Perspectives of remedial teaching for students with language disorders in Portugal

Cruz-Santos, Anabela; Costa, Sónia Susana da Silva; Fernandes, Raquel Maria Silva; Sapage, Sara Pereira

doi:10.1590/2317-1782/20192018074

Tabla de contenido Anterior Actual Siguiente

Tabla de contenido

Original Article • CoDAS 31 (5) • 2019 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20192018074 linkcopy

Perspectives of remedial teaching for students with language disorders in Portugal

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Purpose To analyze how students with Language Disorders receive remedial teaching in inclusive settings in Portugal.

Methods We developed a questionnaire based on the literature review, and applied it to 123 elementary teachers in Portugal. We performed a descriptive and inferential statistical analysis of the dependent variables using parametric tests.

Results Descriptive analysis revealed that most teachers know the concept of language disorders and consider it important to the development of language when supporting students with this problem. However, over half of the respondents answered that they have no training and enough information about the acquisition and development of language, and don´t consider having sufficient knowledge to contribute to the identification of students with language disorders. Results for inferential statistics showed statistically significant differences regarding gender; length of service and district, as well as a good internal consistency in relation to the questionnaire.

Conclusion Results highlight the need for training and information about acquisition and development of language, and more specifically in relation to language disorders. It also showed that elementary teachers may find difficulties in intervention with students with language disorders, and particularly, to adequate strategies to their needs, particularly when developing Individualized Educational Programs for their students in a team.

Keywords
Language; Language Disorders; Teaching; Remedial Teaching; Quantitative Analysis

Variables/Items	Mean		SD		t	p-value *
Sex	F	M	F	M	t	p-value *
8. LDs are a category of SEN	2.79	3.29	.643	.686	t(20.766)=-2.823	p=0.010
19. I often meet with other professionals to identify students with LD	2.80	2.24	.774	.903	t(19.4942)=2.446	p=0.024
22. I use scales, batteries and/or other instruments to evaluate students with LD	2.56	2.12	.731	1.054	t(121)=2.150	p=0.034
27. I check if the student with LD has achieved the defined goals	3.30	2.94	.481	.748	t(121)=2.633	p=0.010
32. When I create the Individualized educational Program (IEP) for the student with LD, information sharing/collaboration with their parents.	3.41	2.82	.614	.883	t(18.560)=2.619	p=0.017

Variables/Items	F	p-value *
Length of service	F	p-value *
25. I give more time for the child with LD to perform the tasks	F(3.122)=3.071	p=0.030
District
4. All children can develop language problems	F(2.122)=4.085	p=0.019
18. I have enough skills to identify a student with LD	F(2.122)=3.617	p=0.030
22. I use scales, batteries and/or other instruments to evaluate students with LD	F(2.122)=3.617	p=0.002

Questions	Levels
Questions	1. I totally disagree	2. I disagree	3. I agree	4. I totally agree
1. LD may have difficulties in developing understanding and/or producing a spoken and/or written system.	0.0%	0.8%	52.0%	47.2%
2. LD may involve communication difficulties.	0.0%	1.6%	56.1%	42.3%
3. LD can have difficulties that compromise the form of language (phonology, morphology, and syntax), the content of language (semantics), or the function of language in communication (pragmatic) in any of the combinations.	0.0%	1.6%	50.4%	48.0%
4. All children may develop language problems.	4.1%	30.1%	56.9%	8.9%
5. Children who do not follow normal language development may have LD.	2.4%	20.3%	64.2%	13.0%
6. It is important to know the language development when dealing with students with LD.	0.0%	1.6%	48.0%	50.4%
7. Students with LD have academic problems (reading, writing, math, and/or problem solving) during the school years.	0.8%	16.3%	53.7%	29.3%
8. LDs are a category of SEN.	1.6%	25.2%	58.5%	14.6%
9. I have enough training and information about language acquisition and development.	12.2%	51.2%	32.5%	4.1%
10. Dysnomy is a type of problem included in SEN.	1.6%	35.0%	56.1%	7.3%
11. Students with LD must have an individualized educational program (IEP) designed by a multidisciplinary team.	0.8%	18.7%	61.8%	18.7%
12. Students with LD should be supported by special education.	0.0%	22.0%	56.9%	21.1%
13. Students with LD should be supported by educational supports.	3.3%	19.5%	56.1%	21.1%
14. Students with LD should be supported in school.	0.0%	2.4%	67.5%	30.1%
15. Students with LD should be supported in non-school centers/institutes.	7.3%	36.6%	48.8%	7.3%
16. Students with LD do not need any additional education beyond the class teacher.	39.8%	54.5%	4.9%	0.8%
17. Students with LD should be supported by a multidisciplinary team.	0.0%	7.3%	62.6%	30.1%
18. I have enough skills to identify a student with LD.	6.5%	50.4%	33.3%	9.8%
19. I often meet with other professionals to identify students with LD.	8.1%	26.0%	51.2%	14.6%
20. I send students with LD to special education services.	4.1%	26.0%	57.7%	12.2%
21. I use classroom observations/records/recordings to evaluate students with LD.	4.9%	16.3%	69.9%	8.9%
22. I use scales, batteries, and/or other instruments to evaluate students with LD.	9.8%	39.8%	41.5%	8.9%
23. I adapt curriculums for students with LD.	4.9%	22.0%	63.4%	9.8%
24. I plan activities for the student with LD based on normal language development.	5.7%	32.5%	57.7%	4.1%
25. I give more time for the child with LD to perform the tasks.	0.8%	15.4%	63.4%	20.3%
26. I use visual support (photographs, pictures, games with images, etc.) in language development tasks for students with LD.	1.6%	11.4%	62.6%	24.4%
27. I check if the student with LD has achieved the defined goals.	0.8%	2.4%	67.5%	29.3%
28. I use the same materials for students with and without LD.	7.3%	53.7%	35.8%	3.3%
29. The tasks in the classroom are the same for students with and without LD.	8.1%	54.5%	34.1%	3.3%
30. I use peer teaching in the classroom.	1.6%	7.3%	74.0%	17.1%
31. Students with LD should not be included in group works.	51.2%	35.0%	6.5%	7.3%
32. When I create the individualized educational program (IEP) for the student with LD, information-sharing/collaboration with their parents.	2.4%	4.9%	50.4%	42.3%

location_on

Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia Al. Jaú, 684, 7º andar, 01420-002 São Paulo - SP Brasil, Tel./Fax 55 11 - 3873-4211 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista@codas.org.br

rss_feed Acompañe los números de esta revista en su lector de RSS

[1] t = Student T-Test

[TFN100] ^*
Significant values (p <0.05)

[3] Caption: F = female; M = male; SD = standard deviation; SEN = special educational needs