachelor's Degree Holder with Master's Units 9 14.3 3
Bachelor's Degree Holder with Master's Units in SPED 16 25.4 2
MA Complete Academic Requirements (CAR) 3 4.8 5.5
MA Complete Academic Requirements (CAR) in SPED 8 12.7 4
Master's Degree Holder 0 0.0 8.5
Master's Degree Holder in SPED 3 4.8 5.5
Master's Degree Holder with Doctorate Units 0 0.0 8.5
Master's Degree Holder with Doctorate Units in SPED 0 0.0 8.5
Doctorate Degree Holder 0 0.0 8.5
Total 63 100%
1.5 Rank or Position
Teacher I 36 57.1 1
Teacher II 0 0.0 5
Teacher III 1 1.6 3
Master Teacher I 0 0.0 5
Master Teacher II 0 0.0 5
Spet I 26 41.3 2
Total 63 100%
1.6 Number of Years of Teaching Experience
1-5 years 43 68.3 1
6-10 years 10 15.9 2
 46

11-15 years 3 4.8 4

16-20 years 2 3.2 5
21 years and above 5 7.9 3
Total 63 100%
Age. In table 1.1, the result shows that the age interval of 20 - 29 got the

highest rank with a frequency of twenty-six (26) respondents or 41.3% while the

ages 60 years old and above got the lowest rank with a frequency of one (1)

respondents or 1.6%. This implies that most of the respondents are fresh

graduate students in a tertiary education.

Sex. As stated in table 1.2, majority of the respondents are female with a

total frequency of sixty-one (61) having a percentage of 96.8% while there are

only two (2) male respondents or 3.2 % in terms of number. This implies that any

sex can penetrate into the position as far as gender equality is now recognized.

Civil Status. In terms of civil status in table 1.3, the result shows that

majority of the respondents are already married with the highest frequency of

forty-two (42) or 66.7%. However, none of the respondents is annulled/divorced

and widowed.

Highest Educational Attainment. Table 1.4 illustrates that the

Baccalaureate Degree obtained the highest frequency of twenty-four (24) or a

percentage of 38.1%. However, none attained the Master’s Degree Holder,

Master’s Degree Holder with Doctorate Units, Master’s Degree Holder with

Doctorate Units in SPED and Doctorate Degree Holder.

Rank or Position. As illustrated in table 1.5 in terms of rank or position,

the data shows that majority of the respondents are Teacher I by plantilla and
 47

designated as a Teachers handling with special needs in rank or position with a

frequency of thirty-six (36) or 57.1%. However, none of the respondents attained

the Teacher II, Master Teacher Master Teacher II and I rank or position.

Number of Years of Teaching Experience. With regards to the number

of years of teaching experience, it is reflected in table 1.6 that majority of the

respondents had 1-5 years of teaching experience with a frequency of forty-three

(43) or 68.3% while the lowest frequency of two (2) or 3.2% goes to 16-20 years

of experience. This means that neophytes in the teaching profession.

The result supported by the study conducted by Pijl and Meier (2017),

inclusive education can only, be successful if teachers elicit an attitude to accept

all learners and when they have sufficient support and resources to teach the

learners. This is a positive step towards capacity building, a large number of

teachers who are already in the field still feel they lack the skill and the tools to

teach learners with diverse needs because most of them never received training

in inclusive education, while capacity-building workshops have not been able to

reach a majority of teachers in the field.

Based on the study of Bagree and Lewis (2018), further argue to reignite

progress towards quality basic education (early childhood, primary and lower

secondary schooling) where in regular teachers need to be prepared to meet the

learning and participation needs of children with disabilities.

 48

In table 2.1 as to Listening, item no. 1, which states, “follows simple

direction”, got the highest rank with an Average Weighted Mean of 2.90 while

item no. 3 “comprehends simple and familiar stories” got the lowest spot in

ranking with Average Weighted Mean of 2.41.

Table 2

Academic Performance of SPED Pupils

N=63

Academic Performance of SPED Pupils WM DI RANK

The SPED pupils’ academic performance in terms of ….
2.1. Listening
1.follows simple direction 2.90 D 1
2.distinguishes different types of sounds 2.67 D 3
3.comprehends simple and familiar stories 2.41 B 5
4.listens attentively to stories, poems/rhymes 2.62 D 4
5.engages in communication with others 2.73 D 2
Average Weighted Mean (WM) 2.67 Developing
2.2. Speaking
1.increases vocabulary to describe things 2.41 B 2
2.increases vocabulary to express one’s feelings 2.48 B 1
3.increases vocabulary to share information 2.30 B 3
4.answers and responds to questions accordingly 2.24 B 4
5.narrates simple and familiar stories 2.17 B 5
Average Weighted Mean (WM) 2.32 Beginning
2.3. Reading
1.classifies objects according to function 2.22 B 1.5
2.notes details in pictures 2.16 B 3
3.visualizes objects and pictures from memory 2.22 B 1.5
4.comprehends picture stories 2.05 B 4.5
5.performs relevant study skills 2.05 B 4.5
Average Weighted Mean (WM) 2.14 Beginning
2.4. Writing
1.holds and grips pencil properly 2.92 D 1
2.traces lines and shapes 2.84 D 3
3.traces letters, numbers, and one’s name properly 2.89 D 2
4.copies lines, shapes, letters, numbers, and one’s name 2.68 D 5
properly
5.uses basic strokes correctly 2.75 D 4
Average Weighted Mean (WM) 2.82 Developing
Overall Average Weighted Mean (WM) 2.48 Developing
 49

Legend:
Average Weighted Mean
Range Descriptive Interpretation (DI) (WM)
3.26 - 4.00 Approaching Proficiency (AP)
2.51 - 3.25 Developing (D)
1.76 - 2.50 Beginning (B)
1.00 - 1.75 Not Observed (NO)
In terms to Speaking, item no. 2 in table 2.2, “increases vocabulary to

express one’s feelings” got the highest rank with the highest Average Weighted

Mean of 2.48 while item no. 5 “narrates simple and familiar stories” got the lowest

rank with a lowest Average Weighted Mean of 2.17.

In table 2.3 as to Reading, the highest rank goes to the statements in no.

1 and 3 “classifies objects according to function” and “visualizes objects and

pictures from memory” respectively, with an Average Weighted Mean of 2.22. On

the other hand, items no. 4 and 5 “comprehends picture stories” and “performs

relevant study skills” respectively, got the lowest rank with an Average Weighted

Mean of 2.05.

In terms to Writing, item no. 1 in table 2.4, “holds and grips pencil

properly” got the highest rank with the highest Average Weighted Mean of 2.92

while item no. 4 “copies lines, shapes, letters, numbers, and one’s name

properly” got the lowest rank with a lowest Average Weighted Mean of 2.68. The

overall Average Weighted Mean is 2.48 and described as “Developing”.

A study conducted by Ahammed (2018), have also revealed the results in

his study that most students have problems in literacy (spelling, reading complex

words, and write long words) and numeracy (counting, subtraction, multiplication

and divide). As the common teaching practice found to have minimal effect on
 50

children’s literacy and numeracy, the current study suggests rethinking of a new

pedagogical approach for improving literacy and numeracy for slow learners.

It supported by the study conducted by Hurwitz, Perry, Cohen, et.al.

(2019) in which the results indicate that test scores of students with disabilities

improved after enrolled in special education. Additionally, student-exiting special

education exhibited a sustained trajectory of academic growth, suggesting that

participation in special education in this district was associated with enduring

improvements over time.

The law ensures that to the maximum extent appropriate, children with

disabilities should be educated with children who are typically developing.

Special classes, separate schooling or removal of children with disabilities from

typically developing peers occurs only when education cannot be attaining

satisfactorily with the use of supplementary aids and services (Classroom

Leadership, 2001).

The primary goal of the Gestalt Theory is to encourage the brain to view

not just the whole, but also the parts that make up that whole. For example, when

someone is looking at a tree, is he just staring at this tree, or does he also see

the leaves, the branches, and the trunk? The whole and the sum of its parts are

two entirely different things, and learning can be achieve if learners are able to

cognitively process how parts can make up this whole.

 51

According to the Gestalt Theory that commonly known as, the “Law of

Simplicity”. Every stimulus perceived by humans in its “most simple form”. The

focus of the theory is “grouping” and the entire theory emphasizes on the fact

that the whole of anything is greater than the sum of its parts. Besides, “gestalt”

in German means the “shape of an entity’s complete form”. Thus, the operational

principle of the brain is holistic and has a self-organizing inclination.

The Conditions of Learning Theory (Gagne, R. (1985) stipulates that there

are several different types or levels of learning. The significance of these

classifications is that each different type requires different types of instruction.

Gagne identifies five major categories of learning: verbal information, intellectual

skills, cognitive strategies, motor skills and attitudes.

Different internal and external conditions are necessary for each type of

learning. For example, for cognitive strategies to learned, there must be a chance

to practice developing new solutions to problems; to learn attitudes, the learner

must exposed to a credible role model or persuasive arguments.

Gagne suggests that learning tasks for intellectual skills organized in a

hierarchy according to complexity: stimulus recognition, response generation,

procedure following, use of terminology, discriminations, concept formation, rule

application, and problem solving. The primary significance of the hierarchy is to

identify prerequisites that completed to facilitate learning at each level.

Prerequisites identified by doing a task analysis of a learning/training task.

Learning hierarchies provide a basis for the sequencing of instruction.

 52

Cognitive load theory was first outlined in 1988 by John Sweller built on

the working memory model of memory which proposed that long-term memories

develop when auditory and visual information is processed (or rehearsed) to a

greater degree than other everyday observations (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974).

A study conducted by Ahammed (2018), have also revealed the results

in his study that most students have problems in literacy (spelling, reading

complex words, and write long words) and numeracy (counting, subtraction,

multiplication and divide). As the common teaching practice found to have

minimal effect on children’s literacy and numeracy, the current study suggests

rethinking of a new pedagogical approach for improving literacy and numeracy

for slow learners.

Table 3

Teacher’s Level of Awareness in Teaching Special Education Pupils

N=63

Teachers’ Level of Awareness in Teaching Special Education WM DI RANK

Pupils
I am aware that the Special Education Program…
1. assess the development of the pupils 3.60 FA 3.5
2. provides appropriate intervention in some areas of concern 3.57 FA 5
3. exerts effort to link the community 3.49 FA 7
4. participates in the collaboration and partnership with the different 3.27 FA 9.5
organization
5. identifies pupils’ strengths and weakness 3.71 FA 1
6. organizes background information of the pupils 3.68 FA 2
7. interpret the result of the data gathered 3.49 FA 7
8. organizes the gathered data of pupils 3.60 FA 3.5
9. ask assistance to the government or concerned authorities to 3.27 FA 9.5
address the needs of the pupils
10. strengthens and boost the confidence of the pupils in all 3.49 FA 7
schools
Average Weighted Mean (WM) 3.52 Fully Aware

Legend
 53

:
Range Descriptive Interpretation (DI) Average Weighted Mean (WM)
3.26 - 4.00 Fully Aware (FA)
2.51 - 3.25 Aware (A)
1.76 - 2.50 Slightly Aware (SP)
1.00 - 1.75 Never Aware (NA)

The data in Table 3 shows that item no. 5 “identifies pupils’ strengths and

weakness” obtained the highest Average Weighted Mean of 3.71 and described

as “Fully Aware.” In contrast, items no. 4 and 9 “participates in the collaboration

and partnership with the different organization” and “ask assistance to the

government or concerned authorities to address the needs of the pupils”

respectively, obtained the lowest Average Weighted Mean of 3.27.

The result of the study is parallel with the study conducted by Lindacher

(2020), the results indicate a need to secure and integrate co-teaching

relationships structurally into a school’s development process. The article

concludes with some options for development in practice.

Table 4 shows that as to the Teacher handling with special needs

encountered challenges in curriculum, item no. 1 “classroom objectives align with

the student needs” got the highest rank with an Average Weighted Mean of 3.10

while item no. 3 “curriculum poorly aligned with general education” got the lowest

rank with an Average Weighted Mean of 2.17. The resources in the item no.1

“provide that the environment required for them to learn and grow”. Item no. 3

“resources and assistive devices”, both obtained the highest rank with an

average weighted mean of 2.89, while the lowest in rank is item no. 2

“insufficient materials and utilities to be used in the instructional process” with an

Average Weighted Mean of 2.43.

 54

Table 4

Teachers’ Challenges Encountered in Teaching Special Education Pupils

N=63

Teachers’ Challenges Encountered in Teaching Special WM DI RANK

Education Pupils
The Teacher handling with special needs’ encountered challenges in curriculum
such as …
1. classroom objectives align with the student needs 3.10 SE 1
2. inappropriate ways of assessing learning 2.21 NE 3
3. curriculum poorly aligned with general education 2.17 NE 5
4. inflexible style of teaching and classroom management 2.19 NE 4
5. diverse learning disabilities of the SPED pupils contained 3.02 SE 2
in one classroom.
Average Weighted Mean (WM) 2.54 Rarely
Encountered
The Teacher handling with special needs’ encountered challenges in resources
such as…
1. provides the environment required for them to learn and 2.89 SE 1.5
grow.
2. insufficient materials and utilities to be used in the 2.43 NE 5
instructional process.
3. resources and assistive devices 2.89 SE 1.5
4. funding for inclusive education program 2.87 SE 3
5. fund from the local government 2.70 SE 4
Average Weighted Mean (WM) 2.76 Sometimes
Encountered
The Teacher handling with special needs’ encountered challenges in professional
development such as.
1. trainings and workshop for teachers’. 2.62 SE 4
2. language proficiency of teachers’ 2.52 NE 5
3. efforts taken by the regular school teachers’ 2.68 SE 3
4. dealing with the behaviors of students 2.97 SE 1
5. teachers’ upgrade themselves at their own expense on a 2.92 SE 2
part-time basis.
Average Weighted Mean (WM) Sometimes
2.74
Encountered
Over all Average Weighted Mean (WM) Sometimes
2.60
Encountered

Legend:
Range Descriptive Interpretation (DI) Average Weighted Mean (WM)
3.26 - 4.00 Always Encountered (AE)
2.51 - 3.25 Sometimes Encountered (SE)
1.76 - 2.50 Rarely Encountered (RE)
1.00 - 1.75 Never Encountered (LE)
 55

On the other hand, the data gathered in the Teacher handling with special

needs’ encountered challenges in terms to the professional development

illustrates that item no.4 “dealing with the behaviors of students” got the highest

Average Weighted Mean of 2.97 while item no.2 “language proficiency in

teachers’ experiences” got the lowest Average Weighted Mean of 2.52.

The overall Average Weighted Mean is 2.60 and described as “Sometimes

Encountered”.

According to Ramos (2020), some teachers not exposed to special-needs

classrooms, and this can be a disadvantage. New special education teachers

may find the first year to be especially difficult. Educators need to coordinate

efforts and understand the needs of the classroom in terms of developing skills

and never on plans. Students with severe and profound disabilities require more

adaptation and medical attention to the student.

Teachers must be skilled in handling severe disabilities by creating never

on plans based on individual abilities and adhering to each child’s dietary needs.

If the teacher does not have sufficient experience, the child may not progress in

their skills-or, in the worst-case scenario, they could experience adverse medical

incidents.

The result of the study is supported by Isave (2017), that challenges faced

by teachers includes the implementation of inclusive education in schools and

 56

their role in the teaching and learning process. It discusses about the additional

efforts taken by the regular teacher to include students with special needs in their

classes and the key challenge to implement inclusive education in schools.

Table 5

Respondents Assessment on the Availability and Accessibility of the

Tools and Services offered
N=63

5.1 Availability and Accessibility of the Services WM DI RANK

Offered
The SPED pupils can avail and access services on …
1. psychological services 1.67 NAA 5
2. early identification and evaluation of disabilities in 2.70 OAA 2
children
3. speech Language and audiology services 1.57 NAA 6
4. occupational and physical therapy 1.78 SAA 4
5. school health and / or school nurse services 2.73 OAA 1
6. parents counseling and training 2.21 SAA 3
Seldom
Average Weighted Mean (WM) 2.11 Available &
Accessible
5.2 Availability and Accessibility of the Tools Offered
The SPED pupils can avail the devices…
1. tape recorder 1.59 NAA 6
2. typewriter 1.46 NAA 7
3. computer 1.87 SAA 4
4. laptop 2.35 SAA 2
5. Braille 1.81 SAA 5
6. television 2.22 SAA 3
7. large Print/ Picture 2.75 OAA 1
Not Available
1.72
Average Weighted Mean (WM) & Accessible
Seldom
Over All Average Weighted Mean (WM) 1.9 Available &
Accessible
Legend
:
Average Weighted
Range Descriptive Interpretation (DI) Mean (WM)
3.2
6 - 4.00 Always Available & Accessible (AAA)
2.5 - 3.25 Oftentimes Available & Accessible (OAA)
 57

1
1.7
6 - 2.50 Seldom Available & Accessible (SAA)
1.0
0 - 1.75 Not Available & Accessible (NAA)

In table 5.1, as to the services offered, the highest in rank is “school health

and / or school nurse services” with Average Weighted Mean of 2.73 and

described as “Oftentimes Available & Accessible (OAA)” while “speech Language

and audiology services” with Average Weighted Mean of 1.57 obtained the

lowest rank, which described as “Not Available and Accessible (NAA)”.

As to the availability and accessibility of the tools offered in table 5.2, the

“large Print/Picture” got the highest Average Weighted Mean of 2.75 while the

“typewriter” with a weighted mean of 1.46 got the lowest. The overall Average

Weighted Mean is 1.9 and described as “Seldom Available & Accessible”.

This result in parallel in the study conducted by Najingo (2018), that key

respondents and teachers agreed that the lack of instructional materials affects

the access to all-inclusive education, where parents support learners. The critical

lack of instructional materials means that inclusive education is in place were

children with Learning with Special Needs (LSENs) lack learning aids and

supporting appliances and tools.

Educators must be multifaceted to properly run an effective inclusive

classroom and meet the needs of a diverse student population. Teachers have

created inclusive classrooms conducive to learning by consulting Individualized

Education Programs (IEPs), relaying content in diverse ways, using various

 58

approaches for processing information, incorporating life skills training ,

collaborating with other teachers, and following a flexible behavior plan (Special

Education Guide, 2019).

Table 6

Strategies Used by the Teachers Handling with Special Needs

N=63

Strategies Used by the Teachers handling with WM DI RANK

special needs
The Teacher handling with special needs’ used the different strategies in
teaching…
1. interactive Teaching 3.70 AU 1
2. cooperative learning approach 3.56 AU 2
3. socratic teaching approach 2.76 SU 5
4. discovery approach 3.19 SU 3
5. peer tutoring approach 3.10 SU 4
Average Weighted Mean (WM) Always
3.26
Used

Legend
:
Range Descriptive Interpretation (DI) Average Weighted Mean (WM)
4.0
3.26 - 0 Always Used (AU)
3.2
2.51 - 5 Sometimes Used (SU)
2.5
1.76 - 0 Rarely Used (FU)
1.7
1.00 - 5 Never Used (NU)

In Table 6 as to the strategies used by the Teacher handling with special

needs, “interactive teaching” obtained the highest rank with an Average

Weighted Mean of 3.70 and described as “Always Used” while the lowest in rank

is the “socratic teaching approach” which obtained only 2.76 Average Weighted

Mean and described as “Sometimes Used”.

 59

The findings of the study of Noraini et.al. (2017), found out that education

system for special needs students had implemented various effective methods or

techniques and comprehensive evaluation or assessment, which will benefit the

students.

Students with severe learning impairment without speech can get benefit

from the education system that they involved if the teacher and students use

augmentative and alternative communication in teaching and learning process.

Additionally, explored pedagogical strategies carried out by teachers to

support special need children in improving their level of literacy and numeracy.

Results revealed that most students have problems in literacy (spelling, reading

complex words, and write long words) and numeracy (counting, subtraction,

multiplication and divide).

As the common teaching practice found to have minimal effect on

children’s literacy and numeracy, the current study suggests rethinking of a new

pedagogical approach for improving literacy and numeracy for slow learners

(Mumpuniarti, 2017).

This supported the study of Cheng and Lai (2020), in which it states that

based from the results, the number of studies has increased year by year, and

the choice of learning devices and applications has become increasingly diverse;

yet, the learning strategies still tend to be conservative since the majority of

studies adopted the guided learning strategy.

 60

In addition, the application of technology has expanded to every learning

domain; it is mainly focuses on elementary school students and resource

classrooms.

Most importantly, the implementation of technology-supported special

education tends not to result in teaching difficulties due to disabled students

having different types and levels of disabilities.

Table 7

Disabilities Handled by Teacher Handling with Special Needs

N=63

VII. Teacher handling with special needs WM DI RANK

Handling Different Disabilities

1. dyslexia (english) 3.01 SE 2

2. dyscalculia (math) 3.00 SE 3
3. attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder(ADHD) 2.91 SE 5
4. auditory impairment 2.49 E 6
5. visually impairment 2.14 E 8.5
6. autism spectrum disorder 2.99 SE 4
7. orthopedic impairment 2.14 E 8.5
8. learning disability 3.11 SE 1
9. physical disability and heath impairment 1.98 E 10
10. multiple impairment/disability 1.97 E 11
11.mentally retarded 2.68 SE 7
12. gifted 1.56 NE 12
Overall WM 2.49 Encountered

Legend:

Range Descriptive Interpretation (DI) Average Weighted Mean (WM)

3.26 - 4.00 Fully Encountered (FE)
2.51 - 3.25 Sometimes Encountered (SE)
1.76 - 2.50 Encountered (E)
1.00 - 1.75 Not Encountered (NE)
 61

Table 7 exhibits that item number 8 “learning disability” got the highest

rank with the Average Weighted Mean of 3.11 which is describe as “sometimes

encountered” while item number 12 “gifted “got the lowest. The overall Average

Weighted Mean is 2.49 and described as “Encountered”.

Special Education teachers play important role in educating, passing on

knowledge and skills towards special needs students. Special education teachers

should have the ability to manage the students with multiple range and disability

range starting from mild to profound (Emery & Vandenberg, 2017).

This result is support of the study of Nombuso Gama, et. Al. (2016), found

out that teachers challenges which includes teaching learners with Dyslexia were

challenge to understand learners who failed to reach language proficiency,

emanating from the lack of inclusive education training and knowledge.

Math is another major area of concern when it comes to learning

disabilities. While difficulty with reading can affect a student’s ability in math,

some students also suffer from dyscalculia, which is a disorder that specifically

affects one’s math capabilities. Dyscalculia can range from an inability to order

numbers correctly and extend to limited strategies for problem solving. Students

with math disorders may have trouble performing basic math calculations, or they

may have difficulty with concepts like time, measurement or estimation.

These inclusive classrooms afford both special education students and

traditional students needs additional instructional time, fewer absences, better

 62

post-secondary outcomes, and increased social benefits for both populations as

students learn to better relate to diverse populations (Anderson, 2018).

Special education teachers should be prepared to meet the needs of each

individual student based on that student’s Individual Education Plan (IEP). In

some cases, this may be a dedicated classroom of special education students, or

an inclusive classroom, where students with special needs are part of the general

education population. In other cases, special education teachers may work with

general education teachers to adapt never on plans or take students out of the

classroom for specialized learning.

Table 8

Relationship between the Assessment of Teachers on the Academic

Performance of the SPED Pupils’ and the Challenges Encountered by the
Teachers Handling with Special Needs
N=63

Correlati
Independent on
Critical
Dependent Variable Coefficie
value Interpretation
Variable (Challenges nt
=0.05
) (r
value )
Significant,
Academic
Curriculum 0.662 0.25 moderate positive
Performance
correlation
0.25 Significant,
Academic
Resources 0.426 moderate positive
Performance
correlation
professional 0.25 Significant,
Academic
developmen 0.480 moderate positive
Performance
t correlation
 63

Table 8 reveals the relationships between the assessment of teachers on

the academic performance of the SPED pupils’ and the challenges encountered

by the teachers. For the independent variable in terms of curriculum, resources,

and professional development the coefficient of correlation of 0.662, 0.426, 0.480

respectively are all greater than the critical value of 0.250 with 61 degrees of

freedom. The results warrant the rejection of the null hypothesis. It indicates that

there is a significant moderate relationship of the variables.

These results confirms the study conducted by Bar Nava (2015), focused

the entry stage of the beginning teacher is a distinct stage in the circle of the

professional development of teachers and is accompanied by many challenges

and difficulties.

The difficulties of beginning teachers in special education, and the

possibility to use this knowledge to improve the mechanisms of absorption of the

special education novice teachers in the educational field.

Instructional leaders may employ both inclusive and resource

environments when determining how best to deliver learning outcomes to these

students. There leaders to ensure that school culture and classroom objectives

align with student needs and provide the environment required for them to learn

and grow. It includes helping students develop strong listening and social skills,

designing a behavioral management system and motivating them to learn

through assigned tasks.

 64

Special education teachers work with students who have a range of

disabilities, including learning, mental, emotional and physical disabilities.

Students in a single classroom may range from having mild or moderate

disabilities, which requires adaptations of general never on plans, to severe

disabilities, which requires assistance with basic skills such as literacy and

communications. Therefore, research about problems faced by special education

teachers in teaching multiple disabilities students is necessary although their

population was small because every child deserves fairness and equality towards

opportunity to receive high quality education (NCLB, 2001).

In research conducted by Zimba (2017) at a pilot inclusive primary school,

he discovered that the curriculum used at the school, are not modify to

accommodate learners with a wide array of educational needs. Teaching pupils

with learning disabilities (LD) using mainstream techniques makes learning and

teaching a challenge for the teacher and the learner in an inclusive class.

Table 9

Significant Relationship among Variables

N= 63 ; Df=61

Dependent Independent Correlation Critical Interpretation

Variable Variable Coefficient Value
( r value ) =0.05
Academic Availability and Significant,
Performance Accessibility of 0.394 0.250 moderate
Services Offered positive
correlation
Academic Availability and Significant,
Performance Accessibility of 0.425 0.250 moderate
Tools positive
correlation
 65

Table 9 exhibits the relationship between the assessment of the teachers

on the academic performance of the pupils and their accessibility on the tools

and services offered. The coefficient of correlation of 0.394 and 0.425 are greater

than 0.250 at sixty-one degrees of freedom (61). The results suggest the

rejection of the null hypothesis. This means to say that the pupils developing

academic performance are dependent on the situation where the pupils cannot

avail the tools and services regularly. Academic performance directly related to

the pupils’ availability of the tools and services offered in their respective district.

There is a moderate, positive correlation or relationship of the variables,

particularly the academic performance and the frequency in terms of availability

of the tools and accessibility of the services offered.

The result of the study confirms the study of Neese (2020), that there is a

shortage in the tools and equipment for special education pupils in the access of

assistive technology for the students. Assistive technology tools can help student

with certain disability to learn more effectively. Ranging in sophistication from the

low technology such as graphic organizer, worksheet to high technology

including cutting –edge software and smart phone apps. It is a growing and

dynamic field. Several areas of assistive technology and sample product found in

given classroom, making different on how student of all abilities learn.

Table 10

Significant Difference on the Status in Teaching SPED Pupils

N=63
 66

Variables p-value F-critical Interpretation

1. Academic 1.7635x10-22 2.72 Significant
Performance
2. Level of Awareness 7.6748x10-19 2.866 Significant
3. Challenges 4.266x10-11 2.67 Significant
4. Availability and 4.22x10-6 3.008 Significant
Accessibility of Tools
5. Availability and 2.59488x10-05 3.098 Significant
Accessibility ofServices
6. Strategies 0.000895 3.23 Significant
7. Disability of Pupils 0.0099 2.64 Significant
Table 10 show the significant difference of the status of teaching SPED

pupils in the different district in terms of academic performance, level of

awareness, challenges, availability and accessibility of tools, availability of

services, strategies and disability of pupils. The value p, which is 1.7635x10 -22,

7.6748x10-19, 4.266x10
-11
, 4.22x10-6, 2.59488x10-05, 0.000895, 0.0099 are all-lesser

than 0.05 critical value respectively. It indicates that there is significant difference

of the status of teaching of SPED pupils in the district.

This means to say that the status of teaching SPED in the different district

differed considering that the pupils have different academic performance

especially in mathematical abilities, level of awareness, challenges encountered,

strategies, availability and accessibility of services and tools offered.

In this regard, it is clear evidence that the status of teaching SPED pupils

differ on how these pupils were prioritize by the schools in the different areas or

location and the appropriateness of the services that is due to them.

Table 11

Comparison of the Status of Teaching of SPED in the three (3) different

 67

Districts in the Division of Bohol

N=63

(f.05)
Between Districts F k-1 Interpretation
(4.02) (2)
D1 VS D2 6.58 8.04 Not Significant
D1 VS D3 9.06 8.04 Significant
D2 VS D3 23.69 8.04 Significant
D3 VS D2 35.19 8.04 Significant

Table 11 shows a significant difference between district I and district III,

district 11 and district III, district III and district II. However, district I and II have

no significant difference in terms of the status of teaching SPED pupils in the

division of Bohol. The result implies that the academic performance; level of

awareness challenges encountered, accessibility and availability of tools and

services offered in each district varies as there were different pupils of learning

disabilities.
 68

Chapter 3
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter encloses summary of findings, conclusions and

recommendations, which were analyze and interpreted in the previous chapter

after which the summary formed the bases for inferring conclusions, establishing

implications and offering recommendations inferred with the objectives of utilizing

this study.

Summary

The main purpose of the study was to determine the status of teaching

special education in the Division of Bohol. Specifically, it seeks to answer the

following questions: What is the profile of the respondents in terms of: age, sex,

civil status, highest educational attainment, rank or position, and number of years

of teaching experience. ( academic performance of the learners; teacher’s level

of awareness in teaching special education pupils; teacher’s challenges

encounter in teaching special education pupils; respondents assessment on the

availability and accessibility as to: tools and services, and services offered;

strategies used by the Teacher handling with special needs; different disabilities
 69

handled by the Teacher handling with special needs.) Significant relationship

between academic performance and the challenges encountered by the Teacher

handling with special needs and availability of tools and accessibility of the

services offered common significant difference in the teaching of SPED pupils in

the three (3) congressional district of Bohol. Lastly, the program and the

interventions may propose by the teachers handling with special needs.

This study employed descriptive survey design using modified

questionnaires via messenger and emails using Google forms document in

determining the required data for the teachers’ profile. The average weighted

mean were used in determining the academic performance, level of awareness,

challenges encountered, availability and accessibility of services and tools

offered, strategies, learning disabilities. While Spearman rank coefficient of

correlation were used in finding the relationship among the academic

performance and challenges based on the curriculum, resources and

professional development, the academic performance, and availability and

accessibility of services and tools offered. ANOVAs was applied in determining

the significant differences in the status of teaching SPED in the division of Bohol,

Findings

After a thorough analysis of the study, the researcher arrived with the

following results:

1. Profile of the Respondents. There were sixty-three (63) Teacher handling

with special needs respondents.

 70

1.1 Age. The result shows that the age interval 20 - 29 got the highest

rank with a frequency of twenty-six (26) respondents or 41.3% while the ages 60

years old and above got the lowest rank with a frequency of one (1) respondents

or 1.6%.

1.2 Sex. Majority of the respondents are female with a total frequency of

sixty-one (61) having a percentage of 96.8% while there are only two (2) male

respondents or 3.2 % in terms of number.

1.3 Civil Status. The result shows that majority of the respondents are

already married with the highest frequency of forty-two (42) or 66.7%. However,

none of the respondents is annulled/divorced and widowed.

1.4 Highest Educational Attainment. The data illustrates that the

Baccalaureate Degree obtained the highest frequency of twenty-four (24) or a

percentage of 38.1%. However, none attained the Master’s Degree Holder,

Master’s Degree Holder with Doctorate Units, Master’s Degree Holder with

Doctorate Units in SPED and Doctorate Degree Holder.

1.5 Rank or Position. In terms of rank or position, the data shows that

majority of the respondents are Teacher I with plantilla item at the same time

designated as Teacher handling with special needs with a frequency of thirty-six

(36) or 57.1%. However, none of the respondents attained the Teacher II, Master

Teacher I and Master Teacher II.

 71

1.6 Number of Years of Teaching Experience. Majority of the

respondents had 1-5 years of teaching experience with a frequency of forty-three

(43) or 68.3% while the lowest frequency of two (2) or 3.2% goes to 16-20 years

of teaching experience.

2. Academic Performance of SPED Pupils

2.1 Listening. The result reveals that in listening composed the weighted

mean of 2.67, described as developing and racked the second.

2.2 Speaking. The data shows that speaking composed weighted mean

of 2.32, described as beginning and ranked third.

2.3 Reading. The result reveals that in reading composed weighted mean

of 2.14, described as beginning and ranked least.

2.4 Writing. The data shows that in writing composed weighted mean of

2.82, described as developing which ranked first.

The overall academic performance of the SPED pupils in terms listening,

speaking, reading and writing with the weighted mean of 2.48, as described as

developing.

3. Teacher’s Level of Awareness in Teaching Special Education Pupils. The

data shows that in the level of awareness in teaching Special Education pupils

composed weighted mean of 3.52, described as fully aware.

 72

4. Teachers’ Challenges Encountered in Teaching Special Education

Pupils.

4.1 Curriculum. The data shows that in the curriculum in terms of

challenges encountered in teaching Special Education pupils composed of 2.54,

described as rarely encountered and racked least.

4.2 Resources. As to the resources, in terms of challenges encountered

in teaching Special Education pupils composed of 2.76, described as sometimes

encountered and racked first.

4.3 Professional Development. The data gathered in the Teacher

handling with special needs’ encountered challenges in terms to the professional

development illustrates that sometimes encountered with the weighted mean of

2.74 and racked second.

The overall challenges encountered by the teachers handling SPED pupils

in terms curriculum, resources and professional development with the weighted

mean of 2.60, described as sometimes encountered.

5. Respondents Assessment on the Availability and Accessibility

5.1 Availability and Accessibility of the Services Offered. As to the

services offered, the data shows that it composed of 2.11, described as seldom

available, accessible, and racked second.

 73

5.2 Availability and Accessibility of the Tools Offered. As to the

availability and accessibility of the tools offered, the result reveals that the

composed weighted mean of 1.72, described as not available and accessible

which racked first.

The overall availability and accessibility of the tools offered in terms of

services and tools offered with the weighted mean of 1.9, described as seldom

available and accessible.

6. Strategies Used by the Teacher Handling with Special Needs. As to the

strategies used by the Teacher handling with special needs, the date composed

weighted mean of 3.26, described as always used.

7. Disabilities Handled by Teacher Handling with Special Needs’. The overall

disabilities that handles by Teacher handling with special needs composed of

2.49, described as encountered.

8. Relationship between the Assessment of Teachers on the Academic

Performance of the SPED Pupils’ and the Challenges Encountered by the

Teachers Handling with Special Needs. The relationships between the

assessment of teachers on the academic performance of the SPED pupils’ and

the challenges encountered by the teachers. For the independent variable in

terms of curriculum, resources, and professional development the coefficient of

correlation of 0.662, 0.426, 0.480 respectively are all greater than the critical

value of 0.250 with 61 degrees of freedom. The results warrant the rejection of
 74

the null hypothesis. It indicates that there is a significant moderate relationship of

the variables.

9. Significant Relationship among Variables. The relationship between the

assessment of the teachers on the academic performance of the pupils and their

accessibility on the tools and services offered. The coefficient of correlation of

0.3941 and 0.4250 are greater than 0.250 at sixty-one degrees of freedom (61).

The results suggest the rejection of the null hypothesis. This means to say that

the pupils developing academic performance directly related to the pupil’s

availability of the tools and services offered. The pupils seldom avail of the tools

and services offered. There is moderate positive correlation relationship of the

variables.

10. Relationship between the Assessment of Teachers on the Academic

Performance of the SPED Pupils’ and the Challenges Encountered by the

Teachers. There is a significant difference of the status of teaching SPED pupils

in the different district in the division of Bohol in terms of academic performance,

level of awareness, challenges, availability and accessibility of tools, availability

of services, strategies and disability of pupils. The value p 0.000895 the p values

are all lesser than 0.05 critical value respectively. It indicates that there is

significant difference of the status of teaching of SPED pupils in the district. This

means to say that the status of teaching SPED in the different district differed

considering that the pupils have different academic performance especially in

mathematical abilities.
 75

11. Comparison of the Status of Teaching of SPED in the three (3) different

Districts in the Division of Bohol. There is a significant difference between

district I and district II, district I and district III, district II and district III, district III

and district II. However, district 1 and 2 have no significant difference in terms of

the status of teaching SPED. Pupils in the division of Bohol. The result implies

the academic performance; level of awareness challenge encountered,

accessibility and availability of tools and services offered in each district varies.

Conclusions

Based on the findings of the study, it was concluded that the teachers

handling SPED pupils, majority were young, females, and already married were

still neophytes in their service were baccalaureate degree holders and some

are pursuing post-graduate degree who are teacher I with plantilla item and at

the time designated as Teacher handling with special needs. These teachers are

utilizing interactive strategies for the learners. On the other hand SPED pupils

have problems in their academic performance in terms of writing; listening,

speaking and reading, since the curriculum used were not properly align to the

needs of the pupils. Further, the teachers have no sufficient support from the

local funds or government in terms of speech language facilities, tools and

instructional materials. School health nursing services and large print picture

were available and accessible as needs arises. Lastly, teachers were challenge
 76

in identifying the pupil’s strength and weakness with different behavioral patterns

and learning disabilities.

Recommendations

To utilize the findings of the study, the researcher recommends the

following:

1. The school administrators may conduct curriculum review to address

and cater the needs of the SPED pupils with different disabilities. Design

trainings and seminars to capacitate the Teacher handling with special needs at

the same time fill in the gap inters of professional development, focusing on the

strategies in inclusive education.

2. Teachers should be resourceful enough in providing the needed

equipment or devices to the learners with special needs in order to improve their

academic performance. Further thy may collaborate the Local Government Unit

(LGU) officers and other government agencies to avail the essential tools and

services in order to meet the needs of the pupils with disabilities.

To the future researchers, this study may serve as basis and guide in

conducting research-related endeavors to verify its findings.

 77

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ENCHANCE SPED PUPILS

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Rationale

Every learner with special needs has a right to an education program that

is suitable to his needs. Special education shares with regular education basic

responsibilities of the educational system to fulfil the right of the child to develop

his potential. The ultimate goal of special education shall be the integration or

mainstreaming of learners with special needs into the regular school system and

eventually into the community.

The fundamental purposes of special education are the same as those of

regular education: the optimal development of the student as a skilful, free, and

purposeful person, able to plan and manage his or her own life and to reach his

or her highest potential as an individual and as a member of society. Indeed,

special education developed as a highly specialized area of education in order to

provide children with exceptionalities with the same opportunities as other

children for a meaningful, purposeful, and fulfilling life. Perhaps, the most

important concept that been developed in special education as the result of

experiences with children with exceptionalities is that of the fundamental

 78

individualism of every child. The aspiration of special educators is to see every

child as a unique composite of potentials, abilities, and learning needs for which

an educational program must designed to meet his or her particular needs.

The focus of special education programs is to facilitate access to an

appropriate education, regard never of the disability, to help the student achieve

academic and life success. Special education programs facilitate academic

progress by providing the least restrictive environment and tailoring instruction

and assessment to the individual. A written plan, called an Individual Education

Program or IEP drawn up to outline special accommodations and modifications

within the educational environment for each special education student. This

plan's focus is structuring the elements that drive the educational process,

instruction and assessment so that the individual can benefit from the

educational environment. Without this specialize educational plan, the student's

disability might stymie educational efforts.

Objectives

This program has the following major goals:

1. Establishment of a SPED Center, which will function as a Resource Center to:

1.1 support children with special needs enrolled in regular schools;

1.2 assist in the conduct of in-service trainings for regular teachers,

administrators and prospective Teacher handling with special

needs;
 79

1.3 Conduct continuous assessment of children with disabilities on the

academic performance.

1.4 produces appropriate teaching materials

2. Information, Dissemination and Education

2.1 In-Service trainings in special needs education for all Classroom

Teachers;

2.2 Continuous orientation of the school personnel and pupils in

inclusive schools;

3. Strengthening the Support Services, which include the following:

3.1 Hiring of trained Teacher handling with special needs to serve as

Resource Teacher/Itinerant Teacher/ Consulting Teacher;

3.2 Continuous in-service training of Teacher handling with special

needs and administrators;

3.3 Provision of specialists like physical therapist, speech therapist and

other specialists whenever available;

3.4 Implementation of the "buddy" system where a trained classmate

be paired with a pupil who has disability;

3.5 Provisions of instructional materials, assistance devices, and the

essential equipment.

4. Utilization of the Team Approach to Mastery (TAM) (Dede Johnston, Will

Proctor and Susan Corey) In TAM classrooms, students with disabilities are

educated alongside their nondisabled peers throughout the entire school day'

there is an ratio of two nondisabled children to each child with disability.

 80

Mechanics of Implementation

Per approval of the members of the examining tribunal of this proposal,

the researcher will present a copy to the Schools District Supervisor of school

with SPED Classes in the Division of Bohol.

Discuss further the purpose and mechanics of the program among the

school heads and teacher handling with special needs with the openness to

accept their collaborated suggestions and recommendations to have this

program meaningfully and implemented the soonest possible time.

Schedule of Implementation

This program will be presented during Summer Assessment and INSET in

the Division of Bohol before the school year 2021-2022 starts, and the outgrowth

be present to the Division office effective in the school year 2020-2021.

Monitoring and Evaluation System

A tool for monitoring and evaluation will be formulated and develop to

gauge the outcomes of the proposed training program. Also, do assessment to

determine its progress and to refine it when necessary.

 81

PROGRAM DESIGN TEMPLATE

DIVISION LEVEL
June 21-22, 2021

I. General Program Information

“DIVISION LEVEL TRAINING WORKSHOP FOR
Program Title: 21ST CENTURY TEACHER HANDLING WITH
SPECIAL NEEDSS ON AWARENESS AND
HANDLING PUPILS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS,
TEACHING STRATEGIES AND INSTRUCTIONAL
MATERIALS UTILIZATION FOR SPED CLASSES"
This program help equip teachers with enough
knowledge and skills in utilizing appropriate
Program Description: teaching strategies and materials, skills and
awareness in SPED pupils in the country and for
the implementation and realization of DepEd
program on inclusive education.
Prerequisite Programs: None
Duration: two (2) days June 20-21, 2021
Management Level of Program: DIVISION LEVEL
Delivery Mode: Lecture and Workshop / Virtual
Target Personnel: 63 Teacher handling with special needs
Budget Requirements: see budget template

Rationale:

As the Department of Education continues to strive for excellence and the

delivery of educational services, specifically to children with special needs. The
continuing challenge upon us is to provide the best to all children within the mainstream
through highly effective and innovative strategies in an enriched and conducive learning
environment. Recognizing the new age of education, the following strategies are
identified to hopefully stimulate the challenges of the times:

Objectives:

At the end of the training, the participants will be able to:

1. Develop home-based, community based early intervention and other

alternative means of service delivery for children with disabilities;
2. Organize of logistical support (e.g. transport and accommodation) to facilitate
 82

the participation of persons with disabilities in education programs;

3. Implement gradually the special education into mainstream inclusive
education;
4. Strengthen/update of training/refresher program for school teachers and other
school personnel to improve their capabilities for developing the full potential of
students with disabilities;
5. Craft and utilize teacher resource materials for use of children with special
learning needs;
6. Strengthen partnership and collaboration in local and province agencies to
access the needs of the learners.

End of Program Outputs:

Print outs

Expected Final Outcomes/ Success Indicators:

1. Improve classroom instructional and academic performance of pupils with special

needs.
2. Made useful and appropriate instructional materials and contextualized reading
materials for SPED pupils.
3. Collaboration and partnership, with the local and other government agencies.
 SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ENCHANCE SPED PUPILS ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
DIVISION LEVEL TRAINING WORKSHOP FOR 21ST CENTURY TEACHER HANDLING WITH SPECIAL NEEDSS ON
AWARENESS AND HANDLING PUPILS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS, TEACHING STRATEGIES AND INSTRUCTIONAL
MATERIALS UTILIZATION FOR SPED CLASSES
Time Budget
Areas of Persons Success
Objectives Activities/Strategies Frame Source of
Concern Involved Indicators
Fund
 Update and Conduct a Division Division SPED  Once a  MOOE  Pupils’
enhance the Level seminars Coordinator Year  PTA improved
SPED teaching-learning and trainings School Heads  SEF academic
Learners’ process including among Teacher in School with performance
Improved the usability, handling with SPED Classes  P50,000.00 specifically in
Academic efficacy and special needs on Teacher reading and
Performance timeliness of the teaching 21st handling with listening
instructional century learners special needs comprehension
materials used by with special needs
the teachers to
ensure quality
learning among
students;
 Periodic
Teaching  Acquire skills and  Once a  P60,000.00
Writes action plan on School Heads guidance and
Strategies knowledge about year
how to address in School with monitoring of
and the 21st century and improve SPED Classes parents to their
Instructional learners learning teaching Teacher children, as well
Design used styles. performance handling with as the need
in SPED special needs arises
Classes  Provide the 21st Develop reading  Year-
century learners instruction round
with the activities materials that fill
and skills that up the gaps of
would enrich existing materials
 cognitive, Identify the students’
psychomotor and learning styles to School Heads  Every
affective domains adapt and modify in School with quarter
Strengthen of learners; teaching learning SPED Classes
partnership process that suits Teacher
and with every learner. handling with
collaboratio special needs
n in local  P40,000.00
and province  To organize of Identifying the tools
logistical support to and services that
agencies to
facilitate the needed to the
access the learners
needs of the participation of
persons with
learners.
disabilities in
education
programs;

Availability Identifying the tools Division SPED  It will help them

and  To facilitate the and services that  Year
Coordinator,
needs of every need to the rounded  MOOE to improve their
accessibility School Heads individual
learner with special learners with  PTA
of tools and Teacher
needs. Special needs.  SEF needs of the
services handling with learners.
special needs
offered Coordinate with local  40,000.00
and other
government
agencies.

Total: P190,000.00
 85

REFERENCE LIST

Ahammed, H., (2018). Challenges faced by teacher while teacher while teaching
with learning disability from https:// www. research gate.
net/publication /325380717.
Anderson, A., (2018). Perspective of special education: literature review and
interview. www.scrip.org.
Baddely, A., & Hitch, G.,(1974) Working memory. volume 8 page 47-89.
www.sciencedirect.com.

Bagree, S., & Lewis, I.,(2018). Investigating barriers teacher face in the
implementation of inclusive education. www.researchgate.com.

Baker, P., & Reusen V., (2001). Pre services education attitude toward inclusive
education.

Barker, E., Basinger k., Critchley, L., & Stewart, W., (2018). Instructional design
that makes sense for all learners. published: 2018-05-11 from
www.disabled word.com/disability/education/instructionaldesign.php.

Bateman, D., & Cline, J., (2019). Special education leadership building effective
programming in school. 1st edition. www.routledge.com.

Beattie, A., Anderson & Antonak., (2017). Perseveres teachers attitudes toward
inclusive; early childhood education and elementary education program.
journal of early childhood teacher education 24 (3): 171-179.

Blazar, D., (2015). Effective teaching in elementary mathematics: identify

classroom practices that support student achievement. economic of
education review, 48, 16-29.

Blazar, D., (2016). Teacher and teaching effects on student’ academic

performance, attitude, and behaviors. doctoral dissertation, harvard
graduate of school of education from http://nrs.
harvard.edu/urn3:hul.instrepos;27112692.

Calitz, M.G., (2000). Guidelines for training content of teacher support teams.
www.scholor.sun.ac.29.

Cheng, S, C., & Lin Lai, C., (2020). Facilitating learning for students with special
needs: a review of technology-supported special education studies.
journal of computers in education volume 7, pages131–153.
 86

Da Teon, K.,  & Martin, S., (2018). Improving learning opportunities for special
education needs (SEN) students by engaging pre-service science
teachers in an informal experiential learning course. pages 319-347.
received 01 oct 2017, accepted 25 Jul 2018, published online: 09 sep
2018. from https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2018.1505599 .

Emery, D.W., & Vandenberg, B., (2017). Overworked and underappreciated:

special education teacher describe stress and attrition.www.
tandfonline.com.

Fakudze, S.,(2015). Supporting teacher to implement inclusive education in

kwaluseni district, swaziland.www.researchgate.net.

Fuller, F., & Brown.,O., (1975). Teacher education (74th yearbook of the national
society for the study of education. part 2, pp. 25-52) Chicago university
press, teacher education, stage of teacher concern, teachers
development.

Gagne, R., (1985). Condition of learning. www.instructional design.org

Gegorio, J., & Gines , A., (2019). Introduction to special education. textbook for
college student – first edition.

Groves, E., & Vandenberg, (2017). Role ambiguity: defining the enclusive role of
the special education. star.library.ucf.edu.

Guirguis, R., & Pankowski, J., (2017). Potencial effects of teaching strategies on
students’ academic performance under Trump administration. journal of
education and training studies vol. 5, no. 4; april 2017. publish by: red
frame publishing. url: http// jets.redframe.com.

Henley, J., & Stripling, W.,(2017). Arkansas State University 2017. publish by
arkansas state university www. degree. astate.edu.

Heredia, K., (2015). The effect of the flipped classroom model on student
academic growth in flipped and traditional community college classroom
(order No. 10154492). available from proquest dissertation & theses
global.(1819980145) retrieved from http: //search .proquest .com /
docview/1819980145?accounted=458.

Hurwitz, B., Perry, B., Cohen, E., et.al.(2019). Special education and
individualized academic growth: a longitudinal assessment of out
comes for student with disabilities. http:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/
0002831219857054. journal.cagepub.com.
 87

Isave, M.,& Bhosale, S., (2017). Scholarly research journals is licensed based on
a work. www.srjis.com.

Kuester, K., (2015). Teachers perception towards integration of learning disabled

student into regular classroom. www. sciencedirect.com.

Lindacher, T., (2019). Assessments of regular and special education teachers of

their own and their co-teacher’s instructional responsibilities in inclusive
education: a case study. first published june 25,2019 research article.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219857054.

Mahlo, D., (2015). Teacher qualification and pupils academic achievement.

journal of social sciences 42 (1-2).

Maslow, A., (1954). Motivation theory. www.simplypsychology.org.

Motitswe, J., (2016). Investigating barriers teaching face in the implementation of

inclusive education. african journal of disability . www.ajod.org.

Mukhopadhyay, S., et.al. (2015). Preparing teachers for inclusive education in

botswana: role of professional development. journal of international
special needs education 18 (2): 60 – 72.

Mumpuniarti, M., (2017). Challenges faced by teachers in teaching literacy and

numeracy for slow learners. journal of sustainable development volume
10 n3 page 243.

Najingo, I., (2018). Investigating barriers teachers face in the implementation of

inclusive education.

Nava, B., (2015). Difficulties experienced by special education novice teachers in

their induction year, at the various special education frameworks in
israel: outline of a research study jan. doi 10.14746/se.2015.37.22.

Neese, B., (2020). 15 Assistive technology tools & resources for student with
disability. alvernia university . teachthrought.com

Nombuso, G., & Thwala, S., (2016). Swazi teaching challenges including learners
with dyslexia in mainstreaming classrooms.

Noraini, I., et al (2017). Validity and reability of the instrument using exploratory
factor analysis and cronbach’s alpha. international academic research
in 2017- hrmars.com.
 88

Pendergast, M.O., (2017). Evaluating the accessibility. library journal,19-

21.UNESCo. overcoming exclusion through inclusive approaches in
education: a challenge and a vision conceptual paper.UNESCO 2003.
Kendra, C., (2019). The history of gestalt psychology – very well mind . www.
verywellmind.com › Psychology › Basics.

Pijl, S., & Meier, R., (2017). Investagating barriers teacher face implementation of
inclusive education in high school in gege branch,
swaziland.www.researchgate.net.

Quezon, M., (1935). Commowealth Act No. 3203

Quijano,Y.S.,(1988). “ Networking of education support for children with special

needs in the philippines”. a country report for the 18 th apeid regional
seminar on special education, NISE, NOBE Yokosuka, Japan.

Ramos,T.M., (2020). Challenges for teachers in special-needs-inclusive

classrooms. www.reseachgate.net.

Schuelka , Mj., ( Isave 2017). Implementing inclusive education. assets.

publishing.services.gov. uk.

Sweller, J.,(2011). Cognitive load theory. www.sciencedirect.com.

Turnbull , H.R., &Cilley, M., (1999). School principals and special education:
creating the context for academic success.www.researchgate.net.

Watson, W.,(2019). Global benefits attitude survey. www. willistowerswaston.com.

Willis, P., (2019). Teaching students with disabilities: strategies for regular
classroom. study.com › blog › teaching-students-with-disabilities-st.

Zimba, Z., (2017). Investigating the impact and attitude of social workers in
assisting people with disability in alice in the eastern cape of south
africa.www. research gate.net.
 89

APPENDIX A-1

TRANSMITTAL LETTERS

Republic of the Philippines

BOHOL ISLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
Candijay Campus
Cogtong, Candijay, Bohol

October 12, 2020

BIANITO A. DAGATAN, EdD CESOV
School Division Superintendent
Tagbilaran, City

Sir:
Greetings!

The undersigned is presently conducting a study “STATUS OF TEACHING SPECIAL

EDUCATION IN THE DIVISION OF BOHOL” in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Arts in Education Major in Educational Management at BISU – Candijay
Campus, Cogtong, Candijay, Bohol.

In this connection, I would like to ask permission from your good office to conduct
research and distribute questionnaires in all Teachers handling with special needs in the Division
of Bohol within the school year 2020 - 2021. Rest assured that all information gathered will solely
be used for the research and shall be treated with utmost confidentiality.

Your congenial accommodation of the aforementioned request is highly appreciated.

Thank you very much and more power to you.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) CRISTINA J. OLALO, LPT
Noted by: Researcher

(SGD.) ALLAN S. TIEMPO, PhD (SGD.) PROCESO M. CASTIL, EdD

Dean, College of Advanced Studies Campus Director

Approved:
(SGD.) BIANITO A. DAGATAN, EdD CESO
School Division Superintendent
 90

APPENDIX A - 3

Republic of the Philippines

BOHOL ISLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
Candijay Campus
Cogtong, Candijay, Bohol

October 12, 2020

CARMELA M. RESTIFICAR, PhD
Division SPED Coordinator
Division of Bohol

Ma’am:

Greetings!

The undersigned is presently conducting a study “STATUS OF TEACHING SPECIAL

EDUCATION IN THE DIVISION OF BOHOL” in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Arts in Education Major in Educational Management at BISU – Candijay
Campus, Cogtong, Candijay, Bohol.

In this connection, I would like to ask permission from your good office to conduct research
and distribute questionnaires in all Teachers handling with special needs in the Division of Bohol
within the school year 2020 - 2021. Rest assured that all information gathered will solely be used
for the research and shall be treated with utmost confidentiality.

Your congenial accommodation of the aforementioned request is highly appreciated.

Thank you very much and more power to you.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) CRISTINA J. OLALO, LPT

Researcher
Noted by:

(SGD.) ALLAN S. TIEMPO, PhD (SGD.) PROCESO M. CASTIL, EdD

Dean, College of Advanced Studies Campus Director

Approved:
(SGD.) CARMELA M. RESTIFICAR, PhD
Division SPED Coordinator
 91

APPENDIX A - 3

Republic of the Philippines

BOHOL ISLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
Candijay Campus
Cogtong, Candijay, Bohol

October 12, 2020

ALLAN S. TIEMPO, PhD
Dean College of Advance Studies
Bohol Island State University
Cogtong, Candijay, Bohol

Sir:

Greetings!

The undersigned is presently conducting a study “STATUS OF TEACHING SPECIAL

EDUCATION IN THE DIVISION OF BOHOL” in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Arts in Education Major in Educational Management at BISU – Candijay
Campus, Cogtong, Candijay, Bohol.

In this connection, I would like to ask permission from your good office to conduct research
and distribute questionnaires in all Teachers handling with special needs in the Division of Bohol
within the school year 2020 - 2021. Rest assured that all information gathered will solely be used
for the research and shall be treated with utmost confidentiality.

Your congenial accommodation of the aforementioned request is highly appreciated.

Thank you very much and more power to you.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) CRISTINA J. OLALO, LPT

Researcher
Noted by:

(SGD.) MA. MAGDALENA J. BERNALES, PhD

Thesis Adviser

Approved:
(SGD.) ALLAN S. TIEMPO, PhD
Dean, College of Advanced Studies
 92

APPENDIX A - 4

Republic of the Philippines

BOHOL ISLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
Candijay Campus
Cogtong, Candijay, Bohol

October 12, 2020

Dear Respondents,

Greetings!

I am presently working on my master’s degree, Master of Arts in Educational major

in Educational Management with the thesis entitled “STATUS OF TEACHING SPECIAL
EDUCATION IN THE DIVISION OF BOHOL”. This study will cover all Teachers handling
with special needs in the Division of Bohol.
In view hereof, I am distributing questionnaires to you. Please work honestly to the
best of you ability.
I will assure you that the date gathered will solely use for the research and will be
treated with strictest confidentiality.
Your congenial accommodation of the aforementioned request is highly
appreciated.

Thank you very much and more power to you.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) CRISTINA J. OLALO, LPT

Researcher
 93

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Respondent,

I am undergoing research on “STATUS IN TEACHING SPECIAL

EDUCATION IN THE DIVISION OF BOHOL” in partial fulfilment on the
requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Education Major in Educational
Management at BISU – Candijay Campus, Cogtong, Candijay, Bohol. I choose you
as one of my respondent because you are more suitable to answer the study.

I hope that you will answer honestly and completely – heartedly.

The Researcher

Please check (√) in the bracket. The most appropriate response, where
explanation is required. Use the space provided.

Part I. Profile of Teacher- Respondent

1.1. Age
20 – 29 years old 50 – 59 years old
30 – 39 years old 60 years old and above
40 – 49 years old

1.2. Sex:
[ ] Male [ ] Female

1.3. Civil Status:

[ ] Single [ ] Annulled/Divorced
[ ] Married [ ] Widowed

1.4. Highest Educational Attainment:

[ ] Bachelor's Degree Holder
[ ] Bachelor's Degree Holder with Master's Units
[ ] Bachelor's Degree Holder with Master's Units in SPED
[ ] MA Complete Academic Requirements (CAR)
[ ] MA Complete Academic Requirements (CAR) in SPED
[ ] Master's Degree Holder
[ ] Master's Degree Holder in SPED
[ ] Master's Degree Holder with Doctorate Units
[ ] Master's Degree Holder with Doctorate Units in SPED
[ ] PhD / EdD Complete Academic Requirements (CAR)
[ ] PhD / EdD Complete Academic Requirements (CAR) in SPED
 94

[ ] Doctorate Degree Holder

[ ] Doctorate Degree Holder in SPED
Other (specify)
___________________________________

1.5. Rank or Position:

[ ] Teacher -I [ ] Master Teacher -I
[ ] Teacher -II [ ] Master Teacher -II
[ ] Teacher-III [ ] Spet -1

1.6. Length of Service:

_____ 1- 5 years ______ 11 – 15 years
_____ 6- 10 years ______ 16 – 20 years
______ 21 years & above

Part II. Teachers Challenges and Public Services Accessibility

Direction: Please put a check () on the degree to which you think your school
currently practices. Each indicator uses the following scale.

4 – Approaching Proficiency (AP)

3 – Developing (D)
2 – Beginning (B)
1 – Not Observed (NO)

II. Academic Performance of SPED pupils. AP AP D B NO

4 3 2 1
The SPED pupil’s academic performance in
terms of ….
Listening
1. follows simple direction
2. distinguishes different types of sounds
3. comprehends simple and familiar stories
4. listens attentively to stories, poems/rhymes
5. engages in communication with others
Speaking
1. increases vocabulary to describe things
2. increases vocabulary to express one’s feelings
3. increases vocabulary to share information
4. answers and responds to questions
accordingly
5. narrates simple and familiar stories
Reading
1. classifies objects according to function
2. notes details in pictures
3. visualizes objects and pictures from
 95

memory
4. comprehends picture stories
5. performs relevant study skills
Writing
1. holds and grips pencil properly
2. traces lines and shapes
3. traces letters, numbers, and one’s
name properly
4. copies lines, shapes, letters, numbers,
and one’s name properly
5. uses basic strokes correctly

4 – Fully Aware (FA)

3 – Aware (A)
2 – Slightly Aware (SA)
1 – Never Aware (NA)

III. Teachers’ Level of Awareness in teaching Special FA FA SP NA

Education Pupils. 4 3 2 1
I am aware that the Special Education Program …
1. assess the development of the pupils
2. provides appropriate intervention in some
areas of concern
3. exerts effort to link the community
4.participates in the collaboration and
partnership with
the different organization
5. identifies pupils strengths and weakness
6. organizes background information of the
pupils
7. interpret the result of the data gathered
8. organizes the gathered data of pupils
9. ask assistance to the government or
concerned authorities to address the needs
of the pupils
10. strengthens and boost the confidence of the
pupils in all schools

4– Always Encountered (AE)

3– Sometimes Encountered (SE)
2– Rarely Encountered (RE)
1– Never Encountered (LE)
 96

IV. Teachers’ Challenges encountered in AE SE E LE

teaching Special education pupils. 4 3 2 1
The Teacher handling with special needs’ encountered challenges in
curriculum such as …
1. classroom objectives align with the student needs
2. inappropriate ways of assessing learning
3. curriculum poorly aligned with general education
4. inflexible style of teaching and classroom management
5. diverse learning disabilities of the SPED pupils
contained in one classroom.
The Teacher handling with special needs’ encountered challenges in
resources such as…
1. provides the environment required for them to learn
and grow.
2. insufficient materials and utilities to use in the
instructional process.
3. resources and assistive devices
4. funding for inclusive education program
5. fund from the local government
The Teacher handling with special needs’ encountered challenges in
professional development such as….
1. trainings and workshop for teachers’.
2. language proficiency of teachers’
3. efforts taken by the regular school teachers’
4. dealing with the behaviors of students
5. teachers’ upgrade themselves at their own expense on
a part-time basis.

4 – Always Available & Accessible (AAA)

3 – Oftentimes Available & Accessible (OAA)
2 – Seldom Available & Accessible (SAA)
1 – Not Available & Accessible (NAA)

V. Availability and Accessibility of the services AAA OAA SAA NAA

offered. 4 3 2 1
The SPED pupils can avail and access services on …
1. psychological services
2. early identification and evaluation of disabilities
in children
 97

3. speech Language and audiology services

4. occupational and physical therapy
5. school health and / or school nurse services
6. parents counseling and training

4 – Always Available & Accessible (AAA)

3 – Oftentimes Available & Accessible (OAA)
2 – Seldom Available & Accessible (SAA)
1 – Not Available & Accessible (NAA)

VI. Availability and Accessibility of the tools AAA OAA SAA NAA
offered. 4 3 2 1
The SPED pupils can avail the devices…
1. tape recorder
2. typewriter
3. computer
4. laptop
5. Braille
6. television
7. large Print/ Picture

4 – Always Used (AU)

3 – Sometimes Used (SU)
2 – Rarely Used (FU)
1 – Never Used (NA)

VI. Strategies Used by Teacher Handling with Special AU SU FU NA

Needs. 4 3 2 1
The Teacher handling with special needs’ used the different strategies in
teaching. . .
1. interactive Teaching
2. cooperative learning approach
3. socratic teaching approach
4. discovery approach
5. peer tutoring approach

4 – Fully Encountered (FE)

3 – Sometimes Encountered (SE)
2 -- Encountered (E)
1 – Not Encountered (NE)
 98

VII. Teacher handling with Special Needs Handling FE SE E NE

Different Disabilities 4 3 2 1
1. dyslexia (english)
1.1 cramped or illegible
1.2 delay in spoken language
1.3 oral and written instruction
1.4 confusing about direction in space,
time, right or left, up or down, north
or south, yesterday and tomorrow
1.5 confusing in sequence in letter or
symbols
2. dyscalculia (math)
2.1 ordering of numbers
2.2 performing basic mathematics
calculation
2.3 performing mental arithmetic skills
2.4 understanding place value
2.5 numbers & estimation
3. attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
3.1 being unable to sit
3.2 excessive physical movement
3.3 excessive talking
3.4 acting without thinking
3.5 interrupting conversations
4. auditory impairment
4.1 verbal directions.
4.2 oral expression
4.3 social/ emotional or interpersonal
skills
4.4 language delay
4.5 use of hearing aid
5. visually impairment
5.1 thoughts wander during lectures
5.2 observant
5.3 stumbles over small objects
5.4 hold books close to eyes
5.5 unable to see distant things clearly
6. autism spectrum disorder
6.1 picky-eater
6.2 hyperactive, disinherited
6.3 body rocking
6.4 hand wiggling
6.5 whirling “ritual” of walking
 99

7. orthopedic impairment
7.1 unsteady gait
7.2 poor muscle control
7.3 loss of limb
7.4 paralysis
7.5 impede speech production and the
expressive of the child
8. learning disability
8.1 forget direction right away
8.2 show little interest in learning to read
8.3 repeat activity over and over
8.4 may be awkward and clumsy
8.5 trouble interacting with peers
9. physical disability and heath impairment
9.1 paralysis
9.2 extremes weakness
9.3 involuntary convulsion
9.4 low of coordination
9.5 progressively get worse as a child
gets older
10. multiple impairment/disability
10.1 autism and orthopedic
10.2 cerebral palsy and autism
10.3 mental retardation and
orthopedic impairment
10.4 deaf and blindness
10.5 intellectual disability and autism
11.mentally retarded
12. gifted

APPENDIX C
 100

SAMPLE STATISTICAL COMPUTATION

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF SPED PUPILS

SUMMAY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
17.3131578
AP 20 99 4.95 9
70.0631578
D 20 536 26.8 9
44.3684210
B 20 510 25.5 5
24.7236842
No 20 115 5.75 1

ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Between 8676. 2892.033 1.76357E-
Groups 1 3 3 73.9327032 22 2.72494392
2972. 39.11710
Within Groups 9 76 5

Total 11649 79

APPENDIX D
 101

AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF THE SERVICES OFFERED

VII. Teacher handling with special needs Handling Different Disabilities WM DI RANK
1. dyslexia (english)
1.1 cramped or illegible
1.2 delay in spoken language

1.3 oral and written instruction

1.4 confusing about direction in space, time, right or left, up or down, north or south, yesterday and tomorrow

1.5 confusing in sequence in letter or symbols

2. dyscalculia (math)
2.1 ordering of numbers

2.2 performing basic mathematics calculation

2.3 performing mental arithmetic skills

2.4 understanding place value

2.5 numbers & estimation

3. attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

3.1 being unable to sit

3.2 excessive physical movement

3.3 excessive talking

3.4 acting without thinking

3.5 interrupting conversations

4. auditory impairment
4.1 verbal directions.

4.2 oral expression

4.3 social/ emotional or interpersonal skills

4.4 language delay

4.5 use of hearing aid

5. visually impairment
5.1 thoughts wander during lectures

5.2 observant
5.3 stumbles over small objects

5.4 hold books close to eyes

5.5 unable to see distant things clearly
6. autism spectrum disorder
6.1 picky-eater

6.2 hyperactive, disinherited

6.3 body rocking

6.4 hand wiggling

6.5 whirling “ritual” of walking

7. orthopedic impairment
7.1 unsteady gait

7.2 poor muscle control

7.3 loss of limb

7.4 paralysis
7.5 impede speech production and the expressive of the child

8. learning disability
8.1 forget direction right away

8.2 show little interest in learning to read

8.3 repeat activity over and over
 102

8.4 may be awkward and clumsy

8.5 trouble interacting with peers

9. physical disability and heath impairment
9.1 paralysis
9.2 extremes weakness

9.3 involuntary convulsion

9.4 low of coordination

9.5 progressively get worse as a child gets older

10. multiple impairment/disability
10.1 autism and orthopedic
10.2 cerebral palsy and autism

10.3 mental retardation and orthopedic impairment

10.4 deaf and blindness

10.5 intellectual disability and autism
11.mentally retarded

12. Gifted
Composite Mean

CURRICULUM VITAE

CRISTINA J. OLALO, LPT

Purok 1 Suba, Anda, Bohol
0963-874-8781
cristina.olalo001@deped.gov.ph
____________________________________________________________

PERSONAL DATA:

Name : Cristina Jandayan Olalo

Address : Suba, Anda, Bohol
Date of Birth : SEPTEMBER 2,1985
Civil Status : Single
Father : Herminigildo Olayon Olalo
Mother : Josefina Amplayo Jandayan
Children : Chelsea Olalo Pasaol

EDUCATIONALBACKGROUND:

Elementary : Anda, Central Elementary School (1998)

Poblacion, Anda, Bohol

Secondary : Holy Infant Academy (2002)

Poblacion, Anda, Bohol
 103

College : Holy Name University (2007)

J.A. Clarin St, Tagbilaran City
Batchelor in Elementary Education
Major in Special Education

ELIGIBILITY:

Licensure Examination for Teacher ( March 2016)

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Elementary School Teacher 1

Department of Education – Bohol Division
Anda Central Elementary School – Anda, Bohol
August 24, 2018 to present